pacino wrote:Would Charlie Crist be the first gay senator if he were to get elected?

People way gayer than Charlie Crist: Lindsey Graham, Larry Craig, Barb Mikulski (if lesbian counts)

Doesn't Crist acknowledge himself as gay though?

Uh, no. He got married last year to a woman.



Not completely unattractive or anything given how old she probably is, though from the wrong angle she does look a touch like she used to be a man.



Oh google image searching.

Really, wow. I just assumed.

OK, nevermind. That's the first thing I thought of when I read he was mulling a senate bid.

I've kind of thought that Crist was going to try and get in on '12.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Would Charlie Crist be the first gay senator if he were to get elected?

People way gayer than Charlie Crist: Lindsey Graham, Larry Craig, Barb Mikulski (if lesbian counts)

Silver has an interesting piece up suggesting that the Democrats might not be so unhappy to see Crist win, as he could be a swing vote for Obama in the session leading up to his re-election bid.

As for Crist making a presidential bid in 2012, I think it's probably bad form to start running for a higher office immediately after winning a different one. I think he's much more viable for 2016, at which point (if he wins next year) he'd likely have some kind of foreign policy profile and, he probably believes, the party might not be as hostile to his brand of Republicanism. (And/or he'll have had a chance to establish right-wing bona fides, which is tougher to do as a governor where real-world considerations tend to interfere with Norquistian ideology.) Running as a moderate Republican in 2012 won't be much fun for anyone.

Yea, definitely didn't see he officially announced today for Senate. I still thought he was on the ropes. My mistake.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Would Charlie Crist be the first gay senator if he were to get elected?

People way gayer than Charlie Crist: Lindsey Graham, Larry Craig, Barb Mikulski (if lesbian counts)

Silver has an interesting piece up suggesting that the Democrats might not be so unhappy to see Crist win, as he could be a swing vote for Obama in the session leading up to his re-election bid.

As for Crist making a presidential bid in 2012, I think it's probably bad form to start running for a higher office immediately after winning a different one. I think he's much more viable for 2016, at which point (if he wins next year) he'd likely have some kind of foreign policy profile and, he probably believes, the party might not be as hostile to his brand of Republicanism. (And/or he'll have had a chance to establish right-wing bona fides, which is tougher to do as a governor where real-world considerations tend to interfere with Norquistian ideology.) Running as a moderate Republican in 2012 won't be much fun for anyone.

I agree on the Crist 2012 being a relative nonstarter. He would look foolish.

I disagree with Nate that Crist winning would be good for the Democrats as I think he'll vote better for us in a national office than state office, especially if he has his eye on the White House. Less like Snowe and Collins, more like Coleman or McCain or Graham, especially since his state isn't particularly tough for a Republican to represent. I'd take my chances with Meek against Rubio if I was a Dem, or hope someone who has a better shot winning statewide gets in. Rooting for someone who will oppose you 75% of the time to avoid getting someone who opposes you 95% of the time seems silly even if he will toss you a few key votes from time to time, especially when you have such a cushion to work with.

State issues are easier to be bipartisan on it seems, and his support of the stimulus isn't that much of an indicator that he'll be a Democratic vote on spending bills. Most governors (apart from a vocal few) wanted the stimulus because it threw them much needed money to fill their state's deficits. Even if the GOP comes back a bit to the center over the next couple of cycles, Crist needs to move some to the right if he wants to run for President. McCain was a moderate compared to a lot of the Senate caucus to be sure, but he was authentically conservative on spending issues as well as the war. On top of that, he was solidly pro-life. I think Crist is comfortably to the left of him at the moment, and I can't see that being able to win the nomination. He'll know that. After eight years of Obama (if that's where we're at in 2016), the GOP base might be willing to make some concessions to get someone who can win, but they're not going to nominate someone who is ashamed to be a Republican and who doesn't stand up for at least most of the core principles of the party vociferously. Especially when there are rumors floating around that he's gay (unfair but true).

There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

easy blog material

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

Palin is so full of shit on the issue though, as Alaska receives far more federal dollars per head than any other state.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

Palin is so full of $#@! on the issue though, as Alaska receives far more federal dollars per head than any other state.

How is that? What did she say?

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

Palin is so full of $#@! on the issue though, as Alaska receives far more federal dollars per head than any other state.

To be fair, there's like what, 18 people in Alaska...

John Yoo has a column in the Philadelphia Inquirer now?

Still advocating for consolidation of executive power, even with a Democrat in office it appears.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

Palin is so full of $#@! on the issue though, as Alaska receives far more federal dollars per head than any other state.

How is that? What did she say?

She's rejecting about 70% of the stimulus money for Alaska, or was going to.

Really interesting blog from Richard Posner.

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

Posner's analysis seems spot to me.

None of those things are particularly "conservative." It's all varieties of fundamentalism: market, foreign policy, cultural/religious.

dajafi wrote:None of those things are particularly "conservative." It's all varieties of fundamentalism: market, foreign policy, cultural/religious.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think Palin is a kind of conservative, just not an intellectual conservative.

Now if you're saying all fundamentalism amounts to a substitution of will for thought, then I'm with you. But there's more to Hayek and Friedman than simple market fundamentalism. Not to mention Oakeshott and Schumpeter.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:None of those things are particularly "conservative." It's all varieties of fundamentalism: market, foreign policy, cultural/religious.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think Palin is a kind of conservative, just not an intellectual conservative.

Now if you're saying all fundamentalism amounts to a substitution of will for thought, then I'm with you. But there's more to Hayek and Friedman than simple market fundamentalism. Not to mention Oakeshott and Schumpeter.

Well, I was responding to Posner's quote. But I'm not sure I'm with you on Palin: her antics around the natural gas pipeline, which seemed designed to generate good PR for herself rather than advance any policy goal, didn't strike me as conservative in any sense. Nor the deep disingenuousness around federal support in general or the stimulus in particular.

Perhaps Palin will explain how her conservatism is in the tradition of Burke and Oakeshott in her book.

Said Palin: "There's been so much written about and spoken about in the mainstream media and in the anonymous blogosphere world, that this will be a wonderful, refreshing chance for me to get to tell my story, that a lot of people have asked about, unfiltered."

"Being a voracious reader, I read a lot today and have read a lot growing up. And having that journalism degree, all of that, will be a great assistance for me in writing this book, talking about the challenges and the joys, balancing the work and parenting, and, in my case, work means running the state. I've read a variety of books, and that helps shape my opinions and my views."

To reiterate: she's a voracious reader who reads a lot today and has read a lot growing up. Also, she has read a variety of books. Books that you can read because they're books.