What’s best for Charlie
I respectfully disagree with Paula Dockery and her assessment of the Charlie Crist situation (“Crist an opportunist?” Views, Nov. 7). It seems that she lays Crist’s party affiliation switch at the feet of the Republican Party, which was intolerant of bipartisanship. Of course, at the time Crist ran for U.S. Senate, the Democratic Party controlled the presidency, House and Senate, so the Republicans had no say in the policies coming out of Washington, D.C. I don’t understand why Crist decided that by going to the U.S. Senate he could help push the Republican Party to the center when it had no voice.
What I do know is that Crist was going to run in the Republican primary, against Marco Rubio, but pulled out. Crist switched party affiliation to independent to run against Rubio, the Republican nominee, and the Democratic candidate in the general election. To make matters worse, after losing that election, Crist decided that he so hated the Republican Party he went out of his way to speak out against Republicans at the Democratic National Convention in an effort to hurt his previous party in the national spotlight. And he changed his party affiliation to Democrat. All this happened after spending years in the Republican Party.
I have a hard time believing Crist did that for the benefit of the Republican Party, which supported him both financially and through votes for all the years he was in office. I contend that he did what was best for Charlie Crist, politically, after he was rejected by the voters, which is not a trait I find admirable in a politician.
Nice is vice (in politics)
Paula Dockery, a Republican I understand, praises the virtues of bipartisanship and compromise while simultaneously demonizing, of course, the tea party. According to Paula, loyalty to these traits has taken the reluctant Charlie Christ on his slippery journey from Republican, to independent, to lawsuit hustler and finally, to the Democrat Party, which is just chock-full of bipartisanship and compromise.
I remember the Democratic bipartisanship in full non-display during the successful passage of the beloved and far-reaching Affordable Care Act. Compare the success of proven bipartisan nice-guy compromisers, such as Republicans Mitt Romney and John McCain, against non-compromisers, such as Democrats Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Where are the Democratic equivalents of Paula Dockery criticizing rigid ideologues such as Obama, Reid and Pelosi? They don’t exist. Why does Dockery state that “voters want to replace anger and hatred with nice” when Democratic successes prove the opposite? Most alarmingly, why does Paula have no expectation of tolerance toward conservative values?
I think Paula’s assumption that Crist, if elected as the Democratic governor of Florida, will be nice, bipartisan and compromising is naive. Although compromise is still a Republican expectation, Charlie is not a Republican anymore.
New Port Richey
Why no impeachment?
If any of the previous 43 presidents (Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms) had caused the mess President Obama has caused with his fatally flawed Affordable Care Act, in addition to the disgraceful Benghazi murders cover-up, IRS scandal, intrusive NSA scandal, and the unthinkably stupid Fast and Furious debacle, etc., he would have been impeached,
President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Does lying to and deceiving 313 million Americans, while deceitfully forcing the ACA on them, not count?
The silence on the part of Congress on both sides of the aisle is deafening. The deathly silence is easily understood. The impetus behind this doesn’t appear to be their faith in the president, but their reluctance to suggest impeaching the nation’s historic first-ever African-American president. The upcoming re-election campaigns of some of them probably plays more than an equal role. It’s really sad when their political futures take front and center stage over the good of the nation and its people. Perhaps it’s time to revisit “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Problem with truthfulness?
Regarding “Obama struggles with his worst dip,” National & World, Nov. 5): The AP article attempts to project President Obama’s problems to a number of problem areas in which he appears to have managed poorly and the public is beginning to hold him accountable, hence a dip in his personal favorability rating. I think it goes way beyond his effectiveness or lack of effectiveness. I think the public has finally concluded he has a problem with truthfulness. When Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” I doubt if anybody realized what a huge understatement that was at the time. I suspect that after hearing his repeated statements that you can keep you doctor and/or insurance if you like them, knowing it was a lie, and now knowing he knew it was a lie, we no longer accept the “I didn’t know” regarding the IRS, Benghazi, NSA, etc. He appears to be a pathological liar, and his little white lies are catching up with him.
Darrell W. Katz