You're either the most uninformed poster on this board or an out and out liar. Based on your refusal to accept cold hard facts when presented with them as well as the distortions you've put forth on board, even after being refuted it's clear to me that you're the latter as opposed to the former. Not surprising for Team Crist.
I'm saying he supports the initiaves because "he advocated for them in his capacity as Attorney General."
No you nitwit. I'm saying he supports those initiatives because he said so during the debates.
"He's never supported gay adoption. He's come out against it."
Really????? Wrong again. In a recent radio interview he said he's "fine with it." Google it!
Don't know what I'm talking about when I refer to the 5K per couple per child PER YEAR?? He never said it because Team Gallagher would "be blasting him for it????"
Guess you weren't watching the debate. I think there's a rerun on tonight. You might want to watch it and see just what kind of puke you're supporting. Just one word of advice. Bring lots of kleenex. Your candidate won't be the only one sniveling (or do you again not know what I'm referring to because "Team Gallagher" didn't make hey of that either)?
Note to other Freepers: Isn't it amazing how thoroughly inept these trial lawyers, who are away all week and spend their Sundays fielding for their trial lawyer candidate on the boards, are at making a coherent argument.
What was Crist snorting during the debate? Somebody should tell him needles are quieter.
With all due respect, it is you who is uninformed. I am not a trial lawyer. Just for the record, the most "anti-trial lawyer" group in the state (the Florida Medical Association) has endorsed Charlie Crist.
As for the quote, "I'm fine with it," that was with respect to civil unions, NOT gay adoption. Crist OPPOSES gay adoption. If you can provide a link to the contrary, please do so.
He opposed the bullet train and the class size amendment when they were originally proposed. He says now that he supports implementing the class size amendment in order to comply with the will of the electorate. Is that a bad stance? Should he instead say that he will defy the will of the electorate and refuse to implement the constitutional amendment?
I read up on the $5K/year adoption plan. I don't know what the financial impact would be, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it. The people who adopt foster children out of the kindness of their hearts are doing the state a huge service, and I'm sure that $5K/year is a drop in the bucket of the actual cost of adopting a child. I find it hard to believe that thieves and con artists would begin adopting children to pilfer $5K/year from the state, as has been implied by posters on this board.
Crist is a very strong fiscal conservative, and this has ALWAYS been the case. He is more moderate on several social issues, which have been discussed ad nauseam. I just think he is more honest than Gallagher, whose personal life is filled with adultery, drug use, day trading on public time, and ethical scandals (for which he currently under investigation). You have your preference, and I have mine. I'm willing to give up a 100% conservative record on social issues in exchange for a candidate who doesn't have the personal baggage that Tom Gallagher has. You seem very focused on several social issues and are basing your decision on that, which is fine. I'm not asking you to change your mind on supporting Gallagher, but you've shown no respect for those of us Republicans who support Crist (which is far more than those who support Gallagher based on the polls.)