Remember the 2004 GOP convention? When delegates from the floor roared "flip-flop" at every mention of John Kerry's name? It's hard to imagine a politician in recent days who had such a well-deserved reputation for waffling. Recall his position on the war supplemental in Octobe 2003: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Florida governor Charlie Crist seems eager to give Kerry contest -- only he hasn't yet acknowledged the flip-flop. Which, in a way, makes it worse.

Crist was a well known supporter of Barack Obama's $787 stimulus bill. He spoke out in favor of it. He backed it in media appearances. He said he would have voted for it. He even appeared with the president at an event to tout the measure.

But Crist is running for Senate. And with a strong primary challenge from a rising-star conservative in Marco Rubio, Crist abruptly changed his position.

"I didn't endorse it," Crist said in an appearance on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. "I -- you know, I didn't even have a vote on the darned thing. But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians."

It's fair for Crist to say now that he wished he hadn't endorsed it -- and given the increasingly dubious claims of actual stimuli in the stimulus, that might be the wise course. But he cannot say he didn't endorse it.

This comes from a letter Crist signed (PDF available at www.flarecovery.gov) on February 3. It is addressed to President Obama.

We are writing to express our support for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which passed last week in the House and is under consideration currently in the Senate. As stewards of the economies of our respective states and regions, we urge the Congress to reach prompt resolution of all outstanding differences and you to sign the bill when it reaches your desk.

Why would Crist support Obama back in early February and seek to distance himself from the president now? Perhaps because conservative Republicans won gubernatorial races in two states Tuesday that Obama had won convincingly? Or was it Obama? According to the Gallup daily tracking poll, Obama's job approval from February 1-3 was 65 percent, with only 20 percent disapproving. Today, Obama's approval is down to 52 percent, with 42 opposed, and in that time Republican approval of Obama has dropped from more than 40 percent to just 18 percent.

Rather than pretending he didn't support the stimulus, Crist would be much better off just being honest with voters. John Kerry might put it this way: "I actually did support the stimulus before I came out against it."

Is Rudy Giuliani about to make the same mistake that doomed his 2008 presidential candidacy? Jacob Gershman reports in this week's New York that Giuliani hasn't declared his intention to run for New York governor in 2010 because, according to some advsiers, he "has to lull the Democrats into thinking he’s not going to run, so they don’t dump [incumbent Gov. David] Paterson and put Andrew Cuomo up instead, who would be a lot harder to beat." Giuliani is waiting until the moment is right.

Recall the 2008 Republican presidential primary. The frontrunner for most of 2007, that fall Giuliani decided not to pursue a full-on assault against rival (and friend) John McCain that could've driven the Arizona senator out of the race. Instead, the former New York City mayor adopted a late-primary strategy that banked on a victory in Florida to spur him to the nomination. It was a novel gambit, but it was also going to fail. Victory in the early caucuses and primaries - Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, chiefly - is what gets candidates the party nod. Giuliani hadn't learned from the history of failed rope-a-dope, late-primary-dependant campaigns. Thus he was doomed to repeat those failures.

Paterson, who became governor in March 2008 when Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, is exceedingly unpopular. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll has his disapproval rating at a horrible 60 percent. The poll shows that Giuliani would beat Paterson if the election were held today, 53 percent to 32 percent.

But the Quinnipiac numbers make things complicated for Giuilani, because they also show that he would lose a contest against New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo by 17 points. There's speculation that New York Democrats could dump Paterson in favor of Cuomo, or that Cuomo could challenge Paterson in a primary. Giuliani probably doesn't want to start a losing battle with Cuomo. He's hedging.

That might be a mistake. According to Gershman, former congressman Rick Lazio, who lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2000 Senate election, has expressed interest in claiming the GOP nomination for himself. The longer Giuliani waits to declare his intentions, the more time Lazio has to establish himself as the Republican gubernatorial frontrunner. Lazio reportedly has already met with former governor George Pataki (who, interestingly, made a recent visit to Iowa).

The notion of replacing Paterson with Cuomo may be overblown. Despite being unpopular, the governor has important ties to the New York Democratic machine. And party elders could be loath to shove the state's first black governor aside for a non-minority candidate. Even if that does happen, the political climate in 2010 could still make things difficult for Cuomo. Giuliani has an opportunity to lead a Republican revival in the Northeast - the first step to returning the party to majority status. Why not seize it?

The New Jersey governor's race is heating up. This week's Quinnipiac poll shows the top two Republican candidates, ex-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie and ex-Bogota mayor Steve Lonegan, defeating or tying incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine. Corzine's disapproval rating is at a whopping 54 percent. The poll has Christie beating Corzine 45 percent to 38 percent. Lonegan ties Corzine at 41 percent each.

The thing to note about this poll is that Lonegan has been gaining ground. New Jersey's GOP primary is June 2, and the favored candidate is Christie, a tough-on-crime GOP moderate in the Rudy Giuliani mold. Christie has the Jersey GOP establishment's backing, but Lonegan, his top opponent for the nomination, is a pro-life movement conservative who's popular among the state's social conservative activists. Just how conservative is Lonegan? Joe the Plumber will appear at one of his fundraisers in May.

In a March Quinnipiac poll, Christie crushed Lonegan, 40 percent to 19 percent. But those numbers have tightened: in the latest poll, Christie bests Lonegan 46 to 37 percent. So Christie's lead has gone from 21 points to 9 points in one month.

The latest issue in the race is the New Jersey ACLU's attack on Christie for authorizing tracking people through their cell-phones without a warrant. The practice, which is legal, began in the aftermath of 9/11, months before Christie became U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in January 2002. Documents reveal that the U.S. Attorney's office submitted 79 successful applications for tracking the cellphone info. Sixty-six resulted in criminal prosecution.

The ACLU gambit probably helps Christie since it allows him to speak to his record as the prosecutor who helped unfoil a plot to attack Fort Dix. Lonegan has sided with the ACLU on this one, advocating on behalf of privacy rights, prosecutorial restraint, and limited government. We'll see in a month whether this tack works and Lonegan continues to whittle down Christie's lead. And in June we'll know for sure which man will have the dubious honor of facing Corzine's millions in negative advertising this fall.

Update. An earlier version of this post stated that Christie is pro-choice. In fact, he's said that he's pro-life and supports parental notification and a ban on partial-birth abortions.

Michael Barone reports that a poll shows surprising Republican strength in the race to succeed Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. This, even though Granholm won a 14-point victory over reelection opponent Dick DeVos in 2006. Times change!

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that House Republicans will soon release a report on Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo and his "VIP" mortgage program. Among those alleged to have received those sweet mortgages: Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, who is already embroiled in the AIG bonus scandal. No fun being Dodd right now.

Next up: governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey. For the GOP, it's a target-rich environment in 2009. How many more targets will there be a year from now?

Connecticut Democratic senator Chris Dodd is up for reelection in 2010. Republicans are chomping at the bit to take on the career senator, who is alleged to have received sweet mortgage deals from infamous Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.

Recently the former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he will run to challenge Dodd. Another name that's occasionally mentioned: CNBC host and committed supply sider Larry Kudlow.

Whoever the GOP nominee is, things are looking good. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Simmons already tied with Dodd. Now, the campaign hasn't even begun, a lot will happen between now and November 2010, yadda yadda yadda. At this point the GOP ought to take what it can get.

And look what it got! Dodd apparently entered language into the stimulus bill guaranteeing "contractually obligated" bonuses "agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.” Bonuses just like AIG's, in other words.

It further turns out that Dodd has taken more than a quarter million dollars in campaign donations from AIG and its employees over the last two decades.

So: Dodd is not only friends with mortgage lender bad guy number one, he is also friends with evil insurance giant number one. That has to hurt his chances, no?

Seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong (re)opened the door to a possible political run in an interview posted yesterday at The Daily Beast.

Is there a future for Lance Armstrong in politics?

If you feel like you can do the job better than people who are doing it now, and you can really make a difference, then that’s a real calling to serve, and I think you have to do that. I felt a strong desire to come back and race right now because I felt we had a place and I could have a real impact and that’s why I’m doing it. I don’t think you want to enter political life unless you really think you can really have an impact. Don’t do it for a bet, or a dare or for your ego. Or for any other competitive desire you have. Do it because you can get in there and change people’s lives. That’s why you do it. So, there will come a time, or not, that I say to myself, “You know what, I can help affect change.” And if that day comes, then absolutely.

Your life these days is really about leveraging talent on the broadest stage possible, right?

Yeah, but it can also be on a small stage. Being a parent is important. Not that that’s a small stage, but it’s micro level. You can help raise your children. You can lead the state of Texas. You can be mayor of a city. You can run for the Senate. You can lead a cycling team. You can run a non-profit.

Armstrong, a cancer survivor, recently campaigned for a cancer research initiative in Texas that passed this past November. If Armstrong does run for governor or a Senate seat, the native Texan would probably run as a Democrat, though he counts President Bush as a personal friend. In 2003, the Washington Post reported he opposed the war in Iraq, and he is reportedly pro-choice and pro-gun control.

Armstong would also enter an already crowded field of all-star candidates for both races. Popular senior senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is widely expected to step down from the Senate to run for governor.

Perry has led the state since George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. If he decides to run for a third full term in 2010, a bloody GOP primary may leave the Republican nominee vulnerable to a popular Democratic challenger.