Christie: did he know?

[aldousburbank]

MV, who among the "true believer conservatives" DO you think genuinely has a shot at winning?  Santorum?  Palin?  Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal?  I am not political expert (obviously enough), but I think that any of these people would be akin to when Jesse Jackson was mentioned as a possible candidate.  Might make a small slice of the base happy, but win a general election?  Not in this century.

The admittedly, likely unelectable Gary Johnson is my man. Too fucking cool. Have met him and also have my personal reasons why he's earned my respect. Therefore, unelectable I guess. 

[West of the Rockies]

As I recall, Johnson was one of the few names mention in the past that did not send Democratic voters proclaiming they'd move to Canada if so-and-so was elected.  This, of course, means the Republican base will never support him anyway.  Who (if any) are the Democratic party members who do not send Republicans scampering for the northern border?  Is there any Democrat at all who Republicans say, well, if any of them has to be elected, I guess I could live with Candidate X....  ?

[Juan]

I'm not MV, but I'll take those on.  Santorum, no chance.  He's not a conservative in my mind, but someone who wants to control the people he wants to control.  Palin, she's been too demonized and is probably too fundamentalist Christian.  Rand Paul - no opinion yet. Same with Cruz.  Rubio and Jindal are still too green.  Rubio need to win reelection to the Senate, then serve as governor to get executive experience.  I don't know Louisiana well enough to know what Jindal needs to do.  Maybe get accused of being in bed with a live boy or a dead girl (I hope you libs understand the joke, but I doubt you do). 

As for Democrats, Tennessee's former governor, whose name escapes me now may be acceptable.  I could probably think of others if given time.

Given that a Ford Motor Company yesterday admitted that Ford receives and keeps data on every Ford driver through GPS (where one goes, how fast one is driving) I think we are all completely screwed and who is elected makes little difference.

[PB the Deplorable]

So this may not be all that original or thought-provoking, but I think that Christie is in something of the Romney mold:  a northeastern moderate Republican in a rather blue state.  As such, he would probably lean waaaay to the right during the primary in order to secure the votes of the base (which is pretty rightwing these days, IMO).  In the general, he'd veer back to the center.  This did not work well ultimately for Romney, but he had to deal with being Mormon (thereby losing a lot of the stalwart fundie vote probably) and his 47% comment.  Christie clearly lost the more rightwing voters by embracing Obama.

I think the Republican party is probably screwed in '16.  If they elect someone that makes the TPers happy, they won't win the general.  I know some are terribly excited by the idea of Cruz/Rubio/Rand Paul, but I think they are ultimately unelectable to national office.  Of course, if the Dems trot out a knucklehead or encounter some mammoth scandal of their own, that could blow it in '16, too.  If the economy continues to creep upward, if the country does not become more embroiled in over-seas conflict, it's probably the Dems to lose in '16.

If the Democratic party does NOT elect Hillary, they may lose the female/youth vote.  If they DO elect her, I don't know for certain that the Latino/black faction will come pouring forth the way they did in the past.  In particular, if the Republicans DO elect someone with ties/identification to the Latino culture.  It all makes for some interesting political theatre!

Yes, the base is more Conservative than the national R's are.  Always has been.  They aren't 'far right' - they are Constitutionalists, they are what the country always has been up until recently - it's the D's who have been moved Far Left.  That party is now just short of full blown Marxist (although I expect them to moderate somewhat when they start losing elections and when Obama leaves the scene).

Remember - if you want to know what the D's are trying to hide, listen for what they are accusing the R's of.  Lately they are insisting the R's are now 'Far Right' - which is completely ridiculous.  The 'Progressives' have taken control of that party, lurched to the Left, and are now very predictably insisting it's really the R party that is on the far end of the spectrum.


Anyway, at election time the candidates of both parties lie through their teeth and tell their constituents they are more 'Conservative' than they actually are - except for a few D's running in 'safe seats' the D's hold, and the truly Conservative R's.  I'm not saying the D's claim to be Conservative, just 'more' Conservative than they actually are (for example they'll claim to be a 'fiscal' Conservative when they are no such thing, or claim to support certain Conservative issues when they actually do not).

With the R's, what we have in DC now are the 'climbers' - the folks adept at back room deals, keeping themselves in office, schmoozing Big Business, climbing through the ranks.  They aren't leaders.  They aren't there to improve the country.  They don't listen or do the will of the people who elected them.  They've joined the D's as being some sort of perpetual ruling class.  As Big Government Crony Capitalists (which is the definition of Fascism).  They don't give a hoot about the country or the people in it any more than the D's do.  For evidence of all this, look no further than how the establishment Rino's viciously attack the Tea Party, the true reformers.

... I think the Republican party is probably screwed in '16.  ...  Of course, if the Dems trot out a knucklehead or encounter some mammoth scandal of their own, that could blow it in '16, too...

You are of course familiar with Obama's only 'accomplishment', ObamaCare.

It's become clear the establishment R's are never going to win the Presidency on their own - they stand for nothing and offer nothing.  But the D's can be fired and both parties have experienced this in the recent past (the party in 1968, the party/Ford in 76, Carter in 80, Bush I in 92, the party in 2000, the party in 2008). 


The D's are going to lose the Senate in 2014, as well as more House seats.  If smart popular Tea Partiers (think Ted Cruz) win some of those seats and they find someone who can articulate their message (the way Reagan did), that person could win 2016 in a landslide.

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Juan... I used the "live boy/dead girl" reference myself a couple days ago, so, yes, there are some of us "libs" who get the reference.  I've heard it used for a number of years now. 

I think you're perhaps right about Santorum (how he wants to rule because, damnit, he just wants to!)... However, I think he does have a very conservative Catholic perspective on social issues and would be a stalwart voice to reduce/eliminate abortion in this country.

I genuinely did not mean to step on toes, Paperboy, in using the term "far-right"...  It is so difficult to know what term to use these days.  I try to avoid "Democrat" because I keep hearing people say the proper term is "Democratic" (and any other reference is regarded as a slight, sort of like when a college fraternity boy objects to the term "frat" and says, "You wouldn't call your country a 'cunt', would you?").... 

At one point conservative was a useful term, but it became associated with "hard-heartedness" (hence the term "compassionate conservative")...

Similarly, liberal became associated with "bleeding heart liberal" or "tax and spend liberal", so the preferred term is now progressive.

As to the main point you made, yes, there are waaaaay too many "climbers" who want only to pad their own nests and gain/retain power. 

It is also very clear (at least to me) that most "liberals" do not regard themselves as "Marxist" any more than conservatives regard themselves as "far-right".  Any evidence you or I might try to produce to the contrary would not be accepted by someone with an opposing view.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I genuinely did not mean to step on toes, Paperboy, in using the term "far-right"... 

No worries.  It's a term being used out there, and thus needs to be examined.

... At one point conservative was a useful term, but it became associated with "hard-heartedness" (hence the term "compassionate conservative")...

Similarly, liberal became associated with "bleeding heart liberal" or "tax and spend liberal", so the preferred term is now progressive.

As to the main point you made, yes, there are waaaaay too many "climbers" who want only to pad their own nests and gain/retain power. 

It is also very clear (at least to me) that most "liberals" do not regard themselves as "Marxist" any more than conservatives regard themselves as "far-right".  Any evidence you or I might try to produce to the contrary would not be accepted by someone with an opposing view.

Yes, the Libs and 'Progressives' like to claim Conservatives are heard hearted.  It's another of their lies of course.  We offer opportunity for all, not equal outcomes (I think that is the core difference between Liberals and Conservatives).  Some people for a variety of reasons aren't going to do as well (like, you know, when they don't much bother with school or work).  We see people being self sufficient as a positive, see people happier doing it for themselves instead of living on handouts, and believe the overwhelming majority can be successful. 

The Marxists are great at finding those few who actually try and fail (or maybe never tried) and claiming that's what Conservatism is.  All I can do is point to the inner cities as the failure of the Libs/'Progressives'/Socialists/Marxists and hope people think about it and decide for themselves.


About the Liberals and 'Progressives'.  Not the same.

The Libs are the moderates who don't really pay too much attention to politics.  They like the idea of a bigger 'safety net', paid for by a little higher tax rate.  They don't want tax dollars to go to a strong military, not quite understanding the world is a dangerous place.  They go along to get along and have sympathy for and are susceptible to all the various pressure groups.  They have sympathy for criminals.  They're Liberals mostly because it sounds good and because their friends and co-workers are.  They think they know better and believe they should be running other peoples lives

'Progressives' on the other hand are the enemy within.  Down through the years they are the ones who sided with the USSR, Mao, Hitler (for awhile), the North Vietnamese, Pol Pot (for awhile), Castro, Hugo Chavez.  With people like Mugabe, the Palestinians, and anyone else on the 'other' side.  They hate our country, our history, our Liberty, the Constitution, our political system and our economic system.  They want 'fundamental change' and think 'you didn't build that'.

The Conservatives are the majority of R Party voters, but can't seem to elect enough Conservatives to take control of the party.  Which is endlessly frustrating.

The 'Progressives' are a tiny percent of the D Party, yet over the past 10 years or so they've managed to seize the party from the Liberals without anyone really noticing.  And build support to the point good Liberals are self identifying with them and going along with their issues.

I think Big Media has been instrumental in the stealthy ascent of the 'Progressives', and in the continued election of Rino's

[MV/Liberace!]

MV, who among the "true believer conservatives" DO you think genuinely has a shot at winning?  Santorum?  Palin?  Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal?  I am not political expert (obviously enough), but I think that any of these people would be akin to when Jesse Jackson was mentioned as a possible candidate.  Might make a small slice of the base happy, but win a general election?  Not in this century.

santorum is too guided by his religious convictions and ghostly farts in the wind.  although i think palin has been treated unfairly in numerous instances, she doesn't seem like much of a thinker.  ted cruz might be ineligible to run for the presidency and i honestly don't know that much about him anyway.  i don't trust marco rubio.  bobby jindal sounds like an idiot when he speaks.  rand paul i'd support, and i think he's very marketable on the national stage.  i think his father is one of the most brilliant constitutional scholars in this country, and rand's apple didn't fall far from the tree.

[West of the Rockies]

Rand Paul may end up inspiring the sort of devotion we saw with father Ron... Even a small smattering of my community college students liked him back in '08 (Ron, that is), so he could capture some of the youth vote.  Has he done anything remarkable as a Senator?  I think any liberal media elements would go after him for his talk about Affirmative Action he gave a few years ago.  You may be right, MV... I don't personally think RP will prove to be a viable factor anytime soon.  As I keep saying though, it all makes for interesting theatre!

[Mind Flayer Monk]

The Marxists are great at finding those few who actually try and fail (or maybe never tried) and claiming that's what Conservatism is.  All I can do is point to the inner cities as the failure of the Libs/'Progressives'/Socialists/Marxists and hope people think about it and decide for themselves.

So I did some research into this from a few months back and the Republican party in the state legislature consistently bleeds the inner city of any resources it can and cuts any funding it can and vetoes anything that might remotely help people at all with an opportunity. Just check the voting records. Look at the bills that the Republicans have introduced to help the inner cities. I wouldn't mind if the Rs had some solution; rubber-stamping bad bills is a horrible approach, but the Rs don't have a solution.

[West of the Rockies]

Just risked a quick look at the Redstate blog (gotta go take a quick rinse!)... Not a peep about Christie.  There was, however, an absolutely ludicrous picture of Obama with evil pure white eyes overseeing a bunch of jackbooted thugs stomping our liberties (or so I interpreted the foolish ad).  Propaganda is alive and well!

[West of the Rockies]

I found this amusing:

"A year ago, when I saw [Christie] paling around with Barack Obama after hurricane Sandy, I was worried he was one of those 'fake conservatives' who secretly believe that the government can do things. But now I realize he's the kind of leader I can get behind---the kind who says,  'It's my way or I shut down your highway.' Christie is a true conservative! He's committed to proving the core conservative value that government is the problem, even if he has to create those problems himself. I can already see his 2016 bumper sticker: Christie---Bringing America Together Or I Will Fuck You Over."
---Stephen Colbert

[Juan]

Eric Ericson of Redstate is another climber.  he will probably keep his mouth shut until he sees which way things are going.

[West of the Rockies]

Eric Ericson of Redstate is another climber.  he will probably keep his mouth shut until he sees which way things are going.

I'm not a fan of most highly-paid pundits.  They know that their bread and butter is being edgy, controversial... this leads to more and more outlandish material that ultimately creates further divide between the people of this country.  Oh, it's entertaining to some viewers/listeners, but it's also pretty toxic.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

i think his father is one of the most brilliant constitutional scholars in this country

He is the most prominent white supremacist in politics in the past 30 years, and I doubt the apple fell far from that tree, either.

I am having trouble processing the idea that Rand Paul is taken seriously by anyone as a candidate for President.

The man is a borderline retard, and that merkin he wears on his head would sink the dignity of the office:

"Good afternoon, Chancellor Merkin...I mean, Merkel."

"Sieg heil, President Paul!   Did a rrrrrodent crawl up on your head and commit suicide?"

[PB the Deplorable]

If Christie were a Democrat, this entire story would never have gone beyond the immediate area affected.  And the story line would have been about traffic, with no mention of the politicians involved.  After a day or two, the story would have completely disappeared.

I'm glad these misfits have been outed - no one wants Chris Christie out of the running more than I do, but I wish Big Media was a little more honest and even handed.

[FightTheFuture]

The 2016 GOP Presidential nominee has not yet been mentioned in this thread. That person will be a Governor; possibly former Governor (my personal choice). The candidate will possess a low-key, almost mundane, personality, but their proven track record of dealing with fiscal crisis will resonate with voters, especially those beleaguered by unqualifed, charismatic snake charmers.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I wish Big Media was a little more honest and even handed.

You mean like Fox News?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

The 2016 GOP Presidential nominee has not yet been mentioned in this thread. That person will be a Governor; possibly former Governor (my personal choice). The candidate will possess a low-key, almost mundane, personality, but their proven track record of dealing with fiscal crisis will resonate with voters, especially those beleaguered by unqualifed, charismatic snake charmers.

I would have infinitely preferred Jeb Bush to his retarded brother, but that ship has sailed already.  There isn't a hope in hell of another member of the Bush Dynasty as President in our lifetimes.

[MV/Liberace!]

He is the most prominent white supremacist in politics in the past 30 years...

based on what?  a few select quotes from some dopey newsletter that had 7 freelance writers over the course of its existence?  ron paul denied writing those articles, his denial is plausible whether anyone believes him or not, and nobody can prove him to be lying.  i'm not aware of any public speeches or legislative pursuits that give the "racist" allegation any credibility.  if those things are out there then present them because i'm willing to be schooled, but even a video of ron paul tweeking the nipple of a chained black gimp in a gun store basement won't change my belief in libertarian philosophies.  nor will it affect my opinion of him as a constitutional scholar.

if he's provably guilty of anything, it's for being sloppy enough to allow the production of a newsletter bearing his name without ensuring he always knows what's in it. 

again, i'm not saying i expect you or anyone else to believe ron paul when he says he didn't write those articles, but i don't see anything in his actions as a legislator or medial professional to support the scarlet letter of "racist".   beyond all of that, it just doesn't fit.  racism is entirely incongruent with libertarian philosophy.

here's yet another youtube video nobody will watch:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dBA63Wl-hg

[FightTheFuture]

I would have infinitely preferred Jeb Bush to his retarded brother, but that ship has sailed already.  There isn't a hope in hell of another member of the Bush Dynasty as President in our lifetimes.

Google, George P. Bush. At risk of making assumptions on your present life condition, I assure you, there is a better than fair chance you will see this man occupy the WH.

[PB the Deplorable]

You mean like Fox News?

Were you here a few months ago when someone suggested Fox had shown 'bias' in reporting a certain story?  The complaint was that in addition to reporting what the other news shows reported, Fox also allowed the other side to present their view. 

That, to the poster, was an example of Fox News 'bias'.  That's how far from reality the Libs are.



The people who don't seem to mind the lies, corruption, abuse of power and the rest when it seems to benefit their 'side' don't seem to realize the pendulum swings back.  Often in history when the other side returns to power (or, say, gets the upper hand back in media coverage), there is a good chance precedence will have been set, underhanded tactics will be copied - if not improved on, and they will experience the other side of it.

So far the Conservatives haven't lowered themselves to the dirty tricks and underhanded tactics the Dem's so excel at, but can you be sure that will always be the case?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

based on what?

How about the photos of him pumping the mitt of some prominent white supremacists with a big smile on his puss?  There's more than one of them, in case you didn't know.  If Obama did something like that with Louis Farrakhan, peeps would have a stroke.  Maybe Ron Paul isn't worth the bother, I dunno.

[MV/Liberace!]

How about the photos of him pumping the mitt of some prominent white supremacists with a big smile on his puss? 

so a guy walked up to another guy and shook his hand, and one of the guys was a white supremacist, and someone took a picture of it.  not sure what that's supposed to prove.  it's like saying donald rumsfeld is an islamist because there exists a photo of him shaking hands with saddam hussein.

there might be no pictures of obama with farrakhan, but i'll refer you to obama's 20 year history with his reverend who believes in the same racial supremacy shit as farrakhan.  not only did the mainstream legacy media not have a stoke over that association, they carried buckets of water in its defense.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

so a guy walked up to another guy and shook his hand, and one of the guys was a white supremacist, and someone took a picture of it.  not sure what that's supposed to prove.  it's like saying donald rumsfeld is an islamist because there exists a photo of him shaking hands with saddam hussein.

there might be no pictures of obama with farrakhan, but i'll refer you to obama's 20 year history with his reverend who believes in the same racial supremacy shit as farrakhan.  not only did the mainstream legacy media not have a stoke over that association, they carried buckets of water in its defense.

No offence, but I learned some time ago to avoid extended discussions with Ron Paul supporters.  First, because the responses are so predictable, it's like they've been scripted.  I knew what you were going to say before you even said it.  And second, related partially to the first, is it's like trying to talk with a 911 Troofer.  Well-rehearsed position points are barked out with increasing fervor to the point where you are shut out of the conversation, and your only role is to listen and get covered with spittle.

I will say this, for what it's worth: the only Pub primary debates that were worth watching were the ones he was in.  I hope he runs again in 2016.  Maybe I'm wrong and his son is not a congenital retard and can carry on the family business, but I'm not hopeful on the matter.  Ron Paul for the Pub primaries in 2016.

[aldousburbank]

I knew what you were going to say before you even said it.

[b_dubb]

No offence, but I learned some time ago to avoid extended discussions with Ron Paul supporters.  First, because the responses are so predictable, it's like they've been scripted.  I knew what you were going to say before you even said it.  And second, related partially to the first, is it's like trying to talk with a 911 Troofer.

The same can be said for people trying to advance the idea that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. Except you have no real evidence to support your character attack.  I'm not a Ron Paul supporter but I get pissed off when some asshole hiding out in his basement starts making baseless accusations. It speaks to a lack of character on your part and a lack of thinking.

[NowhereInTime]

If Christie were a Democrat, this entire story would never have gone beyond the immediate area affected.  And the story line would have been about traffic, with no mention of the politicians involved.  After a day or two, the story would have completely disappeared.

I'm glad these misfits have been outed - no one wants Chris Christie out of the running more than I do, but I wish Big Media was a little more honest and even handed.

Childish analysis with absoutely no basis in reality.
So tired of conservatives whining about liberal media bias when you own the most watched cable news channel in the country, nearly all the newspapers except the New York Times, and all of AM radio.
I wish conservatives would stop complaining about the messengers and realize maybe it really is the message.

[NowhereInTime]

The same can be said for people trying to advance the idea that Ron Paul is a white supremacist. Except you have no real evidence to support your character attack.  I'm not a Ron Paul supporter but I get pissed off when some asshole hiding out in his basement starts making baseless accusations. It speaks to a lack of character on your part and a lack of thinking.

B Dubb:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

Just because he denies it well after the fact doesn't matter; it had his name on it.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/15/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/

The truth has a way of leaking out of even the most saavy polticians.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-aide-ron-paul-claimed-saving-the-jews-was-absolutely-none-of-our-business/

Even when his public persona appears tolerant, there's too much there from too many people to say charges of rascism and anti-semitism are all hogwash.

I think it goes beyond race:  I feel Ron Paul and his son Rand are economic elitists who have nothing but disdain for anyone who hasn't figured out how to be wealthy and self-sustaining.

[FightTheFuture]

Childish analysis with absoutely no basis in reality.
So tired of conservatives whining about liberal media bias when you own the most watched cable news channel in the country, nearly all the newspapers except the New York Times, and all of AM radio.
I wish conservatives would stop complaining about the messengers and realize maybe it really is the message.

It may not be quite as disproportionate as it used to be, but there still remains a clear and decisive edge favoring the lib/prog POV.  All major networks -- including primetime programing -- are in the tank for Democrats. And what about Hollyweird?



P.S.

RIP Ariel Sharon, The Lion Of The Desert

[MV/Liberace!]

No offence, but I learned some time ago to avoid extended discussions with Ron Paul supporters.  First, because the responses are so predictable, it's like they've been scripted.  I knew what you were going to say before you even said it. 

Well then.