There was no way New Jersey’s Cory Booker was going to lose…
…and he didn’t. But Chris Christie almost certainly will win, big time:
One New Jersey Republican source noted that, if anything, the dichotomy between the two outcomes will only further crystallize Christie as a “unique” player in an increasingly partisan national environment.
“I don’t think the Senate election outcome says much about Christie’s future, except that if Booker wins handily even after running a lackluster campaign, it will underscore just how blue New Jersey is, and how unique Christie is to be able to carry it,” the source said.
You may recall that Christie may have had the chance four months ago to appoint a Republican senator but did not, and chose to have this special election instead. Note I wrote “may have had,” because it wasn’t at all clear that Christie had the right to make such an appointment in the first place, and he would have faced legal challenges by Democrats had he tried.
Many conservatives were angry about it (a lot of them were already mad at Christie), but that single increased Republican presence would not have made a difference to anything in the current Senate, and whomever he’d appointed would have almost certainly lost election next year, because New Jersey hasn’t had a Republican senator in over forty years and shows no indications of wanting one.
But it looks like Christie will sail to re-election in a deep blue state:
A Monmouth University poll released Tuesday found Christie leading his Democratic challenger, Buono, 59 percent to 35 percent. That’s in a state President Barack Obama carried in 2012 by 17 points.
“We are looking at a potential 20-point margin in a blue state and an outright win among Hispanic voters,” Monmouth polling director Patrick Murray said in a statement. “What more could a 2016 GOP presidential contender ask for?”
Well, he/she could ask for being able to appeal to conservatives nationwide. My reading is that a great many of them strongly distrust him, in particular holding it against him that he acquiesced to a love-fest photo-op with Obama after hurricane Sandy and just prior to the 2012 election.
What do I think? I think it’s way premature to talk seriously about 2016. There may be some Republican candidates in the running that I’ll like better than Christie.
But I will say one thing (well, actually, more than one): if Christie is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him with something akin to enthusiasm. That’s because I think for the most part he does have conservative principles, and unlike so many, he is able to articulate them clearly, colorfully, and forcefully. He’s a politician all right (the plus side is that he’s not naive about politics and has good political instincts), but he talks like a straight shooter. He’s funny. He’s a fighter, and he has guts. He’s smart. He has a proven record of knowing how to appeal to Democrats and minorities (for example, he earns over 30% of the black vote in New Jersey, which is extraordinary for a Republican) without turning into a Democrat. Stylistically he is nothing like Mitt Romney, with none of his vulnerabilities in terms of appealing to the blue collar crowd, a very important demographic.
Christie is a potential winner, no doubt about it. Is he perfect? Far from it. But he is a fiscally conservative Republican, and one tough cookie. He can take the heat that will no doubt be thrown his way.
If the voters of NJ are indicators of our national future, we are well and truly done.
The same suckers that voted Booker in after the “Repub” in name only Christie refused to put a Repub in that slot are also the suckers that voted Christie in. There has been nothing good to emerge from NJ politically in a very long time, and that includes gastric lap-band Christie.
He certainly speaks like a fiscal conservative, and yes, some of the sound bytes from him lambasting the Teachers Union were nice, but I’d like to note that NJ is hardly on a fiscally sound surface at the moment.
I respect that the man seems to have something of a spine, and to hell with anyone who doesn’t agree with him, but in terms of official policy, there are a lot of things he’s bought into that just don’t mesh with my views.
He’s a Global Warming Alarmist (hey, if they want to call me a “skeptic” or “denier”, I can label them too, right?). He’s all for amnesty. He’s never been against Obamacare, including not joining in with the states that were suing over the Constitutionality of it when it would have cost NJ nothing to do it. There’s getting to be something of a list of things I heartily disagree with.
If he gets the nomination… Well, I might vote for him, but if I do, there will be no enthusiasm in it. I had more enthusiasm voting for John McCain than I would have for Chris Christie at this point, and I had no love for McCain.
I’ll also note that the moment he decides to take a truly hard line conservative position, the press and those blues up there in NJ will turn on him in an instant. We’ll be seeing stories about how awful it would be to have a man of his girth for president. What if he dies (a la John McCain’s age)? What kind of message does it send to our kids to have an obese president, etc. They’ll forget about all he did to help Romney not get elected, and how he’s lambasting the Republican Congress, and start throwing rocks at him.
I think Booker won about 11 or 12 of the 21 counties in NJ. We have a blue county/red county thing going on here in NJ. The urban counties overwhelm the semi-rural. It makes it very hard for a republican to win statewide office. Christie won because Corzine was a boob (or worse). Whitman won because Florio was so bad.
It appears that Christie would have been on legal thin ice naming a senator. The activist courts here in NJ would have invalidated his selection. He did the best he could to help Lonegan by holding the special election at an odd time instead of the regular election day in Nov. I don’t think Booker could be worse than Lautenberg.
Christie is not a true conservative, but he has a a lot more common sense than most dems (especially in NJ). On the national level, I think the weight issue is a significant hurdle. If he slims down he may be a viable candidate.
Christie supports gun control. That puts him beyond the pale for many conservative voters.
I’d forgotten about the gun control thing… That’s another strike.
Heard he’s in debt to Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood. One reason why blacks may vote for him. The black-muslim connection still exists, even if it is underground from the Black Panther days.
Don and nyght:
Keep finding those objections (you’ll have them about almost every single possible candidate), and keep repeating Democratic talking points designed to hurt Republican candidates and turn you against them.
And keep getting progressive Democrat presidents as a result. Just don’t expect me to agree with you.
Here’s an article in a liberal rag, designed to get Republicans to turn against Christie. Here’s what he actually says about gun control (note that in a liberal state, Republican governors like Christie can’t be a conservative as they might like to be because of their blue legislatures, so all of them will be making such compromises—this was true of Romney, too):
And let’s take a look at what Christie has actually DONE as governor:
So the picture is not quite what you might think. Not real strong a position either way.
No one’s saying Christie’s an ideal conservative candidate. He’s not. But he is basically conservative—especially fiscally—and far better than the Democratic alternatives, especially in the fiscal sense.
If Republican candidates across the country were more like Chris Christie the Republican Party would have a lock on national and local elections. They’d be able to win California, Massachusetts, New York. I’d probably still vote for the Democrat, but maybe not. I voted Bloomberg in every election and I thought he was a superior candidate to every Democrat that ran against him.
My main objections to Christie are his mealy-mouthed stands on gay marriage and the fact that he vetoed a health care exchange in NJ, a truly bizarre move which goes against, it seems to me, the principle of decentralization and taking power away from the centralized Federal government that it seems like are some of the sensible principles of conservatism.
I’ll vote for Hillary before I vote for Christie.
Since I won’t vote for Hillary though, that just means I won’t vote.
If the disastrous Romney campaign showed one thing, it’s that the Republican nominee can’t win without the conservative base.
Christie will NEVER get their vote.
But please, feel free to believe otherwise.
I’m with you on Christie, Neo. Whatever’s wrong with him, I just have a visceral feeling that he could win. He can explain, he can charm, he can persuade. He can think on his feet, which seems to a rare ability among Republicans. And I don’t think the weight will be a problem; I think he knows how to use it in his favor. In fact, I hope that if he gets the nomination, he’ll still be heavy, and won’t have that weird deflated look that obese people get after weight loss surgery. Maybe 60 lbs lighter, and toned, but still hefty. And considering all that’s medically wrong with Hillary (more than we know now, but it will emerge) he’s going to look like a better actuarial bet.
He’s the best governor of New Jersey that Republicans/Conservatives can hope for. That’s a good thing. But I would have a hard time voting for him for president for his views on immigration, global warming, gun control,…
Neo-
I think this is going to be an area where we have to agree to disagree. You’re not going to change my mind on Christie, and I’m not going to change yours. You analyzed the strike against him that I had forgotten, and commented on more rolling my eyes than thinking, “that’s it! That’s the issue! Can’t vote for him now!”.
At this point, I’m VERY wary of Christie for a LOT of reasons. The only person who could possibly change my mind about Chris Christie is Chris Christie through his own actions. But so far, I’ve not seen too much that’s been impressive other than his dressing down of the Teacher’s Union when he first got elected.
While I feel that gun control is an important issue, it’s not MY issue. The others I listed, which he is at best mushy on (AGW, Amnesty, etc) are not my issues either. But they do start to paint a picture of the man and his mentality, and I’m not a huge fan of him. And despite his supposed fiscal prowess, NJ’s finances are still in a very deep mess. Not all of that is his fault, but from afar, he seems to have been sidetracked from actually fixing the problems.
I’d be far more comfortable with a Scott Walker-type who seems to spend less time talking, and more time running things.
@Mitsu – So did you feel the same way about McCain and Romney before they actually won the nomination and the entirety of the media turned on them? I’m a little tired of listening to liberals tell the conservatives what their candidates need to do/be to win elections.
“You know what the problem with the conservatives is? It’s that they’re so damned conservative. If they were a little more liberal, then they’d win every election they have a candidate up for!”
Enter Romney/McCain, “Hey, I’m pretty moderate, will you vote for me?”
“No, there’s this really articulate, very liberal guy on the ballot, and you’re just a little too much of a rabid right-winger. Why on earth would I vote for you when my ideology aligns with him? I’m glad you got the nomination though. You were the only one that really had a chance of getting my vote (pats head in sympathy). Here’s a cookie for your trouble!”
I’ll always have a disdain for Christie, simply because in November 2012, at a family celebration, I had to sit and listen to my Obama-voting in-laws sing his praise, while dissing Romney post hurricane Sandy. I agree with nyght, if Christie were ever to take a “principled stand” in favor of conservative values, that would only garner criticism from the likes of the 54% who voted Obama. That said, I will always vote the lesser of the evils (McCain, Romney–who I actually respect and think would have been a good President) unless there was good reason to think a 3rd party candidate could win. I’m pretty sure that won’t happen.
Christie has been very critical of Rand Paul for challenging the spying programs. I think that shows Christie is on the wrong side of history. From what I have read the millenial generation is increasingly down on the federal government. They are disillusioned by the poor job market, the spying and the prospect of having to pay for others’ entitlements. I think small government conservatives with libertarian ideas (e.g., Paul, Cruz and Palin) are the future. People like Christie are the past. I think Palin, Cruz and Paul easily hold their own when it comes to clearly expressing ideas.
Hmm, 2016–young, articulate black man–two years in the Senate–Booker vs. Christie!
It remains to be seen what Democrat talking points actually are. I don’t think even they have figured out what their strategy should be.
With his position in the polls, the least Christie could have done is campaign for Longergan while he was campaigning for himself.
Had he done so, Lonergan would have had a much better chance of winning.
SharonW –
Oh, I think I’d vote for him if he were on the ticket… I sat out the ’04 election on principle (in my defense, I was younger then). I hated a lot of what GW Bush was doing, but I also had disdain for John Kerry, and I decided that “The choice of the lesser of 2 evils is a false choice. You’re screwed either way.” I lived in Ohio at the time, and I remember the feeling I had when the election came down to Ohio… I vowed never to do that again.
The bit about the “principled stand” you mentioned is also something I completely agree with. Part of the reason that so many liberals say they prefer someone like McCain is because they never take a principled stand unless against other conservatives in the name of bipartisanship. IE – The only time they bother fighting is to submarine the side they claim to be a part of, a la Arlen Spectre, in the name of moving forward.
The rub is that every single time, it’s the conservative side that has to give something up in negotiations. You saw it with this shutdown. Every single one of the democrats was in lockstep from the very beginning. They were on message (regardless of the falsity of it… I’m looking at you “default”). They didn’t break ranks. They didn’t infight. They just went to the press and completely trashed every single one of the Republicans, comparing them to hostage takers, terrorists, etc, and the GOP leadership wimps just sat there and took it. The press went along with it, and the GOP cowered in fear and attacked their own rather than fight back. Why not start calling the press on this “default” thing, rather than simply start using the same terms. The entirety of the GOP is far too willing to let the Dems set the rules of engagement, and “fight” on their terms. That’s a losing battle to begin with.
I’ll give Neo this. Christie does appear to be someone who won’t simply roll over, but I don’t think there’s too much he’d take a principled stand on.
But something else I would like to note… With Neo’s post here, I took a look at the link about the events at Cornell University from 40 years ago. And I couldn’t help but think about this whole political mess as an extension of that.
In the scenario, think of the Dems as the more liberal professors who praised the methodology of the radical kids, and even the kids themselves. They encouraged the behavior.
Think of the GOP as the school administration, unwilling to say “no” or discipline the kids who were it sounds like a very real problem.
The radical kids were taught that radical, take no prisoners approaches were not only accepted, but encouraged, and produced results. The more they screamed and threw fits, the more they were rewarded. Hell, the more honors were bestowed upon them, and are STILL bestowed upon them.
So we have a group in the GOP that has been totally cowed by the tactics of the left. A Media that won’t call the left out, and rewards the radicals. A Democrat party that sets the rules of engagement, howls when their demands aren’t met to a “T”, won’t negotiate at all, etc.
And they’re rewarded. Why would they do any different? All their lives, these tactics worked and continue to work.
I think far too many of the GOP establishment and commentators have been totally cowed and fear to take a principled stand, so the schoolyard bully gets the poor kids lunch money because the teachers turn a blind eye, or say, “it could be worse”, and life continues down this path.
There comes a time when you need to hit back to stop it. There’s a point (and I believe we’re well beyond it) where “negotiation” isn’t possible, because in the eyes of the media and the Dems (one in the same sometimes), “negotiation” means, “You’re going to give me your lunch money, and when you do, I’ll stop hitting you. But you’re giving me what I want.”
Then in strolls McCain, and he says, “Just give him your lunch money, kid… There’s nothing we can do, and people don’t like fights, so you’ve just gotta buck up and take it.” IE – Elections have consequences.
None of them seem to know or even care about the history of this nation, nor that none of these ideas are new. They’ve all been tried before, and always have led to a bowl full of awful, with a price tag of more than 100 million lives.
Capitulation. That’s what they want. That’s what our side doesn’t understand. To the GOP leadership, there’s no hill to die on. There’s no principled stand to take, and they shout down anyone trying to take one. The last 5 years have taught me that there’s not a single thing that the GOP will be willing to take a stand on. Every single time there’s been a “fight”, it’s the GOPs fault by default (which will not change), and the course of action should be capitulation because this isn’t the hill to die on.
At this point, I think the course of action has to be extra-congressional. I think the damage is actually irrepairable at this point, but if there’s a way out, it’s not going to be through federal elections. It’s going to have to be at the state level, and making use of Article V of the Constitution.
Congress’s direction is left. The Dems (including Obama) want to go hard left. The GOP seems to think that the direction to go is left at a slower pace.
I firmly feel at this point that I have no representation in Congress. The direction of the country is such that it is so diametrically opposed to who I am as a person that compromise is no longer possible. I do not want this. I do not want any part of this. But there’s no opt out clause, and if ever there was one, it was destroyed in the Civil War. So eventually, someone has to be willing to make a stand and say no.
I’d put money down that Christie won’t make this stand in my proxy.
Too many people have fallen into the trap that “majority rules”, and that this country operates as a direct democracy. That may be true today, but that’s not what it was supposed to be. A Republic is very different from a Democracy. The founders warned of the “tyranny of the majority”. We’re there. 51% of the population concentrated in large part in 3 regions now dictate to the rest of the country how they should live via the Federal Government, and the GOP whines about “the way it is” and “we need to accept” and “this isn’t the hill to die on”. I have always rejected the notion that someone I have never and will never meet, who lives thousands of miles from me, knows better how I need to live my life than I do.
I’ll also note that these bills that these jerks are running up… I’m young enough to know that I’m going to have to pay for it. This gives me an immediate “dog in this hunt”. My wallet. All these people saying “This isn’t the hill to die on” are telling me that I need to just keep my wallet open, give the schoolyard bully what he wants, because it will be worse if I don’t, and then telling me that this is just the way it is.
Even when the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, the Dems were still unbelievably effective in getting their way. There was none of this “Well, Bush won the election, and the GOP controls Congress” BS. They fought. Lock step.
And I don’t remember anyone calling Chuck Schumer or Teddy Kennedy “terrorists” when they were filibustering Court Nominees, or going after the character of men. Kennedy was praised for his diatribe against Bob Bork, despite the lack of truth (And I know you don’t care much for Bork). Like Clinton, it wasn’t that he lied, but admiration for how well he lied…
Sorry for the rant, but I’m so fed up with this entire kabuki theater at this point.
I’ll also note that Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but is somehow heralded as some great fighter for women’s rights. Never even got a slap on the wrist for driving under the influence or vehicular manslaughter… Had that been me, I’d have gone to jail. But Teddy Kennedy gets a nice Senate seat and immunity.
We have effectively replaced the English nobility with a political aristocracy, complete with titles of nobility (albeit under a different name).
andy weintraub:
Christie and Lonegan had bad blood between them from the 2009 race:
But Christie did endorse him and managed to muster up some enthusiasm as well.
nyght…
Keep in mind that the Left has created an un-financeable system.
Also keep in mind that governments — in a fiat regime — don’t actually borrow money.
Their nominal debt instruments are just a variation on printed money. Both are conjured up out of thin air — only to be seriously debased over time.
In sum, they’re taxes upon assets, wealth taxes.
It is NOT true that todays government is saddling future generations with debts, a concept that floats through the minds of many. The damage is done in the present.
It shows up as a rotten employment market, ramping price hyper-inflation in critical consumables — and asset bubbles.
The ability to print wealth into existence/ tax the whole planet to benefit Washington DC and its clients is what powers the Leftist dynamic.
THAT’S the source of Big Government.
If Washington had to run balanced books and have a neutral trade position it would have to contract brutally.
The Euro was created explicitly to counter the Dollar’s dominance. It’s turned out to be an even bigger fiasco, an even bigger fraud.
The race is on: which currency will collapse first?
Yen, Euro, Dollar,…
Don – “Christie supports gun control. That puts him beyond the pale for many conservative voters.”
This is the litmus test for me. I do not trust an individual, a society, or a government that does not trust me to be a responsible firearm owner/user. That said, I would vote for Christie over any likely dem candidate come 2016. Being for gun control and getting it passed through congress are horses of a different color.
Blert –
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on some of the points… First and foremost, I firmly believe that taxes would be raised to try to pay for it before there was a collapse. That would hit me, my generation, and any generation working at the time that happens right in the wallet.
Or perhaps they would use inflation, which would also hit me in the wallet.
Second, the effect of the bill coming due, or of foreign governments deciding that it is no longer viable to continue to finance our largesse will have a massive and lasting impact on our world, and it won’t be good. Fiat money means something to those who hold the bonds, conjured out of thin air or not. I seriously doubt that China, for example, would be very receptive to the argument, “Well, all that money we borrowed from you wasn’t really real, and so we don’t really owe you anything”. The money was still used to purchase goods and other things of empirical value.
Weimar’s currency collapsing sparked the rise of Fascism in Europe. That’s perhaps the most extreme example in recent history, but there have been other, even more recent examples (Argentina and Chile both, I believe, among others), and it’s never been a good thing for the general populace of those countries, and it is still affecting many of those countries that have seen a fiat currency collapse. How deep was the effect on Germany’s sons and daughters who were born during or not born because of that collapse?
Having the US Dollar collapse is not something I would like to go through.
The effect of having bank account buying power effectively reduced to 0 for the entire country would make for a pretty desperate populace, most of whom could not support/supply themselves on their own. Can’t hunt, can’t grow things, can’t produce things, and no power to turn the computer/tv on. Where will they turn? To the person who promises to help them. Maybe that person is altruistic, but history doesn’t give that very good odds of happening.
The further down this fiscally insane road we go, the less we will be able to control where it will lead. The longer we go down this road, more than likely, the worse it will be when the inevitable collapse comes.
I would argue that the damage done would apply to both the present AND the future. Simply saddling the future generations with $100,000 that they have to pay off in their lifetimes would probably be much fairer than what they will ultimately have to face if things do collapse.
The way to keep it from collapsing is to keep it all manageable to at least maintain the illusion that it means something. Take away that meaning, and the money loses its intrinsic value.
And this isn’t something I can sit back and casually observe, thinking, “which currency will collapse first?” like some impartial observer. I will have to live in this reality any collapse creates. And any kids I have will have to grow up in the aftermath.
This is what I mean when I say, “I will have to pay for this.”
My Paternal Grandfather, who grew up in Germany, was born in the late teens of the 20th century, left Germany in 1932 or ’33 to come to America.
Many years later, his hippie of a son asked him “why did you leave Germany behind? It was your home.”
My grandfather replied, “I saw what was coming.”
I sometimes feel like I see what is coming too, and I want out. But I have no place to go, and my Republican betters tell me there’s no point in fighting…
nyght – “Having the US Dollar collapse is not something I would like to go through.”
Me too, but I think it is coming (when I do not know). Major players in the global market are making arrangements to conduct mutal trade sans the USD. The list grows long: China, UK, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, India, Iran, and others are now conducting trade without using the USD as the medium of exchange.
The trouble with Christie is that he is a bully.
Was it Ann Coulter who said never trust a liberal over three hundred pounds? Christie is full of something, to wit himself.
Christie laughed at Sarah Palin in an interview. He is a major league jerk and will never be president.
Hillary is the next dictator.
The communists have come too far to let anyone even remotely conservative to take that away from them.
Think of it: President Christie forces congress to pass a budget! The horror! What a monster Christie is for making children starve!
Voter fraud will be massive, since all government agencies are at least 90% democrat (including the FEC). Hillary is a done deal – it’s her turn to finish transforming the country into the socialist hell they have been dreaming of.
Hillary will not be president. She’s too old and has too much baggage. She also has a number of health issues that will come to the fore.
As for Chris Christie: No. He’s a great governor for the State of New Jersey and he should remain there. He’s bossy. He’s obnoxious. He’s a bully. I don’t like his rhetoric or his cozying up to Muslims and Democrats nor his stance on gun control.
As far as his being fiscally conservative, New Jersey is one of the most expensive and crime-ridden states in the union. Even before Hurricane Sandy, insurances were nearly unaffordable for the average family. And the toll roads! It nearly costs you money to breathe the air there.
Lastly, he’s another lawyer. No thank you on that count, as well.
I stand with Rand.
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams
Chris Christie has repeatedly demonstrated that he’s NOT a conservative who embraces small government, constitutional principles, no more than McCain, Graham and Boehner.
All of these men pay lip service to conservative principles but their actions betray their words.
These men are moral pragmatists. They are moral ‘realists’ who accept the world as it literally is and deal with it accordingly, which means that they accept and thus condone the moral dissolution and politically correct narrative that the left has constructed.
These are not men who embrace the founding fathers vision of America. Thus, they do not challenge the status quo, nor offer an alternative vision to the left’s political correctness.
The argument that electing a RINO as President is ‘better’ than allowing a ‘progressive’ democrat to win is based upon a short-term truth but a long-term falsity. That falsity is based in the premise that a man whose character is not founded upon ethical principles will somehow lead our society out of the morass into which we have allowed ourselves to be led.
But a man or party whose character lacks allegiance to ethical principles is one that, when the personal cost will be great, will lack the moral courage to do the right thing. Since Reagan, the GOP has consistently and repeatedly, Ad infinitum, demonstrated this truth.
That means that as President, Christie would ‘compromise’, just as both Bush’s did, continuing to substitute the compromise of principle for the mutual sacrifice of compromised interests. There is a crucial difference between the mutual sacrifice of compromised interests and the ‘compromise’ of principle. The mutual sacrifice of compromised interests is the basis for shared compromise, the compromise of principle is surrender.
It is the ethical principles to which our heart subscribes, which form the content of our character. Our purpose, motivations and conduct all spring from that well. Without character based in ethical principles, there are no principles to be compromised, just self-interests to be fought over.
Finally there is an unacceptable potential for a catastrophic, long term price to be paid by conservatives continuing to elect RINO’s.
Most would agree that electing RINO’s simply slows down America’s slide into leftist oblivion. There is however a greater danger, by electing RINO’s, their actions define the GOP in the voter’s minds as a party of unrestrained greed and self-interest.
When the collapse into the undeniable tyranny of the regulated leftist socialist state occurs, the GOP (and conservatives) prior actions will have destroyed the credibility needed to offer America a vision of a society based in constitutional principles. Thus, there will be no viable alternative to that offered by democrats.
Christie: No way, no how. I am through voting for the lesser of evils.
The GOP had better find some principles in a damn hurry or they are going to be slaughtered in 2014. Then 2016 will be a moot point.
Right now I’m comfortable in predicting Sarah Palin’s character due to the external pressures she was put under. The forge lets you see the true content of metal.
For Chris of NJ, I cannot yet say the same thing. He has not been put under the Leftist pressure or on their hit list, yet. Until he is, I won’t make any proclamations about whether he should or should not be supported.
I won’t vote for another republican strictly out of fear of electing a democrat. I don’t think I’m anywhere close to being alone in that.
Anyway, an economic collapse is now a dead certainty. Raising the debt ceiling yet again proves that there are not enough elected officials who are serious about putting a stop to deficit spending. What cannot continue eventually won’t.
Despite the lies and fearmongering promulgated by the media, refusal to raise the debt ceiling need not have caused a default. There is plenty of tax money coming in to pay the interest on the debt. What it would have done was force cuts in spending and a balanced budget.
If we had serious, honest, conscientious statesmen, they would have sought to spread the pain around by cutting every government program by a small amount. They would have told the American people that we have been living beyond our means for too long, and everyone is going to have to bite the bullet in order to save the economy.
Clearly, we do not have leaders of that caliber. They chose instead to keep the gravy train running by kicking the can down the road yet again.
The only way there could have been a default would be if Obama himself had ordered it. I have my suspicions that he privately threatened to do just that. He seems to thrive on chaos and destruction.
It’s not like he had to worry about being impeached or anything. Who’s going to do that, Congress? Don’t make me laugh.
rickl well said.
In 2014, flood the House with Tea Party candidates. With a majority of Tea party candidates in the House, they can’t raise taxes and by refusing to raise the debt limit, you force them to prioritize spending. Take away the credit card and we take away the power of the purse from Obama, the Dems and RINO’s. By doing so, we end the tactic of entitlements and force the public to face the fact that they can’t have their cake and eat it to.
Let them rage, let them scream, let the MSM point impotent fingers of blame. Stay calm, hold fast, claim the moral high ground by insisting that no generation has the right to steal from their children’s children and reality ends the self-delusion.
It’s way past time to let the chips fall where they may and finally force both Congress and the President to take responsibility for the choices that they make. Only by doing so can the ‘Gordian Knot’ of an out-of-control government be sundered.
I’m convinced that Barry tested the public reaction to an EBT lock-up as a goad upon the GOP.
The House folded shortly thereafter.
Functionally, the debt limit legislation has been neutered from here on.
He’s a tyrant.
Christie may have endorsed Lonegan but he did not campaign for him, not at all. OK so they hate each other.
But why has Christie not campaigned for republicans in South Jersey? He’s done three ribbon cutting type events with democrat senate president Steve Sweeney and done similar events in Essex with a senator whose name escapes me. He’s done other non-campaign, campaign events with other democrats. Within two months of an election this unmistakeably political. Christie has done nothing for any of the South Jersey assembly candidates. He’s not made an appearance with or contributed to Sweeney’s republican opponent. Its as though he’s made a deal to write off South Jersey. He blames the NJ legislature for not letting him do things, yet he’s making no effort to change it. Governors Kean and Whitman — say what you will about their liberal tendencies — at least made a state wide effort to get a republican legislature they could work with.
If this kind of treachery becomes known, it will really hurt Christie’s chances in Iowa and South Carolina.
In my misspent youth, I was active in the Goldwater campaign. I was at the Cow Palace screaming “Viva! Ole!” Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. (Still have it, somewhere.)
“The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history.” But I’ll try to ‘splain it to you, Lucy. It’s better to elect somebody who agrees with you 75%, 65%, even 50% of the time than to elect somebody who agrees with you zero percent of the time.
I have no hope whatsoever that you “principled” folks will listen to me, but at least I’ll be able to say, “I told you so!”
It’s better to elect somebody who agrees with you 75%, 65%, even 50% of the time than to elect somebody who agrees with you zero percent of the time.
Recently all the candidates have been in the 0%-5% range.
Richard — most of the time you’re right, but we’re not arguing about a highway bill or a farm bill. If these sorts of things get mucked up, they get changed by the next congress or administration. Obamacare is forever and its a huge step towards a socialist state that knows every detail about your life and may start telling you what to do based on the information. Similarly the debt during the Obama years is going to be enough to potentially destroy us or at least change our standard of living for generations to come. I’d rather lose my country fighting for what’s right than continue to support republicans who just want to keep thier seat in the Senate or the Politboro, whatever it will be, as long as they get to keep their power.
The support of slaves and serfs can be commanded should you have the right patent of authority.
The support of free people, can neither be commanded nor demanded from them.
As Thomas Sowell said (about voting for McCain over Obama), “I prefer disaster to catastrophe.”
I don’t agree with Christie on everything but I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he is the GOP candidate for president.
“I prefer disaster to catastrophe.”
What matters if the frog is placed in water that takes two hours to reach a boil versus water that takes an hour?
“It’s better to elect somebody who agrees with you 75%, 65%, even 50% of the time than to elect somebody who agrees with you zero percent of the time.”
That would ordinarily be true. When each are leading you to the cliff’s edge however, the difference becomes moot.
Christi will have to run on his record. Same questions. I bet with the same answers.
NJ has an income tax. Has Christi abolished it? Has he tried? How many government departments has Christi abolished? How many pages of bureaucratic rules and regulations has Christi repealed? Conversely, have taxes risen during his term? Have regulations increased? etc.
Wrong answers = no vote.
Not exactly ringing endorsement of Christie among the commenters, Neo. Why is that, do you think?
I think it’s because he’s a classic bully. Bullies aren’t particularly principled, and bullies are full of bluff and braggadocio. They intimidate as a matter of routine.
Christie would be a formidable candidate in a national election, but he will never win the nomination. I doubt he will even try.
It is a sure bet the Dems will nominate a bully; a persuader-bully like Obama, mayhaps, but nevertheless a bully. Sex not involved: Hillary is a bully. So Christie as the counter-bully would be interesting, No? But hardly good for the Country Class, regardless of outcome.
Don Carlos:
Do you think my endorsement of Christie was “ringing”?
I certainly don’t.
He is not my first choice, but I will vote for him with enthusiasm if he’s nominated, and I think that (unlike a great many other potential candidates for the GOP) he has tremendous crossover appeal, smarts, and feistiness. Those are all good qualities.
Why would he not win the nomination? McCain and Romney did and they are no less ‘moderate’ than Christie. If millions of conservatives continue to give up on the GOP, ‘moderate’ republicans will certainly be in the majority during the primaries. What evidence is there that Christie lacks Presidential ambitions? 2016 would appear to be a completely open field for any Republican with ambition and a Governor is the ideal position from which to announce a candidacy.
Neo,
Few here would dispute Christie’s crossover appeal, smarts, and feistiness.
For many of us that is not the issue, rather it is to what service he has and would place those good qualities with which we are concerned.
My first impression of Christie was highly positive. It’s been entirely downhill ever since. His actions speak far louder than his fiestiness.
Geoffrey, for you, it isn’t the answer. I get that. For the kids, it is. And they are, God help us, an increasingly larger part of the electorate.
Obama was cool, Romney was hot.
“Romney was, like, U no, old school, man! Back in the day, man, U no, like. Like, U no, he was a, like, dweeb, man. U no? It’s, like, Marshal, U no, McLuhan’s revenge, like, man!”
Yes, they’re fools. Yes, they’re low information voters. Yes, they judge a candidate by the color of his skin, not by the content of his character.
If we want to win elections, we have to have candidates that will appeal to the fools, who the MSM won’t crush, who won’t stand or sit there silently when asked a stupid question or when the Dem candidate makes a stupid comment.
Right now, I only see Christie as filling the bill. If you have other candidates, bring ’em!
Richard Saunders:
I agree with you. Christie appeals to that group.
If conservatives abandon him, though, he probably would lose for that reason, which would certainly be ironic, wouldn’t it?
I have been fighting for many years to say “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” but it always pushes up against those who are tired of compromising in that way. I find it very frustrating, because I see it very differently from them. I don’t expect much from politicians, and so I am not waiting around for someone I agree with 100% or even 75%. I will vote for the least bad candidate, the one most aligned with my point of view. And I’m not going to rail and rail because politicians aren’t people of consistency, principle, and integrity. If I wait around for that, the worst candidates will be voted into office.
But I’m tired of arguing with people who feel differently. They will not be changing their opinions, and so I’m not doing as much arguing with them as I used to.
“If we want to win elections, we have to have candidates that will appeal to the fools”
Do you get that a candidate who will appeal to the fools is a candidate who will cave on the issues? How many more H.W. Bush’s must we support before it is acknowledged that America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed under such men? It is not purity we seek but an understanding that, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”. And that if you compromise on what you claim to stand for, then you never really stood for it at all.
Geoffrey Britain,
Actually, I think there can be candidates who will “appeal to the fools” that won’t cave on issues. They are few and far-between, though.
I don’t see Christie as a candidates who “caves” on the issues. I see him as someone who doesn’t actually agree with all of the conservative issues, particularly the non-fiscal ones. There’s a difference between caving and just not agreeing in the first place.
Now, I can’t say I know every detail of Christie’s history. So perhaps he’s caved on something or other. But I get the impression of stubbornness on those issues on which he’s taken a stand.
Oh, and by the way: most successful politicians have to cave somewhere or other.
By the way, so far my two favorite candidates, at least in the sense of their stands on the issues, are Scott Walker and Jim DeMint. I worry that neither has enough pizazz to win a national election, though. But I would strongly support either.
It’s unreasonable to expect career politicians to tear down the system that they spent their entire lives promoting themselves in. It’s part of their identity. If it was up to them, they wouldn’t tear it down, and that’s what it’ll come to when the resistance against reform reaches peak levels.
But since it’s not up to them, the candidates are generally not given the opportunity to decide one way or another. A king or administrator cannot administrate or rule, if all the information they get is distorted by corrupt bureaucrats, where they cannot even trust the people one level below them. If the MSM is a deception based propaganda arm of the Left that reaches out to American heartlands, then DC is full of even more potent poison at the highest levels.
IMO, it’s a mistake to lump all who oppose Christie, Rubio, Ryan, Boehner, McCain and other RINO’s with those for whom only the purest of candidates will suffice.
I voted for Romney for the very reasons neo has expressed. The 2012 results however were IMO a wake up call as to the state of the nation’s indoctrination by the left. I’ve reached the reluctant conclusion that the delaying tactics of electing another RINO are insufficient, nor do I believe that when disaster strikes that the American people will finally wake up.
I perceive the indoctrination to be just too deep, a slim majority are committed and will follow the left right over the cliff’s edge while supporting ever greater tyranny. Too many Americans have lost their moral compass. My God, millions of Americans now support what amounts to infanticide. What greater loss of morality is there?
I’m certainly not looking for, nor waiting around for someone I agree with 100% or 75% or even 50% when it comes to compromise of interests.
I’m quite willing to compromise on where we should cut spending, just not on whether or not we should cut spending.
Where we should cut spending is a discussion upon what our priorities should be, what interests should be supported and to what degree.
Whether we should cut spending is not an area open to compromise because it is a factual, economic principle that one cannot indefinitely live beyond one’s means and, that no society has the moral right to impoverish its children out of selfish self-interest. Both reason and morality support and demand that we cut spending.
I am now insisting that a vote for a candidate who will pass Comprehensive Amnesty, never ending increases in the national debt, ever increasing regulatory oversight and other such basic compromises in principle is a waste of time because it is a vote for a slower walk to the gallows. Men such as these will never ‘fight the good fight’ because they have already surrendered.
Geoffrey Britain:
Actually, I don’t lump them all together.
There are degrees, and it’s a continuum. McCain is one of the very worst. But I would still vote for him against Obama. Not because I think that would be sufficient—it most definitely would not be!—but because the alternative is too dangerous. We could all too easily pass a point of no return. So I will do what I can to delay that.
neo,
I too like Scott Walker and Jim DeMint and barring new information would strongly support them. I agree as to the lack of ‘pizzazz’.
I also see Christie as someone who doesn’t actually agree with all of the conservative issues, particularly the non-fiscal ones. There is indeed a difference between caving and just not agreeing in the first place.
Which is the crux of my opposition to Christie. He’s not a conservative, he’s a fiscal moderate. IMO, the state of the nation simply cannot afford more “business as usual” from the GOP. It is far too late for political half measures and if we continue upon this course I see no other result in 2014 and 2016 but a repeat of 2008 and 2012.
I pray that I am wrong but if I am not, then for all practical purposes we are nearly out of time. When your back is against the wall and the enemy is pressing in, half measures are a sure formula for defeat, in such straits only the boldest of actions that catch the enemy off guard have any chance for success.
neo,
Thank you for the clarification. I am not unmindful that the alternative is too dangerous and if we agree that Christie most definitely would not be sufficient and merely a delay then perhaps there is a strategy that would sufficiently offset Christie’s ‘moderation’.
If we can flood the House in 2014 and 2016 with enough Tea Party types and Christie by some miracle was elected then such a House through the power of the purse could hold his ‘feet to the fire’.
That would IMO be a satisfactory delaying tactic because we currently face a very long fight for America’s heart and soul.
No point in continuing this discussion. Human beings only learn from pain, and Geoffrey, ErisGuy, Don Carlos, JohnW, et al, won’t learn until they’ve been shellacked, 62-38%.
So itr shall be written, so it shall be done!
Richard,
Clearly there is no point in further discussion with you. And we’ve already been shellacked in 2008 and 2012. In politics, a defeat by one vote is, for that term, as final as by 20 million. When the ‘reasonable men’ whom you support pass Comprehensive Amnesty for 11-33 million “undocumented democrats” and permanent one-party rule results, remember this discussion.
Britain asks:
“How many more H.W. Bush’s must we support before it is acknowledged that America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed under such men?”
Indeed.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
October 18th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Well stated, and I agree. The problem with most Republicans, whether you call them “the Establishment”, “RINOs”, or “moderates” is that they have no intention of cutting spending. They have proven it time and time again by their actions.
I’ve often made an analogy with European “conservative” parties. They never challenge the legitimacy of the Leviathan state; they merely argue that they can administer it better than their opponents. That is where we are now.
These statist Republicans also have their own set of cronies to enrich when they are in power, just like the Democrats.
I’m not supporting this crap any more.
Richard Saunders Says:
October 18th, 2013 at 3:02 pm
You just put your finger on the problem. In a republic, fools would not be allowed to vote.
The Founders knew that democracy was not a stable form of government, and went to great lengths to prevent it. They created a republic instead, and sought to ensure that only the most educated and responsible people would be permitted to vote.
In the 18th Century, their solution was to give the franchise only to property-owning white men. That made perfect sense at the time. Women generally did not pursue higher education, and in many places it was illegal to educate black slaves. White men who owned property were regarded as more likely to be responsible citizens than those who did not.
The Founders also crafted an intricate system of checks and balances to keep any one faction from gaining too much power. The House of Representatives was popularly elected, while the Senate was intended to represent the states’ interests, and its members were appointed by state legislatures.
The voting franchise was steadily expanded, first to non-property owning whites, then to freed black slaves, then to women. Today we have a universal franchise, and we speak of the “right” to vote. Even a requirement of showing proof of identity at the polls is considered an outrageous violation of rights to some.
Meanwhile, the 17th Amendment changed the Senate from being advocates of their state’s interests into a popularity contest, with campaign money flowing in from outside their state.
Today, we are no longer a republic, but nearly a pure democracy. People can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, and enthusiastically do. I don’t believe the Founders would be at all surprised to see our problems today. They tried very hard to prevent them.
I don’t see how it is possible to go from a democracy to a republic via the ballot box. It would require voters to cut off their own benefits, and even in some cases deny themselves the franchise. You can’t get there from here.
It will burn, because it must.
I don’t know what proper restrictions on voting today would be. I think maybe property ownership might still play a role. Of course, today, women and minorities can own property just as white men can.
Robert A. Heinlein famously proposed in one of his novels that only those who had performed military service could be considered fully citizens with full rights, and that somewhat recalls ancient Greece.
But I think it should be easy to agree that anybody receiving welfare, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, or food stamps should not be allowed to vote. You want to vote? Then stand on your own two feet and don’t leech off your fellow citizens. The very idea that people who are living off others’ tax money should be able to vote for politicians who promise to give them even more is absurd on its face.
Beyond having to step into Orthanc and bow down to Sauron; I would vote for a RINO over a dem. BTW, I am not anxious, although ready,for civil war redux.
Geoffrey, ErisGuy, Don Carlos, JohnW, et al, won’t learn until they’ve been shellacked, 62-38%.
To the contrary, I’ve learned well. The American people do not wish to be free. They want free stuff.
Your prognostication that Christi, without my vote, will lose to generic Democrat in the worst defeat in presidential election history is an accurate measure of Christi’s appeal and worth. Well said.
Most Presidential elections are Saruman v. Sauron.
Beyond having to step into Orthanc and bow down to Sauron
Where I live bowing is required. Doctors refuse to treat patients without several government-issued IDs. Union membership is legally required for many jobs. Refusal to attend diversity seminars is reprimandable offense.
Pingback:predictions | US demise | RINOs | establishment Republicans
No doubt Christie can take the heat, but can his heart? The guy looks like a walking coronary to me. (I’m only half joking.)
Joe Bob:
Actually, Christie’s pretty healthy, but he also had a gastric operation a few months ago and has supposedly lost 40 pounds or so. My guess is that he’ll be even thinner by the time the 2016 campaign rolls around.