March 03, 2011
— Ace There's a dumb site called Conservative In New Jersey that's claiming Christie is a liberal on a host of issues. I see it cited from time to time.
I want to talk about how stupid it is.
Now, on a couple of issues, I know Christie has taken a position I don't like. I already know about three -- he didn't sign on to the ObamaCare lawsuit (he claims he wanted to spare NJ taxpayers the cost of it and just free-ride the benefits, which is a b.s. answer, but it's b.s. in the right direction), he gave a vague answer on the Ground Zero Mosque, and he's said he didn't like Arizona's border control law.
Fine. But we do we need to make up crap? Here's Christie's answer when asked about global warming, which "Conservative in New Jersey" finds fault with:
Asked by a man attending the event whether he thought mankind was responsible for global warming, Christie says he’s seen evidence on both sides of the argument but thinks it hasn’t been proven one way or another.Christie says “more science” is needed to convince him.
What? That is a good answer. That is the right answer, really, politically. Well, the real right answer is closer to James Inhofe's -- it ain't real -- but saying you're not convinced?
That's a great solid conservative answer. And, by the way, Sarah Palin said about the same thing, when she was running for public office:
"I will not pretend to have all the answers," Palin said about global warming, according to the Anchorage Daily News. Her spokesman clarified at the time that "she's not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us ... She thinks the jury's still out."
And I loved that answer then. Look, when you're facing down religious zealots who own the media, "I'm just saying, we don't know yet" is a terrific (and solidly conservative) answer.
It's called "reading between the lines." Look into it, Conservative in New Jersey.
Sarah Palin has since then gotten even more right on the issue, but she's also not holding public office any longer, nor, at the moment, running for it, and there is a certain liberating quality in that.
But this guy is even dumber than that. He presents the below video about the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) that NJ was signed into by former Governor Corzine, a multistate cap & trade scheme. That is, not a national one, just most of the Northeastern hippy-dippy states.
This is what people keep claiming on this site when they claim that Christie "supports cap & trade."
Right, right... you can tell he supports this, by the fact that he... opposes it.
This hack site makes a big deal over the fact that he opposes it for the wrong reasons; that is, this hack site wants Christie to say "global warming is bunk" and oppose RGGI, but instead he says "this scheme reduces our competitiveness and hurts New Jerseyans' job prospects" and then he opposes it.
So he takes a conservative position on RGGI, but instead of offering the most stridently conservative reason for doing so, offers a second-tier conservative reason for doing so, so... he's supports cap & tax, obviously.
So based on that -- that Christie's reason for opposing RGGI isn't the one this hack site prefers -- he claims that Christie is pro cap & trade, and then that gets parroted by the various people with agendas.
He ends his statement by saying he's going to make his own evaluation, when it comes up for renewal, about how "anti-competitive" it is and by how much it "artificially inflates" our costs.
That sounds like he's a "no" on that renewed participation, dude. Not like a "yes." He does not say a single good thing about the program. And I listened, three times. He speaks of it in completely negative terms.
Based on the fact he's going to spike a cap & tax scheme that his idiot predecessor signed the state into, that proves he's pro cap & tax?
Is this the level of bullshit that's typical for this site? Jeeze Louise, I don't think I want to read anything more.
I'll say one odd effect of this idiot site: I was sort of buying, based on all the dumb parroting of the cap & tax line, that he was squishy on greenhouse gases.
Now that I've actually been baited to look over there, I am delightedly surprised he's a stalwart, issuing the same good answer on this topic that was one of the first reasons I started liking Sarah Palin.
In Multi-Front Wars... There's a doctrine, some fronts you fight to win, other fronts you just hold, until you can win on the other ones. You can't fight to win all fronts simultaneously (unless you're fighting with nukes, of course; as the great USS Clueless observed, "Of course the U.S. can fight a ten front war if it needs to; it's just that eight of those fronts will be fought with nuclear weapons").
There are some wars you can't outright win so you just yeah-yeah slow-walk the opposition to death. This is called "winning," as it actually prevents your opponents from getting anywhere.
Yes, I want my Republican candidate to swear how much he loves, loves, loves trees, and how he supports, wholeheartedly, the Clean Air Act (of 1970), and other such stuff.
I like trees myself.
But as they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither is conservatism. If one argument works to get to the conservative outcome and another argument probably wouldn't work -- use the one that works.
I'm so tired of the Vindictive Purists. And I call them this because they are not universal purists; they are not pushing a rigorously pure agenda on all candidates. They only push this rigorously pure agenda on candidates they don't like.
So it's a vindictive standard -- thus, Vindictive Purists. Same as when the liberal media employs its Vindictive Civility standard only the right.
A standard is not a standard when it's selectively applied.
Posted by: Ace at
04:33 PM
| Comments (459)
Post contains 1042 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 03, 2011 04:40 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Christ Christie at March 03, 2011 04:40 PM (SwkdU)
Too bad he's not running next year.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 03, 2011 04:40 PM (h0RtZ)
Posted by: Chris Christie at March 03, 2011 04:40 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: arhooley at March 03, 2011 04:41 PM (a8sK0)
If you listen close to the tone of his answer, he is clearly against it. He gives the answer that he should give, because he's not going to telegraph hid decision in order that his opposition won't have the chance to somehow circumvent him. He's against it, he's just not going to state it outright, and for good reason.
Posted by: g at March 03, 2011 04:41 PM (yv++J)
This is what people keep claiming on this site when they claim that Christie "supports cap & trade."
I bought into that dreck too and I'm glad to know I was wrong on this.
Christie even prefaces his criticisms of RGGI with "lets say I agree with it", which implies that he kinda doesn't agree with it, at least not wholeheartedly.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 04:41 PM (W+Irb)
Posted by: CAC at March 03, 2011 04:41 PM (Gr1V1)
Wanting to cut spending and speaking well doesn't make you a great conservative candidate, you gotta have more on the ball than that.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 03, 2011 04:43 PM (61b7k)
ALL MUSLIMS MUST BE BANNED FROM HOLDING OFFICE!!! I DEMAND A NEW RELIGIOUS TEST ACT!!
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 04:43 PM (NjYDy)
"11* Do you favor or oppose a proposal to weaken the collective bargaining rights of state employees?"
What he should have done was simply describe what was being done: collective bargaining was ended for benefits but continued for salaries. How would the poll have gone then?
Posted by: AmishDude at March 03, 2011 04:43 PM (T0NGe)
I'll cheer when Democrat pols start using the same "I'm not convinced one way or the other..." language. Then I'll know the issue is dead.
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 04:44 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: DocinPA at March 03, 2011 04:45 PM (KF04W)
Posted by: Warden at March 03, 2011 04:45 PM (X9C8M)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 03, 2011 04:45 PM (7wmOW)
And it is the highly intelligent response - - lack of evidence, which is every bit as good as saying it is baloney.
BTW, the same observation is also true with respect to evolution - - there is simply not enough evidence.
And interestingly, in both cases, the largely unconsidered truth is that mankind still does not know enough about these complex areas to be anything but curious.
Posted by: Tonawanda at March 03, 2011 04:45 PM (fgysf)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 04:46 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: CAC at March 03, 2011 04:46 PM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 04:47 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: Mark Levine at March 03, 2011 04:47 PM (jq3Yf)
Christie has a talent of boiling down everything to a simple economic argument that even most people completely ignorant of economics can understand. If he opposes cap and trade crap simply on that basis alone (without questioning the science behind it, or even saying that "we need more research"), I'm completely fine with it.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 04:47 PM (W+Irb)
Regarding Rasmussen...
Why oh why can't these polsters do multiple pols with the different verbiage? Just replace "rights" with "privilages". It would be a great service to the debate to see how a simple word can effect peoples opinion. Is it really that more expensive to run parallel polls?
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 04:48 PM (bAySe)
Lonegan, in case you don't know, is the ultra-whackjob conservative small town mayor who ran (and lost) against Christie in the 2009 GOP primary. Ever since he's had a major hate-on for the Governor, denouncing him non-stop for not being a true conservative. The only -- THE ONLY -- reason his foamy-mouthed attacks have gotten any traction recently is because worried Palinistas, eager to find ways to discredit any possible threat to their beloved avatar, found him and the "Conservative New Jersey" site and begun spreading its BS around like a super-potent joint. Literally, that's where all this comes from: Palin fans who perceived Christie as a threat, and embraced this site and its attacks (regardless of validity) for the simple reason that it gives them something to attack Christie with.
Fucking pathetic, is what it is.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 04:49 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 03, 2011 04:50 PM (OW0nw)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at March 03, 2011 04:50 PM (fjoLg)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 03, 2011 08:45 PM (7wmOW)
Fat people are harder to kidnap
Posted by: Fatguy at March 03, 2011 04:51 PM (WOHwA)
Oh that's right. Science means very little to you. You're the "total contempt for science party".
Of course. Explains a lot.
Posted by: Jimmy-joe at March 03, 2011 04:51 PM (6KaEq)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 03, 2011 04:51 PM (7wmOW)
Posted by: Tami at March 03, 2011 04:52 PM (VuLos)
So glad that you're here to define "science" for us, dick-wad.
btw, how many science degrees do you have?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 04:52 PM (W+Irb)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 03, 2011 04:53 PM (7wmOW)
I would vote for Christie in the primaries. The only way I wouldn't vote for him is if Paul Ryan ran instead.
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 04:53 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 03, 2011 04:54 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 04:54 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 04:55 PM (4ZxEW)
Absolutely, everyone knows that Palin admirers are all whack jobs, who only know how to attack her possible opponents in their possible rivalry.
Nothing else. No other reason.
This sophisticated analysis is the type of deep thinking which keeps enlightened folks disdainful of Palin. Thank you.
Posted by: Tonawanda at March 03, 2011 04:55 PM (fgysf)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 04:55 PM (dZ3n8)
Look at you. Hanging on every word of a politician about science...instead of a scientist. I mean really. Look at you.
Posted by: Jimmy-joe at March 03, 2011 04:55 PM (6KaEq)
meh, I don't live in New Jersey and Christie says he isn't running for president. If he decides to run he will tell us what his positions are and we can go for there.
For now though he is a governor on the other side of the country from me. He is entertaining to watch though.
Posted by: robtr at March 03, 2011 04:56 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 08:52 PM (W+Irb)
Hell, I have a Ph.D. in mathematics.
Science is too easy for me.
Posted by: AmishDude at March 03, 2011 04:56 PM (T0NGe)
Yup. Just defunded the state's Planned Parenthood group (for "budgetary reasons" wink-wink) and recently spoke at an anti-abortion rally.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/48fldpu
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 04:56 PM (NjYDy)
Every Politician speaks in total vagueness and bullshit to avoid the sound bite trap or the gotcha from some dick weed special interest group. And he's like; fuck you. So thats got to be worth at least 52% right there.
Posted by: melvin at March 03, 2011 04:57 PM (3OCZw)
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 03, 2011 04:57 PM (cdCC7)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 04:57 PM (nfC5u)
Do you guys prefer a Christie 2016 nominee or a Walker 2016 pick?
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 04:58 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: Warden at March 03, 2011 08:45 PM (X9C8M)
While I typically ignore this kind of bossiness, here is some evidence from PajamasMedia about Christie and gun control.
Satisfied?
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 03, 2011 04:58 PM (h0RtZ)
Gov. Chris Christie backs anti-abortion activists, says 'every life is precious and a gift from God.'
"Gov. Chris Christie, who made his stance against legalized abortion known during the campaign, has remained relatively quiet about social issues, including the debate on abortion.
But Monday, during a rally outside the Statehouse marking the 38th anniversary of the Supreme CourtÂ’s Roe v. Wade decision, Christie spoke to hundreds who weathered bitter temperatures, telling them "this is an issue whose time has come."
Speaking for five minutes without a coat, Christie said "every life is precious and a gift from God.""
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 04:58 PM (NjYDy)
I]n the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity."
Posted by: justin cord at March 03, 2011 04:59 PM (DLRWS)
He's got 2 strikes against him - he doesn't just "not support" SB1070, he is completely uninformed and ignorant of the law itself. That's just about standard for far far eastern US nationals. Second is that he's from Baja New York, aka, South NeoEurope.
Each is a deal breaker.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 03, 2011 05:00 PM (odfEr)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:00 PM (nfC5u)
He also got the endorsement from NJ Right to Life during the campaign....and a very pro-life NJ congressman who's name escapes me.
Posted by: Tami at March 03, 2011 05:01 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:01 PM (DKV43)
Do you guys prefer a Christie 2016 nominee or a Walker 2016 pick?
4 more years of this fuckstick and man it's over.Talk of 2016 is pointless.
Posted by: USS Diversity at March 03, 2011 05:01 PM (gJNMj)
Aha, the "I know you are, but what am I?" form of argument! I'd love to have a battle of wits with you, but you're woefully unarmed. Christie framed his argument purely in terms of economics, if you have any evidence to suggest what he said was false, please spell it out.
Look at you. Hanging on every word of a politician about science...instead of a scientist. I mean really. Look at you.
Fine, I'll listen to Pat Michaels then, a world-renowned climatologist then
/btw, science isn't by committee. Just because And the lack of any formal scientific training doesn't preclude one from asking intelligent questions about issues in science, or disallow people from making intelligent inquires. All one needs is reason. Just because a bunch of scientists once said that humans have 24 pairs (48 in total) of chromosomes, doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 05:02 PM (W+Irb)
You know what this is code for? It's code for: Christie is a conservative who has a fucking brain and realizes as the governor of a blue state he would be a suicidally stupid moron to pick fights on social issues that are both unpopular and irrelevant, especially when he's fighting a much more important and more difficult battle to bail out the state's dire finances and reform its educational system. But every now and then he lets his true colors show, for signaling purposes.
I like a man who knows how to prioritize. I like it A LOT.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:02 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: USA at March 03, 2011 05:02 PM (YZISw)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:02 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 05:03 PM (pcWke)
Posted by: JackStraw at March 03, 2011 05:03 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:03 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: Jimmy-joe at March 03, 2011 08:55 PM (6KaEq)
Where's our fucking candy?
Posted by: Al Gore and Hank Waxman, multiple doctorate holders in hard sciences at March 03, 2011 05:04 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:04 PM (nj1bB)
>>>He's got 2 strikes against him - he doesn't just "not support" SB1070, he is completely uninformed and ignorant of the law itself. That's just about standard for far far eastern US nationals. Second is that he's from Baja New York, aka, South NeoEurope.
>>>Each is a deal breaker.
Wait, the fact that he hails from New Jersey is a dealbreaker for you? Just the mere fact that he's from the state? From the region?
You are weird.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:04 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:05 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 03, 2011 05:06 PM (OW0nw)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 03, 2011 05:06 PM (odfEr)
Let's hope he can adapt his conservative no-bullshit agenda from the state level to the federal level, (assuming he has higher aspirations and tolerance for pain), to embrace the full scope of American politics beyond the focus of New Jersey politics.
Give him a few years.
Posted by: Fritz at March 03, 2011 05:06 PM (/8mBu)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:06 PM (nfC5u)
What are you even doing here? Shouldn't you be out defending the sacred honor of true conservatism or something?
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:07 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 03, 2011 05:07 PM (7wmOW)
Really? Did you go to bed early on November 4, 2008?
Posted by: USS Diversity at March 03, 2011 05:07 PM (gJNMj)
Posted by: JackStraw at March 03, 2011 05:07 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: robtr at March 03, 2011 05:08 PM (MtwBb)
No. He said he could win. That is a major difference.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 03, 2011 05:08 PM (h0RtZ)
I would hate to see a decent man eliminated from the running before the primaries over something as stupid as Algore's hoax.
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:08 PM (EA+s9)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 05:08 PM (4ZxEW)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:09 PM (nj1bB)
Well, isn't that special. Equating concern due to ignorance of a critical issue that is killing friends of mine on the border by invading bunches of Mexican Army personnel in the pay of the cartels - to ketchup.
Yeah, that's a great way to ignore half of the fucking country's worries and conditions. Pretend it doesn't matter at all, even the people who've been decapitated. After all it's not in New York City, DC, Boston, or any of the rest of the cities thousands of miles from the fucking border.
Yeah, it's like being pissed about ketchup. I am rolling my eyes so hard that I can see my brainstem.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 03, 2011 05:10 PM (odfEr)
Posted by: Brady Campaign at March 03, 2011 05:10 PM (EL+OC)
When unemployment is 25-35% and bread lines are full, it's not going to matter much to me or many hungry people how Chris Christie feels about fudge-packin or the climate or the Sting-infested rain forest.
Christie will cut in front of you in those bread lines.
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:10 PM (DKV43)
I don't think he actually signed a new gun bill, he just says he supports the ones that already are on the books.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 03, 2011 05:11 PM (HicGG)
Posted by: Dan at March 03, 2011 05:11 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 09:08 PM (4ZxEW)
No, he was asked about it when he was campaigning and he said he was fine with NJ gun laws which are draconian. He didn't pass any new ones though.
That and immigration are the two problems I have with him that he would have to change to get my support.
Posted by: robtr at March 03, 2011 05:11 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:11 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Seriously, now at March 03, 2011 05:12 PM (3W1+C)
No. Yhat's the most retarded thing I have heard today. That would be like me saying "I won't vote for anyone west of the I-95 corridor because they don't understand the lifestyle and particular needs of dense urban/exurban regions of the East Coast. What you're defending is antebellum regionalism at its crassest. Are you saying that you could never support anyone who didn't come from the Western U.S.? Would midwesterners (say, Pawlenty, or Pence, or Daniels) be able to comprehend the ever-so-unique and sui generis challenges faced by those on the other side of the Rockies? (C'mon dude, I know water rights law can be knotty and complex, but I don't really think that's the ENTIRETY of the what Presidency is about, you know.)
Or is this just a new, more subtlely disguised "candidate fitness" test designed to exclude every possible choice save Sarah Palin?
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:12 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: logprof at March 03, 2011 09:08 PM (BP6Z1)
Tricks? Long time no see. Been catching a bit more of Rome lately. Heard that tool trapper call in a few days ago. Douchetastic.
Christie double dips his chips btw. Do we really want a guy like that in the White House?
Posted by: Delta Smelt at March 03, 2011 05:12 PM (dWPyO)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:12 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: Jimmah-Joe at March 03, 2011 05:13 PM (+C0Kq)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 05:13 PM (pcWke)
Posted by: Dan at March 03, 2011 05:13 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 03, 2011 05:13 PM (odfEr)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:14 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:14 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:14 PM (EA+s9)
Posted by: Fritz at March 03, 2011 05:14 PM (/8mBu)
It's absurd.
If New Jerseyans don't want these guns, what's it to you? What is the big problem?
This is an example of people just demanding, essentially, that Democrats hold every office except in the south, southwest, and great plains states.
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 09:09 PM (nj1bB)
I am like the Honey Badger on New Jersey gun laws, I don't live there and have no plans to visit or live there.
Before I would vote for him for president he would have to say he is fine with Americas gun laws the way they are. If he did that I would vote for the fat man.
Posted by: robtr at March 03, 2011 05:15 PM (MtwBb)
This is an example of people just demanding, essentially, that Democrats hold every office except in the south, southwest, and great plains states.
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 09:09 PM (nj1bB)
No problem at all, just that it makes him unelectable. :p
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 05:15 PM (bAySe)
You're getting all emotional. Having a bit of a hissy fit, you are.
Posted by: Jimmy-joe at March 03, 2011 05:15 PM (6KaEq)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 09:14 PM (nj1bB)
Boys named Sue shouldn't have trains anyway.
Posted by: Tami at March 03, 2011 05:15 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: Uncle Jed at March 03, 2011 05:16 PM (vXwmy)
Posted by: wildwood at March 03, 2011 05:16 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 05:16 PM (dZ3n8)
Posted by: logprof at March 03, 2011 05:16 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Honey Badger at March 03, 2011 05:17 PM (YZISw)
Posted by: Hispanic Caucus' Burrito Van at March 03, 2011 05:17 PM (EL+OC)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:17 PM (nj1bB)
If you think we aren't laughing at you, listen harder.
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:17 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:17 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 05:17 PM (OW0nw)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 05:18 PM (dZ3n8)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:18 PM (DKV43)
He also slips cane sugar into Wilford Brimleys oatmeal.
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:18 PM (EA+s9)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 09:16 PM (dZ3n
I think I would add eye of newt to that mixture.
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 03, 2011 05:18 PM (FIDMq)
O RLY? Sarah Palin, in her half-term as governor, went to war with a deeply entrenched and enormously powerful public sector union that dictated political outcomes in her (ultra-red) state and managed to strip them of their collective bargaining rights whilst forcing increased in pension and benefits contributions?
Do tell. I would love to hear more about this incredibly huge legislative accomplishment of Sarah Palin's. (Especially the part where you explain how Alaska is a bulwark of politically powerful public sector unionism, despite being a sparsely-populated red state.) Amazing that I never heard anything about it before.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:18 PM (NjYDy)
The big issue is whether the AGW "science" should be believed, and in that video he says nothing specifically on that issue, but it sure sounds like he would support the RGI if Pennsylvania participated in it, and that would make no sense if he had big questions about AGW science. This is a big deal, IMHO.
Ace, you frequently bend over backwards to avoid the extreme-purist-right-wing view (which everybody knows can never prevail in a general election), and then you try to hide your scalp-to-ass posture from us behind rants against stupid loser purists. It is not attractive.
Posted by: Ken at March 03, 2011 05:18 PM (3ar4L)
Can we really nominate and elect this monster?
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 05:19 PM (4ZxEW)
Posted by: justin cord at March 03, 2011 05:19 PM (DLRWS)
Oh yea, and Chris Christie is Satan. We must purge him from the Republican Sarah Palin party.
Posted by: Jesus at March 03, 2011 05:19 PM (0JKQf)
Chris Christie walked by a Prius without slashing it's tires.
That can only mean he supports Cap and Trade.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 03, 2011 05:19 PM (WRW1S)
I will let you know when I want to be awesome on the federal level.
Until then, suck my dick and bake me a lasagna.
Posted by: Chris Christie, state-level awesome at March 03, 2011 05:20 PM (EA+s9)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 05:20 PM (dZ3n8)
Huh. In a world where conservatives get unfair, scurrilous charges of bigotry and Islamophobia thrown at them by the MSM and the Left...you might be an honest-to-goodness fucking bigot.
Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:20 PM (NjYDy)
Jeff B, no it is just a standard - I don't vote for people from the Northeastern Corridor because of the politicians I've met from there, they are uniformly ignorant of the West, are always arrogant and condescending in that ignorance, and have less than adequate appreciation for Constitutional rights and private property rights.
Christie is a no-go for me primarily because he's an incredibly clueless schlub on the subject of the border and it steams me that people I knew in my youth are being murdered while the backeasterners are chuckling and calling us bigots. Fuck them.
Meanwhile there's several ranchers in graves that they dismiss as "flyover country problems".
As for regionalism, I have no problem with anyone outside the area, but seriously now, you have a state with a socialist senator. That's proof that the culture back there is broken. Also, accusing me of regionalism for pointing back east is like accusing lynching victim of racism for shouting at a KKK member.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 03, 2011 05:21 PM (odfEr)
Posted by: JackStraw at March 03, 2011 05:22 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Timmah Troll at March 03, 2011 05:22 PM (S59+B)
Chris Christie walked by a Prius without slashing it's tires.
That can only mean he supports Cap and Trade.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 03, 2011 09:19 PM (WRW1S)
Christie was smart, he put Palin stickers on the prius, much easier than slashing the tires yourself.
Posted by: robtr at March 03, 2011 05:22 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:22 PM (nj1bB)
Or admitting that you are a glutton for punishment.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 05:22 PM (W+Irb)
Posted by: logprof at March 03, 2011 05:22 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: newcletusrouter at March 03, 2011 05:23 PM (vXwmy)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:23 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:23 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:24 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 05:24 PM (dZ3n8)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 03, 2011 05:24 PM (TATbF)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:25 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:25 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 03, 2011 05:25 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 05:25 PM (pcWke)
If his Gun Control position is merely a state position, my objections on that front disappear.
Posted by: Ceiling at March 03, 2011 05:25 PM (YxGud)
Can he beat Obama? Right now I think he, of our candidates, has the best chance.
Will he do what the US needs when he is in office. Yes, I think he will attack the deficit.
Will he do things I don't like that are bad for the US. Of course most Presidents have, but what? We can't afford a major gaff on immigration, energy, ME or spending right now.
So I am looking for some statements that are a lot different on immigration. And no I am not a Palinista. Nor a Paulbot, nor a..F* I don't like anybody.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 03, 2011 05:26 PM (0q2P7)
Now you're trying ever so hard to like Chris Christie. - A governor from New Jersey. Desperate!
We will CRUSH you in 2012.
Posted by: Jimmy-joe at March 03, 2011 05:26 PM (6KaEq)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 05:26 PM (dZ3n8)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:26 PM (nj1bB)
Then he beat me savagely for three hours straight.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Dan at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (mXBxH)
Oh noes! He was vague about the mosque in New York City blocks away from the Ground Zero. Oh noes! He doesn't think that crazy people should be able to purchase guns or that we all need to own grenade launchers!
Clearly he is the scum of the earth.
Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (0JKQf)
I actually like making fun of both sides.
The hysteria of this pre-pre-pre-presidential-primary season is ridiculous.
I don't go to eleventy!!11!!!!!11!
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 09:19 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Geronimo at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (+C0Kq)
What's Jan Brewer's position on the ARC project?
Posted by: DrewM. at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (HicGG)
4 more years of this fuckstick and man it's over.Talk of 2016 is pointless.
Posted by: USS Diversity----
That's silly, to be blunt. We still have a system of checks and balances. He can certainly do more damage in a 2nd term, but its not like conservative opposition will be powerless. We even get lucky if the SCOTUS strikes down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:27 PM (EA+s9)
could I make a legitimate point?
On the immigration issue, I am totally with the people of Arizona or whatever Southwestern state that has to deal with the narco-state neighbor that is mexico, however isn't the Republican 2012 candidate guaranteed to win all the border states except for California anyway? So what purpose does it serve him to come out hard right on that issue?
I'm not talking about principles, but politics. If he were to run, he needs to pick up a couple of rust best or North Eastern states, not the mid or south west, right?
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:28 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 05:28 PM (4ZxEW)
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:28 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: kidney at March 03, 2011 05:29 PM (3j6OS)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:29 PM (nj1bB)
The cartoons aren't coming up for me,
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 05:29 PM (W+Irb)
At first glance, I read 'ate ;"> a Taco Bell', which he may have done.
Posted by: fluffy, effete Easterner at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (SwkdU)
When asked why, he said "Fuck you, tipping is for stock touts and strippers. Now go get your shinebox."
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: steevy at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (dZ3n8)
Chris Christie politely declined an invitation to go bird hunting with Dick Cheney.
That proves he's a gun-grabber who hates the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (WRW1S)
191
We will CRUSH you in 2012.
And we will stop shipping you any food.
And you will starve.
Fuck off.
Posted by: States That Grow Food And Dislike Communism at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (odfEr)
Posted by: The Redneck in "Evil Dead II" Who Doesn't Know That Jimmy Joe Was Raped and Murdered by a Tree at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (FYCiJ)
The fourth "bad Christie" issue on guns.
Specifically, he has not advanced gun rights, and has left some of the particularly nasty New Jersey law/rules in place.
I see that as a definite black mark against him. But it really is a state by state issue, so fuck New Jersey. The Supreme Court is already on the NRA side on these issues.
Posted by: wooga at March 03, 2011 05:30 PM (2p0e3)
Posted by: goldbricker esq at March 03, 2011 05:31 PM (S59+B)
Posted by: Dan at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (W+Irb)
Just like in 2010, right? What was it your dithering incompetent preening shithead leader said: this time, you've got him?
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (WRkXx)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (EA+s9)
I actually like making fun of both sides.
The hysteria of this pre-pre-pre-presidential-primary season is ridiculous.
I don't go to eleventy!!11!!!!!11!
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 09:27 PM (MMC8r)
--Let's try to avoid getting banned again. 
Posted by: logprof at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (nj1bB)
Not because he likes animals, mind youg, but because he really fucking hates plants.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: JackStraw at March 03, 2011 05:32 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at March 03, 2011 05:33 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: wildwood at March 03, 2011 05:33 PM (VSWPU)
Wait, Christie's only taken on one hugely entrenched interest in a deep blue state but he hasn't also taken a suicide run to change laws the people of his state actually like?
My God, you're right. The guy's an asshole.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 03, 2011 05:33 PM (HicGG)
Posted by: Ceiling at March 03, 2011 05:34 PM (YxGud)
Posted by: Chuck Norris meme is overdone at March 03, 2011 05:34 PM (3W1+C)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 05:34 PM (pcWke)
Posted by: Pat Fucking Cadell at March 03, 2011 05:34 PM (VMOPq)
Chris Christie took my mom out for a nice seafood dinner and then he never called her again.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 03, 2011 05:34 PM (Wh0W+)
It took Chris Christie a full 5 minutes to orgasm while masturbating to a picture of Sarah Palin.
RINO !!!11!!!
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 03, 2011 05:34 PM (WRW1S)
Posted by: Dan at March 03, 2011 05:35 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:35 PM (nj1bB)
The answer is no! Thankfully, I don't drink yellow liquids from flasks or beakers sitting on a lab bench.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 05:35 PM (W+Irb)
Posted by: USA at March 03, 2011 05:35 PM (YZISw)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:35 PM (EA+s9)
The person offering this argument knows China and India will never join Kyoto, and therefore there will never, then, be a "right time" to join Kyoto.
Read between the lines.
I offer again Palin's "the jury is still out" statement on global warming. Which was a good one. I liked it then, and I like Christie's version of it now. I'm consistent.
You seem surprised to see politics showing up in politics."
LOL. Nope, not surprised by politics from politicians, but we've been doing this between the lines policy nonsense since Kyoto, and here we are with the EPA implementing their own little Kyoto and us powerless to stop it. Yes, even though they've not been so gauche as to quibble openly about the science, Republicans are largely out of power in the fed gov.
Time to come out and say what we think and mean what we say, because if we can't persuade people to our point of view, we must eventually acquiesce to the majority in this (John Wayne voice) big, old democracy of ours.
Argue and persuade, don't obfuscate and drag feet. Policy discussion is the shell game of modern American politics.
Posted by: Ken at March 03, 2011 05:36 PM (3ar4L)
And we're trying to talk up somebody like him for President?!
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at March 03, 2011 05:36 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 05:37 PM (4ZxEW)
Posted by: goldbricker esq at March 03, 2011 05:37 PM (S59+B)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 09:35 PM (W+Irb)
I thought of you and your infamous lab mate when I saw that. I'd guess that every FarSide that has to do with labs is hanging around there, right?
Posted by: RushBabe at March 03, 2011 05:37 PM (urYpw)
Says it's the only way to fix both the Social Security and Energy crises at the same time.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:37 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:38 PM (MMC8r)
Independence and Non-existence are two different things, chuckles.
Born and raised are two different things.
And I REALLY thing you need to look up "crush."
Also, can you go find us 15 trillion bucks, we're kinda short.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 03, 2011 05:38 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: kidney at March 03, 2011 05:38 PM (3j6OS)
Posted by: CAC at March 03, 2011 05:39 PM (Gr1V1)
I'll just throw this shiite out there, when the "warmers" start talking about the earth's surface temperature rather than the atmosphere then maybe they will have something to listen to.
Posted by: Druid at March 03, 2011 05:39 PM (RnujI)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:39 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Ken at March 03, 2011 05:40 PM (3ar4L)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 03, 2011 05:40 PM (+61wI)
Posted by: Geronimo at March 03, 2011 05:40 PM (+C0Kq)
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:40 PM (MMC8r)
In his ass.
Posted by: goldbricker esq at March 03, 2011 05:40 PM (S59+B)
Posted by: kidney at March 03, 2011 05:41 PM (3j6OS)
Posted by: robtr at March 03, 2011 05:41 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 05:41 PM (bAySe)
Dude, from one who knows something about Washington politics (specifically Inhofe's committee) as well as administrative law, this shit ain't happening. Ever. I love having the issue kept alive (because it rallies the troops and royally pisses of moderates), but I'm going to level with you right now and tell you that the chances of the EPA actually regulating greenhouse gases in an executive-branch C&T runaround are non-existent. Never. Going. To Happen.
It's all for show right now. Show on both sides, really. Pure kabuki theater. If Obama ever actually tried (especially with the oil market looking as unstable as it does) he would be signing his death warrant -- and given that he's actually a better-than-even bet for reelection right now that would be particularly stupid.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (7utQ2)
Not my lab in particular, but in plenty of them.
The only FS cartoon I've seen my lab is the one with the devils yelling that somebody has turned down the thermostat. Guess where it's hanging up near?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (W+Irb)
He celebrated by fucking the teeth out of the Russian gymnastics team.
He felt bad. He melted his medal to make them new teeth.
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (EA+s9)
The final bodycount: ten dead pornstars and one honey badger.
Charlie Sheen refers to this as "The Night of the 300 Pound Ball of Death."
Christie refers to it as "Last Thursday."
(This is an homage to http://ace.mu.nu/archives/311434.php )
Posted by: wooga at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (2p0e3)
Posted by: wildwood at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 09:41 PM (bAySe)
Id like to see you try to push that
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 03, 2011 05:42 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:43 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: kidney at March 03, 2011 05:43 PM (3j6OS)
I'll take experimental physics for $1,000, Alex.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 03, 2011 05:43 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Barbarian
Yeah, I wasn't even listening... that word poping up out of nowhere sure caught my attention. She ain't gonna be invited back anytime soon.
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 05:43 PM (bAySe)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:44 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Krazy Kat at March 03, 2011 05:45 PM (oNphh)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:45 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: wildwood at March 03, 2011 05:45 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 05:46 PM (nj1bB)
I see that as a definite black mark against him. But it really is a state by state issue, so fuck New Jersey. The Supreme Court is already on the NRA side on these issues.
Posted by: wooga at March 03, 2011 09:30 PM (2p0e3)
Good points, and similar to the ones I tried to make. You are never going to get a candidate to please all the people all the time, even the ones predisposed to your side. I could support him in spite of his gun views, looking at a total package.
Even more importantly, Christie has said he is not ready for the presidency. I just don't see how he can walk that back. Not for 2012.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 03, 2011 05:46 PM (h0RtZ)
Posted by: CAC at March 03, 2011 05:46 PM (Gr1V1)
Posted by: nickless at March 03, 2011 05:46 PM (MMC8r)
And on needing more science on AGW, well, it would be nice if we all got actual science, not consensus opinion, cherry-picked data and James Cameron screaming at us.
Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 03, 2011 05:46 PM (h35AH)
Posted by: JackStraw at March 03, 2011 05:46 PM (TMB3S)
And I was never really on the Christie bandwagon, because he's fat and he's from NJ and I didn't think either would sell.
But he is good. Very, very good. Enough to overcome those.
But, he's not running.
yeah, It'd be more of a brisk walk at best.
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:47 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 03, 2011 05:47 PM (4ZxEW)
Posted by: Randall Flagg at March 03, 2011 05:48 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: CAC at March 03, 2011 09:46 PM (Gr1V1)
Thats no moon.
Posted by: Obi Chrisie at March 03, 2011 05:48 PM (FIDMq)
What do you think about Herman Cain? Have you seen that video of him debating Bill Clinton?
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 05:48 PM (bAySe)
Ace, scotch in the nasal cavities is painful, dammit.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 03, 2011 05:48 PM (7utQ2)
The difference with global warming is that the counter from the Left is, "yes, but what good is clean air if there's no one left to breathe it because climate change has caused the extinction of the human race?"
And the Left's counter to "we need to see more science" is, "Fine, but in the meantime, what will you be doing to make sure we don't all die in case the science confirms global warming?"
And the Left's counter to "I believe the carbon compact makes New Jersey less competitive" is "how competitive will New Jersey be when all humankind is dead because you didn't act to stop global warming?"
Those are all traps waiting to engulf Christie (and every other Republican).
Posted by: stuiec at March 03, 2011 05:49 PM (JuWS+)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:49 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 09:43 PM (bAySe)
Who was it?
And was she hot?
Posted by: logprof at March 03, 2011 05:49 PM (BP6Z1)
Thats no moon.
Posted by: Obi Chrisie at March 03, 2011 09:48 PM (FIDMq)
IT'S A TRAP!!!!!
And a damned big one.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 03, 2011 05:49 PM (7utQ2)
His views on the Arizona law would probably change after talking to Brewer and various Arizona law enforcement personnel. Well, obviously not Dupnik, but you know what I mean.
----------
My opinion is that Christie is the kind of guy to say "fuck off" to the base. Based on previous comments I do not think he would back down to the base.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at March 03, 2011 05:49 PM (c5RQr)
Kirsten Dunst is more likely to be mistaken for a pumpkin IMO.
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 03, 2011 05:50 PM (WRkXx)
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 09:48 PM (bAySe)
You know who never wins the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency? A guy with < 1% name recognition who has never held any elective office.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 03, 2011 05:51 PM (HicGG)
Posted by: Barbarian at March 03, 2011 05:51 PM (EL+OC)
Posted by: maddogg at March 03, 2011 05:51 PM (JxMqJ)
Nice enough, but not exactly qualified in any way, shape, or form to be President of the United States. I mean, he's a charismatic talk show host and former CEO, for god's sake. Nobody -- nobody serious, at least -- is going to want to vote for a man with exactly zero government experience for the highest job in the land.
He does seem to be a pretty cool guy, however. Never heard his radio show, though -- is it any good?
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:51 PM (NjYDy)
That should be on pay-per-view.
I'd pay $5 for a chance to try it myself.
Posted by: fluffy at March 03, 2011 05:51 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 05:52 PM (pcWke)
Sigh...I envy him.
Posted by: Mr. Creosote at March 03, 2011 05:52 PM (gJNMj)
Posted by: JackStraw at March 03, 2011 05:52 PM (TMB3S)
and he does
Then he leaves the seat up.
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 03, 2011 05:52 PM (WRkXx)
Nice enough, but not exactly qualified in any way, shape, or form to be President of the United States. I mean, he's a charismatic talk show host and former CEO, for god's sake. Nobody -- nobody serious, at least -- is going to want to vote for a man with exactly zero government experience for the highest job in the land.
He does seem to be a pretty cool guy, however. Never heard his radio show, though -- is it any good?
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 09:51 PM (NjYDy)
Lol. Tell that to Oprah.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 03, 2011 05:52 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 03, 2011 05:53 PM (WRW1S)
Posted by: USA at March 03, 2011 05:53 PM (YZISw)
Except for every Republican that has successfully run for office over the last 20 years, dude. These aren't exactly huge 'traps' you speak of. Even I could finesse them with comical ease, and I'm nobody's idea of a politician.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:53 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Charlie Sheen at March 03, 2011 05:54 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 05:54 PM (DKV43)
And the sweet daily rides on Air Force One....and the waffles....and the golf....and the vacays.....and all those hot soldiers at my command....*faints*
Posted by: Preznit Learning Curve at March 03, 2011 05:55 PM (UOM48)
Yeah, and that was just for the teachers.
You don't want to know what the kids had to eat.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 05:55 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 09:52 PM (pcWke)
I sort of do too but for different reasons. Actually I change my mind. Want him to stay. He will be giving his governorship up and it's a good postition for him.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at March 03, 2011 05:57 PM (c5RQr)
He does seem to be a pretty cool guy, however. Never heard his radio show, though -- is it any good?
Posted by: Jeff B.
What about Perot?
During the '92 election I was only a sophmore in H.S., but was rooting for him. And I did vote for him in '96 as my first cast vote at 19.
Am I not serious?
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 05:57 PM (bAySe)
Not liking where Christie stands on an issue has nothing to do with whether or not he could win the general election.
I'm pretty sure his record on gun rights through not vetoing legislation, appointing conservative judges, etc. will be better than the person who won 52% of the vote 2.5 years ago.
Posted by: Paper at March 03, 2011 05:58 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 09:55 PM (NjYDy)
All the crumbs from the bottom of the deep fat fryers?
Posted by: OleChristie at March 03, 2011 05:58 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Fritz at March 03, 2011 05:59 PM (/8mBu)
Posted by: Ezra "The Toddler" Klein, smirking and rolling his eyes at March 03, 2011 05:59 PM (vXwmy)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 06:01 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: gebrauchshund at March 03, 2011 06:02 PM (iYwUw)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 06:02 PM (nj1bB)
Ironic....
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at March 03, 2011 06:03 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 06:03 PM (EA+s9)
Posted by: Holger at March 03, 2011 06:03 PM (YxGud)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 03, 2011 06:03 PM (+61wI)
Posted by: Holger at March 03, 2011 06:05 PM (YxGud)
Posted by: Jimmy-joe at March 03, 2011 09:26 PM (6KaEq)
FOAD you marxist toadie.......
Posted by: crowsting at March 03, 2011 06:06 PM (1DPxx)
Posted by: wildwood at March 03, 2011 06:06 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 06:06 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: gesc at March 03, 2011 06:06 PM (pcWke)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 06:07 PM (EA+s9)
>>During the '92 election I was only a sophmore in H.S., but was rooting for him. And I did vote for him in '96 as my first cast vote at 19.
>>Am I not serious?
With all due respect, not really. I mean, if it was just a protest vote (the way I voted for Nader in 2000 because I lived in Maryland, my vote didn't matter anyway, and I wanted to be able to piss off liberals by saying "I voted for Nader" and having them assume I was a left-winger who threw the election) then no problem. But Perot was not an intellectually serious candidate, he was a flake. Especially in '96. In '92, before he dropped out (and then got back in), I could kinda/sorta see it -- again, as an expression of disgust with the other two options.
But there's a world of difference between voting third-party (and saying, in effect, "fuck the system") and voting to nominate a manifestly unqualified guy for President of your own party. That's a suicide run. I mean, how on earth can I argue that Palin is unqualified for the job (and she is) and then turn around and be okay with Herman Cain merely because he gives good speeches and is (let's face it, this is part of his appeal) African-American?
That sounds suspiciously like the "Obama criteria" to me, except in reverse (and Obama was at least a state legislator and U.S. Senator), and look how that turned out. Not just from a partisan perspective, either (it was a given that we conservatives were going to hate Obama's policies) but from an execution perspective: Obama, with little-to-no real experience in government, has been completely cackhanded in handling the duties of the job.
I like Herman Cain quite a bit from what I've seen of him. I would love to see him run for lower office, say governor or Senate or Congress. But he's not ready for the job of Commander in Chief. I'm done with argument-by-biography...we have hard times ahead and need someone who can do the heavy lifting.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 06:08 PM (NjYDy)
And that's all I got. 'Night, all.
Posted by: Jane D'oh is off to bed at March 03, 2011 06:08 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at March 03, 2011 10:03 PM (FYCiJ)
How? It'll go blue again. It's hard to beat an incumbent unless extremely unpopular like Corzine.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at March 03, 2011 06:08 PM (c5RQr)
Posted by: Al Sharpton at March 03, 2011 06:09 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 03, 2011 06:09 PM (WRW1S)
Okay this one was good.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 06:11 PM (NjYDy)
A little different than the SP situation was.
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 06:11 PM (EA+s9)
Posted by: Ben at March 03, 2011 06:11 PM (DKV43)
Posted by: Holger at March 03, 2011 06:12 PM (YxGud)
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 06:13 PM (EA+s9)
Another NYT piece ran on Christie "contrasting" him and Gov. Walker. The author of the articled did his best Andrew Sullivan on The Fat Man, while doing everything but calling Gov Walker a big meanie.
This will continue until and unless Christie moves right on some of the cloudy issues, thereby actually becoming a threat to Obama. Until then, they'll be content to bludgeon the rest of the field while holding him up as Reagan with a tummy.
Posted by: The Hammer at March 03, 2011 06:15 PM (32ubA)
Posted by: ace at March 03, 2011 06:16 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Museisluse at March 03, 2011 06:16 PM (u/Nbu)
Chris Christie likes handball, that's what.
Posted by: sifty at March 03, 2011 09:57 PM (EA+s9)
Handball, my ass. Chris Christie's gravitational pull sucked Pluto into his navel.
Posted by: stuiec at March 03, 2011 06:16 PM (JuWS+)
Posted by: Holger at March 03, 2011 06:17 PM (YxGud)
Chris Christie is only fast on his feet because he discovered at an early age that he preferred to chase his meat down and take it on the hoof rather than let someone do the dirty work for him.
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 06:19 PM (NjYDy)
Herman Cain versus Bill Clinton
I think he holds his own there. And its kinda freaky deaky hearing them debate Health Care reform.
Posted by: Serious Cat at March 03, 2011 06:21 PM (bAySe)
I agree with everything you said about the media and Christie. First, the adulation and "Why can't other Republicans be like him?" then comes election time (gov or other), and the disgusting personal attacks come. They did it to McCain, they'll do it to everyone. Usually adultery rumors, or in-office corruption, or they'll threaten his kids. We'll have to use alternative media to counteract that.
Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 03, 2011 06:21 PM (h35AH)
Posted by: Holger at March 03, 2011 06:28 PM (YxGud)
Meh, I guess it's an OK answer. The problem is that combined with his position on gun control, I get the feeling his primary policy motivation is fiscal reality and not principled philosophy of individual autonomy. So he always sounds like he's OK with the destruction of individual liberty and the enslaving of the entire world to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels as long as we can find a way to do it that won't destroy industry.
But then, like Palin, I don't think he'll run in 2012, so it's kind of moot.
Posted by: Muppet Fart at March 03, 2011 06:28 PM (pSscT)
It's a good video (I think it first surfaced a month or so ago, which is when I saw it), but it also doesn't have much in the way of fireworks or memorable lines. So it's kind of hard to run on, if you know what I mean.
As I said before, I have a lot of respect for Cain. He seems like a pretty sharp guy, and you can't argue with a good business background. But leaving aside questions of qualification for the job (and I do think that's HUGE), I also don't think his particular rhetorical style is what's going to succeed in this election. In order to take down Obama we're going to need somebody who can draw in swing voters and moderates, and the way to do that when facing an incumbent (especially in the current economic climate) is by adopting a 'smart, blunt, straightforward, likable' approach. That's why Christie is so alluring, of course, but I could see a lot of other candidates working that same line successfully (even, dare I say it...Huckabee).
Cain, at least what I've seen of him, seems to tend much more towards oratorical bombast...it gets my blood flowing because I loves me some red meat, but I don't see it convincing those who aren't already part of the choir.
Still, it's not like I wouldn't vote for him if he won the nomination. I just don't think he would be a winning candidate (or, frankly, that he would be able to do a good job as President...but fuck it, I still care more about defeating Obama. That's just how much of a partisan I am.)
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 06:28 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: mugiwara at March 03, 2011 06:37 PM (KI/Ch)
That being said, this site isn't worth reading. The dipshit doesn't understand that New Jersey isn't Montana. This is a state teetering between Republican and insanity. We are lucky enough to have a governor who understands this and has crafted a fiscal policy that is sane, but doesn't make the soccer moms run away.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 03, 2011 06:39 PM (LH6ir)
We are lucky enough to have a governor who understands this and has crafted a fiscal policy that is sane, but doesn't make the soccer moms run away.
This is the reason why women should never have been allowed to vote.
Posted by: Muppet Fart at March 03, 2011 06:47 PM (pSscT)
I have no desire to Palinize Christie, but I have to deal with reality. Maybe you can look into this issue of this "Muslim" judge appointment.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0111/emerson012011.php3
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 06:51 PM (5n4BK)
Why am I always late to the party?
Ace, what you have to understand is that there is a certain element of the GOP base that will do whatever they can to destroy and discredit any candidate who doesn't fit one or more of the following descriptions:
1) Is a Southerner
2) Is a rural type
3) Is an evangelical Christian
I seriously think this is because a certain segment of the Republican base thinks we need to have a Southern president in office so that the South can "rise again" and secede for real this time. And then there is another segment of the base that thinks an evangelical needs to be in office because the end times are a'comin' and only an evangelical will be able to recognize the Antichrist. And then there are the rural GOP voters, who think that any city boy is going to grab their guns.
So yes, there is a lot of cultural bias going on within the GOP base, and that is hurting the most electable, accomplished candidates while giving urban cowboys who learn to speak with a hick accent and strut while wearing cowboy boots a free pass.
Posted by: Dave at March 03, 2011 07:02 PM (PO5gQ)
Posted by: newrouter at March 03, 2011 07:06 PM (nfC5u)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 03, 2011 07:08 PM (TATbF)
I think this is a cheap ad-hominen strawman to avoid discussing the facts! If we want to keep our heads in the sand, then so be it! But don't pretend that we want to deal with reality.
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 07:13 PM (5n4BK)
I'm not going to bother to read the approximately 1200 comments to see if this has been addressed already, but it seems to me that the facts are that Christie is pro-low taxes, pro-life, pro-entitlement reform, pro-small government, pro-cutting government, is actually solid on the Gaia crap, and is opposed to ObamaCare (from what I've read elsewhere). What am I missing? That he's got the same position on guns as 70 percent of elected Republicans, and that Congress refuses to go near any new gun control laws, making the issue moot? That he's not going to load illegals onto trucks by gunpoint, similar to 90 percent of elected Republicans?
Posted by: Dave at March 03, 2011 07:21 PM (PO5gQ)
I seriously think this is because a certain segment of the Republican base thinks we need to have a Southern president in office so that the South can "rise again" and secede for real this time.
You mean they didn't secede "for real" the last time? Then what was all the cannon fire about? And how is a Southerner becoming the chief executive of the national government going to lead to his dissolution of that government?
Posted by: Muppet Fart at March 03, 2011 07:23 PM (pSscT)
Ace, what you have to understand is that there is a certain element of the GOP base that will do whatever they can to destroy and discredit any candidate who doesn't fit one or more of the following descriptions:
(1) Not for unrestricted abortions
(2) Gay marriage
(3) Anything goes libertarianism
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 07:24 PM (5n4BK)
And how is a Southerner becoming the chief executive of the national government going to lead to his dissolution of that government?
That's what I want to ask the Freeper types who perpetually shout "No Yankees!" whenever a Northeasterner is floated for prez.
(1) Not for unrestricted abortions
(2) Gay marriage
Good thing Christie is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage!
(3) Anything goes libertarianism
So you're saying you support government telling individuals what to do in their private lives? RINO!
Posted by: Dave at March 03, 2011 07:29 PM (PO5gQ)
Nice ad-hominen strawman again: the republicans want to load illegal onto trucks at gun point. When you have the facts on your side, you don't have to pull this dumb stunt! I was super excited about Christie when I first heard of him. Have followed him since. He is good with fiscal issues and a great communicator. But I have to take him at his words that he is a straightforward talking him who is willing to be honest about tough issues! He may be a grand strategist who is planning his future political career.
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 07:30 PM (5n4BK)
Posted by: Muppet Fart at March 03, 2011 11:23 PM (pSscT)
Forget it, he's rolling.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 03, 2011 07:31 PM (HicGG)
A man can do one of two things-
He can be governor of a very liberal Blue state, or he can be the Republican nominee for president.
Posted by: sartana at March 03, 2011 07:32 PM (EkNDr)
Yup, we should support parents killing disabled children and elderly under their care.
Hey Christie appointed a really questionable Muslim judge and he is soft on immigration. If he appointed another Souter, we are in great shape!
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 07:32 PM (5n4BK)
Posted by: Jeff B. at March 03, 2011 07:36 PM (NjYDy)
Yup, we should support parents killing disabled children and elderly under their care.
Now who's using strawmen? Libertarianism generally holds that one's life is their foremost piece of property, and therefore the state must act to protect each individual's property right over his or her life.
Hey Christie appointed a really questionable Muslim judge and he is soft on immigration. If he appointed another Souter, we are in great shape!
If the judge is a liberal judge then he should not have been appointed. But what does being a Muslim have anything to do with the judge's qualifications? I'd much rather have a conservative Muslim judge than a liberal Christian judge.
Posted by: Dave at March 03, 2011 07:40 PM (PO5gQ)
Forget it, he's rolling.
Heh. :-)
That's what I want to ask the Freeper types who perpetually shout "No Yankees!" whenever a Northeasterner is floated for prez.
I don't really hang out over at FR, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say they're reacting against candidates from New England because New England is the source of the corrupt form of Puritan social philosophy that became modern nanny-state Liberalism. It's come to the point that many people are innately suspicious of politicians from New England. I can't say I blame them.
Posted by: Muppet Fart at March 03, 2011 07:41 PM (pSscT)
Posted by: Zimriel at March 03, 2011 07:46 PM (oKPnU)
If the state doesn't take care of the disabled children/elderly, why does it force the individuals to bear the burden? We should give them the freedom to terminate these burdensome lives?
Moreover, there is a certain segment of libertarianism (eg. Ron Paul) that borders on anti-semitism for example.
If the judge is a liberal judge then he should not have been appointed. But what does being a Muslim have anything to do with the judge's qualifications? I'd much rather have a conservative Muslim judge than a liberal Christian judge.
I gave you the link here to see why this appointment is troublesome. What you are doing here is simply making some general excuse! That 's what I call avoiding to look for the facts.
www.jewishworldreview.com/0111/emerson012011.php3
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 07:47 PM (5n4BK)
Posted by: 4rc at March 03, 2011 07:52 PM (C38jd)
Moreover, there is a certain segment of libertarianism (eg. Ron Paul) that borders on anti-semitism for example.
Libertarianism is not anti-Semitic, dude.
Isn't this sort of similar to that age-old debate tactic of comparing your opponents to Hitler?
Posted by: Dave at March 03, 2011 07:55 PM (PO5gQ)
Isn't this sort of similar to that age-old debate tactic of comparing your opponents to Hitler?
I am using your logic or phraseology here! There is a "certain segment" of the libertarian base (eg. Ron Paul) that borders on anti-semitism. I didn't say libertarianism in general. I used your term "certain segment"!
Posted by: LAI at March 03, 2011 07:57 PM (5n4BK)
That's the good reason, but random voters don't know it. They just know that people who self-identify as Eastern or New Englander or whatever, as distinct from American, are assholes.
What was most disturbing to me when I transplanted there from Western Civilization was that even the most mundane daily transactions required me to know a guy so I'd be allowed to participate in them without getting fucked. I do know some guys, so I managed, but being bound up in favor and owed-ness all the time is barbaric, so I bailed.
If you're used to living in, like, a capitalist republic, it's a shockingly corrupt society in comparison. And its politicians are its worst people, because they're its most bound. They're DQ'ed.
Posted by: oblig. at March 03, 2011 08:09 PM (xvZW9)
What about Haley Barbour?
Seems like a sharp guy, but he can't be elected since people like Dave think he's going to fire on Fort Sumter. Or spend all his time courting the Widder Hen. One of the two.
Posted by: Muppet Fart at March 03, 2011 08:40 PM (pSscT)
The Dems already consider him a threat, hence the racism crap they tried a few months ago. Actually, they started doing that in April last year according to a quick search.
Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 03, 2011 08:48 PM (h35AH)
Even more importantly, Christie has said he is not ready for the presidency. I just don't see how he can walk that back. Not for 2012.
All he has to say is, "Now I'm ready to run for the presidency."
"That was then, this is now." easy peezy
Posted by: Oz at March 03, 2011 08:53 PM (J74Py)
A man can do one of two things-
He can be governor of a very liberal Blue state, or he can be the Republican nominee for president.
You tell 'em, sailor!
Posted by: Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower at March 03, 2011 11:09 PM (WRW1S)
The truth of the matter is that we know very little about him outside of NJ. What we do know is he likes to address teacher groups and bash the unions. He has also halted the growth of government in NJ. There I think he was more like WI in that financial death was staring them in the face.
We have consistent rumors, all based on his rhetoric, that he is pro gun control, weak on border control, and in favor of the Muzzies (the last based on a judge appointment).
The fact of the matter is that we know very little about him at all. He is a NE politician in a very liberal State. That is strike 1 in the SC primary. If there is even a hint of gun control wishy-washiness that is strike 2 and 3 in the SC primary. If you add in the other rumors on the Muzzies he is dead.
But, as I said we really don't know what his position is. If you go to the "On The Issues" site his slate is almost totally blank. Even the rhetoric on issues is missing. So far what we can say is that he is a strong fiscal con, at least for NJ, and he is not afraid to stand up to the unions. (On that score I would love to see him go after them on the right to work issue, at least for the public service employees.)
I have not written him off my list yet, but he really is not ready for the Presidential Primaries because he has no record.
Posted by: Vic at March 04, 2011 12:47 AM (M9Ie6)
A person who does not trust citizens with their Second Amendment rights is not to be trusted, period.
Posted by: tarpon at March 04, 2011 01:25 AM (g0QB8)
"403
So something Palin says is only intelligent if it's been parroted by Chris Christie?
Posted by: sartana at March 03, 2011 11:29 PM (EkNDr)"
Everytime Ace gets his shorts in a knot, that's what comes down the thread.OH NOOOOES, anybody but that Palin woman.
I'll stick with Sarah.
Posted by: Blacksmith8 at March 04, 2011 02:15 AM (Q1qy3)
"But what does being a Muslim have anything to do with the judge's qualifications? "
Dave, here's your sign buddy.
I'm not going to address that stupidity about a conservative moose-limb judge as opposed to a liberal moose-limb judge. I live in the real world.
Posted by: Blacksmith8 at March 04, 2011 02:21 AM (Q1qy3)
Posted by: kasper at March 04, 2011 02:48 AM (+pMZ4)
Ike was a governor?
I can see why you've chosen the name you have.
Posted by: sartana at March 04, 2011 02:55 AM (EkNDr)
Posted by: marine43 at March 04, 2011 03:03 AM (MrFj8)
Posted by: D. at March 04, 2011 03:14 AM (plSrP)
>>>I've never really bought into the position that the public as a whole is irretrievably stupid and they need to be lied to in order to get things done
Really? Did you go to bed early on November 4, 2008?
That was a liberal thing done on that day. The public *does* generally need to be lied to, blatantly and repeatedly, in order to get those things done. And it was.
Oh noes! He doesn't think that crazy people should be able to purchase guns or that we all need to own grenade launchers!
I seriously think this is because a certain segment of the Republican base thinks we need to have a Southern president in office so that the South can "rise again" and secede for real this time.
That he's not going to load illegals onto trucks by gunpoint, similar to 90 percent of elected Republicans?
So Eastern Seaboard Republicans think flyover country Republicans won't vote for any candidate not endorsing grenade launcher ownership, secession, and mass deportations at gunpoint? That's a level of clueless stereotyping I expect to see in a Barbara Boxer fundraising email, not at AOSHQ. And Eastern Seaboard Republicans actually wonder why people everywhere else are so cautious about the Republican politicians from their states.
Christie may be good on spending, *if* he can translate what he's done in his state to the Federal level - a trick he'd have to pull without the line-item veto he has as NJ governor. But we've elected at least one President in recent decades that was sterling on one issue and a squish on most others. That didn't work out so well for us (the Clean Air Act/EPA, Title IX and EEOA For Great Quotas, the ABM treaty, wage and price controls, the last bullet in the head of the gold standard, et multiple cetera).
Posted by: Chris Christie Back Hair Lace Wigs at March 04, 2011 03:38 AM (x7XSq)
Posted by: The Voice of Reason at March 04, 2011 04:11 AM (UpqKo)
To some dumb ass cons - being a true conservative = blind adherence to all things right wing. The same "conservatives" usually help us blow the general election because they spread the purity bullshit and eventually other idiots buy into it.
Newsflash: No matter who we get to run against Obama - ---that person won't be perfect or good enough for the pure "conservative".
Sometimes conservatives differ on items like the environment, abortion, etc... Get over it.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at March 04, 2011 05:14 AM (0fzsA)
I437 - I agree.
Christie knows how to articulate and lower the boom. The other R candidates could learn from Christie. Lately, Mit Romney, who I will support if he were to win the nomination, is acting and sounding like John McCain. We don't need the same old same old. We don't want "my friends" pussy talk.We need a backbone of steel.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at March 04, 2011 05:21 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: polynikes at March 04, 2011 05:26 AM (R9YVs)
Posted by: polynikes at March 04, 2011 05:29 AM (R9YVs)
Put another way: When conservatives whine "My candidate didn't win the nomination.. so I'll show you, I'm going to stay home and pout..." will give us 4 more years of Obozo.
I will support whoever wins the R nomination. Even if that person is more "liberal" on social issues. Purity cons can stfu.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at March 04, 2011 05:40 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: polynikes at March 04, 2011 05:57 AM (R9YVs)
Posted by: Jaynie59 at March 04, 2011 06:01 AM (/f9MS)
Good point. There is a certain segment of the Rep party that would rather see Obama win if Palin were to be the nominee. I agree with the sentiment that Purity cons such as the GOProud crowd can stfu! National security and judicial appointment are probably the 2 most important functions of the presidency. With his questionable appointment of a "radical" Muslim judge, Christie can deliver a long term damage to national security if he becomes the president. We should heed Ace's admonition to deal with reality!
Posted by: LAI at March 04, 2011 06:05 AM (R4ub4)
Great to see you pick this up. Thanks Ace.
Russ Cote
bayshoreteaparty.org
Posted by: Russ Cote at March 04, 2011 06:07 AM (K0sB6)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 04, 2011 06:46 AM (vA9ld)
Ace,
If CC stated he needed more "science' to convince him, why did he veto a LNG platform off the NJ coast to protect the 'environment'? Are NYC needles that delicate that they need protecting? How about the 1000 + high paying jobs associated with said platform? True conservatives do not debase oneself before the environment, we are aware that God gave us stewardship over the environment. I'da prefered he signed a bill allowing the LNG company to be protected from frivolous Green lawsuits and the money NOT spent on litigation to be used to oh, I don't know IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THE PIPELINE.
I voted for him, and would vote for him at either level, State or Fed. But he really has more moderate views than conservative ones........just ask AG Dow, who ran the most corrupt, incompetent DEMOCRAT Prosecutors office in the country, with a darn near %99 fail to convict rate, massive issues in the ME's office and evidence simply disapearring due to staff incompetencies. Sounds like a promotion track to me!!! And his comments about LOVING collective bargaining over civil service show a true lack of understanding of the public employee issue. It was unionization and ciollective bargaining that destroyed the underlying principle of civil service.
As for his legislative actions, Scott Walker has done more legislatively in 3 months than CC has done in over a year.
Posted by: NJ Mike at March 04, 2011 07:12 AM (Y6Z5q)
I wouldn't hold this against him. He also said that as long as it is adversarial, ie there is a real adversary on the side to bargain with. THis is probably a "smart" rhetoric to appeal to the other side and to point out the corruption of the current so-called collective bargaining. The judge appointment is the most troubling to me. His rhetoric on immigration is soft, but I haven't seen any big red flags in terms of action yet. But it is possible that he would go for amnesty.
Posted by: LAI at March 04, 2011 07:21 AM (R4ub4)
More science needed? How about any?
The foundation of Simulated Climate Science is Beer's Law, ca. 1798, long before Kirchoff, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, and Feynman. If this humble computer engineer, one of tens of thousands, has reviewed Jimbo Hansen's Fortran 77 code and algorithms and calls it all out fraud why are politicians looking for more science?
My furnace guy(installing one two weeks back) explained it all perfectly. Heat cannot move from a cold to a warm body.
Palin's weak comment of 2 year's back does not make Christie's more recent comment wise.
Apologetics fail, quit digging.
Posted by: gary gulrud at March 04, 2011 07:25 AM (/g2vP)
448. NJMike "As for his legislative actions, Scott Walker has done more legislatively in 3 months than CC has done in over a year."
Christie has got one reliable punching bag, Teacher's Unions, and a handful of low-hanging fruit veto targets. He cannot save a state with a $100 billion dollar, off-budget pension bomb set to blow as boomers retire.
Walker can save WI with the best funded pension program in the nation if he saves local governments from collective bargaining over pensions and benefits. Their taxes stand at 4th highest.
That said 21% of state's revenues are going to Medicare/Medicaid, before Obamacare adds 30 million to the rolls.
Posted by: gary gulrud at March 04, 2011 07:41 AM (/g2vP)
451.
A good place to start on the budget issue would be to enact a profit sharing plan ala Palin and the Alaska Natural resources board and the Oil co's vis-a-vis the LNG platform.
Economic activity will help, not totally fix the problem and he seems to refuse to:
Lower the corporate/business tax rate. He had a great opportunity to do so but blew it again. Last week he came out against the UEZ(urban enterprise zone) program by saying it was too bureaucratically confusing........well, since the UEZ's are the left's baby, would it not have been better to say.......
"Since the left KNOWS that lower taxes will stimulate economic activity in urban areas, and since NJ has the population density that each and every county(even Sussex, Warren, Gloucester, Cape May) IS an urban area, I am going to extend the borders of the UEZ here in NJ from the Delaware River on the West to the Atlantic Ocean on the East and halve the state sales tax to 3.5%"
Hello PA, NY & CT shoppers!!!!!!!
Well, I am outa here since it is actually nice enough to hit the driving range today. I hope everyone has a nice weekend, and a better week.
NJ Mike.
Posted by: NJ Mike at March 04, 2011 08:13 AM (Y6Z5q)
Posted by: Vyceroy at March 04, 2011 08:14 AM (h3U2l)
Is this the standard argument from the Palin-haters?
Posted by: LAI at March 04, 2011 08:34 AM (R4ub4)
In fact, I am with ACES. WE don't need to Palinize our candidates even though we have to deal with reality. Many attacks against Palin from our side, esp. from the Palin haters, are no different from the vindictive civility of the left.
Posted by: LAI at March 04, 2011 08:42 AM (R4ub4)
453. "I'm so tired of the Vindictive Purists. "
Ace, and his molls, playing the "Purist" card is about as arresting as Eugene Robinson playing his "Race" card, and engenders about the same degree of contrite repentance.
The assumption that someone like CC can bring in NY, NJ, CT, MA and DE come 2012 is pure fantasy.
Posted by: gary gulrud at March 04, 2011 08:50 AM (/g2vP)
Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:28 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:30 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:31 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:34 AM (nj1bB)
458. A3147 and S2250, bills in NJ will need a bit more than reservation on RGGI from the governor who has his sights set on $65 million in revenue he wishes to spend other than on clean energy as directed.
Now if you want to actually meet the issue head on, perhaps we'll be more careful in assuming CC's reticence today is consistent with his tepid skepticism of a year ago.
Should you get a committment of the governor to repeal, and concomitant blistering emotion, we will consider an apology.
Posted by: gary gulrud at March 04, 2011 10:27 AM (/g2vP)
457. If not for his appeal to East Coast elites, I find no real to Red Amerikkka in an executive skilled at working in opposition to a Dimmi legistature.
We are expecting to take back the Senate, are we not, without losing more than a handful in the House?
Why not look for an innovative leader rather than a lawyer filling in as brinkman?
Posted by: gary gulrud at March 04, 2011 10:41 AM (/g2vP)
Just what America needs: another president bleating "religion of peace" and enabling the stealth jihad, while gutting the Second Amendment. Christie's just a liberal who wants a balanced budget.
As for "Climate Change" and listening to both sides, since when does one have to prove a negative? The Gorebots have been demonstrated as being nothing but whores cooking the data to collect gub'ment research grants. They have no credibility and haven't proven their point.
Posted by: Godless Infidel at March 04, 2011 12:56 PM (tsI0t)
Posted by: James13 at March 04, 2011 01:58 PM (n/UQk)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 05, 2011 07:20 AM (vA9ld)
Chris Christie is a RINO
I live in NJ and you need to read this.
http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-part-1
I'm all in for SarahCuda 2012
Posted by: catman at March 05, 2011 08:36 AM (cKQxu)
Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 01:28 PM (nj1bB)
When the dems start picking their POTUS candidates from OK, AL, and TX so they can win the AL-*type* voters in Miss and SC you might have a point
But the dream of the NE republicans that this time PA will fall has been going on for more years than I can remember. Philly basically makes PA a lost cause and to get a candidate that is good enough to win over Philly would require you to open up your flank in places like VA, IN and NC.
which come to think of it. Is exactly what happened in 2008. By going for the center or the NJ*type of republican the GOP allowed Obama to open up new flanks in places like IN, VA and NC as he ran as the CONSERVATIVE candidate in those places........now with Obama's record now he might not be able to have an ability to be the blank candidate in those places this time around. But he can and will be able to go for those center type of NJ*type of voters and with the black vote in the South, the lack of interest by conservartives will still make some of those states "inplay" while really gaining the GOP nothing.
It would be better to run a candidate that engages those conservative voters locking up those conservative states securing our flank and then go for those conservative type of voters on the issues in places where Obama is weak like the Upper Midwest totally writng off the NE for another generation or so until the liberal policies they have voted for make them cry out for conservative principles...
Posted by: unseen at March 05, 2011 12:09 PM (gOK8Y)
WTF Ace? You want to claim we should support a Christie run for president because his immigration views and gun control views are allegedly limited to NJ?
Do you understand when he is president it's over the entire country? Apparently not. Folks like myself have serious doubts about him running for president because of those views. If he is just paying lip service to win in NJ, I'm not sure I'd trust him enough to vote for him even if he said he supported 1070 or repealing gun laws.
This is pretty basic. If you want to blow him and swallow, fine. Don't get mad at me because I don't.
Yes, I held my nose and voted for McCain. If need be I could do it for Christie. I'm hoping we have a better candidate than Christie, tho.
West? Cain?
Posted by: Hard Right at March 05, 2011 06:06 PM (coTNv)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 1.5193 seconds, 587 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: USA at March 03, 2011 04:39 PM (YZISw)