gm tom

That's right Ricky, Republicans are all evil!

Tom, I've said that there is a core of irrationality. Not that anyone is evil.
And i admire Christie .... so how does that jibe with your caricature?

gm tom

Democrats on the other hand, they are even tempered, rational people who care about us so much, not a bad egg among them

I am aware of many democrats who I consider corrupt, or incompetent... However, they haven't taken over the party with an irrational crusade.

gm tom

Yes, idiocracy fits us quite well quite often!

Well, I guess you'd know best.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Ricky, I am so glad you brought up Christie. I personally love the man. I think he is a wonderful politician. Why? Because he tells the truth, even at the expense of his political career. For that reason, he is as rare A dodo bird as ever there was. Unfortunately, he's fat. And for that reason alone, he will not have a chance.

OK, I've got to stop you here. First, Christie had the lapband surgery a few months ago: he is rapidly losing weight.

Second, he does not tell the truth any more than any other political animal, and he's told unbelievable doozys. Did you know that there is an election for Senator tomorrow in New Jersey, to replace Lautenberg? Do you know who set up an election on Wednesday in the middle of October? Christie. Because "he didn't want to cause confusion among the electorate," he said. Bull. NJ is spending like $10,000,000 on an election taking place three weeks before regular election day to make things simpler for the electorate? Crazy that anyone would even have the guts to say that it was anything other than a baldfaced political move. Christie did this solely to decrease turnout, and thereby favor the Republican. He didn't say that, though. Yet you think he tells the truth.

Christie is a former prosecutor and that's how he operates. If you're against him, you're dead and he will crush you. He will lie if it favors his position and he can get away with it. Since he rules by fear he is able to tell bigger and bigger lies as he becomes politically more powerful.

Go ahead; read about how awesome he is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/nyregion/43-count-indictment-of-a-christie-ally-quashed.html

geojanes wrote: Christie did this solely to decrease turnout, and thereby favor the Republican.

I disagree with this. At least in that his goal isn't to decrees turnout in the Senatorial election. He wanted to keep the Senatorial election separate from the Gubernatorial election so that Booker's popularity doesn't increase Democratic turn out and decrease in margin of victory over Buono.

The thought is a large double digit reelection victory in solidly blue New Jersey makes him a serious consideration and possible front runner for 2016.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

geojanes wrote: Christie did this solely to decrease turnout, and thereby favor the Republican.

I disagree with this. At least in that his goal isn't to decrees turnout in the Senatorial election. He wanted to keep the Senatorial election separate from the Gubernatorial election so that Booker's popularity doesn't increase Democratic turn out and decrease in margin of victory over Buono.

The thought is a large double digit reelection victory in solidly blue New Jersey makes him a serious consideration and possible front runner for 2016.

You're probably right about that. It makes sense that he would be more concerned with his own election and less about the Senate. Either way, though, it was a naked political move that had nothing to do with "voter confusion" as he claimed.

Thank you geo, I love redscape for any number of reasons. Just when I think I have some footing along comes a challenge to my position. Always learning here. I read the NY Times and the WS Journal regularly, however, I always turn to redscape to get the scoop. In fact I trust this group for news and opinions long before any other publication.

Because of your post I am determined to look more closely at Christie.


dag

geojanes wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:

geojanes wrote: Christie did this solely to decrease turnout, and thereby favor the Republican.

I disagree with this. At least in that his goal isn't to decrees turnout in the Senatorial election. He wanted to keep the Senatorial election separate from the Gubernatorial election so that Booker's popularity doesn't increase Democratic turn out and decrease in margin of victory over Buono.

The thought is a large double digit reelection victory in solidly blue New Jersey makes him a serious consideration and possible front runner for 2016.

You're probably right about that. It makes sense that he would be more concerned with his own election and less about the Senate. Either way, though, it was a naked political move that had nothing to do with "voter confusion" as he claimed.

The explanation that I heard is that he wants to improve the Republican party vote in the legislature so that he can better implement his agenda. (What Geo said.)

Any which way, I think most people can see through the inefficiency associated with this sort of partisanship. I still like Christie (whatever he weighs), but it does take him down a notch in my book.

The Star-Ledger's endorsement of Christie has to be the worst endorsement of a candidate ever:

Balance that against his measurable failures, and you have to conclude he is much better at politics than he is at governing.

The property tax burden has grown sharply on his watch. He is hostile to low-income families, raising their tax burden and sabotaging efforts to build affordable housing. He’s been a catastrophe on the environment, draining $1 billion from clean energy funds and calling a cease-fire in the state’s fight against climate change.

The governor’s claim to have fixed the state’s budget is fraudulent. New Jersey’s credit rating has dropped during his term, reflecting Wall Street’s judgment that he has dug the hole even deeper. He has no plan to finance transit projects and open space purchases now that he has nearly drained the dedicated funds he inherited from Gov. Jon Corzine.

His ego is entertaining, but it’s done damage as well. By removing two qualified justices from the Supreme Court without good cause, he threatened the independence of judges at all levels, and provoked a partisan stalemate that has left two vacant seats on the high court. This was a power grab gone wrong.

Holy cow, what language! Imagine his opponent!

More here http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/10/the_star-ledger_endorsement_ch.html

Curious. Given the house of cards that the GOP has become and in light of the Tea Party stranglehold of the Republican Party, who do you think is the best foot forward for Republicans Geo? and why?

geojanes wrote:Holy cow, what language! Imagine his opponent!]

I don't have to imagine her. I see the commercials on tv all the time and my wife is a NJ school teacher.

I love Chris Christie.

Geo, can't we call a 60% in favor of the man a CHRISTIE MANDATE? Granted only 98% of the vote is in at the moment but still, can that many people be wrong in your view?

He just blew the doors off the competition.

If he keeps losing weight he might give Ryan and the far right a run for their tea stained money.

Christie did well among Hispanics and relatively well (compared to other Republicans) amongst African Americans. The challenge for Christie will be the primaries; he's got my support.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Geo, can't we call a 60% in favor of the man a CHRISTIE MANDATE? Granted only 98% of the vote is in at the moment but still, can that many people be wrong in your view?

He just blew the doors off the competition.

If he keeps losing weight he might give Ryan and the far right a run for their tea stained money.

Sure, he has a mandate. I wasn't saying he was worse than his opponent. I'm not surprised at all. He's popular! It's not so much that he's an able administrator or great statesman, but because he's a strong leader and a Jersey guy (don't discount this last bit.) Considering recent NJ governors since Whitman (Corzine, McGreevey and someone else I can't even remember) you can see why the state gets behind him. He's a real personality. I can see why you like him even though he's not from your state.

This doesn't change any of the facts stated previously. Leaders have flaws. His are pretty big, but they may be surmountable.

Worthwhile read of Christie's possible future:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/11/hugs-for-chris-christie-his-second-term-as-governor-of-new-jersey-and-beyond.html

This has been quite a week for Christie. “Double Down,” a new book on the 2012 campaign, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, gives some sense of his strengths as a political player. But it also suggests that we know very little about his weaknesses: he didn’t make it through the Romney campaign’s Vice-Presidential vetting, in large part because he stalled in answering their questions—about his health, his finances, his expense accounts, his personal life. Romney, according to the book, thought that Christie was acting like a character out of “The Sopranos” when he told him to ante up for a possible endorsement by promising not to raise money in New Jersey.

People are flawed. Christie is flawed. Can he overcome his flaws? In the northeast, I'm sure he can. I'm not sure how he'll play elsewhere where they may have higher standards.

Well, I guess Christie would be the least objectionable Republican. Although, the abuse of power allegations against his attorney general's office detailed in that NY Times article are troubling and sound somewhat Nixon-like. But the alternatives in the Republican Party are so awful that he is far above the competition for me...Of course, I would vote for Hillary...

geojanes wrote:People are flawed. Christie is flawed. Can he overcome his flaws? In the northeast, I'm sure he can. I'm not sure how he'll play elsewhere where they may have higher standards.

Well, in the northeast he'd have the problem that the likely Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton (age is no more a factor than it was for Reagan).

One thing I note is that Romney was in a similar place to Christie: GOP governor of a 'blue' state, reputation for reaching across the aisle, national profile, reputation for getting stuff done and taking on an entrenched opposition.

Major difference being, of course, that Romney stepped down (and was not all that popular in Mass by the end of his term) and spent five years running for President, while Christie went for re-election and is still popular.

He might be more strategically looking at a run in 2020 after another full term, but that means banking on a Democrat win.