Christie: I Would Have Fun With Jeb Bush On Campaign Trail

IMHO this statement is either

... Christie knows his own ship is sunk because of Bridge-gate and his own nasty attitude so he's trying to cling to the new assumed frontrunner, Jeb, maybe with himself as a VP choice

.... or Christie is too thick to understand that he's no longer 'the man' with the Republicans so this is just more of his bravado in thinking he is really 'the man' for 2016 and that Jeb would be an okay VP pick for himself.

.... or this is a signal from him that New Jersey and Florida need to get together to get the electoral votes needed for a 2016 run ... so Christie is looking for a Bush/Christie ticket or a Christie/Bush ticket.

BETCHYA it's a signal about a Christie/Bush ticket.
And no, I wouldn't vote for that.
I'd be tempted (only tempted) with a Guiliani/Rand Paul ticket.
But not Christie or Bush.

Christie: I Would Have Fun With Jeb Bush On Campaign Trail

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are both said to be considering a 2016 GOP presidential run, and Christie says he would have fun with his friend on the campaign trail if both toss their hats in the ring.

"You don't like to run against people who are your friends. You'd rather run against people you don't like. It's easier," Christie told Bob Schieffer in an interview aired Sunday on "Face the Nation." Schieffer talked to Christie as part of the Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit in Washington, D.C.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think that he's actually that thick.

Or, he thinks that the average attention span of the American voter is less time than it took me to type this...and that many will have forgotten "bridgegate" by this time next year.

Bush/Christie? Or Christie/Bush?

Hopefully the GOP has more to offer than a Bush, and an idiot. There are some good young Governors in some big states that are much better choices. Just like the Dems have better choices than Clinton and whoever...

It's up to us to make sure that happens.

originally posted by: seagull
Hopefully the GOP has more to offer than a Bush,....

I'm thinking ... not. Anyone who might be someone good can't get past the upper layer of those playing the game ... Christie, Bush, that yahoo from Texas Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal (who at one time I thought was pretty good but then he quickly endorsed Rick Perry). I"m seeing no one .... maybe Guiliani and maybe Rand Paul ... but Rand Paul hasn't got a chance of getting past the big guns at the top.

Rick Perry and Guiliani, a good setup to throw the election. Maybe they will bring Palin back.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
... Christie knows his own ship is sunk because of Bridge-gate and his own nasty attitude so he's trying to cling to the new assumed frontrunner, Jeb, maybe with himself as a VP choice

Frankly, as a New Jersey resident, I am more upset with him not getting our property taxes lowered as he campaigned upon over that whole bridge fiasco. All he managed to do was prevent them from going up as much as they were, they are still far to high (#2 behind Connecticut).

There is no one on either side who is particularly appealing at this point. I would sooner vote for a pile of cinder blocks as they would do less damage.

To think Christie having had nothing to do with the so called "bridge gate" fiasco is laughable and to imagine another Bush in office is even more depressing.

I'm still open to someone, anyone to say something that doesn't remind me of todays corrupt government...but then they would have to be something other then a politician .

I'll take Scott Walker\Ben Carson for 500 Alex!

a reply to: FlyersFan

Barf!!!!!!! Just thinking that these 2 morons would be front runners makes me sick.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It doesn't matter how much "fun" Chris Christie has with Jeb Bush or any of the other current GOP presidential hopefuls. Unless you're just looking forward to more of the same "fun" and LOL moments we got to experience during the last GOP debates between Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, just to name a few.

Apparently, the GOP and their shrinking base of supporters are confusing their ability to win local races in gerrymandered districts with the crazy notion that their party and it's present day platform has a fart's chance in a hurricane of winning another election on a national scale.

The way you're going now, I'd bet money that the GOP doesn't regain the White House in my lifetime and it's doesn't matter who you pick out of your mixed bag of nuts to head up the ticket. At this point in time, I doubt that any of the current GOP frontrunners could beat Pee-wee Herman, if he were to decide to run against them.

The absolute insanity that has been openly demonstrated by the GOP over the last 5 1/2 yrs. has served as a "wake-up-call" for the american electorate at large, even alienating large demographics of their own party who once viewed themselves as staunch supporters of the GOP.

You can't be against everybody and then expect everybody to support you come election time. It just ain't gonna happen.

a reply to: Flatfish

Shrinking base of supporters? Have you looked at the Dems numbers lately? Just as bad, if not worse.

Odds are, and it's up in the air as to whether or not it's a good thing, the GOP will control both houses of Congress next go around.

If they don't, it'll be a close run thing...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Flatfish

Shrinking base of supporters? Have you looked at the Dems numbers lately? Just as bad, if not worse.

Odds are, and it's up in the air as to whether or not it's a good thing, the GOP will control both houses of Congress next go around.

If they don't, it'll be a close run thing...

Funny that you would say that, I just got through reading this thread posted yesterday and it depicts a little different scenario.

Democratic Party Still Seen More Favorably Than GOP - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Flatfish

I suppose it depends upon the source...doesn't it?

I'd just as soon shut down both their houses, but that's just me. I've little to no dog in this bipartisan "debate"...as a life long conservative democrat (yes, we exist, though we're rarer than Bigfoot...), that party left me behind long ago. ...and the GOP, other than Reagan sort of, has never found me.

So I end up being somewhere in the hinterlands of political irrelevancy. I vote my conscience, which is all I can do.

America needs a third Bush!

Because "no new taxes" and a 7,200 Dow was not enough.

a reply to: macman

IMHO ... not that anyone cares but it's my thread so I'll say it anyways ...

Dems best choice - Bill Richardson
Republicans best choice - Guiliani with Rand Paul

But I wouldn't vote for anyone of them either.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Flatfish

I suppose it depends upon the source...doesn't it?

I'd just as soon shut down both their houses, but that's just me. I've little to no dog in this bipartisan "debate"...as a life long conservative democrat (yes, we exist, though we're rarer than Bigfoot...), that party left me behind long ago. ...and the GOP, other than Reagan sort of, has never found me.

So I end up being somewhere in the hinterlands of political irrelevancy. I vote my conscience, which is all I can do.

I too got "suckered" into supporting Reagan, the first time. After witnessing his handling of the PATCO dispute, I forever regretted making that vote. That being said, the GOP wouldn't even let Reagan in the house today, much less elect him to office.

Regarding the thread and polls I source linked in my previous post, there is one thing that I believe many are ignoring. That thing is the fact that, much like ObamaCare polls, many of the disapproval votes cast by Democrats are due to the fact that they feel like their representatives haven't gone far enough to promote our agenda and combat the never-ending lunacy coming from the other side of the isle.

a reply to: Flatfish

Regarding the thread and polls I source linked in my previous post, there is one thing that I believe many are ignoring. That thing is the fact that, much like ObamaCare polls, many of the disapproval votes cast by Democrats are due to the fact that they feel like their representatives haven't gone far enough to promote our agenda and combat the never-ending lunacy coming from the other side of the isle.

You may, or may not, be right. However, how does calling the other side of the aisle lunatics, or their ideas lunacy; help matters any?

This is what the political dialogue has devolved to in the U.S., and the rest of the world, these days. Instead of discussing the issue, whatever the issue; it devolves into "never the twain shall meet", rather than "hey, let's meet in the middle, and see what we can come up with."

I, quite frankly, have grown increasingly frustrated with it. ...and angry. Did I mention frustrated?

Rampant, unbending ideology, from both sides, yours included; will not solve anything. Will meeting in the middle? Maybe not, but we won't know until we try, will we?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: macman

IMHO ... not that anyone cares but it's my thread so I'll say it anyways ...

Dems best choice - Bill Richardson
Republicans best choice - Guiliani with Rand Paul

But I wouldn't vote for anyone of them either.

In case you forgot, Giuliani has a medical disability called 9-11 tourette syndrome. Back in the good old days of vinyl, I had broken records that repeated less often than Giuliani named 9-11 as the fault of literally everything during his last presidential run.

Rand Paul, much like his father, is just plain crazy and that's why he often finds himself in positions that are difficult to defend. Like being someone who admitted he would have voted against the Civil rights Act or openly declaring himself as a Cliven Bundy supporter.

I too, wouldn't vote for either one of them.

a reply to: Flatfish
I just said they were the best choice.
I didn't say they were a good one or a viable one.
Like I said ... not worthy of my vote.

Reagan eh?

One of the best presidents in the last 30 years.



Better than 'Jeb'.

Better than 'Christie'

Better than 'Clinton'.

Better than the current guy sitting in the oval office.

Take a good look at what it means to be 'presidential'.

There is not an original discussion in American politics.

originally posted by: seagull

You may, or may not, be right. However, how does calling the other side of the aisle lunatics, or their ideas lunacy; help matters any?

Does wasting legislative time and taxpayer dollars to hold 50 separate votes to repeal the very same thing sound like sanity to you?

Does shutting down the government sound like a prudent way to legislate?

Does refusing to increase the debt limit and pay bills already incurred sound reasonable?

How about defunding the state dept. while screaming about Benghazi, does that make sense?

Or, how about we eliminate the EPA, the dept. of education and.......oops, I forgot which other one I was going to get rid of?

That's just to name a few of the idiotic policies and actions taken by the GOP, I could go on and on. It seems as though they went to Washington intent on doing anything but running our country. IMO, the obstructionism that has been demonstrated by the GOP over the last 5 1/2 yrs. borders on treason.

I'd say use of the word lunacy is putting it mildly.