Here come the Christiecrats

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Evil_Santa

 

I'm not moving any goalposts. You're failing to address my point squarely. That the CONSERVATIVES have issues with Kristy, I never said the GOP did. If you have been paying attention, the RINO Republicans in the GOP have been against Conservatives since the days or Regean taking on Gerald Ford. The GOP doesn't like Conservatives and hasn't nominated one for a Presidential run since Regean in 1980.

edit on 4-8-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Then why was he invited to speak at CPAC 2012 if the CONSERVATIVES had issues with him last year?

Either way, the hard-right conservatives want a hard-right candidate. Please, go get a "hard-right" candidate, so you can lose 2016 too. The win is with the moderates, not the base of a party, and with the breakdown of the voters in the 2012 election...

Liberal: 25%
Moderate: 40%
Conservative: 35%

Y'all had a 10 point lead with your base audience, and still lost, because Romney didn't resonate with moderates. McCain didn't either in '08.

Which brings me to another positive point for Christie. He public speaking ability is pretty close to Obama's. He has a lot of passion when he speaks, and is able to capture audiences quickly and easily. Every candidate that's lost in the last 13 years ( Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney ) has been pretty dull to listen to. Christie doesn't have that issue.

Going back to your original thing about him not speaking at CPAC this year...

Straight from the mouth of the CPAC chairman's own mouth: tv.msnbc.com...

Cardenas was asked why popular New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t invited to the event, which is largely seen as a stepping stone for GOPers considering a presidential run. "This year, for better or for worse, we felt like he didn’t deserve to be on the all-star selection, and for decisions that he made,” he said. “And so hopefully next year he’s back on the right track and being a conservative.” Cardenas allowed that Christie is “a popular figure, but everyone needs to live by the parameters of the movement.” Speculation has swirled that Christie was snubbed at CPAC for praising President Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy during the presidential election.

THERE'S MORE!!

www.npr.org...

So when it came time to send out the invites for this year's CPAC powwow, it wasn't a difficult choice for Al Cardenas, the head of the American Conservative Union (and CPAC's sponsor) to skip Christie. Mitt Romney? Sure. Sarah Palin? Of course. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal? Bring 'em. But not Christie. "We felt that the governor's tone and attitude regarding this relief bill, which was really a pork bill, did not justify an invitation to the conservative conference and we took a pass this year." Of course, Cardenas didn't always feel that way. Seth McLaughlin of the Washington Times : "Mr. Christie in June headlined CPAC Chicago, where Mr. Cardenas introduced him as 'probably the finest straight-talker in America' and called him a 'great defender of liberty,' 'great defender of freedom' and 'a fiscal conservative.'"

There you go, the head of the ACU (CPAC's sponsor) saying precisely why they didn't want Christie speaking at CPAC. BECAUSE OF HOW HE HANDLED HURRICANE SANDY RELIEF.

Let's look at all of the pork in the bill..

en.wikipedia.org...

Agency
Appropriation Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) $5.4 billion
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Authority Emergency Relief $5.4 billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) $3.9 billion
Army Corps of Engineers $1.35 billion
Department of the Interior $287 million
Department of Health and Human Services $100 million
Department of Veterans Affairs $235 million
Small Business Administration $161 million
National Guard $24.2 million
Department of Agriculture $6 million
Amak $32 million
Federal Aviation Administration $14.6 million
Agriculture $218 million
Commerce, Justice, Science $513.25 million
Department of Defense $88.335 million
Energy and Water $3.997 billion
Financial Services $651 million
Homeland Security $6.544 billion
Interior and Environment $1.166 billion
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education $725 million
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development $19.773 billion

A lot of different agencies received aid. Then again, Sandy caused a lot of damage and it will take a lot of work from different agencies to fix that damage. But hey, it's ok to hold off on recovery because the GOP thinks it can be done cheaper.

Let's see how happy you are after your community has been destroyed by a natural disaster and politicans are bickering over "pork" while you're living in the equivalent of a 3rd world nation.

Back to my initial post.

It's kind of funny all of the hate on Chris in this thread. The right-wing is so quick to outcast the guy because he's shifted to the middle of the road after his state experienced a terrible natural disaster, and he dealt with the GOP blocking aid to his state multiple times.

Here's a nifty article about Christie.

www.theguardian.com...

In large swaths of conservative America, the thinking is that the Republican who may be best positioned to win the White House is not really a Republican.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is branded with a four-letter word, RINO (Republican In Name Only). Pundit Ann Coulter declares that Christie is "dead" to her. Talk radio poobah Rush Limbaugh says Christie will be the 2016 presidential nominee – for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, liberals and moderates see him as a Republican they could learn to like, if not love. Bill Clinton invited him for a friendly chit-chat on stage to culminate his Clinton Global Initiative conference in June. Barack Obama played a football toss boardwalk game with him at the Jersey Shore in May. And liberal network MSNBC consistently portrays him as a post-partisan hero.

But there should be no confusion here. What those in both corners of the political spectrum should understand is that Christie has governed New Jersey as a straight-down-the-line, if not pragmatic, conservative. And there is no indication that a President Christie wouldn't govern in the same conservative way. ...

Also: www.politico.com...

Hillary Clinton and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are running neck-and-neck in a potential 2016 presidential match-up in Iowa, according to a new poll Monday. Each was supported by 41 percent of voters in Iowa surveyed in the Quinnipiac poll.

In a match-up with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Clinton was on top, 46 percent to 39 percent. Vice President Joe Biden trailed both Christie and Walker, 32 percent to 49 percent for Christie and 39 percent to 42 percent for Walker.

Again - he's the GOPs best chance of winning in 2016.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Chris Christie is far to the right of Ronald Reagan...He just appears as a "Moderate Liberal" because the GOP has gone so far right that they can't see anything but thier own behind as they run in circles.

Alas...The GOP base will never nominate Christie, he will need to run as an independant...or do what Romney did...go to the far right to get the nomination and then try the "etch-n-sketch" reboot and race to the middle for the general election...and how did that work out for Romney?

Rand Paul or Paul Ryan will give the GOP base an idealogical orgasm, and they will lose a general election by a landslide.

So...at the end of the day...the GOP has not won the Popular vote of a general election for President, except once, in the past 24 years...and the base continues to drive it's party FURTHER to the right.

Aside from all the partisanship...the objective truth is that the farther to the right the GOP goes...the farther from the Whitehouse they move.

The GOP live in a shrinking bubble.

To get to the point .. Chris Christie is a Moderate Liberal Populist. (as well as a panderer and a typical politician )

reply to post by FlyersFan

I firmly believe that because he tries too hard to play both sides, no one will believe he is on their "side", and he will fail miserably. I could be wrong, but I don't think any wishy-washy straddle the fence candidate has ever become POTUS, and I certainly don't think Crusty Chunky Christie has a chance in Hades of becoming POTUS.

Will the democrats believe it when they're told they support Christie and want to re elect him? They may doctor the polls and get some high profile papers and party leaders to endorse him, but the voters may not believe it. What if there's a BIG disparity in certain untainted polls and other ones that show its close. Close enough to have an upset.
And Christie has pissed off many republicans so he'll have a weaker turnout from them. I will wait and see how they rig this election and if they can get away with it.
Christie is compromised and may throw the 2016 election to Hillary if he's the nominee. Rand Paul should kick Christie's flabby ass up and down the boardwalk and make Obama hold his jacket while he does it.

Christie is a mass media lie meant to pave the way for Hillary. He's popular with people that won't vote for him because he's a Republican. They'll say 'oh I like him' but then they'll vote for Hillary or whoever is the Democratic nominee.

In the US, you can't win a presidential election without getting your base to show up. The base doesn't show up for moderates like McCain and Romney so those guys lost of course. The base won't show up for Christie; he'll be the 'biggest loser' yet because of those three, Democrats like him the most.

The spite factor is a big deal these days. Democrats like Christie because Republicans hate him. Republicans loved how much Democrats hated George W Bush. Frankly, W just so often couldn't resist trolling Democrats. Nice guy Romney and faux nice guy plays-the-middle McCain just didn't give enough of their base anything to be enthusiastic about.

Also, nobody from the North East is going to win unless you put North East up against North East, and it doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat. This is one of the major reasons the Democrats in the mass media are pushing for Christie to be the guy who runs against 'New Yorker' Hillary Clinton.

Conversely, they are scared she'll have to run against somebody from Texas or Florida, or the South or West in general. So they believe the safest thing they can do is hand pick a loser for their opposition, and they have picked (at this point) Christie to be that loser, so for now the pro-Christie propaganda is going strong. It would of course disappear the second he had the nomination, at which point they would switch to demonizing him to scare their own base into showing up for Hillary or whoever.

And yeah, I know Hillary isn't really a New Yorker. She's obviously a globalist without a real home country anymore, but for a long time now New York has been her ersatz 'home turf' for the sake of politics. When she runs, expect her to play up the Arkansas angle again, with an emphasis on Mid-western rather than Southern.

I could care less about any of these saps. If they have an (R) or (D) next to their name then they aren't worth the time of day. Vote independent for real change.