Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 106

Thread: Republicans Say Chris Christie Is Dead To Them After He Opts For Special Election

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Shocking that the guy who loved N.E. Liberal-in-RINO-clothing Romney likes N.E. Liberal-in-RINO-clothing Christie.

    You will never win an election being a slightly-less-liberal liberal that the guy/gal you're running against.

    Christie vs. Clinton, the entire (R) base stays home, a tiny fraction of moderate-liberal independants get excited, Clinton wins in a massive landslide.

    If thats what you want, best of luck in 2020my die-hard Establishment Republican friend.
    Clinton v. Rand Paul, the entire (R) base gets excited, the independents break (D) 4 to 1, Clinton wins in a massive landslide.

    The only way (R) wins is if the (R) base shows up and independents break (R).

    It's not either-or. It's both.

    Find a candidate who can do that. Christie should be that guy - strong fiscal conservative credentials, even some social conservative bona fides (much though I despise that). What makes you call him a RINO?

  2. #42
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh boy you can question all you want, I voted for GW and voted Republicsn last election for my Congressmen Chris Smith last November. I vote on issues. I'm a registered Independent. For anyone to take Cruz seriously for a Presidential run is pathetic. Rubio on the other hand could.



    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Given your biases, I'd question almost every word you used here.

    For example, many on the other side think someone like Cruz would fill the "good politician" descriptor, and would say he provides "legitimate competition" on the (R) side.

    You clearly don't, and wouldn't agree not because it may or may not be true, but because of your own political bias.

    In the course of political debate here, it cannot be escaped that you would want to see the most liberal (R) possible run, a. because it means you have a better chance to win, and b. because if you were to lose you'd still have the most liberal, i.e. least objectionable, (R) in office.

    So with that said, it certainly colors how observers should take your support for Christie IMO.



    TLDR: you cannot give me a platform that could defeat a (D) come 2016.

    I'm all ears as to this magic policy platform that (R) can run on that will win. I've yet to hear anyone be able to explain it as yet.

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    An election was not necessary. Christie could have appointed anyone he wanted to assume the Senate seat until the term of that seat ended.
    That is exactly what happened in SC when Jim DeMint resigned and Nikki Haley appointed Tim Scott as Senator. In turn getting Mark Sanford the House seat.
    Palmetto - SC and NJ have different laws. In NJ, the law requires that the Senate seat be up for election in the next general election after vacancy - which meant this November. The law itself was posted earlier in the thread.

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I want to address this one point. This idea of conservative principles and people giving up on them to get elected is unfair. I want politicians with common sense that do what they believe is in the best interest of their constituency. This idea that anyone that doesn't follow the "conservative principles" rule book is not fit to govern or lead is silly to me. The Republican Party was literally founded to be the party that combats slavery. Republican founding principles include a commitment to a strong and fair free market economy. Teddy Roosevelt took on the trusts and was the first true champoin of the middle class. He like Reagan believed in strength through military and economic power as well as seeing the USA as a global force for good. These are principles I can get behind. I don't like government promotion of social issues at all.
    Whoa, that's some goofy reading of history. Don't be confused by a name. Republican meant different things at different times. The Republican Party of Lincoln was a spin-off of the defunct Whig Party and was hardly what one would call an ancestor of what we call the Republican Party today. Andy Jackson was a Democrat, but he was more Republican by today's standards than anyone else running against him. Roosevelt was way way too progressive and willing to flex the power of federal government to be anybody's version of a Republican. Taft? Introduced the 16th Amendment and commenced Corporate Income Tax... what would he be? Republicans of today represent a very close parallel to States Rights Democrats of years past. You can't find the historical lineage of today's parties simply by assuming the name speaks for the platform or principles...

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Republican Party won Presidential elections by being a centrist party not a Conservative Party. The Democrats were able to move to the center while the Republicans moved hard right.

    Christie is a centrist Republican the kind that can win a National election but would never get the nomination.

    Obama and Clinton both governed right of Richard Nixon. Bush 1 and Reagan couldn't get out of the nomination process. Jeb Bush who would be a formidable candidate won't sniff the nomination.

  6. #46
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Clinton v. Rand Paul, the entire (R) base gets excited, the independents break (D) 4 to 1, Clinton wins in a massive landslide.

    The only way (R) wins is if the (R) base shows up and independents break (R).

    It's not either-or. It's both.

    Find a candidate who can do that. Christie should be that guy - strong fiscal conservative credentials, even some social conservative bona fides (much though I despise that). What makes you call him a RINO?
    Then I'll pose you the same query I posed cr (quoted below). Till it can be answered, it's a non-starter, Base > Aiming for Moderates.

    By all means, tell us oh swami of politcs, what is the platform one could bring to the table that would best Ms. Clinton?
    By the way, I can't help but point out that Christie's biggest supporters here, are all peole I fully expect to happily vote "Clinton" come 2016, apart from Chiefs.

    It's hard not to see Liberal/Democrat love for Christie as a negative, not a positive, since we all know most proclaiming said love are (D) voters Christie or not.

  7. #47
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    You can't find the historical lineage of today's parties simply by assuming the name speaks for the platform or principles...
    Convenient, since Democrat used to mean racist pro-slavery southern pig. Of course, to some all they did was flip it from outright racism to racism-via-lowered-expectation/demands.



    All this discussion does for me is dusgust me further that our options are (A) or (B) and nothing else. Most likely I'll be back to rejecting both and abstaining (or voting lolthirdparty) come 2016 frankly.

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Then I'll pose you the same query I posed cr (quoted below). Till it can be answered, it's a non-starter, Base > Aiming for Moderates.



    By the way, I can't help but point out that Christie's biggest supporters here, are all peole I fully expect to happily vote "Clinton" come 2016, apart from Chiefs.

    It's hard not to see Liberal/Democrat love for Christie as a negative, not a positive, since we all know most proclaiming said love are (D) voters Christie or not.
    I'm not a Hilary fan at all, particularly on foreign policy. She wouldn't be a disaster, though, so yes, I'd vote for her if the Republicans don't offer a better alternative.

    As for a platform to beat Ms. Clinton? Not sure. I'd like to see a true fiscal-conservative social-liberal get a shot, but the sad fact is, "platform" has become a lot less relevant to presidential elections these days than personality. That's one of the major things Bush had going for him in 2000 and 2004 (he was the guy you'd drink a beer with, not Gore the marionette or Kerry the Boston Brahmin), and what Obama had going for him in 2012 (in 2008 he had a hell of a lot more going for him). Republicans need to nominate someone with a pulse, who can tap into both the conservative base of the republican party while rejecting its worst extremes and maintaining a human connection.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Whoa, that's some goofy reading of history. Don't be confused by a name. Republican meant different things at different times. The Republican Party of Lincoln was a spin-off of the defunct Whig Party and was hardly what one would call an ancestor of what we call the Republican Party today. Andy Jackson was a Democrat, but he was more Republican by today's standards than anyone else running against him. Roosevelt was way way too progressive and willing to flex the power of federal government to be anybody's version of a Republican. Taft? Introduced the 16th Amendment and commenced Corporate Income Tax... what would he be? Republicans of today represent a very close parallel to States Rights Democrats of years past. You can't find the historical lineage of today's parties simply by assuming the name speaks for the platform or principles...
    I think if you read my post you would note my critique of some of the principles being assigned to the Republican party by others alongside a general history of the party. The parties in this country have traditionally been Center left and Center right and are constantly evolving, but the basics are consistent. You make reference to states rights democrats as a thinly veiled attempt to shift the Democrat party's traditional pro slavery stance on to today's GOP. I see it differently. To me the Democrats simply shifted their pro-slavery stance to positions which "enslave" the country's poor through a deliberate push to create dependence on government while simultaneously blocking efforts to help provide opportunity for those populations through efforts like school choice. I'm not sure if it was the chicken or the egg but somewhere along the line the South shifted from a Democrat base to a GOP base. I take issue with people that claim that if a candidate is not a staunch social conservative ala Santorum and similar politicians then they are not a worthy Republican. Essentially the RINO argument that is in essence the argument against a Christie.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    Funny enough but it's going to be his history with a skinny guy named Barack Obama that will ultimately weigh Chris Christie's ambitions down. He should have run while he had the chance.

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sackdance View Post
    Funny enough but it's going to be his history with a skinny guy named Barack Obama that will ultimately weigh Chris Christie's ambitions down. He should have run while he had the chance.
    The horrors - he treated the President with respect and as if he enjoyed his company, and thanked him for helping his state.

    When this is a deadly sin, it's no wonder Republicans lose elections

  12. #52
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    The horrors - he treated the President with respect and as if he enjoyed his company, and thanked him for helping his state.

    When this is a deadly sin, it's no wonder Republicans lose elections
    Cruz will take them to the promise land.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    After Tebow leads the Pats to the next 3 Super Bowl victories, he's going to smoke Hillary.

  14. #54
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    An election was not necessary. Christie could have appointed anyone he wanted to assume the Senate seat until the term of that seat ended.
    That is exactly what happened in SC when Jim DeMint resigned and Nikki Haley appointed Tim Scott as Senator. In turn getting Mark Sanford the House seat.

    To "appear" fair, Christie decided to hold an election now. That fairness insures his reelection as governor.

    It also insures he is dead meat as a Republican national candidate. There is no chance that any state in the South would go for him. Nor many conservative states anywhere. He is already considered an Obama kiss up.
    To be fair, it's not quite the same. Haley (a republican governor) replaced a republican senator with another republican. Christie has to replace a seat that the people of New Jersey elected a democrat to, and was uncomfortable unilaterally appointing someone. His decision should be commended.

    The second issue is holding the election apart from the general election in November. It appears that NJ law is preventing him from holding the special election concurrently, but he should have done what he could to save the taxpayers money.

  15. #55
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    The horrors - he treated the President with respect and as if he enjoyed his company, and thanked him for helping his state.

    When this is a deadly sin, it's no wonder Republicans lose elections
    This. How dare Christie do his job.

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I don't disagree though I'd be suprised if you, me and Flushing wouldn't vote for any one of Cruz, Rubio, Paul or Christie over Hillary.
    Today, Cruz gets my vote over the other 3 in an (R) primary.
    There are others who are yet to emerge.

    Whomever wins gets my vote over Hillary! no matter what-
    I will never, ever vote for or enable that grotesque, anti-American cankled Marxist heshe into office-unlike my new political enemies the purple lipped, rat-eared, dog-eater enabling RR who decided not voting for Mitt because he was a Mormon was a better choice than the feckless Commie in chief

    Long ago I sussed that Rubio is a pro-amnesty lightweight, an effete lighter than air joke as Presidential Candidate - pass

    Rand Paul - a pro-shamnesty pu$$y who gave the antiSemitic, anti-American Hegel the green light and but whined about domestic drone use as a sop to the Paulistinians-pass

    Christie, as I mentioned above, execrable solipsist - pass

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    The Republican Party won Presidential elections by being a centrist party not a Conservative Party. The Democrats were able to move to the center while the Republicans moved hard right.

    Christie is a centrist Republican the kind that can win a National election but would never get the nomination.

    Obama and Clinton both governed right of Richard Nixon. Bush 1 and Reagan couldn't get out of the nomination process. Jeb Bush who would be a formidable candidate won't sniff the nomination.
    Swirling further down the drain...

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Today, Cruz gets my vote over the other 3 in an (R) primary.
    There are others who are yet to emerge.

    Whomever wins gets my vote over Hillary! no matter what-
    I will never, ever vote for or enable that grotesque, anti-American cankled Marxist heshe into office-unlike my new political enemies the purple lipped, rat-eared, dog-eater enabling RR who decided not voting for Mitt because he was a Mormon was a better choice than the feckless Commie in chief

    Long ago I sussed that Rubio is a pro-amnesty lightweight, an effete lighter than air joke as Presidential Candidate - pass

    Rand Paul - a pro-shamnesty pu$$y who gave the antiSemitic, anti-American Hegel the green light and but whined about domestic drone use as a sop to the Paulistinians-pass

    Christie, as I mentioned above, execrable solipsist - pass
    really? Solipsist? As in Bishop Berkeley? Perhaps you meant "narcissist" or "self-aggrandizer?"

    P.S. Do you have a temperate response to anyone/anything you don't like? For a tough guy you're awfully histrionic and cranky.

  19. #59
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    The horrors - he treated the President with respect and as if he enjoyed his company, and thanked him for helping his state.

    When this is a deadly sin, it's no wonder Republicans lose elections
    Helping NJ a day after a storm just by showing up for a photo-op, that's an amazing story.

    One day, according to Krispy, B. Hussein is an incredibly unprepared person for office, the next day he's presidenshul...if Kristie Kreme could change, if B. Hussein could change, then we ALL could change!

    More like, gratitude for stabbing Romney in the back.

    Didn't need to come to in the bag (D) strongholds NY or CT, who miraculously escaped damage.

    Reminds me of the time when that same Presidential magic was heaped upon tornado-tossed Joplin MO.

    Newsflash, any state thats hit by disaster is entitled to aid-not added pork and log rolling quid pro quos.

    It's a long way up from the bottom of the barrel, keep climbing.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-10-2013 at 10:25 PM.

  20. #60
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    really? Solipsist? As in Bishop Berkeley? Perhaps you meant "narcissist" or "self-aggrandizer?"

    P.S. Do you have a temperate response to anyone/anything you don't like? For a tough guy you're awfully histrionic and cranky.
    Although those less descriptive labels fit the tubby turncoat, solipsism also means "extreme egocentrism" - look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls, Einstein - not talkin' philosophy here.

    Temperate responses are for wimps.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-10-2013 at 10:35 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us