Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 106 of 106

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

  1. #101
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Nothing "radical" or new about it. He's rather traditional in what he is.

    I would describe him as a Collectivist and a Statist, i.e. a believer in State Power and Authority and Moral Rightiousness above all else. The State knows best, and the individual should bow to it. Call it Authoritarianism. Or Totalitarianiam if taken to an extreme. He believes in the State, not the individual. He believes in himself as Head of State, not Congress as the ultimate determiner of what Laws should be. That he should be able to dictate to Congress what Laws they pass and be obayed. He believes in fiscal collectivism, not individual libery or responsabillity. He believes in collective wealth, not indiviudal private ownership or earning of capital. He believes in Unions, and Corporations that follow the State, and emonizes individuals, individual rights and Corporations who do not agree with him or fund him. He believes in Nationalization fo certain industries if possible. All of this is displayed in his statements and the policies he promotes, the actions his Govt. takes, and the Laws he chooses not to enforce.

    Your belief that he's just to the left of Ronald Reagan is utter ignorance IMO, typical rewriting of history to suit your beliefs, not what actually occured. I'd also disagree completely in the "shift" that has occured. We are FAR more liberal that we've ever been, not vice versa. The "right" is more liberal, almost universally, that it's ever been, while the left (even the middle-left) is often bordering on Socialism/Communism in their policy desires and public statements.
    Sadly, these are not facts. They are empty rhetoric. Specifically, what has Obama actually done that stacks him up as all the things you've labeled him as... and how has he differed from the moderate Republicans of the past? Let's start with Eisenhower's domestic policy (from the Miller Center on the Presidency):

    During the campaign of 1952, Eisenhower criticized the statist or big government programs of Truman's Fair Deal, yet he did not share the extreme views of some Republican conservatives. These "Old Guard" Republicans talked about eliminating not just Fair Deal but also New Deal programs and rolling back government regulation of the economy. Eisenhower favored a more moderate course, one that he called Modern Republicanism, which preserved individual freedom and the market economy yet insured that government would provide necessary assistance to workers who had lost their jobs or to senior citizens. He intended to lead the country "down the middle of the road between the unfettered power of concentrated wealth . . . and the unbridled power of statism or partisan interests."

    As President, Eisenhower thought that government should provide some additional benefits to the American people. He signed legislation that expanded Social Security, increased the minimum wage, and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He also supported government construction of low-income housing but favored more limited spending than had Truman.

    Eisenhower secured congressional approval of some important new programs that improved the nation's infrastructure. In partnership with Canada, the United States built the St. Lawrence Seaway. His most ambitious domestic project, the Interstate Highway program, created a 41,000-mile road system. This highway project, which, as the President said, involved enough concrete to build "six sidewalks to the moon," stimulated the economy and made driving long distances faster and safer. Yet the new super highways also had adverse effects, as they encouraged the deterioration of central cities, with residents and businesses moving to outlying locations.

    Eisenhower often got his way with Congress, especially during his first term. But in his last years as President, with Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate, Congress spent more for domestic programs than Eisenhower would have preferred. Although the President used his veto to block expensive programs, domestic spending still rose substantially, increasing from 31 percent of the budget in 1953 to 49 percent in 1961.
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-13-2013 at 05:35 PM.

  2. #102
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,169
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    Not that I would tell him so, but he should stay there in Jersey. Those are his people. BTW I re-thought my post and felt it was unfair; thank you for taking the time to compose a response.
    Stop it. No offense taken. I enjoy your barbs.

    I happen to agree with you. I think he is very effective in his current role.

  3. #103
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post

    GOP lost bc they ran against Santa Claus twice.
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post

    they're all in panic mode since Dumass got re-elected, and trying to out-pander Dims. which everyone knows is impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post

    Romney had more $ than the Dems? Hardly.

    It's the story of free stuff and race AND class warfare.
    Promise people free stuff and they will vote for you.
    WOW!

    This is too funny.

    Please explain what Governor Romney’s numerous campaign pledges to “…cut taxes 20%...” and to “…Increase the Pentagon budget…” was?


    Let me guess this "hand out" stuff is Limbaugh's latest drum beat?

  4. #104
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    The OP discussed how Republicans are mad with Christie about this. I noted that he was getting heat from both sides. MSNBC basically dedicated an entire night to bashing Christie about this b.c instead of going on a ballot that had Booker running for another office, he decided to have a special election that is costly to taxpayers. Something that runs contrary to Christie's beliefs of fiscal responsibility and trimming budgets.

    The people can do their jobs without a special election. This election could be held in November with the rest of the elections already scheduled. But Christie wants his landslide victory in November to jump start his presidential campaign. With Booker's voters turning out, Christie would get less votes b.c those voters would likely vote Democrat down the line. No landslide victory.

    Christie is about Christie. And he will piss off just enough people on both sides to make sure he never becomes President.
    Agreed.

    And I feel filthy for it.



    Governor Christie is not a Conservative and not a Liberal. He is to the right of center. He is for Governor Christie.

    IMHO, this is not the first time the Governor has done something that costs NJ but helps himself. Cancelling the ARC was done for the political future of Governor Christie and no other reason. He announced the cancellation just as the NJ senate was gathering for a hearing as to why NJ lost out on the $400,000,000 race to the top money. This shocked the world and got the media to write about the ARC cancellation and not fumbling away $400 million in federal school aid money.

    Cancelling the ARC Tunnel screwed NJ short term and long term. It would have hired lots of unemployed NJ construction workers (using mostly federal money) the short term fix NJ needed in 2010. And it would have gone a long way to clear up NJ traffic congestion nightmare ...the long term fix. But it elevated Governor Christie to a champion of fiscal conservatives for not taking "wasteful" federal money. So Politics trumped policy. NJ took it in the can.

    Notice how the Governor found federal money good and not wasteful after hurricane Sandy. strange?

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    Agreed.

    And I feel filthy for it.



    Governor Christie is not a Conservative and not a Liberal. He is to the right of center. He is for Governor Christie.

    IMHO, this is not the first time the Governor has done something that costs NJ but helps himself. Cancelling the ARC was done for the political future of Governor Christie and no other reason. He announced the cancellation just as the NJ senate was gathering for a hearing as to why NJ lost out on the $400,000,000 race to the top money. This shocked the world and got the media to write about the ARC cancellation and not fumbling away $400 million in federal school aid money.

    Cancelling the ARC Tunnel screwed NJ short term and long term. It would have hired lots of unemployed NJ construction workers (using mostly federal money) the short term fix NJ needed in 2010. And it would have gone a long way to clear up NJ traffic congestion nightmare ...the long term fix. But it elevated Governor Christie to a champion of fiscal conservatives for not taking "wasteful" federal money. So Politics trumped policy. NJ took it in the can.

    Notice how the Governor found federal money good and not wasteful after hurricane Sandy. strange?
    I agree with most of this. However i still think Christie is one of the better presidential candidates we've seen in many years. I would've voted for him over Romney, Mccain or Obama in a heart beat.

  6. #106
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800

    Century-old law prohibits October Senate election, critics argue in N.J. Supreme Cour

    http://www.northjersey.com/news/Lawy...cheduling.html



    Century-old law prohibits October Senate election, critics argue in N.J. Supreme Court briefs


    Critics of Governor Christie’s decision to hold a special election in October to fill Frank Lautenberg’s Senate seat told the New Jersey Supreme Court in briefs filed Monday that an obscure 1915 statute curtails the use of special elections over concerns about cost.

    A coalition of progressive groups and individual Democrats — including a political ally of Christie’s challenger — say the timing of the special election violates state law and that it should be moved to Nov. 5, when voters will cast ballots for governor and all 120 seats in the Legislature.

    Democrats have said Christie’s move was a politically motivated attempt to suppress turnout, particularly among Democrats who would be inclined to vote for his challenger, state Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex. Christie, a Republican, is leading Buono in opinion polls.


    The state Supreme Court allowed the case to go forward last week after a three-judge appellate panel ruled that Christie had authority to set the date for an election to replace Lautenberg, who died this month of complications from pneumonia.

    Christie’s opponents have based their latest legal argument on a 1915 special-election law that was passed in response to the federal constitutional amendment that first allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators. Senators had previously been chosen by state legislatures.

    The law was designed, they argued in briefs filed Monday, to reduce the cost of replacing members of Congress who left office before their terms are up by scheduling the vote to coincide with the next general election.

    “We really do believe we found a smoking gun,” said Phyllis Salowe-Kaye, executive director of New Jersey Citizen Action, which has joined the suit opposing the Christie administration.

    Salowe-Kaye said the law demonstrates “a very clear legislative intent” that requires the election to be held in November.

    Somerset County Democratic Chairwoman Marguerite M. Schaffer, who brought the suit last week, echoed this argument in her brief. Schaffer has endorsed Buono in the gubernatorial election.

    Christie has said that a pair of conflicting state laws made it difficult to choose a date for the election and that a special election in October would give voters a chance to quickly choose a permanent successor to Lautenberg.

    A state Senate committee approved two bills Monday — both along party lines — that would affect Senate vacancies. One bill would move the date of this year’s general election from Nov. 5 to Oct. 16 to coincide with the special Senate election.

    The other would prohibit the governor from holding a special election to fill any future Senate vacancy. Instead, the governor would have to appoint someone until the seat is filled in a general election. The appointee would have to belong to the same political party as the person who previously held the seat.

    Asked to comment on the bills, a Christie spokesman reiterated the administration’s position that the special election was scheduled in accordance with state law.

    Six candidates —four Democrats and two Republicans — have filed to run in the primary on Aug. 13. Newark Mayor Cory Booker is leading among Democrats in the polls, and former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan is expected to win the Republican nomination.

    Jeffrey S. Chiesa, the former state attorney general whom Christie appointed to serve in the Senate until after the special election, is not seeking to serve out the rest of Lautenberg’s term, which ends in January 2015.

    A coalition of civil rights groups also filed briefs Monday accusing Christie of voter suppression, saying that holding two elections less than three weeks apart would create confusion.

    The administration has until Tuesday morning to respond.

    It’s unclear how the high court will rule. Though the justices could make a decision on the merits of the case, they could also decide to punt on procedural grounds because they allowed Schaffer to bypass the normal appeals process.


    Staff Writer Michael Linhorst contributed to this article. Email: campisi@northjersey.com

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