Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:02:41

I think the biggest problem with Christie is that he would still be the leader of a pack of wild animals incapable of doing anything that doesn't directly promote the welfare of the extremely wealthy.

I mean, really.... I would prefer him to the other GOP candidates, but he would still be running the GOP agenda, which is a giant carton of crazy.

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:12:31

That's greatly oversimplifying things, mb. Be careful, I lived in Switzerland for about 9 months, you don't want to sound like a lot of the expats I met over there.

I could completely live with Chris Christie as my president. I could probably live with Mitt Romney as my president. Would I prefer Obama, hell yeah, but the presidents tend to manage towards the middle anyway.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:19:25

TenuredVulture wrote:I find it curious that a candidate with whom at least some of the base is going to have a problem is being actively recruited. It indicates that Perry has really flopped.

Prolly indicates they ain't thrilled with the current crop.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:26:02

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I find it curious that a candidate with whom at least some of the base is going to have a problem is being actively recruited. It indicates that Perry has really flopped.

Prolly indicates they ain't thrilled with the current crop.

The funny thing is that if you're a Republican in 2011, you've really got the full Republican spectrum represented with this crop. What may be happening is that the Republican party is now dominated by purists who see any deviation from whatever orthodoxy is being pushed as a fatal flaw. However, Christie isn't going to make those people any happier than Romney.

Which makes me wonder--is Christie this year's Fred Thompson?

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:26:49

No because if Christie gets in he'll actually try

by **CalvinBall** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:50:58

Seriously, what other public office has Christie been elected for? All I see is Gov. of NJ and that he lost some local race back in the 90s.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:54:39

He was Morris County Freeholder from 1995-98. Have your mom show you how to use Wikipedia.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:54:44

jerseyhoya wrote:It's a good thing none of the other candidates have any flaws or else they'd be in trouble too

Heck, that's part of the psychology of politicians. They tend to be narcissistic "alphas" and generally less risk-averse than other people. Political office all but demands that one be an unprincipled whore, so unprincipled whores are naturally drawn into politics. Politics also attracts sociopaths who have no compunction about using people.

Perhaps what I meant was his particular set of "flaws"... the AG stuff (awarding no-bid contracts to campaign contributors, the Ashcroft thing, the Cendant/stock thing), and some stuff from his lobbyist days (lobbying to block the inclusion of securities fraud under NJ's Consumer Fraud Act)... are likely to not play well in an election cycle focused on the economy. The types of things people blame for the fucked up economy, and thus stuff that would have opponents and/or media salivating.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 15:58:54

jerseyhoya wrote:He was Morris County Freeholder

Sounds dirty :shock:

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 16:02:39

I just realized I set up the obligatory fat joke by using the word "salivating" :oops:

by **thephan** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 16:35:30

TenuredVulture wrote:I find it curious that a candidate with whom at least some of the base is going to have a problem is being actively recruited. It indicates that Perry has really flopped.

Well, I think your statement begs to define "the base". Since the Tea Party is sawing itself off into its own thing, do you count them as the base? They have an agenda, but are they really the voice of the GOP? Most GOPer I know are not so enamored with the whole Tea Party package, in fact a lot of them see some of the agenda of telling people what to do and trying to legislate how they live is big government interference.

by **Monkeyboy** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 16:55:59

jeff2sf wrote:That's greatly oversimplifying things, mb. Be careful, I lived in Switzerland for about 9 months, you don't want to sound like a lot of the expats I met over there.

I could completely live with Chris Christie as my president. I could probably live with Mitt Romney as my president. Would I prefer Obama, hell yeah, but the presidents tend to manage towards the middle anyway.

You must have met different expats than me, but putting that aside, do you really think a GOP prez could get anything worthwhile done with the guys they have in charge of the major posts right now? Obama would be right of center 20 years ago, and he's seen as a raging leftist by most of the leadership in the GOP right now. Like I said in an earlier post, the country has swung so far to the right that we don't even know what is center anymore.

20-30 years ago, I think christie could have been a good prez. I wouldn't agree with everything he did, but he wouldn't be a radical. But these days, the GOP just isn't reasonable. It's like they constantly smell blood in the water -- hell, they have even started eating their own.

Remember, Christie is the gov of a pretty liberal state. He has to govern a little towards the center, and he was still disliked until the hurricane turned his approval ratings around.

by **traderdave** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 17:11:59

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:He was Morris County Freeholder

Sounds dirty

It is in Camden County.

Regarding CC, I have to admit that he overall is very, very likable in his honesty and candor (both of which are also annoying at times) and he is a tremendous public speaker. I think it would be very interesting to see how he would fare in a national election. He obviously has name recognition already but he has been relatively untested politically thus far. He was a freeholder in a county of 500,000 people for a year before running for Assembly and getting his ass handed to him. He then lost in the primary of his re-election bid for freeholder. After time as AG, he won the governorship against a hugely unpopular Jon Corzine.

He has done a great job of driving right through people in NJ, i.e. unions, public sector, but I think his brash style would not play well in Washington.

by **dajafi** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 17:20:38

Whatever Republican became president, he (sorry, Rep. Bat shit) would be pulled hard to the right by the infrastructure of activists, moneymen and entertainers that dominate their discourse. I agree that Christie is more capable and probably more moderate than others in their field... but I can't shake the idea that he appeals to "the base" not for those reasons but because he insults schoolteachers and other constituents who don't agree with him.

Bush was considered pretty moderate in 2000; remember "compassionate conservatism"? He wrecked our finances, overcommitted our military and left the country in worse shape than he found it by every measure other than BJs received from interns. And I can't imagine a Republican president in the near future who wouldn't be farther right than Bush.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 17:45:07

dajafi wrote:Whatever Republican became president, he (sorry, Rep. Bat shit) would be pulled hard to the right by the infrastructure of activists, moneymen and entertainers that dominate their discourse. I agree that Christie is more capable and probably more moderate than others in their field... but I can't shake the idea that he appeals to "the base" not for those reasons but because he insults schoolteachers and other constituents who don't agree with him.

Bush was considered pretty moderate in 2000; remember "compassionate conservatism"? He wrecked our finances, overcommitted our military and left the country in worse shape than he found it by every measure other than BJs received from interns. And I can't imagine a Republican president in the near future who wouldn't be farther right than Bush.

I know you don't really mean it as a compliment, but the people who are getting hung up on how will Christie appeal to the base, why won't he just get hung up on his past and present deviations from orthodoxy like Mitt and Perry, etc. are missing his appeal to the base is more his pugnacious, sarcastic attitude toward figures and organizations on the left than his broader issue agenda. And also the fact that he can defend himself in complete sentences that make sense, which Perry is showing can be a real struggle. Maybe that wouldn't be enough (again, he's almost certainly not running so this is mostly an academic debate anyway), but given who he is running against I think it would be.

by **dajafi** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 18:41:34

jerseyhoya wrote:
dajafi wrote:Whatever Republican became president, he (sorry, Rep. Bat #$&! would be pulled hard to the right by the infrastructure of activists, moneymen and entertainers that dominate their discourse. I agree that Christie is more capable and probably more moderate than others in their field... but I can't shake the idea that he appeals to "the base" not for those reasons but because he insults schoolteachers and other constituents who don't agree with him.

Bush was considered pretty moderate in 2000; remember "compassionate conservatism"? He wrecked our finances, overcommitted our military and left the country in worse shape than he found it by every measure other than BJs received from interns. And I can't imagine a Republican president in the near future who wouldn't be farther right than Bush.

I know you don't really mean it as a compliment, but the people who are getting hung up on how will Christie appeal to the base, why won't he just get hung up on his past and present deviations from orthodoxy like Mitt and Perry, etc. are missing his appeal to the base is more his pugnacious, sarcastic attitude toward figures and organizations on the left than his broader issue agenda. And also the fact that he can defend himself in complete sentences that make sense, which Perry is showing can be a real struggle. Maybe that wouldn't be enough (again, he's almost certainly not running so this is mostly an academic debate anyway), but given who he is running against I think it would be.

Archived

Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible