jerseyhoya wrote:
It's been 25 years since a Republican got 50% of the vote in a statewide race in NJ. Gravity will set in, but hopefully the head start is enough.

Christie is sure to crush any opposition

you started it, mentioning gravity setting in

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
It's been 25 years since a Republican got 50% of the vote in a statewide race in NJ. Gravity will set in, but hopefully the head start is enough.

Christie is sure to crush any opposition

you started it, mentioning gravity setting in

christie to lobby Bimbo to bring twinkie production to the Garden State?

ohhhh

two-term christie is guaranteed, may as well get the fat jokes in before he runs for prez and loses to hilary

Now that he's done demonizing public employees for the time being, it's tough for a Democrat to work up a good hatred for Christie. Yes, he's more passive than activist on social issues such marriage equality, abortion and gun control, but he also hasn't pursued a conservative agenda on these issues. Basically he's managed to convey on these issues that he either doesn't really give a fuck or perhaps leans left. I'm still not a fan, largely because he's just a big blowhard with no ideas and will leave the state worse or no better off than when he inherited it, but his governmental decisions the last two years could have originated just as easily from a Democrat as a Republican.

Helps as well that NJ Democrats are by and large asshats, with the percentage of asshattery proportional to the amount of power they wield.

pretty much could've had a slugfest with booker v christie but corey decided to sidestep it to guarantee they wait on their showdown and push it to a more national level.

What show down? If he doesn't run for president he'll probably take on Menendez in 2018.

I would have liked Booker to challenge him if for no other reason than to force him to take positions and defend them. The more beating he takes, the better, especially if they can expose a weakness or two. Plus, there's always the chance he'll pull a Mitt and say something really dumb or inappropriate.

Any Democrat who's more patriot than partisan probably should wish Christie well.

I disagree with him on many, many things, I'm still raw about the Hudson tunnel decision, and I agree he's a bully and something of a blowhard. But the most important question in the Republican Party, and maybe in American politics, is whether the pragmatists or the reality-resistant ideologues run Team R. Christie clearly is with the pragmatists. He's sane and self-interested, and pretty much the best contemporary example of the Founders' idea that the country would advance by the self-interest of politicians.

In general we probably need more guys like him and Brian Schweitzer, pols who thrive in what you'd expect to be inhospitable climates and thus help humanize their parties to non-members.

it's shitty that we have to give christie a higher grade because people like tom cotton and bachmann and whoever else are who he is compared against

Jay Rockefeller to retire. Dems should see if Shain from Buckwild has any interest in running.

dajafi wrote:Any Democrat who's more patriot than partisan probably should wish Christie well.

I disagree with him on many, many things, I'm still raw about the Hudson tunnel decision, and I agree he's a bully and something of a blowhard. But the most important question in the Republican Party, and maybe in American politics, is whether the pragmatists or the reality-resistant ideologues run Team R. Christie clearly is with the pragmatists. He's sane and self-interested, and pretty much the best contemporary example of the Founders' idea that the country would advance by the self-interest of politicians.

In general we probably need more guys like him and Brian Schweitzer, pols who thrive in what you'd expect to be inhospitable climates and thus help humanize their parties to non-members.

Except didn't Christie make appearances for clowns like Steve King? You can't really separate Christie from those guys (regardless of his posturing about them) when he helps them get reelected.

To me that's in the same category as his rejecting the Hudson Tunnel project. It's despicable but practical--making a political move to ensure his viability.

The guy is still a Republican which means he has some political motivations. If he didn't back assclowns like King, he'd hurt his own viability within the party. Doesn't mean he's indistinguishable on the issues.

dajafi wrote:To me that's in the same category as his rejecting the Hudson Tunnel project. It's despicable but practical--making a political move to ensure his viability.

The guy is still a Republican which means he has some political motivations. If he didn't back assclowns like King, he'd hurt his own viability within the party. Doesn't mean he's indistinguishable on the issues.

Except that he in turn lambasted Republicans for holding up the Sandy relief vote. Nevermind that Steve King is one of the few guys to vote against Hurricane Katrina fund and is a known dick on these issues... and he HELPED KING GET REELECTED.

He can't have it both ways. It's not practical... it's talking out of both sides of his mouth. That doesn't make him a maverick. It makes him a blowhard.

jerseyhoya wrote:Jay Rockefeller to retire. Dems should see if Shain from Buckwild has any interest in running.

*slides into budget hearing in tailgate cooler*

drsmooth wrote:I haven't checked all that recently, but i believe people making capital allocation decisions around the world are still lining up to loan the US money, at essentially negative rates of 'return'. What did Boehner say about "candy & nuts"?

Guess who the (far and away) biggest buyer of US Treasuries is lately?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-0 ... bonds.html

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I haven't checked all that recently, but i believe people making capital allocation decisions around the world are still lining up to loan the US money, at essentially negative rates of 'return'. What did Boehner say about "candy & nuts"?

Guess who the (far and away) biggest buyer of US Treasuries is lately?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-0 ... bonds.html

Woohoo! Printing money! We've got the paper, we've got the presses, let 'er rip!

insight into how the Republican mind thinks:

“He’s partly right on that,” Gingrey, an OB-GYN, told constituents Thursday. A traumatic event could cause a woman not to ovulate, he said, and he didn’t see anything “horrible” about distinguishing between “legitimate rape” and “a scared-to-death 15-year-old” who might lie when she “becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents,” the Marietta Daily Journal reported.
Where Akin was wrong, Gingrey said, was in suggesting that a pregnancy could never or almost never result from rape.

“We tell infertile couples all the time … ‘Don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... bout-rape/

amazing. why even answer question about it at this point?

Youseff wrote:insight into how the Republican mind thinks:

“He’s partly right on that,” Gingrey, an OB-GYN, told constituents Thursday. A traumatic event could cause a woman not to ovulate, he said, and he didn’t see anything “horrible” about distinguishing between “legitimate rape” and “a scared-to-death 15-year-old” who might lie when she “becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents,” the Marietta Daily Journal reported.
Where Akin was wrong, Gingrey said, was in suggesting that a pregnancy could never or almost never result from rape.

“We tell infertile couples all the time … ‘Don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... bout-rape/

Are Gingrey's comments about ovulation wrong? I'm not a doctor, but looking at your link, his biggest mistake seems to be talking about rape at all.

Looks like one of the little brown ones is running for office. About 10-12 years ago, I said that he would be the next Bush to seriously push for the presidency. Let's hope he doesn't win over too many hispanic voters.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/new ... Next.Bush/

A lot of pregnancies happen from rape. To suggest otherwise is fucking offensive and even to give Akin a little bit of credence like this schmuck is just as bad.

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(96)70141-2/abstract

RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.