JFLNYC wrote:Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare

the audience going 'mmhmm' at home while their socialized medicare cards sit in their wallets

pacino wrote:'sheer spite' as the main reason behind denying hte Medicaid expansion. Based on what we're doing here, that can be the only reason. It sure isn't about streamlining government. When states such as PA and Texas turn down the low-cost expansion and then suggest their citizens look to the federal exchanges for coverage, they are slyly attempting to sabotage the law (i don't think it'll work though) while also pushing people to federalist solutions. Conservatism is no longer about keeping government local and accountable as much as it is about making government work for those who pay the most to get me re-elected and making it untenable for everyone else.

Don't confuse Conservatism with the latest GOP strategy.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:'sheer spite' as the main reason behind denying hte Medicaid expansion. Based on what we're doing here, that can be the only reason. It sure isn't about streamlining government. When states such as PA and Texas turn down the low-cost expansion and then suggest their citizens look to the federal exchanges for coverage, they are slyly attempting to sabotage the law (i don't think it'll work though) while also pushing people to federalist solutions. Conservatism is no longer about keeping government local and accountable as much as it is about making government work for those who pay the most to get me re-elected and making it untenable for everyone else.

Don't confuse Conservatism with the latest GOP strategy.

I don't think anybody could confuse what the GOP is doing with conservatism; it is more like self-immolation. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the GOP that cannot be solved with a few shots of ACA-covered testosterone (a few Dems could use a shot as well).

Sort of inside baseball, but Tim Griffin, R-AR, has decided against running for re-election. I'd say that means the seat goes from likely R to either leans R or Toss up, maybe even leans D, depending on who runs.

Any good rumors on why he's retiring? Gonna try to get rich or is there a scandal looming?

Seems to have come from out of nowhere.

After the court rejected the Christie administration's bid for a stay on the gay marriage ruling last week, they decided to drop the appeal all together today. So I guess that's that? National Organization for Marriage is flipping its shit at Christie.

jerseyhoya wrote:Any good rumors on why he's retiring? Gonna try to get rich or is there a scandal looming?

Seems to have come from out of nowhere.

I haven't heard any--he was raising money--of course the "spend more time with my children" is the stated reason and even if it's true, no one is going to buy it. Local supporters seem unhappy about it. I doubt there's a scandal--opposition research was pretty thorough on this guy--he was a Justice Department attorney during the Bush administration and made a few enemies in that position. So, yeah, I'd guess it's gonna try to get rich answer.

jerseyhoya wrote:After the court rejected the Christie administration's bid for a stay on the gay marriage ruling last week, they decided to drop the appeal all together today. So I guess that's that? National Organization for Marriage is flipping its shit at Christie.

Good for the governor. If he survives the primaries - which I think he will, if he runs - this will make him a little bit more likely to win the general.

I wonder if Christie will run if the economy is reasonably strong and Hillary is the Dem nominee (the latter is probably dependent on the former - can't see Hillary running in an obvious Dem loss year). He's young yet; why risk running against Hillary if she is in a reasonably strong position vis-a-vis the economy and the status of the outgoing administration?

Wasn't he fairly outspoken (as far as those things go among House GOP) against the shutdown? Maybe he just doesn't want to deal with that type of nonsense anymore?

If it weren't doomed before it started, I would almost be able to foresee a Christe run as an independent or even Libertarian. Most friends of mine who are Republican are certainly more lower case l libertarian in their general philosophy (fiscal conservative / social liberal). I keep anticipating a moment when the self-billed "Libertarian Party" will actually be able to convert that general trend into political relevance. What I've long thought they need is a high-profile convert. The Gov would be an excellent brand-builder - so long as he didn't mind sacrificing his own personal political objectives for the advancement of a heretofore marginalized Party/political philosophy. Kinda wish he could run for NJ Senate on a Libertarian ticket. He'd be sure to win, could build that party's profile in this way.

Ah well, that is all fantasy land. Reality: most Republicans care about social issues insofar as they motivate the base to go vote on Election day, but then behave as libertarians afterward. I am sure Christie will fall into that grand tradition if/when he runs for national office.

I think Christie's approval among conservatives nationally was already pretty low.

While I am glad that Christie has finally come to his senses and will stop wasting time and money fighting against equality under the law, let us not forget that he went down kicking and screaming on this. He has done a great job of hiding behind the "let the voters decide" mantra but I think that anybody who has been paying attention knows where he stands.

I know this was not the suggestion but Christie is not suddenly going to be seen as some champion of gay rights. When the time comes, those for whom this is an important issue will remember that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I think, however, for most of the country, and with all due respect, this is a non issue. For them, same-sex marriage is like #37 on the list of things we need to straighten out in this country. People are far more concerned with the economy and getting back to work. JOMO.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think Christie's approval among conservatives nationally was already pretty low.

Which is pretty dumb on their part. He would not only run a helluva campaign, he would deliver NJ and quite possibly PA for the Rs next time.

traderdave wrote:While I am glad that Christie has finally come to his senses and will stop wasting time and money fighting against equality under the law, let us not forget that he went down kicking and screaming on this. He has done a great job of hiding behind the "let the voters decide" mantra but I think that anybody who has been paying attention knows where he stands.

I know this was not the suggestion but Christie is not suddenly going to be seen as some champion of gay rights. When the time comes, those for whom this is an important issue will remember that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I think, however, for most of the country, and with all due respect, this is a non issue. For them, same-sex marriage is like #37 on the list of things we need to straighten out in this country. People are far more concerned with the economy and getting back to work. JOMO.

No, but it will work out politically for him. He did what he had to do for his Republican bona fides but he will also be able to say, on a national stage, that he ordered the appeal stopped, if it becomes necessary for him to have a card to play on this issue.

Yeah, I think Christie's handling of this was really smart.

The problem is that much of his party is, as a matter of principle, really dumb. The argument that it's wasteful to wage a doomed fight is an iffy proposition at best among the Republican primary electorate... unless, and this is a possibility, he can drive moderates and mainstream conservative Rs to the polls in big enough numbers to counteract the crazies. As jh would point out, the establishment candidate usually does get the nomination when the smoke clears.

Dick Cheney concerned about federal spending... LOL. I'll bet he's also troubled by the power accruing to the executive branch these days.

http://news.yahoo.com/dick-cheney-tea-p ... 11175.html

dajafi wrote:Yeah, I think Christie's handling of this was really smart.

The problem is that much of his party is, as a matter of principle, really dumb. The argument that it's wasteful to wage a doomed fight is an iffy proposition at best among the Republican primary electorate... unless, and this is a possibility, he can drive moderates and mainstream conservative Rs to the polls in big enough numbers to counteract the crazies. As jh would point out, the establishment candidate usually does get the nomination when the smoke clears.

Walker probably is more acceptable to a broader swathe of the Republican electorate, but he has like one zillionth of the charm of Christie. Walker could be a fine consensus candidate among the Republican base, but I have my doubts about his winning a national election, precisely because of how acceptable he would be (on social issues) to the most conservative part of that base. He would bring the Rs Wisconsin, but I am not sure how much appeal he would have in other blue states. Maybe Iowa? I think Christie would play well in PA certainly, and probably VA and some of the Western states too (CO & NV leap to mind).

mozartpc27 wrote:Dick Cheney concerned about federal spending... LOL.

He also feared someone would use his pacemaker to assassinate him.

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think Christie's approval among conservatives nationally was already pretty low.

Which is pretty dumb on their part. He would not only run a helluva campaign, he would deliver NJ and quite possibly PA for the Rs next time.

NJ would be a tight race, but Hillary is pretty beloved in NJ. Definitely not a clear win for the fat man.

So I wonder how many republican women would secretly vote for Clinton because she's a woman and they think it's time for a woman to hold the big office. It's a non-zero number, so the question is how many, enough to swing a tight contest?