I mentioned Christie to my ultra-liberal husband and he replied, "He's from the class of people that lose their heads in revolutions."
Christie. . . .
- Thread starter Bird of Prey
- Start date
That certainly blows the Carlin "it's the voter's fault" quote right out the friggin' window.
The voters don't get real choice; the system creates the menu. We only get to pick from column A or column B. That may work out great for the owner of a chinese restaurant; but it doesn't work out so great for the members of a pluralistic society.
That certainly blows the Carlin "it's the voter's fault" quote right out the friggin' window.
The voters don't get real choice; the system creates the menu. We only get to pick from column A or column B. That may work out great for the owner of a chinese restaurant; but it doesn't work out so great for the members of a pluralistic society.
As long as the American public likes it that way, that's what's gonna happen, so it really isn't about the voters not getting a choice. The voters have plenty of choice. They can vote any which way they want, but they don't.
It's about time Americans take a little responsibility for their ineffective, often corrupt leadership.
In the primaries, Hillary Clinton outlined a national health care program that required everybody to participate. She said it: told the truth. Obama claimed that in his, mandatory participation wasn't necessary. He lied. He flat out lied, but the public that voted him in has forgotten that. So, we have what we have in office with the threat of a second term: a corporate suck-up that lies. Sound familiar?? Change we could believe in, right?? Well, the American voters can take the blame. They could support an independent, but they don't. . . .
FYI:
Some asthmatics take medication that causes weight gain and puffiness.
Prednisone and Advair are notorious for this side effect.
I'm speaking from personal experience.
Some asthmatics take medication that causes weight gain and puffiness.
Prednisone and Advair are notorious for this side effect.
I'm speaking from personal experience.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/christie_feels_the_urge_QYtocnZuH6ArN54eGisgyL?
NYPost says he's going to announce on Monday. I am surprised. And doubtful. And hopeful.
NYPost says he's going to announce on Monday. I am surprised. And doubtful. And hopeful.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2011
- Messages
- 7,212
- Reaction score
- 974
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- Website
- www.facebook.com
And are surprised when it happens because they really thought they were being very liberal.
And they - and Christie - probably are being fiscally center-right and socially progressive in terms of policy-making, but it won't help them because ultimately, whatever they might do for the people, whatever they might think is the people's due, their connections and their loyalties are to the ones with the money.
I'm sure Christie really does believe in equal rights for gay people and keeping religion out of politics. But he also believes in breaking unions and labor and laying off teachers and other things that impact our ability to live and be citizens as well, and if it ever really does come down to the line, if we ever get past the showy blather of morality issues, Christie will still have been on the wrong team -- the one that thinks liberties are granted from the top down, not recognized as inherent in everyone.
A Christie presidency might turn out to be relatively free of horrendous morality melodramas, but I expect our jaws will drop instead from the even greater corruption (because it's hard to imagine it getting much worse, but it can, oh, it can) and the even greater spread of poverty as the game is slanted more and more in favor of the "job creators."
Last edited:
If there's a candidate in either party worth supporting, he's the guy. I'm sure it's hard for him to turn down the kind of support he's getting. And I think he can capture the independent vote. . . .
I had to be on prednisone once. There was not enough food in all the world. Bring on the first turkey!FYI:
Some asthmatics take medication that causes weight gain and puffiness.
Prednisone and Advair are notorious for this side effect.
I'm speaking from personal experience.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Christie appeals to people who dislike Obama, but can't stomach the absolute crazies that the GOP has been putting up to replace him.
It's a sad day when simply not being totally nuts is considered a tremendous achievement, worthy of enthusiastic support.
I think the idea of Christie as a social progressive is a bit of an overstatement. Mostly I hear it from social conservatives who don't see him as one of them - but that doesn't necessarily make him much of a social progressive, imo.
The thing is, that seems to be a not very large group of people - people who fit into both categories. I don't know if it's enough for Christie to be successful.
Last edited:
I agree with you. But there's another sad reality here, which is that had Obama followed Krugman's advice and "thrown everything including the kitchen sink" at the economy, he'd not be the imperiled president that he is today.
Obama has taken baby steps when he should have been taking huge strides. He certainly had the support he needed for a major turn-around. He could've ended the Iraq occupation. He could've withdrawn from Afghanistan as he had several face-saving opportunities, but he failed to take them. Instead he has left the his country mired in draining, demoralizing, costly conflicts, and not thrown enough money into an economic rebuilding effort nor has he crafted a worthwhile health care initiative. So now, we have chronic unemployment; we're losing the middle class; we have a federal government so enormous and so corrupt, that we can't even trust it on the most basic of issues like individual freedom. We're looking at a health care initiative so expensive and so concilliatory that it will line more executive pockets than it will save lives.
The irony is that a conservative like Ron Paul with equal zeal on a libertarian path may have changed the economic outcome, too, albeit with an entirely different approach. The problem is trying to be all things to all people. When in a crisis, an effective leader and problem solver can't operate that way. He has to be take a determined lead. He can't be tentative or an appeaser or a special interest lackey . . . .
And btw, what Christie really has in his favor is that he's strong. . . .
Last edited:
From the link:
Yeah, that really has me convinced I can HOPE for CHANGE.
Nancy brought us "Just Say No" and a doubling-down of The War on Some Drugs[SUP]TM[/SUP], and Henry was the mastermind of foreign policy that had Tricky Dick shipping kids overseas wholesale courtesy of indentured servitude, and still sees substantial support today. Dubya needs no introduction, even to the youngest among us.
Christie's the latest poster boy for the status quo. He might knock out a bunch of lower-level bureaucrats who have been skimming more than is sensible, but any accountant could do that. Substantial change? In what area?
Not to say the hallowed halls couldn't use a thorough cleaning, so from that standpoint he may be a bit better than the usual suspects.
Last edited:
Yeah, that really has me convinced I can HOPE for CHANGE.
If true, I'd agree with you. But do we really know that Christie "idolizes" Henry Kissinger, for example? Is there anything else to say it's true, besides the article saying so?
Of course, it could be true - I wouldn't disagree with that.
This has been a PSA in the interests of reasonable skepticism. Thank you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2011
- Messages
- 7,212
- Reaction score
- 974
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- Website
- www.facebook.com
What is there to suggest this is anything but the standard Republican machine grasping at yet another straw? This isn't some insurgency from within the ranks. This is the same old establishment gang doing the pleading. They're by and large the ones who created the status quo.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems like a different thing altogether. I'm not saying Reagan, Bush and Kissinger are outsiders. And it seems likely Christie would be grateful for their support. I'm just saying I don't know where this idea that these are people Christie "idolizes" would come from. Did he say "Henry Kissinger is an idol of mine" or something? That's all I'm saying.
Nothing other than the article. But take a little different perspective. Say he runs and wins. Who's he most beholden to? Who got him where he is? Think he'll be allowed to forget?
His 'supporters' are the status quo. Things are going to change if he gets in? Really?
The Republican hunt for The One continues. Good.
They have some perfectly credible candidates already in the way, but if the handpicked choice of the Koch Brothers and other monied elites wants to waddle in, the more the fucking merrier.
Rick Perry was The One not so long ago. Ask him how hot that spotlight can get.
They have some perfectly credible candidates already in the way, but if the handpicked choice of the Koch Brothers and other monied elites wants to waddle in, the more the fucking merrier.
Rick Perry was The One not so long ago. Ask him how hot that spotlight can get.
Another take on The One. (at 0:50)The Republican hunt for The One continues. Good.
They have some perfectly credible candidates already in the way, but if the handpicked choice of the Koch Brothers and other monied elites wants to waddle in, the more the fucking merrier.
Rick Perry was The One not so long ago. Ask him how hot that spotlight can get.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Christie is reportedly considering getting in the race after all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608950531660360.html
My own feeling is that Christie originally had no interest in running because he believed that despite our economic woes, Obama would be very difficult to beat in 2012.
Better to wait til 2016 when there would be no incumbent and no charismatic Democrat opponent on the horizon and the current crop of GOP contenders would be either losers or old news. Christie as GOP standard bearer would be a natural, politically speaking.
But now that's it's looking like a viable republican would have an excellent chance of unseating the incumbent, and even an unviable candidate would have a shot, it's time to rethink his decision.
If he waits and a Republican were to to win, he'd potentially then have to wait until 2020 to make a run, and a lot can happen between then and now.
I would not be surprised to see him throw his hat in, although I can't imagine why anyone would want to be president right now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608950531660360.html
My own feeling is that Christie originally had no interest in running because he believed that despite our economic woes, Obama would be very difficult to beat in 2012.
Better to wait til 2016 when there would be no incumbent and no charismatic Democrat opponent on the horizon and the current crop of GOP contenders would be either losers or old news. Christie as GOP standard bearer would be a natural, politically speaking.
But now that's it's looking like a viable republican would have an excellent chance of unseating the incumbent, and even an unviable candidate would have a shot, it's time to rethink his decision.
If he waits and a Republican were to to win, he'd potentially then have to wait until 2020 to make a run, and a lot can happen between then and now.
I would not be surprised to see him throw his hat in, although I can't imagine why anyone would want to be president right now.
Well Bloomberg thinks Christie ought to even though Christie called him a Putz. Okay, just a putz.
There's a nice middle shot in this next election:
take the financially literate Republicans who don't mind
paying some taxes to keep things running, take the flabbergasted independents, take the unemployed non-tea-party-ers, take a few Democrats who are upset about something. With that amorphous mass, just promise a reasonable level of ordinary competence and win the election, bump up the fiscal stimulus and the national economy will drive itself out of its bubbles: you get two terms of relative tranquility and are hailed as a savior and all you have to do is not do anything really destructive.
The tricky part will be: what if the economy starts to recover too quickly and Obama gets credit for that?
Squeezing out the current Republican field won't be too hard; they seem to be self-destructing even without any competition.
I would have to disagree. I think Obama is very vulnerable right now, and it's only going to get worse. My opinion is that practical, big-money, influencial Republicans see a Republican primary field of eccentrics that are self-defeating, with the exception of Romney. But they're afraid Romney doesn't have an appealing personality. He's too cool. In short, he's too much like Obama, only with a corporate sheen.
Obama can be defeated handily by a frank, intelligent, practical fighter, not an eccentric fighter like Bachman or a blockhead like Perry that could turn off every independent out there, but a guy that thinks ECONOMY. So already Christie's priority is a great opener. And then, I'm pretty sure Christie's a Catholic, a big plus with the Latino vote. He's got an off-the-cuff manner which people trust. He doesn't come across as an "extremist" like Paul, an unreliable husband like Gingrich, a religious zealot like Santorum, or a capricious airhead moose-shooting quitter like Palin.
But Christie's biggest asset is that he's very, very quick on his feet in debate. He's exceedingly articulate when he wants to be, and he won't be overshadowed by Obama's oratory. And he's a young man with results. Obama doesn't have much to show for four years of a dismal economy and the rich crooks getting richer. . . .
Last edited: