"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ― George Orwell
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
CHRIS CHRISTIE, MAY BE GOOD FOR JERSEY, BUT NOT FOR THE COUNTRY...
I have to admit, when the big guy, Chris Christie, first burst onto the scene, I was a huge fan. He made a big splash, and I remember thinking at the time, that we needed more guys like him. I liked his no nonsense approach and his apparent eagerness to tell it like it is. And I even made sure that I'd be able to watch his speech, which was a bit of a disappointment, at the Republican Convention. But with his, what I thought was a, blatant snub of Gov. Romney, at what was a pretty key moment in the 2012 campaign, the bloom pretty abruptly fell off of the Christie rose. And these days when I hear his name being mentioned as a possible contender for the GOP nomination in 2016, I just shake my head and say, "No way!" He's not what we need!
But do others share my opinion? I only ask because as Christie lauds Barry "Almighty" (again) over Hurricane Sandy, I wonder if he's seen as digging himself in deeper. As he gave Barry a tour along the Sandy-devastated Jersey Shore last October, Christie gave Barry the body hug – call it a non-endorsement endorsement – that some conservatives, me included, still think cost Romney the election. Six months later, Christie, a Romney supporter, appears to be unrepentant. He says presidential politics was the last thing on his mind that day. And, he once again gave Barry the Christie-seal-of-approval as far as super storm Sandy is concerned. "He’s kept every promise that he made," he said Monday morning on MSNBC's imbecilic program, "Morning Joe."
Might that be another non-endorsement endorsement of Barry "Almighty"? Or, is it nothing more that a frank assessment of the Billions of dollars pouring into the Garden State? And, could his assessment of Barry vis-a-vis New Jersey cost him conservative votes? Personally speaking, I think conservatives would have a difficult time voting for Christie. But according to political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia says it’s just another example of Christie’s stubborn nature. "He didn’t back off the October statements about Obama," recalls Mr. Sabato. But, at the same time, he says Christie needs all that money from Washington to help rebuild his battered state. And, as it rebuilds the state, it helps his standing with voters from both parties.
So far, New Jersey voters have a high opinion of Christie. According to an April 24 Quinnipiac University poll, the governor leads Democratic state Sen. Barbara Buono by 58 percent to 26 percent in his reelection bid this fall. Christie’s approval rating is a high 67 percent. But polls this early aren’t that meaningful, Sabato says. "There are a lot of politicians who are out of office who assumed their April numbers will be their November numbers," he says. Nationally, Republicans ardor for Christie has cooled somewhat. In a poll of New Hampshire Republicans just last Thursday, Public Policy Polling found Christie (14 percent) behind Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (28 percent) and Sen. Marco Rubio (25 percent) of Florida.
On Monday, Christie tried to separate his approval of Obama’s response to the storm with his other political views. He told MSNBC that "everyone knows I have like a 95 percent level of disagreement with President Barack Obama on issues of principal and philosophy, but the fact of the matter is that he’s got a job to do. And, what people expect out of people they elect is for them to do their job." Sabato, however, thinks it’s unlikely Christie will win the Republican nomination no matter what he says about Obama. "Christie is too moderate," he explains. "It is not just what he said about Obama but a whole range of social issues. It just does not comport with the very conservative base of the Republican Party."
But his constant ass-kissing of Barry is really only the least of my concerns in determining that Christie is far from what we need as a party. He holds many questionable positions, one of which is in the area of the environment, with his seeming to be a believer in the cockamamie theory of manmade global warming. A position that is less than consistent with others who are also said to be in the running for 2016 Christie apparently thinks that climate change is a problem and humans are causing it. "Climate change is real…[and] impacting our state," he said in August 2011. "Human activity plays a role in these changes." His apparent willingness to support a theory that has been so thoroughly disproven, makes me wonder what might motivate him to do so.
So I'm over him. He may decide to throw his hat in the presidential ring next time around, but if he does I hope people are smart enough to see through him. The media will most likely fawn all over him in their attempt to convince those of us on the right that he would be the ideal candidate, but we can't allow ourselves to fall for that old trick again. Old Chris may be good for a laugh or two, but with the country being the shape that it's now in, laughs aren't really what we need. What we need is an anti-Obama, which means no Hitlery Clinton or anyone like her. We need a conservative willing to do what we all know needs to be done if we are to have any hope. Now I know there are many loudly proclaiming that there is no hope, but we can't give up, not yet. That's why 2016 is so important!
Labels:
Chris Christie,
RINOs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment