As much as I hate to admit it, there have been a couple of instances where I've allowed myself to be seriously fooled by those whom I really thought were guys that I could very easily support. Maybe it was my fault for not doing the necessary homework or, may it was just that I wanted, so badly, to have them be what they seemed, that no homework was needed. But boy, was I wrong! First I was badly fooled by Marco Rubio and more recently by Chris Christie. I think my rationale for feeling that way about Rubio is obvious, so I'll focus here on why I now feel pretty much the same way about Christie. Other than, of course, the way he kissed Barry's ass after Hurricane Sandy and dissed Romney
Anyway, Christie recently offered up a very clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, ripping libertarians, including Sen. Rand Paul, for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism. "This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at a Republican governors forum in, of all places, Aspen, Colo. He added, "You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them." So here we have yet another Republican, in making references to dangerous thought, sound much more like a Democrat.
Christie, who appeared on a panel with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, all potential 2016 rivals, used the same old tired, and rather lame, 9/11 justification in making the same idiotic claim that people who are questioning government surveillance programs should confront the families affected by the 9/11 attacks. "These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have," Christie said. He suggested that they be made to explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The House, of which my representative was one, earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment. In talking about that vote, Christie said, "As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought." Asked whether he includes Paul in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down. "You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this," he said. So now we’re talking about "dangerous thought"?
Christie acknowledged that there will always be mistakes when it comes to national security and protecting privacy, but said Americans need to stay focused on what’s at stake. He dismissed some of the current privacy/national security debates as "esoteric." "I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t," he said. "And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001. Actually what I think needs to be the primary focus here is, do we trust our government. And I think the response to that question is a resounding NO! Granted, no one wants us to experience another 9/11, which is exactly why that's repeatedly used as being the justification for government eavesdropping.
But I think what's taking place here is less about preventing another 9/11 and much more about the government being able to keep tabs on us. And all that information may become too tempting of a resource, for some politician, especially one like Barry "Almighty", to not want to take full advantage of. The line has to be drawn somewhere. And we, as Americans, will need to determine what's the acceptable level of risk when it comes to keeping the government firmly out of our private lives. Personally, I would argue that our government is being rather selective in it's efforts to 'protect' us from another attack the magnitude of 9/11. And we're simply expected to comply with anything no matter how remotely it might be tied to those efforts.
Now I know I have repeatedly slammed those 14 Million folks who chose to stay home last November, which essentially resulted in Barry being able to hang around for another four years. But, I don't know, maybe I'm coming around to their position. Because I'll tell you something right now. If this boob, Christie, ends up being the guy I have to vote for in 2016, then I can garo-freaking-tee that I will not be voting for the Republican candidate. Because in that case, there would be absolutely no difference than if I were to vote for Hitlery, assuming that she is the candidate that the Democrats will settle on. Because the end result for the country, no matter which of these two got elected, would be exactly the same.
I will never again simply vote for the person whom I view as being nothing more than the lesser of two evils. Win or lose it just never seems to work out. We Republicans, as a party, are going to have to learn to tune the media out, and select the candidate that we think best represents us and not listen to those in the media as they tell who they think is the candidate that best represents where it is that we want the country to go. Now having said that, I am not looking to find a candidate who agrees with me 100 percent on every issue, because I think that would be unrealistic. But the candidate and I would have to agree on what we see as being the job of government and what's the best direction for the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment