https://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/federal-probe-of-chris-christie-s-tourism-ads-could-make-bridgegate-look-like-an-afterthought-20140113
Christie's problem is that he doesn't fit the right wing secret agenda.
Here's a guy who cut spending, reduced taxes. battled with unions and democrats in the state legislature. He only needs to do three things to becomes embraced by the right wing, including the OP:
1) repudiate the Obama embrance and blame Obama for every wrong that exists in society today;
2) instead of focusing on financial issues, use all of his influence and rhetoric to oppose and prevent happy marriage;
3) make sure to oppose any and all forms of abortion and make statements like women can prevent abortion in rape cases.
If he does these things, he will endear himself to right wingers and these scandals will be blamed solely on the democrats.
Christie's problem is that he doesn't fit the right wing secret agenda.
Here's a guy who cut spending, reduced taxes. battled with unions and democrats in the state legislature. He only needs to do three things to becomes embraced by the right wing, including the OP:
1) repudiate the Obama embrance and blame Obama for every wrong that exists in society today;
2) instead of focusing on financial issues, use all of his influence and rhetoric to oppose and prevent happy marriage;
3) make sure to oppose any and all forms of abortion and make statements like women can prevent abortion in rape cases.
If he does these things, he will endear himself to right wingers and these scandals will be blamed solely on the democrats.
Christie's problem is that he doesn't fit the right wing secret agenda.
Here's a guy who cut spending, reduced taxes. battled with unions and democrats in the state legislature. He only needs to do three things to becomes embraced by the right wing, including the OP:
1) repudiate the Obama embrance and blame Obama for every wrong that exists in society today;
2) instead of focusing on financial issues, use all of his influence and rhetoric to oppose and prevent happy marriage;
3) make sure to oppose any and all forms of abortion and make statements like women can prevent abortion in rape cases.
If he does these things, he will endear himself to right wingers and these scandals will be blamed solely on the democrats.
Christie's problem is that he doesn't fit the right wing secret agenda.
Here's a guy who cut spending, reduced taxes. battled with unions and democrats in the state legislature. He only needs to do three things to becomes embraced by the right wing, including the OP:
1) repudiate the Obama embrance and blame Obama for every wrong that exists in society today;
2) instead of focusing on financial issues, use all of his influence and rhetoric to oppose and prevent happy marriage;
3) make sure to oppose any and all forms of abortion and make statements like women can prevent abortion in rape cases.
If he does these things, he will endear himself to right wingers and these scandals will be blamed solely on the democrats.
There are two sides to a coin. In order to win in a general election, you need a candidate that can appeal to the middle and the middle-right. If a Republican can win in a blue state, it means he has that quality.
When you say dissimilar, you probably mean more conservative. Well, those couldn't even win in their own primaries in last 2 elections. You would say it's because they weren't conservative enough and I would argue they were trying too hard to please their extreme base, especially on the social issues.
There are two sides to a coin. In order to win in a general election, you need a candidate that can appeal to the middle and the middle-right. If a Republican can win in a blue state, it means he has that quality.
When you say dissimilar, you probably mean more conservative. Well, those couldn't even win in their own primaries in last 2 elections. You would say it's because they weren't conservative enough and I would argue they were trying too hard to please their extreme base, especially on the social issues.
Bunny651. when you say middle and middle -right ..I assume you meant middle and middle-left..because he wouldn't win in a blue state unless he/she did..
When I say dissimilar, I mean less liberal to offer a contrast. You do make a strong point though,because in the recent past true conservatives ( who are few in number) have not done well in the primaries. But republicans who veer to the left on social issues get the nominations...and lose. So, if that MO is a proven loser why continue to put up candidates who's positions are similar to the democrat ...offer 'vive la differences' and than let the voters decide..
Bunny651. when you say middle and middle -right ..I assume you meant middle and middle-left..because he wouldn't win in a blue state unless he/she did..
When I say dissimilar, I mean less liberal to offer a contrast. You do make a strong point though,because in the recent past true conservatives ( who are few in number) have not done well in the primaries. But republicans who veer to the left on social issues get the nominations...and lose. So, if that MO is a proven loser why continue to put up candidates who's positions are similar to the democrat ...offer 'vive la differences' and than let the voters decide..
Bunny651. when you say middle and middle -right ..I assume you meant middle and middle-left..because he wouldn't win in a blue state unless he/she did..
When I say dissimilar, I mean less liberal to offer a contrast. You do make a strong point though,because in the recent past true conservatives ( who are few in number) have not done well in the primaries. But republicans who veer to the left on social issues get the nominations...and lose. So, if that MO is a proven loser why continue to put up candidates who's positions are similar to the democrat ...offer 'vive la differences' and than let the voters decide..
Less liberal means more conservative, no? I meant middle-right when I said it, in particular those who are fiscally, constitutionally conservatives but not so much on social issues. The Party is driven those away(myself included). Whether everyone care to admit or not, the Nation is not going to be more conservative on those issues as days go by, it's the opposite.
You want to talk about proven losers? You mean those who couldn't even win their own primaries? It at the very least, means a lot of people within the Party didn't even agree with their stances and I would guess it's more likely on the social issues.
Bunny651. when you say middle and middle -right ..I assume you meant middle and middle-left..because he wouldn't win in a blue state unless he/she did..
When I say dissimilar, I mean less liberal to offer a contrast. You do make a strong point though,because in the recent past true conservatives ( who are few in number) have not done well in the primaries. But republicans who veer to the left on social issues get the nominations...and lose. So, if that MO is a proven loser why continue to put up candidates who's positions are similar to the democrat ...offer 'vive la differences' and than let the voters decide..
Less liberal means more conservative, no? I meant middle-right when I said it, in particular those who are fiscally, constitutionally conservatives but not so much on social issues. The Party is driven those away(myself included). Whether everyone care to admit or not, the Nation is not going to be more conservative on those issues as days go by, it's the opposite.
You want to talk about proven losers? You mean those who couldn't even win their own primaries? It at the very least, means a lot of people within the Party didn't even agree with their stances and I would guess it's more likely on the social issues.
Bunny651. when you say middle and middle -right ..I assume you meant middle and middle-left..because he wouldn't win in a blue state unless he/she did..
When I say dissimilar, I mean less liberal to offer a contrast. You do make a strong point though,because in the recent past true conservatives ( who are few in number) have not done well in the primaries. But republicans who veer to the left on social issues get the nominations...and lose. So, if that MO is a proven loser why continue to put up candidates who's positions are similar to the democrat ...offer 'vive la differences' and than let the voters decide..
Veer to the left? Both Romney and McCain asserted their opposition to abortion, discussed overturning Roe v. Wade, and opposed happy marriage during the Presidential campaigns to appease voters like you.
They are losing the moderate independent votes because of that.
Bunny651. when you say middle and middle -right ..I assume you meant middle and middle-left..because he wouldn't win in a blue state unless he/she did..
When I say dissimilar, I mean less liberal to offer a contrast. You do make a strong point though,because in the recent past true conservatives ( who are few in number) have not done well in the primaries. But republicans who veer to the left on social issues get the nominations...and lose. So, if that MO is a proven loser why continue to put up candidates who's positions are similar to the democrat ...offer 'vive la differences' and than let the voters decide..
Veer to the left? Both Romney and McCain asserted their opposition to abortion, discussed overturning Roe v. Wade, and opposed happy marriage during the Presidential campaigns to appease voters like you.
They are losing the moderate independent votes because of that.
I have news for you. Every disaster relief bill is filled with pork. It is the nature of the granting of disaster relief, and keep in mind, the money comes from Congress and the allocations for various "pork" are done through them.
The argument that he somehow should be faulted because he stood by Obama is laughable. You right wingers don't tolerate dissent and therefore, you perceive that anyone who doesn't think like you or associates with others is the enemy. He merely showed respect for the sitting President who was touring his state after a natural disaster.
You talk a big game about not caring about abortion or happy marriage, yet you cannot point to one politician you have supported who is pro-choice or for happy-marriage. Not one. And that is the real problem with the right wing. They talk about social issues not at the forefront, but they really are. As I said before, if Christie was anti-happy and anti-abortion, and did not physically embrace Obama, the right wing would be calling this a Dem-laden conspiracy.
I have news for you. Every disaster relief bill is filled with pork. It is the nature of the granting of disaster relief, and keep in mind, the money comes from Congress and the allocations for various "pork" are done through them.
The argument that he somehow should be faulted because he stood by Obama is laughable. You right wingers don't tolerate dissent and therefore, you perceive that anyone who doesn't think like you or associates with others is the enemy. He merely showed respect for the sitting President who was touring his state after a natural disaster.
You talk a big game about not caring about abortion or happy marriage, yet you cannot point to one politician you have supported who is pro-choice or for happy-marriage. Not one. And that is the real problem with the right wing. They talk about social issues not at the forefront, but they really are. As I said before, if Christie was anti-happy and anti-abortion, and did not physically embrace Obama, the right wing would be calling this a Dem-laden conspiracy.
Veer to the left? Both Romney and McCain asserted their opposition to abortion, discussed overturning Roe v. Wade, and opposed happy marriage during the Presidential campaigns to appease voters like you.
They are losing the moderate independent votes because of that.
... I'm not against abortion...since liberals worship abortion that means less future democrat voters..
As far as happy marriage ..if people who like man-man anal sex and they want to get married ..let them. I'm with you and Obama on this issue ...people shouldn't be persuaded or denied rights for 'what they love'........
Moderate independent votes ...LOL ..Moderate independents are like moderate Muslims ..there isn't any ..but I've noticed that there are a growing number of people ( a lot on this forum alone )who claim to be independents since the start of Obama's second term ..but they are mostly liberals in denial ..
Veer to the left? Both Romney and McCain asserted their opposition to abortion, discussed overturning Roe v. Wade, and opposed happy marriage during the Presidential campaigns to appease voters like you.
They are losing the moderate independent votes because of that.
... I'm not against abortion...since liberals worship abortion that means less future democrat voters..
As far as happy marriage ..if people who like man-man anal sex and they want to get married ..let them. I'm with you and Obama on this issue ...people shouldn't be persuaded or denied rights for 'what they love'........
Moderate independent votes ...LOL ..Moderate independents are like moderate Muslims ..there isn't any ..but I've noticed that there are a growing number of people ( a lot on this forum alone )who claim to be independents since the start of Obama's second term ..but they are mostly liberals in denial ..
" He merely showed respect for the sitting President"
ROLF...2x's
He slobbered all over him hugging and walking arm in arm like they were on a date and then praised the president just before election day...
" He merely showed respect for the sitting President"
ROLF...2x's
He slobbered all over him hugging and walking arm in arm like they were on a date and then praised the president just before election day...
I still think it is horse$hit, and lost a lot of respect for Christie when he demagogued the issue, as some of the more fiscally conservative Republicans were attempting to block the passage until the pork was removed. he runs as a "no-nonsense" tax cutting fiscal conservative, that is great for the people of New Jersey, federally he has put the screws to the federal taxpayer to essentially pay for his campaign commercials. Screw him. you may give him a pass. I won't.
The argument that he somehow should be faulted because he stood by Obama is laughable. You right wingers don't tolerate dissent and therefore, you perceive that anyone who doesn't think like you or associates with others is the enemy. He merely showed respect for the sitting President who was touring his state after a natural disaster.
In an election year he went above and beyond to allow the Obama administration to use him for PR. If you don't see that you are a complete amateur. His "respect" went well beyond facilitating a president touring a disaster. Here is a link with a few videos where Christie took to the air on Morning Joe, CNN, and a few other outlets to "heap praise on Obama"
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/chris-christie-obama-hurricane-sandy-98914.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/hurricane-sandy-won-president-obama
You talk a big game about not caring about abortion or happy marriage, yet you cannot point to one politician you have supported who is pro-choice or for happy-marriage. Not one. And that is the real problem with the right wing. They talk about social issues not at the forefront, but they really are. As I said before, if Christie was anti-happy and anti-abortion, and did not physically embrace Obama, the right wing would be calling this a Dem-laden conspiracy.
Well, I guess you would only have to look at who I voted for in the last presidential election to blow up that little theory. I know it is hard for you to remember wayyyyyy back to 2012, but give it a shot.
That is the problem with most guys like you. I don't believe what you believe, therefore I am every aggregated stereotype you can muster about the "GOP" or "Right Wing Fanatic", "hillbilly", "racist", "neo-confederate", "woman hater" etc. etc.
Gary Johnson:
On happy Rights, here is an open letter where he criticizes Obama for not standing up for happy marriage and punting to the states.
https://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-criticizes-obama-for-throwing-happy-marriage-to-the-states
On Abortion, completely consistent with my feelings about the issue.
https://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm
I still think it is horse$hit, and lost a lot of respect for Christie when he demagogued the issue, as some of the more fiscally conservative Republicans were attempting to block the passage until the pork was removed. he runs as a "no-nonsense" tax cutting fiscal conservative, that is great for the people of New Jersey, federally he has put the screws to the federal taxpayer to essentially pay for his campaign commercials. Screw him. you may give him a pass. I won't.
The argument that he somehow should be faulted because he stood by Obama is laughable. You right wingers don't tolerate dissent and therefore, you perceive that anyone who doesn't think like you or associates with others is the enemy. He merely showed respect for the sitting President who was touring his state after a natural disaster.
In an election year he went above and beyond to allow the Obama administration to use him for PR. If you don't see that you are a complete amateur. His "respect" went well beyond facilitating a president touring a disaster. Here is a link with a few videos where Christie took to the air on Morning Joe, CNN, and a few other outlets to "heap praise on Obama"
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/chris-christie-obama-hurricane-sandy-98914.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/hurricane-sandy-won-president-obama
You talk a big game about not caring about abortion or happy marriage, yet you cannot point to one politician you have supported who is pro-choice or for happy-marriage. Not one. And that is the real problem with the right wing. They talk about social issues not at the forefront, but they really are. As I said before, if Christie was anti-happy and anti-abortion, and did not physically embrace Obama, the right wing would be calling this a Dem-laden conspiracy.
Well, I guess you would only have to look at who I voted for in the last presidential election to blow up that little theory. I know it is hard for you to remember wayyyyyy back to 2012, but give it a shot.
That is the problem with most guys like you. I don't believe what you believe, therefore I am every aggregated stereotype you can muster about the "GOP" or "Right Wing Fanatic", "hillbilly", "racist", "neo-confederate", "woman hater" etc. etc.
Gary Johnson:
On happy Rights, here is an open letter where he criticizes Obama for not standing up for happy marriage and punting to the states.
https://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-criticizes-obama-for-throwing-happy-marriage-to-the-states
On Abortion, completely consistent with my feelings about the issue.
https://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm
1) Christie doesn't have a choice about what Congress allocated for disaster relief. I cannot blame him for his comments when his state badly needed funds and they were being held up solely for political reasons. If you think that certain Senators had legitimate concerns over pork, you should go back and look and see how they voted when the bills were for their constituents. Purely politics. All of them.
2) I highly doubt that Christie touring with Obama would have offended you so much had you voted for Johnson.
1) Christie doesn't have a choice about what Congress allocated for disaster relief. I cannot blame him for his comments when his state badly needed funds and they were being held up solely for political reasons. If you think that certain Senators had legitimate concerns over pork, you should go back and look and see how they voted when the bills were for their constituents. Purely politics. All of them.
2) I highly doubt that Christie touring with Obama would have offended you so much had you voted for Johnson.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.