Christie's style is to be charming to the public, while letting
conservative catholic groups (the people who put him in) rule his decisions,
when it serves him. Vetoing the marriage equality legislation that easily passed
the Legislature and would easily pass the humiliating, forced, popular vote, is
pandering to catholic interests, plain and simpleCuccinelli panders to old
right wing donors -- the stuff he says is so ridiculous that most people under
40 cannot believe anyone could think it.In these cases, "style"
seems to be leaning on a lamp post waiting for customers.
Paradoxically it may be Christie's willingness to work with opponents that
will prevent him from getting the Republican nomination. Apparently Republicans
don't go in for that type of thing,
What about Senator Lee's style of beating the drum of war and then
surrendering on television concerning the Affordable Health care Act?
President Obama won the press with this Governor pandering to the President
prior to the elections in 2012 and after Hurricane Sandy. Money speaks big in
politics, even louder than votes as the media pushes loud and clear to the
uninformed voters and public who allow this type of "news" at our
The Republicans will never nominate Christie, whom they perceive as a traitor.
Here's my bet: The Republicans have only screwballs left. They will
nominate one, possibly Rand Paul, and they will utterly collapse under a tide of
Chris Cristie may be poison to the GOP right wing. Poison is the last thing he
is to more practical Republicans who want to win back the White House in 2016.
It’s ironic (given the funny hats they like to wear at rallies) that the
Tea Party seems to have more in common with the Muslim Brotherhood than they do
the Founding Fathers. The Brotherhood ridiculed any who disagreed
with them and built no coalitions, and thankfully their “my way or the
highway” approach was not tolerated for long by the Egyptian people.The Founders on the other hand knew that compromise is what makes a
democracy function and they never let the “perfect” be the enemy of
the “good.” There was only one time in our history when we failed to
compromise (on a really big issue) and it lead to civil war. An
ideology that cannot compromise is incapable and unfit to govern… except
in a dictatorship.
Bailout Bob likes to write about successful Republicans with alliterative names.
"Hard-line Conservative": Anyone who now believes in less government,
lower government spending, and lower taxes. It's all the rage to believe
in fantasies like "Obamacare" (Pelosicare, actually), big-government
supposed solutions to problems, and confiscation/redistribution of earnings.
Many who claim to be "moderate" are simply politicians who want to keep
the party going with more government insanity.
@Tyler D, You may want to pickup a history book on the founding fathers, and
follow the muslim brotherhood more closely. Both the founding fathers, and the
muslim brotherhood came into power thru violence, and both wrote a constitution.
The Tea Party has shown no violence, have no power, and hav'nt written a
constitution. The Tea Party is simply trying to get back too small govt which
the founding fathers intended. "on a really big issue" in the civil war,
it would be interesting to know what you think that was?
@FT1/SS – “Tyler D,You may want to pickup a history book on the
founding fathers…”If you would like to argue against my
point(s), great! I would simply ask that you do so against what I actually said
(i.e., how I said the groups were similar) rather than knock down a few straw
man differences I never asserted or denied.Regarding the Civil War
question, am I safe to assume by the bait on the hook here that you are a
“States rights” guy who thinks the war had nothing to do with
slavery?I’ll resist (for now) the same “beat up a straw
@Tyler D, "similar"? That's not the word you used. You may want to
go back and read your first post. What you stated was "more in common"
that's a very strong statement. Followed by other strong points in your
attempt to fit the Tea Party and Muslim Brotherhood together. Your points are
wrong, and incorrect! Your assumption "“States rights” guy who
thinks the war had nothing to do with slavery" is wrong! Those were issues
piled on just before the civil war, and accelerated during the war. "On a
really big issue" was the foundation of the war. Now, I can help you and
give you the answer backed up by political, and media statements of the day, or
you can do your own research?
@FT1/SS – “What you stated was "more in common" that's
a very strong statement.”True… and then I went on to say
in detail what those commonalities are. And I’ll stand by what I said
unless you have good arguments against those points, rather than just your own
straw men.RE: The Civil War – Your comment implies that you
think slavery was an ancillary issue, but I don’t want to put words in
your mouth. If you have a point to make here, just make it.
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention went home from Philadelphia feeling
they had failed. No one got everything he wanted. All felt they had given up too
much. Their most optimistic hope was that they had produced a document that
everyone could at least live with.That was the emergence of
compromise as the true genius of America with the writing of the Constitution
itself being its greatest triumph. That’s lost on today’s right wing
which scorns the very idea of compromise. But as has been pointed out, the Civil
War was the great failure of compromise. That’s when America’s
mechanisms for compromise completely broke down and the issues were left to be
settled on the battlefields.
They argue that the founders were influenced by Puritanism’s ardent values
and beliefs more so than emerging 18th century secular ideas. One such group is
the Institute on the Constitution which openly promotes a conservative religious
agenda. It’s popular among evangelicals and on campuses of conservative
Bible colleges whose graduates are some of its historians.