How bad does the gop need Chris Cristie

[deltex1]

This is why I thought the gleefulness of those like Ayn Paul so idiotically depressing. I doubt the gop can get enough gop support for a NE moderate, but the polls aren't wrong that the RW radicalsim of the gop is just not playing well to get to 270 EV.

How Bad Does the GOP Need Chris Christie? Really Bad. - The Daily Beast

Not bad....not bad at all.

 

[Boss]

The problem is the far right of the country has become so demanding that any straying away from a hard conservative image is frowned upon and shunned. So to keep them happy and the independents you need to get elected happy at the same time...the candidate has to perform an awful dance of "I'm super conservative and on your side" and then "I'm moderate and on your side" and it's been shown over and over that just doesn't work.

The reason it doesn't work is because dancing around between conservative and moderate demonstrates a complete lack of understanding regarding conservative principles. True conservatives know this, so as soon as this "dance" begins, they tune out and turn off. Mitt Romney's biggest problem was, he didn't believe he could win. He lacked the conviction of a true conservative who believed in a conservative message. Contrast this with Ronald Reagan, a man who knew what Conservatism was all about and was comfortable taking the time to explain it, argue for it, stand up for it. We need someone with that kind of confidence again, who isn't afraid to be a conservative.

I will add this as well, social values play a vital role in Conservatism. It's part of the package. To try and weasel around this and pretend to be a "fiscal conservative" while embracing "social liberalism" is anathema to conservative principle. It demonstrates that you don't really understand Conservatism. Does that mean you have to go out there and sound like an evangelist? No, Reagan certainly didn't, but he maintained a strong belief in social conservative philosophy and defended it to the hilt. He didn't back away or shy away from social conservative values, he embraced them and explained why they were important.

Precisely. The Republican Elites have abandoned the Reagan Doctrine for milquetoast old-school Democrat ideals of yesteryear as the Democrats have shifted farther left toward totalitarianism/big government state control. Nature abhors a vacuum. Repubicans are filling the void. They have forgotten how to fight, or are afraid to for lack of spine...and thus why the big turn off coming from Conservatives. Repubicans are too afraid of image rather than doing the correct thing. It's sickening.

The Republican elites want to sell us on this idea of "being more moderate to appeal to the middle" and lecture us on how this is vital to winning elections. This is a lie. What they want is political power so they can return political favors to their crony corporate contributors. They will pretend to be conservative but they are whores who will say or do whatever they need to get elected. Once in power, they abandon conservatism in favor of fat cat corporatism. They are "neo-statists" much like the democrats, except instead of using the power of government to implement "social justice" they want to use it to line the pockets of their wealthy buddies.

What is sickening to me is this idea that principled conservatism is radical or extreme by any measure of the word. It is the most non-radical and non-extreme political philosophy because it is not ideologically-rooted. Conservatism is a way of thinking and common sense pragmatism based on the world we live in and lessons learned throughout the history of mankind.

 

[Mojo2]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

 

[auditor0007]

If we want to win national elections again, we need a CC type of candidate to run against HRC.

If not, the GOP will get clobbered again.

While I agree with you, I'm not sure that even Christie can stop the Hillary machine. If she picks Julian Castro as her running mate, Texas will be in play. If Hillary wins Texas, everything changes, because Texas would likely not turn back red again. If you believe this is far fetched that having Castro on the ticket could make that much difference, listen to his keynote speech from the Democratic Convention. He's a left of center Democrat who believes in personal responsibility and people working hard to achieve their goals. He will play well with moderates. On top of that, he is a great speaker. Personally, I think he's actually a much better speaker than Obama.

Whether or not Julian Castro becomes Hillary's running mate in 2016, I believe he will be sitting in the White House at some point down the road.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSvEOEB7UW0]Julián Castro's DNC Keynote Speech - Elections 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

If you compare Castro's keynote speech to Rubio's SOTU rebuttal, you will see a polished product to a very inexperienced one in Rubio. Not taking anything away from Rubio as he has worked hard to get where he is, but he does not have the communication skills that Castro has.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

And that case would be that neither are viable presidential candidates, Cruz in particular.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

And that case would be that neither are viable presidential candidates, Cruz in particular.

Nobody without a D by their name is viable to you, so why bother commenting about anyone else?

 

[auditor0007]

. . . because the far right can't field a candidate that the rest of America won't throw up when s/he speaks.

John McCain, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Mitt Romney, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

McCain had no chance. After GW and with the economy on the verge of collapse, Americans were not going to elect another Republican. McCain could have chosen Jesus Christ himself as his running mate and he still would not have won. As for Romney, Romney abandoned who he was and tried to become an ultra conservative. It turned so many people off that he lost the election, and election he could have easily won. I supported Romney in 2008 against McCain in the primaries, and I then voted for McCain. I did not vote for Romney in 2012, because he tried to be a radical conservative.

Believe what you want, and by all means, nominate a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. They will get crushed against any Democrat.

 

[auditor0007]

If the GOP collectively had a brain, they'd nominate Jon Huntsman.

But, if the GOP collectively had a brain, they would have nominated Jon Huntsman in 2012.

Huntsman has no chance in today's GOP. That is why I left the party.

 

[auditor0007]

Advice from Dems: If the GOP wants to be liked by Democrats, they'd nominate someone who walks, talks and acts like a Democrat.

No, thanks

Christie was liked, look where it got him

It's not about Democrats liking the Republican candidate; it's about those in the middle and Independents. They do not like far right conservatives, just like they are not crazy about far left wing liberals. What you conservatives keep missing is that a candidate like Obama is not extremely liberal. He actually isn't much different than Bush. Bush expanded Medicare and Obama pushed through the ACA, which is not socialized healthcare. Obama has not asked for any massive tax increases, and government spending under Obama has been pretty much level since the second year of his administration. If the economy was picking up some, the deficit would pretty much be under control just with the increased tax revenues.

Republicans will probably do okay in 2014, in part due to the favorable congressional districting that was gained under Republican state legislatures over the past ten years, but when it comes to the presidential election, Republican chances are becoming slimmer and slimmer.

 

[auditor0007]

If the GOP collectively had a brain, they'd nominate Jon Huntsman.

But, if the GOP collectively had a brain, they would have nominated Jon Huntsman in 2012.

They nominated democrats the last two elections. It didn't work out so hot for them.

Keep telling yourself that. You guys wouldn't nominate Ronald Reagan today because he wouldn't be conservative enough for you.

 

[auditor0007]

Obie is slightly left of Eugene Debs.

McCain and Romney lost because they were too timid and gutless to do what it took to win.

Not so, and America knows you are wrong on both points.

We can't win the presidency without the moderates, and they won't tolerate the far right candidates. Cruz, after the fiasco last fall, could not get 40% of the vote, much less get the nomination.

You don't speak for America.

You don't win presidential elections without your base. Both McCain and Romney, and to a lesser degree Bush 43, alienated the republican base. The former two lost, while the latter barely eked by twice.

Overlooking that he failed to deliver on his rhetoric about shrinking the federal ogre, Reagan won to landslides by running as a strong conservative.

Reagan did not govern as a strong conservative. He talked the talk, but he was a pragmatist when it came to governing. As for taxes, he pushed through a maximum tax rate reduction, but at the same time he had the capital gains tax increased from 20% to 28%. He also saw the passage of the payroll tax increase which was a massive tax increase that is still in effect today. Strong conservative my ass.

 

[auditor0007]

John McCain, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Mitt Romney, Moderate, nice guy, loses to a radical

Obama is slight left of center, not a radical.

McCain and Romney lost because they catered to your wing of the party, and the rest of America will not tolerate it.

Jake, everyday you make it more apparent that it is more than just a little possible that you are a progressive...

Obama is far left, there are few if any Presidents that could be any more to the left than he is. McCain and Mitt didn't try and appeal to the far right, in fact they mocked the "far right." That's not even getting into the fact that the TP was created after McCain lost due to not representing a huge minority in the Republican party.

It's like you hate being right, accurate or correct about much of anything these days. Again, I think in person you would be incredibly funny to debate. You will only find yourself yelling at people who none of agree with you.

Lol, McCain and Mitt appealed to the far right, lawlz.

McCain never appealed to the far right. He was always a bit progressive for a Republican. Romney was pretty moderate in 2008, but he moved to the right as much as he could in 2012. It's the reason I did not vote for him in 2012 after supporting him in 2008 in the primaries. And as for Obama, he is slightly pretty much a centrist. Don't be confused by his support for the ACA. The ACA is not socialized healthcare. When you compare Bush and Obama, there isn't a great deal of difference.

 

[auditor0007]

Please, Please, Please allow Sarah Paliin to be the 2016 Republican nominee for President of the United States of America. The Democratic nominee wouldn't even have to run a campaign. The self-immolation before the media would be a thing to behold, again.

Really? You can't be serious. You must be a Dem mole.

I hear this a lot from liberals. I know that it also worries some moderate republicans that she might actually run and could win the GOP nomination. I don't think she will run. But there is a part of me that would love to see her do so. I believe liberal minds would be totally blown at how much raw support the woman has across America. I think, midway through her campaign, the snarky smirking over-confident wishing she would run, would be replaced by genuine fear that she might actually win. The chuckles and laughs over superfluous comments she made over silly things that don't matter, would give way to more serious attempts to address the juggernaut. It would be fun to watch a bunch of smart ass liberals get what they begged for and see Palin clean their proverbial clocks.

Plus... A Palin/Hillary debate could be sold on pay-per-view! Nothing like a good cat fight!

Libs, especially the "men" are all nipply about the prospect of a woman president so why not Palin

Hey, if that is what Republicans want, then they should make her the nominee. Who knows, she might win.

 

[auditor0007]

It's 2014

Someone like Christie, then.

The point being if the GOP nominates a rightwing extremist such as Paul or Cruz, the democrats will retain the WH come 2017.

You nominated "someone like Christie" in 2008 and 2012. They both LOST. Can you name the last true MODERATE republican president? Was it Eisenhower? Do we have a very popular moderate republican war hero to run following his victory in war? If not, you need to get off this idea that moderate republicans are able to win the general election.

Both Bushes were moderates. Reagan talked like a conservative but governed like a moderate.

 

[American4Americ]

This is why I thought the gleefulness of those like Ayn Paul so idiotically depressing. I doubt the gop can get enough gop support for a NE moderate, but the polls aren't wrong that the RW radicalsim of the gop is just not playing well to get to 270 EV.

How Bad Does the GOP Need Chris Christie? Really Bad. - The Daily Beast

We don't need him. I hope he chokes on his blubber.

 

[Boss]

Both Bushes were moderates. Reagan talked like a conservative but governed like a moderate.

Ronald Reagan defined modern conservatism. To claim he was a moderate is boneheaded. Yes, he governed pragmatically... conservatism IS pragmatic! Being pragmatic doesn't make you a moderate.

H.W. Bush got elected on the coat tails of Reagan. He ran as a Reagan conservative. He lost reelection because he wasn't a conservative. George W. was arguably the most socially conservative Republican to hold office in our lifetime. Both Bush's were establishment neo-statists, like McCain and Romney. This is what some people like to call "moderate."

 

[Nyvin]

A case can be made for Cruz and for Gov. Scott Walker (R) WI.

Nominating Cruz for the GOP is presidential suicide.

 

[Iceweasel]

Reagan did not govern as a strong conservative. He talked the talk, but he was a pragmatist when it came to governing. As for taxes, he pushed through a maximum tax rate reduction, but at the same time he had the capital gains tax increased from 20% to 28%. He also saw the passage of the payroll tax increase which was a massive tax increase that is still in effect today. Strong conservative my ass.

You overlooked the fact that the capital gains tax was around 90% when he took office. Libs love to quote the small increase, either by design or ignorance. That and seeing the passage of a bill isn't the same as supporting it either, he had a Democrat House and Senate to deal with.

 

[Nyvin]

Reagan did not govern as a strong conservative. He talked the talk, but he was a pragmatist when it came to governing. As for taxes, he pushed through a maximum tax rate reduction, but at the same time he had the capital gains tax increased from 20% to 28%. He also saw the passage of the payroll tax increase which was a massive tax increase that is still in effect today. Strong conservative my ass.

You overlooked the fact that the capital gains tax was around 90% when he took office. Libs love to quote the small increase, either by design or ignorance. That and seeing the passage of a bill isn't the same as supporting it either, he had a Democrat House and Senate to deal with.

He only had a Democrat House, not Senate...except his last two years by which point he was pretty much lame duck anyway.

Also it was President Carter that lowered it from 98%...not Reagan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obie is slightly left of Eugene Debs.

McCain and Romney lost because they were too timid and gutless to do what it took to win.

Not so, and America knows you are wrong on both points.

We can't win the presidency without the moderates, and they won't tolerate the far right candidates. Cruz, after the fiasco last fall, could not get 40% of the vote, much less get the nomination.

You don't speak for America.

You don't win presidential elections without your base. Both McCain and Romney, and to a lesser degree Bush 43, alienated the republican base. The former two lost, while the latter barely eked by twice.

Overlooking that he failed to deliver on his rhetoric about shrinking the federal ogre, Reagan won to landslides by running as a strong conservative.

I certainly understand what Americans want in all of her glories of citizen desires.

America will not accept a candidate from the far right, period, regardless the wants of your "base".

Reagan only won, like Eisenhower, Nixon, and both Bushes, because he pulled the middle. The conservatives in the party gave him the nomination, not the election.

Helena, America will never elect a candidate like Cruz or Santorum.