Why Chris Christie Should Never be President

From His November 6, 2012 Press Conference:

CHRISTIE:  I went to the telethon that NBC ran. Bruce [Springsteen] and I had an opportunity to chat for a while.  We hugged.  Bruce told me it's official. We're friends.  I told the president today, actually, that the hug was great and that when we got home, there was a lot of weeping because of the hug, and president asked why.  I said, "Well, to be honest, I was the one doing the weeping."

Governor Christie is a huge fan.  

From the June 13, 2012 Atlantic Monthly: 

Governor Christie has been to 129 Bruce Springsteen concerts. His four children all went to Springsteen shows in utero. He knows every word to every Springsteen song. He dreams of playing drums in the E Street Band. People like Chris Christie don’t fall asleep at Springsteen shows. Christie thinks hard about what he would say to Springsteen, how he would explain himself, if he ever had the chance.
I passed an afternoon with the governor in his office in the Capitol, in Trenton, not long before the concert, listening to Springsteen—we spent half an hour dissecting “Thunder Road,” Christie’s favorite song—and trying to untangle his complex feelings about his idol. Christie believes fiercely that Springsteen would understand him if he only made the effort. “My view on it is that I’m not a priority of his right now,” he said. “At some point maybe I will be. If Bruce and I sat down and talked, he would reluctantly come to the conclusion that we disagree on a lot less than he thinks.”

Why the Republican Party Exists

The Republican party doesn't exist to stop liberalism - but to stop real conservatism.

Think about it.

The Republicans - Still stuck on Stupid

What can I write about Romney's loss?  Republicans thy name is stupidity.  Lets look at the tape:

1) 2012: Republicans nominate a 65 year-old Mormon Harvard MBA who's lost a Senate bid and was a one-term Moderate Governor of Massachusetts. Despite Flipped-flopping, and pandering to moderates  on every major issue, he loses.

2) 2008: Republicans nominate a 72 year-old cranky old fart who's never won an election outside of his safe Arizona seat and has spent that last 8 years attacking Conservatives and working with Ted Kennedy.

3) 2000: Republicans nominate a Harvard MBA and one-term Texas Governor who supports open borders and "Compassionate conservatism".  Elected by a narrow margin, Conservatives support his every sell-out of Conservative principles. Bush II leaves office with one of the lowest popularity rating ever.

3) 1996: Republicans nominate a 73 year-old cranky old fart who's never won an election outside of his safe  Kansas seat and is proud of being more moderate than George Bush.

4) 1992: Republicans  stand by their leader - who's betrayed every conservative principle. He gets 36% of the vote.

5) 1988:  Republicans nominate a 64 year-old Yale grad who's lost two Senate bids, flipped-flopped on every major issue, and was never won an election outside of a safe Texas Republican Seat
After calling Reagan a "Right-wing extremist"  in 1980; he barely wins by falsely claiming he's a "Reagan Republican".

6)1980: Opposed by Bush, Bush II, Dole, and the entire Republican establishment  Reagan is nominated and wins election.  In 1984 he is re-elected with 60% of the vote.

7) 1976: Deeming Reagan "too extreme"; Republicans nominate a 63 year-old Yale Law grad who's flipped-flopped on every major issue, and has never won an election outside of a safe Rural Michigan Republican Seat.  After declaring "Eastern Europe has never been dominated by the USSR" he is defeated by a Georgia Peanut Farmer.

Conservatives - even when lose they think they win

Reminds me of this from Larry Auster (who's a racist but often right):

"So I have my answer. There is no absurdity to which conservatives will not resort in order to claim that conservatism has really won, and thus that conservatism is still a viable movement. America could be officially proclaimed a Soviet state tomorrow, and the conservative pundits would chortle—just as they did about every leftward move by George W. Bush—that this is really a brilliant Machiavellian maneuver by which the conservative agenda is being advanced

Then of course there are people like Frum, but I guess the less said about people like that, the better—save to point out that it’s no wonder they’re E.J. Dionne’s and Sam Tannenhaus’s type of “conservative,” namely in-house conservatives who know their role, which is (a) to serve as a handy whipping-boy/scapegoat for policies that go awry, and (b) to transform leftist policies into “bi-partisan consensus of all reasonable, decent, thoughtful people.”

Coulter on Gingrich and the Tofflers

From her latest Column: 

"The day after the Republicans' historic takeover of the House of Representatives in the 1994 election, Newt was off and running, giving a series of Fidel Castro-style speeches about "the Third Wave information revolution."

Hadn't Republicans just won on a platform of smaller government? Instead of a Republican victory, the '94 election seemed to be a victory for the Tofflers' cyber-babble about "social wavefront analysis," "anticipatory democracy," "de-massification," "materialismo," "the Third Wave" and "decision loads."

Soon, Gingrich was writing a foreword to a Toffler book -- the same one on the Republicans' reading list –- and spending Christmas with the pro-choice, anti-school prayer, Christian Coalition-hating Tofflers. Yes, there's nothing like having an old-fashioned Christmas with a doddering couple who hate prayer and Christians, love abortion and are afraid of their microwave.

At the end of Gingrich's first year as House speaker, his endless, nutty pronunciamentos -- in addition to his plan to entrust Republicans' legislative agenda to an old couple whose living room VCR continuously flashed "12:00" -- had driven his public approval numbers into the dirt.

Newt Gingrich is the "anti-Establishment" candidate only if "the Establishment" is defined as "anyone who remembers what happened the day before yesterday."

Why David Brooks Loves Mitch Daniels

At first, it didn't make sense. Why would a New York Times 'conservative', who hates Palin, and voted for Obama, like an obscure Mid-western red-state Governor. And then I looked at Mitch's biography and found someone who's:

• an Ivy-leaguer: Princeton Grad ('71) Georgetown Law ('79)
• not a social conservative -Arrested for Marijuana use (1970); Divorced and remarried
• a DC insider - Senator Lugar's Buddy and principle aide - 1971-1985 and Reagan White House political advisor 1985-1987
• a supportor of Big Business -VP of Global Pharmasuitical Company Eli Lilly and Company - 1990-2001
• a Supporter of George Bush and the Iraq War. -OMB Director 2001-2003
• a "neo-con" - President and CEO of the Hudson Institute 1987-1990.

So Mitch is really quite acceptable to moderate DC insiders like Brooks, despite coming from Indiana.

Why are Conservatives kidding themselves?

There is no evidence the Republicans are ever going to nominate a true conservative. Wake up conservatives, the Republicans nominated McCain because they liked him, agreed with him - and they'd do it again!

Look at the record:

1976 - Nominated Ford over Reagan
1980 - 40 percent wanted Bush I - not Reagan
1988 - 40 percent wanted Dole - the other 60 percent wanted Bush I
1996- Nominated Bob "Where's the Outrage" Dole
2000- 60 percent wanted "Compassionate Conservative Bush II - the other 40% John Maverick McCain
2008 - Nominated the Maverick and in 2nd place Mitt Romney the former pro-choice moderate Republican from Massachusetts.

The Republican party is hopeless. Even now they're all lining up to support Romney in '012.

McCain Wanted Lieberman as VP

From Newsweek:

"McCain had initially wanted Joe Lieberman. The two senators were fellow romantics, deeply imbued with a sense of righteousness and honor. In mid-August, when NEWSWEEK's editor Jon Meacham was interviewing McCain aboard the campaign plane, the discussion turned to "The Winds of War," Herman Wouk's mega-bestseller about World War II. The main character, a naval commander named Pug Henry, was a favorite of McCain's. As it turned out, Lieberman—sitting just across the aisle and listening in on the NEWSWEEK interview—was a friend of Herman Wouk. "Let's go see Herman!" Lieberman piped up. "Yes!" exclaimed McCain. The two began planning a road trip out to Wouk's California home. "We can shake the money tree," McCain cackled (Wouk lives among the wealthy in Palm Springs, Calif.).

McCain loved to travel with Lieberman, a fellow maverick who had stood fast on Iraq, nearly at the cost of his Senate seat in liberal Connecticut. McCain's other traveling buddy, Lindsey Graham, urged McCain to pick Lieberman, still a nominal Democrat, as a way to show that McCain put country over party and as a way to answer the Democrats' choice of the first African-American presidential nominee. "We've got to match history with history," Graham declared." But when McCain brought Lieberman's name at a secret high-level meeting held in Sedona, Ariz., to consider veep choices on Sunday, Aug. 24th brought up Lieberman, his top aides balked."

Interesting. First, McCain wanted a liberal democrat as his VP and only backed off because it was political suicide. Secondly, why did McCain wait until August 24th to start selecting his VP? The Key seems to be "McCain had initially wanted Joe Lieberman." which indicates McCain had always planned on selecting Lieberman as early as February 2008 and was hoping a late announcement would allow him to ram through Lieberman before the base could react. That, of course, turned out to be wrong - and it led the last minute selection of Palin.

This also explains Kristol's column of late August about what a "great choice" Lieberman would be. Along with J Pods, Rubin's Dick Morris, the WSJ ed page. And also Novak column about Rove calling Lieberman requesting him to decline any VP offer by McCain. Looking back, Goldberg was OK with Leiberman on May 23, 2008 and later in August *** and so was Lowry. York was neutral. Frum supported Rudi for VP and then attacked Palin as "unqualified". No record of his opposing Joe lieberman.

Finally, I find it interesting that no one has really criticized McCain for waiting so long and giving Palin no chance to prepare. There's no reason why Palin could not have been offered the VP in early August and then secretly prepped for a late August roll out.

*** This was Goldberg take on a Lieberman VP Slot on August 12, 2008

MG: Let’s talk a little bit about the latest rumor mill about VP choices. Joe Lieberman keeps coming up for John McCain. Is that a good Vice Presidential running mate, a good pick for Senator McCain?

JG: Here’s the problem for McCain, first of all, is he needs a Vice President to do like ten different things, and none of the potential candidates can do more than five. You know, he needs someone who can placate the base, win over independents, neutralize the age issue, I mean, a whole list of long things. Barack Obama just needs a safe white guy. And so McCain’s got a really tough pick to make. I think there are a lot of good arguments for Lieberman, but there are also a lot of bad arguments for Lieberman. I think there are a lot of conservatives who are just going to think that’s a bridge too far. I mean, whenever I talk to my fellow conservative friends about it, they always say well look, it would be nice if we just had one conservative on the ticket.