SkinsHokieFan Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-begin-effort-to-negatively-define-chris-christie-before-2016-campaign/2013/11/06/780e4420-4720-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html?hpid=z2 Link for rest And if I were the DNC, I would embrace the heck out of Christie as opposed to go negative on him. If conservatives figure out the DNC doesn't like Christie, his popularity will go up. One of his problems amongst conservatives has been the "friends" he has Top Democratic officials launched a concerted offensive Wednesday to define New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in a negative light, believing that he has emerged from his reelection landslide as the Republican Party’s strongest potential presidential contender for 2016. Some Democratic strategists said the party made a mistake by not spending more money to attack Christie during the gubernatorial campaign, which might have suppressed his margin of victory and denied the Republican a sweeping mandate in a blue state. In the months to come, Democrats say, they plan to chip away at Christie’s moderate image and present him nationally as a hard-edged conservative. In Washington, some of Christie’s possible rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination also criticized the governor Wednesday and sought to diminish the significance of his reelection romp. The maneuvering comes as Christie prepares to become chairman of the influential Republican Governors Association, which will allow him to crisscross the country raising money and campaigning for fellow GOP governors next year. Democrats said they will attempt to tie Christie to those governors’ most unpopular policies. Christie demonstrated his strength as a potential national candidate with acommanding victory on Tuesday, winning 60 percent of the vote in a state that President Obama carried handily a year ago. Christie showed broad appeal, carrying a majority of the votes of women and Hispanics and making gains with blacks and young people — all demographic groups that have stymied other Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 The DNC plans to present him as a hard-edged conservative? What are they trying to do, get him nominated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Christie doesn't seem to be one of the "bad guy" conservatives. I believe that he can govern from the middle. He's not an ideologue and more of results oriented politician. http://www.historyofold.com/2011/08/fattest-president-of-united-states.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Won't have much of a difference because the Tea Party will never endorse him. They consider him GOP elite and that won't change just because the Dems are coming after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 If you want to see completely irrational Christie hate: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3088572/posts He has IMO buried himself because of the few times he extended his hand across party lines or when he didn't join in on the Islamophobia with other TP supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Meh. I heard Mark Levine and Sean Hannity go ballistic on him yesterday too. The far left doesn't like him and the far right doesn't like him...those are good bona fides as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 He's too socially tolerant and not enough "he was born in Africa" crazy to be able to win the GOP primary...see Huntsman, John. He is more problem solver/decision maker than ideologue, and too many remnants of the Buchananite movement will block him. Essentially, it will likely be a rerun of the Giuliani campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 He's too socially tolerant and not enough "he was born in Africa" crazy to be able to win the GOP primary...see Huntsman, John. He is more problem solver/decision maker than ideologue, and too many remnants of the Buchananite movement will block him. Essentially, it will likely be a rerun of the Giuliani campaign. They said the same about Romney. The crazy wing split their votes among a couple candidates and Romney took all the moderates straight to the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I've never voted Republican ... but I would honestly have a pretty hard time choosing between Hilldog and Christie ... I really like him. If Obama gets a chance to name two more USSC justices that might lean me more toward Christie (I really believe in a court balance that hasn't quite swung back) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 They said the same about Romney. The crazy wing split their votes among a couple candidates and Romney took all the moderates straight to the nomination. There was nothing moderate about Romney in the primaries. Romney was completely shameless in terms of making himself the best fit for any situation, plus he had the money that Christie likely won't have. The crazy wing also didn't have someone like Ted Cruz back then that they could singularly align with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Yeah, Romney was a political chameleon/shameless Pander Bear. Christie is more in the Giuliani/Huntsman mold. Romney, btw, was a terrible governor and left office with a 35% approval rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 He's too socially tolerant and not enough "he was born in Africa" crazy to be able to win the GOP primary...see Huntsman, John. He is more problem solver/decision maker than ideologue, and too many remnants of the Buchananite movement will block him. Essentially, it will likely be a rerun of the Giuliani campaign. Huntsman isn't a reasonable comparison. No one knew who the hell he was, and he was on a shoestring budget. Christie has all the star power and campaign money in the world. Giuliani is a pretty good comp though. The most important result from this past week (as it bears on 2016) was not NJ or VA. It was Alabama. If an establishment, business-backed conservative can beat back a tea party challenger in 'Bama, they can do it anywhere. I think we might see the business community much more heavily engaged in the primary than they have been in the past, trying to undo the conventional wisdom about who votes in the primaries and what it takes to win there. It doesn't do anyone any good to force an electable moderate to sacrifice what made them an electable moderate in the first place in order to win the primary. The GOP won't win with Christie if they haven't learned anything from McCain and Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Yeah, Romney was a political chameleon/shameless Pander Bear. Christie is more in the Giuliani/Huntsman mold. Romney, btw, was a terrible governor and left office with a 35% approval rating. ...A fact that was, at least to this TV-avoiding voter, not prominently featured during the 2012 general election. I was surprised that it didn't get more play with moderates. Not that it would have made much difference in the outcome of the election, but that's easy to say in hindsight. MA liked to elect Republican governors in those days, but they sure didn't like Romney once they had enough time to see the effects of his governorship. I was one of them. He sucked. As Clinton astutely pointed out, Romney was just in the wrong line of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Huntsman isn't a reasonable comparison. No one knew who the hell he was, and he was on a shoestring budget. Christie has all the star power and campaign money in the world. Giuliani is a pretty good comp though. Good point, but remember the real problem that Huntsman had in the primaries was that he had the audacity to work with Obama. That is going to be Christie's problem in the primaries also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 ...A fact that was, at least to this TV-avoiding voter, not prominently featured during the 2012 general election. I was surprised that it didn't get more play with moderates. Not that it would have made much difference in the outcome of the election, but that's easy to say in hindsight. MA liked to elect Republican governors in those days, but they sure didn't like Romney once they had enough time to see the effects of his governorship. I was one of them. He sucked. Romney lost every election he ever ran in except one, and that was because he got in on his predecessor William Weld's coattails. Weld (at least to an outsider like me) seemed to be an excellent governor, but he ended up getting blackballed in the. GOP by friggin Jesse Helms for his support of medical marijuana. Romney left a terrible record following in Weld's footsteps, and seems to have viewed the governorship as a mere stepping stone to higher office. The Daily Show did a hilarious job of constantly exposing all his flip-flops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I've said repeatedly that Huntsman was & probably will remain our only R option, and I've heard (but can't confirm) that there's dirt on him too. Shame if true ...I'd love to hear more of his platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I've never voted Republican ... but I would honestly have a pretty hard time choosing between Hilldog and Christie ... I really like him. If Obama gets a chance to name two more USSC justices that might lean me more toward Christie (I really believe in a court balance that hasn't quite swung back) What exactly is your idea of a Court Balance? Right now it is 3 lockstep conservatives, versus 4 lockstep liberals and two swing votes that trend conservative. The democrats have been very successful with the Justices they nominate all of which became lockstep while the Republicans nominations often have ended up as swing voters (See O'Conner, Kennedy and now Roberts). So if it is balance you're looking for you better hope those two nominations Obama makes are replacements for 2 of the liberal justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 What exactly is your idea of a Court Balance? Right now it is 3 lockstep conservatives, versus 4 lockstep liberals and two swing votes that trend conservative. The democrats have been very successful with the Justices they nominate all of which became lockstep while the Republicans nominations often have ended up as swing voters (See O'Conner, Kennedy and now Roberts). So if it is balance you're looking for you better hope those two nominations Obama makes are replacements for 2 of the liberal justices. I understand that conservatives have been unhappy with 1-2 prominent Roberts opinions, but to call him a swing voter that trends conservative is just not accurate. He's a solid conservative jurist. Ginsburg is the most highly speculated retiree. Actually the only one I've heard of. I don't know who he's envisioning as the 2nd retiree, but at least 1 of them would be a liberal justice. But the idea of the "lockstep" anything is by and large flawed. If you look at the course of an entire term, about half the cases will be unanimous. Maybe 1 in 10 is a 5-4 decision along the divide we think of as defining the justices. You will find plenty of cases with Scalia and Thomas on opposite sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 What exactly is your idea of a Court Balance? Right now it is 3 lockstep conservatives, versus 4 lockstep liberals and two swing votes that trend conservative. The democrats have been very successful with the Justices they nominate all of which became lockstep while the Republicans nominations often have ended up as swing voters (See O'Conner, Kennedy and now Roberts). So if it is balance you're looking for you better hope those two nominations Obama makes are replacements for 2 of the liberal justices. I think I was reading somewhere that the next two to come off WOULD be two libs ... but if you replace them with 2 republican nominated justices you're suddenly 6-3 ... I'm not one to base a vote solely on SCOTUS nomination potential ... but considering the SCOTUS has a lot more staying power and influence with their decisions, I do think it's important to keep the balance. Ideally you'd have 3 libs, 3 conservatives and 3 swing voters ... but that will never be the case in the balance for power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I actually suspect that the DNC basically threw the New Jersey election. I doubt that they could have defeated Christie, but they basically gave him a landslide. Democrats want Christie in a Republican primary and they want him to be formidable. I don't think he has a chance of winning, but he can turn that into a full-scale GOP civil war. Also, I'm a political junkie and I had to google Jon Huntsman's name, because I had completely forgotten that he existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 LKB - there's nothing the NJ Dems could've done to prevent a landslide. The previous Dem governors Corzine and McGreevey were a complete disaster and essentially bankrupted the state and helped push our taxes up to highest in the nation. Even people who aren't crazy about Christie don't want a repeat of that. Buono's only support came from public sector unions, esp. NJEA...even several of the traditionally uber-Dem private sector unions switched and endorsed Christie. And as an aside, Christie appointed an openly gay justice to the NJ state supreme court, so I wouldn't be too concerned about him nominating the next Scalia to SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 What exactly is your idea of a Court Balance? Right now it is 3 lockstep conservatives, versus 4 lockstep liberals and two swing votes that trend conservative. The democrats have been very successful with the Justices they nominate all of which became lockstep while the Republicans nominations often have ended up as swing voters (See O'Conner, Kennedy and now Roberts). So if it is balance you're looking for you better hope those two nominations Obama makes are replacements for 2 of the liberal justices. Wait, what? Just because someone is a "swing vote" doesn't mean that they are moderate. O'Connor was a staunch conservative, and so are Kennedy and Roberts. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are far, far right, as far as you can go and still be in the legal spectrum. There is no liberal equivalent to them on the court. No one has put Lawrence Tribe or Stephen Breyer or Alan Dershowitz on the Supreme Court, but guys like that would be the natural counterweights to Scalia in terms of legal thinking. Sotomayor is a former prosecutor. Kagan is basically a pro-business centrist. Ginsburg is The only reason that the "liberals" are "lockstep" is because the court keeps taking cases to try to pull the law as far, far right as possible. It's not "liberals voting in lockstep" to vote against Scalia in Citizens United or eviscerating the ability to bring class actions and the right to remain silent, or all these other crazy cases. It's a very conservative court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Wait, what? Just because someone is a "swing vote" doesn't mean that they are moderate. O'Connor was a staunch conservative, and so are Kennedy and Roberts. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are far, far right, as far as you can go and still be in the legal spectrum. There is no liberal equivalent to them on the court. No one has put Lawrence Tribe or Stephen Breyer or Alan Dershowitz on the Supreme Court, but guys like that would be the natural counterweights to Scalia in terms of legal thinking. Sotomayor is a former prosecutor. Kagan is basically a pro-business centrist. Ginsburg is The only reason that the "liberals" are "lockstep" is because the court keeps taking cases to try to pull the law as far, far right as possible. It's not "liberals voting in lockstep" to vote against Scalia in Citizens United or eviscerating the ability to bring class actions and the right to remain silent, or all these other crazy cases. It's a very conservative court. I think Ginsburg is pretty liberal, but she is not willing to be some kind of liberal advocate. She doesn't have a career filled with outrageous, angry dissents like Scalia. There is no one on the court today like Marshall or Brennan - who were very willing to be voices calling out in anger. The other "liberals" run the gamut depending on the issue. I don't have a great read on either Kagan or Sotomayor yet. By the way, calling Roberts a swing vote is laughable. He has issued one opinion unpopular with conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 You will find plenty of cases with Scalia and Thomas on opposite sides. You need to point those out to me. They sometimes disagree on criminal cases as Thomas takes the prosecutor's side in every case and Scalia occasionally looks at the Bill of Rights. Thomas also sometimes takes a more extreme position on Scalia when it comes to criminalizing speech. (Seriously, a court with nine Thomases would be utterly terrifying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 You need to point those out to me. They sometimes disagree on criminal cases as Thomas takes the prosecutor's side in every case and Scalia occasionally looks at the Bill of Rights. Thomas also sometimes takes a more extreme position on Scalia when it comes to criminalizing speech. (Seriously, a court with nine Thomases would be utterly terrifying). There's some truth to what he says. There has been a good deal of that on preemption issues. In my field of law, I find that Thomas is actually a more pure strict constructionist, whereas Scalia will figure out ways to make it look like he's strictly construing something, but he's actually just trying to push a pro-business angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.