Chris Christie

Christie a Strong General Election Candidate for 2016, Says Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe

Maybe he should run as a Democrat then?


large loomer
New Jersey Governor's Office

Running for re-election as governor in New Jersey, Republican incumbent Chris Christie holds a sizeable lead over his Democratic opponent and has racked up endorsements from several dozen Democrat politicians in the state. It's no secret Christie is pining for a landslide; he even scheduled the special election for Senate two weeks before his own election, at a not insignificant extra cost, to avoid losing votes with Cory Booker on the Democrat side of the ballot. Christie's endorsing the Republican candidate for Senate, Steve Lonegan, reportedly only tepidly. Many assume the full-on press for a landslide this November is in preparation for a 2016 presidential run. And Obama's people think Christie would make quite a strong candidate. Via the Hill:

"Gov. Christie, this is probably a kiss of death for him, for me to say this, he would potentially be a very strong general election candidate," [former Obama campaign manager David] Plouffe told ABC News's "This Week." 

But the former White House adviser warned that "in the current Republican Party," a more centrist candidate like Christie "can't win." And, Plouffe said, decisions like the one last week to bar NBC and CNN from hosting Republican presidential debates were "completely foolish" because it would draw candidates further to the right.

"What's going to be said on those stages to secure the Republican nomination is going to cause huge problems in the general election," Plouffe said. "It happened with Mitt Romney, it will happen in '16."

The differences between Obama and Romney were arguably minimal. Romney at this point would probably have a better chance winning the 2016 Democratic primary than the Republican one.

Christie was the "centrist" preference since the 2012 cycle, and has loomed large in the early pre-election 2016 season, mostly by taking shots at Rand Paul and the ascendant "libertarian" wing of the GOP. The Republican divide came to the forefront last month, when Christie and other establishment Republicans attacked Rand Paul for insufficiently supporting Obama and the NSA's domestic surveillance operations. Last week, Christie said the Republican party was "not a debating society" and that it needed to "win and govern with authority," comments interpreted as a jab at Rand Paul, another 2016 Republican contender. Paul responded over the weekend by saying it was a mistake for Christie to say there was no room for difference in the GOP and that the party needed to grow by embracing "libertarian Republicans." David Plouffe, apparently, would prefer it didn't.

As to the debate boycott, Democrats boycotted debating on Fox News during the 2008 season, but Plouffe didn't seem concerned that would draw the candidates to the left. RNC chairman Reince Preibus says Republicans won't boycott debating on Fox News even though sister company Fox TV Studios will be producing NBC's putative Hillary Clinton miniseries, for which the RNC plans to boycott MSNBC.

NEXT: Former Maryland College Student Pleads Not Criminally Responsible in Cannibalism Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, I think he’s got a great chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

    1. I think he is going to go third party. If the Republicans nominate someone like Paul or Cruz over the objections of the establishment, the establishment will put up Christie as a third party candidate to ensure the Republican nominee loses and the boobs in the rank and file know better than to defy their betters next time.

      1. the establishment will put up Christie as a third party candidate

        How so? Third parties have terrible access to the polls (thanks to Rs & Ds). Run him as a LP candidate? I am actually curious how you think they could do this.

        1. John is just slathering his bullshit all over the place again.


            BUHSPIG!! BUSHPIG!!

            You were gone for days shreek. Did you fuck up and take all of your meds at once again? They don’t do any good if you don’t take them every day you sorry little retard.

        2. Pair him with Bloomburg who could bankroll the entire thing. Ross Perot managed to get on the ballot didn’t he?

          Imagine if things are really imploding for the Democrats in 2016 and they run Hillary after a bruising primary fight leaves her damaged good. Meanwhile, the insurgents manage to get Paul or Cruz or someone else the R establishment hates in as the nominee. But thanks to the Dems being so weak it is looking like they might win. At that point the R and D establishment would make a pact with each other to create an establishment ticket of Bloomberg and Christie figuring they would either win or at the least split the R vote enough to get Hillary in and keep the insurgents out.

          I am not kidding. These people are that fucking depraved.

          1. I think there’s vaishingly-little chance of R. Paul being the nominee in ’16 (TOO EXTREME!!!! doncha know).

            But if he were, I think John’s right. Christie’s a big enough fuck, and we KNOW Bloomie’s a big enough fuck, to run just for spite.

            Which is why I’ve already decided to boycott the 2016 election. I’m through tacitly supporting any of this nonsense. I might vote local – that actually might matter. National? The country’s govt abandoned me years ago (except for my taxes, which it gobbles up as ferociously as ever).

            1. I think Paul has a lot better chance that you think. The establishment is dead. They don’t have any votes anymore. And if Paul doesn’t get it, chances are Cruz will or someone else the establishment hates. The chances of it being another establishment approved nominee are very small.

              1. It will be Santorum.

                Establishment – check.
                SoCons – check.
                NeoCons – check.

                It is his turn.



                  Keep throwing shit shreek. maybe it will pass soon.

            2. But if he were, I think John’s right. Christie’s a big enough fuck, and we KNOW Bloomie’s a big enough fuck, to run just for spite.

              Are we sure a Christie/Bloomberg ticket would peel off more elephants than donkey’s? Hell, there’s a chance it would take more votes from rank and file democrats worried about a weakened Hillary than establishment repubs scared of Rand or Ted.

              1. ABW,

                That is a good question. But no one ever said the R establishment was bright.

                1. But what if they peel off more Hillary votes and win? Who’s bright then?

          2. I wouldn’t say you were wrong about this. But, it would pretty much signal the death of the Republican party as we know it. As you note below, the R establishment no longer really has the votes. Moreover, they no longer really have much of an argument. If they out-and-out betrayed the rest of the party, their electoral argument is what? “Vote for us because FYTW”? If Christie/Bloomberg and the establishment desert the Republican party, the real question becomes what makes them so sure the rump party under Paul has to take them back in?

            1. All good points. At this point do not under estimate how desperate they are to stay in power and how out of touch they are from reality. They might actually think a third party Christie ticket could win or at least get the rank and file to come running back to them.

              1. Well, the best case outcome of such a scenario is they run third party, peel of more Team Blue voters than Team Red voters in swing states (not unthinkable, I can’t see many Republicans following them) and we wind up with a Paul/Cruz fusion administration.

            2. The same way the Democrats took back Lieberman after he dissed their rank & file in Conn.

          3. That’s if you think they’d split the R vote. I think they might take more votes from Hillary.

        3. They’ll recreate the Ross Perot experience.

          The groundwork and infrastructure needs were explored last election cycle.

          On the other hand, a successful effort along those lines would probably break the foundation of the two party duopoly and ensure its collapse within a few decades; people would learn how to work around the duopoly from the experience of the establishment’s sabotage campaign.

          On the gripping hand, this all assumes a degree of calculation and wisdom on the part of political apparatchniks that we all know they lack. As Episiarch is fond of pointing out, these people are far more venal, incompetent, oblivious and stupid than we can credit. These guys would screw up getting laid even if you hired a bus to drop them off in front of a whore-house in Tijuana.

          1. The flip side is that I am not sure that a Bloomburg Christie ticket wouldn’t take a lot of votes from team Blue, especially if Hillary is the nominee. A lot of Dems do not like Hillary and will not be happy if she is the nominee.

          2. On the other hand, a successful effort along those lines would probably break the foundation of the two party duopoly and ensure its collapse within a few decades; people would learn how to work around the duopoly from the experience of the establishment’s sabotage campaign.

            That is why I asked John how he thought they would do it. I am looking at it from a third-party perspective. It might almost be worth it if they tried. Didn’t they change the rules after Perot to make it harder for 3rd party access?

            1. Yes…

              But that’s tinkering with the rules. My point is that PErot got traction because he acted like the grownup businessman coming from outside to clean up the mess the politicians had made.

              Had he not been batshit insane, he might have pulled it off; alot of people think that politicians are like children and wanted to support a grownup making things right.

          3. On the gripping hand

            Proper use of this phrase always deserves high praise.

            Well done!

            1. “gripping hand”….huh huh, huh huh, huh huh, huh huh….. “gripping hand….uuhhhhh huh huh….

    2. up to I looked at the receipt which said $8825, I accept …that…my father in law woz like they say trully making money in there spare time on-line.. there best friend had bean doing this 4 less than 12 months and recently cleared the debts on their mini mansion and bought a brand new Cadillac. I went here.. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

  2. Paging Barfman…bleeeargggh!

  3. In other news, dumbest one-term mayor in the nation wants businesses to voluntarily go gun-free:…..esxml.html

    But Cafe Racer owner Kurt Geissel said it will do something.

    “It sends a message that it’s not cool to just walk around with a gun all the time because bad things happen,” he said. “It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it’s really, really bad.”

    By the way, this is the owner of a cafe where a raging criminal walked in and shot a bunch of unarmed people.

    1. Other participants include Neumos, Oddfellows Cafe & Bar, Sweatbox Yoga and Cupcake Royale, with more expected in the coming days.

      Ha, I ate at Oddfellows–with a gun on me–just a few weeks ago. And I will continue to do so. Hey, mayor, why don’t you suck my nuts? State law proscribes you from making any gun laws that are stricter than the state law, and this is your weak ass end run around it? How fucking pathetic.

      1. Oddfellows Cafe & Bar, Sweatbox Yoga and Cupcake Royale

        I detect the presence of hipsters just looking at the names of those places (especially the cupcake place and the yoga studio). Also, I think I can predict where the next mass shooting in Seattle will take place.

        I ate at Oddfellows–with a gun on me–just a few weeks ago.

        And yet you somehow managed to resist the urge to shoot a bunch of people, nor did your gun didn’t leap out and shoot people randomly. That’s unpossible!

        1. Actually, the Capitol Hill Block Party was going on right next to it, and the gutter punk presence was off the fucking charts. I was kind of stunned. I live in what is supposed to be the “bad” downtown neighborhood, and this was way beyond anything you would see in Belltown. Though I wouldn’t need a gun to deal with gutter punks.

        2. Does anyone honestly think there’s a danger of hipsters doing hot yoga with a gun shoved in their pants?

          1. That’s not a gun in my pants.

    2. It sends a message that it’s not cool to just walk around with a gun all the time because bad things happen

      Funny, the possibility of bad things happening is exactly why I have guns.

    3. Guns are bad, mmmkay?

    4. “It sends a message that it’s not cool to just walk around with a gun all the time because bad things happen,”

      Guns are bad. Mmmmkay. Don’t carry a gun. Cause guns are bad. And you don’t want to be bad. Mmmmkay.

  4. They would love to help Christie get the Republican nomination. And they would love to turn on him as soon as he did.

    1. They would love to help Christie get the Republican nomination. And they would love to turn on him as soon as he did.

      Yeah, look how quickly the press turned on McCain. As soon as Christie got the nomination, he would suddenly become a radical extremist. Like Romney.

      1. I stumbled across this the other day. Progressives have now stooped to pretending Barry Goldwater was a moderate compared with modern Republicans.

        That’s right, the man who opposed the CRA, wanted to dismantle the (pre-Great Society!) welfare state, and nuke Vietnam was moderate compared to Mitt Romney.

    2. Totally. They’ve beaten the last two GOP moderates so stick with that plan.

  5. Is there anything worse for a GOP candidate than being endorsed by the Obama administration? Like, seriously?

    1. Christie is like the Republican Hillary: the media loves him, wants him to be the nominee, but both carry so much baggage that their own teams will rip them both to shreds in the primaries.

      1. Keep dreamin’.

        It’s gonna be Christie v. Clinton.

        1. I don’t see how Christie has any possibility of being the candidate. Look at Giuliani. New York/New Jersey politicians are extremely unpalatable to the rest of the nation due to various REGION WAR aspects, and the fact that they’re horrible scum. That’s why I don’t fear a Bloomberg run. Because I don’t even understand how he got reelected in NYC, let alone being elected to national office.

          1. Guilliani was geniunely liked as a national hero after 911 by a lot of people in the Republican party. His campaign went nowhere because the large majority of GOP voters won’t even consider voting for someone they see as anti-gun.

            Christie is even more anti-gun than Guilliani and has none of the 911 creed. He has no chance at the nomination. Who would vote for him in a place like South Carolina?

            1. Rudi is also pro-choice and that is heresy in GOP ranks.

            2. Isn’t Giuliani also pro-choice? IIRC correctly Christie is pro-life, so that is a point in his favor for GOP primary voters

              1. *Didn’t mean to spell out correctly there

              2. But it is a point that every other candidate will have. So it still isn’t a reason for anyone to vote for him.

                1. I was strictly comparing him to Giuliani, not other GOP candidates

        2. So the R Ticket is Christie with Clinton as VP, and the D Ticket is Clinton with Christie VP?

    2. This is transparently one of those deals where you name the guy you can beat, not the guy who can beat you. “Please, Br’er Bear, don’t throw me into that brair patch! Anything but that!”

    3. Yeah, great point. Somehow the support of their opponents doesn’t strike me as the best qualification for a candidate.

  6. GOP primary voters will vote for the most electable candidate.

    For real.

    This time.




        1. Do you have a lieZAHHNNSS for that MINKey?

          1. ….. a lieZAHHNNSS for that MINKey

            WHY? THAT’S NOT MY MINKey!

            1. “I need hhhrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRReem.”


              “A hhhhhrrrrrrRRRRRReem.”

              “I am sorry…”

              “A hhhhhhrrrrRRRRRReeem. Is thees not a hotel?”

              “Oh, a ROOM!”

              “Zat is what I have been SAYING…”

    2. So, PB, who was the most electable Rep candidate in 2008? in 2012?

      1. Jon Huntsman in 2012. He scared the shit out of Plouffe and Axelrod.

        1. OMG, did you just say Huntsman?

          Yeah, he would have made everyone quake in their boots.

          1. The only thing in Huntsman’s favor is that if he were nominated I would *finally* be able to get my Cesar Franck joke off the ground.

            1. Well, he did make that remake movie….”Snow WHite and the Huntsman”. That was kind of cool…

          2. Don’t feed it Eduard. I know it is fund to screw with him. But we are only enabling his sickness.

            1. You should talk, John. At least I made a sophisticated joke about Cesar Franck.

              1. Anyway, who’s to say it isn’t therapeutic for a liberal to vent his spleen at people he considers to be Republicans? Going by the evidence, that seems to be a very soothing and affirming activity for the liberal tribe.

    3. GOP primary voters will vote for the most electable candidate.

      That’s why we have elections, shitbird. We determine “electability” by who wins.

      1. Both parties suck at electability and always will.

        Dems thought Kerry was electable in 2004 and he sucked. They really wanted Dean but let the media destroy him.

        1. Both parties are also GREAT at “electability” – witness Obama, Bush The Lesser, Clinton, Bush the SNL Parody, St. Reagan, Jimmuh, Ford…he doesn’t count, never mind….Nixon, Johnson….I’ll stop there.

          See how GREAT they are at selecting candidates who get elected??! See!?

  7. Shorter Plouffe: “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!”

    The dems would love for the repubs to nominate yet another milquetoast, centrist, establishment republican.

  8. Democrat announces that Republicans should run a Democrat-lite for President. Because it worked so well in 2008 and 2012.

    You’re slackin’, Kray-Kray.

  9. ‘this is probably a kiss of death for him’… but since I work for the other team, that’s exactly what I’m going for here.

  10. Offer a choice not an echo.

    1. And this should be Rand Paul’s campaign slogan:

      Rand Paul: A choice not an echo.

      Christie: Because I said so.

      Clinton: What difference at this point does it make?

      1. Rand Paul: A choice not an echo.

        That’s actually pretty good. Do you have a newsletter, or something, to which one could subscribe?

        1. You mean like this newsletter:


        2. Actually, it’s really awful. The last time it was used things didn’t end so well.


      2. The Clinton slogan is oddly prescient because whether it’s Christy or Clinton or some other party apparatchik, what difference at this point does it make? We are well and truly fucked regardless.

        I’m getting a bumper sticker with that on it just for the cognitive dissonance affect in idiot blue/red team members.

      3. Rand Paul: A choice not an echo.

        That is good. You should copyright it.

      4. Vote Hillary! What difference, at this point, does it make?

        I love it.

        1. I’m going to have several hundred stickers made up and start a guerilla campaign.

  11. The American political center is a Roman orgy of unprincipled careerist who don’t give a damn about anything but their own status, wealth and success. This would be fine if in the Adam Smith sense of self interest their actions served a greater good of creating wealth that gets distributed through market necessity, but that is exactly what is not occurring. Their riches are at our expense. Leftist get the class struggle backasswards like everything else.

    1. Way to bring down the room, Killaz.

      *sets down cocktail, leaves*

      1. That is now my all time favorite response.

  12. If only I knew how to program a spam-bot that would save me the time needed to type the same two things I always say when Christie’s name comes up.

    1. He looks like Bobby Bacala…….and he’s the governor of New Jersey. That’s hilarious.

    2. Like Bacala, he’s extremely fat. Don’t call me shallow either, this isn’t the same thing as downplaying somebody’s presidential chances because his teeth aren’t white enough. Christie is so fat he looks unhealthy, and if he wins the nomination I’d be shocked if his weight didn’t become a major issue.

    1. It is not that he is a fat bastard. It is that he is a fat bastard who totally okay with the government telling other people what is good for them. Sorry, but when you are a fat bastard, your forfeit the right to claim people who smoke pot need to be locked up for their own good. Locking that fat bastard up and forcing him to lose weight would do more good for his health than locking a pot smoker up would do.

      1. I get what you’re saying, and I’m not fan of Christie or the War on Drugs. But even if he suddenly turned libertarian on the WoD, his weight would still be an issue. When choosing a President, a valid question to ask is “Will this person still be alive in 4 to 8 years?”

        Not to run the Sopranos reference into the ground, but the heavyset James Gandolfini just died, and he was in his early fifties.

        1. I think it is an issue. I don’t expect you to be a fitness nut. But I think someone who is that fat clearly lacks self control and that is reflective of their judgement.

        2. -a valid question to ask is “Will this person still be alive in 4 to 8 years?”

          Yes, but how a negative answer to that question motivates one to vote depends on what you think of the Veep candidate, no?

      2. but he’s a catholic fat bastard which means Fox, at least, is going to blow him relentlessly. And he yelled at some teachers.

      3. He is losing weight. I know it’s not really noticeable, but he’s lost weight since his surgery. I bet he’ll have lost a significant amount prior to the primary and be seen as a weight-loss success story.

    2. Yeah, this country hasn’t elected a fat pig to be president in 100 years. There’s not a chance in hell America is going to elect someone as disgusting as Christie unless he gets the world’s biggest liposuction.

      1. Well apparently he got lap-band surgery earlier this year, but it doesn’t seem to be doing anything.

  13. -Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill Monday barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, making New Jersey the second state to ban so-called conversion therapy, along with California.

    Read more:…..z2cRAlKMOp

    Christie declined to sign a gun ban recently, but he did sign several gun control measures in the week preceding that.

    I don’t see how he can win a GOP nomination contest. I imagine he likes being NJ governor, I bet there is a lot of income from corruption one can make in that position.

    1. Since when is it okay for the government to tell people what kind of therapy they can have?

      1. It is not. I am saying that this alienates another portion of the GOP base (and in this instance I would largely be in agreement with them).

        1. He isn’t appealing to anyone in the GOP base.

          1. That is kind of my point.

      2. Since when is it okay for the government to tell people what kind of therapy they can have?

        Since professional licensing was made mandatory and the FDA got its jackboots on.

        1. That made it legal, not okay.

          1. Point taken.

        2. I do not think being gay is anything that should be ‘cured.’ I also wonder if this therapy has any potential to do what it claims.

          Having said that I do not see how any libertarian could think the State would know better generally than specific parents would about what their child should have in this respect.

          Don’t get me wrong. This position may have limits. In verifiable cases of actual child abuse for one. Another example might be when parents withhold lifesaving medical care from children for various reasons. But I do not think therapy has reached the point where one kind of it can be ruled out as universally harmful.

          1. It’s not the state’s place to prohibit it, but as moral agents, we ought to speak out against conversion “therapy” for the pseudo-scientific, intolerant crap it is.

    2. He will be the Guiliani of 2016. It’s Santorum’s turn.



        Do you ever run out of shit to fling? How does someone shit this much and not die of disentary?

        1. As someone who disagrees with much of what Palin’s B*ttplug says and his overall approach I have to say his comment in this instance doesn’t deserve this. Christie has a lot of parallels to Guiliani, and the GOP does have a silly habit of nominating the ‘next guy in line.’

          1. Shreek is a disgusting little monkey who comes on here to lie and the fuck up the board. He is not Tony, who is wrong on a lot of things but doesn’t come here to mess up the board.

            Shreek is a sock puppet account run by leftists who mission it is to ensure that there never is any debate or flow to the board. He deserves nothing bur derision and should never be engaged.

            1. Perhaps it is my religion, but I do not think anyone is beyond redemption 🙂

              1. They don’t like my political view – classic liberalism.

                (Strongly anti-war, pro-drug, secular, capitalist, and I donate to the ACLU.)

                If not perceived 100% libertarian you must be conservative for the Peanut Gallery to accept you.

                1. CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!!BUSHPIGS!!11!!!!

                2. You are disgusting brownshirted fascist who would support anything your dear leader does.

                  Now go take your meds. You have shit on the board enough today.

                3. PB, I think I go out of my way to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I don’t believe in vulgarly cursing people even if they were ‘trolls’ motivated by a bad motive.

                  I also understand someone saying they are a libertarian, or that they lean libertarian, and that person preferring Obama to McCain or Bush, since those people are no friends of liberty themselves.

                  But what I cannot see is someone saying they are a libertarian being OK with Obama. Maybe he is the lesser of two evils at times (and that is a big maybe for me), but how can he not be an evil to one who believes in even a loose version of the NAP? I can’t remember you ever simply criticizing him without comparing him to Bush or McCain or whoever.

                  1. Because although Obama is no libertarian (like the others you name) he isn’t guilty of the egregious failures of the modern Bush GOP (the horrible Iraq War, the huge deficits, the creation of the Homeland Security and TSA, Faith Based graft, Medicare Part D, and the like).

                    There are plenty of reasons not to like the ACA but at least he paid for it – unlike the GOP would do.

                    1. But why does it matter that his isn’t as ‘egregious’ as X or Y? He is pretty egregious, and he is the one in power right now. Why can’t his faults ever be pointed out absent a greater condemnation of someone else in the GOP?

                    2. Aw, that’s cute – Bo is going to try to reason with it, as though shreek argues honestly.

                4. Strongly anti-war, pro-drug, secular, capitalist, and I donate to the ACLU.

                  You say that shrike but Obama is a hard core drug warrior, warmonger, and socialist.

                  And you have given him so many passes that I have lost count.

                5. The classical liberal isn’t pro-drug…he’s pro-liberty.

                  The fact that you think you establish your classical liberal bonafides by listing individual positions, mostly vague or fringe positions, instead of just saying that you’re “pro-liberty” gives the lie to your concern troll bullshit.

                  As do nearly all of your posts.

              2. So, you’re fine with a Christie campaign?

      2. Guiliani is already behind Christie, raising money for his election campaign.

        1. now that he’s cashed in, does Rudi envision being AG?

        2. I don’t see him…oh wait, there he is. If you look close, you can see part Rudy’s shoulder peeking out from behind the fat bastard.

  14. I’m going to toss my hat in the ring as candidate for president. My one and only platform plank will be to build a 20 foot thick, 200 foot high wall around Washington D.C.

    1. If you promise to soak it in gasoline and light it on fire, you’ve got my vote*.

      * I don’t vote

    2. “My opponent talks about walls, but my proposal involves napalm. Really, who sounds more serious about ending this major threat to American liberty?”

      1. Intriguing. You’d be a good running mate.

        1. “We’ll further revitalize the American economy by tapping heavily into domestic salt production to salt the DC area.”

    3. And fill it with water?

      1. And shoot anyone who floats to the top because they are clearly witches.

        1. No John, we burn the witches.

      2. How about we offer every American the opportunity to stand atop the wall and do their best to fill it with urine.

    4. Can you somehow make that wall a faraday cage, so not only can the people not poison us, but their ideas can’t either?

    5. Only if you do it while Congress is in session.

  15. Of course he’s a strong candidate. He has to carry all that weight around everywhere he goes. That builds up your muscles.

  16. The Ambulatory Adipose Tumor long ago lost any chance of gaining my vote. Pretty much shortly after I paid any attention to what he did in office.

  17. Yeah the GOP would never nominate a centrist like Christie. That’s why McCain and Romney got slaughtered in the primaries by socons like Huckabee and Santorum and Tea Partiers like Perry and Bachmann.

    1. Yeah, they totally are okay with east coast anti-gun types. That is why Guilliani cruised to the nomination. And no one is every going to remember the little blowjob Christie gave Obama right before the election last year.

      1. Romney wasn’t exactly a big second amendment fan. Besides I wasn’t making any claims as to Christie’s chances I was mocking the idea that only a far right candidate can win the GOP primary.

    2. and how well the general work for them, despite their being moderates whom the media equated with fire-breathing socons? Reagan ran and won as a conservative; the younger Bush did likewise, regardless of the gap between his claimed conservatism and reality.

      Neither won by moralizing or browbeating the kultur issues, even though either was clear where he stood on certain things.

      1. The funny thing is that it is the Dems who are all about the Kulture War. It is all they have left.

        1. That is a great observation. I saw virtually no ‘pro-life’ or ‘anti-gay’ ads from the Romney camp or pro-Romney SuperPacs, but plenty of pro-choice and ‘gay rights’ ads from Obama and friendly sources.

  18. Eagerly awaiting all the attacks on Christie as some libertarian anarchist wacko fat on the blood of the black gay children of his monocle factories.

  19. Hillary in a suit. A really really really big suit.

  20. The punchline, of course, is that Christie did more to help Obama get re-elected than Hillary did.

  21. How in the hell did this walking glazed donut get so popular anyways?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.