Election 2016

Chris Christie Deflating; Jeb Bush Trailing Rand Paul in Head-to-Heads Against Hillary

What will the GOP establishment do when its hand-picked candidates fail to launch?

|

He was not unresponsive. |||

Today has been a bad day in the bad month of the bad year for the presidential hopes of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Dueling articles in The New York Times and Washington Post sketch out a candidacy mired in myopia, slack fundraising, and poll-negativity. The Times piece begins like this:

He does not return phone calls. He does not ask for support. He arrives late for meetings. And he acts as if he has all the time in the world.

And the Post:

Christie is rapidly losing support among some of his most prominent home-state donors and power brokers, who are either hesitant to back him or shifting allegiance to former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

Christie and Bush have been fighting for the same slot within the GOP 2016 field, one that two-time loser Mitt Romney would have gone after had he stuck around: the Establishment pick. A swath of smart money seeks a candidate who above all will be electable, preferably by proving that he can succeed with constituencies that are normally hostile to Republicans. Christie is a governor in a Democratic state; Bush is an ex-governor from a divided state who was popular among Latinos. Importantly, neither come off as disqualifyingly "crazy" (in the eye of the beholder, I know).

Sooooooooooooyyyyyyy unelectable! |||

But there are three big problems with "electability" as the preferred virtue here: 1) The party tried that, and failed, in both 2012 and 2008. Romney was a blue-state governor who did health care, John McCain was a once and future maverick who won the nomination despite failing to win even a plurality among self-identified Republican voters in any of the early-state primaries. They both ate Barack Obama's dust. 2) There has been a historic upsurge in anti-establishment sentiment and action on the right since 2008, and no matter how fiercely the Establishment tries to tamp it down, that energy is not likely to voluntarily disperse in the face of a hand-picked Better, particularly if he has the last name "Bush." As Charles C.W. Cooke accurately points out in his new book The Conservatarian Manifesto, basically no Republican describes himself as a "Bush conservative," for the excellent reason that George W. Bush created the very problems that the Tea Party et al arose to protest.

Oh, and 3) It's hard to be "electable" when you are a terrible candidate, and/or GOP voters are motivated to despise you. Christie, for all his public sector union-busting bluster, is a big-government conservative who presides over a remarkably intrusive, Progressive-Era-designed state government tailor-made for corruption scandals and imperious behavior. None of this stuff sells well west of New Jersey Turpike, and will provide plenty of raw material for opposition researchers and MSNBC specials as far as the eye can see. Many Republicans will also not soon forget his me-me-me speech at the 2012 Republian National Convention or his pre-election embrace of President Barack Obama. The selling proposition, too, is unclear; as a presidential pretender Christie's as vague and vacuous as he is specific and pugnacious on his home turf. And of course libertarians don't like the guy, not only for his uninspiring record (on stuff like surveillance, medical marijuana, and corporate welfare), but because he deems our ideas "dangerous."

So what about Jeb Bush's electability? Aside from that contentious last name, and the fact that he last won election in 2002, and that he passionately backs an education reform despised by many Republicans (and Democrats), consider this: Even with his massive name recognition, which gives artificial polling advantage this early in a campaign season, Bush, when measured in head-to-head contests against Hillary Clinton, consistently lags behind Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Lord knows its early, but with Romney out of the way, Christie imploding on the launch pad, and Jeb still trailing the allegedly out-there libertarian candidate, a question already haunts Campaign 2016: Where will the GOP Establishment money go next? It could be Scott Walker or bust sooner than you think.

NEXT: Another Obamacare Clown Car Crash: 800,000 Given Wrong Tax Info

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It could be Scott Walker or bust sooner than you think.

    That’s what I’m thinking.

    1. Me too. He is a governor. It is going to be very hard for anyone associated with Washington to beat a successful governor.

      And you knew Fatso was doomed because of his position on guns. What has the fat bastard ever actually done besides yell at a few people and share some quality man time with Obama after Sandy?

      1. Nothing. His sole victory seems to have been being a republican elected to office in NJ…

      2. What has the fat bastard ever actually done besides yell at a few people and share some quality man time with Obama after Sandy?

        Bridge management.

        1. He has managed to keep NJ Democrats from doing any more damage – kind of like Romney in MA. Pretty much the best that can be expected of a Governor here, but not what I’m looking for in a President.

          1. He is the best you could expect in New Jersey. He has no business running for President but he works of governor of one of a mentally challenged state like New Jersey.

            1. I’m sure this will come off as bigoted, but I’ve only met one or two New Jersey residents who weren’t rudely intolerable assholes. Granted I’m a mid-westerner so my standards of politeness are another planet as compared to New Jersey standards.

              1. That government and those laws didn’t come out of nowhere. People for the most part get the government they deserve.

                1. Most of the people get the government they deserve, the few rational people in any given population almost never do.

              2. NJ is too big a state to make those generalities. Plenty of farmers and friendly professional people once you get away from the cities and shore. We do actually have a Republican Governor and I have a libertarianish Rep in Congress.

                Like saying everyone from the midwest is a boring bumpkin.

                1. They are not?

                  1. I am not very bumpkinish…boring I might cop to…

                2. but I’ve only met one or two New Jersey residents who weren’t rudely intolerable assholes.

                  NJ is too big a state to make those generalities.

                  wut?

              3. Virtually everyone who lives in NJ is an insufferable pig. An island of filth.

                1. I don’t know how I handle the filth!

                  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..eadows.jpg

                  1. That’s a mountain?

      3. Gun politics will cost Christie primaries anywhere outside of the Northeast. It’s a topic he can’t contain his big government statism on.

      4. What has the fat bastard ever actually done besides yell at a few people and share some quality man time with Obama after Sandy?

        To be fair, I heard Christie didn’t actually swallow any of the president’s semen, but it did stain his lovely blue dress.

        1. And why would we want a president who is capable of putting crass politics aside for one single day.

          1. And why would we want a president who values principles over principals.

          2. Poor Tony. He thinks governors and presidents surveying storm damage is “setting crass politics aside”

            Setting aside crass politics is making a phone call.

            Taking an airplane and helicopter to a photo op *is* crass politics.

  2. The concept of “electability” gets to the heart of my political frustrations.

    We don’t elect the best candidate for a job. We elect the most popular candidate for a job.

    As Nietzsche pointed out, best and popular are often on opposite sides of the world from each other.

    1. welcome to the argument against democracy.

      1. Democracy, the best looking turd in the punchbowl of governments

        1. to be fair, it IS turd punch.

        2. Democracy, the best looking turd in the punchbowl of governments

          It could be improved upon.

          1. That’s why we have a republic?

            1. That can be improved upon too.

              1. No argument from me there, Fd’A

              1. FS, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were trolling for an anarchy argument.

                1. FS, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were trolling for an anarchy argument.

                  Not at all. I have no desire to waste my effort on someone who’s closed his mind to alternatives. I just find it laughable that not only do you think statism is the best humanity can do to govern itself, but democratic statism no less.

                  Democracy’s problems are systemic and won’t be undone with tiny little reforms around the edges.

                  1. Oh, my mind isn’t closed at all. I’d LOVE to see a system more conducive to liberty. It’s just that I’ve yet to hear a plausible alternative.

                    Everything I’ve heard from the anarchists eventually reduces me to slavery. The difference being, in a democratic system, I can elect my slavers. In an anarchy, they simply kill me and take my shit.

                    1. “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”

                      But it’s only as good as the folks who enforce the limitations.

                    2. Oh, my mind isn’t closed at all. I’d LOVE to see a system more conducive to liberty. It’s just that I’ve yet to hear a plausible alternative.

                      You don’t believe free markets and inviolable property rights can compare to the magic of a monopoly provider of services.

                      Everything I’ve heard from the anarchists eventually reduces me to slavery. The difference being, in a democratic system, I can elect my slavers. In an anarchy, they simply kill me and take my shit.

                      See this is why I want to spend little time on you. You know damn well that ancaps aren’t promoting lawlessness. And have fun electing slavers, your vote really counts, at least insofar as it legitimizes the state monopolies you’re perpetuating.

                    3. You don’t believe free markets and inviolable property rights can compare to the magic of a monopoly provider of services.

                      I don’t believe the market can provide the monopoly of overwhelming force required to repel a nation-state that has unlimited resources at its disposal. No.

                      You know damn well that ancaps aren’t promoting lawlessness.

                      Yes, I damn well do know this and never said you did. Your intentions are good.

                      But never the less, lawlessness will result because there are bad people in the world and you will have no force strong enough that another (bad guy) group cannot build (or steal) one stronger and take your shit.

                      If not crushed right away by an empirical nation state, society will descend into tribalism with bad tribes trying to steal what the good tribes have, because there is no one powerful enough to stop them. Eventually, perhaps, on tribe will gain enough power (force) to unite (subjugate) the rest of the population, and do you know what it’s name will be? GOVERNMENT. Only this one will NOT be of the people, by the people, for the people…it’ll be I’m taking your food and fucking your daughter…because I can.

                      Yeah, I don’t disagree with you, that our government has declined into a bunch of slavers, and will probably need to be reset. But your way doesn’t bring more liberty. It brings faster slavery, yet.

                    4. Fransisco you should look into Icelandic free state. Over 300 years of their system of competing and voluntary clan membership stayed as-is without the devolution accompanied with a governmental systems. They even had primitive private health care system and private dispute arbitration paid for by fees to the chieftan (remember anyone could switch membership at any time while retaining ownership in their property), if one did not want to resort to the weregild (blood restitution) which was an option, and should be in a free society.

                      Also look at the Celtic people prior to Cromwell’s conquest who survived a millennia (!) without a government (though much less is known or written about them) and who introduced the idea of professional, voluntary jurists.

                    5. If no one came for their shit, it means they didn’t have any shit that anyone wanted (or no one knew about it).

                      History is FULL of the strong taking from the weak. Look at the American Indian. Didn’t stand a chance.

                      I’m a firm believer that there will always be a monopoly of force. Either you build it in the form of a government (and limit the living shit out of it) or it will evolve through the actions of men (often nefarious men) claiming/taking it, in which case there are no limits placed upon it.

                      The Founders did a good job. It lasted 220 years. Next time, we’ll limit it more and maybe get longer. We’ve gotten better throughout history. Maybe next time around they will realize that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and put methods of enforcement in place.

                      Liberty isn’t a static state of being with a specific value. It ebbs and flows. It needs to be defended by those participating, at times. And it’s a balancing act. You can lose it both FROM the last word in force AND you can lose it by not having a last word in force. It’s not an absolute value, it can only be maximized.

                    6. empirical = imperial

                      very embarrased

            2. Well, a republic is also democracy too, just a delegated one. You’re voting for a bunch of busybodies who then votes for laws. Not really much of a difference and sometimes worse, because the results of their voting sticks after they leave (in contrast to Switzerland’s ability to repeal laws by popular vote via direct democracy)

              Since I’m not a fan of democracy, and republicanism relies purely on democratic processes (voting) I’m not a fan of it either.

      2. Unfortunately, I think it’s a law of nature that the least optimal person will win an election.

        Politics rewards outside appearances, and the scummiest of politicians own the best PR people.

        1. Approval voting solves this. I removes the wasted vote fallacy.

        2. Democracy is a contest to see who is the most clandestine sociopath, the most qualified liar and the most pathologically evil person in the eligible population. No alternative voting system or reformist tweeks will stop this, it’s the foundation of the system.

          1. It’s people all the way down. Even if it was robots, they’d’ve been programmed by people. You’re not going to magically get away from people making the rules for people.

            1. That’s quite a leap. I never said it wasn’t people or should be robots. I said the system is shit, robot overlords aren’t exactly the obvious alternative. The fact that robots occur to you as an alternative before markets, property and contracts come to mind revealing to how much you’ve actually thought any of this through. I’ll grant you that you’ve probably given it more thought than your average progressive. Kudos.

            2. People making rules is fine so long as they’re voluntary. This is different from people making law (positve law).

              Anyways DAOs (distributed autonomous organizations) gives us a technological way to mitigate third party infringement such as government interference.

    2. I hate to sound unenthusiastic.

      Anti-establishment politicians have won some elections in recent years.

      But “anti-establishment” is just a label, which can be exploited by the establishment.

      If the label is exploited with successful consequences, then the system is corrupted and the reformers are once again pushed to the margins.

      1. which can be exploited by the establishment.

        “Exploited” in that anti-establishmentarians are pulled into the mainstream and establishmentarians assume the label of anti-establishmentarians themselves.

        Politics has a way of corrupting the goals of reformers. The establishment always wins.

  3. Chris Christie deflating

    Good on him for getting healthy.

    1. Beat me to the punch. If there’s one thing in the world Christie needs to do, it’s deflate.

  4. Does anything signal the disingenuous nature of the Republican party “elite” more than the fact that Jeb Bush is seriously considered by them to be worthy of spending their money on?

    1. It is pathetic. The party is full of popular politicians who have some new ideas and they dust off that Jeb Bush as their champion.

    2. It didn’t hit me until someone on TV said it aloud: he’d be the third Republican president in a row from the same family. Smart people with money surely think that is a highly risky bet.

      1. Once you look at VP slot as well, the number of Republican tickets with Bushes (and then if you throw in Dole) is kind of crazy, but the next guy in line tends to win the GOP primary.

        For all the talk of conservatives, the Establishment guy always wins the nomination, and generally it’s the votes from Republicans in Democratic states that puts him over the top. They just want to win (and get federal patronage, at least that was the case during Reconstruction and Jim Crow when it was still true then.)

        1. The conventional wisdom is that W. and Romney won by sucking up all the donor money fast and elbowing legitimate contenders out. That’s Jeb’s narrative and apparent reality (it’s the major reason Romney dropped out so soon). Still, it all seems so preposterous.

          1. Romney apparently not only sucked up the donor money early and fast, but then spent a large amount of it buying votes making contributions to the political warchests of NH selectmen and petty elected officials.

          2. Phil Gramm did that. He had the enormous warchest. Phil Gramm didn’t win the nomination.

          3. Romney dropped out because he and JEB compete for the same slot in the party, and the Establishment donors are much better and keeping their wing from having too many guys and splitting the vote than the other wings. Look at the silly hawks, the socons, etc., all of which run too many guys and divide themselves in winner take all primaries.

      2. The historical fact along those lines is even more impressive.

        There has not been a winning GOP ticket since Herbert Hoover that did not have a Bush or Nixon on it.

        If I had to guess the ticket this time though it’s Walker/Susana Martinez. Though obviously this is only a best guess.

        1. I’m thinking Walker/Paul or Walker/Cruz.

      3. In a row? No, but every other president being from the same family for three decades is pretty lame.

    3. They think “Bush” equals a good brand. They need new ad analysts.

      1. Do you think it’s ROVE pushing for this? Who, exactly, are they listening to?

        1. It’s difficult to say since it’s so obviously stupid. They must think the average Republican voter responds best to familiar names, like toddlers. Quite frankly, it’s insulting.

          1. that’s what I’m confused about. How are they placing their bets so poorly? How do they consistently misread things? How are these people not getting fired?

            1. Stupid Party’s gonna stupid.

      2. Bush is a good brand among the elderly.

        1. what is elderly? 70+ crowd?

          1. Think retired and living in Florida

            1. He’ll need more than the Ancient Floridian Vote. A lot more.

              1. I’m not arguing that. Just saying that from the establishment GOP point of view, Jeb meets their policy criteria and he’ll play well in Florida, which they care about immensely.

        2. Seriously? Oh, wait. I keep thinking of that stupid band after hearing the commercial this morning.

      3. They are on tour again. Heard it on the radio today. Even called my wife on the phone to tease her about it since we both can’t stand them. Oh, you’re not talking about the band.

        *blushes and walks away*

        1. Those guys are still alive?

            1. Drilled into the site and it looks like there’s a lot of seats left for tomorrow’s show that I heard about on the radio. Not surprised. If they’re doing an advertizing blitz the day before the show, then they must be pretty desperate.

    4. Where did this Jeb shit come from in the first place? The guy is an ex-governor gone fishing with his dad and the phone rings out of nowhere?

      Who was the first dumbass who floated the idea? And what were they thinking?

      The first time I heard it I thought it was a joke.

  5. Scott Walker has all the right boxes checked: Young, accomplished governor, conservative bona fides, hasn’t said anything retarded yet.

    He’s a lightweight on foreign policy though, so that might hurt him if he can’t articulate a vision. I’ve also heard he’s just not a very inspiring or charasmatic guy in general.

    As for Rand, he’ll have the money to run a campaign and he has his uniqueness and personal campaigning skills. I don’t think you can count him out at all at this point, especially if Christie and Bush desperately try to knock out Walker as their greatest threat.

      1. I don’t think Rand would ever take a back seat.

        1. I don’t think Rand would ever take a back seat.

          I do not know. It could set Rand up for a run after Walker. Give him the advantage of not being a sitting Senator.

          1. I don’t know. Rand is 52, which means he couldn’t run for president again until he’s 62 if he were Walker’s vice president. That’s a long time to wait.

            Plus Rand might actually want to accomplish stuff under a Walker presidency, maybe become Senate Majority leader and get laws passed. In that scenario he’s much more useful.

            1. I keep having thoughts along those lines. Rand may be far more valuable in the Senate where he can eventually rise to a non-term-limited position of power. Of course, something about power corrupting comes to mind…. and where is that damned ring?

            2. That’s where I see him topping out and being most useful.

              He doesn’t have the gravitas of a Reagan or the calculating whoreish nature of an Obama/Clinton. He could beat Hillary in a Bush/Gore sort of battle between terrible options, but to do that he’d have to get out of primaries, and it’s hard to see that happening with Cruz and Walker around. Even Christie might appeal more to Ma and Pa GOP.

              Just be our generation’s version of Taft and that’s enough. Mostly we just need to keep liberalism alive and growing, and a 70-year-old Senator Paul would be a good figure to rally around/bitch about.

          2. I’m not sure he’s an “8 years from now” kind of guy.

            1. I’m not sure he’s an “8 years from now” kind of guy.

              I am not sure either, but I also do not think that a sitting Senator will win. If he is smart, and I think he is, he would accept the VP slot if offered. I would like to see C. Rice as VP, but the Bush taint would cost so I do not think that will happen.

          3. It is really hard to go from the Senate to the Presidency. Rand would be stupid not to accept a VP offer if it came.

            1. OTOH, you can get more done in the Senate than the VP, and he may never get a chance to run for Prez.

          4. And Rand has shown he has the patience to work within the system.

        2. they need to have a minority or a woman as VP. That’s just the way it is nowadays.

      2. It would work for me. I have a feeling they will put a woman in as VP. You need to have a woman to really go after Hillary, because a man being mean to the Hildebeeat would just be sexist.

        1. nah, that’s what they thought when they went with Palin. They don’t have any women who could stand in the ring with the dems.

          it will be seen, much as it was, a ploy. It’s like getting a black dude because they other side has one. Bad strategy.

          1. Joni Earnst or Csrly Fiorina would do fine as VP candidates. And black guy would be a possibility as well. The Senator from South Carolina maybe. Or Mia love. Either of them would drive progs insane. The only downside is that I am not anyone deserves the kind of racist abuse the Dems would dish out to a black Republican VP candidate.

            1. They would probably pick Susanna Martinez of NM or Nikki Haley from SC (though she has detractors in SC) before Earnst or Fiorina.

              1. Martinez would be a good pick. And SOCONs love Haley. It would be funny watching Democrats explain how Haley isn’t a real minority.

                1. Martinez I think is the most likely woman option.

                  Haley has too many detractors already, and the other potential women haven’t been around long enough.

                  Fiorina might be an interesting pick if she does well in debates herself, as she could be but still an executive (and will piss the dems off about having the first fortune 20 female CEO and the breaking glass stories involving a republican). Though she will likely be too old to run herself in another 10 years, so maybe not.

            2. The only downside is that I am not anyone deserves the kind of racist abuse the Dems would dish out to a black Republican VP candidate.

              They already are dishing that kind of abuse.

            3. The only organization I would put Carly Fiorina in charge of is one I’d want to put in the ground…..

              CARLY FOR PREZ!!!!!

          2. They have quite a lot of both female and non-white governors (some who are both). It would be easy to pick one as a VP. Would probably still be called a ploy.

          3. Condoleeza Rice?

            1. That would be nothing but 10 years of BOOOOSH,

              The left absolutely hates her.

      3. No way! That’s just begging those crazy Teabaggers to assassinate Walker so they can get their guy into the Oval Office!

    1. Yeah, he’s going to end up being the first choice of many, and the second choice of almost all of the rest.

      Young, accomplished, elected and re-elected in a blue state, lots of conservative results, the Other Team hates him, governor, “not a Washington insider.” His pet issues are things that unify Republicans from all wings (public sector employees), rather than divide (foreign policy, etc.) where he’s been quiet.

      I don’t like his terrible record on pardons (not doing them ever, or even appointing people to the Pardon Board), but I think he has to be the favorite at the moment. All kinds of people will jump to him if their favorite candidate goes out; he can be the not-Bush as well as the not-Rand or not-Cruz or not lots of others.

      1. I don’t like his records on pardons either. But I am realistic and figure we will never get a President who would use the pardon power.

  6. Rand Paul is doing pretty well in the polls! CNN has him third with Huckabee leading everyone by 5 points, strangely. But does well against Clinton in Virginia and Colorado according to the latest Quinnipiacs. Iowa is apparently a solid blue state now. Man, Republicans have a tough presidential map.

    1. there are miles to go before they sleep.

    2. The Iowa caucuses are filled with Socon republicans of an evangelical stripe. Pat Robertson won the caucuses in 1988. Not a surprise at all that Huckabee is leading there.

      1. No, that CNN poll was national. But Huckabee is also doing best in Iowa against Hillary according to Quinnipiac. He hasn’t even been on TV that much. He must have a large silent following.

        1. Ah, okay. He has an enormous evangelical following. He just pulls absolutely no one outside that group– not even social conservative Catholics.

        2. Huckabee *cannot* win the primary. His ceiling is even harder than Rand when it comes to escaping his wing of the party.

          1. I dunno. I guess he’s the test of how powerful the evangelicals are in the primaries. I’ve always thought they were the most important group (other than the donors).

            1. They’re the second largest group, yes, but their guy has never won the nomination.

              Part of what happens is that the libertarian wing, after their guy drops out (Phil Gramm, Forbes, etc.) inevitably decides that they prefer the Establishment guy to the Evangelical guy. The hawks, despite hating the libertarians, *also* prefer the Establishment guy to the Evangelical guy.

              So Evangelical guy gets a lot of support but never wins the nom.

              1. They’re the second largest group, yes, but their guy has never won the nomination.

                Except for Dubya.

                1. Now that I think about it Dubya was AN evangelical candidate, but I think THE evangelical candidate in 2000 was Alan Keyes.

                  1. Dubya was an establishment guy who also pulled from evangelicals, but he was clearly THE establishment guy in 2000. Huckabee is not establishment, and doesn’t pull outside his wing.

                    Certainly successful candidates want to win support from all the wings of the coalition– which is why Walker is very strong.

                2. Dubya ran as a small government but I won’t cut your welfare guy.

                  He got a lot of votes from people who wanted an end to the corrupt hubris that characterized DC under Slick Willie including the libertarian-friendly guys.

                  Of course it was all bullshit; Bush immediately started picking a fight with China. Humbler foreign policy, my ass.

                  1. HA! Google search “Humbler”.

                  2. W simply failed to live up to the challenge of 9/11. Had that not occurred he might have been a rather boring, do nothing, i.e., at least things wouldn’t have gotten worse. However, 9/11 did happen, and he caved to either internal or external desires to make everyone feel safe / impose a police state.

        3. Huckabee maps pretty closely to a conservative Dem, the old socially conservative fiscally moderate/liberal; like Rand he scrambles coalitions.

          If you feel like the current coalitions give the Ds a structural advantage in the Presidency, then Huckabee or Rand can offer better odds against Hilary by mixing things up.

      2. Huckabee is also vehemently pro-agricultural subsidies.

        1. Yeah. AFAIK, he’s an economic protectionist. Blargh.

      3. Huckabee 1st; Walker 2nd; Paul 3rd in the IA caucuses — all finishing within a few points of each other.

        Santorum begets Huckabee; Romney begets Walker; Paul begets Paul.

        Subject of course to a very good chance that Huckabee opens his mouth and self destructs. In that case, some other social conservative steps forward to grab the people that voted for Santorum.

  7. I think it’s too soon to tell. My money’s on Fred Thompson. I mean, he knows A LOT about reverse mortgages.

  8. Chris Christie Deflating

    Maybe now he can fit into those leather assless chaps he bought years ago.

    1. He’s as deflated as all Cowboys fans across America were when NFL command central ruled that Dez Bryant didn’t catch that pass.

  9. Alt-text. Chris you fucked up. You trusted me.

    1. Alt Text – “Besties forEVAH””

  10. They both ate Barack Obama’s dust.

    Is that what you kids are calling it, these days?

  11. What will the GOP Establishment do when its hand-picked candidates fail to launch?

    Select them as the candidate anyway?

  12. I can’t believe no one posted Romeny’s and McCain’s theme song:

    Soy en perdador – I’m a loser baby, so why don’t you kill me?

  13. And if 2016 is an anti-Prohibition election?

  14. $$$ rolex cash system $$$
    how to turn $10 into $10,000 in 7 days online
    discover a bullet-proof,5-step
    formula for injection your bank
    account with absurds windfalls
    of cold hard cash
    Feel FREE To Check This Out Here:.. .

    ——??? http://www.netpay20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.