Thumbs up for Chris Christie

[GhostWriter16]

Cristie. Two thumbs up.

@Form- There's nothing implausible about saying (Whether rightly or wrongly) that Obama isn't doing a good job, and opposing him on certain points, while still being willing to receive and acknowledge help when his state needs him.

I don't agree with Cristie all the time but he was dead on here.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The point is that he should have never made a complete fool of himself by even making such an outlandish statement in the first place. It just shows to what depth most politicians are willing to go in their "war" against a political party which is remarkably similar to their own.

The only thing that differentiates Christie in the least is how he had enough class to essentially admit he was previously lying jus days earlier for clearly partisan reasons.

Yeah his pre-storm rhetoric was hyperbolic and ugly. But in the present political climate, it's too be expected. Not excused, but expected.

The fact that he was willing to walk it back (even if it took a disaster) is significant in this day and age where the desire to tar the other side as bastards or un-American is so overriding.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

You seem to forget what Christie said just days earlier:

Christie does get high marks for praising Obama for properly doing his job in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. But let's not go overboard here merely for avoiding Fox News and their incessant "sillness".

I haven't forgotten. Listening to him talk, I had him pegged as a hopelessly partisan blowhard.

Then he dropped the act very fast and I was impressed by his unwillingness to budge back towards the partisan foolishness even when prodded.

 

[ace99]

I don't understand the urge of Democrats to suddenly fall over themselves to congratulate Christie.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't understand the urge of Democrats to suddenly fall over themselves to congratulate Christie.

Couple of things.

I'm not a democrat.

It's always great when those with clear political agendas realise how unimportant they are when compared to the, and I quote, hard motherhumhum facts of life. And one guy who bats for one team, praising another guy who bats for the other, in a time where both teams are accusing each other of killing babies, is tip-of-the-hat worthy.

edit: Contrast: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...hurricane-sandy-worse-than-katrina/?mobile=nc

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let me tell you why I do.

Because as soon as Obama got elected, the Republican party platform vanished.

Their mission, in the words of their leaders, was to "Make Obama a one-term President".

That was the core principle of the Republican Party.

When Obama and the Democrats offered them a chance to vote on legislation that they themselves introduced (Hint: Most of Obamacare is stuff Republicans came up with as an alternative to Hillarycare, back in the ancient days of Clinton when elected Republicans were only halfway to being unhinged lunatics) all they did was scoff and go "nope, we won't vote on anything you do, ever. EVER! Because we want to show the world just how uncooperative and stubborn we can be. Filibuster! Block appointments! Haha! We won't even let the football game happen, let alone play with any dignity whatsoever!"

When they weren't stopping any and all progress and gloating about it, they also went places that politics shouldn't go.

Accusing the President of being a secret Muslim.
Accusing the President of being a secret foreign Kenyan socialist.
Accusing the President of being a terrorist sympathizer.
"Death Panels"

And so on and so on.

This wasn't just ridiculous and childish, this was completely damaging to the nation and made me think there was only one party left in America capable of doing anything. And it made me sad that the system was so broken beyond repair.

When I congratulate Christie on just doing his [expletive] job as if it were some accomplishment, IT IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT.

He is one of the very, very few Republicans I can point to who are actually doing anything at all besides lying, whining, and stalling.

It is so refreshing and so necessary that I can't help but say, THANK YOU to someone who does not have his head wedged firmly up his partisan butt.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Random question:

Has there ever been a case before where a President went into a second term without all of his appointments being approved during his first term due to partisan hackery?

 

[KaiserElectric]

In addition, isn't the goal of the losing party in every presidential election to make the winner a one-termer? I don't see how Obama's case is unique.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In addition, isn't the goal of the losing party in every presidential election to make the winner a one-termer? I don't see how Obama's case is unique.

I thought they were supposed to be the loyal opposition and not train-wrecking obstructionist out for political blood.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In addition, isn't the goal of the losing party in every presidential election to make the winner a one-termer? I don't see how Obama's case is unique.

No. Politics should not be a game.

 

[ace99]

Look acknowledging he did the right thing is all well and good. But these types of love letters in this thread and in editorials that Democrats have been writing are going too far. All my idiot Democrat friends proclaiming their love for Christie and some even saying that they would vote for him need to realize that the man is still a Republican, he's still hostile to the unions, he still tried to gut planned parenthood and women's health clinics, he still vetoed gay marriage, and he still chose to cut social services than pass the millionaires tax. So his response to the hurricane may be well and good, but the man is still going to have to be defeated come election time, and these idiots who look at this one issue and say "Oh I would totally vote for Christie" and the idiots writing these love letters are too short-sighted and ADD to realize that.

 

[BSmith1068]

I agree that he did the right thing, but you do realize that he stands to benefit quite a lot in many ways from these actions right? Had he done the opposite, he would probably have been criticised by the New Jerseyians.

So what? I see no problem from someone benefiting from doing the right thing. Indeed I encourage it, regardless of what side of the aisle they are on.

But I doubt that Christie has acted the way he has acted because he thought he would benefit from it in some way.


EDIT:

Look acknowledging he did the right thing is all well and good. But these types of love letters in this thread and in editorials that Democrats have been writing are going too far. All my idiot Democrat friends proclaiming their love for Christie and some even saying that they would vote for him need to realize that the man is still a Republican, he's still hostile to the unions, he still tried to gut planned parenthood and women's health clinics, he still vetoed gay marriage, and he still chose to cut social services than pass the millionaires tax. So his response to the hurricane may be well and good, but the man is still going to have to be defeated come election time, and these idiots who look at this one issue and say "Oh I would totally vote for Christie" and the idiots writing these love letters are too short-sighted and ADD to realize that.

This also has a lot of merit. I think it is fine to praise Christie on his non-partisan performance in the aftermath of Sandy - at a time that it would have been really easy to be partisan – but we do need to remember that he is not a saint now and there is still significant opportunity to disagree with his viewpoints on a whole host of topics.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

and some even saying that they would vote for him

See, now that is idiotic.

But voicing your respect for an action by someone who you have big ideological disagreements with is hardly a love letter (since you mentioned this thread, I haven't seen much lovelettery stuff). It's recognising that more important than these disagreements is treating each other with decency despite of them.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Look acknowledging he did the right thing is all well and good. But these types of love letters in this thread and in editorials that Democrats have been writing are going too far. All my idiot Democrat friends proclaiming their love for Christie and some even saying that they would vote for him need to realize that the man is still a Republican, he's still hostile to the unions, he still tried to gut planned parenthood and women's health clinics, he still vetoed gay marriage, and he still chose to cut social services than pass the millionaires tax. So his response to the hurricane may be well and good, but the man is still going to have to be defeated come election time, and these idiots who look at this one issue and say "Oh I would totally vote for Christie" and the idiots writing these love letters are too short-sighted and ADD to realize that.

Ahem. Don't mind if I take umbrage with this.

But these types of love letters in this thread and in editorials that Democrats have been writing are going too far.

No, the politics of zero sum total annihilation of the opposing party whatever the cost is going too far.

I'm pointing out that it's good when a Republican doesn't do that. That's not going too far. That's necessary for there to be in existence any political party in the opposition capable of compromise.

You don't call a spade a spade and say he did well here, and all you do is bash him regardless of what he does, nothing will ever change and you'll prove his Republican critics right: Which is that his only option is to back Romney and never say anything positive about the Democrats and never work with them.

That's terrible.

All my idiot Democrat friends proclaiming their love for Christie and some even saying that they would vote for him need to realize that the man is still a Republican, he's still hostile to the unions, he still tried to gut planned parenthood and women's health clinics, he still vetoed gay marriage, and he still chose to cut social services than pass the millionaires tax.

And you need to get a grip.

The governor of my state is a Republican that's worse than Christie and hasn't had a kind thing to say about a Democrat ever.

Christie, for all his Republicanism, is still a trade in the right direction.

I never said he stopped being a Republican, and I never said he stopped supporting things I disagree with, and in an election between him and a competent Democrat, I'd vote Democrat.

That doesn't mean he isn't a better Republican than most and I'd rather take him over tea party lunatics and Rick Scott.

too short-sighted and ADD to realize that

I disagree. You're the short-sighted one here. You act like you're allergic to bipartisanship.

Bipartisan doesn't mean "I'll support a Republican as long as they're limp-wristed and faux Democrat."

Bipartisan means I can say man, that staunch Republican who is in no way close to being someone I would ordinarily vote for is someone I would prefer to most of what the Republican party has to offer, and I applaud him for reaching across the aisle when some people in my own party cannot.

I then go back to the politics of voting Democrat, but if given the choice between him and a Republican who is hopelessly shoved up their own butt, you have to choose the one that is proven to drop the partisan charade when it matters. That's all I'm saying.

Frankly, the fact that you'd dismiss this sort of understanding as idiocy is what is wrong with America, and you should be ashamed.

 

[bathsheba666]

@OP

Good point, but somewhat weakened by your comparison with standing together with George Bush.

That was the time when someone needed to point out that engaging in dumb wars just to be seen to be donig something was dumb. Still is.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

@OP

Good point, but somewhat weakened by your comparison with standing together with George Bush.

That was the time when someone needed to point out that engaging in dumb wars just to be seen to be donig something was dumb. Still is.

I think you're conflating standing together regardless of party immediately after 9/11 2001 and the start of the Iraq war, which was in 2003. I'm not saying you give Bush a blank check to deport all Arabs or something, I'm saying that there are times when it doesn't matter whether you voted for the guy, he's still the leader and it's a crisis, and tossing stumbling blocks in front of him for no reason besides partisanship is actually the idiocy.

The Iraq war was a reason to oppose. Before that, he still pretty much had everyone's support, and for good reason.

I'm distressed that there's a black and white streak in people's thinking about these matters. Bipartisan doesn't mean lay down and do whatever the other side says or even vote for them. There's something in between that and total obstructionism.

That's gray and it's nuanced. It's not as simple as "always" or "never", and I would hope nobody thinks that it is, or that I'm saying that it is.

 

[Farm Boy]

Askthepizzaguy - this is why we have almost no Blue Dogs left, why there are precious few independents, and why people like Scott Brown cannot long hold office. It's also why we have a fiscal cliff and it's about the stupidest thing going on in this country. I think we agree.

 

[BSmith1068]

That's gray and it's nuanced. It's not as simple as "always" or "never", ...

I am constantly amazed at the lack of ability many people have in seeing nuance and different shades of grey. (not a specific statement about any posts here, just a general observation)

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Askthepizzaguy - this is why we have almost no Blue Dogs left, why there are precious few independents, and why people like Scott Brown cannot long hold office. It's also why we have a fiscal cliff and it's about the stupidest thing going on in this country. I think we agree.

We're about to do another 4 years under Obama.

When I say bipartisan, I am not suggesting to the Republicans- Hey! Roll over! Do whatever the Democrats say!

That won't allow them to keep office and it would be like asking a pro-choice person to vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

You can still stick to your principles. Just don't be a bastard when it comes to actual compromises that are afforded to you.

EXAMPLE of what I'd like to see Republicans doing:

If principled stance means lower taxes, less government, balanced budget, then okay.

If the Democrats continue to vote to keep extending the Bush tax cuts, and are willing to cut spending to balance the budget, then you've got the other party doing a lot of what you want.

To get the country moving again, you may need to do some things that aren't a high priority for you as well, which means voting for legislation that can pass through a Democrat controlled Senate.

Not the Republican Party platform and nothing else- actual compromise.

If you get half or more of what you want... if the Democrats give you three dollars in cuts for every new dollar in taxes, take the freaking deal.

That's what I want to see from Republicans. I do not want to see turtle boy and his orange faced friend dictate that there will be repercussions for any Republican breaking ranks, and I don't want to see the Republican agenda be reduced to "Let's stop the Democrats from passing anything except stuff we want, and even then, vote against that".

I'm so sick and tired of it.

The health care thing was the last straw for me. Almost everything the Republicans designed and came up with got included. Then they threw a fit at the DEMOCRATS when it passed without any Republican support.

How is that the Democrats' fault? When your party platform is obstruct, deny, delay, then what exactly did the Democrats do wrong?

Answer: Nothing.

If the Republicans repeat this for the next four years, the damage will be irreparable. And the blame should be on them. And it should mean another Democratic supermajority, just to get something done at all.

Fair and friendly warning to the Republicans: This defeat at the ballot box is only the first of many, if you cannot compromise. Demographics are shifting against you. You cannot be a whites-only far right conservative party anymore, there aren't enough of you and the independent and centrist coalition the Democrats have is too popular.

You're going to be relegated to a party that cannot win the Senate or the Presidency again if you continue along this path. Obama was vulnerable this time, very vulnerable. You failed to capitalize because you did nothing for 4 years and proved you couldn't behave like adults.

That's the end of Everything the Republicans Want or Bust politics.

You need to get used to it.

 

[Farm Boy]

We're about to do another 4 years under Obama.

When I say bipartisan, I am not suggesting to the Republicans- Hey! Roll over! Do whatever the Democrats say!

That won't allow them to keep office and it would be like asking a pro-choice person to vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

You can still stick to your principles. Just don't be a bastard when it comes to actual compromises that are afforded to you.

EXAMPLE of what I'd like to see Republicans doing:

If principled stance means lower taxes, less government, balanced budget, then okay.

If the Democrats continue to vote to keep extending the Bush tax cuts, and are willing to cut spending to balance the budget, then you've got the other party doing a lot of what you want.

To get the country moving again, you may need to do some things that aren't a high priority for you as well, which means voting for legislation that can pass through a Democrat controlled Senate.

Not the Republican Party platform and nothing else- actual compromise.

If you get half or more of what you want... if the Democrats give you three dollars in cuts for every new dollar in taxes, take the freaking deal.

That's what I want to see from Republicans. I do not want to see turtle boy and his orange faced friend dictate that there will be repercussions for any Republican breaking ranks, and I don't want to see the Republican agenda be reduced to "Let's stop the Democrats from passing anything except stuff we want, and even then, vote against that".

I'm so sick and tired of it.

The health care thing was the last straw for me. Almost everything the Republicans designed and came up with got included. Then they threw a fit at the DEMOCRATS when it passed without any Republican support.

How is that the Democrats' fault? When your party platform is obstruct, deny, delay, then what exactly did the Democrats do wrong?

Answer: Nothing.

If the Republicans repeat this for the next four years, the damage will be irreparable. And the blame should be on them. And it should mean another Democratic supermajority, just to get something done at all.

Fair and friendly warning to the Republicans: This defeat at the ballot box is only the first of many, if you cannot compromise. Demographics are shifting against you. You cannot be a whites-only far right conservative party anymore, there aren't enough of you and the independent and centrist coalition the Democrats have is too popular.

You're going to be relegated to a party that cannot win the Senate or the Presidency again if you continue along this path. Obama was vulnerable this time, very vulnerable. You failed to capitalize because you did nothing for 4 years and proved you couldn't behave like adults.

That's the end of Everything the Republicans Want or Bust politics.

You need to get used to it.

Whelp. I probably won't follow the tone this far. This probably wasn't addressed at me, but just to be clear if it was, I'm not a Republican.