Thank you, Governer

[Hutch]

...for clarifying your position.  Go to hell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/25/christie-goes-after-libertarians-hard/

Who'd 'a' thunk it?  A GOP statist disagrees with Rand.  Amazing how much Christie and Santorum have in common.

[Fitz]

This is why the GOP will lose the 2016 election

[drewtam]

Because they have RINOs in deep blue states?

Ok.
 

[makattak]

This is why the GOP will lose the 2016 election

Actually, I'm pretty sure the GOP will lose because the Democrats are going to run another "HISTORIC FIRST!" presidential candidate and identity politics will trump everything else.

[Jamisjockey]

Because they have RINOs in deep blue states?

Ok.
 

Because the media is trying like hell to convince everyone that those RINO's speak for conservatives.

[RevDisk]

...for clarifying your position.  Go to hell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/25/christie-goes-after-libertarians-hard/

Who'd 'a' thunk it?  A GOP statist disagrees with Rand.  Amazing how much Christie and Santorum have in common.

Respectfully to any Republicans here, this is why the GOP is known as the "Stupid Party".

Dems at least have the courtesy of stabbing you in the chest. It's honest.

[seeker_two]

Because they have RINOs in deep blue states?

Ok.
 

Because they have RINOs deep in the GOP leadership....


....then again, if they define the Republican platform, can we truly call them RINOs anymore?...

The fix is still in....

[AZRedhawk44]

A fat pompous RINO mobster from the heart of graft and corruption dislikes notions of individual freedom rating higher in our national priority than compulsory sneaky surveillance with no accountability?

Color me shocked.

[gunsmith]

A fat pompous RINO mobster from the heart of graft and corruption dislikes notions of individual freedom rating higher in our national priority than compulsory sneaky surveillance with no accountability?

Color me shocked.

I was hoping we were talking about this, yes Christie, Rand's and other L ideas are dangerous. .... to pompous RINO mobsters from the heart of graft and corruption.

That creep makes me ill, more and more I'm considering joining Constitution or Libertarian parties.  If I do not get national reciprocity soon I'm quitting the R's.

[Monkeyleg]

Christie made a name for himself when he burst onto the scene and started taking on the public unions. When he started to take on the public, his star fell.

[AZRedhawk44]

  If I do not get national reciprocity soon I'm quitting the R's.

Be VERY careful of what you ask for.  You might get it.   

[Hawkmoon]

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I agree with the Governor.

Christie acknowledged that there will always be mistakes when it comes to national security and protecting privacy, but said Americans need to stay focused on what’s at stake.

Unfortunately, what's at stake is nothing less than the future of individual rights, and the validity of that musty old document called the Constitution. I think we should stay focused on that. And when people try to defend the government for spying on people who haven't committed any crimes and won't commit any crimes for the rest of their lives ... THAT's what's dangerous to the future of this country and this society.

[AZRedhawk44]

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I agree with the Governor.

Unfortunately, what's at stake is nothing less than the future of individual rights, and the validity of that musty old document called the Constitution. I think we should stay focused on that. And when people try to defend the government for spying on people who haven't committed any crimes and won't commit any crimes for the rest of their lives ... THAT's what's dangerous to the future of this country and this society.

Agreed.  We need more laws, so those people can be criminals and we can get some pull and leverage off of them, as well.

[Fitz]

Because they have RINOs in deep blue states?

Ok.
 

No, because they they keep RUNNING rinos. And the GOP has a history of torpedoing proper conservatives in favor of *expletive deleted*wits like Christie

See also, McCain.

See also, Romney.



Roll your eyes all you want... mark my words this guy, or some idiot like him, will be the GOP man in 2016

[RocketMan]

IMNSHO, it really doesn't matter who the Rs run in 2016.  They could run someone we consider to be the perfect candidate, or the Rs could run another McCain or Christy.  The Dems still win.  The presidency is a permanently blue office with the FSA and LIVs now the majority. The Senate is also permanently blue for same reason.  The House will follow within two more election cycles.
Enough doom and gloom for this morning.  I'll shut up now.

[Fitz]

IMNSHO, it really doesn't matter who the Rs run in 2016.  They could run someone we consider to be the perfect candidate, or the Rs could run another McCain or Christy.  The Dems still win.  The presidency is a permanently blue office with the FSA and LIVs now the majority. The Senate is also permanently blue for same reason.  The House will follow within two more election cycles.
Enough doom and gloom for this morning.  I'll shut up now.

NO!

The republicans can win the white house and the senate IF ONLY THOSE DAMN TEA PARTIERS AND LIBERTARIANS WILL GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND VOTE FOR THE WISHY WASHY ahole WE TELL THEM TO!

[charby]

No, because they they keep RUNNING rinos. And the GOP has a history of torpedoing proper conservatives in favor of *expletive deleted*wits like Christie

See also, McCain.

See also, Romney.



Roll your eyes all you want... mark my words this guy, or some idiot like him, will be the GOP man in 2016

Well some of the "true conservatives" that seem to toss their hat in the ring, end up towing some uber right winged Christian message that doesn't even focus on the issues at hand and can't seem to get off those issues and offer solutions for real problems at hand. Some of them also may not carry the Calvinist Christian banner but get so narrowly focused on one niche topic (such as Anti illegal immigration) that they will not offer solutions for other problems.

Some of the candidates that do end up being in front do a lot better job of trying to tackle a series of real problems with some solutions.

I really do see why many people can get behind a John McCain or Chris Christie, but not a Santorum or Bachman.

I personally think Barry Goldwater was the last best Republican candidate to get the on the ballot. He was at a time when the GOP is split like it is now, with the Moderate/Liberal republicans in the NE/West Coast with the Conservative Republicans of the South and SW. It would be nice to have a Republican presidential candidate that actually had a clear plan to take care many of the problems we have now, one that isn't scared to redesign or remove many of the sacred cows in government, but yet still be moderate in social issues so that every American can be part of America.

[Fitz]

Well some of the "true conservatives" that seem to toss their hat in the ring, end up towing some uber right winged Christian message that doesn't even focus on the issues at hand and can't seem to get off those issues and offer solutions for real problems at hand. Some of them also may not carry the Calvinist Christian banner but get so narrowly focused on one niche topic (such as Anti illegal immigration) that they will not offer solutions for other problems.

Some of the candidates that do end up being in front do a lot better job of trying to tackle a series of real problems with some solutions.

I really do see why many people can get behind a John McCain or Chris Christie, but not a Santorum or Bachman.

I personally think Barry Goldwater was the last best Republican candidate to get the on the ballot. He was at a time when the GOP is split like it is now, with the Moderate/Liberal republicans in the NE/West Coast with the Conservative Republicans of the South and SW. It would be nice to have a Republican presidential candidate that actually had a clear plan to take care many of the problems we have now, one that isn't scared to redesign or remove many of the sacred cows in government, but yet still be moderate in social issues so that every American can be part of America.

If only there had been a candidate like that...

[TommyGunn]

[charby]

If only there had been a candidate like that...

Another candidate that focuses too hard on a few niche topics, hmm "End the Federal Reserve" and "Return to the Gold Standard" seem familiar with Ron Paul?

[lupinus]

If only there had been a candidate like that...

Except that he comes off as a kook to a lot of people. Hell, there are plenty of times that *I* think he comes off as a freaking kook.

Now, his son on the other hand just might be the right mix to get somewhere with the right ideals and without managing to scare everyone off.

[Perd Hapley]

Paul is not a "moderate" on social issues. He is as socially conservative as they come.

Point taken about the Fed Reserve stuff, though.

[Levant]

Republicans... The other Democratic Party.

I may vote for Hillary just in the hopes of making the Republicans see that they're not representing their base... But then, after losing with the last two candidates, they aren't seeing the message that they need to be conservative to win, the message they got was that they're not liberal enough so they're going to compete with the Democrats as Democrats.

I suppose that, in the end, I have to vote for the Republican anyway in the hopes of getting better Supreme Court appointments - which Roberts proves doesn't always matter.

[Perd Hapley]

It would be nice to have a Republican presidential candidate that actually had a clear plan to take care many of the problems we have now, one that isn't scared to redesign or remove many of the sacred cows in government, but yet still be moderate in social issues so that every American can be part of America.

Except for the people on charby's naughty list.    You people (yes you) can quit bringing that dog along anytime now. He obviously don't hunt. But no, you want to keep bringing up this cockamamie theory.

Look, you are not a slumbering majority of small-govt, fiscal-conservative, social "moderates." You are, at best, a sizable number of small-govt, fiscal conservatives, with loony-left ideas on social issues. There are too many of you, to be sure, but not enough to make it worth the GOP's while to trade us for you.

But as I've said before, at least if you do drag the GOP down with you, at least that might make room for a newer, better party for all us icky so-cons.

[Strings]

And congratulations: the two of you just demonstrated WHY the Republicans will lose to the Democrats almost every time.

They may have their internal squables. But they ALWAYS manage to knuckle down and support "their guy"... whoever happens to be the choice as such.

Republicans? Get so divided by stuff that really shouldn't matter...