Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anybody remember, not too long ago, when Chris Christie was the favorite Republican of those in the Democratic Party and in the mainstream media? This bogus praise, of course, was the result of his hug with Obama that came one week before the election.
It's funny how all that praise went out the window the moment Chris Christie became the (then) front-runner for the GOP nomination. And liberals, please don't claim that "Bridgegate" is what made you change your mind about Chris Christie. The truth of the matter is that I have seen this hypocritical crap time and time again. I saw it when you professed to love John McCain (from 2000 to around 2007 or so), only to then savagely attack him once it became apparent that he might actually become president. And I remember the endless praise that you had for Rudy Giuliani, who rightfully earned high marks (from both parties) as a result of how he handled 9/11; of course, all of that niceness was immediately taken back the moment he rose in the polls.
It is now John Kasich's turn to be the liberals' favorite Republican, but I hope that he is fully aware of how insincere this "praise" is. By picking some token Republican to love, the real goal is to trash the rest of the "crazy" GOP in comparison. Should Kasich ever become a serious threat, the Democrats and the liberal media will turn on him in an instant.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
I never praised Christie as a Republican, but I'd vote for him if he ran as an (I) if he thumbed his nose at both major parties as he might actually be able to pull it off.
I never praised Christie as a Republican, but I'd vote for him if he ran as an (I) if he thumbed his nose at both major parties as he might actually be able to pull it off.
The last two independents to make an honest impact was Perot who in 1992 took just about an equal share of votes from both parties but no electoral votes and George Wallace who won states with his Dixiecrat pro-segregation and nuke the Viet-Cong into the stone age rhetoric. Christie would need the money to do it on his own. I don't know if you can duo it without having your own war chest.
If you don't want an honest answer to your question, don't bother to ask. I did like Christie before Bridge-gate but the fact that he won't let that buck end on his desk where it belonged turned me against him. I liked McCain until he picked Palin for a running mate and his shell-shocked reaction to the banking crisis was his death blow. I don't care enough about Kasich to even form an opinion because he doesn't have a chance of getting any traction with the Hungry Games field of contestants running.
And in case you haven't notice, the other Republican candidates are circulating an e-mail urging them to ban together to take out Trump.
This D liked some things about Christie when he first came to my attention. But it was more along the lines of "interesting - an elected R who is not a religious or tea party conservative, how did he manage that?" than, "yeah, I'd vote for him".
My opinion of him has since deteriorated, for much the same reasons that everyone else's has.
If you don't want an honest answer to your question, don't bother to ask. I did like Christie before Bridge-gate but the fact that he won't let that buck end on his desk where it belonged turned me against him. I liked McCain until he picked Palin for a running mate and his shell-shocked reaction to the banking crisis was his death blow. I don't care enough about Kasich to even form an opinion because he doesn't have a chance of getting any traction with the Hungry Games field of contestants running.
And in case you haven't notice, the other Republican candidates are circulating an e-mail urging them to ban together to take out Trump.
Great News - The imbecilic RINO Repubs are petrified of Donald Trump's Superior candidacy ....Trump will take their backstabbing tactic E-mail and Really RALLY Tons more Voters to his rapidly GROWING PEOPLE who will campaign for The Donald !!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
The last two independents to make an honest impact was Perot who in 1992 took just about an equal share of votes from both parties but no electoral votes and George Wallace who won states with his Dixiecrat pro-segregation and nuke the Viet-Cong into the stone age rhetoric. Christie would need the money to do it on his own. I don't know if you can duo it without having your own war chest.
That's the big problem, I'd love to see both major parties lose an election for POTUS but they're so entrenched and well funded it may well be the impossible dream.
Liberals were all over Andrew Cuomo early on as well, but now the man is equally toxic on the national stage. He has gone from being a serious contender in 2016 to "ABC" (Anyone But Cuomo).
Problem all governors face in running for the WH is that they are just that, which can cause all sorts of problems depending upon how things play out.
Governors are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of their state's residents. If that matches up with a good slice of the general national electorate everything is fine and dandy. However when it doesn't.....
Both New York and New Jersey both have the distinction of being viewed as politically suspect by a good part of the country, especially the South and Mid-West. Too much corruption, scandal and other unsavory goings on. Not that such things don't happen in other states but things out of those two tend to be magnified.
Liberals were all over Andrew Cuomo early on as well, but now the man is equally toxic on the national stage. He has gone from being a serious contender in 2016 to "ABC" (Anyone But Cuomo).
Problem all governors face in running for the WH is that they are just that, which can cause all sorts of problems depending upon how things play out.
Governors are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of their state's residents. If that matches up with a good slice of the general national electorate everything is fine and dandy. However when it doesn't.....
Both New York and New Jersey both have the distinction of being viewed as politically suspect by a good part of the country, especially the South and Mid-West. Too much corruption, scandal and other unsavory goings on. Not that such things don't happen in other states but things out of those two tend to be magnified.
This is way off-topic, but the far-left hates Andrew Cuomo, and loves Bill deBlasio. Any chance that Cuomo ever had of winning the Democratic presidential nomination has long since disappeared.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
