Chris Christie Extinguishes Chances to Become GOP Leader

It wasn’t but a year ago that Republicans across the nation were singing the praises of NJ Governor, Chris Christie. He had just fought entrenched NJ government employees in a liberal state to fix their pension system. He fought the NJ Teacher’s Union and others in the state to bring the state’s finances back within reason. He said:

“The Teacher’s Union is about the accumulation and exercise of raw power.”

His outspokenness against perceived wrongdoers in his state became nationally known and made him a beloved figure among the GOP–and even many moderates.

Unfortunately, that has unraveled. He was the keynote speaker at the GOP Convention that introduced Romney as the nominee. Personally, I thought his speech was very good, but many felt it was too self-centered and didn’t do enough to boost Romney.

Then came the “super storm,” Hurricane Sandy, in his home state. His state was decimated, and when Obama came for photo ops, Christie earned goodwill among the generally Obama-friendly populace of NJ by praising the President and taking loads of amicable photos with him. Many say Sandy stole Romney’s momentum and Christie’s appearances with Obama were a part of that.

Finally on Thursday (1/17/13), Gov. Christie slammed the NRA. They ran an ad calling Obama a hypocrite for rejecting the notion that schools should consider armed guards, while his children have armed guards at school. Christie called the ad “reprehensible,” and said the NRA has lost some credibility. It is below for your viewing.

Gov. Christie is clearly positioning himself to fend off a future Democratic challenger for the Governor’s seat–namely Cory Booker–at the expense of paving the way for a 2016 Presidential run, and that’s his prerogative. It seems that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Bobby Jindal are all eyeing 2016, and they’re stronger candidates anyway. For Gov. Christie, it’ll take a while for Republicans to forget these missteps, just as it took the GOP faithful years to forget forgive Mitt Romney’s liberal moves and statements as the governor of a very blue state. At this point, I don’t even expect him to run in 2016. Ann Coulter will be distraught.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

21 thoughts on “Chris Christie Extinguishes Chances to Become GOP Leader

  1. I was gung ho only to be let down by him but relieved that he didn’t run this time so I wouldn’t have to deal with buyers remorse. I heard Booker decided not to run after Obama and Christie got buddy buddy.

    You might want to add Jim DeMint to the potential runners for 2016.

    • I also heard Booker wasn’t going to run, but I think that was for Senate and it sounds like eventually he could get a tough challenge and this will help. This also helps if he ever runs for Senate himself. Either way, if Christie runs for a NJ elected position, such as another term as Gov. This stuff helps. I think that’s his focus.

      Sent from my iPhone

  2. This post seems to be based on emotion and hypocrisy more than logic. So I’ll ask a few questions to see if I’m off base.

    1. Republicans really touted Christie because he “speaks his mind”, which I think most people find to be a good trait. But in reality, Republicans only like him to speak his mind if he is towing the party line. You don’t want him to speak his mind if he is against you because then he is not “someone who speaks his mind” but rather a traitor to the party. So is your preference someone who speaks his mind or someone who falls in line all the time?

    2. Are you agreeing with the NRA ad? If so, doesn’t it suggest that either everyone’s kids should get the same security as a sitting President’s kids or that a sitting President’s kids doesn’t deserve or need protection? Don’t you think that Obama would have the same views even if he was not President and his kids were not getting that protection? Don’t you think a sitting President’s kids are in a different situation than everyone else’s kids?

    3. Why would you refer to Obama’s trip to the Sandy disaster area a “photo opp”? Do you think he should not have gone? If he didn’t go, would you have said it was a bad thing that he didn’t go? Do you think that every time a President visits a disaster area it is just for a photo opp?

    4. And finally, do you think Christie is just to moderate to be electable in today’s Republican Party?

    • Point #1 I appreciate anyone who speaks his mind but it doesn’t mean we have to agree with their opinion. Christie has turned out to be someone who’s cons outweigh his pros, the most important, to me, views that he has does not jive with mine. It has nothing to do with party lines since I don’t adhere to party lines myself, it has to do with my views vs his.

      Point #2 I’m not a card carrying member of the NRA and don’t adhere to their views either. I believe that the Presidents children, whoever the President might be, are more at risk than the average child but it doesn’t mean that their lives are more valuable than our children. I don’t want my children under constant armed guard, I want them to live a life that’s free of constant fear, guards would be a constant reminder that they are constantly in danger and will be wary of living outside the school where there are no armed guards.

      Point #3 The President has an obligation to stay in Washington working not using taxpayer money to be trotting all over the country, he has agencies to assess disasters. All the President can do is say oh, that looks bad, I’ll go back to Washington and see what my agencies have to say about it, now smile for the camera.

      Explain why he went to Sandy Hook, that wasn’t a natural disaster, it was, without a doubt, a photo op to further his anti gun agenda.

      Point #4 He probably could get elected, in New Jersey, not sure he would make it on the national stage but then again, they picked Romney who was a moderate.

      What we need is a third strong ultra conservative 3rd party to emerge and stop this madness. The problem is, the majority of voters believe that we only have a two party system, which is totally untrue. Unless we can get our heads out of our asses soon then our fate has been sealed.

      • Thanks for comment you two. Lance makes some good points. I guess we did like him for being so candid, we just didn’t realize how liberal he was.

        Phoebe, a third party would only divide the GOP further. They need a Rand Pail type.

        Sent from my iPhone

  3. OK, good comments from you both, but more questions.

    Point 1: You call him moderate and liberal now. I’m assuming you are not calling him that for working with the President on disaster recovery and relief. Is it based on his disdain for the NRA commercial? In what other ways do you find him moderate or liberal? I ask because I don’t think he is anywhere close.

    Point 2: I agree that everyone’s kids are important and valuable. And I agree with you on what you said. Plus, for every course of action we could take related to gun control/gun violence, I could argue that each one would not work (even ones I agree with). I think the NRA ad is just to stir the pot more than make valid points (it doesn’t make a valid point). So I agree with Christie on his stance (it hurts my head to say that I agree with him, but I’m trying to leave emotion out of my discussions now). 🙂

    Point 3: Obama does not have an anti-gun agenda (let me know if you have proof of this that I may not know about). He may be against assault weapons, but he is not going to start confiscating weapons that people legally purchased. He may work to stop future sales of assault weapons, but it is no different than not allowing the sales of hand grenades (weapons made for the military designed to take out many people very quickly). Also, do you think that a sitting Republican President would not have gone to Sandy Hook? I agree with you that it makes more sense for a President not to go to something like that. It cost money for him to go. But if Presidents don’t go to places like that, then they are accused of not caring about the people. A President would have to declare at the beginning of his term that he will not be attending any kind of disaster (natural or not), but that it doesn’t mean he doesn’t care. No President is going to do that and I don’t really believe they go just for the photo opp. It may be a “bonus” for them, but I don’t believe it was Obama’s intention any more than Bush going to New Orleans or Ground Zero. Our country just looks for our leader to be at these places and would ridicule him (or her) if he did not go.

    Point 4: An ultra conservative party is what you are getting with Republicans. They are going further and further to the right and I believe that is why they lost elections in 2012. Every candidate supported by the NRA lost. Candidates that were leading and then made crazy comments about rape, lost. The Tea Party was supposed to be a party of conservative economics and small gov’t but not get involved in social issues, but instead they are going to the ultra extreme right on social issues. I think they would gain a lot more traction and support if they stuck to their economic ideas and didn’t try to get *big* gov’t involved in our daily lives.

    Thanks for taking time to read my response and to provide your point of view.

  4. Lance/Phoebe,

    I appreciate you two weighing in. That’s my favorite part about writing these posts, getting a response in the comments. So thank you!

    To Lance’s most recent points:

    1. I think if you look at Calvin Coolidge, you see the role of the federal government in disaster recovery, which is minimal. After Christie rubbed elbows with Obama, he then attacked the NRA, which right or wrong, isn’t very conservative. On top of that he’s never been a social conservative and suddenly he looks pretty moderate.

    2. The ad merely pointed out how in some regards security at schools is within reason. Now maybe it wasn’t done tastefully, but I do agree with the concept that each school can have an assigned officer. My high school had one. He mostly dealt with drug related issues. I’d much rather spend my tax dollars on officers in schools than 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

    3. Obama signed an executive whatever (was it an order? It has no legislative power, so I don’t know if it’s considered an order or directive.) that pushed for bans on certain arms. To me that is anti-gun. Banning guns is anti-gun, right?

    In fact, it bans some rifles with cosmetic grips and doesn’t ban the same rifles without the grips. It’s silly, poorly done, and won’t keep up safer. There is a HUGE difference between grenades and rifles..Rifles are arms protected by the constitution.

    I recommend the states that do no have a right to bear arms clause in their constitution (e.g., MD, NY) ban all gun sales and minimize guns as much as possible. The rest of the nation can watch. States are laboratories of democracy, right? When violent crime goes up, the nation can take notice. Sexual assault skyrocketed after Australia confiscated guns. Guns are a women rights issue…. that said rifles are not. Anyway, I like to point this stuff to the states.

    4. Finally, to your last point, I agree that the GOP needs to focus on freedom issues which are mostly economic.

    • 1. I can’t believe you would say “Christie rubbed elbows with Obama” in your argument that he is too liberal. Why do you keep going back to the Governor working with the President in a disaster as some sort of weakness? What should he have done? Should he have told the President not to come? I think that remark does not advance your argument or this the discussion.

      2. Obama does believe in more protection in schools, so the ad is a lie. Here are Obama’s executive orders 18 and 19:

      18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

      19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

      3. Which of his 23 orders say anything about banning any guns? None of them. He would like Congress to take up a discussion on banning assault weapons, not all guns (and it would only be on future sales, not current ownership). Saying he is against guns because he is against assault weapons is like saying he is against freedom of speech because he supports slander laws or because he supports a ban on yelling fire in a crowded theater. All of our “freedoms” have limits. The second amendment says right to bear arms. Hand grenades are arms and we don’t allow them. If there is a HUGE difference between grenades and assault rifles, then list out reasons why we would not allow people to have hand grenades but would allow them to have assault weapons. You and Republicans will continue saying banning “guns” while Obama and Democrats are saying ban “assault weapons” because you just want liberals to look and sound like bad and wrong people. I wish you would stop doing that and use the words that they are really using. I believe Obama would allow you to have as many guns as you want, as long as they are revolvers, pistols with small magazines, single action rifles or shotguns. Women would not get raped if they carried a revolver. They are not going to walk around with an assault rifle. And your “silly” examples are correct. The last ban was too vague and that is why it needs to be discussed and modified. But a ban by itself *will not work*. The country also needs to work on Obama’s Executive Orders. I could argue why none of the ideas will work, but together they can all help. In the end, if someone wants to kill people, like in Sandy Hook, nothing is going to stop them. That school could’ve been surrounded by the military and that guy would have found another way (place) to kill those kids.

      4. No additional comment.

      5. On a side note, I’d like to see you write an article about Redmap. Is it political genious or unethical election rigging?

      • 5. Tell me more about Redmap on Facebook.
        4. We agree there.
        3. We’ve gone off track. I actually don’t have much interest in anything but a revolver, I’m just not sure if it is constitutional to ban arms. I’m also not sure that a search (4th amendment bans unlawful search) is constitutional to exercise your 2nd amendment (right to bear arms). I personally like the universal background check, but I’d rather not get what I want than bend the constitution too much. Guns aren’t the issue so much as Christie’s moderation.
        2. The ad doesn’t say he doesn’t believe in protecting schools, it is more specific than that.
        1. I think Christie wants to balance the budget in NJ which shouldn’t be reserved for the GOP. He isn’t pro-NRA and to my knowledge is pretty moderate socially. Not sure why you don’t like the guy.

      • Lance, hand grenades are a bit of a stretch, don’t ya think? If you have paid attention you should know that it’s not about the guns, it’s about the ammo. He doesn’t have a snowballs chance of banning guns so what better way to impose restrictions, ban the ammo, problem solved.

        Hand grenades have no other purpose than to blow things up, with a specific intent to do harm to property or large amount of people. I guess if you want to know about blowing things up, Bill Ayers would be the person to talk to.

        If you really want to look at Sandy Hook, ask yourself why Lanza tried to make it into the school the day before and was thwarted but yet there was no one watching for him the next day?

        To answer your prior question, no, I don’t know of any incidents that were not natural disasters where a sitting President showed up except Bush showing up at 9-11 site but that was a national disaster. I don’t recall that Clinton showed up in Oklahoma City after the bombing.

        Ask yourself this, what constitutes a mass murder? How much is a mass? More than one? More than 20?

        Back to Christie, he was all anti Obama prior to Sandy, why did he change so much after Obama’s visit?

      • Phoebe, what’s with the Bill Ayers comment? I can’t have a conversation with you if you go off on something unrelated to the topic. That comment does nothing to support your case or add to this discussion.

        You say hand grenades are a “bit of a stretch”, but there are plenty of gun owners who think it is a “bit of a stretch” to want to own an assault weapon. You say a hand grenade has “a specific intent to do harm to property or large amount of people”. Same with an assault rifle. So you still have not explained why one is legal and one is not. Give it some serious thought. What makes them so different? I’m open to a reason, but no one can give me one. I’m just trying to decide what the criteria is for allowing one weapon over another. And if we don’t allow weapons that do harm to large amounts of people, then based on that logic, assault rifles should be banned.

        You say it is about the ammo, not the guns. Then why are Republicans scaring people into thinking that the gov’t is coming after their guns. I know they are not going to come after guns people already own. But they may put a stop to future sales. And going after ammo could help, but gun manufacturers will find a way to make assault weapons that use 22’s or some other legal ammo. Just brainstorming here, maybe we should hold manufacturers or sales people partially responsible if they sell a military weapon that ends up being used in a murder. I know it is not that simple, but none of the solutions for this are simple and many solutions will have to be put in place and we’ll still have problems.

        I’m sorry, but I don’t know what point you are making in your comment about Lanza.

        Four days after Oklahoma City Bombing:

        I don’t know what your point is in asking how many makes a mass murder. What is that in relation to?

        And back to Christie, what points of view did he change after the Obama visit to NJ? As far as I know, he still holds the same opinions as before. But let me know if I have missed something where he has changed his mind.

        Thanks again for your response. And please note that I am not out to make anyone look bad or wrong, I’m just seeking answers.

      • Ryan, short answer is that he believes people’s civil rights should be put up to a vote. That is wrong.

      • I’ve always thought Christie was a squish. We already have to many squishes in the GOP. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney come to mind. Oh and lets not forget Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist. So Christie fought against the Teacher’s union in his state. Any smart politician could see that the unions were bleeding the state’s coffers dry.

        For me proper gun control means using two hands and getting rounds on target. Every bit of gun control legislation or regulation from the NFA of 1934 through these executive orders by President Obama are all unconstitutional. The NFA ’34 was a tax measure and a way to keep a bunch of government agents employed after prohibition was ended.

        The second amendment’s intent, if you have read the Federalist’s papers, was to ensure that American citizens would be as well armed as any soldier in a standing army. You know…the ability to fight against an oppressive government. The Brown Bess and the Kentucky Long Rifle were the assault rifles of their day. You can bet your last dollar that if George Washington had had M-16’s at his disposal, he would have used them.

        The thing is, when ever government starts on a campaign of gun registration, it has ended up with confiscation along with preferential treatment for connected people. You know…guns for me, but not for thee.

        So although in principle I can agree with the premise of background checks, I can also see where a lot of lawful gun owners are uncomfortable with it.( I’m already on a list because I have a CWP.)

        Obama , even though constitutionally he can’t, would really like to ban guns from John Q. Public. And his Attorney General Eric Holder is on video saying that he thinks we should start a “brainwashing” program in our schools against guns and the gun culture, much like we did for tobacco.

        And lets set the record straight…an assault rifle is a gun of medium caliber that has the ability to be switched from single shots for every pull of the trigger to three or four round bursts up to fully automatic where ammunition is expelled from the rifle either until the trigger is released or the magazine is empty.(usually called spray and pray and a waste of ammo.)

        An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. But it is good for a defensive weapon. The .223 or 5.56mm round isn’t good for deer hunting, but is good for varmints of the four legged and two legged variety. The venerable Ruger 10-22 is a semi-auto rifle. Browning makes several of it’s most
        popular caliber rifles in a semi-auto model.

        Most schools in our area have a school resource officer, either a county sheriff’s deputy or town police if the school is inside town limits. Recently, a school resource officer stopped an intruder at her school until additional officers arrived…result, one shot criminal, because he wouldn’t give up and pointed his weapon at the officers, and no kids harmed.

        This became a lot longer than I wanted it to, but I wanted to clear up some misconceptions a lot of people have about what makes a rifle an assault rifle and guns in general.

        Magazine ammunition limits are also just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. A person intent on killing a lot of people with just a bit of practice, can swap out a magazine in a second or less and with speed loaders, a revolver can be reloaded in about two seconds. The police are minutes away when seconds count.

        As far as revolvers or “wheel guns” go, a woman in Georgia defended her family with a .38 revolver. Shot the intruder five times in the face and chest and the guy still managed to get out of the house and drive off. If the woman had had a semi-auto pistol with a ten or twelve rd mag, or 15 rd mag like my personal carry weapon, the criminal most likely wouldn’t have walked or crawled away.

        We don’t need any more gun laws; We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books, which is far too many as far as I’m concerned. What we need is less crazy people. Institutions made a bad name for themselves and liberal and squishy GOP politicians made it much harder to institutionalize people who were mentally unstable. Unless they committed a crime, they couldn’t be put in an institution.

        Another problem is our education system. I don’t want to lay this all on teachers because there are some good ones out there, but it seems to me that if a student has problems with paying attention in class, instead of figuring out that the student is bored because they already know the material, they want to give them a psychotropic drug and forget about it.

        Sorry if I got a little off track here.

  5. Thank you two for keeping the comments civil. I appreciate it. New post is up:

    I think a fair distinction can be drawn between a semi-automatic rifle and a hand grenade. Grenades are meant for offensive attack, not defense. If someone breaks into your home, a grenade would be an odd weapon to use. An AR-15 would be an effective weapon to use.

    Also, any of those rifles would be acceptable for hunting (I assume, I don’t hunt) while a grenade would only be good for fishing? Haha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s