….But Christie still has a problem in 2016

by Datechguy | January 14th, 2013

Readability

....But Christie still has a problem in 2016

In my ear­lier post I touched on Chris Christie’s moti­va­tions for his moves on Hur­ri­cane Sandy a few weeks ago but I didn’t touch on the argu­ment made in Christo­pher Bedford’s piece that Chris Christie is going nowhere in 2016.

I think he’s right.

Let’s note two exam­ples from the recent past.

1. Decem­ber 21st 2009 Martha Martha Martha

MarthaCoak­ley has just won a 4 way Demo­c­rat Pri­mary after pledg­ing to not allow any abor­tion restric­tion in the Oba­macare almost imme­di­ately has an epiphany

In a state­ment to the Globe yes­ter­day, Coak­ley said that although she was dis­ap­pointed that the Sen­ate bill “gives states addi­tional options regard­ing the fund­ing mech­a­nisms for women’s repro­duc­tive health ser­vices,’’ she would reluc­tantly sup­port it because it would pro­vide cov­er­age for mil­lions of unin­sured peo­ple and reduce costs.

As News­busters reported at the time even the Globe called them on it

Coak­ley is such a self-​serving hyp­o­crit­i­cal flip-​flopper than not even the Boston Globe could spin this story to make her look good. In almost any other state, Coak­ley would have very lit­tle chance in the gen­eral elec­tion but, hey, this is Mass­a­chu­setts we are talk­ing about here. Demo­c­rat can­di­dates for sen­a­tor aren’t so much elected as auto­mat­i­cally coronated.

Well a lot of Dem activists remem­ber this and hav­ing lit­tle fear of the GOP decided not to get to work, but the per­fect storm of Obama care and the appeal of Scott Brown turned the coro­na­tion into the first shot of the tea party rev­o­lu­tion that even­tu­ally gave the GOP the House that they have retained ever since. But if Coak­ley hadn’t upset the base with a month to go before the elec­tion they might have ener­gized their peo­ple to the point

2. May 24th 2011 Remem­ber where you came from

Scott Brown rode the per­fect storm to a sen­ate seat in Mass­a­chu­setts. The most impor­tant part of that was the army of vol­un­teers from the tea party that who worked tire­lessly to take him across the fin­ish line in an elec­tion with no other race on the bal­lot by five points.

Once the democ­rats were forced to use the pre­vi­ously passed sen­ate ver­sion of Oba­macare to get the bill passed in the house. Sen­a­tor Brown wor­ried about his re-​election prospects in a strongly blue state decided to take a dif­fer­ent tack for­get­ting this golden rule:

No mat­ter how many votes you give them, no mat­ter many words you say or do. LIB­ERAL NGO’S AND THE MSM ARE NOT GOING TO SUP­PORT YOU IN 2012.

Once you get this through your head, the rest is easy.

Of these lessons the 3rd is the most impor­tant for Sen­a­tor Brown to learn, will he be wise enough to do so. That is the $64,000 question.

Unfor­tu­nately Sen­a­tor Brown answered the ques­tion in spades on the Ryan Bud­get:

In addi­tion to the first les­son that he hadn’t learned there were two new rules that he missed out on:

1. I don’t know what other people’s expec­ta­tions but I expect my US Senator’s to use a stan­dard other than “Does Newt Gin­grich put his foot in his mouth” on what will be sup­ported or not.

2. If any­one in the GOP thinks that the League of Lib­eral Women vot­ers or any other lib­eral group is going to go less all out against Scott Brown they are delud­ing them­selves. Brown could vote a straight Harry Reid line and Mass­a­chu­setts lib­er­als would spend tens of mil­lions to destroy him.

and that’s the nice way of putting it. Legal Insur­rec­tion wasn’t nearly as kind:

I don’t blame you for vot­ing against the Ryan bill; I don’t have lit­mus tests, and while I think the over­all frame­work is the right direc­tion, I can’t argue with the fact that peo­ple may have spe­cific alter­na­tives or amendments.

But you don’t have alter­na­tives. In your op-​ed you sim­ply repeat the hack­neyed and failed notions of waste, fraud and abuse, with tort reform thrown in. That will not cut it. That is a dodge.

You appar­ently have no solu­tions to what you admit to be an unsus­tain­able course, but you took the oppor­tu­nity to imply that Repub­li­cans will aban­don seniors. You don’t come right out and say it, but you came pretty close.

A “no” vote wasn’t good enough, you had to do it in a way so as to dam­age fel­low Repub­li­cans by play­ing into the false Demo­c­ra­tic nar­ra­tive. You are a hero for your op-​ed, but not to the peo­ple who sup­ported you.

Go down the list of those prais­ing your op-​ed, and you will see the same peo­ple who smeared you as a “birther”, who dis­trib­uted rape mail­ers against you, who mocked you as a crazy extrem­ist, who accused you of endors­ing sex­ual vio­lence against your oppo­nent, and who will work to defeat you in 2012.

I can’t speak for all your sup­port­ers, and maybe not even for many of them. But I’m done defend­ing you against the peo­ple who are cheer­ing your op-​ed.

So it’s time to say good­bye and good luck.

I will not work against you, but I also will not work for you. There are many more impor­tant bat­tles to fight in 2012.

Just remem­ber Morn­ing Joe praised Scott Brown over and Over again but when the chips were down they were in Warren’s cor­ner. Mean­while on elec­tion day there was nobody to take my mother to vote for Scott Brown except me.

Scott Brown is a nice guy. He made time for vot­ers and he was the spark that lit the repub­li­can rev­o­lu­tion, but his will­ing­ness to toss aside the activists, the same mis­take that Martha Coak­ley is a why a can­di­date as weak as Eliz­a­beth War­ren was able to beat him so convincingly.

And his sud­den endorse­ment of the Assault Weapons Ban isn’t going to get the base dial­ing the phone for him either.

Part of that storm was the work of hun­dreds of ded­i­cated con­ser­v­a­tive activists but with­out the hard work of tea party activists going all out in a state where they had never had any hope at all, Brown’s elec­tion would not have been possible.

And to the amaze­ment of many I’m not even going to touch on Mitt Romney’s prob­lems with conservatives.

No Chris Christie is no Mitt Rom­ney, no Scott Brown and cer­tainly no Martha Coakely. He is a strong, deter­mined and dynamic per­son who will not make the mis­take that Rom­ney did in being shy about attack­ing so one should never say “never” but you must have the foot sol­diers to fight and he can’t win with­out them.

The real ques­tion is this: Is Chris Christie’s Ego so large that he thinks the MSM will still love him when he is the GOP standard-​bearer? If he’s fool­ish enough to buy that he doesn’t have any busi­ness run­ning for any higher office

In my earlier post I touched on Chris Christie’s motivations for his moves on Hurricane Sandy a few weeks ago but I didn’t touch on the argument made in Christopher Bedford’s  piece that Chris Christie is going nowhere in 2016.

I think he’s right.

Let’s note two examples from the recent past.

1. December 21st 2009 Martha Martha Martha

Martha Coakley has just won a 4 way Democrat Primary after pledging to not allow any abortion restriction in the Obamacare almost immediately has an epiphany

In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

As Newsbusters reported at the time even the Globe called them on it

Coakley is such a self-serving hypocritical flip-flopper than not even the Boston Globe could spin this story to make her look good. In almost any other state, Coakley would have very little chance in the general election but, hey, this is Massachusetts we are talking about here. Democrat candidates for senator aren’t so much elected as automatically coronated.

Well a lot of Dem activists remember this and having little fear of the GOP decided not to get to work, but the perfect storm of Obama care and the appeal of Scott Brown turned the coronation into the first shot of the tea party revolution that eventually gave the GOP the House that they have retained ever since. But if Coakley hadn’t upset the base with a month to go before the election they might have energized their people to the point

2. May 24th 2011 Remember where you came from

Scott Brown rode the perfect storm to a senate seat in Massachusetts. The most important part of that was the army of volunteers from the tea party that who worked tirelessly to take him across the finish line in an election with no other race on the ballot by five points.

Once the democrats were forced to use the previously passed senate version of Obamacare to get the bill passed in the house. Senator Brown worried about his re-election prospects in a strongly blue state decided to take a different tack forgetting this golden rule:

No matter how many votes you give them, no matter many words you say or do. LIBERAL NGO’S AND THE MSM ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT YOU IN 2012.

Once you get this through your head, the rest is easy.

Of these lessons the 3rd is the most important for Senator Brown to learn, will he be wise enough to do so. That is the $64,000 question.

Unfortunately Senator Brown answered the question in spades on the Ryan Budget:

In addition to the first lesson that he hadn’t learned there were two new rules that he missed out on:

1. I don’t know what other people’s expectations but I expect my US Senator’s to use a standard other than “Does Newt Gingrich put his foot in his mouth” on what will be supported or not.

2. If anyone in the GOP thinks that the League of Liberal Women voters or any other liberal group is going to go less all out against Scott Brown they are deluding themselves. Brown could vote a straight Harry Reid line and Massachusetts liberals would spend tens of millions to destroy him.

and that’s the nice way of putting it. Legal Insurrection wasn’t nearly as kind:

I don’t blame you for voting against the Ryan bill; I don’t have litmus tests, and while I think the overall framework is the right direction, I can’t argue with the fact that people may have specific alternatives or amendments.

But you don’t have alternatives. In your op-ed you simply repeat the hackneyed and failed notions of waste, fraud and abuse, with tort reform thrown in. That will not cut it. That is a dodge.

You apparently have no solutions to what you admit to be an unsustainable course, but you took the opportunity to imply that Republicans will abandon seniors. You don’t come right out and say it, but you came pretty close.

A “no” vote wasn’t good enough, you had to do it in a way so as to damage fellow Republicans by playing into the false Democratic narrative. You are a hero for your op-ed, but not to the people who supported you.

Go down the list of those praising your op-ed, and you will see the same people who smeared you as a “birther”, who distributed rape mailers against you, who mocked you as a crazy extremist, who accused you of endorsing sexual violence against your opponent, and who will work to defeat you in 2012.

I can’t speak for all your supporters, and maybe not even for many of them. But I’m done defending you against the people who are cheering your op-ed.

So it’s time to say goodbye and good luck.

I will not work against you, but I also will not work for you. There are many more important battles to fight in 2012.

Just remember Morning Joe praised Scott Brown over and Over again but when the chips were down they were in Warren’s corner. Meanwhile on election day there was nobody to take my mother to vote for Scott Brown except me.

Scott Brown is a nice guy. He made time for voters and he was the spark that lit the republican revolution, but his willingness to toss aside the activists, the same mistake that Martha Coakley is a why a candidate as weak as Elizabeth Warren was able to beat him so convincingly.

And his sudden endorsement of the Assault Weapons Ban isn’t going to get the base dialing the phone for him either.

Part of that storm was the work of hundreds of dedicated conservative activists but without the hard work of tea party activists going all out in a state where they had never had any hope at all, Brown’s election would not have been possible.

And to the amazement of many I’m not even going to touch on Mitt Romney’s problems with conservatives.

No Chris Christie is no Mitt Romney, no Scott Brown and certainly no Martha Coakely. He is a strong, determined and dynamic person who will not make the mistake that Romney did in being shy about attacking so one should never say “never” but you must have the foot soldiers to fight and he can’t win without them.

The real question is this: Is Chris Christie’s Ego so large that he thinks the MSM will still love him when he is the GOP standard-bearer? If he’s foolish enough to buy that he doesn’t have any business running for any higher office

Comments are closed.

Buy Raspberry Ketone Here

American 023

From a Former Atheist:

From a Former Atheist:

Try the Double Burger!

nashoba

Annie’s Book Stop of Worcester

Annies Book Stop of Worcester 001

Find Discounts at the Stores you Love

TOP STORES

Listen to your Granny

RWG

Forest of Assassins

Forest of Assassins

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

ecigarette

Support our favorite Charties

Read me at Examiner.com

Examiner badge2

Only 114 Million Hits to retirement!

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Most Innovative Blogger 2013

Tags

Help a Brother Knight of Mine who needs a hand