Image 01 Image 03

To defend Chris Christie

To defend Chris Christie

It’s not about Christie, it’s about how other Republican candidates will be treated by the media.

When it comes to Chris Christie and Bridgegate, there is, as National Journal points out, a lot of “he’s getting what he deserves” attitude among Republicans.

I get that. Christie likes to stick his finger in other Republicans’ eyes. He unfairly demonized Republicans upset that the Sandy Relief bill was stuffed with unrelated pork.

Christie’s figurative wet, sloppy tongue kiss with Obama just before the election was dispiriting (and gross!).

I get all that, and I can’t really blame people for enjoying watching him twist in the liberal media windstorm, as they seek to take him out of the 2016 race.


I’m also not comfortable with the Republican rush to pile on before Christie had a chance to explain himself, and before the facts were known.

If Christie lied in his press conference yesterday, he’s toast. You won’t need to pile on.

But joining the media madness before Christie had a chance to defend himself was short-sighted.

Whether it was the false and defamatory supposed connection of Sarah Palin to the Gabby Giffords shooting, or the media frenzy over Mitt Romney’s (now vindicated) comments about Benghazi, there is no Republican immune from the media mob. Only Democrats are immune.

With regard to Palin, I wrote:

It does not matter whether you support Palin for President, whether you think she is electable, or even whether you like her. This is not about Palin, it is about the mainstream media’s desire to have Barack Obama re-elected at any cost and to take down any Republican candidate who stands in the way.

Substitute Hillary for Obama in that sentence.

This is not about Chris Christie. It’s about any number of other Republican candidates who will be met with the same faux-outrage and media-led obsession a year from now as the 2016 field begins to define itself.

Don’t feed the beast.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Obama lied. No one but Conservatives complained.
Obama close the National Parks. No one but Conservatives complained.
Obama broke the law with deadlines of Obamacare. No one but Conservatives complained.
Through all of this, Christie mocked and f’ed and stiffed Conservatives.

Screw Christie.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to [email protected]. | January 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Wow! You mean like what you sow…. you shall reap man?

    What a concept. Let it rip – especially on Obama!

    BTW – time to dismantle the evil MSM and replace it.

    My position is that Christie should be given the support we would give to any “R” governor, pending more information. In other words, I won’t pile on him because I don’t like him.

    I do not support him for POTUS, and will not.

    But, absent more information, he’s done nothing for which he is culpable, and he has shown much more executive responsibility than Pres. ScamWOW has EVER shown. He has been a reformer in New Jersey, which is no mean feat.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to [email protected]. | January 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    And I hope he enjoys the screwing, too,

    I remember when that Christie (said as a pejorative) went on TV and joined in the mocking of Gov. Palin.

    What goes around, baby.

    Once upon a time, Wm, I’d have agreed with you about not piling on. But, you know what? The GOP has cured me of that with their knife in the back slap in the face and flip the bird attitude to Conservatives. Yeah, forgive and forget, but after they learn their lesson and apologize.

I have written along similar lines about the now energized media’s RINO hunting over at

Reads as if written by an out-of-touch law prof who contorts the Constitution to read that it allows persons born with foreign citizenship to hold the presidency.

This story is all about Christie. His treatment by “fellow” ‘Icans conforms with the Golden Rule — he’s earned it. The sooner they can find a bus to roll over him, the sooner the ‘Icans can find and focus on a pro-Constitution conservative candidate.

Man-hours wasted on vs. the bridge.

Not even close.

casualobserver | January 10, 2014 at 11:52 am

The underlying truth to this situation is that no Republican who can win votes at a state level in a blue state will be acceptable to the majority of conservatives. In order to win the vote – especially a second time – it is mandatory they take positions to woo non-conservatives. Cristie is the prime example, but Scott Walker isn’t far behind him. On the national stage this will always hurt them in primary battles, regardless of how attractive they may be to the electorate at large.

And the media knows this quite well. So beyond putting full effort into discrediting any potential GOP contender, I expect them to amplify this division in an effort to muddy the primary battles about to come. That’s why this bridgegate story has become the most important story of the week to the media. It’s a double dip. They finally get a lever to ding the unbelievably popular GOP governor in a blue state, but they also get to excite the conservative base and create more outrage than would organically be there.

The Democrat Controlled Media will pile on regardless.

The RINOs have sworn in the media to take down the tea party at all costs and they join in with the liberals in attacking us.

This is hard ball and I, for one, will not give Christie one iota of slack.

If the GOP Establishment thinks it doesn’t need the GOP Base, then they are on their own.

    Sure, the ‘Rat/media pig pile on Christie is just a warmup for the next popular ‘Ican potential candidate, but the ‘Icans are not organized, at this time, to do anything to prevent it. Let the yellow dog ‘Rats sharpen their teeth and claws on Christie to serve as a reminder to potential replacement frontrunners that there is a price to be paid for donning kneepads to deal wity ‘Rats, and to serve as a warning to the ‘Ican Party of the need for proactive public relations to counter the inevitable ‘Rat/media smears. G.W. Bush proved that silence in the face of a broadside doesn’t work. My country and Constitution trump any individual’s delusional desire for a New Tone.

Christie has attacked conservatives and worked with the left to their advantage. He is not one of ours and we should not go out of our way to defend him.

In fact, making him an example is a damn good idea – so conservatives should be piling on him. Hopefully the next so-called moderate Republican will reconsider the politics of collaboration with the left.

Note that this is something the left, from their side, has done to great success. There are Democrats who sound less liberal when running for office, but when they are needed the all invariably do whatever the left needs them to do – there are no longer any moderate Democrats…

I don’t like Christie. His positions on the 2nd Amendment and Islamic appeasement are enough to disqualify him from office in my view. But I’m watching this recent drama with clear-eyed appreciation for the lesson he is providing in media management — if Republicans would only watch and learn. Republicans operate under the self-crippling presumption of media power. But, in fact, the media is really a stupid and vicious horde spoiled with a power that exists mostly in their minds and the minds of their victims. Christie is the only Republican politician who knows the score on this count — or hints that he does. No, not even Cruz and Palin match Christie’s easy confidence around and occasional dismissiveness of the media’s presence and power.

I hope this scandal continues, because Christie, if he holds true to form, will continue to do damage to the media, and provide object lessons in how to handle them. They will suffer, not he.

But will Republicans learn? I doubt it. It’s not only about learning a lesson, it’s about being the kind of person American politics doesn’t produce any more — someone who is not afraid of the mob.

Oh, I would add, however, that conservatives should be smart in how they attack Christie – constantly comparing him to Obama.

“Christie punishing his political opponents by creating a traffic jam brings to mind Obama punishing his political opponents by…

using the IRS against them
closing public parks when he shut down the government

“This is not about Chris Christie. It’s about any number of other Republican candidates who will be met with the same faux-outrage and media-led obsession a year from now as the 2016 field begins to define itself.”

With all respect, how many of those other Republicans are pro-amnesty, pro-same sex marriage, pro-global warming taxes, anti-gun rights, etc.?

I am actively working against any candidate sporting these policy positions, Democrat or Republican. My outrage is not ‘faux’, a false mask covering some other motivation. Genuine outrage is an entirely appropriate and defensible reaction to any Republican with those views, and when they allow something like this bridge affair to occur on their watch, outrage at what it does to the GOP brand is also warranted.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 10, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    I.E., the putative GOP establishment leading candidate for 2016 just shot his foot off is not cause for genuine outrage?

    “This is not about Chris Christie. It’s about any number of other Republican candidates who will be met with the same faux-outrage and media-led obsession a year from now as the 2016 field begins to define itself.”

    Confirms the adage, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

    O God! Deliver us from out-of-touch, elitist Ivy League professors — they’ve done enough harm.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Skookum. | January 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm

      If that’s a dig on Professor Jacobson, count me out. He has proved himself extremely capable at both teaching and doing.

Excuse me. Why should I give ANY support to a Governor who:
– Hates guns and has stated as such
– Nominates sharia friendly judges to the bench
– Is all for amnesty
– Stabbed in the back the Republican running for President just before the actual vote?
– Damn well knew the lane was closed for political reasons (Aides at that level don’t do that shit w/o their superior’s approval)
– Agrees with Andrew Cuomo 98%

Why Mr. Jacobson feels the needs to continue to support RINOs who love big government and hates the Tea Party is beyond me. After McCain you would think that it would be obvious they don’t give one whit about small government or fiscal responsibility. In fact the Fat Man has publicly stated he has more in common with a leftist than with his own party.

Well Mr. Jacobson? What is it about Christie that I MUST spend any effort to support him?

    RINOs Want WAR? They Got WAR. EFF Em.

    Making an example out of Christie now will save a lot of effort in the 2016 primaries.

    If the public is gullible enough to reject a Conservative candidate then that’s their call… they just haven’t suffered enough pain at the hands of Progressives like Obama, Hillary, and Christie.

    FOX News got it wrong on gun control. FOX News sides with RINOs because “something is better than nothing.”

    I will not agree that something is better than nothing.

    That only aids in the slide into complete Socialism.

    In my view, ‘Nothing’ is a better choice than surrender if it comes to that.

    We will fight on beyond 2016 to save what’s left of this country or go down trying. No Surrender.

    mgparrish in reply to tphillip. | January 10, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    I’m sure the Prof can speak for himself, however, what part of

    “It’s not about Christie, it’s about how other Republican candidates will be treated by the media.”

    don’t you understand?

      Chicklet in reply to mgparrish. | January 10, 2014 at 3:49 pm


      It must be music to the ears of the totalitarian left media knowing how fast their enemies will work with them to try and take down any (every) republican they can find. No wonder there’s a ‘ready for Hillary’ banner ad on top of this blog these days…. Bah!

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Chicklet. | January 10, 2014 at 3:59 pm

        Define ‘Republican’, then convince me that the GOP supports the same policies Christie does: amnesty, gun control, same sex marriage, global warming taxes, etc.

I think that the issue that is at hand is that government operates more like organized crime than as a servant of the people. It’s one thing to use discretionary powers to pull together caucuses, it’s another to punish the general public simply driving on a highway

    creeper in reply to imfine. | January 10, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    Christie (or his staff, if you want to believe him) wasn’t punishing the general public. They were USING them to punish his political enemies. IMO this is even worse.

    That’s the lesson to take away from this. They view us not as human beings but as pawns in their three-dimensional chess game. These people are evil.

It is all about what constitutes politics. There is too little integrity. The political class has cornered the market on corruption. Both sides do this slimy reward those loyal and punish those who are not. What is lost is that the public always pays the biggest price of all. This is not leadership. Had those emails remained hidden, would there be any talk of this? Integrity is doing the right thing even when nobody is looking. Those harboring secrets will have those secrets exposed eventually. The fact that the media is willing to persecute the sins of the opposition while hiding the sins of the protected speaks to the corruption in the media. None value integrity.

Sorry: I detested him before this ever happened.

Caving on illegal aliens and 2nd Amendmentitus?

Nope. No reason to support aq fake democrat when you can get the real thing.

You know, Professor, if Christie hadn’t been shafting his own party for years perhaps Republicans wouldn’t have been so quick to pile on. He made his bed. Let him lie in it.

I’m shocked the lame streamed media is attacking Christie. He’s one of their own, a undocumented dimocrat.

In what sense is Christie a Republican, really? This latest scandal is pure Democrat – what’s been exposed is the politics of revenge, malice, obfuscation, feigned ignorance. I’m not going to give him any breaks just because his T-shirt has an R on it, when he keeps kicking the ball toward his own goalposts. The ONLY thing C. hasn’t done in the past few days which a good Dem would do is to circle the wagons to protect his cronies.

His problems can’t be blamed on a hostile press. His offenses are real, they’re not the sort of trumped-up fantasies they constantly threw at Bush. Christie’s appointees are vile, and he covered for them for far too long. He’s a self-made man, and his problems are due to how he acts and who he is.

Democrats have got to absolutely be loving this as the assault on Christie continues from both sides. I have no use for Christie, but this is about media savagery because he does have an R behind his name. You can call him a Democrat all you want, but they are sticking pins in him because he’s a Republican, and that’s what people will see and hear. Fool yourselves if you want, and hate Christie all you want, but that won’t stop the damage being done to the Republican Party over this. And please, let’s stop talking about the ME, and IRS, and Benghazi, and unemployment and immigration while we discuss a fickin’ bridge being closed by some nitwit.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to gasper. | January 10, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    It is Christie whose top advisers pulled this Obama-esque “citizens-as-pawns” crap. It is Christie & Co. who are damaging the GOP brand, Christie & Co. who’ve provided Obama a golden media diversion – and any damage that accrues is Christie’s fault and no one else’s.

    Republican numbers are in the 30s percentiles and diving.
    Democrat numbers are in the 30s percentiles and diving.
    Independent numbers are in the 40s percentile and climbing.

    Whether we are libertarian, disgusted Dems, disgusted GOP-ers, TPers, or lifelong Indies, the time to defend one’s party and its member politicians no matter what is past, and the plurality belongs to those who possess principles and demand principles from their politicians. The worm has turned and too many just aren’t getting that.


For years now we have been painfully aware of how the media treats Republican hopefuls, so this is nothing new. This incident is all about Christie. To Dems Christie is the Republican who doesn’t smell quite so bad. They’d love to replace him, but they can tolerate him if they must. And while Christie doesn’t smell all that great to conservatives either, a Rhino is probably the only species of Republican that can exist as governor of New Jersey. The trouble with being a politician trying to live “in the middle” is that they take shots from all sides. Taking positions of compromise means nobody leaves the table happy.

If Christie has presidential aspirations conservatives will need to keep a steady stream of fastballs aimed at his head. But then that’s true of all Republican hopefuls. They certainly won’t like the conservatives/tea party types constantly kicking them in the ass, but that’s they only way they’ll come to respect the conservative/tea party vote… and they can’t win without it. The recent whining by Boehner and his cabal about their discomfort at being pressured shows that we definitely have their attention. The spineless are the easiest to bow with pressure. The media will continue to do what they do. Now is the time to kick Rhinos even harder.

Midwest Rhino | January 10, 2014 at 2:23 pm

Tea partiers can get a twofer in this case.

1. Bash Christie for being a thug and bully, like Obama is when he doesn’t get his way and barricades parks and keeps veterans from memorials. (“see, we aren’t partisan, we will hold our own accountable”)

2. Bash the media for boldly covering Christie with zeal, but covering FOR Hillary and Dems on Benghazi, IRS, FastnFurious, Iran, syrian red lines, etc.

Chris Christie should resign the day after Jon Corzine is hanged.

Chris Christie is about as Republican as Michael Bloomberg who ran for mayor as a Republican.

He deserves to get back what he gave other Republicans who had troubles. He deserves to get it good and hard.

Is anyone here really deluded enough to think that piling on Christie is going to make the democrats love them? Do you really think words like “trustworthy” “Honor” or “Integrity” have any real meaning for them?

Keep patting yourselves on the back, folks.

    Skookum in reply to Sanddog. | January 10, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    This isn’t about hoping ‘Rats will like us. This is principled — watching Christie get what he deserves. He’s handled the situation pretty well, but that just serves to show how media savvy he is and, therefore, how insidious he liberal antics have been. Besides, he set the tone that allowed his assistants to, at a minimum, think they could get away with such vindictive bullying of citizens then openly crow about it via e-mail.

Insufficiently Sensitive | January 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm

If Christie lied in his press conference yesterday, he’s toast. You won’t need to pile on.
But joining the media madness before Christie had a chance to defend himself was short-sighted.

Amen on both counts.

David R. Graham | January 10, 2014 at 4:49 pm

It appears to this observer that most comments here run counter to the posture commended by Professor Jacobson. As I see it, our host is echoing, by concretizing, a well-known phrase in a well-known book, regarding the ownership of vengeance or revenge. I concur with Professor Jacobson’s point here.

We do not own and should not take vengeance for two reasons, one ontological, one moral. First, we do not know enough of any situation to be able fully to assess or make disposition regarding it. Personal and judicial judgements are inherently partial and dangerous, even though required of us. Second, vengeance is action against a defeated or defenseless adversary. An easy hit, a seeming emotional catharsis that actually spreads opacity, heat and alarm – that is to say, despair and damage – omni-directionally. Vengeance, for us, is a punch down which, Professor Jacobson points out, in every way harms our own interests, large and small.

We do not own revenge and should not employ it. We may experience a desire to make it happen, or be happy with an appearance of its happening. So to feel is human. To sublimate that feeling into calm and quiet is divine.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to David R. Graham. | January 10, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    How does someone with such a nice vocabulary and fluid writing style tap out such drivel?

    “Inherently partial and dangerous” judgments are nonetheless very often 100% correct, and the book on Christie is wide open. By his own words we know he supports numerous positions antithetical to Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians alike. By his own words we know he completely failed to properly manage his own staff, leading to an incredibly juvenile abuse of power. There is no need of judgment there.

    Vengeance is action against a defeated or defenseless adversary? Always? Is that your premise? Silly and untrue on its face. Think of Pearl Harbor and America’s vengeful response. Was Japan defenseless? This is one of, oh, 600 million possible examples.

    Harms “our own interests”? Whatever in the world makes you think everyone present on this blog’s comment section is all of the same opinions, same politics, and same interests?


      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm

      “By his own words we know he completely failed to properly manage his own staff…”

      Not if his words are taken at face value, which is the only value any evidence supports.

      His staff…according to accounts…lied to him. No manager, executive or leader can be blameworthy in that circumstance.

      Unless, of course, you attribute all actions of U.S. troops to W, and all actions of his subordinates to Reagan.

      Conversely, Christie has canned two people as I understand. If he is lying, they can be expected to retaliate.

      David R. Graham in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2014 at 12:40 am

      Drivel. OK, I accept that. Compared to writings of Valmiki, Jerome, Augustine, Benedict, Heschel, Butterick, Tillich, Vivekenanda, Luther, Leo XIII, Guyon, Teresa of Avila, Maimonides, Calvin – yes indeed, my labors are drivel, including those in this proscenium.

      It had not escaped my attention that your disposition is against the posture commended by our host in this post of his.

      By the way, have you a day job? A very unreliable memory suggests you self-identified, directly or indirectly, months ago as an attorney. I am not an attorney, am best described as a mystical theologian in the line of Joachim of Fiore, though many degrees of power and merit subordinate. Also, I am retired, having helped support my family by driving public transit.

      “Vengeance is action against a defeated or defenseless adversary? Always? Is that your premise? Silly and untrue on its face. Think of Pearl Harbor and America’s vengeful response. Was Japan defenseless? This is one of, oh, 600 million possible examples.”

      Yes, always. Yes, that is my premise. It is as well a fact. Japan was neither defenseless nor defeated after Pearl Harbor. When she was both, she was magnanimously helped to stand again. Germany likewise. Have you studied the nature and practice of war, to include a Soldier’s posture in defeat or victory?

      When American Soldiers in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan violated that warrior’s code – to not take revenge on a defeated or defenseless enemy – American military command dealt severely with them, and rightly so. This is not only an American principle, it is a universal soldierly one. Hitler, for example, had to organize a non-soldierly force drawn from the meanest elements of society to carry out military and civilian exterminations. We see a version of this procedure today in the USA: civilians/non-Soldiers deployed to harm individuals and groups designated enemies of civilian command. AQ and other “Islamists” are marked as “not soldiers” by the fact that they torture, mutilate and murder defeated and defenseless people.

      Your example subverts your point.

      My comment referred to “most comments” on this post, not to all of them. It appeared to me that most opposed Professor Jacobson’s suggestion on how to handle this media event regarding Christie. I share the general “libertarian conservative” (Safire made the right phrase) rejection of Governor Christie. I see him as a heap of concupiscence, which means wanting to take the world into oneself. Obesity signals concupiscence.

      Nonetheless, as operational guidance in the situation, I think Professor Jacobson has it right, and I, again, commend contemplation of the famous lines of Romans 12:18-21. They are tactical advice of the first order. RR expressed them as the famous “Eleventh Commandment.”

        Henry Hawkins in reply to David R. Graham. | January 11, 2014 at 9:17 am

        Appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks (I’m lying about being a lawyer, I must not have a day job, etc.), and on and on.

        Repeat: Drivel.

        $20 bets you’re an M.Div.

What it’s all about. From John Hinderaker at Powerline:

“It is remarkable that on a day when our news media are consumed by a lane closure on a bridge, the Democrats’ support for billions of dollars in fraud by illegal aliens isn’t even a news story.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to gasper. | January 10, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    You and Mr. Hindraker are woefully and willfully ignorant if you think it’s about a lane closure on a bridge. I think maybe a few details were left out about how that lane came to be closed, eh?

      I think both of us are aware of the circumstances, and yes they are deplorable. But, they are not at the level of Watergate, or the IRS scandal, or Benghazi, but my feeling is this is not going away soon and will be handled much differently than the latter two I mentioned and more like the first. I think the Republicans do need to voice their disdain over what happened, but not at the expense of putting everything else in the background. The media will keep this front and center for as long as possible. Media matters says the media has already given 17 times the exposure in one day to this story versus the IRS scandal. Not sure how accurate that is, but it is telling.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to gasper. | January 10, 2014 at 5:39 pm

        Excluding the hystericals at MSNBC, et al, please name someone, anyone, claiming this scandal is as bad as Watergate, IRS, or Benghazi. Strawman argument.

        Of COURSE the media is jumping all over it – any Republican or conservative who doesn’t expect that deserves getting ambushed by it.

        I’m tired of being told my outrage is “faux”. Christie allowed this to happen, thereby shot himself in the foot, and if it hurts him and/or the GOP, it is not the fault of the media. It is Christie’s fault and no one else’s.

        I’m especially tired of being told by centrist GOP defenders that my outrage is “faux”, that I need to forget GOP transgressions in order not to harm the GOP’s chances at winning more offices – and the opportunity for more transgressions I’ll be asked to overlook.

        The GOP and its center/left leadership, as well as the center left portion of the party’s members, need to understand that the reason they are losing elections is because they have not only ignored and abandoned their base, they are actually attacking their base, driving them away.

        The 2010 midterm landslide came as a gift from TPers deadset against Obama, Obamacare, and progressivism, not out of any love for the GOP. The GOP made them so thoroughly disgusted, enough of them stayed home to ensure an Obama reelection.

        Excluding the 2010 midterms, name the major GOP victories since Bush’s 2004 reelection against that stiff Kerry, the Dems version of Mitt Romney.

        One of two paths open for the GOP:

        1) Reacquaint themselves with their own base and accommodate them.

        2) Never win the White House again, thereby effectively ending the existence of the GOP.

        A good many of the posters here need to quit assuming that other posters are Republican, or that they necessarily share the goals of the GOP establishment. If we conducted a poll, I suspect the number who are not Republicans would surprise us all.

          Henry: I didn’t say anyone said they were like WG, IRS or Benghazi. I implied the media will treat this as a Watergate rather than the way they have treated the IRS or Benghazi issues, which is barely at all. I get it you don’t like Christie. Neither do I. But, most people here would not have supported him before this happened. I doubt he has a chance in hell of being the nominee, although I didn’t think he had much of a chance before. And, there are a lot of us who don’t claim to be Republicans. I am not defining Christie, but rather I hate the media hypocrisy so much it galls me to see the disparity in covering these stories.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 10, 2014 at 6:14 pm

          CNN compared it to Watergate.

          Several organs are calling it Bridghazi.

          Keep up, Henry! This is the WORST thing EVAH in a lot of the press!

          Slate’s links and category for the story are “Bridghazi.” Not sure about others.

          I have heard no one say it was worse than Watergate, but the media coverage of it says it is worse than Fast & Furious or the IRS scandal. Remember the media were only excited about Benghazi when they thought they could trap Romney with it, then it faded.

          David R. Graham in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2014 at 12:53 am

          “If we conducted a poll, I suspect the number who are not Republicans would surprise us all.”

          Do you head the list?

      Of course it’s not about a lane closure. It’s about political games.

      It’s also about about the ugliness and pettiness of mob behavior.

      If you want to seek the moral highground, you’re looking for it in the wrong place.

      David R. Graham in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2014 at 12:55 am

      Another off-point zinger. Are you a troll?

“defending” Christie.

Professor, I’m not sure I recall ever seeing posting of yours that has drawn either the number of responses or the number of conflicting positions, each drawing its share of responses, as this one has. It’s an articulate (your readers) presentation, writ small, of the issues and arguments that make up the rift among conservatives (Republicans?) that will have to be resolved by the time of the next presidential election to have much hope of recovering the White House. As bad as things are, I’m not convinced yet that voters would turn away from the Democrat’s fantasy world. The top and the bottom are too deeply entrenched and the middle hopes to make it through without too much personal interruption in their lives. I fear the bottom is going to have to fall out of something before the fantasy ends.

One thing that’s pretty clear is that Governor Christie is almost no one’s favorite among conservatives; there’s a lot to like and a lot to dislike. Personally, I suspect he’d call out many of the crooks, hacks, fools, corrupt insiders, and incompetents and put an end to much of the micro financial and political folly we have in government today. (But then, how do you respond to someone who uses Jersey Shore as a selling point for a position? Come on.)

On the other hand it’s not clear he’d make any progress halting the decline of our individual liberties and freedoms, much less restoring any of them, or how he’d address the macro problems of defense, finances, the economy, domestic policies (big government), and social issues such as education and immigration.

The Conservative Establishment in Washington would do well to pass around the column and responses and read it thoughtfully from top to bottom.

I’m no fan of Christie, mainly because the FEMA reaction and recovery efforts after Sandy were less prepared and slower than for Katrina, yet he continued to praise Obama.

There is however a disconnect in thinking among some of my conservative colleagues. They refuse to defend Christie or anyone from leadership on anything, but if those same people they abandoned do not leap to defend one of their favored heroes, the criticism flies.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot trash other Republicans at and will and still expect them to defend you. It makes no sense at all.

A good example is Cruz. He set out on his “defund” program, but never attended a Senate GOP Caucus meeting or tried to persuade colleagues to join him (except maybe Lee and Paul). He ran ads attacking 25 of his fellow Republicans in their home states without so much as a heads-up to them first. And then he complains they didn’t flock to join him?

And then he admits he had no Plan B, no follow-up, and doesn’t understand why that upsets anyone.

You just can’t have it both ways. If you want to talk about Boehner as if he were no different than Obama or Pelosi, you have no right to complain he doesn’t run to help you when you cry out.

If you do not want to be part of a political party which has freely and democratically chosen its leaders, the door isn’t locked. But for the sake of reason, quit pretending you are part of it.

[…] fleeting incident remarked by Professor William A. Jacobson and commented by many illustrates an ontological reality and a […]

“I’m also not comfortable with the Republican rush to pile on before Christie had a chance to explain himself, and before the facts were known.”

We now have PLENTY of facts and they are conclusive about what Fat Boy is all about. But the point I want to address is your characterizing this as a “piling on” by Republicans. They are not. Which Republicans has stepped forward to say anything else but to defend Christie? Boehner, Fox News, you, all defending Fat Boy. It is we conservatives who want him to go down. We just don’t care that it is being down by Fat Boy’s buddies across the aisle and in the MSM. They are the friends he picked so don’t look at me for help.

You, as are Republicans, see the taking down of Christie as another defeat at the hands of the Dems and their MSM lapdogs and feel a need to fight that battle. We conservatives just see another obnoxious opponent being eliminated. We take the position that there is no difference between the GOP establishment and the Democratic Party and this is just another example.

We don’t share your fear about and how this might play out for the GOP in 2014 and 2016. The conservative “we” isn’t the same as the GOP “we”. The GOP makes clear their “we” doesn’t include “us”, people like me which they are openly warring against. They have openly declared that their goals are to retake the Senate and House while destroying us Tea Party conservatives.

With all of the opportunities we could be exploiting on our way to breaking up the corrupt one-party establishment, let’s not get distracted into defending this POS. This eliminates the possibility of the Chicago mob being replaced by the NJ mob. End it now. Abandon this corrupt weasel to his well-deserved fate. Resign fat boy.

    p.r.o.t.o in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 11, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Holy god phil! You must be from pasadena, tx. Very nicely said. The pattern I’ve been seeing is that Christie’s dem and media detractors are expecting us to close ranks and stonewall behind Christie just because of the (R). You know, the way they did with Anthony Weiner for example. The tea party mentality still seems to stump the establishment. They see it as a split and a division in the GOP, which it is. But it is not a fault. The folly of the DNC is their hive mind collectivist nature.

Christie should have switched parties just after he got re-elected. Then he’d have been media proof.

[…] Don’t feed the beast. […]

[…] for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all).  I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine.  Of course I don’t.  But frankly, the […]