First Term New Jersey Governor Presidential Prospect For a Mere Two Years After Taking Office? – Nyah, Never… Not in a Hundred Years!

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

27 comments on “First Term New Jersey Governor Presidential Prospect For a Mere Two Years After Taking Office? – Nyah, Never… Not in a Hundred Years!

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Christie’s terrif, but the guy behind him so openly digging the whole thing really helps make the bit..

  2. Christie’s not a Wilson, more a more animated Dewey or Guiliani type,
    the media do need to be taken down a peg, with their pretensions

  3. he’s too fat.
    we haven’t elected a fat president since Harding.
    visual media will kill his chances.

  4. I take it body mass is the new black. Sometimes it amazes me how quick leftists are to promote stereotypes and reveal outright bias while presenting themselves as champions of “diversity”.

    I don’t know much about Christie but I do know that I’ll vote for any politician who’s willing to talk straight to self important press dudes as he did in that clip.

  5. @ Sully:

    Yeah, anybody who’s willing to take a position of “Fork the people thinking that I have to listen to anybody in the legislature is cool.”

    Sure hope that Obama starts listening to his Chief of Staff. Be a sure way to win Sully’s vote.

  6. Old people, lissen up.
    This is the Terebi Age.
    Christie in a televised debate will cause voters to flee you like scalded cats no matter what he says.
    Plus you already have the old angry white multichin demographic locked down.
    You need Rubio on tv, not Christie.
    But Rubio is going to lose.

    what you RELLY need is someone who looks like Michael Steele and talks like Christie.

  7. @ strangelet:
    Used to think that way, but I’m younger than that now, to paraphrase Bob Dylan. I remember back when I was a little boy, before the Great War, and how young people used to like to defy artificial conventions. They just don’t make young ‘uns like they used to.

    Anyway, lissen up, grrrl, corpulence or, as Frum said about Limbaugh, personal bulk may suddenly turn into all the rage. Lotsa personally bulky people out there, after all. He could get that Lane Bryant model to do a Christie-Girl video for him.

    Christie’s got work to do, and not enough time to run for Prez according to the way the game is played today. On the other hand, there’s no rule in American politics that wasn’t made to be broken. Maybe we’ll finally get the sort of deadlocked multiple ballot convention that used to be almost the norm, and that pundits and political junkies dream about every four years, meaning almost anything can happen. That was how Wilson ended up the Dem nominee 100 years ago, though unless Christie is seen between now and 2012 walking on water and raising the dead, like his double namesake, I don’t see him as the likely beneficiary even of a process like that.

    Speaking of double namesake, it almost makes up for his cultural distance from the social conservatives.

  8. Yes, Colonel West, but he won’t be available till ’16. Ken Blackwell was my choice, but no one asked me. Ah Kate, when will you figure out that a person’s accomplishment are the important things, their values,
    and then their appearance

  9. @ narciso:
    I can’t get past the fact that West referred to the Founders rising up against the “republic” of Britain. Just unforgivable. Blackwell was on RedEye and nowhere near as funny as Thaddeus McCotter.

    The search for the PERFECT candidate goes on.

  10. @ strangelet:

    wadda you talkin? Christie is skinny now! He dropped 25 lbs. for the Guv run.

    (for you young’uns, 25lbs is 11 keys and a few gram bags)

  11. Christie’s doing fine, he has to dredge an Augean stables deeper than the Marianas Trench, left by Goldman gentry Corzine, MacGreevey, and
    company. Only Jindal and whoever takes Springfield has a tougher mission

  12. @ narciso:

    She’s not in my district; but I’m glad to see she’s making trouble for the party machine in her district. Democrats are a bigger problem than Republicans; but both species of career politicians are cancers. . . as Wilson was.

    Just trying to get a rise out of Colin.

  13. Having recently become a senior I’m glad to see that cuts in my benefits are toxic to politicians. What I don’t understand is why the NJ Dems are such pikers. Income is easily hidden from taxes and any taxes on it only come in in dribs and drabs. Augustus, Tiberias and their successors showed the way to raise real revenue by going after accumulated wealth. And it would behove the states to confiscate that wealth before the fed politicians get around to it.

    Additionally, I doubt very few holders of wealth over perhaps the $10 Million range actually produce anything for the economy. They’re probably almost all useless mouths. If you want to kick the budget can down the road a decade or so the best way to do it is to strip those fatcats down to size.

    This might need a constitutional amendment; but perhaps not. After all, the constitution means what the nine justices say it means.

  14. @ Sully:
    Property taxes are a form of wealth tax. Just reviewing the Wikipedia entry, Donald Trump advocated a surtax on accumulated wealth >$10 mm. A bit of a sticky wicket, since once rich people sniffed wealth taxes coming, many would transfer liquid assets offshore. But one way or another it’s a natural solution to our problems. If you step back, a big part of what we’re doing/avoiding is negotiating the conversion of the equivalent of ca. $200 Trillion in static wealth into payments on x-trillion in unfunded obligations. It’s actually a very solvable problem, but all participants have a fundamental interest in driving as hard a bargain as possible, up to and including blood in the streets.

  15. @ CK MacLeod:

    You wrote – “once rich people sniffed wealth taxes coming, many would transfer liquid assets offshore”

    That’s why you have to catch them by surprise if you want to get it all. Wilson would have acted expeditiously, using the liberty league or whatever he called his brownshirts.

  16. @ CK MacLeod:

    The rich are different from you and me. Most of them are clueless. Those politicians they buy will turn on them in a minute for the right incentives.

  17. The latest was Mister Peanut emailing his latest UTube blast to his $50,000.00 and up Goldman Sachs donors.

    He’s singing and dancing HOW YOU LIKE ME NOW?

    Instead of questioning their allegiance to this demagogue-clown, they nod at each other and say, “you know what this means, right? At least $200,000.00 per head next time around!”

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins