April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Stakeholders | Main | The other red meat »

Feb 27, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Brod

For what it's worth, it appears that Christie's non-invitation came before his announcement yesterday about expanding Medicaid. This piece was posted on Monday and it doesn't mention Medicaid.

Of course CPAC now wants to add the Medicaid decision to its list of reasons it didn't invite Christie to speak. But he was persona non grata before that, and it appears it was largely because he said some nice things about the president. That's inexcusable.

One of the other justifications for the Christie snub was that the CPAC conference is to be about the future of conservatism. But they've invited Mitt Romney to speak. He's the future of conservatism? Democrats can only hope.


They didn't get to be the stupid party for nothin'. He's a red gov in a blue state. Any progress on that Purple Party?


You know your movement is dead or dying when you dedicate close an hour to showcasing "10 Conservatives Under 40." I did, however, briefly flirt with attending this year's CPAC because A. Conservatives like to party hard, and B. $195.00 is a f^cking bargain to attend the "Allen West Guardian Fund Happy Hour," let alone get to meet the man in the flesh. I quickly changed my mind, however, when I didn't see anything in the program about performances by any of our country's great conservative musicians. No Lee Greenwood? Kellie Pickler? The Oak Ridge Boys? Larry Gatlin?Newsboys? Meat Loaf? The snub of The Loaf > Christie, by far.


I remember when Bob Casey was persona non grata at the Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. Inexcusable.

For what it's worth, I think Christie is still very much a viable GOP presidential prospect and conservatives who write him off are making a mistake. I think Christie is a contender that Democrats would have to worry about.


"For what it's worth, I think Christie is still very much a viable GOP presidential prospect and conservatives who write him off are making a mistake."

Conservatives will never accept Christie. For one, he had his Obama moment, which was similar to the time when Schindler (supposedly) kissed the Jewish girl. As you noted above, "Unacceptable." The guy has admitted that he's itching to sign a bill that would legalize sports-betting in NJ. Other than drinking on Sundays, that's the height of sin and frowned upon in 21st-century Concircles.


Once again, a vivid demonstration of just how far from reality the Left is when it comes to understanding the rank and file conservative voter.

Christie still has a lot of support from conservatives. Romney certainly wasn't the darling of CPAC or the conservative movement yet he still won the nomination.

As far as "dying movements" go, John Hood has a piece in National Review that tells otherwise:

"Even after giving up some of their 2010 legislative gains thanks to Obama’s 2012 coattails, Republicans still control more state offices than they have in generations. They hold 30 of 50 state governorships and 58 of 98 partisan legislative chambers. The nonprofit news service Stateline reports that in 25 states, comprising 53 percent of the U.S. population, the GOP controls both the executive and the legislative branch. Only 13 states, with 30 percent of the U.S. population, have unified Democratic governments. In addition, Republicans are strongly represented in local government, albeit primarily at the county level rather than in the increasingly Democratic big cities. In some states, such as my native North Carolina, the GOP’s local success has no modern precedent: A majority of the state’s 100 county governments are now under Republican control, which hasn’t been the case since General Sherman’s army was camped outside Raleigh."

That last sentence really bothers a lot of people, especially those in this forum.


How many times did you run for office, Sam? How many times were you vehemently rejected by your conservative "allies?" Liberals wear cowboy boots too, guy.


Do they really let you teach students while equipped with such a poor set of argumentation skills?

Your comment doesn't even make sense, factually inaccurate, and is certainly non-responsive. And what's with your fixation on cowboy boots?


First, Christie is so far in the lead (allbeit 3 year's early) for the Republican nomination for the 2016 Presidential election cycle it is amazing.

Second, what he has done in NJ is short of miraculous.
Third, his Obama moment as some poster described above is a testament to his ability to make the next right decision without waiting for some straw poll or trial ballon reaction.

Fourth, he will probably be the first presidential candidate I will give my maximum allowed contributions.

Fifth, I don' think he will win because of his weight, and our country's silly electoral college system (not in that order)

Sixth, I am an independent but know a ting or two about gambling, but the staunchest Conservatives have been some of the biggest donors to legalizing on-line gaming due to its job creation benefits, presumably.


"but the staunchest Conservatives have been some of the biggest donors to legalizing on-line gaming"

How many of them will be attending or speaking at CPAC? Most of these folks you speak of only support legalizing online casino games. They're vehemently opposed to legalizing online sports-betting and sportsbooks. Christie is an advocate for both.

Conservatives don't even think of him as a conservative. I believe we heard the same thing said about Romney over the years. There are still clowns in conservative circles who believe that Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newton Leroy Gingrich, Sarah Palin, some doctor in Baltimore, etc. are destined to become POTUS one of these days. After all, the only reason Romney wasn't elected is because he just wasn't conservative enough (I guess that's why the electorate opted for the conservative alternative in the form of a "foreign-born Marxist" instead?).

The comments to this entry are closed.