I’ve made the point repeatedly that conservatism is headed in the wrong direction. No agenda, anger, obsession with purity... none of these things help. So, should we turn to someone who doesn’t go in for any of this: Chris Christie? NO! He’s an even bigger problem.
Here’s the thing, when I talk about the problems of conservatism, I’m doing so for a purpose. Conservatism is losing elections regularly. It is starting to lose them by greater and greater margins. It has lost whole races, genders and generations of people. What I am trying to point out is why this is happening and why we need to change our ways. I am also doing my best to point out policies we can implement, policies which align with conservative principles, which will win these people back.
In other words, my goal is to wake people up to the self-inflicted wound that conservatism is causing itself and provide ways to fix it that don’t conflict with our fundamental beliefs. That should not be confused with endorsing "moderates," however. All I’m suggesting is a return to actual conservatism away from the radicalism talk radio is preaching.
That’s not Chris Christie though. He wants to claim the mantle of moderate, and that’s where the problem begins.
There is nothing moderate about Christie. Chris Christie is Glenn Beck, only he uses fake-moderatism whereas Beck uses fake-conservatism. He yells, he screams, he demonizes, and he lives on platitudes rather than ideas. I can’t name a single idea Christie has ever advanced. To the contrary, his “ideas” are to attack both parties for lacking ideas... the pot calling the kettles black with self-righteous indignation. Essentially, he uses the two parties as strawmen that he can attack to make himself sound moderate and practical without actually being either.
From what I’ve been able to piece together of his record in New Jersey, he basically points fingers at everyone and accuses them all of being rotten. Then he spits out a few diversionary platitudes to make it sound like he's offering some "common sense" idea, even though everything he's saying is meaningless: "By God, it's time we worked hard to make things better! Harrumph. And we need to stop those who want to make it worse!" Then he signs whatever law makes it across his desk while he continues to rail against evil partisanship. It's nonsense.
Now he’s picking fights with national candidates, like Rand Paul, because he wants to join the national stage, but he's doing the exact same thing. He's offering nothing in the way of ideas except that we should adopt his nonpartisan ideas... whatever they are. And to prove that he's nonpartisan, he's attacking conservatives by calling them vague insults like "dangerous" without any justification or explanation and without offering a single solution. If he ordered pizza he would blast them for demanding a specific order, tell them to send him "what works," take whatever they give him and then rail against the deliver boy for being partisan about his order. I say again, it's nonsense.
Christie is not the answer. Essentially, he’s an angry fraud whose behavior cannot be predicted and whose words are as harmful to conservatism as are the idiots screaming for purity. He's Glenn Beck in a fat(ter) suit.
We do not need Christie. We do need an agenda. We need to start thinking about how conservatism can appeal to the American people again. Therein lies the answer, not in attacking... well, anyone. Get positive, stay positive. Coke doesn’t sell itself by attacking Pepsi, it sells itself by telling you why you need to drink it. Sell conservatism, don't try to unsell liberalism. And don't fall for the idiots who offer nothing, be they self-described "genuine conservatives" or self-described "moderates."
Rediscover conservatism.
** By the way, I still need reviews on my book! I want to send this book out to certain politicians, but it needs a lot more reviews first. I’m going to make it free today and tomorrow for those who haven’t gotten it yet. Please get the book and leave a review. (LINK)
Here’s the thing, when I talk about the problems of conservatism, I’m doing so for a purpose. Conservatism is losing elections regularly. It is starting to lose them by greater and greater margins. It has lost whole races, genders and generations of people. What I am trying to point out is why this is happening and why we need to change our ways. I am also doing my best to point out policies we can implement, policies which align with conservative principles, which will win these people back.
In other words, my goal is to wake people up to the self-inflicted wound that conservatism is causing itself and provide ways to fix it that don’t conflict with our fundamental beliefs. That should not be confused with endorsing "moderates," however. All I’m suggesting is a return to actual conservatism away from the radicalism talk radio is preaching.
That’s not Chris Christie though. He wants to claim the mantle of moderate, and that’s where the problem begins.
There is nothing moderate about Christie. Chris Christie is Glenn Beck, only he uses fake-moderatism whereas Beck uses fake-conservatism. He yells, he screams, he demonizes, and he lives on platitudes rather than ideas. I can’t name a single idea Christie has ever advanced. To the contrary, his “ideas” are to attack both parties for lacking ideas... the pot calling the kettles black with self-righteous indignation. Essentially, he uses the two parties as strawmen that he can attack to make himself sound moderate and practical without actually being either.
From what I’ve been able to piece together of his record in New Jersey, he basically points fingers at everyone and accuses them all of being rotten. Then he spits out a few diversionary platitudes to make it sound like he's offering some "common sense" idea, even though everything he's saying is meaningless: "By God, it's time we worked hard to make things better! Harrumph. And we need to stop those who want to make it worse!" Then he signs whatever law makes it across his desk while he continues to rail against evil partisanship. It's nonsense.
Now he’s picking fights with national candidates, like Rand Paul, because he wants to join the national stage, but he's doing the exact same thing. He's offering nothing in the way of ideas except that we should adopt his nonpartisan ideas... whatever they are. And to prove that he's nonpartisan, he's attacking conservatives by calling them vague insults like "dangerous" without any justification or explanation and without offering a single solution. If he ordered pizza he would blast them for demanding a specific order, tell them to send him "what works," take whatever they give him and then rail against the deliver boy for being partisan about his order. I say again, it's nonsense.
Christie is not the answer. Essentially, he’s an angry fraud whose behavior cannot be predicted and whose words are as harmful to conservatism as are the idiots screaming for purity. He's Glenn Beck in a fat(ter) suit.
We do not need Christie. We do need an agenda. We need to start thinking about how conservatism can appeal to the American people again. Therein lies the answer, not in attacking... well, anyone. Get positive, stay positive. Coke doesn’t sell itself by attacking Pepsi, it sells itself by telling you why you need to drink it. Sell conservatism, don't try to unsell liberalism. And don't fall for the idiots who offer nothing, be they self-described "genuine conservatives" or self-described "moderates."
Rediscover conservatism.
** By the way, I still need reviews on my book! I want to send this book out to certain politicians, but it needs a lot more reviews first. I’m going to make it free today and tomorrow for those who haven’t gotten it yet. Please get the book and leave a review. (LINK)
47 comments:
Did you hear any of Christie's back-n-forth with Rand Paul over pork? First of all, accusing Paul of grabbing up pork is ridiculous, but that's what Christie did. But more upsetting than that, in his attacks on Paul, Christie employed the "blue states are donor states" deception.
I did see it and that's what made me write the article. He's shameless. He buys into every Democratic argument. He falsely attacks leading Republicans. He attacks the fundamental principles of conservatism. Then he plays the same angry, substance-free game Glenn Beck plays, only from the other side.
It's substance-free self-righteous indignation targeted at tearing everyone else down to build himself up.
He's like the worst of both worlds... the anger of the purity crowd, the idea-vacuum of self-described political moderates, the self-promotion of talk radio.
As an aside, I didn't hear him use the donor fallacy, but I did hear him go off on libertarianism with a series of unfocused smears.
Yeah, it was at some point after Christie started it and Paul had responded that the former doubled down with some figures about NJ only getting back 60¢ to the dollar in taxes while KY gets $1.50. (Don't quote me on the exact figures.)
I'm not surprised. First, as you know, that's completely untrue. But if it wasn't, then isn't Christie a fool for supporting the current system? What kind of a-hole governor would think that's a good trade?
But that may be because New Jersey takes their cut right off the top with some of the highest state income and other taxes in the country. Second only to New York. So, I believe, New Jerseyians pay less to the Feds, so they get less back. I may just be making that up, but that's the way I see it anyway. So YES, Andrew and Tryanmax, NJ gets slightly less and spends a whole lot more...
Bev, that's exactly how Andrew explains it in his book--location 257 on Kindle. The only thing I would add (for emphasis) is that if normal Washington parlance were applied to the state/local income tax deduction, it would be called federal spending and every state would get more back than they paid (I'm assuming).
"Conservatism is losing elections regularly." I'm trying hard to remember a consevative candidate that ran and lost because he was conservative.
Tryanmax - OH! Maybe THAT'S where I heard it...;-). I wasn't stealing, officer, I swear!
Mountain Man - very good point! And the converse it true. It's hard to remember a liberal candidate who lost because they were too liberal. But more accurately - an incumbent candidate who lost because they were too [fill in the blank]. It is assumed one gets what they vote for. And in those cases where incumbents have switched parties, they have not necessarily been successful.
Sigh. I still like Christie's epic smackdowns of union folks, which shall live forever on YouTube, but his shtick has gotten pretty old. I think a lot of people do see him as a self-important bully--or at least a lot of the GOP base does, which for our purposes comes to the same thing.
As an aside, what do you think of how he acted with Obama in the aftermath of Sandy and so on? I'm rather ambivalent about that whole thing.
T-Rav....I see Christie's "embrace" of Obama as an inartful political move as a member of the GOP, and if he didn't realize he was being played by Obama and the libs/dems, then he has no business passing himself off as an astute politician.
As a NJ Governor, he was well within his rights to meet the President in the aftermath of devastation to his state. But to not see, and state that he saw it as such, that the only reason Obama was coming there was for naked election politics, then he was doing it to enhance his own political future and could give a rat's ass about the GOP and Romney.
T-Rav, I didn't pay much attention to it, but my thinking is this: I have no problem with the governor of a state meeting with the president in the aftermath of a disaster. But both of them were trying to score political points off the other and the event and that made it disgusting all around.
Bev, LOL! Yes, you heard it here first!! They get a huge subsidy on their taxes through the income tax deduction and the home mortgage deduction. But no one counts those because they aren't seen as "direct spending." So it's basically a hidden subsidy.
Tryanmax and T-Rav - The Obama/Christie post-Sandy meet and greet fooled very few people. From all the affected areas/states, Obama "chose" the lone Republican Gov to photo-op with..yeah, that's not the least bit political. Not that I think Christie could have refused Obama either, but he went overboard to prove his "bipartisanship". Christie also has to get the Dem vote in his state, so as we know, it was mutually beneficial for both candidates.
But let me be very clear, Chris Christie is full blooded "Red Cat" Republican (get, blue dog/red cat...yeah, okay) and I don't mean that in any good way. All I can say is "Never trust a Northeast Republican"...they are NOT conservative in any way, but name. They use the Republican party as an avenue to getting on the ballot. [See: Michael Bloomberg - Dem/Repub/Ind depending on which line is open] So, those who will only vote for "Republicans" and who they perceive as "Populist"...well, Christie's your man.
tryanmax, it didn't bother me much at the time, because hey, Christie's main responsibility is the people of his state, and if in the course of events he took help from people of the other party running Washington, that's understandable. But in retrospect, it does seem to me that Christie went further out of his way than he ought to praise Obama--maybe not way out, but they didn't have to appear arm in arm and all. And I can't help but wonder whether Christie was mainly trying to look out for his own political career, whether or not it might hurt Romney and Co.
Just one of those things I wonder on. It doesn't leave such a bad taste in my mouth, but I could understand it leaving a bad taste in others'.
Mountain Man, That sounds suspiciously like the liberal argument: "Socialism has never failed because it's never been tried."
Yes, I suppose we could pretend that none of the conservatives who ran and lost were actually conservatives, but that doesn't make it true. So unless you want to believe that all those people who claimed to be conservatives and ran on conservative platforms... O'Donnell, Mourdock, Akin, Angle, Hoekstra, Bills, Alan West, Berg, Mandel, and many many more were all secretly RINOs despite the endorsements of the Tea Party, the Club For Growth, Jim DeMint, etc., then yeah, no conservative has ever lost.
T-Rav, I think there are two issues regarding Obama and the hurricane. First, I think it's ludicrous that the mouth-foamers get outraged by any politician who shows common courtesy and professionalism when it comes to Obama. "I hate Obama" is not part of the job of a Governor. That's derangement and I have nothing but contempt for it.
That said, the other issue is that Christie, as he always does, handled it poorly. Rather than working with people to solve the problem, he attacked Republicans while playing up his connections to Obama. He played the Democratic talking points, point by point, and that is disloyalty. He also then strangely pointed his finger at Obama at one point, only to retract it. This man cannot be trusted. He thrives on finger pointing.
What are your thoughts?
Bev, A "red cat" Republican, that's perfect in so many ways! :D
I agree about Christie. I think that like Bloomberg and some others, he sees the Republicans as a better vehicle to power than the Democrats because (1) there's less competition for the spot on the ballot because all the truly ambitious people are Democrats in those states, and (2) he knows he can score political points with moderates and soft-liberals by claiming to be a loyal Republican and then throwing them under the bus. It's deeply cynical and he should not be trusted.
T-Rav, Like you, I suspect Christie didn't mind hurting Romney because a Romney administration would have been bad for him politically. To me though, the problem wasn't that he was friendly with Obama or gave him the photo op -- though I think he did way overpraise Obama -- the problem was that he kept smacking Republicans throughout the affair and continues to today.
BTW, The book is currently 49 in the free politics and government section, which is nice. Please leave reviews!!!
Andrew, I pretty much agree, like I said in my reply above. It was always pretty clear that Christie was never a down-the-line conservative, but rhetoric-wise, he may just be a one-trick pony as well. Which is disappointing.
T-Rav, Agreed. When he first hit the scene, I had a lot of hope that he was something more, but he hasn't proven to be.
Aye, unlike Scott Walker, Christie is all bluster and no substance.
Walker actually DID something to bring fiscal sanity to WI, and he proved that conservative principles really do work rather than just kicking the can down the road and making false promises.
Other than a lot of talk, Christie has done nothing to help NJ, and he has certainly not used conservative principles...to the contrary.
BTW, I will indeed leave a review after I get done reading your book' Andrew.
Haven't had much spare time, lately, but it is a priority. :^)
When I retired I expected to have more free time. Unfortunately, my wife had other ideas.
That's not to say I don't like her ideas, just that she doesn't quite grasp how important my ideas are all the time.
Ben, All bluster and no substance is right. And I agree completely about Walker, he's actually done a good job of pushing conservative ideas at the state level.
Thanks on the review! I need a bunch so I can send it off to various politicians and they will take notice.
Yeah, I hear that retirement isn't as relaxing as it's made out to be!
Andrew, I posted a view-re on mazon-aye for your ook-be...that should throw the Feds off the track!
Thanks Bev! I just saw that. Very nice! :)
Yeah, let's not ell-tay the eds-fay.
I haven't paid much attention to Christie but his special election shenanigans didn't impress me.
Anthony, That's a good example where again, he seems to be interested in himself without thinking about any of the other people in the party. That's a bad sign for a leader.
Countdown to Catastrophe
Other Notable Dates of Engagement in World War I:
AUGUST 6, 1914
-Serbia declares war on Germany
-Austria declares war on Russia
AUGUST 12, 1914
-France announces a state of war with Austria
-Great Britain also announces a state of war with Austria
-ALL MAJOR EUROPEAN POWERS- EXCEPT FOR ITALY- ARE NOW AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER
AUGUST 23, 1914
-Japan declares war on Germany
NOVEMBER 1- 5, 1914
-The Entente Powers (Great Britain, France, Russia) and the Ottoman Empire declare war on each other
MAY 7, 1915
-German U-Boat, “U-20,” torpedoes and sinks “RMS Lusitania” 11 miles off Irish coastline; among the 1,195 who die on the ship, 128 are Americans
MAY 23, 1915
-Italy declares war on Austria-Hungary
SEPTEMBER 1915
-Germany and Bulgaria complete an alliance
OCTOBER 14, 1915
-Bulgaria declares war on Serbia
AUGUST 17, 1916
-Romania joins the Entente
AUGUST 27, 1916
-Romania declares war on the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary)
APRIL 2, 1917
-The United States declares war on Germany
With the buildup over, there's not a lot more to say. However, after 39 days of updates, I just don't feel that I can end this so abruptly.
So, Andrew, if you don't mind, I'd like to post just a few more things over the next two, three days detailing what happened to all of the key countries and personalities after the end of the war. (With a few pics and, if possible, some vids thrown in for good measure.)
As for Christie, there's not a whole more that I can add that hasn't already been said. Talk about a disappointment.
All I can say is that, for a while, I really liked him when all I really knew was that he took on the unions and won, (Amen), and with the arrival of Hurricane Irene, he told all the stupid people, "get the hell off the beach."
However, I think I lost faith in him during his keynote address at the RNC convention last year. No dash. No daring. No toughness. No call for a united front against Obama. Just chiding Republicans and telling Democrats that it was okay to question their candidate. Quite possibly the performance most deserving of the description "satisfactory" since 'Seinfeld's' series finale.
And, yes, I also defended him during Hurricane Sandy- asking the president for assistance. But it left a bad taste in my mouth. His total sucking up Obama- I can now admit- is what did the job.
So, that's my take. And Chris, if you're reading this, please, stay in New Jersey. Forget the Presidency. Just stay where you are and leave the rest of us alone. (However, if you're interesting in purchasing the Philadelphia metro region and re-christening it "West New Jersey," the phone lines are open.)
Rustbelt, Feel free to post what you like. There's no way to post pictures in comments. But if you like, we put up a blog post where people could see them. If you like, write it out and send it to me. And attach the images and where you want them.
Rustbelt, LOL! "The phone lines are open."
I agree with you. I liked Christie union thing and I hoped for more. I thought he did the right thing (to a degree) with Hurricane Sandy and meeting with Obama. But he just won't stop trying to build his career by attacking Republicans and that's not something I can support. He's offered no ideas or policies except "I'm not them!" He needs to stay in Jersey.
Andrew, I only meant links to pics and vids. Nothing too fancy. I've got the info to do that.
I just wanted to bring it all to a satisfactory conclusion. And it since it turns out my family scheduled our vacation a week later than I originally thought, I'll be able to wrap it all up this week.
Sure, no problem. :)
"O'Donnell, Mourdock, Akin, Angle, Hoekstra, Bills, Alan West, Berg, Mandel..."
I did not say that conservatives never lose. Losing because you're an idiot or because the election was rigged has little to do with conservatism.
Mountain Man, I would counter that we haven't run any "conservatives" in a long time, instead we seem to run people who just claim the mantle without grasping the ideology, which is why they keep getting into trouble. That I would agree with.
Patriot, Your comment vanished into the spam filter. Sorry about that. I concur!
Quite right. That's what I'm getting at. I'm longing to see a quick thinking, articulate, intelligent real conservative engage the debate with solid conservative principles. I think someone like that would win.
The problem isn't conservatism. The problem is weak-kneed imbeciles who can't or won't stand on principles.
You know me, I like to jump in to others' conversations.
Mountain Man, I beg to differ. The problem isn't weak-kneed imbeciles. It's bull-headed imbeciles who don't know when to keep their mouths shut and who dig their heels in. It's such obstructionists who confuse conservatism with traditionalism. It's loud-mouths who use elections and elected positions to gain access to a stage and an audience instead of to work in Washington.
The weak-kneed ones, we don't hardly hear from.
Mountain Man and tryanmax, I think the problem is something slightly different. There are the weak-kneed imbeciles, but they haven't had power or caused problems since 2008. The real problem right now are the people who claim to stand on principle, but aren't actually standing on conservative principles... they are just standing on knee-jerkism without principle.
Boehner is a weak-kneed imbecile who pretends to be conservative. McCain, Graham, Romney, Dole, Bush 1 and 2... All of them carry the conservative label and none of them articulate conservative principles with clarity or conviction, if they believe them at all.
I wish we had more bull-headed conservatives and fewer compromisers. The Left cannot be placated. They cannot be compromised with. The Left plays for keeps. They are intent on the destruction of the opposition, rules be damned.
These Republicans think that reason, getting along, and bipartisanship are the ways government proceeds. They're not. The Left only requires such things for their ideological enemies, while exempting themselves.
Mountain Man, No, the left cannot be placated, but what makes you think anyone wants to win the left? The middle is where elections are won and they don't like the "bull-headed conservatives."
You're looking at this the wrong way.
Also, whenever people want to make this argument about weak-kneed conservatives, they only list the same six you list... two of whom haven't been in office for almost two decades. You do realize there are hundreds more Republicans in office right now in Washington right? Are you really claiming that these six Republicans control all the rest of them? That doesn't say much for the "bull-headed conservatives" does it?
I would like to comment on the O'Donnell election loss because I feel the problem was not that she was stupid, was not that she was not really conservative but that the Republican party out of spite threw her under the bus.
:
O'Donnell won the primary with Tea Party support fueled by a base that at that time was fed up with RINOs and Laudenburg was an extremely liberal Republican. On the eve of her election Karl Rove went on Fox News to announce she was a terrible candidate unable to mount an effective campaign. Now I have heard it come out that her Tax Return was made public without her knowledge but I have not read that article. I think Hannity mentioned it on the TV but I am not sure. Essentially Rove wounded O'Donnell which gave the sharks in the leftist media a target and thrust her campaign on a national stage where it otherwise would be ignored.
:
Now, Delaware is a northern state where a conservative would have a significant fight and maybe not have a chance to win. Maybe Rove is right that in the general it was a lost cause. So What? How is it possible for a red state conservative to win if the movers and shakers of their own party damage them before they have a chance to make their acceptance speech.
:
Even if you think it a lost cause at the very least you can force the democrats on defense by supporting the candidate and who knows - - You might actually win. But the establishment could not have it. This LAudenberg (spelling) guy was supposed to win the primary and if the voters are not intelligent to see that is the best person to win then to h### with them.
:
Given the IRS scandal which I believe to be orchestrated more by key Senators than the Whitehouse, some of them establishment RINOs I have come to the conclusion that limited government to the ruling Republican elites means limiting new government. Any current government organization can never be gotten rid of, so anyone that wants to limit government can't be allowed real power.
:
This getting rid of Fannae and Freddie bill that is going through is an example. It sounds like support for getting rid of the GSE's and giving back control to the private capital markets. However the article I read on the bill states that Conservative Republicans want to do this but they are in disagreement with Democrats and "Moderate" Republicans who want a new federal agency created that will oversee all the loans. This would not be getting rid of the GSE just changing the name of the GSE because the scandal has damaged that brand.
:
The problem I have with Republicans is that they are too quick to throw each other under the bus. Democratic candidates say far stupider things than GOP ones yet the Dems always defend theirs. We immediately thrown ours under the bus if the media gets involved.
Indi, I think you are getting this out of order. By the time the GOP started to attack O'Donnell, she was well on her way to imploding. She had campaign finance scandals where she was diverting money. Her own people were accusing her of this. Her staff wasn't being paid. She had foot in mouth disease. Then you had constant eruptions... like her being a witch.
She was a horrible candidate all around and she would have lost if every single Republican endorsed her and went door to door for her.
Moreover, she's just one example. Why is it that so many solid, non-moronic "real conservatives" get blown away in election after election?
As for throwing each other under the bus, I agree, but we are beyond that issue. Right now conservatives are tearing each other apart because they are awash in derangement.
Post a Comment