Chris Christie: I’d listen if Mitt Romney were talking to me about the VP nod

posted at 5:26 pm on April 17, 2012 by Tina Korbe

It’d be easy to take for granted the idea that Chris Christie — he who so vigorously resisted every attempt to enlist him in the GOP presidential primary — won’t even consider the vice presidential nomination. Why, after all, would a guy who very well could have been the GOP nominee in his own right had he not opted to remain as governor of New Jersey want to play second fiddle to Mitt Romney?

According to Christie himself, though, it would be the height of arrogance to not even consider accepting the nomination should it be offered to him:

“I love this job (governor) and I’m not looking to do it (vice president),” the governor said.

“But I also think it is extraordinarily arrogant for you to say you won’t even listen to the nominee of your party – especially for me. It’s someone who I’ve been supporting since last October vigorously around the country – that I wouldn’t take a call from Mitt Romney,” Christie told reporters at a press conference here.

He continued, saying if  “Mitt Romney calls and wants to discuss it with me, I will sit down and talk with Gov. Romney about it.”

Did Christie intend to call the likes of Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and others who have said they’re not interested in the vice presidential nomination “arrogant”? Probably not; he hedged his comment immediately with the qualifier “especially for me.” Christie’s comment — like so many of his — rings true. To not even consider the request would smack of distrust of the man for whom he’s campaigned for months.

Probably, though, Christie can afford to say this because he knows Mitt Romney won’t ask him to be the VP. While Christie certainly has a frank appeal that Romney lacks, he’s still the governor of a Northeastern state. He doesn’t offer regional — or, really, any other kind — of diversity.

Plus, Christie says he’s been perfectly candid with Romney that the position of vice president is not something to which he’s aspired for ages. His comments seem to hint at his own secure sense that Romney wouldn’t ask him to leave a job he really loves for a job he’d perform out of nothing more than a sense of obligation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bmore: I would like Jindal on the ticket not because of identity politics, but because he is a very popular governor with a proven track record. He also happens to be an expert on health care policy.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Basically, if lack of conservative enthusiasm allows President Obama to be reelected, I will blame the GOP leadership first and worst, as they took a lot of conservative enthusiasm, and showed conservatives that it meant precisely nothing to them.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

And you’ll be better off with a second Obama term because John Boehner hurt your feelings.

Makes perfect sense.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Cyclone: Incidentally, I am still waiting to be told a time to stand on my principles. I might accept ’4 years from now’. I will not accept ‘not right now’. If your answer is ‘not right now’ right now, that will always be your answer, because there will always be a reason why standing on your principles is not the expedient choice.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Here’s a principal you may decide to get behind. Obama is destroying this country and if given a 2nd term will complete the job. Are you willing to let that happen?

MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Cyclone: First, unlike others here, I have not stated what I will do in the general election. I can tell you that your derisive comments are unhelpful, and decidedly premature.

But it has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with principles. The GOP leadership, like the Democrat leadership, is telling their base that they know better than we do what we should do, what we should believe, and what we should think. I expect that from Democrats and liberals, because they are the Big Government Statists. The Statist position is anti-conservative, and so I call foul when I hear it from conservatives.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Why was that understandable and forgivable?

MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I will not begrudge a black man for having made the decision to throw his weight behind Obama. I don’t know what it is like to be black, I never will, and I can’t get in his head to know everything that led up to that moment in his life.

He is now smart enough to know that Obama has been a disaster of a POTUS though and is getting his head on straight again.

Like I said – I can forgive him – but I don’t trust his ability to separate emotion from logic and make a sound decision because of his support for Baraka in 2008.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Cyclone: First, unlike others here, I have not stated what I will do in the general election. I can tell you that your derisive comments are unhelpful, and decidedly premature.

But it has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with principles. The GOP leadership, like the Democrat leadership, is telling their base that they know better than we do what we should do, what we should believe, and what we should think. I expect that from Democrats and liberals, because they are the Big Government Statists. The Statist position is anti-conservative, and so I call foul when I hear it from conservatives.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I get that – but how does electing Obama to a second term help YOU? Other than making you feel better how will it benefit YOU?

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I will not begrudge a black man for having made the decision to throw his weight behind Obama. I don’t know what it is like to be black, I never will, and I can’t get in his head to know everything that led up to that moment in his life.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM

You’re a better man than I am. I can and do begrudge him that and am not moved by the fact of his race.

MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Cyclone: Incidentally, I am still waiting to be told a time to stand on my principles. I might accept ’4 years from now’. I will not accept ‘not right now’. If your answer is ‘not right now’ right now, that will always be your answer, because there will always be a reason why standing on your principles is not the expedient choice.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Why the heck are you making ME the guy to tell you that? All I am saying is that WHENEVER that moment is, if you think it is in the booth in 2012 when Baraka v Mittens is your choice, then you’re just pouting and you have nothing but vengeance toward the GOP in mind instead of what is BETTER (not BEST, but BETTER) for the country.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

MJBrutus: That is predicated on my acceptance of your belief that Obama will complete the destruction of this country if given a second term.

It is also predicated on whether or not I believe this country has already been destroyed by a single Obama term, and whether or not I believe this country will not be destroyed by a term with the GOP in power.

And to answer your question directly, it is my opinion that the GOP leadership is perfectly willing to allow Obama to complete the destruction of this country if the alternative is giving up an iota of their own power.

I, therefore, ask you how I can both support the GOP candidate for President while ensuring that the GOP realizes that I do not support them. If you can answer that question, then I have no objection to voting for the GOP candidate, no matter if it’s Romney or Oscar the Grouch.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

MJBrutus: That is predicated on my acceptance of your belief that Obama will complete the destruction of this country if given a second term.

It is also predicated on whether or not I believe this country has already been destroyed by a single Obama term, and whether or not I believe this country will not be destroyed by a term with the GOP in power.

And to answer your question directly, it is my opinion that the GOP leadership is perfectly willing to allow Obama to complete the destruction of this country if the alternative is giving up an iota of their own power.

I, therefore, ask you how I can both support the GOP candidate for President while ensuring that the GOP realizes that I do not support them. If you can answer that question, then I have no objection to voting for the GOP candidate, no matter if it’s Romney or Oscar the Grouch.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

You’re determined to turn a logical argument into an emotional one because you feel slighted. That’s fine. But I’m done spitting into the wind.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

If you don’t accept the predicates I provide then there’s no talking to you. The facts are abundantly evident and if we can’t agree on that much then you’re beyond reach.

MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Christie has always struck me as a loud-mouthed kind of authoritative jerk.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/chris_christie_flaws.html

INC on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Scott H. imagine that you are in a hell hole somewhere fighting for your country and the battle is not going the way you were briefed. What do you do? Sit it out and be killed as a coward or jump in and do EVERYTHING you can to win the BATTLE? This is a battle and if you want to have high principles in a battle you will surely die if they control how you fight. Do you throw dirt into the eyes of the Taliban bastard that is trying to kill you or do you stick to the gentleman’s agreement of “Clean” fighting. If voting for Romney is like throwing dirt into your enemies eyes then throw it and lets survive to fight another day! If this Marxist, America hating poser gets re-elected he will pack the SCOTUS with Kagan/Sotos that will effectively doom our nation. For God’s sake remember the old saying “There is a time and a place for everything” and put off your principle funk until later.

inspectorudy on April 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Cyclone: You told me that now is not the time to stand on principle.

I am basically asking, why not? If not now, when would be a good time? Or a better time? And, as I said, simply ‘not now’ is not sufficient. There MUST come a point at which, no matter what the state of the country is, one must decide that the people you are trusting to fight for independence (in this case, the GOP) are not doing their jobs, and as such should be replaced with better people. Since the GOP leadership is too entrenched and too myopic to see what will happen, that requires a break with the GOP and the creation of a new party to supplant them among Conservatives.

Either the GOP must return to its conservative roots, or conservatives will find another home.

How, in your mind, should the breaking point be determined?

I will never vote for Obama. If you wish to perpetuate the false notion that a vote for anyone other than the GOP alternative to Obama is actually a vote for Obama, I am afraid we cannot have a discussion.

I cannot speak for others, but for myself, there comes a point when my ethical standards become more important than any other consideration, including my own material well-being. I am sorry if you see this as my feelings being hurt.

You are, in effect, asking me to trust, again and again, a group of people who have systematically betrayed my trust for the entire length of my association with them. My only question is when do you expect me to stop trusting them? After one betrayal? Five? Ten? A hundred?

When?

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

If you don’t accept the predicates I provide then there’s no talking to you. The facts are abundantly evident and if we can’t agree on that much then you’re beyond reach.
MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

What he says is akin to being diagnosed with terminal cancer, there’s no cure, so he goes on a hunger strike and speeds up the process. That’s one way to handle it…but I wouldn’t say it’s the best way.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

MJBrutus: I am sorry if I do not believe that President Obama cannot finish in a second term something he has not been able to complete in his first term.

I cannot see how you expect me to act based on a possible future predicate (Obama destroying this country in the future). This amounts to a scare tactic. “Vote against Obama, or he will destroy the country!”

I DID vote against his agenda in 2010, and the people I voted for turned around and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop Obama’s agenda.

Why should I believe it will be any different in 2012? Because Obama’s name is on the ballot?

inspectorudy: I will ask you the same question I asked Cyclone. If I sacrifice my principles ‘for the sake of the GOP’ now, when should I not? When should I stand on my principles?

And, for the record, while I am not a ‘perfectly clean’ person by any stretch of the imagination, there are certain things I will not do even to save my own life.

Cyclone: I am sorry if I am muddling the difference between a pathos-driven argument and an ethos-driven argument for you.

And, when all is said and done, I have not yet made up my mind. I do not know what my ultimate decision will be, yet. I am rather weary of people assuming that I will not back the GOP in this election, and then berating me for it.

I am looking for a reason to trust the GOP. I cannot seem to find one. That is why I ask here for reasons. I do not know how to relate to the answers I receive.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Two East Coast RINOs on the ticket: that will really get the base excited!

If Mitt is into identity politics, I’d prefer he cater to the blacks (Allen West), Asians (Jindal) or two for ones (Susana Martinez or Nicki Haley) than pandering to the obese voters with Chris Christie.

bw222 on April 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Cyclone: Actually, what I am saying to MJBrutus is that I disagree with the diagnosis of the cancer being terminal.

Either that, or the patient is already dead.

Actually, I can give you my position in exactly these terms.

I see Obama’s agenda as a cancer, true enough.

I see the GOP offering palliative care. Maybe some drug treatments that have a dubious track record.

I think we should do radical chemotherapy.

The GOP believes that the patient (the US) will die from the shock of the chemotherapy.

My rejoinder is that palliative care won’t change the trajectory.

Now, I would personally think that where most of you differ from me is the size of the shock that the patient can withstand. I seem to think it’s greater than what most of you think it is.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I cannot see how you expect me to act based on a possible future predicate (Obama destroying this country in the future). This amounts to a scare tactic. “Vote against Obama, or he will destroy the country!”

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Of course it’s a scare tactic! And if you’re not scared, you darned well ought to be. The thought of a 2nd term for Obamandias scares the living snot out of me.

MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 7:21 PM

MJBrutus: I am sorry, but a scare tactic is an emotional argument, not a rational one. If I am to be (improperly, IMO) rebuked for using an emotional argument in this thread, I believe that should apply to everyone.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:24 PM

When the threat is a real one, then it is purely an emotional reaction to eliminate it. If you encounter a deadly snake would you not want to do everything you can to avoid getting bit by it? Is that an emotional decision, an intellectual decision, a principled decision, or all of the above?

You don’t seem willing to recognize the clear fact that Obama is a dire threat to our way of life. He is a deadly snake. As I said before, absent that recognition there is no convincing you.

MJBrutus on April 17, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Actually, I can give you my position in exactly these terms.

I see Obama’s agenda as a cancer, true enough.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

I see the GOP offering palliative care. Maybe some drug treatments that have a dubious track record.

100% Correct. Romney SUCKS as a conservative candidate.

I think we should do radical chemotherapy.

I think 95% of the people posting on this site would agree. But here’s what you have to come to grips with…radical chemo is NOT on the ballot.

Here’s your ballot:
[]Suicide (voting for Obama)
[]Do nothing (stay home or vote for Ross Perot)
[]Palliative Care (Romney)

That’s all that’s on the ballot – make your choice.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM

MJBrutus: I do recognize that fact. Unless someone can present evidence to the contrary, I do believe that the GOP is ALSO a dire threat to our way of life.

To me, if the Democrats maintain their power, our children will be in debt peonage for their entire lives.

If the Republicans take power, we will be in debt peonage, and we will give our children the responsibility for cleaning it up.

In essence, I reject both the Democrat’s plan of kicking the problem down the road, and the Republican’s plan of kicking the solution down the road. IF this country is going to have a radical event change it, I would rather it happen while I could take the responsibility and help it fixed so that my son does not have to shoulder that responsibility.

I will 100% not vote for Obama in November. That much I can guarantee.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Chris Christie will be phoning Helicoptering it in.

portlandon on April 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Cyclone: I have easily come to grips that my option is not on the ballot. You are trying to convince me that voting for Romney because he is ‘better’ in some sense is better than staying home.

My issue is that, from an ethical perspective, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Do you believe choosing not to make a decision to be a worse evil than choosing the ‘least evil’ of the alternatives provided? I would guess yes. As of yet, I am unsure. I am mainly unsure because I see it as aiding and abetting the GOP’s destruction of this country, which will be different than the Democrat’s destruction, but by no means ‘better’ in the long run.

I can see that you rank the options, from best to worst:

Romney -> 3rd Party -> Obama

I, currently, rank them:

3rd Party -> GOP -> Dem

This is because I am taking a longer view than you, as you (and MJBrutus) do not believe that we have the time to take a longer view.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I DID vote against his agenda in 2010, and the people I voted for turned around and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop Obama’s agenda

this is where yoyuv are losing your argument and come off as a whiney pouting petulant child.

Their mere presence created an obstacle to Obama getting his (destructive) way. They did not do what we wanted them to do, but he no longer had a blank check. That’s a step in the right direction.

Take another step.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I, currently, rank them:
3rd Party -> GOP -> Dem
This is because I am taking a longer view than you, as you (and MJBrutus) do not believe that we have the time to take a longer view.
Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Then you are beyond help.

A 3rd Party Candidate has zero chance. Zero.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to believe the fantasy that a 3rd party conservative can win, but it’s a unicorn fart. It can’t happen, and even if it could happen, you’d never see it.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Cyclone: And, again, I disagree with you. Has Obama’s spending been reduced one bit since the 2010 elections? No, because the House caved on increasing the debt limit and on any measure they could have taken to limit his spending.

Right now, Obama has exactly a blank check to spend however much he wants on whatever he wants because of the ‘debt ceiling deal’. The only limit is the debt ceiling itself, and judging by past performance, that is not a limit, either.

So, I am sorry, but one of the main reasons I refuse to support the GOP any more than absolutely necessary is because of the fact that they had control of the purse after the 2010 elections, and they effectively ceded that power to President Obama, giving him a blank check.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:48 PM

This is because I am taking a longer view than you, as you (and MJBrutus) do not believe that we have the time to take a longer view.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I get it, you want to give the GOP an ultimatum. It’s a zero reward proposition, though…and there’s a lot of risk.

The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Cyclone: I do not believe that a 3rd party candidate can win, either. However, voting for the person who you think can win is not the purpose of voting, is it? You vote for the person who you want to win.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Cyclone: I do not want to give the GOP an ultimatum so much as a shot across their bow. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way to do that short of refusing to support them when they do not support my stance on policies.

I am continually asking for ways of doing so from you and others. How can I vote for them without giving them the impression that I support their policies? That is the question I need answered.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:52 PM

If Romney/Christie is the ticket i seriously may consider not voting….i can vote for one Rino to beat Obama but not 2…

sadsushi on April 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

sadsushi: In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. :p

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Cyclone: I do not believe that a 3rd party candidate can win, either. However, voting for the person who you think can win is not the purpose of voting, is it? You vote for the person who you want to win.
Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Cyclone: I do not want to give the GOP an ultimatum so much as a shot across their bow. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way to do that short of refusing to support them when they do not support my stance on policies.
I am continually asking for ways of doing so from you and others. How can I vote for them without giving them the impression that I support their policies? That is the question I need answered.
Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 7:52 PM

By repeating 2010 over and over and over and over and over…

We have been headed to this point since the New Deal. We were never going to turn the ship 180 degrees in one election.

Its not that I (or any of us) disagree with your ideal. It’s that your expectations are/were WAY out of whack.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Cyclone: I consider 2010 a failure, and an epic one at that.

In that election, I thought we had sent a message so clear that not even the GOP could misinterpret it: We were fed up with Obama’s agenda and wanted to go back to status quo ante. And the GOP did not listen.

If they did not listen in 2010, why should I believe they will listen if we do it a thousand times?

The very popular definition of insanity seems to apply here. Why should we repeat 2010 over and over and over when nothing happened in 2010? I will also point out that the GOP held majorities for most of Bush 43′s Presidency. Should we judge them by that time frame?

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The media wouldn’t do fat jokes, they’d do the hand-wringing “is he healthy enough to step in at a moment’s notice?” pieces, and then point it back to Moochelle’s obesity campaign. They’d have one lefty doctor after another proclaiming Christie “unfit” for high office, a “threat to national security” should something happen to the president, etc., etc. Why go there? Pick someone else. If Christie wanted the job, he should have had his stomach stapled two years ago. Or…you know…pulled his hand out of the Doritos bag.

Rational Thought on April 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Rational Thought: They’ll use character assassination against anyone we put up. Does it really matter, at this point? There is no one that is bullet-proof when it comes to politics.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM

In that election, I thought we had sent a message so clear that not even the GOP could misinterpret it: We were fed up with Obama’s agenda and wanted to go back to status quo ante. And the GOP did not listen.
If they did not listen in 2010, why should I believe they will listen if we do it a thousand times?
The very popular definition of insanity seems to apply here. Why should we repeat 2010 over and over and over when nothing happened in 2010? I will also point out that the GOP held majorities for most of Bush 43′s Presidency. Should we judge them by that time frame?
Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Once again, your expectation of what was possible with 1/2 of 1/3rd of the gov’t in our control was completely unrealistic.

And stop explaining your position, I get it 100%. I am with you 100%. But your expectations need to be recalibrated. That is all.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Cyclone: Unfortunately, I know exactly what was possible. All appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives, and the GOP controlled it. As such, the GOP could (as they promised they would do) have only funded the parts of government that they wished to fund (read: among other things, not ObamaCare). Boehner even outlined his plan to do so.

Why didn’t he implement it?

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Cyclone: Unfortunately, I know exactly what was possible. All appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives, and the GOP controlled it. As such, the GOP could (as they promised they would do) have only funded the parts of government that they wished to fund (read: among other things, not ObamaCare). Boehner even outlined his plan to do so.
Why didn’t he implement it?
Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Yes, I’m well aware of the mechanics. However, those who remained in leadership after the 2010 election made the determination that shutting down the government and creating the world largest ever game of chicken was a bad idea. I don’t agree with them, but I understand their reticence to go nuclear with so little leverage. They were playing it safe and living to fight another day, not giving you the bird. There’s a difference.

You’re ready to hand the Dems unfettered powere, AGAIN, and take your chances. Fine. Do it. I just think you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its just uneccessarily radical.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Cyclone: *shrug* I do not see this as a zero-sum game. And I am far too exhausted to continue this discussion.

It matters not, in the end. I do not belong here. So be it.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:28 PM

It matters not, in the end. I do not belong here. So be it.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:28 PM

In a logical discussion that doesn’t involve ultimatums, shots across bows, and holding your breath? Maybe not.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Romney/Christie? What would be over/under on them doing worse than Goldwater/Miller? Two Northeasters? Virginia gone. North Carolina gone. Florida gone. Money and resources spent to shore up Texas. A lot of folks in the South will be saying “Bless their hearts” to the Republican ticket and staying home.

Try again, Mitt.

Tarnsman on April 17, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Cyclone: *shrug* I do not see this as a zero-sum game. And I am far too exhausted to continue this discussion.

It matters not, in the end. I do not belong here. So be it.

Scott H on April 17, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I felt bad for being so snarky on this – but here’s the fact. The GOP isn’t the one “not giving us” the candidate we want. WE are the ones who didn’t rally conservatives to get us a conservative candidate. I would have liked to see Newt, and maybe even Santorum instead of the Massachusetts Moderate…but Mittens is 1000% better than Baraka. There is no question about that.

You can sit around and wait for a candidate to be given to you – or you can go out and make it happen. But when your own efforts, whatever they were, fall short – it’s time to make the decision that is in the country’s and your own best interest.

I don’t think you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that being indifferent toward a Baraka 2nd term is in yours and mine best interest.

CycloneCDB on April 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Two East Coast RINOs on the ticket: that will really get the base excited!

If Mitt is into identity politics, I’d prefer he cater to the blacks (Allen West), Asians (Jindal) or two for ones (Susana Martinez or Nicki Haley) than pandering to the obese voters with Chris Christie.

bw222 on April 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM

As an East Coast RINO, I second your motion. I nominate Bobby for VP (or preferably POTUS).

Laura in Maryland on April 17, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Slow news day.

minnesoter on April 17, 2012 at 11:38 PM

If Romney/Christie is the ticket i seriously may consider not voting….i can vote for one Rino to beat Obama but not 2…

sadsushi on April 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Well then guess what? You are for the other side.

Just like Breitbart said in his CPAC speech “Ask not what your candidate can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your candidate!”

There’s two options here folks, one is America, the other is Obama!

Your petty “He’s too this, or he’s too that” is total BS in this election.

ccrosby on April 17, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Go back to sleep, fat boy. You don’t need to worry about writing any acceptance speeches.

Jaibones on April 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM

There’s two options here folks, one is America, the other is Obama!

Your petty “He’s too this, or he’s too that” is total BS in this election.

ccrosby on April 17, 2012 at 11:40 PM

So glad it’s that simple for you. For some the choice is slow death or quick death. The only real question is if resurrection is possible from either one. Also, the likelihood that a Republican Congress will give a (supposed) Republican president anything he wants is very real and potentially very damaging. You can fight the devil you know. Fighting the devil you don’t know takes more skill and courage than our Congress is shown to have. Maybe it’s not that simple after all.

swinia sutki on April 18, 2012 at 6:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2