Republican and Democratic “insiders” agree: GOP will follow Christie on national security, not Paul

posted at 3:21 pm on August 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

This is the safe bet, no? Don’t be myopic about it. The base might stand with Rand but it’s usually the dynamic duo of fabulously wealthy GOP donors and easily influenced low-information Republican voters who determine the nominee. The donors are hawkish so the LIVs will probably stay that way too. Which is not to say that I think Christie will be the nominee: It’s more likely to be a middle-grounder who’s generally hawkish but who’s also willing to make libertarian noises sporadically on the way to 2016 in hopes of uniting the party. Too late for Christie to be that guy now that he’s gone and dumped on libertarians’ golden boy.

The numbers: 68 percent of Democratic insiders and 81 percent(!) of Republican insiders see Christie’s national-security approach winning the debate ultimately. My two favorite comments from the NJ piece, just because there’s much truth to both:

“In the pre-Snowden-leak days, this would have been a no-brainer, but the NSA’s dramatic overreach troubles even mainstream Republicans.”

“The world is a dangerous place. When the next attack comes, and it will, do you really think we’ll be having this argument?”

As a gloss on how sharply the GOP is split between Christie-ism and Paul-ism, Quinnipiac asked three questions related to civil liberties and surveillance in its new poll. One was whether the feds have gone too far or not far enough in restricting civil liberties to protect the country; next was whether the feds should or shouldn’t be “scanning” phone calls to see if people are calling terrorists; and third was whether that program is necessary to keep Americans safe or not. The respective splits among Republicans on those three questions: 46/45, 46/47, and 47/46. Only on the fourth question, which asked if the program is too intrusive or not, was there a wide GOP split — 58 percent said it was versus 38 percent who said it wasn’t. But that just illustrates my point up top. Even though Republicans are more sympathetic to libertarian concerns about privacy now, you’ve still got the barest plurality saying that the programs are “necessary.” The eventual nominee needs to split that difference by acknowledging legit worries about civil liberties in the surveillance age, not sneer at libertarianism for being a “very dangerous idea” like Christie did.

Want more data? A little something on this subject from Pew:

The survey also found that Republican voters are divided over the more general question of whether anti-terrorism policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties, or not far enough to protect the country. Nearly half (46%) say their bigger concern is the impact of anti-terror programs on civil liberties, compared with 38% who say they are concerned that the policies have not gone far enough to protect the country.

Rand Paul’s favorability rating is 21 points higher than Christie’s among Republican voters who say their greater concern is that anti-terror policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties (63% vs. 42%). Their favorability ratings are comparable among those whose bigger concern is that policies have not gone far enough in protecting the country (53% favorable for Christie, 47% for Paul).

Christie’s suffering among civil-libertarians but Paul is not suffering among more hawkish types who actually want a more robust counterterrorism apparatus. Could be that’s a function of Paul not yet having been attacked systematically on national security by other GOPers the way he will be during a primary, but maybe it’s also a function of even hawks thinking we should be paying closer attention to where the surveillance state is headed. You can, in theory, believe that we should be doing more on counterterror while also worrying that each new step raises the risk of serious abuse. Whether you think Rand’s view of this will finally prevail or fail, the days of GOP candidates blithely dismissing privacy concerns as a form of crankery are over.

Exit question: Second look at neoconservatism now that, er, David Brooks has embraced it? He says it’s time to re-adopt a 1980 mentality, back when conservatives kinda sorta defended the New Deal, and specifically mentions food stamps. I thought the whole point of the past five years was that current federal spending, specifically in terms of entitlements and the welfare state, is ruinously unsustainable. But maybe Brooksy’s going to figure out a solution.


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

False dichotomy.

ConservativeLA on August 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Well the “insiders” are wrong……

Fat man will flounder.

redguy on August 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Be great if there was a second party in this country. One party government sucks.

Flange on August 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Yeah? Who are they going to follow on personal security?

antipc on August 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Puhleeze

cmsinaz on August 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM

81 percent(!) of Republican insiders see Christie’s national-security approach winning the debate ultimately.

Well I guess that settles it then!

Unless…

GOP Insiders More Confident Than Ever of Romney Win

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 3:27 PM

obama’s brothers will be mad, mad, mad.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Scott Walker please.

Arnold Yabenson on August 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Note to GOP ‘insiders’: the GOP organism may get behind Christie (plenty of room for them behind him, I suppose), but the base will not. If you still haven’t figured out that your squishy candidates don’t win nationally, well – there’s no fixing stupid, I suppose. Try it again in 2016, and you’ll lose like you’ve never lost before as the base – finally sick to f*cking death of you – *really* stays home.

Midas on August 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Are Kerry and obama advocating military take-overs?

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

What debate?

I have yet to see or hear any substantive debate on the issue, and I will bet good money that the Rand Paul take on it will be broadly accepted across a wide political spectrum.

When you combine the recent overreaches of govt here and abroad with the general fatigue of being the world’s policeman, most people outside of those clutching for political power will prefer that we take an introspective approach to foreign policy.

questionmark on August 2, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Sorry, wrong thread :((((((

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

The only thing Krispy Kreme is worried about is saving his chances in 2016.

That and doughnuts.

pain train on August 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Those who choose security over freedom will have neither.

The US is no longer a constitutional republic.

See today’s obama’care’ exemption decision for the congress and staff, just one big example.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Mind your real enemies, the Rs.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

I don’t trust ” THE CHUNK ” on anything .
I spoke to a friend I Ocean City NJ who
had extensive damage to her home .
If you want to rebuild you could get a “grant ”
and use very expensive ( cough , cough )
builders selected by the government .
Red Tape up the wazoo !
Thugs !

Lucano on August 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Well the “insiders” are wrong……

Fat man will flounder.

redguy on August 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM

I’d say the Fat Man will sink but I doubt that is physcially possible.

Bitter Clinger on August 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Yea, because Christie has soooooo much national security experience. His national security is to not tap mosques. But us, well, we’re the enemy, not certain people in mosques.

Good gravy.

NJ Red on August 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM

So what does that mean? More war with a Christie president? Christie is another Bush. That’s obvious. Just what we don’t need.

rickv404 on August 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I suppose this means we’ll need to get used to government video cameras in public rest rooms.

applebutter on August 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

“Scott Walker please.”

Co-Sign.

cdog0613 on August 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Change?

400 and change.

Pounds, that is.

steebo77 on August 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Insiders also told us that Romney couldn’t lose.

gwelf on August 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM

The devil and the deep blue sea…

Valkyriepundit on August 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM

The Republican insiders have a miserable track record.

If they think the voting public wants a warmonger for President, they’re really, really wrong.

Curtiss on August 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I don’t recall anyone in the Paul family or the Libertarian Party being in charge of the US foreign policy establishment between 9/11/01 and now. Or ever.

So every foreign policy disaster can be laid at the feet of the Demopublicraticans, and none at the feet of any Libertarians.

Akzed on August 2, 2013 at 3:41 PM

“The world is a dangerous place. When the next attack comes, and it will, do you really think we’ll be having this argument?”

Because the Feds were able to use ‘All Your Data Belongs To US’ to stop Boston.

Oh, wait…

Resist We Much on August 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Yeah, I’ll tell you.

Christie is strong on National Security. Hell, he prevented
the Union thugs from looting Perth Amboy in the wake of Sandy.

Oh, wait a minute, Sandy actually did 1 MILLION DOLLARS
worth of improvements to that town….let’s move on, shall we?

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Anyone else notice how determined the MSM seems to be to tell us who our candidates should be, who we should favor… or ‘follow’? Lot’s of focus on the possible GOP candidates… and not just for the presidency, either.

I also note that it now seems that we are in permanent campaign mode so far as the press is concerned. It’s as if we didn’t even have an election last year.

I don’t think I can remember ever having so much focus on the potential candidates for the NEXT election so soon after the LAST election in any other cycle.

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Not to mention Ghetto By The Sea…Asbury Park.

NJ Red on August 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

The only hope the Rove/Chrispie Bill Clinton Rat wing of the GOP (yes, that’s what they want to create) will be the quasi-official Opposition Party after the disaster that will be the Rick Santorum 2016 nomination is if that fully divides the two parts of the Tea Party Movement into Christian vs Libertarian.

It’s going to happen.

Steve Eggleston on August 2, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The second biggest turd of the USA

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM

First,
let Hussein define the word ” terrorist”
then, we’ll decide about Christie’s IQ.

burrata on August 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM

The GOP will mostly back Christie for two reasons: (1) The Republican Party, in recent decades, has had a love affair with war and cannot imagine cutting a military budget and (2) the party is fundamentally stupid and simply refuses to understand that people in the U.S. are sick of constant wars.

Henry Bowman on August 2, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The GOP will betray you.

Mr. Arrogant on August 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM

A true libertarian would support the protection of religious freedom. That would bring the two factions together. Even if they didn’t agree on all issues, they would support the right and the freedom of each group to disagree and not be forced to conform. As far as the snooping goes, they were not able to stop the Marathon bombing so what they are doing is not working. Probably because of political correctness.

Rose on August 2, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Me and My Shadow :)

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I should have added that the split also keeps both of them out of the GOP Clinton Rat Party the “insiders” are building.

Steve Eggleston on August 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I think we end the argument and go with Palin who obviously, like Rand Paul says also, wants a strong defense, but is against endless neocon interventionism. As she and Paul says about Syria: “let Allah sort it out.” Disagreeing about Syria is McCain and Graham and Rubio and Christie. No, I don’t believe the R voters will go for idiotic dangerous interventionism, and the voters have certainly had it up to here with that list of neocons I just gave. And we got too much NSA type stuff, any Repub that comes out on that side is going to be vulnerable to primary attacks on that.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

When given the choice of crapping on my foot or my hand? yes, I’ll take the foot.

Kaptain Amerika on August 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

False dichotomy.

ConservativeLA on August 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM

.

Those who choose security over freedom will have neither.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM

.

Dittos.

listens2glenn on August 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM

If we keep polling GOP “insiders,” we’re going to keep losing Presidential elections.

The pattern is emerging once again. Poll the insiders, which produces a “frontrunner,” which is later translated into “most electable,” which leads to the “electable” candidate getting whipped in November.

How about a poll that asks if American voters thinks a “Republican insider” is the answer to turning this nation around.

IndieDogg on August 2, 2013 at 3:57 PM

GOP will follow Christie

Well, he is a lot easier to see from a distance, especially if he dressed in bright orange.

(Yes, intentional Dee Andros – Oregon State reference there…)

Marcola on August 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

well AP you seem to be in high form today. Neocons of course were generally New Deal Dems appalled by the old barry-type crowd…they didn’t want to be socialist/communist…they didn’t like the Soviets much…so they went to the other party

Obviously, there’s a difference between strong National Defense during Reagan’s time…and messy, failed interventionism in our time. I think people know this…a large blue water fleet is a good thing, running guns into Syria..not so much.

this is not a hard argument…not even that nuanced. Hopefully Paul, et al. can make it loud and strong…and attack the McCain wings mindless love of intervention. Let the Left have have back the Wilsonian rally of ‘making the world safe for democracy’…don’t support the crazy old coots who want to do it.

and, btw, where all the science gotten to?

“Neoconservatives, accordingly, place a lot of stock in applied social science research, especially the sort that evaluates old programs and tests new ones,” Wilson added.

how brooks can say the neocon are reviving i have no idea. The Left is rallying…the left has totally co-opted the neo-cons..now that they have massive transfer payment system…we don’t need no stinking
science

r keller on August 2, 2013 at 3:58 PM

but Paul is not suffering among more hawkish types who actually want a more robust counterterrorism apparatus. Could be that’s a function of Paul not yet having been attacked systematically on national security by other GOPers

It’s because Paul cannot be readily demonized or marginalized. This is the gaping flaw in the GOP strategy. The GOP thinks it can turn Rand Paul into a nutcase who wants to unilaterally disarm. It won’t work. Not only for the reasons of who Paul is, and his track record of statements, but because our understandings of these issues have been profoundly altered by the raging Id of big government unleashed under Obama, as well as citizen battle fatigue from the endless wars. Paul makes sense and is a leading voice for the growing angst in the nation.

Paul is ahead of the curve, Christie behind it, I think.

rrpjr on August 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM

“The world is a dangerous place. When the next attack comes, and it will, do you really think we’ll be having this argument?”

Who exactly will attack ? BinLaden is dead and alqaeda is on the run,
so who will attack?

burrata on August 2, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I’ve changed my mind. Now I want Christie to run in 2016… as the Dem candidate.

Maybe he could rescue that party from the radicals and bring it back to mainstream America.

Christie v. Cruz/Paul or ilk.

petefrt on August 2, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I expect that the next election will turn more on fiscal issues rather than on interventionist versus isolationist defense policy.

KW64 on August 2, 2013 at 4:12 PM

I think we end the argument and go with Palin

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

+infinity.

Yeah, I’ll take a while to decide between
her and the Fat F*ck from Joisey….

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM

By the way…. any discussion of ‘national security’ is ridiculous while our borders remain porous and we have millions upon millions of illegal aliens wandering the nation at will… and more coming every day… from all over the world.

We don’t know who they are, why they’re here, what their affiliations might be.

Granting them AMNESTY and legalizing them doesn’t settle the question. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY ARE THEY HERE?

It also doesn’t prevent more from coming, more from simply overstaying visas.

Again… we’d do well to remember WHO the 911 terrorists were…. and how they got here and remained here.

Who the Boston Bombers were (are) and how they got here and how they stayed here.

When we’ve addressed enforcement of immigration laws and secured the borders… then we can discuss ‘national security’.

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Note to GOP ‘insiders’: the GOP organism may get behind Christie (plenty of room for them behind him, I suppose), but the base will not.

Midas on August 2, 2013 at 3:28PM

Exactly. The establishment better realize that it’s more important to cater to that “missing white vote” and the base and independents then it is to cater to liberals like Romney tried to do. Rand Paul is attracting youth and that missing white vote. Christie would be worse than Romney, a disaster.

Oh yeah, amnesty is catering to liberals and Hispanics that won’t vote Repub anyway. It’s repelling the missing whtie vote, not good at all.

And what voters is a neocon interventionist policy catering to? Virtually nobody, except a few Repub loons like McCain.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 4:15 PM

generally hawkish but who’s also willing to make libertarian noises sporadically on the way to 2016 in hopes of uniting the party.

\
In other words, you mean: Ted Cruz.

paulsur on August 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM

LOL! Good afternoon my clever and talented friend. :)

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Henry Bowman on August 2, 2013 at 3:51 PM

and 3) the GOP intends to lose.

Now, the GOP is but a shadow of the party I used to think represented the best interests of the nation. Christie is not anything like what I want to see in 2016. I won’t vote for him.

freedomfirst on August 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Do the “GOP insiders” include David Frum, Joe Scarbarough, David Brooks, Billy Kristol, and Meghan McCain by any chance? Because this secret poll sounds like the same brain dead RHINO B.S.

ModerateMan on August 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Hi Jackie – I was over at the new Issa thread. Need to get off computer for a time and move…lest I undergo atrophy. Have a good afternoon and ‘see’ you later.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 4:22 PM

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Not to mention Ghetto By The Sea…Asbury Park.

NJ Red on August 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

LOL!

Yup.

Prety much all of Northern Jersey…we hang in Southern Jersey.

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 4:24 PM

I think we end the argument and go with Palin

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM

+infinity

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 4:13 PM

WOW! I’ve never got a +infinity!

But that’s it. PALIN can unify us, with the exception of a few establishment types who don’t think she’s “Ivy League” enough. She is not elite, and that’s big plus, and she speaks for millions of everyday people that have had enough.She can bring socons and libertarians together like no other, she has both, but I think the libertarians are not put off by her soconism, and the socons are not put off by her libertarianism. And she’s definitely strong on defense, but just like Paul she is against mindless interventionism (“let Allah sort it out in Syria” she says). And she is more seasoned now also. In the general election she would be a lot more formidable than the libs say.

Palin is the real candidate that we want. Make it happen.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Sorry, wrong thread :((((((

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:30 PM

…maybe not!

KOOLAID2 on August 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM</blockquot

John Sidney McCain III born August, 1936.

Perhaps it should be no surprise to us that McCain is an elitist who believes, as all true elitist's do, that he knows what's best for everyone else.

More importantly, perhaps McCain, at this juncture in his life, should be pondering his own future, and his legacy.

I can't think of a GOP politician in recent memory who has done more to alienate himself from the people who once supported him. He even outpaces Rubio, who betrayed the very principles of the TEA party who got him elected, even as he trampled on the rule of law for his ambition's sake. Or Paul Ryan, who took a bold stance for the rule of law, enforcement first on immigration law, and not rewarding those who had willfully shattered federal immigration law, then did an abrupt about-face, again, to feed that ever expanding ambition.

The best thing the GOP could do for itself and its base is to send these RINO's packing and make it clear that those who enter politics serve the public, they are the literal proxy of the voter who elected them, and betraying the constituent will not be tolerated.

Unless the GOP makes it clear that they are NOT the Democrats… that there are still TWO PARTIES in this nation with sharply defined different ideologies and platforms…. LEFT and RIGHT… the Republican party is doomed to failure. Worse than failure… absorption into the Democrat brand. Failing distinction… they become the political class… and face extinction.

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 4:32 PM

…maybe not!

KOOLAID2 on August 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM

You too? Lately all the topics seem the same. Still, I just didn’t pay attention.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Me, too .:)

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 4:34 PM

WOW! I’ve never got a +infinity!

But that’s it. PALIN can unify us, with the exception of a few establishment types who don’t think she’s “Ivy League” enough. She is not elite, and that’s big plus, and she speaks for millions of everyday people that have had enough.She can bring socons and libertarians together like no other, she has both, but I think the libertarians are not put off by her soconism, and the socons are not put off by her libertarianism. And she’s definitely strong on defense, but just like Paul she is against mindless interventionism (“let Allah sort it out in Syria” she says). And she is more seasoned now also. In the general election she would be a lot more formidable than the libs say.

Palin is the real candidate that we want. Make it happen.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

There is only ONE key question about her. (unlike the others)

WILL SHE RUN????

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Palin is the real candidate that we want. Make it happen.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Fine, but she’s got to commit. Everyone was ready in 2008, too. I was in O4P in California and you would not believe the support she had — across all ages, races and stripes.

rrpjr on August 2, 2013 at 4:37 PM

GOP will follow Christie on national security, not Paul

Then they will go the way of the Whigs. Who the hell wants endless Muslim “Nation Building” and a Super Stasi State?

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I meant 2011, not 2008.

rrpjr on August 2, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Those who choose security over freedom will have neither.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM

………………THIS ^

KOOLAID2 on August 2, 2013 at 4:41 PM

“The world is a dangerous place. When the next attack comes, and it will, do you really think we’ll be having this argument?”

Probably not as the federal government that enabled the attack will say we need more federal government to prevent the next one and a lot of sheeple will believe them.

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Republican and Democratic “insiders” agree: GOP will follow Christie on national security, not Paul

So … the GOP will be palling around with islamists, then? good to hear. THey have a good start licking Barky’s butt.

I’m not a Republican anymore, but I wouldn’t go with Christie, the muzzie nuzzler, or Rand Paul. Neither of them know much of anything about actual security.

But, this nation is toast, anyway, so it doesn’t really matter much. The greatest fear any American has is from Barky, his junta of America-haters and the idiot butt-lickers like Christie, Boner, Rubnio, etc.

Let’s just have this national divorce already so the decent people can get on with their lives and the lowlife sacks OS can enjoy the hell they are fashioning.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM

The base might stand with Rand but it’s usually the dynamic duo of fabulously wealthy GOP donors and easily influenced low-information Republican voters who determine the nominee.
-
That coalition of the fabulously wealthy and low information voters is also the Democratic coalition.

This is the coalition that has to be beaten for the conservative base to survive.

David Blue on August 2, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Insiders also told us that Romney couldn’t lose.

gwelf on August 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM

No. They told you he had the best chance of beating Obama. And he did.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:51 PM

I’m not really a hawk or an isolationist…I guess I’m an America first gut. Whatever best suits us at any given moment (with strategic consideration of course) – that’s my policy.

What I wonder is, if you’re willing to interject your force into another nation (however lofty the reason), what fundamental claim to sovereignty do you maintain against an international body attempting to do the same to you?

blankminde on August 2, 2013 at 4:52 PM

The base might stand with Rand but it’s usually the dynamic duo of fabulously wealthy GOP donors and easily influenced low-information Republican voters who determine the nominee.
-
That coalition of the fabulously wealthy and low information voters is also the Democratic coalition.

This is the coalition that has to be beaten for the conservative base to survive.

David Blue on August 2, 2013 at 4:50 PM

The self-styled base is committing suicide by making itself unreliable and therefore irrelevant. Given that too many in the baseless base are so terminally stupid that they don’t appreciate the huge differences between Obama and Romney (or HRC and any of Christie, Rubio, or Ryan) the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

What I wonder is, if you’re willing to interject your force into another nation (however lofty the reason), what fundamental claim to sovereignty do you maintain against an international body attempting to do the same to you?

blankminde on August 2, 2013 at 4:52 PM

If another nation makes itself a threat to us then they get what’s coming to them, which is us doing whatever we feel is necessary to alleviate and stop that threat. They have already trod on our sovereignty so I don’t know what your question is about.

As to international bodies … they don’t have sh!t to say about anything. They are jokes.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:00 PM

the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

LOL. The GOP is moving to Mexico to try and capture the Mexican electorate. The dems already have a lock on the Indonesians.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Be a hawk with what? We are broke and after 12 years of fighting and cuts in it’s budget the military is in no shape to flex it’s muscle.

warren on August 2, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Christie is no hawk. He’s a dodo bird.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM

The self-styled base is committing suicide by making itself unreliable and therefore irrelevant.

Because blindly voting Republican has brought about such wonderful conservative candidates and policies?

the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Which would differ from what they do every election in what way?

sharrukin on August 2, 2013 at 5:04 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:00 PM

We’re probably saying the same thing. Frankly, if we decide we stand to benefit strategically from going to war with any country I’m fine with it. That is a little different from delivering SA-7s to Islamists in Syria though. Do we really need to stick our finger in Russia’s eye (via Tartus) that bad? They’re not much of a threat – at least not overtly. I just think there are better uses of resources than getting into every humanitarian crisis.

How much money do you think we’re spending going after Joseph Kony? Too much.

blankminde on August 2, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Given that too many in the baseless base are so terminally stupid that they don’t appreciate the huge differences between Obama and Romney (or HRC and any of Christie, Rubio, or Ryan) the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

I am lmao.
Do tell me the HUGE differences!!

I must be terminally stupid. In fact I was..why I am no longer an R. I found a cure. Mcphuck is exhibit A. I literally almost vomit when I think how I pulled the lever for him, Palin was the only reason why, besides voting against the prince of darkness.
Look at El Maverick now..what would a McCain presidency have looked like? What would a Rubio,Chisty, or Jeb one look like? I know and see no difference.

Moving to the center to recapture independents…
Bawhahahahaha….good one!
But..I expect nothing less from you basil.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM

That is a little different from delivering SA-7s to Islamists in Syria though. Do we really need to stick our finger in Russia’s eye (via Tartus) that bad? They’re not much of a threat – at least not overtly.

I am totally and unequivocally opposed to us mucking around with anything in Syria. Let them all kill each other.

I just think there are better uses of resources than getting into every humanitarian crisis.

blankminde on August 2, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Absolutely. Frankly, most of this “humanitarian” stuff we do is BS and only buys us hate from those we help, anyway. The US government’s job is to protect America, not to do anything for anyone else. We have no such responsibility. Further, we won’t even do those missions the right way. If we are to do any nation building then it has to be done the correct way, as we did in Japan and Germany after WWI – where the US took full control of everything and re-acculturated the people. But, touching anything about a primitive or savage culture is considered a hate-crime, these days.

I was speaking only about actual wars and real threats that we face from many nations. Of course, Christie doesn’t know or say jack about any of this, which is why I said (later) that he’s no hawk, just an idiot.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on August 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM

WILL SHE RUN????

ToddPA on August 2, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Someone needs to let Palin know that… yes she can!
And she will win!
Now is the time to prepare.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM

McCain, Graham, Christie, Rubio … are the anti-Reagans and in the extreme. they are Wilson and LBJ on crack.

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
RONALD REAGAN !!!

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I don’t know which group is stupider … media/political pollsters or the people they claim to be polling.

Their favorability ratings are comparable among those whose bigger concern is that policies have not gone far enough in protecting the country (53% favorable for Christie, 47% for Paul.

Get that? 47% of those polled “whose bigger concern is that policies have not gone far enough in protecting the country” have a favorable rating of 47% for Rand Paul.

Think maybe they didn’t understand the question?

Jaibones on August 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM

By the way…. any discussion of ‘national security’ is ridiculous while our borders remain porous and we have millions upon millions of illegal aliens wandering the nation at will… and more coming every day… from all over the world.

We don’t know who they are, why they’re here, what their affiliations might be.

Granting them AMNESTY and legalizing them doesn’t settle the question. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHY ARE THEY HERE?

It also doesn’t prevent more from coming, more from simply overstaying visas.

Again… we’d do well to remember WHO the 911 terrorists were…. and how they got here and remained here.

Who the Boston Bombers were (are) and how they got here and how they stayed here.

When we’ve addressed enforcement of immigration laws and secured the borders… then we can discuss ‘national security’.

thatsafactjack on August 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Thank you J..many well stated points but I would say.. Our open borders + Visa’s and non enforcement is a national security issue! (and an economic one..one issue with 1000 tentacles) It infuriates me that this is never part of the debate or framed as a NS issue, because it is! For all the reasons you stated and more. Mind blowing.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM

VorDaj on August 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM

^5

I usually enjoy your comments VorDaj.
You’re on the $.

bazil9 on August 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM

By the way…wtf exactly constitutes the “national security” positions of Governor Chrispy Creme? Some fat New Jersey liberal has positions on national security?

Jaibones on August 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Palin is the real candidate that we want. Make it happen.

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Yeah, she seems a little busy lately being on Reality TV and defending her good friend John McCain from TEA Party candidates….

OliverB on August 2, 2013 at 5:31 PM

the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

That’s insane. That’s what Romney was about, and he had every reason to win vs the hobbled Obama. But he still lost. Romney tried to shrink into the center — but there is no real center. Independents aren’t “centrists,” they have mixed hybrid ideologies. For example, they may be pro-choice but be against gay marriage. That’s why you can’t just have a nominal position on an issue and expect that to be good enough. You need to work the voters into a fury about certain issues to motivate people to vote for you. Romney was a dull dud. I mentioned gay marriage, and that’s an issue that Romney could have harnessed to build that furor, but just as the ChickFilA protest were peaking in intensity, Romney said he was going to have nothing to do with it. Talk about deflating the enthusiasm for his campaign.

A huge point on gay marriage. And it also involves Palin. SHE, and I think only she, can revive that issue as a winning ChickFilA-fury style issue for us. Palin makes sense everybody. Everybody start pushing for Palin!

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Want more data? A little something on this subject from Pew…

NEVER trust anything from the crooks at Peeeee-ew!

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

And on and on it goes.

rrpjr on August 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM

The problem with the Christie’s of the world, is not necessarily that they’re “hawks”. It’s that they’re “moderates” in a country that’s in the process of being destroyed by moderation. Political moderation is simply the absence of any guiding or foundational principles.

People like Joe Scarborough, Chris Christie, John McCain think there’s something so damn laudable about not having any core beliefs or principles that you’ll never cross. What’s so wrong about defending our right to life 100% of the time? What’s so wrong about defending our right to free speech 100% of the time? What’s so wrong about defending our right to bear arms 100% of the time?

fatlibertarianinokc on August 2, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Insiders? Who cares what “insiders” think.In the GOP base,even if we don’t have a majority on our side we can still destroy the Gelded Old Party,just by not showing up!

redware on August 2, 2013 at 6:06 PM

these are the same insiders that put up McCain and Romney…

burserker on August 2, 2013 at 6:18 PM

instead of going after the illegal alien vote, the gop should be expanding it’s base by going after the youth vote! they are more swayable that illegal aliens whose sole purpose for being here is to get free stuff.

the youth vote can be won by people like rand paul who put privacy rights over phony “security” arguments. Obama has chosen his side on that argument so it’s wide open for us to take if we wanted to.

jetch on August 2, 2013 at 7:00 PM

the GOP has little choice but to move to the center and try to capture Independents.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 4:58 PM

That’s insane. That’s what Romney was about, and he had every reason to win vs the hobbled Obama. But he still lost. Romney tried to shrink into the center — but there is no real center. Independents aren’t “centrists,” they have mixed hybrid ideologies. For example, they may be pro-choice but be against gay marriage. That’s why you can’t just have a nominal position on an issue and expect that to be good enough. You need to work the voters into a fury about certain issues to motivate people to vote for you. Romney was a dull dud. I mentioned gay marriage, and that’s an issue that Romney could have harnessed to build that furor, but just as the ChickFilA protest were peaking in intensity, Romney said he was going to have nothing to do with it. Talk about deflating the enthusiasm for his campaign.

A huge point on gay marriage. And it also involves Palin. SHE, and I think only she, can revive that issue as a winning ChickFilA-fury style issue for us. Palin makes sense everybody. Everybody start pushing for Palin!

anotherJoe on August 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM

What’s insane is catering to the 5-10% of the party who will sit on their duffs if they don’t get exactly what they want.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I mentioned gay marriage, and that’s an issue that Romney could have harnessed to build that furor, but just as the ChickFilA protest were peaking in intensity, Romney said he was going to have nothing to do with it. Talk about deflating the enthusiasm for his campaign.

Harnessed into losing votes. I don’t like gay marriage (or even the concept of homosexuality) but this is a loser. You need to grow up.

Basilsbest on August 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM

If the Republican insiders,”AKA” the establishment plan to saddle Christie on us they must already be prepared to lose again. We all have been taught to learn from our mistakes, not to make the same mistakes over and over again. Are the GOP leaders stupid or just slow learners? I can see big business giving big bucks to candidates like Christie, if by chance they win, they can be bought and are easy to control. If the GOP leadership and the Democrats have their way, the 2016 election will be another loss for the country and the representative form of government.

savage24 on August 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM