In defense of Chris Christie’s Hobby Lobby non-answer and the modest presidency

posted at 3:11 pm on July 2, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Chris Christie is running for president in 2016. That is perhaps why his seemingly evasive response when asked for an opinion on the recent Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case was so disconcerting for many on the right.

In a heated exchange with CNBC’s Squawk Box hosts on Tuesday, the New Jersey governor defended his pro-life views under a withering barrage of questions about how that point of view may “bog him down” with the broader electorate, and whether he or other Republicans “should run on taking away the right to choose” from women.

When asked if he thought the Court was correct when they invalidated the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate for some companies on the basis that it violated the 1992 Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act, Christie ran afoul of conservatives when he replied, “Who knows?”

“The fact is that, when you’re an executive, you’re Supreme Court makes a ruling and you’ve got to live with it unless you get the legislative body to change the law or change the constitution,” he added. “Why should I give an opinion on whether they’re right or wrong? At the end of the day, they did what they did.”

“I don’t think that’s the most central issue that we need to talk about this morning, when you look at the challenges that face our country,” Christie said. “And, if I allow people to put me in that box, shame on me. I’m not a good politician, and I’m not a good leader.”

Many other prospective 2016 candidates with widely divergent views on social matters, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Rand Paul (R-KY), all issued positive statements on the Court’s ruling just hours after it was announced on Monday. Christie’s delayed and divergent opinion on the case, or lack thereof, prompted a barrage of scornful rebukes from conservatives.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg called Christie’s response “lame” and “disappointing.” AllahPundit chided the Garden State governor for “yammering on about what executives are supposed to do when a court rules, as if he’s addressing a leadership seminar.” Conservative author and radio host Tammy Bruce reflected on Christie’s comments and mused simply, “Jackass.”

This response from the right is understandable. At best, Christie displayed uncharacteristic and dubious caution about weighing in on this divisive social issue. At worst, he was demonstrating a penchant for slippery equivocation.

Moreover, conservatives are not predisposed to extend New Jersey’s governor the benefit of the doubt on social policy, regardless of his personal views on the morality of abortion. From the governor’s position on access to firearms in New Jersey, to his views on Islam in America, to his state’s ballooning debt, to his infamous embrace of President Barack Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy; conservatives generally don’t trust that Christie is “one of us.”

These are all valid concerns, but the latest – centering on his decision to keep his opinions on Hobby Lobby to himself – is not. Christie’s response to this question was perfectly legitimate, centering as it did on his understanding of enumerated powers. In the executive, the president’s opinion on Supreme Court decisions matters less than does the opinion of members of the congressional leadership who alone have the power to reverse them.

However unlikely, given Christie’s fondness for bombast, his position could just as easily have been interpreted as an indication of his intention to return the executive to its rightful place in American politics and reversing the presidency’s monarchical drift. That is, after all, the sort of president conservatives have long said they desire.

Early in the Obama presidency, amid a surge of public sector activism, conservatives of many ideological stripes rediscovered one of America’s least activist commanders-in-chief: Calvin Coolidge. A flurry of renewed interest the hands-off style of America’s 30th president prompted conservative columnists and politicians to laud “silent Cal’s” republican, unadorned presidency. Though offering a somewhat idealized version of Coolidge’s philosophy, conservatives of a variety of ideological stripes longed for a return to his preference for noninterventionist government and his apparent belief that he could rarely improve the silence.

A passage from The Encyclopedia of the American Presidency best illustrates Coolidge’s habit of frustrating journalists with his caution.

During the 1924 presidential campaign, a reporter asked him: “Have you any statement on the campaign?” “No,” replied Coolidge. “Can you tell us something about the world situation?” asked another. “No.” “Any information about Prohibition?” “No.” When reporters started to leave, Coolidge said solemnly: “Now, remember – don’t quote me.”

It is clear today that conservatives appreciate Coolidge’s thoughtful restraint in theory far more than in practice. After years of nearly unprecedented and divisive activism from the White House, culminating Obama’s brutal 2012 reelection campaign based on fracturing of Americans on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, and class, conservatives seem more interested in settling scores.

This is a forgivable impulse, but it is counterproductive. The strain of libertarian thought coursing through the country as faith in the ability and competency of government erodes heavily favors the conservative approach toward financial and budgetary matters. The president’s self-evident failure to safeguard American interests abroad and restore prosperity at home has renewed the public’s faith in Republicans as stewards of the nation’s affairs.

“Democrats are counting on the president’s edge on social issues to make up for a weak economy,” Politico reported in June of 2012. In the end, it did. In the immediate wake of that shocking loss, Republicans seemed comfortable declaring, as former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels advised in 2010, a “truce” on social matters in order to fight political battles on more favorable ground. That sentiment has disappeared in the intervening years.

A conservative president can never pursue or advance through the power of example conservative social policy if he or she is never elected to office. Many on the right seem more contented to go down swinging so long as they maintain their principled integrity in the process. Democratic candidates for high office, meanwhile, evidence no such scruples. They run as moderates and govern as liberals, and the Overton Window shifts ever further to the left in the process. It is time for Republicans to think a bit more strategically, pick their battles, disband the circular firing squads, and leave the ideological litmus tests to the left.

Chris Christie didn’t stumble when he refused to offer an opinion on Hobby Lobby. In fact, in the definitional sense, he was acting like a conservative.


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

I’ll make one more comment on this thread.

The GOPe position on Hobby Lobby, perfectly articulated by Mr. Rothman, completely ignores the anger of the GOP base. If the GOPe wants to win elections, they need to stop attacking those that agree with them on 80% of issues just because they are against amnesty for illegals, legitimacy for gay marriage, or support of abortion. The GOPe needs to start standing for specific principles instead of pandering to gays, women and illegals.

Mr. Rothman would be well advised to be more tolerant of the right instead of demanding we see a fat bully from New Jersey as the a great leader unappreciated due to his modesty.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2014 at 4:46 PM

I had to switch computers to get to my bookmarks on Coolidge. Here’s the reference I mentioned above.

Revival, Calvin Coolidge, and Recovering America’s Foundations

Below are excerpted remarks from then Vice President Calvin Coolidge to the New York State Convention of the Y.M.C.A. in Albany, New York in 1923. The title of the address is “The Place of Religion in National Life.” There is not a full copy of the address online but you can find it in The Price of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses by Coolidge.

Here’s the Coolidge quote with my emphasis:

When we explore the real foundation of our institutions, of their historical development or their logical support, we come very soon to the matter of religious belief. It was the great religious awakening of the sixteenth century that brought about the political awakening of the seventeenth century. The American Revolution was preceded by the great religious revival of the middle of the eighteenth, which had its effect both in England and in the colonies. When the common people turned to the reading of the Bible, as they did in the Netherlands and in England, when they were stirred by a great revival, as they were in the days of the preaching of Edwards and Whitfield, the way was prepared for William, for Cromwell, and for Washington. It was because religion gave the people a new importance and a new glory that demanded a new freedom and a new government. We cannot in our generation reject the cause and retain the same result.

If the institutions they adopted are to survive, if the governments which they founded are to endure, it will be because the people continue to have similar religious beliefs. It is idle to discuss freedom and equality on any other basis. It is useless to expect substantial reforms from any other motive. They cannot be administered from without they must come from within. That is why laws alone are so impotent. To enact or to repeal laws is not to secure reform. It is necessary to take these problems directly to the individual. There will be a proper use of our material prosperity when the individual feels a divine responsibility. There will be a broadening scholarship when the individual feels that science, literature, and history are the revelation of divine truths. There will be obedience to law when the individual feels the government represents a divine authority.

It is these beliefs, these religious convictions, that represent the strength of America, the strength of all civilized society.

INC on July 2, 2014 at 4:46 PM

Ummm…Noah…kiddo…were you hired to fire up the Conservatives who made Hot Air a great website…or, are you actually this out-of-touch?

Are you Thad Cochran’s nephew or something?

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Acton Commentary: Calvin Coolidge and the foundational truths of government

Coolidge was sandwiched in between the progressive era and the rise of the New Dealers. And in his era of leadership, tyrannical leaders who preached the supremacy of the state rose to power abroad. Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini in Italy are two examples. Coolidge preached limited government and saw himself as a civic educator who wanted to remind America of its founding freedom….

His most brilliant speech which is really a denunciation of the progressive era and a triumphant praise of America’s Founding is his remarkable address on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

INC on July 2, 2014 at 4:51 PM

We’ve had the bams media, minions and supporters “defending” him in office for the last 6 plus years. We don’t need a potential presidential candidate that has to be defended before he even gets up to the starting gate.
We want a vetted candidate, with legal job application (meaning verified education (Including grades), jobs, actual qualifications (Knowing how many states there are in the country you live in is a good beginning.) and who’d pass a Secret Service, FBI, and CIA background check. If we require those things of people who are to protect the president, then it should be required of the person they are protecting. The background check should also be required of all candidates before they even get their first donation.

{{{{ POOF }}}

Wow! That was some dream! Why did you have to wake me up?

31giddyup on July 2, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Calvin Coolidge
July 5, 1926
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

It is a fabulous speech, and one that Christie is utterly incapable of conceiving and giving.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history….

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven.”

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period….But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

…In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

INC on July 2, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Coolidge’s conclusion:

Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

INC on July 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Are you Thad Cochran’s nephew or something?

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Don’t think Cochran discussion is allowed here….

d1carter on July 2, 2014 at 5:09 PM

… conservatives of many ideological stripes rediscovered one of America’s least activist commanders-in-chief: Calvin Coolidge. A flurry of renewed interest the hands-off style of America’s 30th president prompted conservative columnists and politicians to laud “silent Cal’s” republican, unadorned presidency. Though offering a somewhat idealized version of Coolidge’s philosophy, conservatives of a variety of ideological stripes longed for a return to his preference for noninterventionist government and his apparent belief that he could rarely improve the silence.

From The Fruits of Graft: Great Depressions Then and Now by Wayne Jett, my favorite book on US Economic history, and political corruption:

On February 12, 1924, President Coolidge gave an important address in New York, telling the National Republican Club how lower marginal tax rates produce both greater prosperity and higher tax revenues…

Coolidge won re-election in a landslide. The election result was seen by Republicans and Democrats as a mandate for further Mellon tax cuts. Democrats even argued that the national debt was being reduced too fast and that more revenues should be channeled into tax cuts.

So Called silent Coolidge said what he meant and followed through

In other words, he spelled out to the voters what he supported and what he intended. He ran on specifics, and received a true mandate for specifics

However unlikely, given Christie’s fondness for bombast, his position could just as easily have been interpreted as an indication of his intention to return the executive to its rightful place in American politics and reversing the presidency’s monarchical drift. – Rothman

Yeah and that is why Christie had no opinion of the Ground Zero Mosque

Chris Christie didn’t stumble when he refused to offer an opinion on Hobby Lobby. In fact, in the definitional sense, he was acting like a conservative. – Rothman

He wasn’t acting like a Calvin Coolidge conservative

He was acting like a phoney

entagor on July 2, 2014 at 5:17 PM

Somebody get me a puke bucket…

MontanaMmmm on July 2, 2014 at 5:28 PM

These modern conservatives will have you hopping around like a Mexican jumping bean for every little crisis that comes along. The chief executive has to keep his eye on the big picture. I tentatively agree with the conservative position but it’s hardly a Republic shattering issue.

cimbri on July 2, 2014 at 5:30 PM

In defense of Chris Christie …

Why?

Pork-Chop on July 2, 2014 at 5:31 PM

AP never was a RINO; he’s just not a down-the-line conservative, which is just fine with me.

Noah is definitely the resident RINO at HotAir. He also needs some writing and grammar lessons.

Splashman on July 2, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Yep, not very English-savvy.

slickwillie2001 on July 2, 2014 at 5:33 PM

darn it noah. i tried to keep thinking ‘just give him another chance’ every time i read a blog post of yours that i didn’t like, but i’m done with that. i’ll just flat-out say that i am not a fan of your posts.

if christie had given an opinion, it wouldn’t have meant that he’s not for separation of powers. it just means that he’s a guy with an opinion. i want to hear his opinion just because i want to learn more about him as a person. it’s not because i would want him to be some overreaching executive as president. (not that i want him to be president)

Sachiko on July 2, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Captain Present. Behaving like Obama. Dude can’t take a stand on this simple issue. If he wins the nomination, he’ll go down in flames, just like Romney.

tommy71 on July 2, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Chris Christie is running for president in 2016.

Really? He declared his candidacy? Or is this another one of those “he’s going to announce for 2012… oh wait, he didn’t” schticks?

That is perhaps why his seemingly evasive response when asked for an opinion on the recent Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case was so disconcerting for many on the right.

Or perhaps it’s because he’s a coward.

Moreover, conservatives are not predisposed to extend New Jersey’s governor the benefit of the doubt on social policy, regardless of his personal views on the morality of abortion.

I couldn’t give a damn about his personal views. I want to know his political views, i.e., what he supports in terms of public policy.

These are all valid concerns, but the latest – centering on his decision to keep his opinions on Hobby Lobby to himself – is not. Christie’s response to this question was perfectly legitimate, centering as it did on his understanding of enumerated powers. In the executive, the president’s opinion on Supreme Court decisions matters less than does the opinion of members of the congressional leadership who alone have the power to reverse them.

Irrelevant. He supposedly has a brain. He should be able to form an opinion.

The strain of libertarian thought coursing through the country as faith in the ability and competency of government erodes heavily favors the conservative approach toward financial and budgetary matters.

And despite libertarians’ insistence that they’re on the cusp of being some hegemonic beast, it hasn’t happened. Especially on financial and budgetary matters. Paul Ryan was a dud, Romney got nowhere on the economy, and the shutdown was unpopular.

the immediate wake of that shocking loss, Republicans seemed comfortable declaring, as former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels advised in 2010, a “truce” on social matters in order to fight political battles on more favorable ground.

Perhaps because Romney was a social liberal who hated the 47%? He was a socially liberal, fiscal conservative who got destroyed in the best possible environment for that sort of candidate.

A conservative president can never pursue or advance through the power of example conservative social policy if he or she is never elected to office. Many on the right seem more contented to go down swinging so long as they maintain their principled integrity in the process.

Or we can go the Romney route, sacrificing principles and gaining nothing but shame and regret!

Democratic candidates for high office, meanwhile, evidence no such scruples. They run as moderates and govern as liberals,

No, they run as liberals and win as liberals. Unlike the GOP, the Democrats believe in their own party platform, and they make the case for their side tirelessly, and pull out all of the stops to advance that agenda incessantly (see: Obamacare).

It is time for Republicans to think a bit more strategically, pick their battles, disband the circular firing squads, and leave the ideological litmus tests to the left.

Still stuck on stupid, eh Noah?

Stoic Patriot on July 2, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Christie’s opinion should have been that he agrees with the court because they made the decision and he wouldn’t try to find a way around the decision via executive order.

Vince on July 2, 2014 at 5:54 PM

LOL, more comments here about Rothman than Christie, I think.

Rothman 2016!

I kid, I kid.

Midas on July 2, 2014 at 5:54 PM

A conservative president can never pursue or advance through the power of example conservative social policy if he or she is never elected to office. Many on the right seem more contented to go down swinging so long as they maintain their principled integrity in the process.

I guess this means that Noah wouldn’t vote for a conservative that actually had principles and would not lie to get elected.

Vince on July 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM

COWard.

KMav on July 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Ummm…Noah…kiddo…were you hired to fire up the Conservatives who made Hot Air a great website…or, are you actually this out-of-touch?

kingsjester on July 2, 2014 at 4:47 PM

It’s pretty obvious that Rothman was hired to push Hot Air even further to the left. When Rothman recently declared (from atop a mountain of 57 MILLION aborted babies?) that he supports the “protections” provided by Roe vs. Wade, it became clear that he’s a liberal, and has no connection to, or knowledge of the conservative world. Hot Air is bound and determined to push conservatives away – and they’re doing a pretty good job of it.

Defending a self-admitted, raging liberal like Chris Christie (who “agree(s) with Andrew Cuomo on 98% of the issues”) is exactly what we have (already) come to expect from Rothman.

Pork-Chop on July 2, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Why?

Pork-Chop on July 2, 2014 at 5:31 PM

LOL

That is the question I am asking more each day. Nothing is without purpose. Guess we can extrapolate

Sachiko on July 2, 2014 at 5:40 PM

heh, so, the question is again, why?

If as was rumored, there was an intent to use the new Salem owned HA to host some version of a presidential debate, perhaps they need to play like the Chinese Olympics, and remove the bums from the area around the stadium

Imagine GOP contenders agreeing to go under the old conservative HA microscope. On the other hand, imagine a new pruned and cleansed HA, being pretty and polite about the wonderful Presidential contenders. It would prove conservatives love the guys and the tea party is bogus

But that is just paranoia speaking. writing a mystery script for cable. Not related to reality. nope.

entagor on July 2, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Rhinophatph*ck.
Clearly the establishment republican nominee for 2016. You can’t bring the Stalinists to justice for treason when our leaders are low rent, sold out whore collaborators.
So Crispycreme? Sure. Why not? Why change m.o.?

onomo on July 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM

…given Christie’s fondness for bombast, his position could just as easily have been interpreted as an indication of his intention to return the executive to its rightful place in American politics and reversing the presidency’s monarchical drift.

Emphasis mine.

I don’t want a president who is going to “reverse the presidency’s monarchical drift”. At least not right away.

I want a courageous president, who will do all in his power to reverse the unconstitutional, lawless actions of this president that were accommodated by a feckless, cowardly Congress.

That is the Left’s greatest fear. That the power they have used against the people of this country to achieve their ill-gotten, autocratic gains will be used in kind against them. And we should make it come true. That is the only action which will discourage this type of tyranny in the future.

Then and only then should we repair any “drift” and restore the rightful role of Congress. Otherwise, liberals will just wait for their next opportunity to build on the current destruction.

Never. I never want to pay for the same ground twice.

Marcus Traianus on July 2, 2014 at 6:06 PM

It is time for Republicans to think a bit more strategically, pick their battles, disband the circular firing squads, and leave the ideological litmus tests to the left.

I am not a Republican, I’m a Conservative. I am also done picking the lesser of two evils at election time. Unless your nominated candidate is talking about the complete overhaul of the tax code for businesses and indiduals with a resultant elimination of a great many lobbyists and IRS agents, about eliminating redundant federal agencies and bureaus, about getting government out of the healthcare business, that candidate isn’t getting my vote.

M240H on July 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Noah, you may think yourself knowledgeable on matters of policy and movement conservatism, but you have a lot to learn about right and wrong.

gryphon202 on July 2, 2014 at 7:04 PM

In defense of Chris Christie’s Hobby Lobby non-answer Dave Brat’s response and the modest presidency

FIFY.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/11/bad-sign-cantors-vanquisher-surprised-msnbc-host-doesnt-want-to-just-celebrate-his-victory/

*the defense of Brat is among the hundreds of comments, some of which pointed out the video was not congruent with Rothman’s headline or post.

Hm.

Wonder why a “conservative” blogger would be defending Christie but writing a hit piece on Brat just after his surprising victory against Cantor?

/s

cs89 on July 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Noah, you may think yourself knowledgeable on matters of policy and movement conservatism, but you have a lot to learn about right and wrong.

gryphon202 on July 2, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Not to mention history, research, and analytical and critical thinking.

INC on July 2, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Where was Noah when Christie was chiming in on the Rick Perry homosexual-alcoholics comparison?

Gov. Chris Christie said Friday he disagrees with Gov. Rick Perry’s recent comments comparing homosexuality to alcoholism.

“I disagree with them. I don’t believe that’s an apt analogy and not one that should be made because I think it’s wrong,” the New Jersey Republican told reporters Friday in San Francisco.

I guess it’s okay to have an opinion when gays are involved.

xblade on July 2, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Who cares about a human donut?

Just axin

Key West Reader on July 2, 2014 at 9:12 PM

I’m sorry, I thought Hot Air was a conservative website.

Lose this Christie junk.

lutherjw on July 2, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Noah Rothman makes Jazz Shaw look like a rock-ribbed conservative.

bluegill on July 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM

…frank!…what is rock-ribbed?

JugEarsButtHurt on July 2, 2014 at 9:54 PM

Who goes on CNBC expecting to talk about the Supreme Court and abortion and religious freedom? For crying out loud!

I don’t blame Christie a bit for trying to avoid the subject so he could talk about what HE wanted to talk about, which was probably the New Jersey state budget and the continuing pension mess. He does this all the time with local media. He goes on CNBC a lot because it is virtually local media, watched by a lot of Jersey residents who work on Wall Street.

And only a bunch of hypersensitive jackasses would take this post as an insult to “the base.”

rockmom on July 2, 2014 at 11:02 PM

And only a bunch of hypersensitive jackasses would take this post as an insult to “the base.”

rockmom on July 2, 2014 at 11:02 PM

I don’t take it as an insult. Politicians gonna politic. And if you really believe that Christie is being sincere in his apathy, I have a bridge to sell you.

/rimshot

gryphon202 on July 2, 2014 at 11:45 PM

If only there was a candidate who was non committal on every issue. We need a candidate who will not take a stand on anything so as not to offend anybody. Somebody who knows how to tend a bridge, and regulate traffic. Who could that be ? Only a candidate like that can win. Is there such a candidate?

Brock Robamney on July 3, 2014 at 5:13 AM

And only a bunch of hypersensitive jackasses would take this post as an insult to “the base.”
rockmom on July 2, 2014 at 11:02 PM

And only a blind loyalist or GOP drone wouldn’t recognize this as an opportunity to shill for Krispy Kreme for President

Brock Robamney on July 3, 2014 at 5:16 AM

I am so tired of hearing that politically correct diabolical phrase: “a woman’s right to chose….”
The correct issue is about “woman’s right to slaughter her own child in the protective sanctuary of her womb.”
If it were for that specific truth-the first phrase would never have existed.

BTW it is also the father’s child that is being slaughtered by a woman, lest we forget one of thee biggest offensive biases in legal abomination.

Don L on July 3, 2014 at 6:05 AM

That is the Left’s greatest fear. That the power they have used against the people of this country to achieve their ill-gotten, autocratic gains will be used in kind against them. And we should make it come true. That is the only action which will discourage this type of tyranny in the future.

Then and only then should we repair any “drift” and restore the rightful role of Congress. Otherwise, liberals will just wait for their next opportunity to build on the current destruction.

Marcus Traianus on July 2, 2014 at 6:06 PM

You don’t seem aware that once anyone Left or right) gets to have that power (to abuse freedom) –they won’t give it up–whether to reverse wrong or not….

Don L on July 3, 2014 at 6:17 AM

Only a candidate like that can win. Is there such a candidate?

Brock Robamney on July 3, 2014 at 5:13 AM

I’m gonna vote for None Of The Above!

GWB on July 3, 2014 at 9:54 AM

rockmom on July 2, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Honest question, as I don’t recall and don’t want to scroll through the comments:

What was your response, if any, to Noah’s post on Brat/Cantor? I linked it @7:32 above, and it was either his first HA post or among his earliest.

He wants to defend Christie, but offered a hit piece on Brat IMO. Why does he have opposing posts about politicians, media etc. (if you care to comment/speculate)?

cs89 on July 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM

What we learned over the last 6 years is that it’s important to have a President who knows how to go after his political enemies

Brock Robamney on July 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2