More about Christie and Jeb Bush
Is Jeb a weaker candidate than Christie? Of course he is. Because of Bush fatigue. And because Christie can connect with Reagan Democrats and win their votes. The contention that Christie can’t win because he’s fat is utter nonsense. If anything, just the opposite, his body-shape is what will endear him with Reagan Democrats.
If Christie has to withdraw from the 2016 presidential election because of so-called Bridgegate, then it’s that much more likely that we will have eight more years of a Democrat in the White House.
I remind you again that Justices Scalia and Kennedy will both be turning 80 in 2016. What’s the chance of both of them being able to go on for eight years after that? Not very good. So if a Republican can’t win in 2016, that means we will have a liberal majority Supreme Court, and that’s the end of conservatism. It will be dead. Even if by some miracle, there’s an anti-immigration President and an anti-immigration Congress, the liberal Supreme Court will say that immigrants have a constitutional right to immigrate or some other nonsense.
Is it any wonder that the liberal-controlled mainstream media, which is much more politically astute than most of the commenters at this blog, is making such a big deal over Bridgegate? They want Christie out because they know that he’s the only Republican who might win in 2016, and they want their liberal Supreme Court.
One should point out the hypocrisy of the liberal media which doesn’t care that Bill Clinton most likely raped Juanita Broaddrick (a serious felony that could get a regular person a very long prison sentence in a very unpleasant prison), but closing a few lanes on a bridge is a Huge Scandal of the Greatest Magnitude that it gets a “gate” suffix.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
Chris Christie just looks like a giant dumb asshole that I can’t relate to. Jeb Bush at least LOOKS intelligent.
AsianDude
January 12, 2014 at 9:25 PM
The “Reagan Democrats” were against abortion which is one of the reasons why they voted for Reagan. What are Christie’s views on abortion? Would he fight against Roe versus Wade?
Joe Walker
January 12, 2014 at 9:28 PM
No, they did NOT vote for Reagan because of abortion, but rather as Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found, “He concluded that “Reagan Democrats” no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups.”
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 12, 2014 at 9:31 PM
“No, they did NOT vote for Reagan because of abortion, but rather as Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found, “He concluded that “Reagan Democrats” no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups.”
There is never one reason why a new majority political coalition is formed, and if you think Stanley Greenberg found one reason in his polling, then you’re just as dumb as he is. Social conservatives were instrumental to Reagan’s victories, just as they were instrumental to Carter’s victory in 1976. That doesn’t mean they formed the majority of either president’s support, but it does mean victory would not have been possible without their support.
In particular, Catholics, after more than a century of very strong support for the Democratic Party, became a swing vote when they saw the McGovernites and hippies take over the Democratic Party. They were repulsed by the libertinism of the new Democratic Party. It had nothing to do with economics.
Social conservatism is in decline. But if you think Republicans can win the presidency in 2016 without social conservatives, you’re out of your gourd. Unfortunately for me, neither Jeb Bush nor Chris Christie is that stupid, and so they will attempt to utilize social conservatism for their own ends if they become the nominee, just as George W. Bush did in 2000 and 2004.
Pincher Martin
January 12, 2014 at 9:51 PM
Most of today’s conservative pundits seem to miss the salient lesson of the Reagan Democrats. They voted Republican for cultural reasons (abortion, hunting/guns, patriotism, etc.) because they had economic security via their union manufacturing jobs. If people can’t find some measure of economic security in the private sector, they will seek it from government. That makes a bad economy a win for Democrats, because they are the party of the welfare state.
Dave Pinsen
January 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM
Actually, shortly after the 1980 election a professional Dem insider published a book arguing that the precincts which switched from DEm to Reagan did so over crime. Black violent crime spiked in the late ’70s. I stumbled across the book in the library at Cal. Can’t remember the guy’s name.
albino bobb
January 13, 2014 at 8:46 PM
What is the point of voting for a “Republican” if he acts like a Democrat? You seem to be against any Republican who does not endorse your left wing, anti-Christian agenda. Why don’t you just become a Democrat? They seem to share most of your political views.
Joe Walker
January 12, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Christie’s weight could indeed be a major problem in a national election. There are a lot of overweight voters in this country, and while thin and average-weight people might vote for a fat candidate, overweight voters will not. They know deep down that obesity is mainly a deficiency of will power.
Peter
ironrailsironweights
January 12, 2014 at 9:33 PM
“The contention that Christie can’t win because he’s fat is utter nonsense. If anything, just the opposite, his body-shape is what will endear him with Reagan Democrats.”
Lion, does this mean that the results of 2012 refuted your theory that a winning presidential candidate needs to be handsome and appeal to women. Or did Obama beat Romney on this measure?
Herb Dregs
January 12, 2014 at 9:35 PM
You seriously think that in 21st Century America an utterly white-bread male with zero “bad boy” attributes can in any possible way be more “appealing” than a black guy? Your punishment is go read the next fifty blog posts at Chateau Heartiste.
peterike
January 13, 2014 at 10:10 AM
Neither Jeb nor Christie is worth supporting for president. Lion of the Blogosphere thinks that because Christie is a fat-ass loudmouth that he will endear himself to the Reagan Democrats. This only shows how little thinking LotB gives to politics. Christie is a rather unimaginative Republican moderate who won’t do a damn thing different than, say, George W Bush would do on any issue. Since I saw the original flick, I’m not much interested in going to see a sequel.
“I remind you again that Justices Scalia and Kennedy will both be turning 80 in 2016.”
A president Jeb or Christie is as likely to pick someone like Harriet Miers or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter or Sandra Day O’Conner as he is to select a conservative jurist. Perhaps even more likely. I can certainly see President Jeb picking his brother’s former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales for the high court.
If Republicans presidents could be trusted on Supreme Court nominations, the high court would have long ago been a bastion of conservative thought. Only an idiot would believe that conservatives ought to support Christie for president because he will put a conservative on the bench.
Pincher Martin
January 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM
When George W. Bush left office, Republican presidents had selected twelve of the last fourteen Supreme Court justices. Yet the high court was barely, if at all, conservative in most of its votes. Contested decisions usually went five-four either way. Why?
The answer is simple: Republican presidents have been about as likely to select liberal jurists for the Supreme Court as they have been to select conservatives jurists, whereas Democratic presidents are excellent at picking solidly liberal jurists. You’ll never see an Obama or Clinton S.C. pick move to the other side for important votes, but you’ll see this all the time for Republican-selected justices. Even a solid conservative jurist like John Roberts couldn’t be trusted to do the right thing on Obamacare, instead coming up with some unbelievable legal reasoning to justify his oddball decision.
So it’s funny that LotB would talk as if this history is nonexistent, as if we conservatives can be sure that a President Jeb or President Christie is a sure thing to pick a conservative, and that is why conservatives must support them. Doesn’t he know any history?
Pincher Martin
January 12, 2014 at 10:08 PM
I also must say that Jeb is way smarter and more competent than his brother George. It’s really extremely unfortunate that the wrong Bush got elected President in 2000.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Politically, Bush is a complete idiot, but so is Cheney and Rice and everyone else in his administration and in the Republican leadership. On a personal level, what evidence do we have that he is particularly stupid?
James Kent
January 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM
I could see a Santourum or Huckabee victory, if all the cards fall in the right places, and he really tries. With a well-funded and organized campaign, I could see him winning all but the coastal states, in total defiance of the party elite. In fact, I think that might be preferable to another GOP Inc candidate, as long as he doesn’t start any wars, it would really anger the left.
James Kent
January 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM
There is NO chance of a Santorum or Huckabee victory. They are attractive only to the non-Tea Party Christian Right. Both Santorum and Huckabee are big government conservatives. They love Jesus, but don’t care how big government grows or how much it spends as long as it’s for Jesus approved reasons. So if you alienate both the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party, you can’t possibly win an election. I don’t think they could win the primary for those reasons.
Mike
January 13, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Enough of Jeb. Lets hear your exegesis of the Girls double feature.
Dave Pinsen
January 13, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Of course bill clinton raped junita broderick but feminists are silent about it.
Knoxy
January 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Christie is a radical leftist. Reagan was rightist. How is Christie going to connect to Reagan voters?
Reagan promised a strong and prosperous America, Christie promises to make the decline pleasant.
James A. Donald
January 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM
One should point out the hypocrisy of the liberal media which doesn’t care that Bill Clinton most likely raped Juanita Broaddrick (a serious felony that could get a regular person a very long prison sentence in a very unpleasant prison), but closing a few lanes on a bridge is a Huge Scandal of the Greatest Magnitude that it gets a “gate” suffix.
Rape is actually a far less troubling crime coming from a politician. Succesful male leaders through history have always been somewhat sociopathic and have often taken women as trophies. Acting like a spiteful teen-ager and shutting off highways, probably punishing some of your own supporters in the process, shows a remarkable lack of maturity and “gravitas”. But since based on liberal principles Clinton is the one who did something unforgivable, not Christie, I agree with you on the hypocrisy. That said, seems to me it would have been remarkably easy for Christie to have been a true statesman, taken full responsibility, blamed the climate of partisanship for his staff’s behavior, and promised to rise above all that, etc . A great politician would have managed to throw the scandal back at the liberal press and come off looking even better. Christie is just dancing around, and looking ineffectual – it’s his reaction to the scandal that is raising real doubts to me about his ability to be President.
Petr Akuleyev
January 13, 2014 at 3:36 AM
“One should point out the hypocrisy of the liberal media which doesn’t care that Bill Clinton most likely raped Juanita Broaddrick”
Exactly.
I was never sure what “Binders-full-of-Women” Gate was about, but ignoring the multiple women who, like Broaddrick and Kathleen WIley, detail Clinton’s predatory, rapist behavior. Excused to this ay by the Democratic Party.
Where is the war on women again?
ClusterofGrapes
January 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM
“I was never sure what “Binders-full-of-Women” Gate was about”
Heh, yeah. So Romney is trying to hire lots of women — one would think a positive thing from the Progressive point of view — but since he said “binders-full” well that means, you know, he wants to put them in binders! And make them slaves! And lock up their va-jay-jays and not give them birth control! And take away their right to vote! And throw women of color out of the country! And to put lesbians and people-of-trans-genderishness into prison! And to make it so women only make three cents per dollar compared to what men make!
What, “binders full of women” doesn’t say all that to you? You clearly haven’t been paying attention.
peterike
January 13, 2014 at 10:14 AM
OT, but based on news reports out of CES 2014, it looks like 3-D printing is going to create a fad for blinging everything up, from cakes to jewelry to furniture.
In the future, the class distinction whereby proles bling with color and SWPLs bling with geometric shapes will become more pronounced.
Fiddlesticks
January 13, 2014 at 9:13 AM
Christie is now an official subject of SWPL mockery as he has achieved the SWPL apotheosis — a mocking New Yorker cover.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/01/new-yorker-cover-chris-christie-bridge-scandal.html
And sorry, while SWPLs are not any sort of majority in terms of numbers, they are the people that drive the Narrative. And since the Narrative nearly always wins, Christie is now officially toast.
peterike
January 13, 2014 at 10:08 AM
The ethnically conscious proles in the NJ/NY/CT corridor, whom are by far the most obnoxious and repugnant species of their kind, will either swim or sink. Swim by adapting to gentility manners, by assimilating to the greater American landscape, away from the Jersey Shore, or sink like many of their equally parochial minded and obnoxious SWPLs, who hover around their cesspool NYC, many unable to adapt to another environment, while the world passes them by. The NYT libtards are now angry at de Blasio for playing partisanship between them and the NAMs during his inauguration event. When did Libs ever had a genuine concern for blacks?
JS
January 13, 2014 at 11:51 AM
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, viewed by many as a hero of Superstorm Sandy, is now facing a federal investigation into his use of millions in money his administration received as part of a massive recovery package, ABC News has learned.”
Heh. The Chicago Boyz are on the case. With the full power and funding (and vindictiveness) of the Obama Federal Government behind it, the Christie witch-hunt will uncover plenty of dirt. President? I doubt he’ll even make it to the end of his term as Governor. Phasers are set on kill. Sit back and watch a person get destroyed. The Dems are experts at this.
peterike
January 13, 2014 at 10:20 AM
Does any of this really matter? The Democrats and the media control everything, even when there is a Republican president, and the GOP is happy to be the junior partner, even if all that means is that they get whatever scraps are thrown their way. Of course, the scraps still add up to a hell of a lot of money, so no complaints, I guess.
Is there really that much difference between what a president Hillary Clinton would do and what a president Jeb Bush would do? If amnesty has not been passed by 2016, both of them would do it. Legal immigration? Either one will push for much higher limits. Taxes? I think both of them would raise taxes, using “deficit reduction” as the rationale, but all the additional money would get spent on something else. Corruption? OK, Bush might be marginally better than Clinton, but remember that Bush is for all practical purposes Hispanic himself, and Hispanic politicians are famously corrupt. Supreme Court? See Pincher Martin’s comment. Abortion? Bush will jawbone about it, and change nothing; Clinton will screech about it for fundraising purposes, but will leave existing laws pretty much as is. Health care? Clinton would push for single payer, Bush would try to salvage Obamacare and make it work. Both certainly have the capacity to blunder us into a stupid war of some kind.
Bottom line: we’re headed for the cliff, and there is nothing that’s going to stop it. The election is merely for purposes of deciding if we get there going 100 MPH or “only” 90 MPH.
Sgt. Joe Friday
January 13, 2014 at 10:57 AM
There’s a saying I encountered recently: “They wouldn’t let you vote if it made any difference.”
CamelCaseRob
January 13, 2014 at 1:44 PM
“Bridge-gate” will only hurt Christie if evidence or testimony comes to like that indicates he actually order the lane closures on the bridge. Honestly, the liberal media will try to make this a story, but barring a smoking gun that implicates Christie, this should pass. I mean, it is not like Hillary won’t have Benghazi-gate dogging her during the 2016 campaign as well.
Jay
January 13, 2014 at 3:18 PM
Welcome to Brazil. Where you are not safe if you can’t afford choppers to commute.
Colmainen
January 13, 2014 at 3:30 PM
Christie strikes me as an obnoxious bully. But I think your analysis is correct that the left is trying to preempt his candidacy because he was shaping up to be the strongest contender.
You also make a good point with your “next in line” and “heir apparent” observation of how the GOP picks its candidates. But there’s always the possibility of a dark horse emerging. Reagan was a dark horse, after all. I’m not saying it’s likely. Indeed, the GOP establishment hates dark horses and does everything it can to quash them like they tried to quash Reagan. But it’s still a remote possibility because a weak field encourages surprises and unforeseen candidates to enter the fray. A lot can happen between now and the election.
destructure
January 15, 2014 at 6:22 PM
Reagan wasn’t a dark horse in 1980 because he had a successful primary challenge to Ford in 1976, so Reagan was next-in-line in 1980, and he was nationally well known among Republicans being a famous actor and governor of the largest state. He was definitely not a dark horse.
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 15, 2014 at 9:47 PM
I’m surprised that Lion is so sure concerns about Christie’s weight sabotaging his presidential candidacy are “uttler nonsense.” We don’t normally elect very obese people to the presidency or to governorships. The idea that his obesity makes Christie just like the common man might be more plausible if he were 20-40 pounds overweight. But not at the size he is, where it is a question of his health rather than aesthetics. I’m not trying to damage the Lion’s self-esteem again, but isn’t this the kind of over-confidence that he showed about the mayor-who-shall-not-be-named? Personally, I can fall victim to this kind of wishful thinking political analysis also. Recently I found myself theorizing that Scott Walker would be the GOP’s best nominee for 2016 and making the same excuse about his being a college dropout that some people make about Christie’s weight (i.e. that this makes Walker a lot like the “common man” who drops out of college or goes to trade school.,and so would be an asset) But at least I recognize that one has to guard against the tendency to reason that a liability can easily be seen as an asset.
MaryK
January 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM
Dark horse in that the great and the good unanimously believed he was such a crazy stupid moronic hate filled stupid stupid stupid idiot he had no chance. Analogously, If Sarah Palin becomes the 2016 presidential candidate, you could argue she was not a dark horse
James A. Donald
January 15, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 15, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Possibly not, but in 1979, you would have been equally sure that Ronald Reagan was no Ronald Reagan.
James A. Donald
January 15, 2014 at 11:36 PM
I said, “the GOP establishment hates dark horses and does everything it can to quash them like they tried to quash Reagan.” I didn’t mean to imply Reagan was a dark horse. I was saying he wasn’t the establishment’s choice and they try to quash dark horses the way they tried to quash him. I should have worded that more clearly.
Now, I realize you may disagree with that as well. As you correctly point out, Reagan had been governor and run previously. So one might think him “next in line”. That definitely gave him name recognition and a leg up. It did not, however, make him the GOP establishment’s favored candidate. Rockefeller Republicans hated Reagan and only grudgingly accepted his nomination. Choosing Bush (41) as his running mate was a compromise to appease them.
destructure
January 16, 2014 at 11:01 AM
You are correct in noting that the Ds start going after Republicans they perceive as threats early and they go all in. Case in point, George Allen. The whole Macacca thing was a complete media/Democrat concoction used to undermine him early. Same thing with the overblown attention given to Perry’s debate gaffe.
But, you are wrong about the weight thing. Reagan Democrats and proles don’t admire the fat. People don’t change much after high school and fat kids aren’t selected as homecoming Kings and Queens because their fellow students (today’s proles) see obesity as a weakness. Voters expect leaders to visibly display the effects of high testosterone not estrogen. They want square jaws and buff bodies. If Perry mounts a comeback and sees Christie as a threat, expect to see ads touting Perry’s energy and stamina as a means of highlighting this particular weakness of Christie’s. Perry fits the stereotype of a leader closer than does any other GOP potential candidate because he’s virile and attractive, just like Reagan. And, stereotypes exist for a reason.
Curle
January 18, 2014 at 4:24 PM