Replies

I'm not crazy about Christie, and I agree with the author in much of what he says, but his "take no prisoners, admit no uncertainties, recognize no ambiguities" approach is off-putting.

Just about any Republican who can get the nomination is likely to be called a RINO (unless they've been given immunity, as Reagan was), because any governor or senator from a large state has probably had to make compromises to make it as far as he or she did.

Any Republican who loses a presidential election is likely to get called a RINO and (a loser) because they've had to make such compromises to get as far as they did, and because there's an interest in claiming that they were anything but a true conservative (unless this is absolutely deniable, as was the case with Goldwater).

Any Republican who wins the presidency is going to be called a RINO who doesn't do anything to decrease the size of government (unless, like Ronald Reagan, they've been given an immunity), even though there are real limits to what any president can do to reduce the size of government.

I'm not saying that Christie should get the nomination or that McCain and Romney weren't moderates. I'm just tired of this guy hitting people over the head with weak arguments and half-truths. There is no sure-fire way to elect a Republican president, especially nowadays, and no guarantee that Lord's favorite strategies will work.

Whatever Christie's faults, comparing any candidate to Reagan is going to make that candidate look bad. The implication that this is still Reagan's America is something else that can't be taken for granted either.