Skip to comments.Chris Christie’s conservative problem
Posted on 01/13/2014 2:40:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
"........Even assuming that Christies disavowal of complicity holds up, he faces a long-term challenge in laying this story to rest. History suggests that beating back a scandal requires one or more of these assets: (1) a strong partisan or ideological base; (2) overreach by your adversaries; or (3) a charge that doesnt fit peoples perceptions of you. Christie has trouble on all three fronts.
If Christie has a base, it consists of Wall Street donors, a media fascinated by his persona and relative moderation, and some but by no means all members of the non-tea-party-wing of the Republican Party.
He does not have the committed ideological core that Ronald Reagan could rely on to overcome Iran-Contra. He does not have the Democratic base that stuck with Bill Clinton during his sex scandal because the excesses of a special prosecutor and then of a Republican House that impeached him came to enrage Democrats even more than Clintons misbehavior.
What of Christies base? Wall Street is fickle and pragmatic. The media can turn on a dime. And the Republican establishment, such as it is, has alternatives. Oh, yes, Christie also has support from some machine Democrats in New Jersey who have made deals with him. But they will be even more pragmatic than Wall Street.
Overreach by ones enemies is always a possibility, but there are no signs of this yet. Christies detractors have every reason to take things slowly and methodically. They will enjoy dragging this out."......
...Christie has one other obstacle, and this may be the most important. A great many conservatives never trusted him, and a tale that plays so perfectly into their critique of government could make things worse....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The group that see this as a scandal is bitshat crazy liberal.
Benghazi? Fast n Furious? IRS?
If Christie is the best that the Republicans can offer up, America is finished. Welcome to the USSA. Karl is smiling from his grave.
His problem is not really being conservative, his end justifies his means.
Did Rove pass away?
Well, bipartisan Republicans just saw how quick their leftwing friends abandoned one of their guys...doubt this will stop Christie from bashing Conservatives tho.
“Did Rove pass away?”
I think you know who I am referring to :)
Do not, however, forget the multitude of post on FR that referred to Carl Rove as “Rove, you magnificent bastard”.
Christie is the best of the RINO herd. Hopefully, we not need to worry about him or any other RINO stealing the nomination again.
We need their support and money, but we don’t need their candidates. We tried two of them in 2008 and 2012 and had to suffer through two terms and two near miss elections with a third back in 2004 and 2000.
America is a serious crossroads and we need a candidate who is another Reagan, not another go-along get along stool pigeon.
The best thing that comes out of this whole affair is irrefutable proof that:
a) The Media is blatantly biased (as if anyone needed that)
b) Obama’s failures to perform as a leader with even WORSE scandals
c) The leftwing media will turn on a dime against a liberal Republican as quickly as they will turn on a conservative
d) The Democrat party’s hypocracy.
But then, being informed conservatives we knew all that already. I just hope this provides evidence even the average ignorant American voter can’t ignore and the GOP learns to play this right.
However, as Harris Faulkner’s Group on FOX last night proved, its not enough to run as “we are not Democrats” as your party program. You need to provide alternatives on health care, jobs, foreign policy etc., enunciate them clearly and go after Obama and the Dems VIGOROUSLY whenever possible - something the GOP has s far failed to do.
He's not a conservative. Problem solved.
The liberal media wants Christie to run...they want to harpoon him in the general election in ‘16
The PhonyCon RINOs will still push him, though
Christie’s problem in national politics (assuming he even has any aspirations outside of New Jersey, which isn’t a certainty anyway) is that he’d be hard-pressed to get any traction west of the Delaware River.
He was toast before this to conservatives. (Arm in arm with Obama, sucking to get tax dollars?). Not a pretty picture, not a picture of conservatism.
Further perpetuating the lie that the whole thing was about sex or "misbehavior". Clinton lied to a grand jury and was impeached for it.
Yes I knew.
"....................Because the transformation they seek is still total, the power they seek is total. No matter how many compromises they strike along the way. The compromises are themselves integral to the strategy of their mission. The transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them.
In Peggy Noonans psychological portrait one can trace the outlines of the progressive persona I have just described. Noonan observes that the liberalism of the Clinton era is very different from the liberalism of the past. Clinton-era liberalism is manipulative and deceptive and not ultimately interested in what real people think because they might think the wrong thing.
That is why, according to Noonan, Hillary Clintons famous plan that would have socialized American health care was the work of a progressive cabal that shrouded itself in secrecy to the point of illegality. Noonan labels Clinton-era politics command and control liberalism, using a phrase with a deliberately totalitarian ring. But, like so many conservatives I have come to know, Noonan is finally too decent and too generous to fully appreciate the pathology she is confronting.
She begins her inquiry by invoking Richard Nixons comment that only two kinds of people run for high office in America, those who want to do big things and those who want to be big people. She identifies both Clintons as very much, perhaps completely, the latter sort, and clinically examines their narcissism by way of unlocking the mystery of who they really are.
Regarding the husband, Peggy Noonan is probably right. I do not think of Bill Clinton as a leftist inspired by ideas of a socially just world, or as having even a passing interest in the healing of cosmic orders. He is more readily understood as a borderline socio-path. Fully absorbed in the ambitions of self, Clinton is a political chameleon who assumes the coloration of his environments and the constituencies on which his fortunes have come to depend.
Hillary Clinton is not so slippery. Despite the cynicism she shares with her husband, one can clearly observe an ideological spine that creates political difficulties for her he would instinctively avoid. This is not to deny the force of her personal ambitions, or the power of her narcissistic regard. But these attitudes could also be expected in any member of a self-appointed elite, especially one like the left, which is based on moral election.
For this reason, it is difficult to separate the narcissistic from the ideological in the psychology of the political missionary. Do they advance the faith for its own sake, or because advancing the faith leads to their canonization as saints? Do the Lenins of history sacrifice normal life in order to achieve big things or because they crave the adulation the achievement brings? It is probably impossible finally to answer the question. But we can observe that the narcissism of Stalin -- ex-seminarian, Father of the Peoples and epic doer of revolutionary big deeds -- makes the Clintons soap opera of self-love thin gruel to compare.
Despite their life-long collaboration, Bill and Hillary are different political beings in the end. Indeed her marital rages provoked by a partner whose adolescent lusts put their collective mission at risk is probably a good measure of how different they are.
In their way of thinking, Noonan writes of the Clintons, America is an important place, but not a thing of primary importance. America is the platform for the Clintons ambitions, not the focus of them. The implication is that if they were principled emissaries of a political cause, the ambition to do big things for America would override all others. Instead, they have focused on themselves and consequently have made the American political landscape itself a lower and lesser thing.
They have behaved as though they are justified in using any tactic in pursuit of their goals, including illegality, deception, libel, threats and ruining the lives of perceived enemies They believe, she continues, they are justified in using any means to achieve their ends for a simple and uncomplicated reason. It is that they are superior individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership. They do it for themselves; for the continuance of Them.
But the fact is that they all do it. The missionaries of the big progressive causes, the Steinems, the Irelands, the Michelmans, the Friedans, and Hillary Clinton herself all were willing to toss their feminist movement and its principles overboard to give Bill Clinton a pass on multiple sexual harassments and, in fact, a career of sexual predation that reflects utter contempt for the female gender. Indeed, the Clinton-Lewinsky defense that the feminists made possible can be regarded as feminisms Nazi-Soviet Pact. Their calculation was as simple as it was crude: If Clinton was impeached and removed, Hillary would go too. But she was their link to patronage and power, and they couldnt contemplate losing that. Their kind was finally in control, and the conservative enemies of their beautiful future were not. There was nothing they wouldnt do or sacrifice to keep it that way.
Almost a decade earlier -- in the name of the very principles they so casually betrayed for Clinton -- the same feminists had organized the disgraceful public lynching of Clarence Thomas. Despite fiercely proclaimed commitments to the racial victims of American injustice, they launched a vicious campaign to destroy the reputation of an African American jurist who had risen, reputation unblemished, from dirt-shack poverty in the segregated south to the nations high courts. They did it knowingly, cynically, with the intent to destroy him in his person, and to ruin his public career.
Has there ever been a more reprehensible witch-hunt in American public life than the one organized by the feminist leaders who then emerged as vocal defenders of the White House lecher? Was there ever a more sordid betrayal of common decency than this collective defamation -- for which no apology has been or ever will be given?
What was the sin Clarence Thomas committed to earn such judgment? The allegation that he had talked inappropriately ten years previously to a female lawyer and made her uncomfortable -- appears laughable in the post-Lewinsky climate of presidential gropings and borderline rapes that the same feminists sanctioned for their political accomplice. Thomas real crime, as everybody knew but was too intimidated by the hysteria to confirm at the time, was his commitment to constitutional principles they hated. They hated these principles because the Constitution was drafted with the explicit idea of thwarting their socialist dreams a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or any other improper or wicked project -- as James Madison wrote in Federalist #10.
Peggy Noonan is right. The focus of Hillary Clintons ambition is not her country. But it is not merely herself either. It is also a place that does not exist. It is the vision of a world that can only be realize when the Chosen accumulate enough power to destroy this one. ...........
.....They see Clinton quite clearly as a flawed and often repellent human being. They see him as a lecher, a liar and a man who would destroy an innocent human being in order to advance his own career (this is, in fact, the climactic drama of the text). Yet through all the sordidness and lying, the personal ruthlessness and disorder, the idealistic missionaries faithfully follow and serve their leader.
They do it not because they are themselves corrupted and bought off through material rewards. The prospect of material return or fame is not what drives them. Think only of Ickes, personally betrayed and brutally cast aside by Clinton, who nonetheless refused to turn on him, even after the betrayal. Instead, Ickes kept his own counsel and protected Clinton, biding his time and waiting for Hillary to make her move, then joined her staff to manage her Senate campaign.
The idealistic missionaries in this true tale bite their tongues and betray their principles, rather than betray him. They do so because in Bill Clinton they see a necessary vehicle of their noble ambition and their chiliastic dreams. He, too, cares about social justice, about poor people and blacks (or so he makes them believe). They will serve him and lie for him and destroy for him, because he is the vessel of their salvationist hopes. Because Bill Clinton can gain the keys to the state, he is in their eyes the only prospect for advancing the progressive cause. Therefore, they will sacrifice anything and everything to make him succeed.
But Bill Clinton is not like those who worship him, corrupting himself and others for a higher cause. Unlike them, he betrays principles because he has none. He will even betray his country, but without the slightest need to betray it for something else for an idea, a party, a cause. He is a narcissist who sacrifices principle for power because his vision is so filled up with himself that he cannot tell the difference.
But the idealists who serve him -- the Stephanopouloss, the Ickess, the feminists, the progressives and Hillary -- can tell the difference. Their cyncism flows from the very perception they have of right and wrong. They do it for noble ends. They do it for the progressive faith. They do it because they see themselves as gods, as having the power -- through correct politics -- to redeem the world. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their means........" Progressive Narcissism - Hillary Clinton and the Third Way [June 2000]
He’s got bigger problems, he’s out of donuts again.
It may be too that RINOs want to get Christie out the way so Jebbie can step forward to applause.