Posted on 02/26/2012 9:25:48 AM PST by VU4G10
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday defended Mitt Romney against criticism that his wealth complicates his ability to connect with everyday folks, saying Romney’s wealth should be a positive factor in the race.
“I think that’s what we want in a president of the United States,” Christie told host Bob Schieffer CBS’s “Face the Nation,” saying that Romney's wealth is a reflection of his success.
His defense came after Romney noted in a Michigan speech Friday that his wife Ann drives “a couple of Cadillacs.”
“So the cat’s out of the bag, Bob, on the fact that Governor Romney’s wealthy,” Christie said. “So he has a number of cars, many people who’ve made a lot of money over time do. I think this is just something where, to be candid, folks are looking for him to make trip ups.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Christie is a doofus, too, if he doesn’t realize that Romney is tone deaf.
The proper response is for Christie to shut up in public, call Romney by back-channel and say, “Hey, DUDE, can you stop saying stupid crap in public that feeds Obama’s caricaturing you as out of touch and vulture corporatist? Seriously, Mitt, no more stuff about “firing people” and “not caring about the poor” and “10,000 dollar bets” and “driving luxury cars.” Don’t you have any better control than to keep stepping on your ______ like this?!!”
You do have something against rifles, you want many banned, why?
You are the first true liberal on guns that I think I have seen here, are you going to tell us what so offends you about our rifles?
Do you really think our semi-automatic rifles are “assault weapons” or that some Democrat police chiefs should determine what the second amendment says.
Good grief. What an over reaction. Your words alone leave no room for debate nor or you interested in anyone’s opinion other than your own. If my opinion about assault weapons is liberal, so was Reagan’s, George H.W.Bush, George W. Bush and Chris Christie. Along with many other conservatives who are pro guns. I am in good company.
The so-called assault weapons ban only takes semi-auto knockoffs of AK47s and AR16s off the street. Functionally, rifles no different than a semi-auto hunting rifle. And if you can ban a semi-auto rifle, the next step is to ban semi-auto handguns. Incrementalism at its finest (or worst).
As usual, a gun grabber demonstrates his abject ignorance of the underlying subject matter.
What “assault rifles”? Your leftist views against the second amendment are obscene, thank God that conservatives have managed to overcome ignorance and liberalism like yours.
This is truly one of those times when freerepublic can say, take your leftist views to DU.
Oh stop. That is just silly. Go insult someone else.
Fighting anti-second amendment leftists like you has been one of conservatism’s primary goals, now most Americans can purchase and own their sporting rifles, although in California, you DU types still have much influence.
Christie really doesn’t get it. People don’t care if he is rich, it is all the other things wrong with him that Christie really doesn’t understand.
Christie is another NE liberal republican that can’t figure it out.
What’s the BFD anyway? Everyone in my middle class, working stiff neighborhood has two or three cars.
Stop with the “liberal” and DU crap. That has no depth or substance. And no one has said anything about getting rid of the second amendment. No one wants to. The right to bear arms will be here as long as we are, for good reason. You make no attempt to discuss the subject. As I said, the DU rhetoric and lefty/liberal crap is just that. I will not attempt to have a discussion with you about why my opinion is such as it is. You are rude and insulting and again, your argument has no depth or substance. Just childish name calling. Go away.
Must not have been long enough ago -- his manner and words are so often what used to be ridiculed as nouveau riche behavior, i.e., so impressed with how much money he has he can't really let anyone forget it lest they not be as impressed as he is!
Really. Please explain those critical differences.
One thing interesting. I had a Navy Seal and a Marine tell me basically the same thing. Not word for word but the same sentiment. And they have never met. They told me about a year apart. They said the military and law enforcement does not want military weapons in the hands of civilians for two reasons. One...the kind of people who would buy military assault weapons are the types of people you dont want to have any weapons. Two..the types of people you do want to have weapons, they would never purchase military assault weapons. I understood exactly what they were saying.
Dirtboy, you and I both know you do not need to ask that question. You know well the answer.
You are even nuttier and more ignorant than I thought.
You don’t even seem to know what an “assault rifle” is or what makes a “military assault rifle” what it is.
Why would an American choose a Democrat Chief of Police to define the Bill of Rights for his city, unless that weirdo person was a hard core lefty?
No, you made the claim, you back it up. Please tell us how your rifle is so vastly different from the semi-auto assault weapons you think should be banned from private ownership.
Please explain to us how a semi-auto version of an AK-47 is a military weapon.
Who assigned you the role of telling us who does and does not belong here on FR? I missed that memo.
This is definitely a pro-gun site, and you are calling for gun legislation to restrict the second amendment, you are preaching that left-wing view which is why you belong at DU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.