Althouse: The most popular Republican in the country.

November 27, 2012

The most popular Republican in the country.

Chris Christie.

121 comments:

Robert Cook said...: Perhaps it's because more and more Americans are looking like Christie all the time. They identify with him.; 11/27/12, 11:48 AM
MadisonMan said...: Popular among whom?

The article only quotes a New Jersey poll.; 11/27/12, 11:50 AM
jungatheart said...: Not a fan, and not because of his weight. Not into the tough-guy smart-ass routine.; 11/27/12, 11:51 AM
Oso Negro said...: I believe it would be better for the country if he switches to the Democratic Party. They could use some freshening up.; 11/27/12, 11:51 AM
ndspinelli said...: Once whiney Republicans get over this election he might become the most popular Repub among Repubs. This is just Jersey. Christie took his cue from Guiliani during 9/11. That popularity did not translate nationwide.; 11/27/12, 11:53 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Could we have a six week vacation from politics?; 11/27/12, 11:54 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Means nothing. The Obama hugger is finished in the Republican party.

Whatever other attributes he might have, he's too politically stupid (e.g. on role of optics) to be trusted with any major banner wearing.; 11/27/12, 11:55 AM
Tim said...: From the article:

"Christie even gets positive marks from 67 percent of Democrats. Just 17 percent of all registered voters in the Garden State say they disapprove of his performance."

And none of those Democrats will vote for him for president.

And Republicans won't (likely) forgive him his all-to-sloppy and ham-handed compliment of Obama in the closing days of the '12 election.

In other words, as of now, no chance.; 11/27/12, 11:56 AM
rehajm said...: Watch for the forthcoming Sunday Times think piece weighing the risks and tragic outcomes of electing an obese president (Don't those Republicans realize what a horrible role model he is for our children?)

Oh yes, and the fat jokes...; 11/27/12, 11:57 AM
Tank said...: I'm from NJ, voted for the guy, and like his persona, but ...

really, as a conservative / libertarian type, the best you can say is that he's about as good as you're gonna get in NJ where Mr. Wonderful was wonderfully popular.

From the conservative viewpoint, he's no big deal. He's the kind of Republican Karl Rove would like.; 11/27/12, 11:59 AM
KCFleming said...: Super-size the gubmint.

Surely, it's what we need.; 11/27/12, 12:00 PM
rhhardin said...: Organized crime is very popular.; 11/27/12, 12:00 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: We're sure to get a viral YouTube video when Gov. Christie unzips his fat suit.; 11/27/12, 12:00 PM
Farmer said...: deborah said...
Not a fan, and not because of his weight. Not into the tough-guy smart-ass routine.

Nor is my wife. She's already warned me that if he gets the nomination in '16 she's automatically voting for whoever runs against him.; 11/27/12, 12:12 PM
jr565 said...: Newt Gingrich was really popular for about three minutes when he mouthed off at the debates to the moderator. That popularity lasted about 3 minutes.
George Bush had 90% popularity for about a day. That kind of popularity is momentary and situational.
Christie is NOT popular with many conservatives, nor with most liberals.
Once he gest into a match with the teachers union again, it will be back to Christie being the jerk.
But he might be popular enough to keep his governorship. Just not popular enough to do something outside of Jersey.
But then agian, people have short memories. So you never know. Perhaps he can maintain this indefinitely.; 11/27/12, 12:14 PM
Sam L. said...: Most popular? Why should I take WaPo's word for it? Or anything else?; 11/27/12, 12:18 PM
edutcher said...: He's most popular in the same way Todd Akin was the most popular in MO.; 11/27/12, 12:20 PM
Paul said...: We already have a surfeit of economic illiteracy in the current administration. Republicans need to provide a clear alternative and Big Fatty McButterbutt ain't it.; 11/27/12, 12:21 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: So now we know who the media wants to foist upon the GOP as the next loser. Shove Christie to the front, and THAT takes a lot of work given his heft, and set him up to be popped like a Macy's Thankgsiving Day balloon in the next election.

The stupid RINOs will fall for it all over again.

We are so fucking screwed.; 11/27/12, 12:24 PM
prairie wind said...: Super-size the gubmint.

Done. Though they are still working on the super-duper-sizing.; 11/27/12, 12:29 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Guiliani is the right example.

He might be popular in the Northeast but has no chance in the rest of the country.

No real Republican would jump on the back of this Rhino.; 11/27/12, 12:33 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Perhaps it's because more and more Americans are looking like Christie all the time. They identify with him.

I'm curious Mr. Cook, based upon your apparent disdain for America and Americans, are you from abroad looking in or a fellow American who feels empowered degrading the very country you live in?; 11/27/12, 12:36 PM
chickelit said...: A downside of Christie is that he has zero political appeal outside of the east coast. He will have to be leaveraged west somehow.; 11/27/12, 12:37 PM
chickelit said...: The outsized bubble that needs bursting is centered in Washington DC. I suspect that Christie is popular with many in the mid-Atlantic region, but that doesn't carry weight further south and west.; 11/27/12, 12:40 PM
Colonel Angus said...: We already have a surfeit of economic illiteracyin thecurrent administration. Republicans need to provide a clear alternative and Big Fatty McButterbutt ain't it.

The GOP had that in Romney but the electorate decided on Big Bird and birth control.; 11/27/12, 12:40 PM
chickelit said...: I guess the Baron already made my point.; 11/27/12, 12:41 PM
Baron Zemo said...: You like to watch Tony Soprano on HBO once a week.

You are not going to vote for him for President.

He is not any broad's imaginary boyfriend. He doesn't get the Republicans the empty vagina vote.

Marco "Enrique Iglesias" Rubio
at least has a chance to get the cat ladies vag's wet. Just sayn'; 11/27/12, 12:43 PM
Tank said...: Colonel Angus said...

Perhaps it's because more and more Americans are looking like Christie all the time. They identify with him.

I'm curious Mr. Cook, based upon your apparent disdain for America and Americans, are you from abroad looking in or a fellow American who feels empowered degrading the very country you live in?

Oddly enough, though Cook and I come from opposite ends of the political spectrum (mostly), we've got similarly negative opinions of our politicians and citizens. Can't speak for him, I'm from NJ and don't need to justify having a negative opinion of where this country is going. It is what it is.; 11/27/12, 12:45 PM
Alex said...: Fat fat mcfatty mcpoopy pants.; 11/27/12, 12:45 PM
Alex said...: The decline of America is witnessed from rejecting a great man like Romney to embracing a fat bastard like Christie.; 11/27/12, 12:46 PM
chickelit said...: Marco "Enrique Iglesias" Rubio
at least has a chance to get the cat ladies vag's wet. Just sayn'

O Rubio, Rubio! wherefore art thou, Rubio?; 11/27/12, 12:48 PM
John said...: Christie needs to run in 2016. He is a fat, loud mouthed ignoramus who loves big government and free things. If that is not 2012 America, what is?; 11/27/12, 12:48 PM
David said...: Will Christie go third party in 2016 if denied the Republican nomination?

And who would that hurt?; 11/27/12, 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I've got three words for all you fat critics, "William Howard Taft".; 11/27/12, 1:10 PM
McTriumph said...: I'd have to agree with Tank's first comment, besides republicans don't win with east coast moderate candidates that have to run from their record in the primaries.; 11/27/12, 1:15 PM
MadisonMan said...: I think Christie would make a splendid VP candidate -- saying all the truthy things that the actual candidate can't say, but that everyone is actually thinking.; 11/27/12, 1:17 PM
Rabel said...: As Madman pointed out, there's nothing in the article or the polls cited to back up the headline.

Why does the Post get to pick the Republican candidate. Wouldn't it be easier to just let Obama make the selection.; 11/27/12, 1:20 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @McTriumph,

republicans don't win with east coast moderate candidates

I don't think ANYBODY wins with East Coast candidates.

There hasn't been an East Coaster in the WH since Kennedy.

I suspect that voter animosity based on regional stereotype pretending to be animosity based on Romney's personality had much to do with the fact that Romney couldn't take those last few percenters over the finish line.; 11/27/12, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: I like him! Him and Jindal, Abbott and Costello, but seriously I DO like him and I can see that some right leaning Democrats would vote for him.

He may not be "pure" enough for the hard right though, too bad they are so stubborn, how many elections do they need to lose before they understand? Oh well, no skin off of Democrats noses.

And Christie could lose a great deal of that extra weight, so as to be in good physical condition for the strenuous Presidential campaign in 2016.; 11/27/12, 1:23 PM
damikesc said...: I think Christie would make a splendid VP candidate -- saying all the truthy things that the actual candidate can't say, but that everyone is actually thinking.

Agreed. Christie as VP would be an inspired choice. Could decimate whatever drooling moron the Dems run and wouldn't tolerate the type of bullshit Biden unleashed on Ryan.

We learned "behaving like an adult" is a losing political strategy, alas.; 11/27/12, 1:24 PM
hombre said...: O-o-o, cool. Here's the WaPo telling the other side who to love.

(Although the NYT says nobody loves the WaPo any more.); 11/27/12, 1:32 PM
Nora said...: This is the usual WP head line spin. There is no any indication that CC is the most popular in the "country", only in NJ.

He is a good populist and most probably shows higher visibility in the inflicted area, since this is what matters. Recovery success can't be measured, because this can only be made by comparison, and there is nothing to compare it to.; 11/27/12, 1:35 PM
KCFleming said...: "...how many elections do they need to lose before they understand?"

Apparently all of them, or at least until insolvency. All bleeding stops, Inga, eventually.

Our nation is bleeding, and Obama stuck a large-bore tube in the artery and let it fly.

Christie wants to do the same, with maybe a slightly smaller bore, or a red-colored one, not blue.

Lo mismo.; 11/27/12, 1:36 PM
chickelit said...: And Christie could lose a great deal of that extra weight, so as to be in good physical condition for the strenuous Presidential campaign in 2016.

He could have a chance in 2016 if he broadened his popular base outside of New Jersey and if he made downsizing the bloated DC beltway his own personal crusade. Slim chance from what I see. But hey, it's early.; 11/27/12, 1:46 PM
chickelit said...: "Tighten The Beltway" could be his mantra.; 11/27/12, 1:47 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Oddly enough, though Cook and I come from opposite ends of the political spectrum (mostly), we've got similarly negative opinions of our politicians and citizens.

I think there is constructive criticism and then outright disdain. Rather like the parent who only sees the bad in their child.

I will concur that we are headed down a path that is not sustainable because people like Mr. Cook think we need a big government that takes care of our every need rather than a smaller one whose purpose is to foster and create an environment where we can achieve prosperity through individualism and self reliance.; 11/27/12, 1:49 PM
Baron Zemo said...: The Republicans lost because the last two times we ran Rhinos who were afraid to fight. To get down and dirty. We are never going to win the empty vagina vote unless we run an imaginary boyfriend like Rubio who can lie and disemble enough to get by.

We just need a sliver here and there of the empty vags and Hispanics and we are good to go.

Wedge issues and negative campaigning are the way to win.

Barry showed us that once again.

We won't get fooled again.; 11/27/12, 1:50 PM
Alex said...: Christie should go low carb and eat a ton of steaks.; 11/27/12, 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't forget the Asian vote.; 11/27/12, 1:51 PM
Colonel Angus said...: I'm surprised Christie is suddenly so popular among Democrats because I recall them saying he sat at the right hand of Satan when he was being mean to teachers unions.

Evidently a little Obama ass kissing will get you indulgences with liberals.; 11/27/12, 1:54 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Snowing here in NJ.; 11/27/12, 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Colonel Angus said...
I'm surprised Christie is suddenly so popular among Democrats because I recall them saying he sat at the right hand of Satan when he was being mean to teachers unions.

Remember the point when John McCain was the liberals favorite Republican, and the NYT couldn't keep talking about his bi-partisanship?

Until he ran against Obama and McCain became the dangerous right-wing conservative; 11/27/12, 1:58 PM
garage mahal said...: Christie would create a huge splash should he enter the race. Seismic!; 11/27/12, 2:00 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Until he ran against Obama and McCain became the dangerous right-wing conservative

Indeed. Unlike others, I didn't think Christie did anything wrong by chumming to Obama. He gave him the respect as President and particularly when NJ would need Federal aid. Last time I checked Christie still endorsed Romney.; 11/27/12, 2:03 PM
Tim said...: "We won't get fooled again."

Yes, yes we will.

A majority of Americans are now too stupid to vote for a sustainable future.

November '12 was an intelligence test, as was November '08.

America failed both times.

You see California, over there on the Pacific Coast?

That's America's future.; 11/27/12, 2:04 PM
Tank said...: Tim, like Tank and Cook, shows disdain.

It's been earned.; 11/27/12, 2:05 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: What happened to the Christie love?

I think Christie would make a splendid VP candidate -- saying all the truthy things that the actual candidate can't say, but that everyone is actually thinking.

That might be ideal. Especially if you had someone mild-mannered, like Ryan, at the top of the ticket.; 11/27/12, 2:07 PM
Tim said...: "Last time I checked Christie still endorsed Romney."

True, but for low information voters (i.e., the idiots for whom the previous four years made no impression), Christie's comments were de facto endorsements of Obama.

Exit polls prove Obama's "response" to Hurricane Sandy was highly influential/decisive for 42% of the electorate deciding at the end.

Christie's comments basically said, "Obama is the man."

An experienced politician, such as Christie, had to know the effect his comments would have. There's no way he could not have known.

That make them unforgivable.

Although I will readily acknowledge that wasn't *the reason* Romney lost.

It goes back to the electorate.

OJ had his jury.

Obama had his electorate.; 11/27/12, 2:09 PM
Lydia said...: Baron Zemo said: We are never going to win the empty vagina vote unless we run an imaginary boyfriend like Rubio who can lie and disemble enough to get by.

Agree. But if it's going to be Rubio, he has got to lose the comb-over.; 11/27/12, 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Not that I would vote for him, but if you're looking for independent votes, you'll get them with Christie far more likely than you would with Ryan, who couldn't even win his own hometown.; 11/27/12, 2:11 PM
Tim said...: "It's been earned."

Indeed. Exponentially so.

I love my country.

But it no longer exists as imagined in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's second inaugural, and fought for across nearly countless battlefields.

Now, it's just a parasites paradise.

And that won't last much longer.

In the end, it's a God-damned shame, too. But Aristotle and Tocqueville warned us.

We, all of us, were too stupid to pay attention.; 11/27/12, 2:14 PM
McTriumph said...: YoungHegelian

Actually, the key word in my post was "moderate".; 11/27/12, 2:15 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Exit polls prove Obama's "response" to Hurricane Sandy was highly influential/decisive for 42% of the electorate deciding at the end.

I don't think that had anything to do with Christie but rather Obama donning a bomber jacket and looking presidential.

As for the electorate, Americans aren't much different than from abroad where most vote based on what can be done for them, not necessarily the country as a whole. That's why incumbants in Congressional elections have a 85% reelection rate. Obama won because he promised more goodies that he will get the 1% to pay for.; 11/27/12, 2:20 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Not that I would vote for him, but if you're looking for independent votes, you'll get them with Christie far more likely than you would with Ryan,

This is pure nonsense. Romney was about as affable a moderate GOP you could get and he still couldn't win. Pairing him or another moderate up with Christie would have the same result.

The electorate evidently wants a more intrusive and overbearing Federal government so I say they should get it and get it hard.; 11/27/12, 2:25 PM
chickelit said...: Inga said...
Not that I would vote for him, but if you're looking for independent votes, you'll get them with Christie far more likely than you would with Ryan, who couldn't even win his own hometown.

I think you're discounting whether or not we move more towards the sort of fiscal disaster Ryan was warning us about. If Obama forestalls an extended recession or depression, you may be right. If not, you're surely wrong. Even your personal idol can't change math.; 11/27/12, 2:38 PM
rcommal said...: Christie has been doing his job and speaking his mind. Both are good for his current responsibilities and I salute him. 2016 is a long time away, and I am going to wait and see before I assess, decide or predict anything. I am a longtime Chris Christie fan (have followed his career for decades) and I cheered when he ran for a governorship. Go, Chris, go! was my standard phrase. But I never wanted him to run for president in 2012, and I always said, "Let's see how how/what he does as a governor for at least one term." That remains my stance. Meanwhile, I wish him well.; 11/27/12, 2:48 PM
rcommal said...: I think there is some aptness in the comparisons to Guiliani, but I also think they're taken too far. There are significant differences, even in terms of their personal lives and profiles, though not just in those areas.; 11/27/12, 2:52 PM
chickelit said...: @rcommaL: And I have followed Christie vicariously through your unique insights. Thanks for that.; 11/27/12, 2:55 PM
rcommal said...: I also admire Cory Booker, by the way. Don't know that he's an automatic shoo-in over Christie, though. He recently managed to really piss off some influential locals, political-machine speaking, in Newark, for example, which demonstrated some surprising, if small(???) cracks. It's gonna be interesting, that's for sure.; 11/27/12, 2:56 PM
damikesc said...: Not that I would vote for him, but if you're looking for independent votes, you'll get them with Christie far more likely than you would with Ryan, who couldn't even win his own hometown.

Given that Romney/Ryan comfortably won independent voters...I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Independent voters are irrelevant. Aiming for winning them is dumb politically. Fire up the base above all else.; 11/27/12, 2:58 PM
virgil xenophon said...: LarsP/

W.H. Taft came before the day of TV and the video-cam..NO 300lb man will EVER be elected President again--or even appointed Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.--no matter WHAT his qualifications..; 11/27/12, 3:08 PM
rcommal said...: I think the category of independent voter qua independent voter is much different than it was in the past and it's increasingly so, and for that reason a lot of punditry based on it is fundamentally flawed. For one thing, many more people self-categorize that way than used to be the case, and--again, I think--they fall into different subcategories. I think there was a time when "independent" overlapped substantially with "moderate," but I tend to think that's not really so, anymore, not really.; 11/27/12, 3:10 PM
Paul said...: "'We won't get fooled again.'

Yes, yes we will.

A majority of Americans are now too stupid to vote for a sustainable future.

November '12 was an intelligence test, as was November '08.

America failed both times.

You see California, over there on the Pacific Coast?

That's America's future."

This.

We are now officially in the idiocracy phase of America's accelerating decline.

The dominant culture is defined and populated by the liberal democrats.

White men bad. Women and minorities good. Obama is cool. Any Republican is uncool at best and most likely stupid and evil.

Economic and historic illiteracy is rampant, and the electorate is now simply too ignorant to elect a sane and responsible government.

That ship sailed three weeks ago.

For good.; 11/27/12, 3:16 PM
rcommal said...: And swing voters I would put as one of the subcategories (and even it I would subcategorize). Another example of a subcategory of independents would at least a substantial portion of tea partiers. And there are still others.

In other words, independents are not a bloc. I think the whole model needs to be updated.; 11/27/12, 3:16 PM
rcommal said...: My 2 cents, is all. Now back to it. Movers arrive in 1 week. Yikes!; 11/27/12, 3:20 PM
virgil xenophon said...: Unfortunately Tim, DBQ and Paul are right--the Ship of State is "Sailing to Bamboola."; 11/27/12, 3:24 PM
mccullough said...: It's not like the Dems can shed any tears over Jon Corzine now. After Christie defeated him, he want back to Wall Street and ran MF Global into the ground betting on Greek bonds and stealing $1.6 billion in client-segregated funds at MF Global.

Of course, Eric Holder is going to give him a pass.

Corzine combined incompetence at betting on European sovereing with corruption of stealing segregated client funds. He was a loyal Dem. Senator and Governor and big-time Obama fundraiser.

Maybe he can run as the Dem. nominee in 2016.; 11/27/12, 3:36 PM
mccullough said...: In other words, Corzine is actually the guy Obama claimed Romney was. A wealthy, corrupt, incompetent plutocrat.; 11/27/12, 3:38 PM
James Pawlak said...: Not with me. He actively supports Muslims and Islam. Islam is a criminal-terrorist movement, with a very thin "religious" veneer as was the KKK. Its basic teaching and practices are opposite to the best principles of democracy.; 11/27/12, 4:15 PM
virgil xenophon said...: Great point mccullough!; 11/27/12, 4:17 PM
Paul said...: "In other words, Corzine is actually the guy Obama claimed Romney was. A wealthy, corrupt, incompetent plutocrat."

You are absolutely right.

But it means nothing because the perception as controlled by the left-owned media is something entirely different.

When the media and government are in cahoots democracy can simply no longer function as a democracy's most basic requirement is an informed electorate.

What we have instead is a feedback loop where the media covers up and lies for the government, leading the government to become ever more bold in its corruption and dishonesty as it knows the media always going to filter the flow of information to its advantage.

The end result is a criminal and totalitarian state.

We are not fully there yet but we are inexorably on the way now.; 11/27/12, 4:27 PM
Astro said...: No. Just... No.
Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Bill Whittle or go away.; 11/27/12, 4:46 PM
rcommal said...: Interesting. (Seriously, not snarkily.) Does everyone find those three to be all that similar?; 11/27/12, 4:49 PM
edutcher said...: Lem said...

Snowing here in NJ.

Jolly!

I'll bet all those people still without power are so glad they voted for Barry.

mccullough said...

In other words, Corzine is actually the guy Obama claimed Romney was. A wealthy, corrupt, incompetent plutocrat.

It was there for anyone to see.; 11/27/12, 4:56 PM
tim maguire said...: Much like Mike Bloomberg, Christie's typical of the popular Blue State Republican--a surprising number of people are utterly clueless about what that means at the national level.

Christie is exciting on Youtube, but he's not a conservative and the Democrats who sing his praises aren't going to vote for him. He's cryptonite on too many national issues.; 11/27/12, 5:08 PM
machine said...: Ya burnt...again.; 11/27/12, 5:48 PM
Saint Croix said...: Palin was polling around 90%, I think, before the media decided to assassinate her character.

I think the lesson from 2012, and the Kerry defeat from 2004, is that neither party should nominate a rich guy for President. It was particularly a hard sell in bad economic times. I think Romney is a very smart guy, and was not a bad candidate at all. But the Democrats demonized him as rich, and managed to stoke enough resentment against him that he was voted down precisely for that reason.

"Hate the rich." That was the Obama campaign in 2012. And what's really sad is that it dooms us all to four more years of economic decline. And I fear it will be really steep and ugly economic decline. Bigotry is a really shitty reason to vote against somebody.

Christie is pretty much exactly where Romney is on the political spectrum. It's not like there is a partisan reason to love Christie and hate Romney. The only difference is class persona. Christie is working class and Romney is elite. Christie is rude and boisterous and Romney is nice and polite.

What's nice about Rubio as a candidate is that he comes from a working class background--his dad was a bartender, I believe, or maybe a waiter. And yet Rubio cannot be demonized as trashy, as Palin was and, I suspect, Christie would be. If Christie is our nominee, the media will attack him as rude, vulgar, a mean spirit. Not to mention mock him as fat. Imagine lots of fat jokes from liberal comedians.

What makes Rubio such a strong candidate is that he has the persona of a working class kid who made good. He's basically immune to any attack on his class, I think. You can't attack him as low class (i.e. Palin) and you can't attack him as upper class (i.e. Romney).

I'm assuming that Hillary will be the Democrat nominee. So we can expect a lot of feminist attacks on Rubio. But attacking somebody for being white, or being a male--or a female--is not an effective strategy at all. You're liable to piss off as many people as you attract.

Attacking somebody for being rich, on the other hand, always works. Because rich people are a tiny minority.; 11/27/12, 6:49 PM
somefeller said...: The Bush/Christie ticket should do pretty well in 2016. Vice-versa wouldn't be bad either, but Bush probably wouldn't take the second place post.

In any case, either man would be a good follow up to the current Administration, especially if Obama picks enough Supreme Court Justices to keep Roe v. Wade safe. Which is one of the many things I'm looking forward to seeing over the next four years.

By the way, has it already been three weeks since Obama's magnificent (and to many commenters here, surprising) re-election? It seems like yesterday...; 11/27/12, 7:29 PM
Saint Croix said...: In any case, either man would be a good follow up to the current Administration, especially if Obama picks enough Supreme Court Justices to keep Roe v. Wade safe.

Just to be clear, then, you voted for financial catastrophe over the next four years, to protect your right to abortion for the next twenty years?

What are you, 14?; 11/27/12, 8:31 PM
Saint Croix said...: Or do you want other people to have abortions?; 11/27/12, 8:31 PM
Colonel Angus said...: In any case, either man would be a good follow up to the current Administration,

Micky Mouse and Daffy Duck would too.; 11/27/12, 8:34 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Just to be clear, then, you voted for financial catastrophe over the next four years, to protect your right to abortion for the next twenty years?

What are you, 14?

You beat me to it.; 11/27/12, 8:38 PM
Colonel Angus said...: It's also ironic the party that tours the 'children' as its warcry for any reason for expanded government are hell bent to make sure as few as possible are born.; 11/27/12, 8:40 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: If the 'true' conservatives in the race are Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul, then the Rhinos will keep getting nominated by default.

I still love the picture of Michelle Bachmann going down on the corndog.; 11/27/12, 8:56 PM
somefeller said...: Saint Croix says:Just to be clear, then, you voted for financial catastrophe over the next four years, to protect your right to abortion for the next twenty years? What are you, 14?

There won't be financial catastrophe over the next four years. There will be economic expansion, though it probably will not as rapid as the last time we had a Democrat in the White House. The legacy of the Bush Administration will make that difficult, though we're moving on from those days. Though the next four years may be catastrophic for social conservatives, but that's their problem. By the way, it's a little silly for a guy like you to complain about people voting primarily on social issues. That's something your side is well-known for.

And regarding my age, I'm well past 14, thanks. But is that the target market for the awesome pro-life documentaries you're working on? The Silent Scream of the 21st Century needs its auteur.; 11/27/12, 9:14 PM
Saint Croix said...: I can see being a pro-life liberal and voting for a pro-life conservative. If you think it's infanticide, obviously you have to vote against it.

I can see being a pacifist conservative and voting for a pacifist liberal. If you think the Iraq war is immoral, obviously you have to vote against it.

What I don't see is this attitude that abortion is fundamental. For instance, pro-choice people often pretend that an abortion is just removing tissue from the woman's body. If this is true, then abortion is similar to plastic surgery, which also removes tissue from a woman's body.

Okay. Isn't it kind of crazy to get worked up about plastic surgery, so that it's the most important right, ever?

Obviously, abortion is quite a bit different from plastic surgery, right? It's far more important. But that importance just leads us back to the pro-life view, that abortion involves more than removing tissue from a woman's body. You're removing and killing a baby.

Thus to vote in an election to protect Roe v. Wade is, essentially, an emotional vote. "Abortion is not infanticide." You are objecting to the pro-life view. You are defining yourself as a non-baby-killer. And that's why the issue is so important to you.; 11/27/12, 9:21 PM
Saint Croix said...: Politically, of course, this is utterly irrational. What happens if Roe v. Wade goes away? We vote on abortion, like we vote on all the other legal stuff that's not in the Constitution. We pull back from the sexual revolution, just a bit.

Were the 1960's so evil, liberals? Was it the dark ages?

It just seems bizarre, almost hysterical, to be so worked up about a "choice" that you simultaneously hope that you never have to make.

I mean, use birth control and this issue goes away. Yes?

So the fanatical support for abortion is quite odd, since nobody wants to have an abortion. And you don't want your daughters to have an abortion, either. Who wants an unwanted pregnancy? Nobody.

Because of Roe v. Wade, millions of women have had abortions. And so they are implicated in the opinion. A rejection of Roe v. Wade is a rejection of them, and what they did. You did something wrong! And people, naturally, don't want to acknowledge that.

So that's the crux of it, I think. They don't actually like abortion. They are, at best, highly ambivalent about it. But they are implicated in our abortion regime, so they will fight for it.; 11/27/12, 9:27 PM
somefeller said...: Whatever you say, Cecil B. DeMille. The abortion issue seems to be pretty important to you, too. You obviously seem to get quite worked up by it and have even devoted a blog to the single topic. But don't let me stop you from rambling and thus-ing.; 11/27/12, 9:27 PM
Saint Croix said...: There won't be financial catastrophe over the next four years. There will be economic expansion, though it probably will not as rapid as the last time we had a Democrat in the White House.

Yes, that's what I expect a liberal to say. It was just odd to read your opinion that a Republican "would be a good follow up" to the Obama administration.

Why? Don't you have faith in liberal economics?; 11/27/12, 9:29 PM
Saint Croix said...: The abortion issue seems to be pretty important to you, too.

I don't dispute that. And I explain why, I think in many cases it's infanticide.

I'm not criticizing single-issue voters. In the 19th century, I would be a single-issue voter.

What I am criticizing is the pro-choice single-issue voter. That, to me, is irrational. But go ahead and defend it, if you can.; 11/27/12, 9:33 PM
somefeller said...: Yes, that's what I expect a liberal to say. It was just odd to read your opinion that a Republican "would be a good follow up" to the Obama administration. Why? Don't you have faith in liberal economics?

I have quite a bit of faith in liberal economics. I also like moderate Republicans who can serve as good palate cleanser after Democratic administrations, which inevitably have their excesses. I'm bipartisan that way. Eisenhower did a fine job with that, as did Nixon. I had hoped George W. Bush would do so as well, but alas.; 11/27/12, 9:34 PM
rcocean said...: I fully expect the Republicans to nominate another Bush - and lose. They're stuck on Stupid.; 11/27/12, 9:39 PM
Tim said...: "There won't be financial catastrophe over the next four years."

There's no doubt, absolutely none whatsoever, that Obama swept the economically illiterate vote.; 11/27/12, 9:40 PM
somefeller said...: What I am criticizing is the pro-choice single-issue voter. That, to me, is irrational. But go ahead and defend it, if you can.

I'm not a single-issue voter on support of abortion rights. There are other issues I care about, though admittedly that's a big one. But I don't have a problem with those who are and I don't see their position as irrational. I've also learned (like I said, I'm over 14) that there's no use in debating the issue of abortion with pro-life fanatics. I'm sure you'll declare victory by my non-engagement with you in that topic, but that's the way it goes. In any case, the good guys and gals look like they're winning on that issue, but you're free to hang out in front of Planned Parenthood with a bullhorn if you want.; 11/27/12, 9:42 PM
somefeller said...: There's no doubt, absolutely none whatsoever, that Obama swept the economically illiterate vote.

Thus spaketh Tim, the smartest guy in the cubicle farm.; 11/27/12, 9:42 PM
Tim said...: "Thus spaketh Tim, the smartest guy in the cubicle farm."

Not even close.

But keep going.

It could be amusing.; 11/27/12, 9:45 PM
somefeller said...: Wait, you're not the smartest guy in the cubicle farm? I'm sorry bro, I guess I overestimated you.; 11/27/12, 9:50 PM
Tim said...: "Wait, you're not the smartest guy in the cubicle farm? I'm sorry bro, I guess I overestimated you."

Colder.; 11/27/12, 9:56 PM
Saint Croix said...: there's no use in debating the issue of abortion with pro-life fanatics.

I agree with that. Slave-owners don't become abolitionists, and abolitionists don't become slave-owners.; 11/27/12, 9:59 PM
Saint Croix said...: I say that and then I remember that The Silent Scream was actually done by a former abortionist.

So people do change, but it is quite rare.; 11/27/12, 10:03 PM
rcommal said...: First, @tim maguire: and a lot are not.

Second; He's most popular in the same way Todd Akin was the most popular in MO.

Wow.; 11/27/12, 10:37 PM
rcommal said...: The choices people make, the analogies they lob.

**shrug**; 11/27/12, 10:40 PM
rcommal said...: Both the italicized part of my 10:37 comment and my 10:40 comment in its entirety did not refer to @tim maguire. They referred to @edutcher. TBC, as I should have done TBW.; 11/27/12, 10:47 PM
rcommal said...: I mean, on the one hand I can get the "provincial interest" point, but on the other hand, what a smearing analogy. Not to mention a sneeringly one.; 11/27/12, 11:15 PM
rcommal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/27/12, 11:30 PM
rcommal said...: Honestly, this makes me wonder if edutcher was, is, even able to discern the difference even between Richard Mourdock's statement and Todd Akin's.

It's to wonder, indeed. And then to wonder: Why?

And, also, why is this so guy so prominent here? The love is for...what?; 11/27/12, 11:37 PM
chickelit said...: rcommal said...
I mean, on the one hand I can get the "provincial interest" point, but on the other hand, what a smearing analogy. Not to mention a sneeringly one.

As a native Wisconsinite, I had a hard time accepting that Paul Ryan didn't have broader national appeal. I still don't get "why"--but I accepted it, quickly.

Chris Christie is untried (unlike Ryan), Perhaps what I say has no bearing whatsoever. I'm just imagining myself to be a New Jerseyan looking at Ryan and saying "yeah, so?"

Regional barriers are real.; 11/28/12, 12:28 AM
rcommal said...: Yes, but Christie is no Todd Akin. And edutcher is no grand man. And Paul Ryan may still have his day (though he might still yet someday have to better explain [away] his vote for Medicare Part D to the likes of me, given his thereafter). So. Overall... .; 11/28/12, 12:41 AM
MayBee said...: I like Christie. I'd be happy to have him as president. Ditto Paul Ryan and a host of others.

I can't predict anymore. I used to really feel I understood my fellow Americans, but I don't know now. They threw away the chance to have a really qualified, experienced, knowledgeable man as president during these economically trying times. To keep a man who lacks any demonstration of vision or leadership, even after four years on the job.

Our country has obviously shifted greatly since the Bush v Clinton election in 1992.; 11/28/12, 3:40 AM
Roux said...: I wouldn't vote for this blowhard for dogcatcher.; 11/28/12, 5:10 AM
Rusty said...: somefeller said...
There's no doubt, absolutely none whatsoever, that Obama swept the economically illiterate vote.

Thus spaketh Tim, the smartest guy in the cubicle farm.

16+ trillion in debt 8% unemployment 47% of the population on some form of federal assistance. Makes Tim pretty insightful. YMMV; 11/28/12, 9:57 AM