Ah, I see from the transcript, it was Fake Louis CK (Jim Cramer) who brought up the former prosecutor business.
CRAMER: Governor Christie, there has been a lot of political rhetoric that some bank executives should have gone to jail for the 2008 financial crisis. But General Motors paid more than $1 billion in fines and settlements for its ignition switch defect. One hundred and twenty- four people died as a result of these faulty switches. No one went to jail. As a former prosecutor, do you believe the people responsible for the switch and the cover-up belong behind bars?That worked on me.
CHRISTIE: You bet they do. And if I were the prosecutor, that is exactly where they would be. The fact is that this Justice Department under this president has been a political Justice Department. It has been a Justice Department that decided that they want to pick who the winners and losers are. They like General Motors, so they give them a pass. They don't like somebody else like David Petraeus, they prosecute them and send a decorated general on to disgrace. It's a political Justice Department.
And, Jim, you know full well that in the seven years I was U.S. attorney we went after pharmaceutical companies. We went after companies that were ripping off shareholders. We went after companies that were doing things that were against the law. And to expand on Mr. Carson's -- or Dr. Carson's question, let's face it, we have laws already. We don't need newer (ph) laws. We don't need Hillary Clinton's price controls for -- again, does anybody out there think that giving Washington, D.C., the opportunity to run the pharmaceutical industry is a good idea, given how well they have done running the government?
So what we do, though, is, if there is somebody who is price- gouging, we have laws for prosecutors to take that on. Let's let a Justice Department -- and I will make an attorney general who will enforce the law and make justice more than just a word. It will be a way of life.
Prosecute cute prose.
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Bob Shrum was the campaign manager for 5 Dem Presidential candidates. They ALL lost.
I couldn't watch most of it but JEB looked like a sure loser. Christie looked good but too fat. Cruz helped himself with his repartee to the hopeless "moderator." Kasich is the Democrats' candidate. Carly did OK. I wish she would adopt some of Carson's cool. Trump seems a bit subdued but I didn't see all of it. Why is Huckaby still there ?
Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, and Christie are the legitimate candidates who should stay in. Trump and Carson are the non-serious candidates who have enough of a following to stay in for now but should drop out before Iowa and New Hampshire.
Fiorina should stay. Jeb's daddy should take him to the woodshed and paddle him until he can't sit down for a week.
Carly made a great point about the accountability of executives versus politicians:
Nevertheless, one of the things that I think people don’t always understand is how accountable a CEO actually is.
So you know, I had to report results every 90 days in excruciating detail. I had to answer every single question about every single result and every single projection in public until there were no more questions.
And if I misrepresented those results or those projections in any way, I was held criminally liable. Imagine — imagine — if a politician were held to that standard of account.
Relatedly, in answer to another question:
What’s crony capitalism? Crony capitalism is what happens when government gets so big and so powerful that only the big and the powerful can handle it.
So why are the pharmaceutical companies consolidating? Why are there five even bigger Wall Street banks now, instead of the ten we used to have on Wall Street? Because when government gets big and powerful, the big feel like they need to get even bigger to deal with all that power, and meanwhile, the small and the powerless — in this case, 1,590 community banks — go out of business.
You see, folks, this is how socialism starts. Government causes a problem, and then government steps in to solve the problem. This is why, fundamentally, we have to take our government back.
The student loan problem has been created by government. Government trying to level the playing field between Internet and brick-and-mortar creates a problem. The FCC jumping in now and saying, “we’re going to put 400 pages of regulation over the Internet,” is going to create massive problems.
But guess who pushed for that regulation? The big Internet companies. This is what’s going on. Big and powerful use big and powerful government to their advantage.
It’s why you see Walgreens buying Rite Aid. It’s why you see the pharmaceuticals getting together. It’s you see the health insurance companies getting together. It’s why you see the banks consolidating.
And meanwhile, small businesses are getting crushed. Community- based businesses and farms are getting crushed. Community banks are going out of business. Big government favors the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected, and crushes the small and the powerless.
While I liked Christie's demeanor, he lost me in his answer that seemed to argue for government participation (read "subsidies") in green energy development. Fiorina and Carson were consistent in their stance against crony capitalism. I can't support a candidate who doesn't understand the corrosive effect of government intervention in economic decisions.
Thanks for the transcript, EDH. Carly "gets it" more than anybody else on that stage.
Yes Fiorina should stay. Rubio is VP material.
I agree. Carly should stay.
I wish the RNC would set up debates that are debates. It will be hard to do until the number of candidates is down to six or eight but they should be planning this. Fox mishandled their chance to moderate and CNBC committed corporate suicide last night. Maybe Heritage and a few well known GOP figures like George Will.
it was Fake Louis CK (Jim Cramer) who brought up the former prosecutor business.
Jim Cramer is very funny. I don't know if you should follow his advice on his show (you want to invest in the market, I would start with David Gardner and the Motley Fool), but that's a funny show.
Cramer actually made it into My Absolutely Insane Attempt To Rank All Cinema! That's because he loves this really bad movie. Which I rank #4612.
At one point in his life, Cramer was homeless and sleeping in his car.
Interesting guy. Funny guy. Smart guy. Not sure I would follow his advice, though. He's a trader, not an investor. Not to say he is right or wrong on his suggested trades. But this sort of hyper-active style is ill-suited for almost everybody.
I like one of David Gardner's quotes: "Don't just do something. Sit there." There have been studies that suggest many women are better stock investors than men, because men are too active and trade too much, hurting their returns.
It is fun watching Cramer in his man-cave though, jumping around and yelling.
I was always bewildered that "everyone knew" that Jeb Bush was a shoo-in for the nomination. Not only I, but everyone else Republican I asked, had an immediate reaction that "I am not voting for another Bush!" Amazing how totally clueless the punditry and establishment were on this one. With all his endorsements and money, he never really had a chance.
Maybe we should let people vote in the primaries and see who the voters like?
Rubio is by far the best talker on the stage. His career has been getting paid for performance of cute prose with perfect timing. Watching Rubio is like watching Bob Hope in his prime.
But real leadership requires matching accomplishments to your wonderful words. The words alone are like a faith without an action.
Trump has it all.
Imagine Bush III as our President...nope the mind rebels.
This game of imagining which candidates should drop out and which should stay in -- is that the "fantasy football" the CNBC folks were so interested in last night?
Because it is a fantasy as long as it's "should". Neither Shrum, nor Althouse, nor I has any control over the candidates' decisions. If you want to try to predict who "will" and "won't" drop out in the next week, next month, etc., knock yourself out. Me, I'll just wait and see.
The ones who can't gain traction will drop out naturally--go low enough in the polls (or in the real voting, once the primaries begin) and the donors and staff will abandon ship. I can't see the sort of egotist who wants to be president in the first place deciding to give up before their money runs out just to help other candidates.
That said, I expect the undercarders (Graham, Jindal, Santorum, Pataki) to run out of money and drop out by Thanksgiving, with Kasich and Christie out by the end of the year at the latest. Paul and Huckabee have niche supporters who may keep them going into the primaries.
"Banks for Bernie."
But is it Madoff or Sanders?
And Shrum's counsel is very useful, in that you can get the right answer by doing the opposite of what he suggests. So everyone should stay in this as long as possible.
Those four seem like good choices for the Great Winnowing, but I agree with others here who say Fiorina belongs with that group.
Rubio's a great talker with a Bill-Clinton-like retention of datapoints, but Cruz is an even better talker, even with his slightly off-putting delivery. I found myself wondering how he structured that slam against the moderators:
You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.
This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions -- "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"
How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?
He probably had the structure (first and last sentences ready to go), but he either took very good notes on each of those slam-questions early in the debate, or he has a fantastic memory. He delivered that stuff very fast, building the momentum fast and effectively.
Also, I know Christie is probably already out of contention, but I sure like seeing a guy that tough, realistic, and fast in the race. That fantasy-football moment was deadly.
Although she didn't have a breakthrough moment, Fiorina may be the best communicator up there. She has appropriated/reframed the one percent schtick for advantage.
rehajm said...
Yes Fiorina should stay. Rubio is VP material.
Reverse them.
Bob Schrum, the David Shula of campaign managers. Should have asked who he thought would win so we could wager on someone else.
Chris Christie is running for attorney general now.
Shrum leads bad campaigns...but I don't think he's incorrect here. Fiorina maybe, but she has a hard time staying afloat long.
Chris Christie is running for attorney general now.
He'd be an inspired choice. Just as Cruz would be spectacular, IMO, as a SCOTUS Justice.
Chris Christie would be a fantastic attorney general. I'd love to see that.
I still like Susanna Martinez as VP if she survives the vetting. Two hispanics on the national ticket with good political skills should be able to make a dent in Hillary's coalition, and a female candidate can hit Hillary on her home turf.
Rick said...
Reverse them.
Okay...
oibuR tnediserP eicV dna aniroiF tnediserP
Susana Martinez is what used to be known as a moderate to conservative New Mexico Democrat.
She is doing fine as governor, and I hope she runs for NM Attorney General as her next act.
As for DC; that town is full of people, issues, and problems she does not care much about, besides the chile is hardly edible back there.
and the weather is terrible too.
@Hagar, Chile, being a country, is inedible. So is New Mexican chili.
"Chris Christie is running for attorney general now.
He'd be an inspired choice. Just as Cruz would be spectacular, IMO, as a SCOTUS Justice."
I agree completely. On both of them.
There's some real good ideas on this thread.
I like the idea of Susana Martinez as VP
I love the idea of Christie as AG
I love the idea of Cruz as Justice on SCOTUS
Rubio would make a good Fox News personality. Murdoch could use Ailes to control him better than he controls him now.
I cannot wait to see the nuanced shift away from pro-Bush to pro-Rubio on Fox News. I bet Ailes sweetheart, Meagyn Kelley, can pull it off and make it out to be a Feminist thing at the same time. Then they bring in Mr Honest Reporter Frank Luntz to find the only panel of typical voters in captivity who are enamored by Rubio's youthfulness compared to Mean Old Trump.
NM Chile is superb, this year's batch is both tasty and hot. I am stocked up for the year. Susana is a marvelous person but I want to her to run for senate and replace one of our lightweight senators.
And, before the day ends, special extra bonus points to Ted Cruz for comparing the Democrat debate to the Bolsheviks v the Mensheviks -- the original Communist schism in Russia!
How many people got that historical reference?
Gotta love Ted!
@SteveR, do they really spell chili with an 'e' in NM? Next you'll tell me that the other 49 states are the ones that spell it wrong.
@BAG, I had to look that one up myself.
They should all get out except Dr. Ben Carson. That would leave only Hillary, Sanders, and OMalley which means Hillary vs Ben on election day 2016. Our long national nightmare will be over.
I'm sorry to see Jeb (no "!") go out on a banana peel. He was never my candidate for this cycle because he is a Bush and because he's too damn' moderate, but he's the best "qualified" candidate now that Walker's out of the race.
I like the idea of Christie for AG. He's never going to get the GOP Presidential nomination (from NJ!? -- wasn't that Wilson's state? 'nuff said)), but he could make a real contribution as an honest AG, which we haven't had very much. Any GOP candidate elected President could appoint him.
Cruz for Supreme Court? I haven't written him off for President (yet), but if he doesn't make it this time, and another Republican does, he'd still be young enough to run in 2024. If he's not the candidate and Hillary! wins in 2016, I'd expect him to aim for 2020.
Fiorina would make an excellent VP candidate for just about anyone but Trump or Carson. The VP candidate's job is to be the attack dog, and she could do that. I wouldn't write her off (yet) for the Presidential nomination, and she's right that we'd love to see her debate Hillary!
I think that Trump has peaked, and I bless Dr. Carson for his role in that, but I hope that Carson's support declines right after Trump's evaporates. I'd vote for Carson over Hillary! -- I'd vote for Satan over her as the lesser evil -- but being a good man is a necessary but not sufficient qualification for the Presidency.
Rubio seems to be the "establishment" choice if Bush is out. There are some serious criticisms of Marco as not being sufficiently conservative, and having been rolled in the "gang of eight" immigration deal, but I think he would be a good choice to run against Ms. Private Email.
So the (to me) plausible candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination, are Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal (not likely), Kasich (too moderate for me, but possible), and Rubio. I don't see Huckabee, Graham, or Santorum as contenders.
And the first vote (the Iowa caucuses) isn't for 3 1/2 months. Oh Hell! Forget everything I just said. It's too early.
A little perspective on early calls for supposed losers to drop out:
At this point eight years ago, the Gallup polling organization put out a detailed summary of the state of the presidential race. Its bottom lines: Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic primary, and fellow Sen. Barack Obama was fading. On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had been in the lead for eight months, and Sen. John McCain lagged behind back in third place.
In the end, all of that meant little. Mr. McCain roared back to life to take the nomination, and Mr. Obama roared back to a historic general-election victory.
Haven't bothered to check on 2012, but I seem to recall similarly inaccurate prophesizing during the 2012 race.
The most remarkable thing to me about this campaign is that we're seriously considering so many candidates who haven't an ounce of actual experience running governments between them.
We'd never hire a CEO who had never run another company, but we're happy to elect a new leader of the free world based on the ability to deliver witty comebacks and talk a good game during a canned, phony debate pretty much devoid of substance.
Ay, Chihuahua. The government we deserve.
3 Republicans embraced big government at debate and you missed it
I thought Louis CK was a fake Jim Cramer.
"How many people got that historical reference? "
Not Chuck Todd.
"I like the idea of Susana Martinez as VP"
I've been kicking that around here for months.
Christie would probably be a terrible AG. The War on Drugs has been a failure and I don't see how Christie would change anything about how our government overlords conduct it.
Huckabee has charisma and is weirdly likable ... he should stick to cable TV.
Focusing on Bob Shrum's five failed stints managing presidential campaigns gives a misleading picture of his career.
He's also botched six campaigns for lesser offices, for a lifetime 0-11 record.
I believe he was also defensive coordinator for the Buffalo Bills for a time, contributing to three of their four consecutive Super Bowl losses.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा