Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Republicans are livid at Gov. Chris Christie for opting to hold a special election instead of appointing a Republican to fill Frank Lautenberg’s Senate seat. GOPers are saying Christie is politically dead to them.

The Republican reaction to Chris Christie decision to listen to the will of the people of his state was immediate outrage.

Deadbeat dad, and former congressman, Joe Walsh tweeted:


The National Journal summed up the Republican reaction to Christie’s decision, “That did little to mollify Republicans with a stake in retaking the Senate next year. While none wanted to be quoted publicly, all dripped with disdain for Christie’s decision, calling it self-serving. And several pointed to the fact that holding an extra election one month earlier could cost the state about $25 million–a price tag that could dent his image as a fiscal hawk. ‘I think this ends his 2016 chances. It’s year after year with this guy,’ complained one senior Republican official.”

Over at the Free Republic one exchange summed up how the rank and file seem to be taking the news that at least one Republican still believes in democracy (all names removed):

Commenter # 1: I know Governor Christie. Nice guy. But if there was any thought of voting for him in 2016 after the media anoints him as Hillary’s opponent, that is now gone.
I would sooner write in Lautenberg for President. Both are dead to me.

Commenter # 2: You sir, are a liar. No acting governor would do something so contrary to their political parties best interest and the interest of the people who elected him. Your glossing over his betrayal by saying he is a “nice guy”, just gives cover to the support he has offered to the fraud in the White House.

Republicans are outraged at Chris Christie because he decided that the people should have a voice in this decision. Christie said, “There’s no political purpose. The political purpose is to give the people a voice. The issues facing the United States Senate are too important not to have an elected representative making those decisions.”

Sen. Lautenberg’s unfortunate passing put Gov. Christie in a difficult political position. If he appointed a Republican, he would have been ignoring the will of the voters in his state. He also would have unilaterally flipped a Senate seat. Neither of these outcomes are good for a guy with his eyes on 2016. If Christie would have decided to appoint a Democrat, he would have set the Democrats up to keep the seat in 2014. Christie’s decision was very political in the respect that he managed to keep Cory Booker off the November ballot by scheduling the special election for October.

Christie is no saint here, but he did the right thing for himself and the people of his state. He is going to get to pad his victory margin in November without Booker on the ballot, and the people of New Jersey will get to choose their next senator.

Christie may be dead to some in the Republican Party, but those same people have been calling him a RINO ever since he hugged Obama. Gov. Christie isn’t a liberal, or a RINO. He is just a Republican who is trying to stay in the center because he wants to run for president in 2016.

However, there may not be any room in the GOP for a Republican like Christie. It seems that if you aren’t ignoring or stepping on the will of the people, you aren’t a real Republican.

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

 

[The Technomancer]

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

Sometimes I feel bad for Christie. Yeah I disagree with him on a lot of stuff and yeah he's done some really really dumb shit, but he does often seem to be acting in good faith, which is a lot more then I can say for most prominent conservative politicians at the moment.

 

[Black Mamba]

Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't be allowed to talk to anyone ever. He is responsible for every death in Iraq moreso than anyone else. His opinion matters not.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Call Christie's decision "self-serving."


Whine about Christie not unilaterally flipping the seat so that your party has an easier shot at gaining the majority in 2015-2016.



Republicans!

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sometimes I feel bad for Christie. Yeah I disagree with him on a lot of stuff and yeah he's done some really really dumb shit, but he does often seem to be acting in good faith, which is a lot more then I can say for most prominent conservative politicians at the moment.

Christie doesn't deserve sympathy at least until he stops being a shithead about gay marriage

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Christie doesn't deserve sympathy at least until he stops being a shithead about gay marriage

That's one issue.

I'll give a politician some sympathy in times where he deserves it. When the debate on the floor is about gay marriage, then sure, no sympathy awarded.

But I'm not going to completely condemn a politician just on one issue if he/she is may have good stances on other things. (I'm not necessarily saying that Christie does have good stances on other things.)

 

[Aaron Strife]

That's one issue.

I'll give a politician some sympathy in times where he deserves it. When the debate on the floor is about gay marriage, then sure, no sympathy awarded.

But I'm not going to completely condemn a politician just on one issue if he/she is may have good stances on other things. (I'm not necessarily saying that Christie does have good stances on other things.)

I guess it'd be different if he weren't an active impediment to progress. If NJ's legislature hadn't already passed a gay marriage bill by a large margin that he vetoed, I might not hold it against him as much.

He's a GOP hack on a number of issues besides, and only breaks from the party when he knows it'll butter up his image at home. So generally I don't feel bad when the GOP decides to eat one of their own for similar reasons.

 

[empty vessel]

But I'm not going to completely condemn a politician just on one issue if he/she is may have good stances on other things. (I'm not necessarily saying that Christie does have good stances on other things.)

(He doesn't.)

 

[zero shift]

Republicans don't want governance, they want an in-your-face asshole to go up there and stick it to unions while giving more money to the rich. Delusions of grandeur give them hope that some day they'll be in that privileged class of job creators, but until then, blame the Democrats.

Republicans are under the delusion that if you leave the economy and society alone things will just "work themselves out". They have very little understanding just how much government helps general society. They don't realize that its government that keeps the roads clean, schools functional, streets safe, society equal, and the economy geared toward the average consmer. But really this all goes back to getting their taxes cut. They are under the delusion that if their taxes are cut all that money will solely go back to them.

 

[Black Mamba]

Fascinating Story by the Washington Post about how close Boehner came to not retaining his Speakership this past January as well as the relationship he, McCarthy,and Canter have, the GOP's plan going forward, and how hard it is to lead this caucus, and how crazy the far right in Congress is.

Also, funniest part of the whole long 4 page story:

The leaders have come under intense scrutiny. Barely 36 hours after the caustic New Year’s Day vote, Boehner faced a coup attempt from a clutch of renegade conservatives. The cabal quickly fell apart when several Republicans, after a night of prayer, said God told them to spare the speaker. Still, Boehner came within a few votes of failing to secure his speakership on the initial vote, an outcome that would have forced a second ballot for the first time in nearly a century.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...33e606-b8ff-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

read it.

 

[Oblivion]

In focus groups in January, the report said, young voters were asked to list leaders of the Democratic Party. "They named prominent former or currently elected officials: Pelosi, the Clintons, Obama, Kennedy, Gore. When those same respondents were asked to name Republican leaders, they focused heavily on media personalities and commentators: Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck."

.

 

[el retorno]

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

Freepers are not the most powerful part of the republican party. As much as you guys want that to be true, its not. If they had their way we'd have had Santorum, they hated Romeny and called him a RINO

 

[Black Mamba]

.

hahaha. The media personalities for GOP. GOP is so fucked.

Though the Kennedy mention is weird.

 

[Oblivion]

Though the Kennedy mention is weird.

Why do you say that?

 

[Tamanon]

Why do you say that?

Which Kennedy is currently a leader or even relevant in the Democratic party?

 

[Oblivion]

Which Kennedy is currently a leader or even relevant in the Democratic party?

It said "former" leaders as well.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

.

Is there a link for this?

 

[Black Mamba]

It said "former" leaders as well.

I was under the assumption that these people were supposed to list current leaders even if they were formerly elected (ie clintons). The clintons are still influential, the kennedys are dead.

I'd expect Reagan too if it meant in the past. My guess is the Kennedy name is just so strong.



On another note:

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are scheduled to vote on two separate budget bills this week, each of which would reject funding for the poverty activism group ACORN, despite the fact that ACORN disbanded three years ago.

clown shoes!

 

[Aaron Strife]

.

imagine if Democrats had to apologize to Michael Moore every time they called him out on something stupid, inane, offensive, or factually incorrect for risk of losing a primary election to his followers

imagine if any left-leaning pundit had the same clout as Rush Limbaugh, for that matter.

they don't.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sure, Obama killed Bin Laden, but did anyone ever think he did so that he could then step in and take control of Al Qaeda?

Brilliant.

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

Oh this is so good.

 

[el retorno]

Is there a link for this?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/04/18747417-the-gops-most-recognized-leaders

edit actually this http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/why-young-people-dont-vote-republican/

 

[Oblivion]

Is there a link for this?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/04/18747417-the-gops-most-recognized-leaders?lite

I was under the assumption that these people were supposed to list current leaders even if they were formerly elected (ie clintons). The clintons are still influential, the kennedys are dead.

I'd expect Reagan too if it meant in the past. My guess is the Kennedy name is just so strong.

I thought it was just a general "whose name comes up when you think of Democrats/Republicans?" kinda thing. And if that's the case, it's not surprising at all Kennedy comes up. Hell, even my idiot teabagger ex-roommate loves him (or at least his image of him in his head).

 

[izakq]

.

Holy crap. You would think with the way the GOP whores Reagan's name around, he would be mentioned.

 

[zero shift]

imagine if any left-leaning pundit had the same clout as Rush Limbaugh, for that matter.

they don't.

We got a preview of what such a pundit would be like though:

Well he's more like a left O'Reily.

 

[Aaron Strife]

We got a preview of what such a pundit would be like though:

Well he's more like a left O'Reily.

But that's the thing, Olbermann never really had any power as a commentator even while on MSNBC.

Democratic leaders are the elected officials, GOP leaders are the pundits on radio and TV who tell their audience what to think - the faces of the people they vote for are interchangeable.

 

[Link]

Pallone's making a go for the seat: http://www.politickernj.com/66091/sources-pallone-running-us-senate

Please beat Booker!

I don't suppose Pallone can run for senator and Booker can just stick to running for governor? Wishful thinking on my part.

But "I can't tell." . . . really? Have you really sunk this low Rummy that you feel you need to pandering to crazy conspiracy theorists? Are you really that desperate?

Unfortunately, a good majority of the Republican Party acts this way these days.

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

The Republican reaction to Chris Christie decision to listen to the will of the people of his state was immediate outrage.

That pretty much says it all.

 

[speculawyer]

Sure, Obama killed Bin Laden, but did anyone ever think he did so that he could then step in and take control of Al Qaeda?

 

[Tamanon]

That explains why he keeps killing #2s. Gotta defend the crown.

 

[speculawyer]

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

Yeah, whatever. They said the same thing about McCain over some of his 'maverick' stuff and they said the same thing about Romney over Romneycare. They'll get over it if he looks like the candidate with the best chance of winning.

 

[speculawyer]

Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't be allowed to talk to anyone ever. He is responsible for every death in Iraq moreso than anyone else. His opinion matters not.

Actually, there should be several people like that who should be shunned and mocked:
Dick Cheney
Douglas Feith
Paul Wolfowitz
William Kristol

They all fucked up so wrongly that they should never be listened to again.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

[removed].

 

[Jackson50]

"You know, I just don't feel competent to answer," Rumsfeld said.

An admission regrettably a decade late.

I still don't see why republicans don't just filibuster neary everyone and dare Reid/Obama to change the rules. If they do change them it ties into the "Obama out of control" narrative for them. If they don't change the rules, they call Reid's bluff. Seems like win win to me.

If they force the Senate Democrats to abolish the filibuster, they lose any leverage to influence the appointment process. Presently, they restrain their behavior enough to permit movement, yet the pace is painfully languid. They inhibit Obama's judicial legacy as a consequence. But if they push Democrats over the brink, they are rendered powerless and Democrats will approve a deluge of Obama's appointees. They have no incentive to surrender their influence to perpetuate a narrative that the public, outside of their ardent supporters, has ignored.

 

[speculawyer]

[removed].

Damn . . . I missed his joke.

 

[Piecake]

Damn . . . I missed his joke.

It was about your mother smelling like cheesy poofs

 

[120v]

Well I guess that's that :lol

Dat salt though!

i find this sort of baffling... when governers appoint replacements its usually somebody in the same party of the congressman being replaced, out of common decency. so its not like there'd be a republican replacement anyway

never was a fan of christie but i feel kind of sorry for him

 

[jamesinclair]

Someone explain to me why appointing senators is legal?

Should always be a vote.

 

[platypotamus]

For Heir Platypotamus, the WSJ is basically arguing that bike lanes are symbolic of totalitarian regimes. And Platy's been here long enough to realize that that's not an exaggeration. Cliff notes via Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213450/-Bike-totalitarians-are-coming-to-get-you

Thanks Oblivion, nice to see someone cares about me.

Also, funniest part of the whole long 4 page story:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...33e606-b8ff-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

read it.

I guess he's lucky there weren't any Odin worshipers among the conservatives. He's a little lighter on the whole mercy thing...

 

[Aaron Strife]

Someone explain to me why appointing senators is legal?

Should always be a vote.

Senators were originally appointed by the state legislature. They weren't elected by the people until the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913.

The governor's appointing powers are an extension of that. In fact in some states such as Wyoming, the appointment of a vacancy is still in the hands of the state legislature, though the governor has to approve the final decision. (Gov. Freudenthal, a Democrat, was forced to choose between 3 Republicans, leading to Sen. Barrasso)

 

[thepotatoman]

Holy crap. You would think with the way the GOP whores Reagan's name around, he would be mentioned.

Most people don't care about politics at all until they can vote. The people who turned 18 during the very end of the Reagan administration in 1988 would be 43 now, and I don't believe 43 counts as a young voter. I guess young voters just don't quite comprehend how much Reagan changed the republican party and american politics in general. People get taught his legacy of supply side Reganomics in schools but that has become so core to Republican principles that it just feels like it must have always been a core republican ideal.

 

[PhoenixDark]

An admission regrettably a decade late.If they force the Senate Democrats to abolish the filibuster, they lose any leverage to influence the appointment process. Presently, they restrain their behavior enough to permit movement, yet the pace is painfully languid. They inhibit Obama's judicial legacy as a consequence. But if they push Democrats over the brink, they are rendered powerless and Democrats will approve a deluge of Obama's appointees. They have no incentive to surrender their influence to perpetuate a narrative that the public, outside of their ardent supporters, has ignored.

I guess the difference is that I simply don't believe Reid will change the rules regardless. Let's assume republicans filibuster Tom Perez and one of the DC court nominees, for instance, while confirming everyone else. Reid doesn't have the votes.

 

[worldrunover]

Isn't it the more decent thing to nominate someone who is in line with the congressman that had just died? They are the one who the people voted for. Didn't a former Speaker of the House refuse to potentially take the PRESIDENCY if both the President and VP (Nixon and Agnew) were impeached because he was not from the party the people elected? Hah good chance of that happening today.

 

[el retorno]

Someone explain to me why appointing senators is legal?

Should always be a vote.

Because that's what the consitution says?

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Also I love this Fox News poll

"create your own imagined reality!" (guess which is winning?)

 

[empty vessel]

imagine if Democrats had to apologize to Michael Moore every time they called him out on something stupid, inane, offensive, or factually incorrect for risk of losing a primary election to his followers

imagine if any left-leaning pundit had the same clout as Rush Limbaugh, for that matter.

they don't.

It'd be great if they did. Whatever faults Michael Moore might have, he generally is saner than any elected Democrat.

The problem with the Republican party is not that it is beholden to a constituency. That's by and large a good thing. The problem with the Republican party is that it is beholden to a constituency that is crazy.

 

[The Technomancer]

Because that's what the consitution says?



Also I love this Fox News poll

"create your own imagined reality!" (guess which is winning?)

Let me guess, Obama himself is currently leading by a wide margin

 

[Incognito]

Wait, Josh Barro really IS gay?

Dude, most (not all) men in their late 20s/early 30s with shaved domes and facial hair are gay. Thought everyone knew that?

 

[Wilsongt]

EPAGate!

EPA accused of singling out conservative groups, amid IRS scandal

It's not just the IRS.

A second federal agency is facing a probe and accusations of political bias over its alleged targeting of conservative groups.

The allegations concern the Environmental Protection Agency, which is being accused of trying to charge conservative groups fees while largely exempting liberal groups. The fees applied to Freedom of Information Act requests -- allegedly, the EPA waived them for liberal groups far more often than it did for conservative ones.

The allegations are under investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is also holding hearings on the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups.

"I don't think it is fair at all. It is not fair to the American taxpayer -- the American taxpayer should expect and demand that the EPA treats everyone equally in regard to these requests," said Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "This cannot be tolerated. As we see more federal agencies with this kind of bias, it is and should be a concern for all of us."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...vative-groups-amid-irs-scandal/#ixzz2VIMWqhGW

I don't see why Republicans care about this. They want to get rid of the EPA, anyway.

 

[TacticalFox88]

EPAGate!

EPA accused of singling out conservative groups, amid IRS scandal




I don't see why Republicans care about this. They want to get rid of the EPA, anyway.

Ironic, considering they FUCKING CREATED THE DAMN THING.

 

[Wilsongt]

Ironic, considering they FUCKING CREATED THE DAMN THING.

It was made by Nixon, not the all mighty Messiah Reagan. All Republicans before him were not true Republicans.

 

[Chichikov]

Isn't it the more decent thing to nominate someone who is in line with the congressman that had just died? They are the one who the people voted for. Didn't a former Speaker of the House refuse to potentially take the PRESIDENCY if both the President and VP (Nixon and Agnew) were impeached because he was not from the party the people elected? Hah good chance of that happening today.

No, a special election is the only way to go, an elected official needs a mandate from his constituency.

And for fuck's sake, New Jersey has a budget of over 30 billion dollars, 12mil is fucking nothing.
Maybe we should switch to Bison dollars (every Bison dollar will be worth a thousand USD after I kidnap Ben Bernanke) just so people will stop freaking out over ZOMG BIG NUMBERS!!!

 

[speculawyer]

EPAGate!

EPA accused of singling out conservative groups, amid IRS scandal




I don't see why Republicans care about this. They want to get rid of the EPA, anyway.

Oh for fuck's sake. How much does this add up to? Maybe a few thousand bucks?