Chris Christie’s No Good, Very Bad, Horrible Week

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Chris Christie Donald Trump

‘Sad!’

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attempted to knee-cap Senator Marco Rubio’s campaign at a mid-January New Hampshire presidential debate, it didn’t make much sense.

Christie struggled during his entire presidential campaign to gain traction in a crowded GOP field. But instead of pulling out all the stops against frontrunner Donald Trump that night, Christie instead set his sights on blasting Rubio, who averaged being down against Trump by 15 or so points down the New Hampshire primary homestretch.

With the governor’s “surprise” endorsement of Donald Trump last Friday, the cloudy picture became a little clearer. Christie was helping out a longtime friend officially.

But the aftermath of his enthusiastic proclamation of support for the Trump campaign has been quite brutal and embarrassing for Christie, so much so that his legendary reputation as political rebel may ultimately be downgraded by historians as mirroring a “rebel without a clue.” Here, in no particular order, are five examples.

1. The governor who is often described by political opponents as a bully got dismissed by a bigger one.

Just seconds after Christie threw his hat into the ring for Trump, The Donald dismissed him from the rally like a King would a loyal yet lowly servant:


2. The Christie campaign’s own finance co-chair blistered his endorsement in a statement.

“Chris Christie’s endorsement of Donald Trump is an astonishing display of political opportunism. Donald Trump is unfit to be President. He is a dishonest demagogue who plays to our worst fears. Trump would take America on a dangerous journey. Christie knows all that and indicated as much many times publicly.

The Governor is mistaken if he believes he can now count on my support, and I call on Christie’s donors and supporters to reject the Governor and Donald Trump outright. I believe they will. For some of us, principle and country still matter.” – Meg Whitman

3. As it turns out, Christie himself struggles explaining why he endorsed Trump.

In a Sunday interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the normally well-prepared Christie was grilled on his then-versus-now statements on Trump – who he feuded with just weeks before his endorsement – and stumbled to explain them away. Worse still was the governor’s response to media inquiries about Trump the following day at a presser on his nomination for the New Jersey Supreme Court. In short: “Permission denied.”

As a result of that awful presser, six New Jersey papers issued a joint editorial calling on Christie to resign. Ouch.

4. The New Hampshire Union Leader revoked their endorsement of Christie.

Watching Christie kiss the Donald’s ring this weekend — and make excuses for the man Christie himself had said was unfit for the presidency — demonstrated how wrong we were. Rather than standing up to the bully, Christie bent his knee. In doing so, he rejected the very principles of his campaign that attracted our support.

5. The media has dutifully reminded America of Christie’s (former) arguments against Donald Trump.

“He has not the first idea of how to run a government, not the first idea,” Christie said of Trump on Feb. 7 in Hampton, New Hampshire, when he urged voters to “get off the Trump train before it’s too late.”

As a candidate, Christie ridiculed the Republican frontrunner for having a “make-believe” campaign that amounted to little more than reality TV and sought to remind voters that they aren’t electing an “entertainer-in-chief.”

Perhaps in sort of a Don Vito Corleone kinda way, Christie – whose political star is fading – expects something in return, like a nomination for Attorney General, should Trump get elected. Or maybe even a veep nod. Or maybe Christie is being blackmailed by Trump, as intriguing footage of him looking around nervously from Trump’s Super Tuesday victory presser implies:


Whatever the case may be, one quote of the governor’s from his Trump stump speech last week inadvertently reveals more about Christie than all the rest:

“Desperate people do desperate things.”

Indeed, governor. Indeed.

Which GOP candidate will benefit most from NC changing its presidential primary date?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

In my latest at IJ Review, I discuss how North Carolina gearing up to change its presidential primary from May to March could potentially be good news for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker more so than the rest of the crowded but diverse GOP field:

WI Gov. Scott Walker

Advantage: Walker?

In years past, if you were a Republican seeking the GOP presidential nomination, the state of North Carolina wasn’t too high on your list of states to target. The Tar Heel primary has traditionally been held in May, at which point there already was (usually) a presumptive nominee. And, at least until 2008, the state was regarded as safely red for the general election.

This year, however, the low priority of North Carolina for challengers for the Republican nomination looks to be changing, as state legislators are putting the finishing touches on a plan to push the state’s presidential primary to March 15th:

Read the rest here, and please make sure to like and share on Facebook, and retweet on Twitter. Thank you!

PS: It’s important to note that the change in North Carolina is for the presidential primary only – not for other races.

(Video) National Popular Vote and the attack on the electoral college

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

vote03

The Electoral College is one of the more obscure features of our government, yet it plays a crucial role: it elects the president, not the popular vote. When people in a state go to the polls, they’re really voting for slates of electors pledged to a particular candidate. The electors have traditionally honored the voters’ wishes (with the occasional individual exception for a protest vote), but the fact remains that they could choose someone other than “the People’s choice.” It also means that, occasionally, a candidate could win enough electoral votes to win the presidency while not winning the overall popular vote, as happened in 2,000 in the race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

The fact that the winner of the popular vote might not win the race has annoyed a lot of people, especially on the Left (1), and they have proposed something called the “National Popular Vote,” a compact among the states comprising 270 electoral votes (the number need to win) to award them to whomever wins the national vote, regardless of individual state results. Not surprisingly, given the source, this represents an end-run around the system established in the Constitution, rather than an honest attempt to amend it.

In the video below from Prager University, attorney and author Tara Ross explains how the Electoral College works, why it was set up this way, and why NPV is a very bad idea:

Footnote:
(1) Because, you know, the Electoral College is “unfair!” “Unfairness” meaning “I didn’t get what I want!”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

And the award for the dumbest tweet of the day goes to …

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

…. the pro-abortion “women’s group” Planned Parenthood, commenting on Sen. Rand Paul’s announcement that he’s running for President:


Right-o, because women aren’t students, veterans, etc …. #derp

Useful idiot.

Words of wisdom.

Who said it? “The past 6 years have been really, really hard for this country”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
VP Biden - SOTU

Captain Gaffetastic strikes again!
Photo via Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

If you guessed our VP Joe “Captain Gaffetastic” Biden, you’d be right (via Memeorandum):

Philadelphia, Pa. (CBS DC/AP) – Vice President Joe Biden told Democrats Friday that the past six years have been “really, really hard” for the country and the Democratic Party.

Speaking at the House Democratic Caucus retreat in Philadelphia Friday morning, Biden stressed that “really tough decisions” have faced both Democrats and the country as a whole.

“To state the obvious, the past six years have been really, really hard for this country,” said Biden.

“And they’ve been really tough for our party. Just ask [former DCCC chair] Steve [Israel],” continued Biden. “They’ve been really tough for our party. But together – and together — we made some really, really tough decisions — decisions that weren’t at all popular, hard to explain.”

Watch the video below:

Let’s predict which 2016 presidential contender will use this line first? If you think it’d be Hillary, you’d be wrong … remember, she and Joey B. worked together for the first few years of President Obama’s presidency. Now consider the possibilities if they BOTH run for president. Will other candidates on “their side” use the quote against either of them? Imagine the sparks that will fly … #popcorn

#Hillary2016’s pre-campaign hires spark allegations of “white dudefest 2016”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

The Daily Beast’s Tim Mak has an unintentionally hilarious piece on the state of La Clinton’s “pre-campaign” hires and how the current “all-white, all-male” cast has Democrat strategists hitting the panic button:

Hillary Clinton’s pre-presidential campaign has made some high-profile hires recently—but all of them, so far, are white males. And Democrats have noticed.

Does Hillary Clinton need binders full of women?

Some Democrats, particularly women and people of color, think so.

In interviews with The Daily Beast, nearly a dozen Democrats, said they were worried Clinton’s hires for the top echelons of her pre-campaign haven’t taken gender and racial diversity into account.

Their concern started after early leaks about heavy hitters recruited for the likely 2016 presidential candidate’s proto-campaign all had two distinct things in common: they were white and male.

“Democrats need a leader that can bring together races and nationalities, especially now and especially to win. That starts at the top of the campaign, and Hillary Clinton will need to demonstrate that level of commitment to set the right tone and strategy going forward” said Aimee Allison, senior VP at PowerPAC+, a group founded by major Democratic donor Steve Phillips to build the “political power of the multiracial majority.”

The situation is altogether more jarring, several Democrats interviewed said, when one considers 2008 Hillary’s campaign manager was Patti Solis Doyle, the first Hispanic woman to manage a presidential campaign.

One operative quipped that the top levels of the campaign are in danger of looking like “white dudefest 2016.”

And it gets even better. Read on:

The Democrats who spoke to The Daily Beast didn’t want to be named for a variety of reasons: some were trying to land campaign positions in the 2016 election cycle, or their bosses are expected to support Hillary, or they feared retribution and wanted to speak freely.

The frustrations over racial and gender diversity are especially acute among those staffers who worked on the most recent Obama campaign. Many of them found that women and minority staffers were not elevated to the very top rungs of the campaign structure—nor did they receive nearly enough credit for its eventual success.

One post-campaign retrospective from Rolling Stone drew particular ire—it pointed out ten of the Obama campaign’s ‘real heroes,’ nine of whom were men.

The question of diversity Clinton could face was handled improperly by Obama in the last election cycle, said a strategist who worked on the president’s reelection campaign.

“On these historic campaigns, where you’re trying to change the very image of what the word ‘president’ evokes, what you think of when you think of the word ‘president,’ the leadership was pretty male, pretty white,” she said.

Not exactly a surprise when you consider the White House won’t even practice what it preaches when it comes to one of their pet issues: “equal pay.” As always, it’s “do as I say and not as I do” with Democrats – no matter the issue, really.

And related to “Hillary 2016” talk, Mike Allen at Politico has a good read on her (predicted) future political plans, and talked to numerous Democrats “close to the Clintons” who say she will officially launch her second campaign for President in April and that massive preparation is underway in advance of the expected announcement.  The article also says Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), long speculated to be running and who could have quite possibly been Hillary’s toughest competition in the primaries, “is making no behind-the-scenes preparations” – so apparently Warren was serious when she said she had no plans to run.

As they say, stay tuned, because there’s never a dull moment when it comes to the Clinton political machine … nor the media’s love/hate relationship with Bill and Hill.

Two weeks later, still basking in the #NCSEN afterglow

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Tillis wins - News and Record

Headline from the Greensboro (NC) News and Record, 11-5-14

Yeah, so this happened – and it wasn’t even supposed to.

I didn’t have much time to spend at the blog writing about my experiences the last few months of the US Senate campaign battle between (outgoing) Senator Kay Hagan (D) and (now-Senator-Elect) NC House Speaker Thom Tillis (R).  But suffice it to say – if you weren’t paying attention to social media prior to the election – that new media had a LOT to do with driving the narrative and focus of the local and national press in the final couple of months of the campaign, and I was proud to be a part of it alongside some fantastic, never-say-quit people here in NC and elsewhere.

One of these days when I get an extended amount of free time to organize everything (links, etc), I’ll try to write about it here just for the record.  It was truly one of the most stressful things I’ve ever been a part of and – in the end – extraordinarily rewarding.  As the headline above notes. ;)

Not enough: DNC Chair apologizes (not really) for cheapening the meaning of domestic abuse

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

‘Sorry, not sorry.’

In an update to this post, the disgraceful, shameless Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, known for her insane, over-the-top, way beyond the bounds of basic civility, has issued a non-apology “apology” of sorts for her vile remarks likening Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) to a physically abusive husband:

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she used words she “shouldn’t have” in her attack against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in which she said he “has given women the back of his hand.”

“I shouldn’t have used the words I used,” Wasserman Schultz wrote in a statement on Thursday. “But that shouldn’t detract from the broader point that I was making that Scott Walker’s policies have been bad for Wisconsin women, whether it’s mandating ultrasounds, repealing an equal pay law, or rejecting federal funding for preventative health care, Walker’s record speaks for itself.”

The DNC chairwoman slammed the Republican governor and the GOP during a round-table discussion in Milwaukee on Wednesday. Her remarks quickly sparked outrage.

“Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality,” Wasserman Schultz said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

She continued, “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”

Sorry – her lame “walk-back” was not good enough. While it was refreshing today to see even some in the normally reliably left wing media take her to task for not just what she said, but how she said it, she really should have the decency to resign from her post as Chairwoman.  But she won’t because, as I noted this morning, this is exactly the type of in-the-gutter public discourse she gets paid to come up with.

So because she won’t resign, I’m calling on people to do exactly what prominent Democrats and their allies in the press would do had this been a Republican: Keep talking about it for the next couple of weeks at least (that’s about the normal timeframe for an MSM scandal cycle, right?). On social media, on your blogs, on political message boards, everywhere you can. Remind people Wasserman Schultz’s brand of “hardball is part of a larger Democrat party election-year strategy – one in which Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), currently in a fierce battle to try and keep her seat, is also taking part of blatantly trying to emotionally manipulate women with baseless, false, in some cases outright reprehensible political and personal attacks against their opposition … because they’re desperate to win in November.  Of course, this is something they do all the time, but this time around they’ve cranked up efforts to levels previously unseen for a non-presidential election year. 

Keep what’s happening, the stunts they’re trying to pull, fresh in everyone’s minds. Don’t let Democrats get away with throwing everything but the kitchen sink again.