Discussion for article #239789
Christie: Vote for me, I have already defeated the liberals, who folded wihout a fight.
2 Likes
ANd CHRistIE COnTINUEs to BE MIsUNDereSTimateD by the LIBtard LEFT aND LAMEstreAM MEdia. At theIR PeRIL.
10 Likes
Can anyone tell me what official FEC problem with the PAC name was?
Or what they needed to clarify?
3 Likes
His plummeting in the polls is the reason I cannot understand the suggestion in the media yesterday that he is in a position to pressure Booker on the Iran deal. If Booker makes the wrong choice and opposes the deal, it won’t be because of Christie.
Having said that, at some point the Repugs will look to coalesce around the anti-Trump, and I wouldn’t rule anyone out just yet given that desperation can distort perception and rationality.
1 Like
Stick a fork in… scratch that, why bother.
2 Likes
YEAH! That bear hug he gave Hussein Obama our last best hope to hold back the Kenyan from making a deal with Iran allowing it to nuke America!
3 Likes
His campaign is working worse than his stomach staple.
1 Like
Fat chance
He’s LOST sometHING like 110 lbs. It’s nOT FAt. It’s extra SKin.
2 Likes
I agree. It sure would be nice to know why the FEC said they had to change their name. I was always under the impression, from listening to Stephen Colbert educate the country on SuperPACs, that basically there were no firm and fast rules for the road on forming and maintaining a PAC, even to the point where PAC money could be transferred from one person to another, as he did with Jon Stewart over his SuperPAC for awhile I thought. All you needed was a good lawyer familiar with election law…Plus, election law seems to be a set of standards that a toothless FEC rarely even pretends to monitor anymore by design. Its like the Wild West when it comes to fund-raising by PACs now. Anyone can get in the game with the requisite forms and what little reporting requirements there are now I thought.
1 Like
The worst example is CARLY for America. Here’s why:
FEC rules state that committees can only use a federal candidate’s name if they’re authorized by that candidate, something super PACS, by rule, cannot be since they’re supposed to be independent.
OK, it’s the actual name of the candidate that is a problem. I can see that being a rule.
1 Like
I think its safe to rule Christie out. The need to rally around an “anti Trump” is very real and necessary for the establishment wing. But there are far too many candidates with deep pockets there right now, and its unlikely that they will go quietly into the night.
However, Christie is running basically for two reasons: A) to distract from being governor of NJ and not have to deal with the drip drip drip of pending legal actions. B) with the tacit approval of the Bushies to be an attack dog to take down the lesser candidates…aka, Paul specifically.
Now that B) has become unnecessary, Christie, as the least likely “establishment” candidate, is going to be under increasing pressure behind the scenes to bow out. He may like to stay in the campaign longer to keep distracting from his NJ problems, but his future is too dependent upon the GOP’s establishment to deny their pressure for long.
2 Likes
I have seen too many candidates written off for various reasons, only to see them subsequently rise from the dead.
Under different circumstances, yes. But Perry’s campaign is over. Paul’s is essentially over as well (with three top aides including his campaign manager under indictment, and his petulant reluctance to, you know, actually campaign or raise money). Christie isn’t technically out of it, but I feel pretty confident in standing by my assessment.
Christie was a deeply flawed candidate from the start. Even before Bridgegate, he was a very difficult sell to the base…NJ governor squish who was seen being buddy buddy with the Satan Obama? His physical size, both too much girth and not enough height, a very unphotogentic face all add up to making a difficult product to sell. Add Bridgegate into the equation, and that cloud hanging over the entire campaign, gives too many donors and party elites the heebie jeebies. THEN add in Trump playing the bully routine far more believable than Christie…really Christie’s main shtick, while sucking all the air out of the room for everybody, and its pretty clear that Christie’s hopes for even making an impact, let alone win, are gone.
The party people are going to want him, and quite a few other “establishment” types gone…the sooner the better. Because of the changes the RNC made after 2012, this thing will probably be decided by mid-March, beginning of April at the latest. I suspect everyone who is dependent upon the GOP establishment for their future career is getting a very strong talking to. Christie’s discussion is going to be specifically about winding down his campaign.
In other news, “Christie Hugs Obama” PAC took credit for folding of “Stop Chris Christie” PAC.
Sat down, shut up…
As you can glean from my user name, I am very familiar with the sham that is Christie, but that is in part because the MSM empowers any Repug who occasionally something not insane.
The larger point is that there is no obvious non-Trump alternative yet. That’s why there is some talk about a Romney redux.
Until that happens, or Christie is indicted, I wouldn’t write him off completely.