The Republican Candidate Silently Approving of Racism

On CBS; Face the Nation on Sunday, Chris Christie reiterated his view that Nikki Haley is not a serious candidate for the presidency because she has said that Donald J. Trump is fit to return to the office. The former New Jersey governor stated

... in the end, look, Governor Haley got an endorsement this week that got her a lot of free media publicity, but it doesn't change one simple fact. She won't answer questions about Donald Trump. In fact, you know, she said just this week that he's fit to be president. This is a guy who last night in New Hampshire, used Vladimir Putin as a character witness for the decaying Democracy in America. A Vladimir Putin is an expert in democracy and someone who says that is fit to be President United State? It's- it's ridiculous.

However, Christie went a little further, both in questioning Haley's motives and in making a further case against the leading GOP contender. He charged

Once she hasn't ruled out being his vice president, I don't think you could take her as a serious contender against him. Rod DeSantis and I have both ruled out accepting the vice presidency from Donald Trump. Nikki Haley has not. That's why she's not saying strong things against Donald Trump. Why she's saying he's fit to be president of the United States. I mean, the fact that if you watch that speech last night, where he says that immigrants from Asia, Africa and South America are poisoning the blood of America, I don't know how you could take someone like that and say that they're fit to be president of the United States.

Christie was referring to the remark in a campaign speech in New Hampshire Saturday when Trump charged 

They're poisoning the blood of our country. Not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they are coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They're pouring into our country, nobody's even looking at them.

Afterward on social media, Trump wrote (caps his) "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION... WITHOUT BORDERS & FAIR ELECTIONS, YOU DON'T HAVE A COUNTRY." 

In a video from October, the candidate who longs to be an authoritarian referred to immigration as "poisoning the blood of our country." He repeated the remark last week because the earlier one received little attention. In so doing, he has ratcheted up his rhetoric- and not only because it borrows from Adolph Hitler.

                         

A week after being inaugurated as President, Trump signed an executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven predominately Muslim countries. That was blocked in court and was replaced by another executive order, which also was blocked. A third added North Korea, which has relatively few Muslims, and visa restrictions later were extended to six other countries, at least two of which are not majority-Muslim.

This was insufficiently comprehensive to fit the definition of a "Muslim ban"- as it was derided by the left and centrists- but it emphasized blocking from immigration individuals of that religion. The President's critics assailed the policy for being anti-Muslim and even "racist."

We didn't know it at the time but those were the good-old days, when Trump singled out persons because of their beliefs and not their genome or other immutable characteristics- their "blood."

As of this moment, Nikki Haley has not responded to Donald Trump's blood remark. At the fourth Republican debate, she gave the leading candidate the thumbs up, stating "I think he was the right President at the right time." She added "it's just I don't think he's the right person to be President," presumably because she believes she is the right person. Having not ruled out being his running mate, Haley appears ready to assist Trump in his plans for America and in return, Trump has not criticized the former South Carolina governor.

Christie may eventually drop out of the race and endorse Haley to prevent the GOP from nominating Trump. But at this point, he has the two of them dead to rights, and one seems eager to be an accessory to autocracy and racism.

 

Share |

GOP Profiles in Cowardice

Texas law bans abortion after detection of fetal cardiac activity, generally around the sixth week of pregnancy. Katie Cox, suffering from the deadly genetic condition Trisomy 18 ("Edwards Syndrome"), which "her doctors say threatens" her future fertility and even her life. Cox had filed a lawsuit to end the pregnancy and left the state. It was a good move because the Texas Supreme Court, siding with Attorney General Ken Paxton, ruled against her.  

The case has produced a display of cowardice, and something beyond cowardice. First up: cowardice:

What a coward & phony. @tedcruz may be the most unTexan-like Texas elected official. Weaselly and weak, skulking away when his false bravado is challenged even a little bit. https://t.co/vVY2buZ28s

— Matt Angle (@LSPmatt) December 15, 2023

Next up: cowardice that exceeds all cowardice.

 

Haley is contending

We have to humanize the situation and deal with it with compassion. I think that Texas should go back and have their medical board deal with this and say how should we deal with this. I think every state should do this.

Even Chris Christie (Chris Christie!) was having none of this, remarking

“I think it’s really, really difficult for me to understand why Gov. Haley won’t answer that question, why she says things like, ‘We should be compassionate,’” he told reporters Wednesday. “What the hell does that mean? Are you for it or against it?”

Christie said it’s “not pro-life to prevent a woman from ending a pregnancy which is doomed to end in death of her child and may risk her own health.” He emphasized that he would not enact a federal abortion ban and would instead leave it to voters in the states.

It's difficult to make the failed former governor of New Jersey appear bold but we live in an age in which the leading advocate for democracy among politicians is- wait for it- the daughter of Dick Cheney.

Of course, Christie is wrong about leaving reproductive freedom up to the states. Legislation is needed to codify Roe v. Wade or to establish a national right to terminate pregnancy through the first two trimesters without exception. Nonetheless, he was right to call out Haley.

But Democrats had a responsibility to their voters and to the country to respond aggressively on this situation.  In the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, the right to choose is popular among the American people, who have a compassionate side. Even heartless Haley invoked the need to be compassionate while nonetheless refusing to defend a pregnant woman whose health was endangered by continuation of an unwanted pregnancy.

Less cowardly than unimaginative was President Biden, who should have sent Air Force One to Texas to pick up Katie Cox and fly her to state in which she could have safely procured an abortion without controversy. That simultaneously would have put the Administration on the side of reproductive freedom, women, compassion, and strength of conviction. 

It would have elevated a winning issue for Democrats and, if they were lucky, Republicans would have engaged on the issue and raised the stakes. Instead, individuals such as Ted Cruz can avoid the issue entirely while opportunists such as presidential candidate Nikki Haley can grandstand as "compassionate conservatives" while cruelly denying agency to women.

Share |

Advocates for Donald Trump

It really is quite extraordinary- not surprising, but extraordinary. On Monday, Brian Klaas of The Atlantic wrote

Late Friday night, the former president of the United States—and a leading candidate to be the next president—insinuated that America’s top general deserves to be put to death.

That extraordinary sentence would be unthinkable in any other rich democracy. But Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.” (The phone call was, in fact, explicitly authorized by Trump-administration officials.) Trump’s threats against Milley came after The Atlantic’s publication of a profile of Milley, by this magazine’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who detailed the ways in which Milley attempted to protect the Constitution from Trump....

Trump loves to hide behind the thin veneer of plausible deniability, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. If a mob boss were to say, “In times gone by, people like you would have had their legs broken,” nobody would mistake that for a historical observation. The suggestion is clear, and it comes from a man who has one of America’s loudest megaphones—one that is directed squarely at millions of extremists who are well armed, who insist that the government is illegitimate, and who believe that people like Milley are part of a “deep state” plot against the country.

Noting that a member of the House of Representatives has echoed Trump's wish with “in a better society, quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung," Klaas' primary concern is political violence, a growing likelihood in the USA.

That possibility is serious enough but would not even be the most devastating outcome of Trump's threats. In the past week, the ex-President has encouraged assassination of a general and has denounced a major media company, which he said "should be investigated for its 'Country Threatening Treason." Attacking the 2020 election, last December he posted  "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

The wish list thus includes termination of military officers performing their duty, media which questions him, and the entire framework of the rule of law, including the Constitution. It's clear Donald J. Trump intends to corral the military and all law enforcement as the next President, and it's not to maintain a democratic republic.

Then on Wednesday evening, several Republican candidates for President participated in a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis criticized the leading candidate, Donald J. Trump, for not showing up.  Christie further knocked the ex-President for running up the national debt and cozying up to Vladimir Putin, as he maintained Presidents Biden, Obama, and GW Bush had done. Haley knocked her ex-boss for largely ignoring the threat posed by China.

Seven candidates, fewer than half would criticize Donald Trump for not joining them on stage, two for a policy issue, and none for supporting totalitarianism.

Then it got worse. At evening's end, Dana Perino would ask what seemed like a silly question, but for which the response was telling:

And candidates, it’s now obvious that if you all stay, in the race, former President Donald Trump wins the nomination. None of you have indicated that you’re dropping out. So, which one of you, on stage, tonight, should be voted off the island?  Please use your marker, to write your choice, on the notepad, in front of you. 15 seconds, starting now. Of the people on the stage, who should be voted —

They are competing for a presidential nomination. Thus far, the leading candidate has refused to show them the courtesy or respect by engaging in debate. He obviously is taking both them and the voters for granted.

Perino gave the candidates an opportunity to say that in so doing Donald Trump had forfeited his right to be the nominee of their party, or at least that he should step aside for one of the worthy candidates.

Only Christie offered up Trump. Two (Pence, Burgum) said nothing while four of their colleagues explicitly ruled out answering the question. 

Six of the seven thereby either actively or passively defended their main rival by implying that he should remain in the race. At a (bare) minimum, they could have said, "any candidate who doesn't respect Republican voters should not be the nominee." They wouldn't even have had to utter the name "Trump."

Their rival has been indicted four times, including for encouraging a coup against the government of the United States of America and for purloining top secret documents, even ones disclosing nuclear secrets and plans for possible military action against an enemy. That individual now has given the thumbs up to assassinating a general, closing down a media company not subservient to him, and terminating the Constitution.

MAGA this, MAGA that. By contrast, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and Tim Scott all are part of the non-chaos wing of the Republican Party, which much of the media ignorantly characterize as "moderate." And all but one of those, a guy who hates unions, teachers, and reproductive care for women, appear perfectly fine with Donald J. Trump becoming the 47th President of the USA.

Bring him on! Four more years! Trump for President, cry GOP voters- and the candidates for President. If I didn't know any better, I'd think it's one political party alone responsible for polarization of the nation.

 

Share |

Christie and Two Democratic Presidents

In a very indirect way, this tweet has a connection to Wednesday night's GOP presidential debate and illustrates a trait cutting across party lines.

He’s literally done the same exact thing to like 50 other people already.

Anyway, Jenna Ellis said all of this is well with her soul so…

It’s above her now. 🤷🏽‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/dd8UrmfZaq

— Renee (@PettyLupone) August 15, 2023

At 4:38 of the video below, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, slamming Vivek Ramaswamy, bellows

I've had enough already tonight of a guy who sounds like Chat GPT and the last person at one of these debates, Bret, who stood in the middle of the stage and said "what's a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here" was Barack Obama and I'm afraid we're dealing with the same type of amateur standing on the stage tonight. 

             .

That was a powerful line, especially directed at the Republican street, which has a score to settle with Barack Obama because he was elected twice and still- still!- that awful liberal media won't admit that racism is dead in the country. Nonetheless, Ramaswamy was up to the challenge, remarking "give me a hug, just like you did to Obama and you'll help elect me just as you did..." (the rest drowned out by the audience).

Ramaswamy was responding not to a hug but to the effusive praise given President Obama by Governor Christie when the latter two toured the New Jersey Shore following the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy. It was a few days before the presidential election Obama would go on to win and a year before Christie's own successful re-election campaign, assisted by the lovefest, the following year. Christie was disloyal to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, for whom he had been a surrogate but undercut shortly before the election with the over-the-top applause for Romney's opponent.

   

Eight years later, the man who had served as Obama's vice-president would behave similarly. Obversely, it would not be a case of disloyalty but of loyalty to someone who had been insulting to him. In an early campaign debate, in June of 2019

California Sen. Kamala Harris called out Biden on the issue of race, saying the way he recently described his past working relationship with two segregationist lawmakers was “hurtful.”

Biden, at a campaign event earlier this month, had cited his ability to get things done even with segregationist senators as examples of the type of “civility” in Congress that has since disappeared. Numerous Democratic presidential candidates took Biden to task for the comments, though some, including civil rights icon John Lewis, defended the 2020 frontrunner’s remarks.

Harris also accused Biden of opposing busing, which Biden disputed.

“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day, and that little girl was me,” Harris said.

“I will tell you that on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among Democrats. We have to take it seriously. We have to act swiftly.”

It turned out that the stunt was months in the making and within hours t-shirts reading "That little girl was me" were selling on her website for $29.

Harris, it was discovered, had held the almost identical view of busing has had the man she characterized as dangerously insensitive to blacks (my phrase).  "Dangerously insensitive to blacks" would appear euphemistic to some individuals, such as to Joe Biden's wife herself, who criticized Harris for allegedly accusing her husband of being racist.

That's "racist," as in  

I think that they were looking at the past. I mean, the one thing you cannot say about Joe is that he’s a racist. I mean, he got into politics because of his commitment to civil rights. And then to be elected with Barack Obama, and then someone is saying, you know, you’re a racist?

Twelve months after being justifiably condemned by the woman Joe Biden professes his love and admiration for, Harris was nominated by the77-year-old  presumptive Democratic nominee to be his running mate and with victory in November, a heartbeat from the presidency. 

There were many other individuals, including black women, qualified to be on the ticket, but only one had publicly berated Joe for being insensitive, bigoted, or racist. But- or maybe therefore- she was the one selected.

Donald J. Trump should be criticized for innumerable things, one of which is lack of loyalty, as Jenna Ellis apparently now realizes. However, lack of loyalty is not the worse of his sins, especially when considering that it's not an uncommon trait among very successful politicians. 

Share |

Walking It Back, Subtly

Donald Trump is hearing footsteps. Of the three individuals- Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, and Chris Christie- who have a reasonable chance of denying Trump the presidential nomination- only the discredited, former New Jersey governor has been loudly criticizing the ex-President, as he tries to goad Trump into stepping onto the debate stage.

Christie has attacked Trump over "grifting," the documents case, and American support for the Ukrainian government.  In March, before he entered the presidential race, Christie told right-wing, loyal Republican radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt

He’s afraid to get on the stage against people who are serious. And I’m sorry to see that he’s that afraid of it. If he’s that afraid of that, how can we count on him to do any better with President Xi than the failures he had in his first term with China? How can we expect him to do any better with Putin than having set the groundwork for the invasion of Ukraine, which his conduct towards Putin certainly helped to establish? This is a guy who seems like he’s afraid. And if he’s afraid, he has no business being president.

The failed ex-governor has contended that he would support Ukraine more enthusiastically than has President Biden, remarking "We need to send them the military hardware that they need to be able to fight the war against Russia and we need to make sure that this war is ultimately resolved on terms that are acceptable to Ukraine."

At a town hall meeting on Fox News on June 1, Trump promised "and I’ll stop that war, mark my words, I’ll stop that war in 24 hours." Supporter or critic, no one in the country, the world, or the planet failed to understand that he meant that he would put supreme pressure on Kyiv to surrender or at least agree swiftly to end the war on Moscow's terms. Yet, he wisely avoided spelling it out.

If Chris Christie is not the one Republican most likely to steal the nomination from Donald Trump, his relentless, borderline bellicose, criticism threatens to draw the ex-President into an argument neither may escape unscathed.  Thus, when asked on Fox News (at 2:41 of the video below) on July 16 by Maria Bartiromo "you said you would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. How would you do that?" Trump responded

I know Zelensky very well. I felt he was very honorable because when they asked him about the perfect phone call that I made, he said it was indeed, he said it was. He didn't even know what they were talking about. He could have grandstanded–" Trump said before Bartiromo cut him off.

"That's not going to be enough for Putin to stop bombing," she pointed out. Trump then explained how he would get Russia and Ukraine to end their conflict.

"I know Zelenskyy very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give him a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day," Trump responded.

Previously assumed- accurately- to be implying that as President, he would twist Zelenskyy's arm long and hard, Trump now maintains that he would severely pressure both parties.

This blunts criticism from Christie, who along with Asa Hutchinson- whom no one notices- is the only GOP candidate who won't kiss Trump's ring. Another advantage of Trump's pivot is that the 45th President has now planted himself firmly, resolutely, and defiantly on the fence- a convenient place to sit until he needs to pivot again. It is reminiscent of the promise made by presidential candidate Richard Nixon of "peace with honor," which got him elected before he presided over a humiliating defeat in the Vietnam War.

This fellow Trump is both smarter and slicker than he appears to his opponents. He's similar to a quarterback who sees the entire field or a linebacker who recognizes the play before it develops.  He has a good sense of whom his friends are, whom his enemies are, and how to respond to his advantage.  Those traits weren't enough to win a second presidential election because it took place as the USA was being crushed with a coronavirus which had stricken 9.3 million persons and claimed 232,627 lives.

SARS-CoV-2 now has killed over 1,134,000 Americans, nearly three times as many as the 392,428 lost before Trump turned the White House over to Joe Biden on January 20, 2021. And assuming Trump is nominated, Biden will be facing an opponent who knows a thing or two about strategy, including how to pivot effortlessly on the major foreign policy challenge of the day.,... and that's without even considering the Vice President.

 

Share |

The Real Anti-Trump Path

History doesn't always repeat, circumstances change over time, and Republican voters are not identical to Democratic voters. In the following podcast of Breaking Points. in which Emily Jashinsky told Krystal Ball discussed polling results which display Joe Biden's vulnerability in a general election and even in being nominated. They transitioned into addressing the Republican race for the nomination and Jashinsky caught my eye (ear, really) when she remarked (at 3:02 of the video below)

When I think about Tim Scott's campaign, uh, they're saying, like literally, we have no idea what's going to happen a year from now. We have no idea what's going to transpire, so we're just going to kind of wait in the wings and see what happens and we'll be the best in position if, if something changes.

The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's campaign is most likely to be upended or stymied if the candidate is indicted (beyond Manhattan) and GOP voters become considerably wary that the ex-President could not be elected because of his legal troubles. However, not only is there another path to defeating Trump as the nominee but it the one which Tim Scott- and perhaps others- believe is more likely.

Consider a little bit of history, which may or may not be applicable. In an article which appeared in the May, 2004 issue of The Atlantic, Paul Maslin, one of the four chief strategists for Howard Dean, detailed  the presidential campaign strategy of his candidate in the run-up to the Iowa caucus, which largely decided the nomination. Shortly before caucus day, as the two top candidates were expected to be John Kerry and Dean, the campaign ran a television ad criticizing Dean's strongest opponent. Maslin wrote

When we ran the ad, it barely brushed the intended targets—Kerry and Edwards—but delivered a devastating blow to (Dick) Gephardt. Quite naturally, he fought back—with a "kitchen sink" negative ad on us, which ran midweek. That ad, which attacked Dean's views on Medicare and Social Security, snuffed out what little chance we had left at victory—Dean and Gephardt were both increasingly seen by Iowans as running negative campaigns. The exchange, called off within days by both sides, nevertheless sent us hurtling to a crushing defeat instead of a narrow loss that we should have been able to endure. Had the vote been closer, I believe, there would have been no "I have a scream" speech on caucus night. All the habits we had learned so early in this race—work fast, use Iraq, be aggressive—were coming back to haunt us.

As the front-runner, Dean had been criticized by several candidates but most strenuously by Representative (and former Minority Leader) Gephardt. Gephardt had gone hard after Dean, and Dean (inadvertently, according to Maslin) retaliated robustly. Gephardt dropped out, Dean lost the primary and subsequent to the much overhyped, infamous "scream," went on to losing the nomination decisively.

The nomination went to the candidate, John Kerry, who mostly had stayed out of the fray. Fast forward sixteen years to the 2020 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination and before the Nevada caucus, when Elizabeth Warren

launched her first broadside against Bloomberg just minutes into the debate, setting the tone for the night.

“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against,” she said. “A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”

About 40 minutes later, the debate returned to Bloomberg’s alleged mistreatment of women when he was asked to address the accusations. He responded by touting the number of women in leadership positions within his foundation and business, noting, “I have no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the #MeToo movement has exposed.”

Bloomberg faces attacks for refusing to release women from confidentiality agreements

“I hope you heard what his defense was: ‘I’ve been nice to some women,’ ” Warren said, drawing applause. “That just doesn’t cut it.”

Warren then immediately zeroed in on the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who sued Bloomberg, demanding that he release them from the deals and allow their alleged accounts of harassment or discrimination to become public. And from there, the situation only continued to spiral.

Warren repeatedly pressured Bloomberg to reveal how many agreements were signed and attacked his character and electability in light of the allegations, prompting the former mayor to issue defenses that many thought made him look worse.

“None of them accused me of anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,” Bloomberg said at one point, prompting boos and gasps from the audience. He also declined to release women from the nondisclosure deals saying, “They signed the agreements, and that’s what we’re going to live with.”

Bloomberg was done, finished, obliterated while Warren was boosted. This sort of reaction was common:

Time to update Bloomberg's Wikipedia page...

Date of death: 2/19/2020
Place: Democratic Debate stage
Cause: Elizabeth Ann Warren#DemDebate

— Adam Best (@adamcbest) February 20, 2020

On CNN, Van Jones stated “Bloomberg went in as the Titanic — billion-dollar-machine Titanic. Titanic, meet iceberg Elizabeth Warren.” Bloomberg went in to the debate as an extremely plausible Democratic nominee and came out shattered.

Warren had proven the giant-killer. Two days after the debate, the Nevada caucus was held and Bernie Sanders emerged as the most(more?) viable progressive contender for the nomination as he pulled down 46.8% of the voted. Joe Biden received 20.22%, Pete Buttigieg, 11.3%,, and Warren 9.7%.

The Massachusetts senator stayed in the race for a while but she was essentially eliminated after Nevada. She was done in by Nevada voters, who saw two Democrats fighting and decided that strife was not for them. Better to hold hands and sign "kumbaya," and eventually Sanders lost out to the milquetoast Joe Biden. That's the way it is with Democrats, anyway. "Can't we all just get along?"

Republicans may be different. Joe Scarborough and others in the mainstream media blather about Tim Scott having a lane in the Republican nominating contest because he exudes a cheery optimism reminiscent, they pray, of Ronald Reagan while Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are nattering nabobs of negativism. They fundamentally miss the rationale of the Senator's candidacy.

Republican voters believe the country is going to hell in a handbasket, a major reason they are attracted to DeSantis and especially Grump- uh, er, Trump. Many believe, additionally, that the latter is the once, current, and future President.

Although something has to happen to Trump if he is to be derailed, no Republican in the race is willing to criticize the 45th President. They all are waiting around wishing and hoping that the other guy (or gal) attacks Trump, erodes his numbers, and give them their opening.

Realistically speaking, there is one and only one (potential) candidate who would do that.  Someone confrontational, brash, and not a little nasty, perhaps somebody who exudes a bit of that Sopranos, stereotypical Jersey impulse.

Donald Trump says he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours tonight on CNN. Despite how ridiculous that is to say, I suspect he would try to do it by turning Ukraine over to Putin and Russia. #Putin’sPuppet

— Chris Christie (@GovChristie) May 11, 2023

 

Each- but especially a Tim Scott, who has better than a snowball's chance in hell- is waiting for former New Jersey governor Chris Christie He can be, candidates believe, a modern Jesus Christ- sacrificing himself to death (in this case of the political sort) on their behalf. Ironically, there are GOP candidates whose best hope lies in the possibility that Republican voters are similar to Democratic voters.

As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm that the only similarity between Chris Christie and Jesus Christ is in the first six letters of the former governor's name.  And yes, Tim Scott would like to demonstrate vote-getting ability in presidential primaries so he can become vice-presidential timber. However, Scott won't attain even that status unless someone puts a serious dent into the clear front-runner. A former prosecutor, Christie likely believes he can prosecute the case against Trump and, in either case, is probably the only one who can do so in the belligerent manner necessary for Republican voters to sit up and take notice.

It's conceivable that Christie will stay out of the race. He is, after all, more concerned with his own political future than anyone else's, a characteristic of most politicians. Nonetheless, he is a very good retail politician and unlike some candidates- such as Scott, DeSantis, and Nikki Haley- has no chance to be a vice-presidential nominee. He'd be in it to draw blood.

"If something changes," as Emily Jashinsky put it, it probably would be a fellow Republican getting into a figurative knife fight with Donald J. Trump.  Like Richard Gephardt and Elizabeth Warren, Chris Christie would take no prisoners. That would be a confrontation worth watching and provide the best opportunity for someone to thwart Donald J. Trump.

 

Share |

The New Eleventh Commandment

I suppose it was fairly predictable.  After Governor Ron DeSantis signed his signature "Stop Woke Act," he blasted the "myth" that "Florida schools have been directed to 'empty libraries' and 'cover classroom books.'"

However, as Judd Legum has pointed out, a regulation issued by the state's Department of Education has created sufficient confusion and fear that a few districts such as Manatee County School District have

instructed teachers to "remove or cover all classroom libraries until all materials can be reviewed." In addition, a librarian must "vet every classroom library book" and

In Escambia County for example, there have been challenges filed to remove 175 books from school libraries. 148 of those books have been removed from library shelves during the challenge process, which includes multiple reviews and appeals. But thus far, the Escambia County school board has considered and made a final decision on just four books. It voted to remove all four. The other 170 challenges are still pending. But, in DeSantis' intepretation of the data, Escambia would have only removed four books.

Large numbers of books have been removed pending appeal in Clay County and other school districts as well.

These challenges of individual books is entirely separate from the reviews of classroom libraries, which must be performed by librarians, mandated by the DeSantis administration. That process is why, according to data released by Duval County, more than 1.5 million books remain inaccessible to students.

Confused?  I am, and I'm writing about it, although Legum is thorough. Confusion probably is the intent, ambiguity the means for the governor. Far less ambiguous is the six-week ban on abortion approved by the legislature in Florida and signed by DeSantis which

will take effect only if the state’s current 15-week ban is upheld in an ongoing legal challenge that is before the state Supreme Court, which is controlled by conservatives.

The policy would have wider implications for abortion access throughout the South in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving decisions about abortion access to states. Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while Georgia forbids the procedure after cardiac activity can be detected, which is around six weeks.

A woman often does not know prior to six weeks that she is pregnant but the punitive ban, as the cliche goes, is "a feature rather than a bug," which more properly would be phrased "a benefit rather than a bug."

Supporters of DeSantis' expected candidacy for the GOP nomination for President have supported his legislative initiatives, however cruel or authoritarian, or both (here again, benefit rather than bug). However, so have his critics, whether supporters or skeptics of Donald Trump's bid for the nomination. 

In the latter category would be former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. The Guardian reports

DeSantis accused Disney of perpetrating a legally unsound “sham”, which he said he would dismantle. He also threatened to build on state-owned land next to Disney World.

“What should we do with this land?” DeSantis said. “Maybe create a state park. Maybe try to do more amusement parks. Someone even said, like, maybe you need another state prison. Who knows? I just think that the possibilities are endless.”

Christie said: “I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney.

“Where are we headed here now, that if you express disagreement in this country, the government is allowed to punish you? To me, that’s what I always thought liberals did. And now all of a sudden here we are participating in this with a Republican governor.”

As well as questioning why DeSantis attacked Disney, Christie blasted how he did it.

“For him … to not have foreseen that Disney was going to do what they did in response, which was to completely take over the millions and millions of acres and the zoning decisions on that … well, I’ll tell you this much: that’s not the guy I want sitting across from President Xi.”

 

BREAKING: Former Republican Governor, Chris Christie has just spoken out against Ron DeSantis and his attacks on Disney World:

“I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney. I mean, where are we headed now, that if you express disagreement… pic.twitter.com/tig5dz3ysw

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) April 18, 2023

 

Christie is not alone in his criticism, for former Vice President Mike Pence is doubling down on attacks against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis:

The latest salvo came during a Yahoo! News interview Tuesday, when the potential Presidential candidate likened “government activism” from DeSantis to that of California’s Gavin Newsom, comparing Florida’s handling of Disney to how California dealt with abortion pills.

“I’m a limited government conservative, and I believe in private property, free enterprise. My concern more broadly was just simply about taking action against a company in the wake of a political dispute, where the company had taken a different position than the state,” Pence contended.

“I have concerns about that in Florida. I had the exact same concerns about California, pulling a $54 million contract from Walgreens because Walgreens announced that they’ll not be distributing the abortion pill in 20 states where it would be illegal to do so. To me, it’s the same kind of government activism — one on the right, one on the left, and both are wrong.”

Ronald Reagan said the 11th Commandment is "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican."  He first said that, though, well over a half century ago. No, it is more like "Thou Must Not Antagonize Corporations."

Share |

They Can't Possibly Believe This.

The answer is "of course, he can" On January 29, during his regular stint as a panelist on This Week with or without George Stephanopoulos, Chris Christie argued

Donald Trump "can't win a general election" — as evidenced by his failure in 2020.

"And that's not speculation," Christie, a former Trump supporter, said in an appearance on ABC's This Week on Sunday. "That's based upon the polling that I was privy to pre-the 2020 election and what we saw actually happen in the 2020 election. And it's only gotten worse since then."

Christie said that the failure of Trump-endorsed candidates in the 2022 midterm elections is further proof that support for the former president is eroding.

"We could go through the entire list — loser, loser, loser, loser — and I think Republicans are recognizing that," Christie said of Republicans like Blake Masters, Kari Lake and Doug Mastriano — all of whom lost their races in 2022.

Calling them "bad candidates," Christie noted those Republicans were both endorsed by Trump and echoed his false claims that the 2020 election was rigged against him.

Chris Christie on Trump: "I've said over and over that he can't win a general election, and that's not speculation. That's based upon...what we saw actually happen in the 2020 election. And it's only gotten worse since then." Trump's record is losing. pic.twitter.com/mBInyWscZA

— The Republican Accountability Project (@AccountableGOP) January 30, 2023

One week later

“Joe Biden is not an exciting candidate. He’s old. He’s boring. And the American people are not relating to him,” Christie said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week. “That was the same in 2020 but he was running against someone who was so toxic that he won anyway.”

Asked if Trump could beat Biden in a rematch next year, Christie responded: “I don’t think so.”

Christie’s views on Trump’s chances were echoed by New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who said on ABC that the results of the 2022 midterms showed that the former GOP president could not win another term in the White House.

“Trump is going to be seen as a very extreme candidate,” Sununu said. “The country is going to push back against it. If we just look at the results of three months ago, and that shows you where extreme candidates are going to end up falling. It can’t get done.”

So two prominent Republicans, both of whom are considered possible candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, agree that Donald Trump would likely lose if nominated.

Even less likely is that they have a clue or, if they do, that they're being straight with the public (and any GOP presidential nominee must be straight).  The day before their Sunday appearances, we learned of an ABC News/Washington Post poll which found that Republicans don't want Trump nominated and Democrats don't want Biden re-nominated.

Things have been looking up for the incumbent lately, particularly with strikingly good economic news, and Biden received his highest approval mark in that survey since April, 2022. However, approval was only 42%. And matched against Trump in a rematch, Biden was preferred by only 45% of respondents to 48% for the ex-President.

That's a very bad number for the incumbent- and a good number for Donald Trump. Nonetheless, it is of greater importance that

In a hypothetical rematch, Trump held a 48 percent to 45 percent advantage over Biden, an outcome that is within the new poll’s margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Biden also garnered a 42 percent approval rating in the poll of 1,003 people, his highest mark in the ABC-Washington Post poll since April.

Just the day before, an MSNBC blogger noted of the New Hampshire governor

during last year’s Gridiron Club dinner for Washington insiders, he quipped that Trump was “crazy” (using some colorful language).

“I don’t think he’s so crazy that you could put him in a mental institution,” he said, according to Politico. “But I think if he were in one, he ain’t getting out!”

Sununu soon said he had just been joking, and he has repeated that caveat several times since. But on Thursday, he took the backpedaling into overdrive.

During a CNN interview, Sununu vowed to support Trump should he win the Republican nomination for president next year. Sununu said whoever the Republican nominee is will be “better than any of the Democrats that would likely sit in that presidential seat.”

Asked about his having called Trump crazy, Sununu replied: “Yeah, that was funny. It was a roast! It was a funny joke!”

Weak-kneed politicians such as Chris Sununu, who has pledged to support Trump if nominated, and Chris Christie, who won't say, want the media to know that they really, really don't like Donald Trump. But at the very least, they admire him.  If it becomes clear sometime in the first half of 2024 that Trump will become the GOP nominee, the Chrises and virtually every single Republican will line up to support him. A choice between country and party is no choice at all for most of them which, more than any poll 21 months out from the election, is the reason Donald Trump could be re-elected.

Share |

Valid Criticism from Awful Ex-Governor

At a fund-raiser on October 6 in New York City, President Biden stated

We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis. We are trying to figure out: What is Putin's off-ramp? Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself where he does not only lose face but significant power?

On Friday evening's Real Time, Bill Maher asked his panel of Chris Christie and journalists Chris Wallace and Katty Kay to respond to a question from an audience member about Biden's invocation of "Armageddon."  Although a supporter of the President's Afghanistan policy, Kay wisely stated (as can be seen beginning at 6:45 of the video below)

I'm not sure the use of the word "Armageddon" is very helpful. I mean, Putin wants us to be afraid and you can- I mean, half of Europe is up in arms about him saying "Armageddon" because actually all that does is play in to Putin's desire to make us afraid. You can say there's a serious threat and there is a serious threat....

Historian Timothy Snyder, who believes Russian forces probably will eventually pull out of Ukraine, notes  "Right now, though, we have a certain difficulty seeing how Ukraine gets to victory, even as the Ukrainians advance.  This is because many of our imaginations are trapped by a single and rather unlikely variant of how the war ends: with a nuclear detonation."

Perhaps stuck in the 1960s-1970s, Biden painted a more worrisome scenario, seemingly unaware that even if Putin were to launch a nuclear weapon, the consequences would be less severe than they would have been during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, it was widely assumed that escalation would result in an exchange of strategic, rather than tactical, nuclear weapons, possibly resulting in the end of civilization. Moreover, the extent of development of tactical nuclear weapons by both the USA and the USSR was largely unknown during the period in which Joe Biden was emerging as a prominent public official, which probably informs his understanding of nuclear firepower.

By contrast, Katty Kay would maintain "Bill Burns, the director of the CIA who thank goodness used to be the ambassador to Moscow has made it very clear to the Russians that were they to launch any kind of tactical or small nuclear weapon...."

Also making sense (and it's hard to type those words) was Christie, the former terrible governor of New Jersey, failed presidential candidate, and (usually) Trump supporter. He remarks (beginning at 7:54)

when he says nuclear Armageddon, it's clear to me doesn't understand it because he's causing alarm in a way that is not productive- like, you know, what if you really think that, then go and try to fix it but don't give us some pronouncements, scare the crap out of everybody.

Following a comment by Maher and one (dead on) from Wallace, Christie continued

To me, the problem with him saying this stuff is your job is not to be a weatherman when you're President. "Oh, let me show you what the map looks like." It's to go and come with a solution. And to say "oh, yeah, we're close to nuclear Armageddon we've been since 1962." Now, genius, what are you going to do about it?

The former disastrous governor is still what he always has been- charismatic, gruff-talking, opportunistic, egotistical, and up Donald Trump's rear end, albeit not as far as Ted Cruz and some others.

Nonetheless, the former dreadful governor, though far too smart a retail politician to put it this way, recognizes the disconnect between Biden's rhetoric and his actions. If the President truly believes that the world may be on its way to obliteration, he needs to be doing far more than he is. His actions don't meet the moment- if the situation is as dire as he describes it.

Fortunately, as Snyder and almost everyone else believe, it's very unlikely that strategic nuclear weapons will start flying. That's very good. Having to defend Chris Christie, the hideous former governor of New Jersey, is not.

 

Share |

More Than Trump

Chris Christie, former governor and presidential candidate and (still) Donald Trump sycophant, has been on a charm offensive with major news outlets, Nicole Wallace's credible interview notwithstanding.  He believes Trump did a lot of swell things as President and was a far better choice for the office than Hillary Clinton. And he condemns Joe Biden as President but acknowledges the latter was duly elected. So everything is forgiven.

Christie's perspective might be a little credible were Donald Trump the only problem facing the country. However, the latter is not the sole problem and may not be the primary one.

On Wednesday, 207 of 210 Republicans, 98.6%, voted against censuring and removing from committee assignments Representative Paul Gosar for having threatened the life of one of his colleagues, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In voting "present," David Joyce of Ohio refused, along with the two Republicans ( Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) who oppose the violent overthrow of the government, to defend a man so odious he's hated by his own family.

Then there is Steve Bannon, who unlike Trump has never been President and never will be, a man so odious that he has called for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Robert Wray. (I don't like either myself, but really.) Now

Republicans are rallying around former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon after his indictment on charges of contempt of Congress on Friday, warning that Democrats’ efforts to force Bannon to comply with what they say is an unfair subpoena paves the way for them to do the same if they take back the House in 2022.

Bannon, like former president Donald Trump, has refused to comply with an order from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection to turn over records and testify about his actions leading up to the attack, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol trying to stop the certification of President Biden’s electoral college win....

Many GOP leaders, however, are seizing on Bannon’s indictment to contend that Democrats are “weaponizing” the Justice Department, warning Democrats that they will go after Biden’s aides for unspecified reasons if they take back the House majority in next year’s midterm elections, as most political analysts expect.

“For years, Democrats baselessly accused President Trump of ‘weaponizing’ the DOJ. In reality, it is the Left that has been weaponizing the DOJ the ENTIRE TIME — from the false Russia Hoax to the Soviet-style prosecution of political opponents,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the third-ranking House Republican, tweeted Saturday.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) suggested that Republicans would seek payback if the GOP regained control of the House, signaling that in challenging the doctrine of executive privilege, Democrats were making it easier for Republicans to force Biden’s top advisers to testify before a future GOP Congress.

This claim is suspect because it comes from a Trump flunkie, but is stunning if true:

Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah riled up former President Donald Trump by telling CNN that he admitted his election defeat to Joe Biden was legitimate.

“He told me shortly after that he knew he lost, but then folks got around him,” she told CNN’s Pamela Brown on Saturday. “They got information in front of him, and I think his mind genuinely might have been changed about that, and that’s scary because he did lose.”

Donald Trump may have been less radical, less intent on allowing Joe Biden to assume the presidency, than were people around him. Chew on that awhile.

House Republicans and GOP bureaucrats are different in degree but not in kind from Chris Christie, who excuses the January 6 insurrectionists with "I don't think they would've gone there if they thought the election had been fair."  (Most of the media has interpreted this as Christie criticizing Trump's role in the insurrection. They were born yesterday.)  Donald Trump, Republicans in state legislatures curbing the right to vote, the former New Jersey governor, and GOP politicians from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, are sending a clear message:  representative democracy must have no home in the United States of America. 

 

Share |

Christie Skates

The audience swoons. We get played so easily.

One tweeter: "After seeing this clip, I would have Nicole Wallace's baby."MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace slams Chris Christie to his face for 'trying to clean the Trump stink off' Made my day!"

Another: "Nicole Wallace confronts BS by calling out Chris Christie."

Still another: "Women- getting it ONE!!!!!" with the response "This is how all trump enablers should be treated."

Another believes "Nicole Wallace is a bonafide badass."

If this is being a badass, I'd hate to see a goodass.

At 8:54 of the video (from which the end of Christie's response is cut off, as well as the following question from Wallace), Nicolle Wallace tells the former New Jersey governor

I don't remember you coming out forcefully pushing back against Donald Trump's comments on the Access Hollywood tape. You didn't defend him but you didn't withdraw your support. I didn't hear you after he called African-American nations bleep hole nations. I didn't hear you distance yourself from this President at any point until the target for his ire and lawlessness was the democracy. You haven't ruled out leading in four years. Are yo simply making a political calculation that you can clean the Trump stink off you faster than Marco Rubio or some of your other competitors?

These all are excellent points, Christie responded calmly, notwithstanding being (justifiably) personally ("stink") attacked. He understands what was going on; he has played the game before. He knows that if asked a difficult question, he needs only to avoid directly responding, instead going off in a different direction. Without a follow-up question, he (or she) emerges the winner and thus Christie replied

No, um, not at all, Nicole, and in fact you know at the end of it, um, I made a decision back in 2016 that the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, um, was one where I was with Donald Trump . Um, I don't regret that choice. I still don't regret that today.

Christie continued for 74 seconds, first appealing to the MSNBC audience by citing occasions when he opposed a Trump action or statement, (allegedly) receiving in return critical phone calls from White House staff. He concluded "I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton today if that choice were to be made."

Wallace followed up by asking about masks. No, really.

Actually, that wasn't surprising. Wallace got to grandstand, effectively for as far as it went. Christie was given plenty of time to hedge his bets, remaining supportive of the President but only so far in case the Republican Party pulls back its support of Trump. Further, he was able to slam Hillary Clinton, among the GOP's favorite pastimes for at least the last quarter century.

Donald Trump would be pleased that a prominent Republican could needle Hillary Clinton while two critics of Trump- both women- sat idly by. All in all it was a good outing for Chris Christie, who got a pass while one of the network's star liberals and former Democratic senator Claire McCaskill looked on silently, unable or unwilling to question why someone they consider reasonable would vote even today for the most evil man on the planet.

 

 

Share |

A Bad Egg Returns

If history is our guide, a moderator of a presidential general election debate (if any is held) will ask each candidate to say something positive about the other. The Democratic nominee should turn to Donald Trump and remark "you kept Chris Christie from the presidency."  (New Jersey viewers would cheer.)

It's not primarily because the ex- New Jersey governor is opening The Christie Institute of Public Policy, described here as "a non-profit, nonpartisan institute in part with his alma mater, Seton Hall University School of Law."

Christie promises "we're going to focus on national issues and on having nonpartisan conversations and research on national issues and international issues." He stated also "unfortunately, our politics have gotten so ugly and divisive in the country that people are not having civilized conversations." Yes, he went there. As a devoted resident of the greater New York area, Christie know doubts understand "chutzpah" and realizes how hypocritical he is.

But Trump's value was not in keeping this ghastly individual from the GOP nomination, hence the presidency. It was in keeping this governor from national office. Under his leadership, local government budgets were squeezed of funding, leading to property tax increases; slashed aid for women's health; cancelled the Access to the Region's Core tunnel project, connecting commuters to New York City, NY; legalized gambling spread; a bridge was partially closed to pressure a mayor to support the governor's re-election bid; the state's pension shortfall shot upward; growth in the state paled in comparison to that in the region and the nation; and more.

Chris Christie wanted to be President of the United States of America. He first had to gain the nomination of an increasingly right-wing party, and governed accordingly to the extent possible in a relatively liberal, Democratic state.All he got out of it was a job at a law firm, a gig with ABC News, and now a non-profit institute. It's at least three things too many.

Share |