Chris Christie spoke to a roomful of Republicans at a GOP Republican "Leadership Conference."
I asked him a question.
Chris Christie has extraordinary political talent. He is clear, direct, persuasive, and fluent in his presentations.
He can read a room.
He got tepid applause from this group of activist Republicans when he was introduced. There were Trump-skeptical people in the room looking for viable alternatives to Trump, but the theme of the conference was "Team Republican." Chris Christie had criticized the team captain which makes him a traitor. Talented, perhaps, but a traitor.
Christie is verbally talented enough to dodge direct landmines. He spoke generally of "others in this race" who opposed U.S. support for Ukraine or who criticized Netanyahu and praised Hezbollah. He said that silence or equivocation in the face of evil was collaboration. I thought Christie was being coy.
There were a dozen TV cameras just behind me. I wanted him to be what Christie can be: Clear and forthright to a national audience. I asked him a question at minute 10:45. (If you want you can advance to that point with the slider at the bottom of the screen.) I am not on camera, but I had been handed a microphone and you can hear my question.
 |
| Click. |
He laughed at the idea that he of all people needed to be nudged to be forthright. He spoke Trump's name and condemned his effort to overthrow the election.
But notice. This is a heads up to Democrats who think that Republicans unhappy with Trump won't support him in a general election. Christie says that he won't support a person convicted of a felony. A person who joyfully justifies felonious anti-democratic actions to overthrow an election, a person who is indicted on felonies but who manages to get trials delayed so he is not formally convicted on election day, a person who pleads the Fifth to felonies, a person who is tried for felonies but benefits from a holdout juror -- well, that person might be OK.
Even Republicans as unhappy with Trump as is Christie are looking for a way to stick with the team if at all possible.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
21 comments:
Team Republican "Leadership Conference": What a farcical charade. Republicans have already made their preference clear. They like the pathological liar who tried to overthrow the government. Meanwhile, House Republicans can't even select a speaker with only 27 more days to come up with a spending bill that keeps the government open.
The GOP is no place for anyone who cares about the Constitution, much less leadership.
He "almost" talked like a Democrat. Republicans don't like him at all. That's probably why. I think he'd be okay, but he has no chance. That's a shame because he sounds like he'd be a decent president. What we need and what we'll get are far too different. We get whack jobs when we need normal and decency. He said he was pro life, but also said he'd take care of them AFTER they are born. The pro life people never talk about that. In fact, the kids are ignored like they did something wrong. Anyway, Christi has no chance, but it's good to hear someone normal on a Republican stage. He seems to be the only one.
Democracy: the attempt to extract, high-quality decisions from a large mass of low-quality components.
However devoted we might be to this method, it doesn’t always produce the results one might hope for.
Anti-free speech out of the gate...Russia...Israel...Election interference...Trump's ok as long as he's not in jail...Immigration...Chinese fentanyl?...
Climate change, student loans, campaign finance, healthcare, LGBTQ rights, women's rights...
Crickets...
He completely dodged your direct question, and mumbled some gobbledygook about the constitution. This was an opportunity to distance himself from Trump and he didn't.
All you need to know...
The Republicans have a problem with Trump supporters. They can’t win without them.
The Democrats have a problem with Hamas supporters. They may be able to win without them. I would like to see them try. I will enjoy watching them defenestrate Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Ilhan Omar.
Republicans have a problem with Trump supporters, namely their anger, hatred and violence. It's been suggested that instead of criticizing them for supporting a demented traitor, we should extend them empathy and understanding. I'll bet that would work equally well with Hamas.
As with McCain, Romney, Dubya, et al, Christie’s reputation is somehow restored once ruined and rendered harmlessly useful to Democrats, as opposed to a threat. Ah, Bridgegate, we hardly knew ye….
Just in case anyone around here is even more literal minded than I am, I am not suggesting that the Democratic party literally throw those three fools out a window. I was using the word “defenestrate” metaphorically, to mean something like denounce, or eject from the party.
The word was being used to express anger, not literal intention. I assumed this group has a high enough level of reading comprehension to get that.
Re: Replicans and the Speaker
More Democrats voted to oust McCarthy than Republicans.
I guess they can share the blame in shutting down the country.
Just revealing the obvious that some of the commenters here weird a very broad brush. They’re a bit myopic.
Equating Trump supporters with the depraved animals of Hamas demonstrates an amazing level of moral obtuseness.
How many babies have Trump supporters slaughtered, Mike???
It misunderstands House politics to say Democrats ousted McCarthy. This is a search for a majority faction. McCarthy wanted a Republican-onlymajority and did not have one. If there is to be a differently-configured majority, one that includes concessions to Democrats, the the failure to create a Republican-only majority is the way to do that.
Personally, I would be happy to see a bipartisan majority of “normal” Republicans of the kind who were typical pre-Trump, and there are about 125 of them, plus a bunch of Democrats. But that Speaker would support Both Israel and Ukraine, would insist that Impeachment of Biden take place after finding evidence of crime, not before, and would support spending bills that would pass the Senate and become law. That bi-partisan consensus majority would be hated by the Freedom Caucus, Marjory Taylor Green, etc.
Democrats did not join the Republican-centered majority and were right not to. If no Republican majority exists, THEN it will be their turn.
Peter Sage
Peter,
So here we are. Republicans are split as to who should be the Speaker, and of the candidates suggested thus far by the Republican caucus, no Democrat is likely to agree.
Over on the Democratic side, haven't heard any suggestions in the media for an alternate candidate who might have a D or I after their name. If there was I missed it; perhaps it could be Hakim Jeffries. If there is in the coming days I expect that the vote again will fail, and the D vote will be split.
Next up, very little activity on the part of suggesting a bipartisan candidate where both caucuses actually enumerate as you did, the primary factors that have split the House.
I hope there is more compromise on the horizon, and less kicking the can down the road.
We can only hope.
PS I can't believe my fingers resulted in Replicans rather than Republicans in my original comment.
My banked karma has rewarded me with a few answers this morning regarding our disfunctional House (and Senate!).
A nice history of the past almost 80 years; our broken Congress.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/16/broken-congress-history-00121564
I'm surprised Peter printed Michael's personal attack on me. Nowhere did I equate Trump supporters with Hamas. I simply suggested that Michael's brilliant idea for winning the hearts and minds of MAGA Republicans would probably work equally well on Hamas. Too bad it went over his head.
Mike is a master of subtle insinuation, so that when someone calls him on it, he can exercise his talent for sly deniability and respond, “Who, me?”
Go ahead, Mike, and explain to us in detail how it was appropriate and not tone deaf to inject a reference to depraved terrorist murderers into a conversation about Trump supporters. Your assertion that you weren’t equating Trump supporters with Hamas is just a dodge.
OK, Michael, I don’t know if I can make it any clearer, but I’ll try:
You suggested that instead of criticizing MAGA Republicans for supporting such a deplorable criminal, we should try to win them over by extending them understanding and empathy. I’m suggesting that if we tried the same thing with Hamas, it would undoubtedly work just as well.
Let’s not be disingenuous. What you really object to is that it makes the proposal sound ridiculous. That's because it is.
The depraved animals of Hamas perpetrated a hideous massacre in Israel a week ago. Using the fact of that atrocity to make an unrelated point about Trump supporters dishonors those Israeli deaths.
Factcheck: The only person who brought up the Hamas atrocity at all is Michael Trigoboff. If it dishonors the dead, shame on him.
Peter, if you are going to stick to your policy of not allowing comments to address other comments then you need to delete a few. I realize you're busy this week.
Americans and their guns kill more people annually than Hamas.
Where's your outrage about that?
Outrage is appropriately directed at the perpetrators of violent acts. Depraved violent acts attract even more outrage. I heard a report last night about how some Hamas animal killed a pregnant woman, cut open her belly, and left the fetus visibly hanging from the umbilical cord (I can only hope that she was dead before the vicious animal cut her open). That hideous act deserves the maximum possible level of outrage.
More than half of shooting deaths in this country are suicides. The perpetrators are gone, and besides, they only hurt themselves.
Many of the remaining shooting deaths are perpetrated by black teenagers in inner cities, shooting each other (and often, innocent bystanders) over personal conflicts, some of which are gang-related.
The rest are assaults by various criminals, and accidental shootings.
None of the perpetrators of these gun-related deaths merit anything remotely close to the level of outrage that Hamas deserves for the atrocities they committed on October 7.
Post a Comment