BY ELAINE MAGLIARO
Scott Raab has been doing a series of posts about Chris Christie on Charlie Pierce’s Politics Blog at Esquire. He posted the fifth installment—titled Why No One Is Sticking Up for Chris Christie—today. In his piece, Raab explains why Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney aren’t going on record as character witnesses for the portly politician from New Jersey. He claims that while they don’t want to be the first to turn on the governor publicly…they aren’t about to defend a man who has some skeletons in his closet.
Romney’s people vetted Christie as a possible running mate for Mitt in 2012. Evidently, they found some things that lessened his appeal as a political partner. According to Double Down: Game Change 2012—a book written by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann—Christie was among Mitt’s top choices…until his people began digging into Christie’s background.
(Note: Beth Myers led the search for Mitt’s VP.)
Excerpt from Double Down:
The vetters were stunned by the garish controversies lurking in the shadows of his record. There was a 2010 Department of Justice inspector general’s investigation of Christie’s spending patterns in his job prior to the governorship, which criticized him for being “the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government [travel expense] rate without adequate justification” and for offering “insufficient, inaccurate, or no justification” for stays at swank hotels like the Four Seasons. There was the fact that Christie worked as a lobbyist on behalf of the Securities Industry Association at a time when Bernie Madoff was a senior SIA official—and sought an exemption from New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act. There was Christie’s decision to steer hefty government contracts to donors and political allies like former Attorney General John Ashcroft, which sparked a congressional hearing. There was a defamation lawsuit brought against Christie arising out of his successful 1994 run to oust an incumbent in a local Garden State race. Then there was Todd Christie, the Governor’s brother, who in 2008 agreed to a settlement of civil charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission in which he acknowledged making “hundreds of trades in which customers had been systematically overcharged.” (Todd also oversaw a family foundation whose activities and purpose raised eyebrows among the vetters.) And all that was on top of a litany of glaring matters that sparked concern on Myers’ team: Christie’s other lobbying clients, his investments overseas, the YouTube clips that helped make him a star but might call into doubt his presidential temperament, and the status of his health.
Ted Newton, managing Project Goldfish under Myers, had come into the vet liking Christie for his brashness and straight talk. Now, surveying the sum and substance of what the team was finding, Newton told his colleagues, If Christie had been in the nomination fight against us, we would have destroyed him—he wouldn’t be able to run for governor again. When you look below the surface, Newton said, it’s not pretty.
Raab says that “none of the corruption they uncovered” was actually “news” to people who had “kept tabs on Christie’s political rise, including good neighbor Rudy.” Raab says what people know about Christie is the reason no one has stepped forward to say something akin to “I know Governor Christie, and the Chris Christie I know would not knowingly have been part of such a thing.” He says Republicans will only speak of his fundraising ability and “his presumptive media victimization.”
SOURCES
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Being a conniving, blowhard bully tends to alienate people. And we all know people like that.
OUCH!!!!
“HUNTER WALKER – FEBRUARY 5, 2014, 5:53 PM EST2141
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who’s in the midst of an investigation into abuses of power in his administration, will be in Texas on Thursday to raise money for the Republican Governors Association. However, he won’t be joined by the state’s current Republican governor or the likely Republican nominee for the office.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) will not be at Christie’s events in Dallas and Fort Worth. A spokesman for Perry told the Dallas Morning News Perry was “pleased” Christie would be visiting Texas.
“Governors come to our state regularly for a variety of reasons and we’re pleased to have them here,” the spokesman said.
Greg Abbott, the likely Republican nominee in Texas’ gubernatorial race this year also will not be at Christie’s event. A spokesman for Abbott told the Dallas Morning News he would be in Houston for an appearance on immigration.”
The Time piece notes that the Governor; “He’s the best street fighter—and he’s comfortable saying things that you’re not comfortable saying.”
I find that rather humorous since the Governor seems to get rather flustered to take in return what he dishes out.
I strongly suspect he has some very serious legal problems coming his way and the timing will not please any Republican running for office.
CPAC is just asking for it and I think we should allow them to bear up under the weight of their guest. The resulting videos will play well for any Democrat who wants to use them.
Chris Christie’s pain is Scott Walker’s gain
By ANNA PALMER | 2/5/14
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/chris-christie-scott-walker-republican-governors-2016-presidential-election-103133.html
Excerpt:
As Chris Christie’s star falls, the party is giving a second look to another brash blue-state governor who stared down unions at home: Scott Walker.
Republican strategists say no one is in a better position to get a boost from the Christie Bridgegate scandal than Walker, who stepped into the national spotlight in 2011 when he won a union-fueled recall election in Wisconsin.
In conversations about the 2016 field with Republican strategists, operatives and donors in the weeks since the scandal first gripped the Christie administration, many volunteered Walker as the potential candidate they plan to watch and, unprompted, said he is getting renewed attention in conservative circles.
Elaine,
The circus continues and it’s going to be a great show.
Elaine,
I know one should not judge people by their photos, but Walker actually looks like a doofus.
Charlton,
Walker reminds me of Mortimer Snerd.
There’s One Group of Voters Who Likes Chris Christie More Than Ever
—By Kevin Drum
| Wed Feb. 5, 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/theres-one-group-voters-who-likes-chris-christie-more-ever
Excerpt:
Jonathan Bernstein notes today that Chris Christie’s poll numbers have actually risen among one particular group of voters: tea partiers. It’s a small sample from a single poll, so you don’t want to take this to the bank until we get confirmation.
Christie’s shameless, desperate new play: Wooing the GOP base
Attacking the New York Times and finally visiting the troops at CPAC, the ex-GOP frontrunner turns right for help
Joan Walsh
2/4/14
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/04/christies_shameless_desperate_new_play_wooing_the_gop_base/
Excerpt:
It’s almost sad. Chris Christie, putative GOP savior, supposed scourge of the party’s right-wing saboteurs, in the minds of Republican establishment figures and donors anyway, is now courting the far-right base he was supposed to crush.
Desperately clutching his presidential hopes when he ought to be working to remain as New Jersey’s governor, Christie is taking a page from an old GOP playbook: attacking the “liberal media” while courting reactionaries – specifically those who gather annually at the Conservative Political Action Committee.
You may recall that last year Christie was snubbed by the folks who organize the annual winter gathering of the far-right faithful. Mitt Romney went so far as to implore CPAC to listen to voices like Christie’s.
Explaining why Christie wasn’t invited last year, CPAC chair Al Cardenas said this:
“CPAC is like the all-star game for professional athletes; you get invited when you have had an outstanding year. Hopefully he will have another all-star year in the future, at which time we will be happy to extend an invitation. This is a conservative conference, not a Republican Party event.”
Great. So this is Christie’s all-star year, according to CPAC? He’s at all time lows in national polls and hanging on to his job tenuously, after a series of scandals raised questions about whether he was using his office and the state budget – more precisely, bridge access and Hurricane Sandy funds – to punish enemies and reward friends. That’s what CPAC considers an all-star performance?
Elaine,
You nailed him. I kept thinking Alfred E. Newman, but that wasn’t quite right. Mortimer Snerd’s doppelganger.
To Elaine’s Article: Time after time, I am astonished at any politician in the last 15 (or more) years that cannot keep it in their head that this is an information world, that there is a high chance they are being at least sound-recorded and possibly with video, even if they think they are in private.
Christie seems to have operated under the assumption his faults won’t be found and aired. How dumb can a sociopathic bully be?
I say the same about Hillary and “duck and cover,” and Bill, and Obama with his (surreptitiously taped) Guns and Bible comment, and Romney with his (surreptitiously videoed) 43% comment, and more others than I can count. Not to give advice to criminals, but it should be a simple observation after witnessing so many that if you took no serious and deliberate steps to ensure some event or deal did not come out, it isn’t hidden. If you do not know for certain you are in a sound-proofed and secure location, you should probably STFU and stick to generalities, and if you are going to take some vindictive action, make damn sure your cover story is airtight.
I don’t want to do any of that, and don’t want my candidates to do it either, but I just can’t get over the inability of these people to engage in the most basic corrupt subterfuges without getting caught with their pants down.
Tony,
You failed to mention Ron Paul who excuses his newsletter as … “Paul has compared himself to a major publisher who had little time to review every article that went to press, even though his newsletters came out monthly — and were thin at that. He claims he was too busy practicing medicine and giving speeches across the country to pay attention to the bulletins. ” or is he included in your “and more others than I can count” caveat?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html
There’s a reason politicians rank next to last on a list of the perceived honesty and ethical standards of professions. (The profession ranked last on the list is Car Salespersons.) – Gallup Nov. 26 -29 2012
“The profession ranked last on the list is Car Salespersons”
Blouise,
As the son of a man who was a great car salesman and who I loved dearly, I might take exception, were it not for the fact that the public’s opinion is true. While I adored him, I wouldn’t have bought a used car from either my father……or Richard Nixon.
Local beat: Chris Christie on the hot seat for Sandy funds
By New Jersey News Commons
on February 06, 2014
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/local_beat_chris_christie_on_the_hot_seat_for_sandy_funds.html
Excerpt:
Not content to leave it to the big outlets, one of New Jersey’s local sites has been digging into questions regarding the allocation of Sandy funds.
Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, writes, “Contrary to claims made by the Christie administration, a developer granted $4.8 million in Sandy recovery funds to accelerate the construction of luxury apartments in New Brunswick, has never before created affordable housing in the State of New Jersey.”
Kratovil posted the story on February 6, in which multiple sources relate that the developer in question requested and received affordable housing funds, but later decided against offering affordable units. The story followed on another from Friday, Jan. 31, identifying the fact that the luxury development was the recipient of $4.8 million in Sandy aid.
Mike,
It’s an interesting list. Nurses are #1 … ahead of doctors. Pharmacists are #2. Grade School teachers are #3 … then doctors.
Then in Dec of 2013 Car Salesperson moved ahead of politicians but Politicians remained next to last with Lobbyists taking the lowest rating. Nurses remained in the #1 position.
Blouise,
On my personal list I would list Nurse Practitioners as number one and then Nurses as number two. As for doctors I must say I’ve been very lucky to have had some great ones, but then too I’ve had some real losers. For instance I’m one of those people that gets leg pain from Statin medication. Some years ago I was feeling muscle pain in both legs that was limiting my ability to bend down. I went to my personal physician many times over two years asking if perhaps the Statins could be causing the problem. He kept assuring me that I had bursitis. My cardiologist even laughed at me for suggesting there was a correlation. Finally, I went to a Doctor my brother had recommended. When his Nurse Practitioner was interviewing me about my medical history and I told her how much Statin I was taking she got upset and told me that was four times the highest dosage that this new Doctor would ever prescribe. They lowered my dose drastically and the leg pain disappeared.
Chris Christie, wingnut hero
2/6/14
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/06/1275596/-Chris-Christie-wingnut-hero#
Excerpt:
When the bridge scandal first broke, I joked that it would help improve Christie’s popularity with the GOP base. Being a dick and punishing Democrats are critical components of any conservative hero’s arsenal.
Now Christie’s popularity has collapsed among pretty much everyone. The exception? Yup. The conservative base.
While the poll showed a drop in the positive feelings toward New Jersey Gov. Christie overall and a drop in positive feelings even among Republicans, Mr. Christie’s numbers actually improved among more strongly partisan Core Republicans. Among Core Republicans, only 32% had positive feelings about Mr. Christie in October. In January, that number climbed to 42%.
Elaine,
Isn’t Christie’s wife in charge of some of the Sandy relief funds?
Mike,
I haven’t heard anything along that line.
*****
Bridge Traffic Was Major Concern At Billion-Dollar Fort Lee Development
Hunter Walker – February 6, 2014
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/traffic-fort-lee-development
Mike,
Having been raised by a nurse, my mother, and surrounded by all her friends who were also nurses and … 3 of my 4 nieces became nurse practitioners … I know nurses and do not, under any circumstances, mess with them. I choose all my doctors based on the private opinions of nurses. I wait till we get to the parking lot to ask them for an opinion. 😉
Mike,
I just found this story from March 2013:
Governor Chris Christie Praises Wife’s Sandy Relief Fund That Hasn’t Donated Any Funds
By ANGELA DELLI SANTI 03/11/13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/chris-christie-sandy-charity_n_2855767.html
Mike,
Re Christie’s wife … you might be thinking of these stories from a year ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/chris-christie-sandy-charity_n_2855767.html
oops … Elaine beat me to it
Christie’s stunning budget-cut hypocrisy: Pensions gutted before Super Bowl splurge
Christie is just the latest politician to call for “necessary” budget cuts before spending big on special interests
DAVID SIROTA
2/6/14
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/06/christies_stunning_budget_cut_hypocrisy_pensions_gutted_before_super_bowl_splurge/
Excerpt:
On the other side of the Hudson River, the contrast was even more pronounced. In the name of fiscal responsibility, Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., has cut the pensions of New Jersey’s public employees and reduced education funding. Yet, he had his state cough up almost $18 million to subsidize the big game. That was in addition to the $400 million the New York Times noted New Jersey taxpayers spent to improve the Meadowlands. It was also on top of the special property tax breaks New Jersey gave the NFL.
Blouise: You failed to mention Ron Paul who
I didn’t think of Ron Paul; but his offending newsletters were published in 1992/3, which is not exactly the modern Internet age (which I define by the effect of “viral” information). Ron Paul thought he was retired from politics at the time, and in fact one reason there remains a controversy with Paul is that records and recordings are not available to prove anything.
Paul would have been considerably luckier if those letters HAD gone out in the modern world, they would have caused a viral ruckus, he could have denounced them immediately with a plausible excuse of them being written by a “guest blogger” (which is in fact what happened), and taken personal responsibility for failing to proof what was going out; fired or disciplined the manager of the newsletter, etc. None of that occurred because the racist tone of the newsletters written by the guest author did not cause enough of a stir to make a publicity threat. In fact, by analogy to virality, the very first hints of bigotry or racism in the newsletters would probably have been screamed from the headlines of Huffington Post (as well they should be) and would have caused Paul to both apologize and ensure it did not happen again: In a way, the modern information world is an immune system, virality can be an immune system reaction, and it actually would have helped immunize Paul’s newsletters against getting even sicker by publishing the more hateful content, probably ghost-written by Powell and Rockwell.
So yes, Paul is caught by the viral spread in the modern information age, but in 1993 I am not sure I expected him to know better.
Also, I was talking about politicians.
Paul left politics in 1984, for 12 years. He was not engaging in an actual corruption, and was not recorded (or provably) engaged in bigotry. That doesn’t qualify for what I am talking about; I am talking about evidence nobody doubts; like emails sent, voice recordings, video tape, etc. Nobody can prove Paul wrote those 1992/3 letters, heck nobody can even prove he read them. Anybody that believes he did believes without any clear and convincing evidence, and without even a preponderance of evidence.
All of that said, and this being a new blog, I will re-iterate a position I have oft-repeated with Elaine on another blog:
I would not be surprised, given his age, that Ron Paul is a bigot and racist. He attained adulthood in a time when that was openly acceptable and prevalent, and sociological statistics show the incidence of bigotry and racism rises with age; some people cannot get over what they were taught and believed as children and young adults. (Hence the religious). I also do not doubt Paul is one of these, the evidence for that (for me) is his whole-hearted embrace of Ayn Rand; he is a believer. Which means he is not the sharpest analytic knife in the drawer; he isn’t even the sharpest butter knife. If he can’t see through Ayn Rand, I do not give him good odds of seeing through other logical errors and false correlations, which I believe is part and parcel of racism and bigotry (mistaking causes and effects, mistaking correlation for causation).
Which is ALSO the personality trait I thought would make Ron Paul a Constitutionalist President that would turn back the tide on an Imperial Presidency. He follows rules. He believes in rules. His every action in Congress was strictly within the rules, including his attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So in the Presidential election I did not care. I was willing to take potentially bitter medicine (electing a bigot or even a racist) in order to end the march to an Imperial Presidency and Fascist State. I did not think Ron Paul could have done any damage to race relations or equality for women or gay rights or abortion rights; I thought a Congress controlled by Democrats (in the House or Senate or both) would be happy to stop him on those issues out of partisanship alone, and I thought he would try to permanently curtail the power of the Presidency while he had it. And end the wars, and the war on drugs to boot. I thought anything he did wrong could be fixed by a later Congress if we wanted, I would not buy the “don’t give an inch” paradigm because it led directly to what we had, a choice between two Imperial (corporate-controlled) Candidates.
To me, Ron Paul was the least of three evils, not the lesser of two. In 2011 we had the choice of suporting:
A) Fascist liar pretending to be a Democrat,
B) Fascist liar pretending to be a Republican,
C) Block-Headed Constitutionalist.
I still would have chosen (C) over either (A) or (B).
Elaine and Blouise,
Yep, that was the story I was thinking about. I think that there will be more to come of a less than savory nature as the scandal progresses.
Mike,
Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Relief Fund awards $3.1M in grants
By Erin O’Neill/The Star-Ledger
10/29/13
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/sandy_relief_fund_grants.html
One year to the day that Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey, the relief fund chaired by First Lady Mary Pat Christie announced $3.1 million in grants to groups helping with storm recovery efforts.
The Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Relief Fund is distributing the funding to eight nonprofit groups. The largest grants of $750,000 were awarded to Habitat for Humanity International to help more than 100 families with home repairs and reconstruction and A Future with Hope, Inc., to rebuild 50 homes with a focus on elderly, low-income and disabled residents.
The Visitation Relief Center in Brick Township is receiving $430,000 from the relief fund to support its ongoing recovery efforts. The center expects to help more than 1,000 people next year.
The other grants were awarded to: Gateway Church of Christ, $350,000; Volunteer Center of Bergen County, $350,000; Mental Health Association of Monmouth County, $230,000; Ironbound Community Corporation, $150,000; and Bayonne Economic Opportunity Foundation, $100,000.
The relief fund, which has raised more than $38 million so far, has now awarded $19.2 million to some 80 organizations.
Doblin: Chris Christie, David Wildstein and a slushie facial
By ALFRED P. DOBLIN
RECORD EDITORIAL COLUMNIST
Friday February 7, 2014
http://www.northjersey.com/columnists/doblin/doblin_020714.html?c=y&page=2
Excerpt from page 2 of the article:
We all make bad choices in friends. But the adult thing is to own up to those choices. Wildstein was not thrown into the Manhattan offices of the Port Authority; he floated down on a golden parachute.
The lane closures in September make no sense. But trying to disavow a man who was given a six-figure job with the governor’s blessing as an outlier of dubious character is equally nonsensical. None of this impacts what the governor knew and when, but it speaks to whom he knew and how well. And that speaks to judgment and character.
If the governor of New Jersey has to go back to his high school days to discredit a middle-aged man, something is amiss. Either the smart people advising Christie were never very smart, just lucky for a while, or they believe that the public can be easily diverted.
I would put my money on the former. Wildstein may be all the things Chris Christie says he is, but he was also one other thing: the director of interstate capital projects for the Port Authority, a position created for him with the governor’s blessings. In “Glee” terms, Christie gave himself a “slushie facial.”
Tony C.,
Surely you know I was tweaking you and I wondered how you would work the “get around”.
Now I know from all your writings that you are neither a bigot or a racist and I state that up front so it does not stand at issue when discussing that which is at the core of the Ron Paul debate for many of us. Neither, if I remember correctly, were you one of the ones who excused “Poor Paula” which is why the “Poor Paula” defense/excuse of/for Ron Paul is interesting. As to believing his denials, first issued in 1996 and steadfastly repeated through 2011, well, those denials are part and parcel of the viral luggage he carries and it’s pretty difficult for him to “get around” his own words to The Dallas Morning News in 1996 when he said that the contents of his newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context.
BTW … let us not forget, when discussing internet savvy, that Ron Paul was light years ahead of every other candidate when it came to using the internet for fund raising … his “moneybombs” are legendary and we all know how the Republican Party latched on to his “Tea Party”. (moneybomb held on the anniversary of Boston Tea Party).
And … we haven’t even mentioned his pandering to right-wing militia groups … see “Why Militias Scare the Striped Pants Off Big Government” or his belief that the government should stop financing AIDS research and education (interview in Huston Post).
The libertarian movement has always had two coinciding or co-occuring strains. One focusing on economic freedom, reducing taxes and regulation through smaller government. The other focused on personal liberty and constraints on government built into the Constitution and often taken to the extreme of fueling militant anti-government inclinations. Ron Paul operates at the nexus of the two and in so doing is the pluperfect “White Privilege” candidate.
There is so much to ignore about Ron Paul which is why I was tweaking you on your original comments from February 6, 2014 at 11:23 “I don’t want to do any of that, and don’t want my candidates to do it either, but I just can’t get over the inability of these people to engage in the most basic corrupt subterfuges without getting caught with their pants down.”
Tony C, I just don’t buy Paul’s age and backround excuse his writings. The man was born in Pennsylvania and was educated at Duke University. Anne Richards is Paul’s contemporary in Texas. Don’t see anywhere that she has a history of racist writings. I don’t see that Bush Sr. wrote stuff like Paul did and he is much older.. Jimmy Carter is also much older and grew up in the deep south. Did he write a racist newsletter? no. The Paul family has courted people with white supremist leanings. The son recently hired one but he got so much negative attention from the media for it, that he had to ask the guy to resign.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/rand_pauls_white_supremacy_double_game/
SWM:
A) I don’t think they were his writings, I think they were the writing of Rockwell (the publisher) and the ghost-writer Rockwell hired for some newsletters (Powell).
B) I do not think anything excuses racism, but certainly age combined with a rationality deficit (as exhibited in his embrace of Ayn Rand) is one of the things that can explain it, which is what I was saying in support of “he may well be racist,”
C) The critical point (to me) isn’t whether any bigotry or racism exists, the critical point is whether those failings would get in the way of making the country better. JFK made the country better despite is sexual failings; he was a philander.
Does that excuse them?
Would I not vote for a JFK-like figure because I knew of them?
Would I vote for NIXON instead because he never cheated on his wife?
You are free to bash Paul all you want, but any racism he may feel is immaterial to whether he would have tried to restore the Presidency to a more Constitutionally weak position than it is. I think he would have made that attempt. I think he would have, as Commander in Chief, reduced or ended the wars, absent a declaration of War by Congress (which would not happen). I think he would have ended the War on Drugs and appointed an Attorney General to do exactly that, as he promised he would on the campaign trail, along with Presidential Pardons for anybody incarcerated on any non-violent drug-related charges.
All within his purview. What do you think he could do as a racist or bigot, within the Constitution, that would not be rejected by the Democrats in the Senate?
Paul would have been better than Obama. Obama has assassinated US citizens and has destroyed our Rights. I do not think Paul would have done that, and though I border on socialism myself, no amount of “progressive progress” is worth the wholesale destruction of civil liberties embraced first by Bush/Cheney, and now by Obama. If Paul is a racist Constitutionalist, I will take that; it would not make any difference in the job he does. I don’t have to like him to hire him, in 2012 I didn’t like any of them and one of them was sure to get the job.
Blouise: I don’t think I am ignoring anything, I think there is a high probablity Ron Paul is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, whatever. In my mind all of that baggage is far out-weighed by the destruction of civil liberty and the rise of the surveillance, police state corpocracy.
I don’t much care what is in Paul’s head, I care about what he would do. I thought then, and think now, we’d have been better off with Paul. Will Obama pass a $10.10 minimum wage? Maybe. Paul never would, he would probably even veto it. But at what cost do we get that? The TSA, the NSA, military wars, the war on drugs ruining the lives of the poor, a complete lack of civil liberties in a police state? Is it worth that?
Tony C.,
I did not mean to imply that you were ignoring anything about Ron Paul. You have been very straight forward in your summations regarding his strengths and weaknesses and I believe your conclusions are sincere. It is those conclusions with which I disagree.
Ron Paul is no civil libertarian as his writings clearly show. He plays at it now by using the correct buzz words but his views on blacks, browns, women, gays, etc. clearly show he has no concern for their civil liberties and that removes him from that particular sub-set. He is a non-interventionist-foreign-policies guy and has proven that with his votes in the House but I doubt very much he would be able to stop anything along those lines if the Congress and the military and the State Dept. want it … his own belief in limited government would prevent him from using the Executive to that end. He would be ineffectual thus appearing weak and thus very dangerous to the nation’s safety as enemies would be emboldened … look no further than Jimmy Carter to see how that plays out. As to dismantling the NSA, TSA etc …. exactly how would he do that? Executive Order? Oh, oh … that would take a strong Executive which he doesn’t support.
As to the police state … now honestly, how are you going to get blacks, browns, women, and gays back on the farm after they have fought so hard for freedom and tasted the life the white man led? Call out the Militia?
My conclusions on his leadership potential are very different from yours.
Blouise: On the contrary, Ron Paul does believe in a strong executive, and repeatedly promised to use every Constitutional prerogative of the Presidency to effect his goals. One of those, as Commander in Chief, is publicly firing or reassigning Military and other leaders that serve at the pleasure of the President; another is the unlimited constitutional power of the Presidential pardon, another is the threat and exercise of the Presidential Veto.
You portray him as a weakling; he is not. He has at various times talked about all of these things, if the Constitution grants him the power of discretion he would use that power. He in fact said he sees no reason to not issue a blanket pardon to all citizens imprisoned solely for non-violent drug offenses, that certainly is not a weakling position. He has said that as Commander in Chief the President decides how to prosecute wars — But because no war is declared by Congress, he would have sole authority to end any military action abroad immediately, particularly if he thought it was an unConstitutional act in the first place, and that he would exercise that authority. (Might it get him assassinated? Who knows, that didn’t come up.)
The President is in charge of the CIA, the NSA, and the Military and has the power to summarily dismiss the leaders of those organizations as he sees fit.
I don’t understand why you cherry-pick Ron Paul’s claims and only choose to disbelieve the ones that support your case. He claims he is a non-interventionist. He claims he will use the full constitutional power of the president to end unconstitutional interventions that are in fact war without any declaration of war by Congress. Why believe one claim and reject the other?
Ron Paul believes in playing by the rules as written, That gives him the power to do what he wants. He does not believe in an Imperial Presidency, but he does believe in Strong Executive in the sense of using every power Constitutionally afforded to the Executive. If he wants to dismantle the NSA or TSA or CIA, fire their leaders and either promote or appoint those that agree with him. Cut their budget. Cut their staff. Cut their resources. Use legitimate executive orders liberally to change their priorities. There is plenty of constitutionally legitimate action he can take to accomplish that, and there is no reason to question his claims he would use it.
The Sociopathy of Chris Christie
Barry Sussman’s Blog
FEBRUARY 7, 2014
http://open.salon.com/blog/barry60x/2014/02/07/the_sociopathy_of_chris_christie
Excerpt:
The current scandals swirling around New Jersey Governor Chris Christie offer an interesting insight into a particular type of sociopathy, one that Christie has displayed since his days as a U.S. attorney. Unfortunately for Christie, the very same sociopathic traits that often make for a successful federal prosecutor are proving disastrous for an elected official.
The ability to disconnect from the truth and create one’s own reality is an effective tactic for career advancement in the U.S. attorney’s office. The “crimes” alleged by federal prosecutors need not necessarily bear a particularly strong semblance to the actual fact pattern, for more important than what actually transpired is the prosecutor’s version of what occurred. Embellishment, prevarication and outright deception have long proven to be powerful prosecutorial tools. Christie’s tenure as U.S. attorney was served well by these methods, allowing him to rack up a superficially impressive record as a crime fighting federal prosecutor. Serving as the chief federal prosecutor for the district, with near limitless discretionary power, likely fed into his despotic/authoritarian tendencies which are often exhibited by sociopaths.
While all sociopaths lie, falsifying and misrepresenting does not necessarily make one sociopathic. Lying is often recognized as being sociopathic when those asserting the lies allow their fabrications to become their own reality. A sociopath often cunningly lies in order to gain or achieve something. In Christie’s case, the over-arching goal was career advancement. The rules in federal court, grossly stacked in favor of the government, allow federal prosecutors to routinely replace actual facts with their more self-serving version of events. In short, insistence upon creating their own reality and ignoring inconvenient facts is rewarded with their subjective reality displacing the real one, at least as far as the relevant legal proceedings are concerned. So it should come as no surprise that Christie continues to deny any wrongdoing, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. It is a strategy that has served him well in the past. Nevertheless, continuing to lie despite a growing body of contradictory facts reveals a significant element of Christie’s sociopathy. In many ways, this chronic mendacity is precisely what one would expect.
Christie’s blossoming feud with former appointee David Wildstein allows further insight into Christie’s pathology. Given that retaliating for perceived slights and subsequently upping the ante is another hallmark of sociopathy, Christie’s actions in regard to Wildstein’s perceived perfidy are practically textbook. Christie, at his January 9, 2014 press conference, took to insulting Wildstein and claiming he was something akin to a passing acquaintance. This despite the fact that they attended high school together and have been associated professionally for many years. Ready for the pointing out of this inconvenient fact, Christie explained that while they were indeed at same high school, they were on disparate trajectories.
“You know, I was the class president and athlete,” Christie said. “I don’t know what David was doing during that period of time.”
While somewhat puzzling, Christie’s tone and comment was dripping with narcissism, another recognized hallmark of sociopathy.
Mike or Elaine: Can you check the spam filter, I had a reply to Blouise I think is lost…
Tony,
I retrieved two of your comments from the spam filter.
Tony C.,
“Ron Paul does believe in a strong executive, ” … but that is very much at odds with libertarian beliefs in small government and definitely at odds with the Constitutional intent of shared check and balance power … but I take you at your word regarding Paul’s belief in a strong Executive which, quite frankly, makes him exactly like the rest of them. Strong or Imperial … just semantics.
“You portray him as a weakling” … only in the scenario I established which was foreign policy at odds with the Congress, Military and State Department … but then a Strong Executive would try to run roughshod over them all … but I guarantee you he would fail at that and thus appear even weaker … once again, see Jimmy Carter.
Remember, we aren’t talking actuality here … we are drawing conclusions from hypotheticals. And I like doing that because how else are we to come to a decision when entering the voting booth … it’s a crazy way to determine one’s vote but, as I lamented to you on another thread, it is the only way this system allows because there is no political office like that of the President so hypotheticals, conjectures etc. are all we have. That isn’t cherry picking.
To that end I suspect that the men and women actively seeking that office have no real idea of the actual limits they face when walking into the Oval Office unless they have spent a vast amount of time actually working with former occupants. I strongly suspect that the Rules they think are in play and that they intend to follow don’t even exist. At least that is what so many of them say when they leave office (see Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, and Ford).
What you are willing to ignore in Ron Paul are not issues I can ignore. I’ll bet, though we haven’t arrived there yet, that what I’m willing to ignore in Hillary Clinton you will not be able to which brings us back to your original comment on the Feb 6th.
Here’s a real hoot … now it would seem that Christie had no idea the email about Wildstein was going out … existed … who knows but poor Christie,once again, had nooo idea:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/chris_christie_did_not_read_memos_blasting_david_wildstein_report_says.html
Blouise: I don’t think it is just semantics. One can believe that a government is necessary and a President is necessary (I believe the former but not the latter, btw) without believing in a big government or an imperial President. A Strong President is one that is willing to use the power Constitutionally granted in order to execute the duties of the office, including one’s oath to defend the Constitution, including one’s belief that troops should be deployed or put in harm’s way ONLY if the Congress formally declares War, including one’s belief that Presidential Pardons exist in order to allow the President to correct miscarriages of Justice that are the result of a flawed legislature, and so on.
An Imperial President is simply unConstitutional, it is a President (like Bush or Obama) exercising powers never granted by the Constitution. Like the power to assassinate U.S. citizens, or violate the rights of everybody to habeas corpus and a trial before a jury, or abuse of the secrecy powers, or abuse of search and seizure, or violation of binding treaties, or the President using “signing statements” to alter the meaning of laws, or refusing to prosecute wrong-doers and those that destroyed evidence or lied to Congress. An Imperial President breaks the law and the Constitution and invents new law by decree (like Obama’s “heads we win, tails you lose” prosecution scheme for terrorists), a Strong President uses legitimate power.
They are not the same thing at all. A Strong President can be a libertarian or progressive or conservative; a free market, small government adherent or a big government socialist like me.
“Chris Christie’s Character Witnesses…Where Are They?” – Elaine
Out nursing a fifth. (“I’ll take the 5th”)
Tony C.,
“As for why he’s leaving the U.S. House, Paul said, “I think people had enough of me.” (Nov. 2012 USAToday)
He failed in his bid for a Senate seat, he’s failed innumerable times in his bid for a Presidential nomination and while presenting hundreds of bills in the House his success rate of passage into law is exactly 1.
How in the world can you deduce from that record of weak leadership that the man would be a Strong leader/President? The man hasn’t been able to use what little power he has effectively.
Blouise: I think you and I have different definitions of “Strong.” If I am President, there is a shitload I can do (within the Constitution) unilaterally, without getting agreement from Congress or getting anybody else’s permission. Using such options to do what I think would be best for the country, restore justice, and restore the Constitution is what I would consider being a Strong President.
A Congressman can’t do squat without getting the agreement of other Congressman, other than write and introduce bills. The same goes for a Senator.
And, by the way, your observation of his lack of legislative success just goes to the evidence that Ron Paul, as President, would not have been able to get any bigoted legislation passed that would have harmed progressives at all, his effect would be limited to acting as Commander in Chief, Chief Executive, and other Presidential duties and privileges (vetoes, appointments, pardons, etc).
Tony C.,
Oh come on … you have to redefine the word strong and twist it in all kinds of ways to get it wrapped around the man. His success rate in legislation as a legislator was .03% after introducing over 600 bills. The military, State Dept., CIA, NSA etc would walk right over the guy just as the House did. For cryin’ out loud, the White House Service Staff would probably stick him in a closet and open the door to dust him once a week.
It’s a moot point ’cause the guy could never win anyway. His own district didn’t even put him in the Senate and they knew him a lot better than either you or I … his record is that dismal.
Blouise: How you and I define “Strong” differently has nothing to do with Paul. If you are going to define “strong” as synonymous with “Imperial,” then I will let you provide the word for what I am talking about. Namely, the strength of principle to defy partisanship and political convention while keeping one’s actions within Constitutional boundaries.
Clinton had no such principles, Bush and Cheney had no such principles, Obama does not, and (based on her campaign) I see no evidence of it in Hillary.
I saw evidence of that in Ron Paul. He had no problem disagreeing with his fellow Republicans on a whole host of issues due to Constitutional principles, even if that cost him the election.
So I can use a different word; I think Ron Paul would have run a libertarian principled Presidency, unlike Romney, Obama, or anybody else running in 2011. Or (in retrospect) anybody running in 2008.
I think a principled Presidency is the only hope to save the country, somebody that will roll back the unConstitutional powers, surveillance state, police state, and find a way to make that more difficult for future Presidents. Hillary isn’t it. But we have this year of daylight left, maybe Warren will run.
I hope so, I don’t think the Republicans will win 2016, as a party they have done nothing to fix what lost them 2012, and they seem intractable. The fight is going to be for the Democratic Nomination, and then the new President will face (IMO) a Depression-era economy that will require a Trust Buster mentality, to loosen the grip of the corporations. Warren is somebody I think could navigate those waters (a fight against entrenched wealth). Hillary is not.
Bridgegate: Ex-Port Authority head a key player in scandal
Saturday, February 08, 2014
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=9424719
Excerpt:
FORT LEE (WABC) — On paper, David Wildstein’s title at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was “Director of Interstate Capital Projects.” But many who worked there knew his real job – a post created just for him in 2010 – was to further Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s agenda inside the agency.
That role gave Wildstein an influence that outstripped his bureaucratic title. He led efforts to give New Jersey officials more sway over authority operations. And he was seen as having unsurpassed connections to Christie’s inner circle.
Now, the man who was known as the administration’s eyes and ears at the Port Authority may be the public’s best chance of knowing the truth behind a plan last summer to purposely create days of traffic gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J., by choking off local access to the George Washington Bridge.
Wildstein, who pushed through the closures after receiving an email from a Christie aide saying, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” has hinted in recent days that he might be willing to tell more about what the governor knew and when he knew it.
Christie and his aides have responded by portraying Wildstein as a duplicitous rogue.
“Bottom line – David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein,” Christie’s spokesman, Colin Reed, wrote in a memo distributed to the governor’s supporters and some journalists.
That break marks an abrupt reversal for an administration that defended Wildstein for years, even in the face of public and private criticism that he was over-politicizing the Port Authority, intimidating the staff and meddling in operations he didn’t oversee.
Wildstein, 52, joined the Port Authority as part of a wave of people with political ties who swelled its ranks shortly after Christie took office…
At the Port Authority, Wildstein became a central figure in a revived power struggle between people installed by the Christie administration and officials who reported back to the governor of New York.
More than once, officials on the New York side complained to their New Jersey counterparts that Wildstein was bullying employees and exercising an outsized degree of control over people he didn’t directly supervise.
The authority’s manager of the George Washington Bridge, Robert Durando, later told a legislative committee it was Wildstein’s reputation and perceived connections that kept him from asking too many questions when he was given an order to restrict access to the span from Fort Lee – and do it without telling any local authorities what was about to happen.
“I was concerned about what Mr. Wildstein’s reaction would be if I did not follow his directive,” Durando said.
When a Bergen County newspaper, The Record, wrote a profile of Wildstein in 2012 that noted the criticism and questioned whether he was using the agency to further a political agenda, Christie administration officials were fiercely supportive.
“He is there in that job because he is well suited to the task of playing a role in reforming the Port Authority in accordance with the governor’s goals,” Christie’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, told the newspaper. “If he’s not liked for that role, and if he’s accused of being zealous in that regard, then we plead guilty.”
Port Authority Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni also defended his approach.
Tony C.,
There you go … I like the word Principled as a defining adjective for what we’d both like to see but if the elections of the last few decades (as you point out and which I would expand at least back to Johnson) are any indication, our fellow countrymen do not agree with us.
Perhaps, on that note, Eisenhower and Stevenson were the last two contests for the Presidency of Principled Men. Though some might argue for Truman/Dewey, which, btw, is a contest in 1948 well worth reviewing.
However, the military–industrial–congressional complex of which Eisenhower warned us is now fully flowered including the media and executive and that is the reality with which we must deal when selecting a President.
Here are Eisenhower’s exact words of warning to the nation:
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Blouise: Here’s the catch, Eisenhower’s final admonition: Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
We will never have an alert and knowledgeable citizenry. Never, Ever.
We cannot rely on people being ‘alert’, they are distracted by daily living, and ever will be. A few of my friends have retired and are astonished how, after working 8 or 10 hours a day for decades, all of a sudden their day is filled with chores and crap to do, and they couldn’t work 8 solid if they wanted to. Of course they could, in reality, my point is that it is human nature to generate enough work for themselves to do, that they won’t have time to actually pay attention and understand what politicians are doing. They will be neither alert nor knowledgeable; Eisenhower’s prescribed corrective is unworkable, and all but a small percentage of political junkies will literally die first before they can be compelled to be alert or knowledgeable about what is going on in the Military/Industrial/Congressional conspiracy that is fleecing them and will leave them broke and bewildered at what could have gone wrong.
Tony C.,
Ah yes, that trite lament “I have no idea how I found the time to work.” Going to be hearing a lot of that over the next decade as the babyboomers actually hit the retirement scene in ever increasing numbers. By 2030, one in five people will be considered a senior citizen.
Consider the impact on society … charitable giving, investment strategy (from long-term to short-term with bond prices rising and their yields falling and stock prices falling), work force (74 percent expect to continue working in some capacity beyond retirement), recreation centers and destinations, healthcare, consumer spending (not as many pairs of jeans but a hell of a lot of wrinkle cream and adult diapers) … it should be interesting but ….
For the purposes of our discussion: What demands will this leisure driven, part-time working population put on their politicians and what will be the effect on local, state, and national governments and the men and women seeking public office?
This is an interesting take on Christie’s sociopathic nature.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Sociopathy-of-Chris-Ch-by-Barry-Sussman-Chris-Christie_Chris-Christie_Prosecution_Scandal-140208-879.html
Mike
BINGO!!!
” … the very same sociopathic traits that often make for a successful federal prosecutor are proving disastrous for an elected official.” (from Mike’s link @ 2:36pm)
Interesting point … wonder how that fits Rudy .Giuliani
Blouise,
It fits Rudy like a glove.
Mike,
It fits Rudy like a silk dress.
🙂
Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
SWM: I seem to recall George H.W. Bush referring to a couple of mixed heritage grandchildren as “the little brown ones”.
RTC,
Bush Defends ‘Little Brown Ones’ Term for Grandchildren, Tells ‘Pride and Love’
August 17, 1988
Associated Press
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-17/news/mn-655_1_pride
Excerpt:
NEW ORLEANS — A bristling Vice President George Bush today defended his description of his three Mexican-American grandchildren as “the little brown ones,” saying, “This heart knows nothing but pride and love” for the children.
“For anyone to suggest that that comment of pride is anything other than what it was, I find it personally offensive,” Bush said at a news conference with his running mate, Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana.
Bush on Tuesday introduced his grandchildren to President Reagan at a brief airport meeting.
“These are Jebby’s kids from Florida, the little brown ones,” the vice president said. The three youngsters are the children of Bush’s son, Jeb, and his Mexican-born wife, Columba.
Elaine: Right, that was the incident. But maybe we shouldn’t be so hasty in our assessment of ol’ Poppy; Jeb’s kids could have been standing with a group of white kids.
Chris Christie endorsement is regrettable: Moran
By Tom Moran/ Star-Ledger Editorial Board
on February 09, 2014
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2014/02/chris_christie_endorsement_is.html
Tony,
I’m not so sure Ron Paul would have been able to resist the corrupting influence of nearly absolute power. I think he played by the rules in the Congress because, without much power, he had to.
One thing I’m certain of is that Paul would have curtailed social spending severely and thrown a lot of lives into crises. If he were elected, you might as well pass out the guns and bar all doors.
And I have no doubt that he would open vast expanses of wilderness and protected areas to development, while virtually eliminating regulatory safeguards against industrial polluters, claiming the proper remedy is the Friedmanian solution of relying on the courts to justly compensate the harms.
In fact, I believe the federal government would cease regulate anything but banking and finance. I can easily picture him telling an American public that, “If you don’t want melamine in you pet food, find out who’s putting melamine in their product and don’t buy it. If those companies want to continue to trade, they’ll change their product. But you have to do your research, don’t rely on the federal government to do it for you”.
Curtailing and eliminating social programs and overturning the regulatory system would mean bucking the will of the people, and would call for a President every bit as imperial to accomplish as what we’ve got now; a Paul presidency risks losing the baby along with the bath water.
As a practical matter, A Paul administration would be as hamstrung as Carter’s. Washington hates change and Paul would advocate many changes too wrenching for anyone to accept. He’s an idealist without practical solutions.
Ultimately, looking to any candidate to curtail the limits of presidential authority is operating within the paradigm of the imperial president, itself. The Constitution vested the power of oversight in Congress. The solution is not seeking an executive to voluntarily relinquish power, but to demand greater accountability from House and Senate. The structure may be in need of repair, but that’s no reason to put an arsonist in charge of the project.
To All: I think the corptocratic oligarchy has more or less decided that it doesn’t want Christie for President, much the same way I think it undercut Romney in favor of Obama, which is why you won’t hear much from the usual suspects of putative presidential Republican contenders.
Seems to me the anointed candidate is Hillary. Hasn’t Gates essentially given her a tacit endorsement in his book?
RTC: You seem to think a President is a King. I don’t think so. Whatever harm to social agendas or the environment Ron Paul may have done, no matter how bad, would be worth ending the Imperial Presidency, which I still believe he would have done. You have no evidence Paul was not a man of principle; and there is plenty of evidence his opponents (including Obama and Romney) were not men of principle.
After losing an endorsement from New Jersey’s biggest newspaper, Chris Christie has been sashaying from town to town like some corrupted beauty queen
By Scott Raab on February 10, 2014
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/chris-christie-morning-after-021014
Excerpt:
Strange days, even for New Jersey: Yesterday, the state’s largest newspaper rescinded its endorsement of Chris Christie, a mere three months too late, in a column referring to Christie twice as a “bully,” “the most overrated politician in the country,” “a man who is better at talking than governing,” and “a creep.” It took me back to the first sentence of the endorsement itself — where the same newspaper’s opening sentence read, “Gov. Chris Christie is the most remarkable political talent America has seen since Bill Clinton.”
Governor Christie, meanwhile, sashays from town to town like some corrupted beauty queen — Dallas last week, Chicago tomorrow — whoring for money in his second job as chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, which, like the poor newspaper editorial board, once swooned over Christie’s tits. Now the very same gubernatorial candidates counting on him to separate the right-wing johns from their cash, skip town when Christie comes, afraid to get caught on camera with him.
You really can’t blame the politicians for their caution, which, given Christie’s case of crabs, is entirely sane. But there are no excuses in New Jersey, where his tenure as U.S. Attorney — a job he “earned” by helping raise funds for Bush the Younger — was pocked with weeping sores. My personal favorite was a case from 2005, when Christie’s office busted a sex-slave ring in a North Jersey town named Guttenburg. At the accompanying news conference, Christie spoke of all the horrors endured by the victims, and the bar owner who allegedly doubled as their madam faced up to 250 years in prison.
Luckily, the madam proved willing to testify that among her off-the-books business expenses were $40,000 in bribes for the mayor of Guttenburg and his wife, who — North Jersey being North Jersey — also served on the town Planning Board. And so it came to pass — never let it be said that Chris Christie won’t do happy endings — that the Guttenburg mayor and his wife each caught four-year prison terms while the alleged slave trader got probation.
Tony: I don’t think a President is king nor should he be, but I recognize the vast amount of latitude that the Executive has over a wide range of programs that are at the core of progressive American values. Refusing to spend the funds given to the EPA or consumer protection is a form of imperialism, in that it thwarts the will of the people as reflected by Congress.
I share your wish for a weaker Executive. I think the best way to acheive lasting, meaningful limits on Presidential authority is for Congress to exert it proper authority.
I simply disagree with you on whether curtailing the power of the President is worth removing protections to the environment, particularly sensitive ecosystems. A defunded food stamp program can always be refunded; an Arctic tundra, lined with roads, bisected with pipelines,dotted with work camps and oil rigs, is lost forever. And ultimately, any limit to Presidential power he could implement can be undone with an Executive Order from a future President.
Buckminster Fuller once said that the most effective way of gaining control is through small incremental corrections. Ron Paul as President would be as about as incremental as a stick of dynamite. I have no doubt that he is a man of principle, but it’s those principles that make President Romney somehow seem preferable.
RTC says: I simply disagree with you on whether curtailing the power of the President is worth [… a host of ills…]
I think that is an error in compositional logic; it is assuming the parts damaged are greater than the whole. Sure, Paul might push for an Arctic pipeline. Do you think Romney would not? Do you think Obama would not? Do you think the Congress that went along with Paul to approve the pipeline would not more readily go along with Romney or Obama?
The problem with the environmental issues is money in politics, and corruption. Romney and Obama are corrupt as they come. Anything Paul might do that would favor corporations by deregulation, they could be convinced to do for sufficient campaign favors. For example, we know now that Obama met with Big Pharma lobbyists in the first months of his first term, and promised them we would not allow importation; and we know now that Obama met with Health Insurance lobbyists at the same time, and promised them we would not have a Public Option in the ACA, and then sent Rahm to recruit Liebermann as the bad guy in the Senate on the Public Option that eventually killed it (but slowly, so both Democrats and Republicans could milk the “battle for/against the Public Option” for a few hundred million in campaign donations — “Make a donation to [support the public option] / [defeat socialism] !!! We can’t do our job unless you pay us more money!!”).
Whatever Paul might have done could be done under Obama, under Romney, under Newt, under any other person in the field. The difference is that the evidence shows to me that Obama, Romney, Newt are all in it for the money, and I see no evidence that Paul was in the pocket of Industry, or the Military. He has deep flaws, but I think he was an ideologue with principles that rejected corruption.
As for Executive Orders, Paul might well have endorsed actual legislation or an Amendment to curtail the power of the Presidency, he was quite critical of the sweeping powers he believed were anti-Constitutional. Democrats in Congress might well have gone along with him, making themselves more powerful would have served them well, and the Republicans in Congress didn’t consider Paul much as “one of their own” anyway.
Tony,
Rand is the wrong place to look for integrity. Paul will make dirty deals just like the rest of them. Right now he is aligned with the despicable Cuccinelli, the losing AG from VA in his class-action suit against Obama and the suit itself seems to be a primarily a platform for fund-raising for his 2016 effort. There are also charges that chunks of the suit were plagarized from another attorney.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/13/unemployed-ken-cuccinelli-finds-a-job-with-rand-paul-suing-obama.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
This article on Christie goes on in depth about his corrupt history.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116601/chris-christies-rise-and-fall
Mike,
Eniobob and I just got done reading that article … it’s a good one.
PDM: I think Rand is an idiot, and corrupt as they come. An unfortunate side effect of being raised by a fool that has been duped by a sociopath (Ayn Rand) to the extent he got named after her.
I was talking about Ron Paul (the fool in question) that I believe is a bit dim but has principles and follows them.
Tony,
Randal is his first name … Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for his first name … I believe he was called Randy as a child … my Ron Paul gift to you this fine afternoon. 🙂
Blouise: Hm. I was told otherwise, but it was hearsay, not in print.
Tony,
Well I guess that is my Roseann Roseannadanna moment for the day. nevermind…
Tony, sorry for the lapse in responding to your reply, but I’ve been working these thoughts out as time allows.
Ron Paul may be a man of principles, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s incorruptible. Things can change once someone assumes the Presidency, and it becomes easier to rationalize in exchange for four more years (“to do so much good”). Moreover, many of his principles are too troubling for me to accept. As it happens, other politicians have to be bribed into taking similar positions. Paul truly believes the market isn’t free enough.
And ultimately, the Congress, comprised as it is today, would never go along with him in enacting laws to curtail the powers of the President. That’s always going to difficult when so many senators see themselves as possible candidates.
I absolutely agree with you that money in politics is the problem – not just with environmental issues, but with ALL the issues we face. But don’t think Ron Paul is going to change that. One of the tenets of Libertarianism is that money is speech and when it comes to speech, Ron Paul believes in absolute freedom.
I strongly disagree with your assessment that, “assuming the parts damaged are greater than the whole is an error”. Are you suggesting that the Imperial Presidency or civil liberty are the greater portion of the whole?
I think you’re falling into an “either/or” fallacy, where either we elect Ron Paul, who would open as many protected areas as possible to development, or the system won’t change.
I don’t doubt you appreciate the seriousness of the threats facing the environment. I don’t think we differ in value; we just have different priorities.
Years ago I embraced Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, which considers plants and animals, even the soil, as equal members of the community. Fragments of undeveloped ecosystems, many of them critical habitats for endangered species, are all that remain. Sacrificing those areas to resource exploitation in order to achieve some political objective, no matter how important, is no different, in my view, than wiping out a particular segment of the human population, like all the gays in San Antonio, or Italians in Portland.
That’s not as outlandish as it might sound. Paul has consistently voted against safety regulations, including security measures, for the chemical industry, most of which industrial safety experts and security analysts have called for. As we’ve seen on the news occasionally in the past, when accidents occur at chemical plants, people die.
So, I would not trade a single mountaintop even if it meant that the powers of the Presidency were not curtailed for another hundred years. Particularly since other means for reform are available. The Constitution created a Congress with more power than the Executive. The solution is to demand greater accountability from Congress to end the abuses going on in the White House, not to hand a dimwit, principled though he may be, all that power.
As far as opening up ANWAR for drilling, Romney campaigned on it, Paul supports it, yet, Obama has not called for it. Yet. While I despise the President for his environmental policies, it’s worth nothing that Shell recently cancelled plans for drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas because the costs of meeting safety standards were too high – safety standards enforced by the Obama’s Department of Interior. Furthermore, the EPA under Obama has been tightening regulations on coal plant emissions. Nothing like that would have occurred under Paul’s leadership.
[In my opinion, economic interests, not any true love or understanding of nature, drive his environmentalism. By requiring upgrades to existing infrastructure, or shuttering old plants and replacing them with new ones, he’s hoping to create jobs, and by imposing more of the true costs of fossil fuel production, he’s seeking to give alternative energy sources an economic advantage and jump start the industry.]
As a true free-market thinker, Paul has this goofy habit of speaking in cold-blooded terms of markets and trade. He thinks that regulations should be reduced to voluntary standards, and talks about market forces dictating behavior as though all the information a consumer needs is readily available. As more of the world’s population comes under increasing water stress as the supply of clean water is diminishing, natural areas are becoming essential to survival. We can’t place control of these places in the hands of a goofball.
RTC says: So, I would not trade a single mountaintop even if it meant that the powers of the Presidency were not curtailed for another hundred years.
Then instead of trading one of them, I think you are trading all of them. Such is the nature of absolutist principle; if the only arrow in your quiver is “give me what I want in its entirety or give me death,” Death is what you get.
RTC says: Particularly since other means for reform are available.
I did not believe that was true in 2012, and I don’t believe it now. If Elizabeth Warren runs, I will change my mind. As it stands, I think the only chance we had for reforming the Presidency was Ron Paul, and (without Warren) I see no hope for any other candidate to reform it.
RTC says: The Constitution created a Congress with more power than the Executive. The solution is to demand greater accountability from Congress to end the abuses going on in the White House, not to hand a dimwit, principled though he may be, all that power.
That is not going to work. Ever. The Founders made a mistake in thinking that would work. It is against human nature, it is against human psychology, and it just is not a viable solution in any way, shape or form. The populace is never going to demand “greater accountability” from their Congressmen, and Congress is never going to pass laws that would constrain themselves, and no modern President (short of Ron Paul) would sign such law.
It is funny that your “solution” is precisely contrary to your claim that “And ultimately, the Congress, comprised as it is today, would never go along with him in enacting laws to curtail the powers of the President.”
Why would the President go along with it? The one and only reason is if the President were a person of principle and integrity and believed a weaker President was what the Constitution intended. So your “solution” is something you yourself admit the Congress would never go along with; and certainly not enough of them to override a Presidential Veto of whatever they demanded of him.
In the meantime, the environment will be raped, the world will be devastated, mankind may well become extinct, all because people (including you) insisted upon a politically correct sweet-talking candidate they liked, and would apparently literally rather die than elect the only person that offered even a 50/50 chance of saving their sorry ass from Fascism, because of some damage they mistakenly thought he could do without the consent of Congress. Instead, they elected the person that, for the second time, promised them a banquet and delivered them a shit sandwich.
To be more clearly specific, our civil liberties are lost, so much of the government has been bought we are past the tipping point and any principled agents in Congress won’t turn back the tide. Without those liberties your cause is doomed.
Tony C.,
Re the Rand name … Ron Paul may be a tad eccentric but not to that degree. According to everything I’ve read, Randal Paul’s wife is the one who changed his nickname from Randy to Rand. He has 2 brothers named Ronald and Robert.
Tony, it doesn’t even require a careful reading of my post to see that I’m saying Congress, as it is today or in 2012, or will be in 2016, is ineffective. And that it will require a new breed of congressman to assert its lawful authority. I’m not saying it will be easy, but the Founder’s were well aware of the challenge, as I believe Madison and Franklin wrote about the challenges facing future generations. The simple solution is wean the public off professional sports, nascar, and porn, and their attention will naturally focus on Congress.
You’re buying into the paradigm of the Imperial President by expecting him to willingly relinquish power. I don’t believe even Ron Paul would do that; all that would need to happen is for im to shown evidence that the security of the country is at stake, and NSA surveillance becomes national defense. Instead of expecting the dog to give up his bone, my solution would be for the master to take it from him. Congress is the master here in this analogy, BTW.
I further want to make clear, Obama is not my ideal of a candidate or President, and I held my nose when I voted for the guy the second time around. Neither is Hilary, but it is a fact that the Democratic Party is more responsive to the needs of environmental protection than any other viable option. Underline viable. The record clearly shows that the Democrats have done less damage than the opposition (Republitea) parties have promised to do, and Dems have devoted more funding to improving the environment than the opposition has said they would.
The environmental stewardship of the Democrats is far from perfect, but it is better than the alternative. Ron Paul promises to auction it off; more clearly, more loudly than he protests the growing imperialism of the Presidency. What I’m not willing to do is make the perfect the enemy of the good. Unless Warren runs. She’d be perfect.
RTC says: I’m not saying it will be easy,
I am saying it is impossible.
RTC says: The simple solution is wean the public off professional sports, nascar, and porn, and their attention will naturally focus on Congress.
First, that is impossible with anything short of a great depression in which the only thing that makes a difference to anybody is finding their next meal. As long as people have leisure time, they will fill it with distractions. Period. People’s attention will never focus on Congress until it is far too late for Congress to actually do anything. That is human nature.
RTC says: You’re buying into the paradigm of the Imperial President by expecting him to willingly relinquish power.
WTF? That is not even a rational statement. A person that relinquishes power is by definition not acting as an emperor. Do you even understand what is meant by “Imperial Presidency”?
RTC says: I don’t believe even Ron Paul would do that;
I think there is a better chance of Ron Paul doing that than anybody else doing it. Ron Paul asserted he would, you won’t get any other candidate making that promise.
RTC says: it is a fact that the Democratic Party is more responsive to the needs of environmental protection than any other viable option.
I think it is a fact the Democratic Party will throw the environment under the bus if corporations need it. They are still subsidizing big oil, and that is something Ron Paul promised to end, because he doesn’t think the government should be subsidizing ANY business for any reason (picking winners and losers). I think you are misled by the face of the party and do not pay attention to the bills that pass without fanfare and the subsidies and tax breaks that are perpetuated without fanfare. Because neither party wants you to notice those.
RTC says: The environmental stewardship of the Democrats is far from perfect, but it is better than the alternative.
I don’t think you can know that. I think you do not have your priorities straight, you are obsessing over scraped elbows when you have colon cancer. In the past I have tried to balance multiple issues in my selection, but I no longer believe in that.
The only things that matter are civil liberties and getting the money out of politics, and these are closely correlated, and if we don’t do that then we as citizens will lose everything. The environment, the economy, our money, our freedom of speech, our privacy, everything. The environment is not on the verge of collapse, and even if it were the only corrective action you can take demands getting corporate money out of politics first. You aren’t going to elect anybody that makes a difference, there will be no wholesale replacement of the majority in Congress that are corrupt and gerrymandered and making millions by voting for the companies that are destroying the environment. Do you think they will go without fighting to the last stuffed ballot box, the last smear campaign, the last bald-faced lie? Do you think Big Oil won’t pour billions, literally, into those campaigns to protect their privileges?
I don’t know what you are thinking, but you aren’t thinking straight.
Tony: You think electing an accountable Congress is impossible? Your wrong. Putting a mountaintop back together is impossible.
I also think people’s awareness of Congress will return. These things are cyclical, but not on glacial levels.
You ask: “Do you even understand what is meant by ‘Imperial Presidency’? ” Absolutely. You’re saying that so much power has concentrated in the office of the President, that only the President is capable of reigning it back to within Constitutional levels. The Founder’s knew there would be challenges, but they gave a document to fix things with. It’s up to us to enforce it. Sorry you’re too cynical to imagine that happening.
Next point: Ron Paul knew he wasn’t going to win shit, so he could say whatever he wanted. It’s liberating knowing you have nothing to lose. You want to take him at is word, go right ahead. The only thing I’ll trust him on is his promise to destroy the environment. Excuse me, I mean his promise to let the environment be destroyed. You know, because he doesn’t believe government should pick winners and losers, unless that loser happens to be the environment.
Next: Oil subsidies suck; no question. Obama called for eliminating them. Didn’t happen. Gosh, maybe the Presidency’s not imperial enough. Oh, wait a minute. Subsidies for Big Oil originate in the House. Shoot. I guess the reason we still have subsidies is because it came down to the art of the possible. Otherwise known as politics. But you’ll relieved to know that Democrats were able to eliminate the tax break for big gas guzzling SUV’s. I’m kidding. I know you won’t be relieved to know that.
I’m not misled by the face of the Democratic Party at all. In fact, I believe I said earlier in this thread that I despised Obama for his environmental record. Hold on a second, let me check on that quickly. I’ll be right back.
Yep, that’s what I said on Feb 13 @ 2:21. Whaddya know, that was this afternoon, I thought it was easy to recall. I could go on and on about the ways Obama has fallen short in protecting the environment in quite surprising detail, but I don’t want to take the fun out of researching his record for yourself.
As for what I’m diagnosing, again, I have my priorities. Environmental issues and sustainability are what matters most for me. I walk it like I talk it. I’ve taken a huge financial hit to pursue a career in natural areas restoration.
I can tell you that the environment is perilously on edge. I don’t sit in an office diddling a computer all day. I walk through marshlands with a chainsaw and dichotomous plant key. Civil rights? Yeh, they matter. But when you get out in forests and fields and realize the world we live in was created by plants, you learn what really important; it changes your perspective a bit. You learn to take the long view. You know who else took the long view? Lewis F. Powell, who, as Republican Party Chairman, wrote a memo which describing the Third Branch of government as the most important one to gain control of, control of the White House and Congress being fleeting and expensive. It took a while, but the strategy has paid off. If “they” could do it, so can we.
I think your wrong for hoping for White Knight to come in and make everything right with the stroke of a pen. It don’t work that way, G. It’s taken decades for us to this point; it’ll take longer to make it right. Let me put it like this: when your in a hole, stop digging. Ron Paul? That’s like dropping in three tons of dynamite and setting it off.
BTW, maybe you haven’t been following the news regarding mountaintop removal. During the Bush years, all the mountains were targeted for destruction, at least all the mountains with coal in them. It was Obama’s EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, who turned down the first mountaintop removal permit because it would have caused over two hundred miles of streams and rivers to be filled in. Nearly every single environmental protection since Nixon signed the Clean Air and Water Act has come under a Democratic President. They may not have gone as far as I would’ve wanted, but I’ll take those small victories where I can get ’em. Because you know what’s truly impossible? Reclaiming those miles of filled in streams.
Finally, I agree with you about ridding money from our politics. And I’m pretty sure I said so earlier. Hold on, I’m going to check on that. I’ll be right back.
I was right. I said I agree with you about the problem of money in politics. I couldn’t be sure I said it on this blog because I said the same thing on the other blog about dozen times or so. What puzzles me is that you don’t address how Paul, as President, would do anything to change any of that. I’m certain if he had his way, cash would be passing around on the floor of Congress.
I’m not exactly a single issue voter, though I do put a lot emphasis upon one issue. It has to do with the kind world I leave my kids and grandchildren. I believe there’s a way to bring an end to the Imperial President without sacrificing precious, irreplaceable wilderness areas to the big corporations in order to achieve it, which is what electing Ron Paul would do. I know that’s possible because these political issues are human created. We made this mess; we can fix it. It starts with the next geenration; with you nephews. Make sure they understand the importance of government and civic participation. Just don’t tell them it’s the end of world. You’ll sound like a fanatic and they’ll tune you out.
RTC says: I’m not exactly a single issue voter,
Oh, I think you are. Or more specifically, a litmus voter, you exclude any candidate that doesn’t give lip service to your environmental issue, period.
RTC says: It has to do with the kind [of] world I leave my kids and grandchildren.
Right, and apparently you think I don’t give a shit about the world I leave behind, that my 12 hours a day of “diddling with a computer” is all about gaming or something. Not about making the world a safer and more knowledgeable place and enabling the hundreds of thousands of scientists that can use my work to develop the solutions that will save the lives of your children and grandchildren, only you with your trekking boots on the ground are doing anything important. And only you with your plant key can truly understand what is happening to the planet, because the scientists and engineers and medical researchers that use my work every day, as they diddle their computers, we can’t really understand shit unless we have walked in the wilderness, and if we aren’t working toward your agenda, we really must not give a wet shit about the world we are leaving behind, the selfish bastards.
What an ego you have, I am surprised you can drag that thing around in the field.
Your priorities are wrong. The planet is doomed if politics is not fixed. Ending the Imperial Presidency is just one element of fixing politics, and Ron Paul presented a better chance of taking a corrective course on that point than any other candidate, since every other candidate had already proven their willingness to embrace the Imperial Presidency, and he was the only candidate actually speaking against it. It was not true that Ron Paul knew he could not be elected, he was saying this stuff when he was leading the Republican field for the nomination as the Republican candidate.
It does you no good to use falsehoods to support your point, to try and make Ron Paul out to be a liar about his beliefs. That is your perception, it is not backed up by facts.
Elaine,
The latest on Christie
http://www.northjersey.com/news/stile-in-house-verdict-the-narrative-christie-wanted-1.750414