I-495 Closure Update



WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Intrigue surrounding Governor Chris Christie's pick for U.S. Senate; special election called for Oct.16th

The death of New Jersey's Democratic U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg puts Republican Governor Chris Christie in a box, because of the conflict between his gubernatorial re-election needs and his presumed 2016 Presidential ambitions.

Political landmines abound. Appoint a conservative Republican for the post - which might help Christie short-term with national Republicans who think he's too moderate - and if that person eventually runs for office, he/she goes down in flames. Christie gets blamed.

Appoint a more moderate Republican despised by the conservatives, Christie presumably helps his own position in New Jersey but hurts himself within his own party nationally. Even more so if the moderate Republican goes down in flames in the election against Democratic Newark Mayor Cory Booker (Likely). Conservatives will argue moderate, vanilla G.O.P. candidates can do no better against a strong Democratic candidate like Booker; may as well put up a "true believer" to go down in flames.

Appoint a moderate "caretaker" who pledges not to run for the office. (Similar to Ted Kaufmann here in Delaware in the Biden seat) National Republicans blame Christie for wasting an opportunity.

Or, maybe Christie figures he'll alienate national Republicans no matter what he does. But, he has at least one option which allows him to dominate the national headlines, at the same time delivering him a massive re-election victory in the "blue" Garden State: Appoint the aforementioned Democratic Newark Mayor Cory Booker to the Senate. (Unless the move boomeranged by driving up black turn-out, meaning more votes for Christie's Democratic opponent... assuming the Senate election ran concurrently with Christie's re-election. But no, Christie might very well set himself up as the one Republican who could draw a substantial slice of the African-American vote, just like the black voters I interviewed here in Delaware who once crossed-over to vote for Mike Castle.)


Late Word: Governor Christie has called for an October 16th special election. Primaries would come August 13th.


Similar analysis from The NEW REPUBLIC on line...


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113370/lautenberg-death-puts-new-jersey-gov-chris-christie-bind

Posted at 7:14am on June 4, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

teatime
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:23am
Governor Christie enjoys high poll ratings due, in part, to his image as a moderate Republican governor. Christie can further shore-up that image by appointing a moderate Republican, or even a moderate Democrat to Lautenberg's seat.

New Jersey remains a liberal/moderate state; therefore Christie would go nowhere appointing a right-wing demagogue to public office.

Finally, I'll remind you that Christie has never said that he would run for U.S. president. To the contrary, he held a press conference during the 2012 campaign to say that he was not interested in running. Christie does not have to worry about the presidential implications of his decisions because, as he's stated, he's not running for president.



JimH
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:37am
I believe he should avoid the whole mess. Appoint a moderate Democrat (he would be replacing a Democrat, after all). Call for the parties to run candidates this fall to serve out the remainder of the term.

billsmith
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:46am
Christie could always nominate himself.

Shawn
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:46am
Quick, where's mrpizza to complain about moderates standing in the middle of the road getting run over?! Come on, pizza, we're counting on you... it wouldn't be a conversation about moderates without that comment!

Anyway... my wife is about as big a Democrat as you can get. She makes Obama look conservative. And even she admits that if Christie were to run for president, she can't guarantee she wouldn't vote for him (obviously depending on who the Dems put up against him). If he were to ignore party lines on this and put up a Democrat? As Allan said, it'll hurt him with the Tea Party, but would likely endear him to everyone else in the country. Which, in my book, is a win/win!

billsmith
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:47am
Shawn: And Christie is as big a Republican as you can get, too. :)

EarlGrey
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:58am
Shawn: Did your wife vote for McCain? Nope...he was the moderate (like Christie) loved by the moderate Republicans and Democrats...but they abandoned him when given the choice between Republican Lite or a True Blue Democrat.
If Christie is the GOP choice in 2016, Hillary will be our next president. Do you honestly want Republicans to believe someone like you or your wife would vote for Christie rather than Hillary? That is ridiculous.

Christie could always nominate another Jersey resident who ran for president many years ago...Steve Forbes. If he wants to appear strong on the economy (and above partisan politics) he could go with Forbes.

Shawn
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 10:06am
"Do you honestly want Republicans to believe..."
-- EarlGrey

Frankly, Earl, I don't care what you believe. I don't know you or anyone else on this board, so I have no reason to lie to you or make up stories. The fact of the matter is, my wife did not like Obama in 2008. She was a big Hillary supporter, and was very disappointed that Obama beat her in the primaries. She actually WAS considering voting for McCain... until he chose Palin as his running mate. That sealed her vote for Obama. So yes, "someone like my wife" could vote for Christie. Now, granted, against Hillary? No, my wife would vote for Hillary. But I did say in my original post, "obviously depending on who the Dems put up against him." So believe my comments or not, it's up to you. It doesn't change the truth of the situation.

As for "someone like me", I again remind you that I am not a Democrat. I am a centrist moderate. I never voted for Obama, and I don't know about my feelings for Hillary. I liked 2000 McCain. If he had shown up in 2008, I would have voted for him. But instead we got "Oh, catering to the extreme right worked for Bush... let me give it a try" McCain. Don't change your views and tune based on the political winds. If you're moderate, be moderate, and stand by it. That's when I gave up on McCain... when he tried to NOT be a moderate and courted you Tea Party folks.

Make a true moderate ticket instead of a hard-line right-wing Tea Party ticket, and I'm on board. Christie? Yeah, I'd give him a shot. But it depends on who he'd pick for a Veep. Paul Ryan? Rand Paul? Rick Santorum? Hell no.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 10:26am
EarlGrey: I have to agree with Shawn on this one. I too, a moderate, who leans right Independent was going to vote for McCain until he picked Sarah Palin as his VP. Then I decided to vote for Obama, I'd have voted for Hillary too rather than put Sarah, I can't answer a question about what books or newspapers I've read Katie, because I don't read Palin.

Romney should have won also as he's a moderate, but he campaigned as a TEA party far extreme right winger [that hurt him badly and that crack about the 47%, bad move]. Plus many Evangelical Christians stayed home and didn't vote at all [they'd never vote for a DEM], because of Romney's Mormonism. I think those folks were foolish and missed an opportunity to have an excellent person as Prez - so they shouldn't be complaining now about Obama, they made their choice by staying home].

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 10:28am
JimH: Amen, that sounds like the right thing to do.

EarlGrey
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:03am
Shawn: So the answer was...in the end your wife DID NOT vote for the Moderate...nor did YOU!!! You can blame it on Ryan or Palin all day long but in the end you didn't vote for the Moderate choice when given one.

EarlGrey
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:10am
Mike: Romney lost because he pandered to the Right (his own campaign manager said exactly that and also admitted many "promises" to the Right would not be kept)...the GOP picked yet another weak candidate. What next? Will the GOP pick a "moderate" like Jeb Bush? Try McCain again? Maybe Christie?
What Moderate Republican has actually won against a Democrat? Dole? McCain? Romney? Three Strikes and you are Outta Here!

Shawn
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:53am
Earl: Are you even reading my posts?

First of all, I never said my wife WOULD vote for Christie, or any unnamed moderate for that matter. She's extremely on the DEM side of things, so chances are slim, admittedly. My exact words were, "she can't guarantee she wouldn't vote for [Christie]". She CAN guarantee she'll never vote for Bush, Ryan, Paul, Walker, etc. But the fact that someone as hard-line Democrat as she, doesn't immediately and automatically rule out Christie is a sign of the guy's strengths. It doesn't matter that she DIDN'T vote for McCain or any other moderate. My initial comment was that she would consider Christie.

As for me, I'm fine voting for moderates... so long as the ENTIRE ticket is moderate. Palin, Ryan, whoever... NOT moderate, NOT voting for them, regardless of who the first name on their ticket is. Give me a moderate ticket -- not a moderate half-ticket -- and we'll talk. Tea Party association almost nullifies any chance of me voting for you. A vote for McCain or Romney was not a vote for a moderate... it was a vote for people who used to be moderates, but chose extremist running mates and pandered to extremists. That's not a moderate. You can see them as moderates. I see them as people renouncing their moderate-ism to gain favor with extremists. Give me a moderate, running a moderate platform, with a moderate running mate, and yes, I will strongly consider voting for them. I haven't voted for that yet, because THAT HASN'T BEEN GIVEN TO ME YET.

Do you honestly, actually believe a hard-line, extreme right, fully-Tea Party candidate could win a national election? Any candidate that fits that bill would do well with you and your Tea buddies... and would fall completely and utterly flat with literally the entire rest of the country.

JimH
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:59am
Remember Barry Goldwater's "A Choice, Not an Echo"? A Republican "Democrat Lite" is never going to win. Telling the voters "I'll do everything the Dem is doing only I'll do it better" never works. They may as well vote for the real thing.

And billsmith, if Christie thought he were losing the re-election bid, naming himself senator would be an option. But, although he can do it, he better not!

EarlGrey
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:35pm
"A Republican "Democrat Lite" is never going to win. Telling the voters "I'll do everything the Dem is doing only I'll do it better" never works. They may as well vote for the real thing."

Exactly!


billsmith
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:41pm
"And billsmith, if Christie thought he were losing the re-election bid, naming himself senator would be an option. But, although he can do it, he better not!"

JimH: All depends on whether he covets higher office in three years and whether he thinks the Senate gives him a better national platform from which to do it. If there's not another superstorm between now and then, the governorship may not offer much nationally except fat jokes on Letterman.

EarlGrey
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:53pm
Shawn: You see the Moderates (like McCain & Romney) as selling out their moderate values by promising to be Conservatives...and I see them as Moderates lying to Conservatives to get their support. McCain won his seat in AZ this last time by making promises to the Right...and he has backed away from most of his promises. Romney too made a lot of promises; I don't believe he would have kept many of them.

Republicans have lost the past three times trying to run a Moderate so why not try a Tea Party-type? Worst thing that happens is Republicans lose once again and the GOP can blame the Tea Party...the GOP already blames the Tea Party for everything else that's wrong with politics.

Chris Christie is probably as Republican as one can be in a state like New Jersey or Delaware and still get elected (same for Scott Brown and Romney in their home state of Mass)... but for the rest of the country, they are seen as East Coast liberal Republicans.

Shawn
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 12:58pm
I'm sorry, Earl and Jim, but I disagree, and I feel THAT's why you guys have lost the past few years. Extreme candidates only excite the extremes. You have zero chance of bringing people over from the other side, and you scare the moderates. Look at Christine O'Donnell/Mike Castle. Castle should be in the Senate right now. But hard-right Republicans voted for the person that represented THEM best, and to hell with everyone else... the Tea Party way... "Our way or the highway."

You seem to be under the impression that politics is a simply black/white dichotomy. That you're either hard conservative or hard liberal, nothing else. You forget that it's a spectrum... people fall across the range. If it were a dichotomy, then yes, you need to pick the most conservative person you can find. But non-Tea Party doesn't automatically mean "Democrat Lite". There are plenty of conservative values worth fighting for without going to the Tea Party extreme. The sooner you all realize that, the sooner the GOP has a chance of making a comeback. But as long as it's ruled by the extremes, we're in for a long period of Democratic presidents.

billsmith
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 1:25pm
"You seem to be under the impression that politics is a simply black/white dichotomy."

Shawn, that's pretty much how the media present it. Keeps it simple for them and doesn't demand too much from the audience. Nobody seems to worry that this picture is not accurate.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 4:30pm
I believe why the GOP has lost the past two, not three Prez elections is because the GOP has drifted even further to the right than Reagan. The Gipper probably couldn't get nominated today as a Republican, because he's not conservative enough, just as Jimmy Carter couldn't get nominated in today's DEM party, because of him being a very vocal and outspoken Born Again Christian who takes his faith seriously. Both parties have their Achilles Heel.

The GOP TEA folks appeal to a very conservative part of the nation, and as a result the rest of the country is turned off and settles for the DEMS. A moderate GOP as there was prior to the TEA movement probably [in my opinion so no I have no facts to back this belief] would give the DEMS a real run for the elections. That's why I suggest the GOP ask the TEA folks to leave and start their own party.

kavips
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 4:40pm
I think Christie will need to appoint someone as wide as he is. If he shows up on the podium with a scrawnly little guy, it kinda of makes him look silly and I'm sure SNL will lampoon the event.

Better to have someone big or bigger in girth than him, and that way, when they both show up on stage, the whole world stops for a minute to watch, because they can't take their eyes off the both of them.

Anything less would doom Christie to Lampoonsville and shoot his chances as president out of the water....

mrpizza
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 6:37pm
Chris Christie is a traitor to conservatives, regardless of his party label. I don't know why he doesn't just switch parties - he's already a Democrat in principle. In fact, I heard a report today that he's received major contributions from many Democrat sources, including the commie thug George Soros. As far as I'm concerned, he's not only sold us out, but he's taking blood money to do it.

Personally, I'd rather give Bill Clinton a third term than to elect this turncoat to the White House.

billsmith
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:51pm
George Soros: Rich and a commie? A bit inconsistent there, Pizza.

mrpizza
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:18pm
billsmith: Agreed. But then that's the hypocrisy of the left. It's only okay for liberals and commies to be rich, but conservatives and Christians are supposed to be poor.

mrpizza
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 8:22pm
MFD: Yes, I've also been thinking that the TEA folks should leave the Republicans and start their own party. To add to that, I also think that instead of calling it the TEA party, we should call it the "We The People" party, because we're the true "We The People" spoken about in the Constitution.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:59pm
Mrpizza: I like your proposed name for this new party. The We The People Party. Now all you've got to do is convince the TEA folks nationwide to leave the GOP and start their own party. Then there would be three choices, a moderate left leaning party [DEMS], a moderate right leaning party [GOP] and a far right party [WTP], then it will be interesting to see who the voters nationwide support in 2016.

Hey, I bet Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin would be willing to be the WTP's first candidates, a Palin/O'Donnell ticket. SNL, Jay Leno, Letterman, Tina Fey, etc, will be in comedian heaven. Meanwhile, on the other end of the broadcasting world, Fox News, Limbaugh, Jensen, etc, will be working their butts off trying to sell their listeners/viewers that a President Palin would be a good thing, especially as VP Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell's would have Palin's back ready to be Prez if something happened to Prez Sarah. This could make Limbaugh's show worth tuning in to hear.

Seriously, all kidding aside, having that WTP as a solid third party would finally give the voting public that more conservative choice, and it will be interesting to see how well a WTP candidate would do against the DEM and GOP[moderate] candidates. The reason the TEA folks don't do this, is the two large party's DEM/GOP, other than Ross Perot, seem to be able to keep out of the debates any of the other third party candidates. But as in the case of Perot, he pulled in enough votes in polls that they had to let him in, so that would be the WTP's first hurdle, getting enough potential voters committed to voting for their man/woman so their candidate could be in the national debates. My guess is, there are enough TEA folks out there to accomplish that, so good luck.


mrpizza
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 3:15am
MFD: With the current scandals that the Obama administration can no longer hide from, the people may be in a "anything but the establishment" mood in 2014 so now would be the perfect window of opportunity for the WTP to form and get out there with their candidates.

Of course, they have to get through the IRS first, but at this point, does the IRS dare to target another conservative organization?

billsmith
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 7:26am
Pizza: You are not "we the people." We, the people was wealthy, educated, White, male property owners. Not Blacks. Not Women. Not tradesmen and laborers. Gentlemen, only. Not lower class trash who don't know their place.

It is bitter, angry, hate-filled, religious fanatics and bigots like you who are destroying this country. People like you are the reason the world hates this country. People like you make me think the rest of the world is right. People like you are the reason the government is inoperative and the elite run things. People like you are turning this country into a religious-fascist dictatorship, enabled by the corporate media.

You are not "the people." Most people don't care about you tea party and religious right fanatics, and those that do bother to think about you, despise you.

You are the enemy of the principles on which this country was founded. That's why the founders wanted to put limits on government and give people like you no say at all.

Shawn
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 9:06am
The Gipper probably couldn't get nominated today as a Republican, because he's not conservative enough

This.

I also think that instead of calling it the TEA party, we should call it the "We The People" party, because we're the true "We The People" spoken about in the Constitution.

Not this. As much as I dislike the tone billsmith takes in most of his comments, I have to agree with him. The Tea Party IS the problem with this country today, for exactly this mindset. Somehow you are right, and the rest of us are wrong, and the rest of us should just shut up and let you rule, or get the F*&! out. It's not YOUR country. We the people means ALL OF US, including people you disagree with. If you want to start your own United States of Tea Party Theocracy, go ahead and do it. But not here in America, where the founding fathers set up a government that gives everyone, INCLUDING PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH, a voice in how our government and country work.


EarlGrey
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 9:19am
"Mrpizza: I like your proposed name for this new party. The We The People Party. Now all you've got to do is convince the TEA folks nationwide to leave the GOP and start their own party. Then there would be three choices, a moderate left leaning party [DEMS], a moderate right leaning party [GOP] and a far right party [WTP], then it will be interesting to see who the voters nationwide support in 2016."

Mike: The Moderate Dems are becoming obsolete...Blue Dogs are are a very rare breed these days. The Democrats have been overtaken by the hard Left and the remaining Reagan-type Democrats are almost extint. The Moderate Republicans are also dissappearing...the remaining Moderate Republicans are the Old Guard and they are "stuck in their ways". If the Republicans want to compete with the current crop of Democrats they need to wake up. Why should the TEA Party go Third Party and thus make themselves irrelevent in the next election? The Tea Party-types are Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians...but they have been painted as white, stupid, racist Republicans who hate everyone who dissagrees with them. Tea Party is more of an idealogy than a new party...pro Constitution, smaller government, pro freedom.

The IRS doesn't have the same ability to suppress the Tea Party for 2014...so watch out!

EarlGrey
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 9:22am
The Gipper probably couldn't get nominated today as a Republican, because he's not conservative enough."

I keep hearing this statement... But how is that true when most Tea Party-types would list Reagan as their favorite president?

EarlGrey
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 9:28am
I do believe Reagan would not be chosen by the GOP of today... Ronnie wasn't the GOP's first choice back when he was selected as the Republican presidential candidate either...but he won. Maybe the Republicans need to ignore the GOP in 2014/2016.

Shawn
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 10:32am
In answer to Earl about why Reagan wouldn't win with the Tea Party:
  • Reagan, who started his career as a Democrat, signed TEFRA, which his own adviser labeled the largest tax increase in American history, and one that amounted to 1 percent of GDP. Reagan raised taxes seven out of eight of his years in office -- including four times in just two years.
  • In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which provided a clear path to citizenship for nearly 3 million illegal aliens already in the country.
  • Reagan took a very strong anti-torture stance by signing the United Nations Convention Against Torture. In his memoirs, Reagan wrote that he dreamed of "a world free of nuclear weapons."
  • He eliminated no significant government agencies, though he added Veteran's Affairs. The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3.0 million, and the national debt more than quadrupled, from $700 million to $3 trillion.
  • Before running for office, Reagan was a union leader. He ran the Screen Actors Guild and boasted of being the first head to lead it in a strike.
What Tea Party true-believer would EVER vote for a candidate like that?

EarlGrey
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 11:50am
Reagan, who started his career as a Democrat, signed TEFRA, which his own adviser labeled the largest tax increase in American history, and one that amounted to 1 percent of GDP. Reagan raised taxes seven out of eight of his years in office -- including four times in just two years.

The basic problem was that Reagan believed that members of Congress "wouldn't lie to him when he should have known better." As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to "trust but verify"… whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or a president of the Soviet Union.
Congressional leaders told Reagan they would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. To Reagan, TEFRA looked like a pretty good "70 percent" deal…but Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be 30-70 surrender.

In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which provided a clear path to citizenship for nearly 3 million illegal aliens already in the country.

Reagan did sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986; however, border security, fixing the visa system, and a temporary worker program (all parts of the reform) were never implemented.

Reagan took a very strong anti-torture stance by signing the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Yes, Reagan was against torture… but would he have considered waterboarding torture?

In his memoirs, Reagan wrote that he dreamed of "a world free of nuclear weapons."

Yes, he did dream of a nuke free world..but he also believed in "Peace through Strength". That was one of the reasons for his Star Wars program.

Before running for office, Reagan was a union leader. He ran the Screen Actors Guild and boasted of being the first head to lead it in a strike.

So what? I really don’t care about striking actors…I wish most current actors would go on strike. Now if he had been the head of SEIU or UAW, that would be a problem.

What Tea Party true-believer would EVER vote for a candidate like that?

Many involved in the Tea Party movement would happily vote for a candidate like that…but would a man like that make it to the Top Ten list of Republican presidential hopefuls today? I don’t know that he would.

Shawn
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 1:11pm
Your responses are reflective of your own views, but not those of the majority of the Tea Party. We have seen time and time again that there is no room for compromise or tax increases in any form from the Tea Party. So whether Reagan believed he would get those spending cuts or not, he still COMPROMISED by agreeing to TAX INCREASES. Tea Partiers don't buy into either of those concepts under any circumstances.

Regardless of whether parts of his immigration reform bill were ever implemented, he still signed it! How does the implemention of the bill matter to whether he signed it in the first place or not? He tried to provide a path to citizenship for illegals. Tea Partiers would say, "Um, no" to that.

And maybe YOU don't care about striking actors, but regardless, it's still a union, and unionized labor is a big no-no in Tea Party Land, regardless of whether it's auto workers, teachers, or actors. So your opinion really doesn't matter here. Go talk to Scott Walker if you're not sure what Tea Partiers really believe about unions.

And I still to this day don't understand how anyone can NOT consider waterboarding torture. Give it a try... let me know if you don't feel tortured when you're done.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 3:28pm
EarlGrey said, "Mike: The Moderate Dems are becoming obsolete...Blue Dogs are are a very rare breed these days. The Democrats have been overtaken by the hard Left and the remaining Reagan-type Democrats are almost extinct. The Moderate Republicans are also dissappearing...the remaining Moderate Republicans are the Old Guard and they are "stuck in their ways". If the Republicans want to compete with the current crop of Democrats they need to wake up. Why should the TEA Party go Third Party and thus make themselves irrelevant in the next election? The Tea Party-types are Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians...but they have been painted as white, stupid, racist Republicans who hate everyone who disagrees with them. Tea Party is more of an ideology than a new party...pro-Constitution, smaller government, pro-freedom."

The problem, as I see it, IS the fact that the Moderate GOP and DEMS are a dying breed. I believe the truth in politics is more in the middle than either extreme.

For me, I may not like or agree with some things the government wants to do, but as long as me, my family, and my church are NOT forced to do something that goes against our wills or beliefs, then that IS freedom, but the other guy should also be allowed to have that same freedom as long as what he/she's doing doesn't infringe on my freedom. That works both ways. There are things I want to be able to do and don't want someone telling me I can't do that. So we do have to be tolerant of each other. So, for example: I do not have a problem with the government allowing gay/lesbian marriage AS long as churches are free to NOT participate with no hassle, law suits, loss of tax exemption, accused of being homophobes, or hate crimes, etc, etc, from the government or GLBT groups. This way both groups of citizens are allowed to live as they desire and NOT be bothered by those who do not agree with them. It works both ways.

That's how it has to work for America to work. We are a very diverse society with all sorts of beliefs, and practices. Each has to be allowed to live as they wish, as long as in doing so they are NOT infringing on someone's else rights. That's probably a bit simplistic and I'm sure others here can say it far better, but that's the best I can do.


mrpizza
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 8:21pm
billsmith: It's bitter, angry, hate-filled religious fanatics and bigots like me who created this country, and we're not silent anymore against the anti-Christian, anti-American bigots in the present government who wish to destroy what we've created, and we WILL fight back.

mrpizza
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 8:31pm
Shawn: The reason the TEA party exists is in response to the instrument of tyranny the government has become, and it's the left, not the TEA party, that is the problem. The Obama administration may be the first in America to be more dangerous than Germany's Third Reich.

mrpizza
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 9:04pm
Dateline Wednesday, November 5th, 2014:

TEA-PARTY REPUBLICANS SWEEP SENATE, ADD MORE MEMBERS TO HOUSE,
2016 WHITE-HOUSE RACE NOW WITHIN REACH

EarlGrey
Wed, Jun 5, 2013 10:59pm
Shawn: I guess we will never know if the Tea Party would have voted for Reagan...but I myself would have voted for the man.

As to waterboarding...I'd take simulated drowning to actual torture like fingers removed or bones broken & rebroken or any other violent/painful torture that (if you survive) leaves one permanently disabled. And remember only three people were actually waterboarded by the CIA...all three were high level Al-Queda terror leaders responsible for killing almost 3,000 people.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jun 6, 2013 8:42am
EarlGrey: Did the US do this sort of stuff during WWII? As far as any of us know, the answer is no [I'm sure stuff would have leaked out by now if we'd been treating our prisioners like the Nazi's treated theirs].

We tried to stick to the Geneva Convention in how we treated our POW's, whereas the Japanese and German's weren't as concerned with compliance. So the US is now going to adopt the practices of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan of the 1930's and 40's?

So we've become what we abhorred and went to war to stop 70 years ago?? No wonder so many nations around the globe hate our guts.

The other thing to consider, how reliable is intel that was gotten via torture? You hurt or scare someone [water boarding simulates drowning] bad enough and they'll tell you anything you want to hear, just to get you to stop.

So besides not being the moral thing to do, its actual value for getting reliable info is questionable.

EarlGrey
Thu, Jun 6, 2013 12:57pm
Mike: now "we" just use drones to KILL these same people...that is why we are hated, not because the CIA waterboarded 3 people responsible for 9-11 and who planned further attacks. KSM gave up the person who led the CIA to OsamaBinLaden. How much valuable intel is gleaned from drone strikes?

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jun 6, 2013 6:16pm
EarlGrey, I don't agree with using drones this way either. But torture isn't right either. They admit to three,but probably more.

mrpizza
Thu, Jun 6, 2013 7:54pm
MFD: If waterboarding will extract the needed information to protect the American public, then it's a small price for our enemies to pay. I don't care what we did in WW2, that was 70 years ago. We're not fighting against states, but against stateless warlords. America is way too "compassionate", and that so-called compassion is only towards the perpetrators. What about the victims? I can think of at least one example. How about 3000+ people who died on September 11, 2001? Where's the compassion for them?

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jun 7, 2013 12:01am
Mrpizza: I'd say the Germans and Japanese did pay for what they did as we bombed the crap out of their nations [dropped two Atomic Bombs on Japan]. Both nations were heaps of rubble. We shouldn't lower our selves and become like our enemies. We shouldn't fight evil by being just as evil as them. You're promoting an eye for an eye, and ignoring the second part of what Jesus said. We can win without becoming evil. So to show compassion for the 3000+ who died on 9/11 should we get a couple of airliners and crash them into some buildings or special land marks in all the Arab nations? That's essentially what you're implying and in my opinion, that's wrong. In my opinion, we should not want pay back, but justice and there's a difference.

mrpizza
Fri, Jun 7, 2013 3:38am
No Mike, I'm not looking for revenge or eye for eye or any other nonsense. I'm talking about putting public safety first. The job of government is to make sure we're protected, and playing patty-cake with terrorists is not protecting the public.

billsmith
Fri, Jun 7, 2013 5:10am
MikeFromDelaware: Remember Pizza just posts outrageous and wacko comments for "fun." Who knows what else Pizza, Cliff Clavin and Newman do for fun at the post office?

mrpizza
Fri, Jun 7, 2013 7:25am
MFD: Additionally, since you don't want America to look like we're trying to get revenge, then let's get rid of prisons and jails, and turn all the criminals back onto the streets.
Just think of the cost savings by all those innocent American citizens who will be murdered in the name of compassion. We could save a ton of money on Social Security and health care costs, maybe even pay off the national debt!

billsmith: There's nobody more wacky and funny than you. When it comes to having somebody to pick on, you're my favorite scab!

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Jun 7, 2013 9:00am
Mrpizza: I totally understand the anger you feel towards the terrorists, I feel it too, [and I'm not going to lie to you there's a part of me that would like nothing more than to line them up against a wall and end the problem]. But, there's a right way to defeat them without becoming like them. For me, that is the way to go. If we allow ourselves to become like them, then they've won, because then they've made us act and behave in their image.

This isn't liberal vs conservative, rightwing vs leftwing, DEM vs GOP, Bush vs Obama/Hillary. Its on a higher plane. Its flesh vs the spirit. So even though my flesh side says yea lets get those [insert your favorite adjective]. The spirit is saying, wait, there's a better way. No you won't hear that on Rush/Hannity/Beck/Jensen/or the Lib versions either. Just remember, not all who call themselves Conservative are Christians, just as not all who call themselves Liberals aren't Christians, but neither side is seeking God's will, which is the tougher row to hoe and won't win either side many political points which is what they care about.

mrpizza
Sat, Jun 8, 2013 1:40am
MFD: Can't argue with that one.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach