“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”
This strikes me as the concern of Americans as we head toward 2012. As a veteran politico put it to me over the weekend: “Stop letting us down. . . . . We don’t want to have to spend this much energy and attention to your job.”
The primary sound of this administration has been an administrator whining about being stuck facing a job he himself asked for. Next November, the guy who seems authentically able and willing to actually do the job will get it.
Ummm... Republicans very strongly requested of the President that he stay out of the Supercommittee negotiations. Had he done so he would have been roundly criticized. Christie (and the GOP in general) is trying to have it both ways, and continuously criticizing the President for EVERY decision he makes regardless of the consequences and regardless of the context is just too easy. But is it right?
I would love to hear some knowledgeable analysts explore the ways the GOP could end up with a brokered convention leading to Christie's nomination.
Not saying it's gonna happen, or would be good. But if the not-Romney vote fails to coalesce around one candidate, it might make some good drama. Or at least a good counter-factual short story :)
Anything's possible, but over half the states have winner-take-all primaries, including CA, NY, PA, OH, NC, NJ and some other pretty delegate-heavy states. It would take a pretty fractured race for these states to break in such a way that no candidate has a majority. They'd have to offset the proportional delegate states appropriately, and they'd have to balance against Romney's likely wins in Mormon-heavy Western states.
A brokered convention requires that Gingrich and a third candidate manage to both win enough delegates to deny Romney the win, after removing Paul's share of the vote. But if two strong anti-Romneys persist past March, into the winner take all states, then they risk spoiling each other and giving the game over to Romney. Much better strategy to drop out and let the strongest continue on to fight for the winner take all states.
Assuming a candidate goes into Tampa with only a leading plurality, my guess is that would be Romney. I don't see him bowing out absent some truly major scandal. Christie endorsed him so it might take Romney's blessing and I don't see it forthcoming. Otherwise, it looks like Christie backstabbed Romney.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but the odds are in his favor. I think your biggest hope has to be that Romney either makes a huge mistake, or that the Tea Party makes a massive show that conventional polling failed to predict.
The chief problem, for Obama, with running against a "Do Nothing Congress" is that it introduces the concept of a "Do Nothing (whatever)" into the campaign. As in a "Do Nothing President." If he gets reelected, he won't even have to run for reelection, so what would he do then? How much golf can one man play when he supposedly has a full-time job? Let's not find out.
A king makes proclamations and they are followed without question. Obama has no interest in working to get something done. Witness the recent comments by, of all people, Chris Mathews who said Obama won't even pick up the phone much less meet with anyone.
Why should this be a surprise? Obama never lead anything. He simply makes speeches and, as the multitudes swoon (again, witness Mathews previous adulation of Obama), he expects his mere musings sufficient "leadership" on any subject.
Obama knew the economy and country were doomed to failure, so he didn't bother trying to lead. Better to let everything collapse than to appear to have tried and failed.
As ususal, Governor Christie made some sound (and humorous) observations about a President who is more interested in the continuation of his political career than the best interests of the nation. On the other hand, he lost me when he failed to acknowledge the differences between Tea Partiers and OWS protesters. In his view, the two groups are similar because they're angry. Angry about what, angry at who and the manner in which they express their anger would have been important distinctions to make, but Christie didn't make them.
Hey, hey, hey! Let's not jump to conclusions! "The guy who seems authentically able and willing to actually do the job will get it."? Michelle Bachmann is many things but a guy is not one of them.
Ummm... Republicans very strongly requested of the President that he stay out of the Supercommittee negotiations. Had he done so he would have been roundly criticized. Christie (and the GOP in general) is trying to have it both ways, and continuously criticizing the President for EVERY decision he makes regardless of the consequences and regardless of the context is just too easy. But is it right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see a lot of (liberal) pundits saying that Republicans requested Obama to stay out in articles written after its failure.
Can't find much about these supposed "requests" other than that. Perhaps you can?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince when does Obama do GOP congressmen's bidding?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would love to hear some knowledgeable analysts explore the ways the GOP could end up with a brokered convention leading to Christie's nomination.
Not saying it's gonna happen, or would be good. But if the not-Romney vote fails to coalesce around one candidate, it might make some good drama. Or at least a good counter-factual short story :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnything's possible, but over half the states have winner-take-all primaries, including CA, NY, PA, OH, NC, NJ and some other pretty delegate-heavy states. It would take a pretty fractured race for these states to break in such a way that no candidate has a majority. They'd have to offset the proportional delegate states appropriately, and they'd have to balance against Romney's likely wins in Mormon-heavy Western states.
A brokered convention requires that Gingrich and a third candidate manage to both win enough delegates to deny Romney the win, after removing Paul's share of the vote. But if two strong anti-Romneys persist past March, into the winner take all states, then they risk spoiling each other and giving the game over to Romney. Much better strategy to drop out and let the strongest continue on to fight for the winner take all states.
Assuming a candidate goes into Tampa with only a leading plurality, my guess is that would be Romney. I don't see him bowing out absent some truly major scandal. Christie endorsed him so it might take Romney's blessing and I don't see it forthcoming. Otherwise, it looks like Christie backstabbed Romney.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but the odds are in his favor. I think your biggest hope has to be that Romney either makes a huge mistake, or that the Tea Party makes a massive show that conventional polling failed to predict.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe chief problem, for Obama, with running against a "Do Nothing Congress" is that it introduces the concept of a "Do Nothing (whatever)" into the campaign. As in a "Do Nothing President." If he gets reelected, he won't even have to run for reelection, so what would he do then? How much golf can one man play when he supposedly has a full-time job? Let's not find out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama imagines his role as king, not leader.
A king makes proclamations and they are followed without question. Obama has no interest in working to get something done. Witness the recent comments by, of all people, Chris Mathews who said Obama won't even pick up the phone much less meet with anyone.
Why should this be a surprise? Obama never lead anything. He simply makes speeches and, as the multitudes swoon (again, witness Mathews previous adulation of Obama), he expects his mere musings sufficient "leadership" on any subject.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama imagines himself as king, and wants a Prime Minister to deal with mundane activities like governing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama knew the economy and country were doomed to failure, so he didn't bother trying to lead. Better to let everything collapse than to appear to have tried and failed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs ususal, Governor Christie made some sound (and humorous) observations about a President who is more interested in the continuation of his political career than the best interests of the nation. On the other hand, he lost me when he failed to acknowledge the differences between Tea Partiers and OWS protesters. In his view, the two groups are similar because they're angry. Angry about what, angry at who and the manner in which they express their anger would have been important distinctions to make, but Christie didn't make them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, hey, hey! Let's not jump to conclusions! "The guy who seems authentically able and willing to actually do the job will get it."? Michelle Bachmann is many things but a guy is not one of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse