Marco Rubio (and Ted Cruz) got Barack Obama right, so why won't anyone else say so?
I have now watched the video of Chris Christie 'destroying' Marco Rubio on Saturday night, and I have to tell you that the people commenting on it have missed the boat. If you haven't seen it yet, the video is embedded
here.
Andrew McCarthy points out that Rubio has got Obama pegged: Barack Obama has spent seven years
destroying the United States of America and its alliances.
Yet Rubio also had an important point: Christie’s premise is dead
wrong. Obama has not steered the Titanic into an iceberg because he is
an unprepared, untested amateur. He has done it quite deliberately, at
times masterfully, because Obama believes in the policies that
constitute the iceberg. He is a movement leftist with a transformational
agenda and an Alinskyite’s understanding of the extortionate uses of
power. Authoritarian rule, government-controlled health care, open
borders, runaway spending, Islamist sympathies, crony-capitalist green
energy – these are not initiatives Obama stumbled into because he was
unprepared. Obama has studiously taken the country where he wants it to
go. And he has rolled over the old experienced hands to do it – so much
for amateur hour.
Obama is not the bumpkin of Christie’s portrayal. But Christie is not so
much wrong in this regard as calculated. Progressive-lite types like
Christie want Obama’s failed presidency to be seen as the consequence of
lack of experience rather than as policy-driven because they often
cooperate with Obama Democrats and sympathize with a number of their
policy preferences.
Christie couldn’t get enough of Obama after “Super Storm Sandy” –
regardless of how much it undermined Mitt Romney. At best, Christie has
been ambivalent in his opposition to Obamacare – carefully navigating
between his instinctive support of it and the intense opposition of more
conservative voters whom he knew he’d be courting in the 2016 GOP
primaries. And while Christie is trying to appeal to conservatives as
the adult in the room willing to speak hard truths about entitlements
and debt spending, his record as governor is: Talk a good game but do
essentially nothing about our basket-case state’s structural problems.
That is a big part of why, as Rubio pointed out, Christie’s tenure has
featured multiple credit downgrades.
The Christies of the Republican party insist that the country is in
disastrous shape because Obama was not up to the job. In truth, Obama
used Democratic congressional control when he had it to push through
Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; ever since, having taken the measure of
feckless GOP opposition, he has skillfully (albeit illegally) exploited
executive power to pursue progressive objectives. Obama has been plenty
up to the job as he intended the job to be done.
This reality is not helpful to a Christie, who wants to be seen as a
pragmatic problem-solver willing to “cross the aisle.” The logic of
Christie’s championing of bipartisan cooperation “to get things done”
has necessarily meant working in furtherance of Obama’s agenda (and, in
New Jersey, working closely with Democrats – which is how you get
multiple credit downgrades). No one courting the Republican base can
afford to be seen as complicit in Obama’s program. So, for Christie, if
Obama is to be portrayed as a failure, it’s got to be because Obama
wasn’t prepared to be president, not because of policies Republicans
have supported.
Rush Limbaugh wonders why
only Rubio and Ted Cruz are willing to acknowledge that Obama's behavior has been a deliberate attempt to destroy the United States.
And I think... This is what I was talking about earlier when I say, "I
think some of these professional media analysts..." God bless them and
they do hard work, and many of them, they're just fine people. But I
don't know that they have the ability to see these debates the way
people watching the debates on TV see them. Meaning: I don't know how
big a faux pas this was for Rubio. Clearly it was not a positive;
clearly it was not his best. But I don't think it ruined his chances and
wiped him out like some in the media opined.
...
Let's get to the audio sound bites. I want to start with this. It's
the fastest way to get into this. Because this is important, folks.
This is really, really important. There are only two people that I'm
aware of that are making a consistent point of this. Rubio, actually, is
atop of this. Rubio and Cruz are the only two in the entire Republican
field. Carly Fiorina may have said something like this occasionally.
With Rubio, it's a theme. With Cruz, it's close to a theme. And the
real question is: Why do the other Republicans in the field disagree?
Why do they not say it themselves, that Obama is doing what he's
doing on purpose and by design? That is a brilliantly conceived and
flawlessly executed plan to transform America into something it was not
founded to be. This is something crucially important to Republican
voters. To people inside the Beltway, it's kind of a chuckle. "There
they go again, those right wingers!" To people inside the Beltway, to
the elites, to the establishment, Obama's just the latest Democrat to
come along.
He's no different than any other Democrat. "It's just the Democrat
Party, and they have a president." They don't see the country in crisis
in any way. Not because of the economy, not because of immigration,
not because of foreign policy. In no way are we in a crisis. And, as
such, they don't see what Obama's doing as anything except maybe a
young, inexperienced -- this is Christie's point -- incompetent boob.
Well, that's not who Obama is. Rubio's opponents are using it to
disqualify him. "See! Obama doesn't know what he's doing, and Rubio's
the same kind of guy, just a few short years in the Senate running for
president. We can't afford it.
"Meanwhile, the governors! We're the guys. We're the tough guys.
We've had to make tough decisions," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The
governors will not admit who Obama is. The governors will not admit it,
and Trump does not agree that Obama is purposely doing this. Trump
thinks he's a blithering incompetent. This is crucially important.
...
He's one of two people saying it. Now, folks, you go out and talk to
actual Republican primary voters. You go out, outside of Washington,
outside New York, go out to where these primaries and caucuses are being
held, and you will find that this is exactly what has propelled
Republicans to the polls in droves in 2010 and 2014. It's not the
belief, it's not the theory, it is the knowledge that Obama's doing this
on purpose, and there isn't and hasn't been any push-back. And
Republican voters are livid. Obama has said he's doing it on purpose.
He has said his purpose is to transform the nation. Everybody knows
that Obama is an Alinskyite.
The real question is -- and I was talking about this over the weekend
with my good buddy, Andrew McCarthy. The real question is, why are
these other guys not saying it? Why does Chris Christie make fun of
it? Why does Donald Trump pooh-pooh it? Well, Trump I have to leave
out of this, out of this theory. But Trump also, just for the record,
said he thinks Obama's an incompetent boob, doesn't know what he's
doing. Christie's point is Obama's incompetent, he doesn't know what
he's doing because he's inexperienced just like Rubio doesn't know what
he's doing 'cause he's experienced. It's Barack Obama 2 in that Rubio
would be inexperienced senator, elected president, we don't want to do
that again.
Rubio's point, no, no, no, no, no. Obama's not incompetent. He's
not inexperienced. He's doing exactly what he wants to do. And none of
these Republican moderates will go there. You want to know why? You
want to know why? You want to know why they cannot agree that Obama's
doing this on purpose? Very simple. They cannot agree that Obama's
doing it on purpose. They do not dare say that Obama's doing it on
purpose because they have all worked with Barack Obama, in one way or
another, every one of these governors, many of them, and even a lot of
Republicans in the House and Senate have worked with Obama to advance
certain elements of the agenda.
...
I think the real important question here to ask and answer is why
won't anybody but Rubio and Cruz say it? Because that's essentially, if
you had to encapsulate what the Republican primary is, it's about
that. Like they keep harping on, Christie -- or it might have been
Trump, I don't know who it was -- jumped on Rubio, maybe it was a
moderator in the post-debate analysis. Why does he keep campaigning
against Obama? Obama's not on the ballot. Obama's seven years old.
Obama's in his last year. Why does he keep running against Obama?
Because Hillary and Bernie Sanders want to continue what Obama has
started, and it is the transformation of America. The Republican base
is fully aware of it. The Republican primary voters have been begging
the Republican Party to stop this since 2010, since 2009 when Obama took
office.
...
See, the post-debate analysts who are either on sight or in studios,
television studio, I really -- this is not a criticism of them. I don't
want anybody to get the wrong idea. I think when you start making fun
of Rubio for repeating that Obama's doing it on purpose, you don't
understand how important that is to the Republican base, which is what
this primary is all about. It's fundamental. And by the same token,
defining conservatism, being able to, is fundamental. It's what this is
all about. And if you can't do it, if your definition of conservatism
is ignorant or wrong, I guarantee you you're gonna pay for it when it
comes time to vote.
I think Rush got it right. The only candidates for whom the American citizens in Israel will come out to vote are Rubio and Cruz. We all get that they are the only two candidates that will try to undo what Obama has wrought. And one of the things Obama has wrought is trying to set Israel on a path toward destruction (God Forbid).
Here's hoping that New Hampshire voters don't listen to the media tomorrow.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bernie Sanders, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, US presidential campaign 2016
Tom Friedman's gall has no bounds
Tom Friedman, who has probably done as much or more to harm Israel than any mainstream media reporter, ,has the unmitigated gall to call Israel's ally, Sheldon Adelson,
Iran's best friend.
And now Iran has an ally: Sheldon Adelson — the foolhardy Las Vegas
casino magnate and crude right-wing, pro-Israel extremist. Adelson gave
away some $100 million in the last presidential campaign to fund
Republican candidates, with several priorities in mind: that they
delegitimize the Palestinians and that they avoid any reference to the
West Bank as “occupied territories” and any notion that the U.S. should
pressure Israel to trade land for peace there. Both Newt Gingrich and
Mitt Romney took the money and played by Sheldon’s rules.
In case you missed it, the R.J.C., the Republican Jewish Coalition, held
a retreat last weekend at an Adelson casino in Las Vegas. It was dubbed
“the Sheldon Primary.” Republicans lined up to compete for Adelson’s
blessing and money, or as Politico put it: “Adelson summoned [Jeb] Bush
and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott
Walker of Wisconsin to Las Vegas. ... The new big-money political
landscape — in which a handful of donors can dramatically alter a
campaign with just a check or two — explains both the eagerness of busy
governors to make pilgrimages to Las Vegas, and the obsession with
divining Adelson’s 2016 leanings.
Adelson
personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s
today — swaggering oligarchs, using huge sums of money to try to bend
each system to their will.
Christie,
in his speech, referred to the West Bank as “occupied territories” — as
any knowledgeable American leader would. This, Politico said, “set off
murmurs in the crowd.”
Some Republican Jews explained to Christie after
he finished that he had made a terrible faux pas. (He called something
by its true name and in the way the U.S. government always has!) The
West Bank should be called “disputed territories” or “Judea and
Samaria,” the way hard-line Jews prefer. So, Politico reported, Christie
hastily arranged a meeting with Adelson to explain that he misspoke and
that he was a true friend of Israel. “The New Jersey governor
apologized in a private meeting in the casino mogul’s Venetian office
shortly afterward,” Politico reported. It said Adelson “accepted”
Christie’s “explanation” and “quick apology.”
Read that sentence over and contemplate it.
I
don’t know if Israel has a Palestinian partner for a secure withdrawal
from the West Bank, or ever will. But I know this: If Israel wants to
remain a Jewish, democratic state, it should be doing everything it can
to nurture such a partner or acting unilaterally to get out. Because,
I’m certain that when reports about the “Adelson primary” reached the
desk of Supreme Leader Khamenei in Tehran, a big smile crossed his face
and he said to his aides: “May Allah grant Sheldon a long life.
Everything is going according to plan.”
How many things does Tom have wrong here? The 'Palestinians' aren't going to vote Israel out of existence any time soon - even if they are given the 'right' to do so - so long as we don't flood the country with 'Palestinian refugees' as Tom would like us to do.
There aren't 2.7 million 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria - there are a bit more than half that number.
Judea and Samaria are not 'occupied.' They are at worst disputed. At best, they out and out belong to Israel because they were part of the original 'Palestine mandate' and were designated for close settlement by Jews as part of that mandate. From 1949-67 they were occupied by Jordan, an occupation that was recognized by precisely two other countries: Britain and Pakistan.
It's not up to the US government to pressure Israel to take risks to Israel's security. Israel has never asked the United States to fight its wars for it, and Israel never will.
There is no 'Palestinian partner for peace' now and it is unlikely that there ever will be one. Acknowledging that reality could be the first step in Tom Friedman's road to recovery from his delusions.
Labels: Chris Christie, demography, Jewish anti-Semitism, New York Times, occupation, Sheldon Adelson, Tom Friedman
Chris Christie calls Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria 'occupied territories'
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who sees himself as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2016, used the term '
occupied territories' to describe Judea and Samaria in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Saturday.
Invoking a 2012 trip he and his family took to Israel,
Christie recalled “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied
territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was
to understand, the military risk that Israel faces every day.”
While the story was intended to forge common cause with Adelson and
the several hundred donors to the Republican Jewish Coalition to which
Christie was speaking, his use of the term “occupied territories” set
off murmurs in the crowd.
Let's go to the videotape.
Christie apologized for the gaffe.
Not long after his speech, Christie met with Adelson privately in the
casino mogul’s office in the Venetian hotel and casino, which hosted
the RJC meeting.
The source told POLITICO that Christie “clarified in the strongest
terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement
of policy.”
Instead, the source said, Christie made clear “that he misspoke when
he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an
unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for
any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”
Adelson accepted Christie’s explanation, the source said.
...
Before the meeting, Adelson ally Morton Klein, president of the
hawkish Zionist Organization of America, had confronted Christie about
his use of the term, telling POLITICO he explained to the New Jersey
governor that “at minimum you should call it disputed territories.”
Christie was non-committal, said Klein, who concluded afterwards that
the governor “either doesn’t understand the issue at all, or he’s
hostile to Israel.”
Hmmm.
Labels: Chris Christie, Judea and Samaria, Morton Klein, occupation, Republican Jewish Coalition, settlements are legal, Sheldon Adelson, US presidential campaign 2016
Is that the dog Obama ate?
You probably need to be over 55 to really get this....
Heh (Hat Tip:
Stephen D).
By the way, is that the dog Obama ate?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chris Christie, humor
Why Chris Christie helped Hussein Obama
In case you were wondering why Republican New Jersey Governor Christ Christie was so willing to help President Obama's campaign last week, perhaps this picture from 2010 has something to do with it (Hat Tip:
Jack W).
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Chris Christie
Chris Christie is in Israel
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) is
visiting Israel on what is mainly a trade mission according to my well-placed source in the Israel-New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.
Surrounded by a throng of rabbis and onlookers, Christie downplayed suggestions that the trip to Israel is intended to raise his political prospects back home.
“Anything I do fuels speculation for a future bid,” Christie told The Associated Press.
“I am here because this is a place of enormous significance in the world.”
Christie’s brief visit to what has been called the Wailing Wall highlighted his growing popularity. Tourists stopped to shake his hand and pose for pictures. He even held a 6-month-old baby for one photo.
The rabbi of the holy site, who gave him a personal tour, was quick to point out that politicians who visit tend to win elections.
Christie — who declined to run for the White House this year, despite entreaties by Republican activists — endorsed fellow GOPer Mitt Romney for president last fall.
And the pugnacious Jersey governor is mentioned as a potential Romney running-mate, or a 2016 presidential candidate if President Obama is re-elected.
In that context, political observers see Christie’s Mideast visit as laying the groundwork for a future run. He has not indicated whether he will seek re-election as governor next year.
As I understand it, as soon as he was elected Governor, Christie called in Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren, Israel's consul general in New York (the nearest one) and the Chairman of the Israel-New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, told them that his first overseas trip as Governor would be to Israel, and asked them to start planning. This was long before Christie's name had been mentioned for anything on a national level.
Labels: Chris Christie
Governor Christie to visit Israel in 2012
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) will take his first overseas trip in 2012, and unlike the President of the United States, Christie's first overseas trip will be to visit an American ally:
Israel (Hat Tip:
Mark L).
"We look forward to continuing to strengthen our ties," Christie told reporters today. "There’s a great, great, great, long-term connection between New Jersey and Israel and I intend to make that as strong as I can along with the ambassador and other important folks in the Israeli government."
Israel has played an important economic and political role in New Jersey, which is 5.7 percent Jewish, the second-largest percentage of any state after New York.
Christie and his chief of staff, Rich Bagger, met in the governor’s office with Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador; Mark Levenson, chairman of the New Jersey-Israel Commission; Ido Aharoni, Israel’s consul general in New York; and Shlomi Kofman, the deputy consul general.
"Israel faces some acute and unique challenges, and we overcome those challenges through our strong support from the United States in general, and New Jersey in particular," Oren said.
Christie gave Oren a book of photographs of New Jersey as a gift. The two men share a personal connection as well — the governor grew up in Livingston, and the ambassador was raised in West Orange, neighboring towns with a robust football rivalry.
Neither Christie nor Oren took questions from reporters.
Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the governor, said Oren asked for a meeting with the governor after hearing him speak at a Jewish event in May at Drumthwacket, the governor’s mansion in Princeton.
Levenson said Christie would probably meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his trip.
The article goes on about how Christie's predecessors have also visited Israel. I think there are two differences between Christie and them. First, Christie has been mentioned as a Presidential candidate, although he has said that he will not run in 2012. And second, that visiting Israel has become a rite of passage for Republican candidates (and not just New Jersey governors) over the last several years. I would not be surprised if Christie shows up as a Vice Presidential candidate in 2012 or - if God forbid the Democrats win in 2012 - Christie throws his hat in the ring for 2016.
Labels: Chris Christie, New Jersey Israel Commission
