I agree with Levin on this one. I enjoy watching Christie take on the corrupt unions as much as anyone, but I don't understand why Coulter is willing to give him a pass on his questionable policy positions.
When will my dear friend Ann start to address the substantive problems with Christie's actual positions or are we going to get another year of "only Christie can win" fortune cookie logic?
Does she support his positions on: gun control, amnesty, the appointment of an Islamist to the bench, the green agenda, his campaigning for Mike Castle, his MIA on health care litigation, etc.; and how does she think this would energize the base outside of New Jersey? Has the Tea Party even in NJ been pushing for his candidacy? No. Yes, he's solid in his YouTube battles with teachers and his efforts to try and address NJ's budget problems, the outcome of which have yet to be determined. But the federal government is a vast enterprise that requires a solid conservative at the helm, especially now.
(...)
By the way, is Christie more conservative than McCain? If so, how so? I have no idea where Christie stands on foreign policy. Anybody know?
(...)
...let's use our heads, shall we? Take the man's measure.
And Ann, I fear if you continue to cheerlead for him, Obama will be re-elected. (Not really, but that line you're using is annoying.)
Read more
HERE
19 comments:
Outside of the five people who listen to Levin, who cares what this bloviating pin head has to say?
DanL
Dan,
In what ways do you disagree with Levin?
DanL,
Totally agree. Levin's opinion is not worth the spit that comes out of his mouth. For the first time in a long time, non-crazy conservatives are gaining control of the conservative movement and Levin is alarmed by it.
And there is not a single thing he listed that I don't agree with Christie on. My favorite was "his appointment of an Islamist to the bench." Levin is just a small man with a small mind who peddles conspiracy theories and offensive rhetoric for cash.
And there is not a single thing he listed that I don't agree with Christie on.
Ok. Fair enough. If you agree with those issues, you are a moderate Republican. Ann Coulter is not. That is why Levin, and many others, are perplexed by Coulter's fascination with christie.
Oops. I thought I was responding to Dan in that last post. I should have said, "you are a liberal Republican."
First, that makes absolutely no sense. If Dan says that then he is a moderate Republican. If I say that, I am a liberal Republican. Huh? Or were you just trying to get in another lick at me, like when you accused me of supporting Ahmadinejad or your daily accusations that I don't belong in the conservative movement because I don't think that Palin walks on water. I have always been respectful to you, but you are so attached to Palin that you have to lambaste any conservative like Christie who dares to speak out against her.
Second, those stances do not necessarily make a moderate/liberal Republican. One of them is made up out of thin air (the "Islamist" one). Basically, RW, you think that whatever Rush, Levin, and Palin says is conservatism. I disagree.
All these BLOWHARDS, Coulter & Levin included, should stick to commenting on issues and policy.
I don't care WHO any of them think should or should not be President.
Pablo, my conservative foundation was in place long before Palin, Rush or Levin came along. I know what to think about the issues without having to channel others. You, on the other hand, look to Frum and others like him before forming an opinion. If you truly agree with Christy on the issues laid out by Levin, you are, in fact, a liberal Republican.
By the way, I don't think Dan is a moderate. I originally thought he was the source of your comment.
Levin's a hypocrite.
If Coulter had praised someone he thought should be President, then hey, that's alright.
And I agree with Larry.
Stick to Issues and Policies instead of telling us who we should vote for.
"You, on the other hand, look to Frum and others like him before forming an opinion."
Lol. Have you read my blog lately? Probably not. But if you did you would know that I read a whole host of sources that range from extreme libertarians to outright socialists.
In fact, since you have been posting, I have not seen you write one bad word about Palin. In contrast, I have often criticized the people that I admire. In fact, here are two posts I wrote blasting David Frum, they guy you say forms my opinion.
http://www.thecrossculturalist.com/2010/11/frum-swings-and-misses.html
http://www.thecrossculturalist.com/2010/11/frum-swings-and-misses-part-2.html
I dare you, RW, to think for yourself and write just one word criticizing Palin. You can't do it because you live and breath in the echo chamber at C4Palin and you criticize people who do think for themselves. In contrast to me, you cannot produce one post where you found fault in your heroes.
I can link you to all of my anti-Romney posts if you like, but that would take up too much space.
"By the way, I don't think Dan is a moderate. I originally thought he was the source of your comment."
Which is why you are full of crap. If Dan makes the comment, it is okay. If I do, then I am a liberal Republican. Complete crap.
"If you truly agree with Christy on the issues laid out by Levin, you are, in fact, a liberal Republican."
Wrong. But again, I am talking to somebody who doesn't read anything outside of the echo chamber, so you will probably not understand that just maybe Levin's version of politics is not the end all, be all of conservatism.
Pablo, I tried to read your blog a few times. I can get the same material at HuffPo. Thanks anyway.
For the first time in a long time, non-crazy conservatives are gaining control of the conservative movement and Levin is alarmed by it. - Pablo
Before you take offense to what I have said, you should realize that as long as you continue to insult people who expouse constitutional conservative principles, you will be challenged on your liberal views.
"you will be challenged on your liberal views."
You have never challenged me. You never produce any data, any empirical evidence to anything that you say. That is why you fled the scene the other day when I pointed out that the Iran regime is popular. To you, this must mean I am liberal. Because in your knee-jerk, thoughtless mind, any positive statement regarding Iran is a defense of Iran. You absolutely refuse to try to understand the situation.
Now, I will gladly listen to you when you produce some shred of evidence for your arguments instead of just rocking back and calling me a liberal.
And by the way, when I say non-crazy conservatives, I am referring to Christie, Daniels, Romney and Paul Ryan. I was amazed at the boldness of Paul Ryan today as he wants to tackle entitlement spending. That is conservative.
Pablo, welcome to the water! Being a GOP is difficult these days, with those who want to tell us who and who is not welcomed in the party! I'm like you, in that I read the gambit. I want to know what the left, right and center are thinking. I've even gone to C4Palin, but usually end up leaving quickly as original thought is not used there.
Christie has made if very clear he is not interested in running for any other office. That case should be closed.
"Stick to Issues and Policies instead of telling us who we should vote for." Haha, yeah except if they tell us to vote for Mr. Romney.
"That is why you fled the scene the other day when I pointed out that the Iran regime is popular." C'mon, every regime is popular in some quarters. Even a few people liked Saddam.
"C'mon, every regime is popular in some quarters. Even a few people liked Saddam."
Except that I cited three polls showing that Ahmadinjad has the support of at least 2/3rd of the country. Such polls validated the 2009 elections. RW, who apparently had no good response to that, decided to accuse me of defending Ahmadinejad. I guess that's what happens when you don't know what you are talking about but you still want to get in a response.
With respect Pablo, your reference of the 2009 elections begins to strech credibility especially when some districts had more votes than registured voters. Further, I kind of doubt that women stoned to death (falsely accused of adultry) would support the Iranian regime. But they cannot voice their disapproval because they are either death or on death row.
Post a Comment