Wednesday, July 31, 2013


I spotted this yesterday at World Net Daily:
The next presidential election is still three years away, but top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh is already making a bold prediction about who will be the likely nominee for the Democratic Party.

"I think it’s going to be Chris Christie," Limbaugh said on his national program Tuesday.
This isn't the first time Limbaugh has talked this way:
... On June 5, Limbaugh first brought up the possibility of Christie looking to lead the Democratic ticket, saying at the time: "I'm not predicting it officially here, but I will not be surprised, if when 2016 rolls around and Governor Christie is seeking the presidency, I won't be surprised if he seeks the Democrat Party nomination."
Limbaugh's doing some multi-target trolling here. Obviously, he's aiming this at Christie himself, because Christie consorts with Antichrist Obama. Limbaugh's also targeting Hillary Clinton, because he hates women, Hillary in particular. (He said yesterday, "I don't think it’s gonna be Hillary.... I've always said she's not this brainiac that her conventional wisdom says. She messed up so much that the Clinton administration gave her.... She's not the smartest woman in the world.")

But Limbaugh's snark is also presumably based on this:
Last month, the Star-Ledger of New Jersey reported Christie was "cashing in donations from top Democratic fundraisers and other traditionally liberal donors across the country, even nabbing the support of a handful of rainmakers aligned with President Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel."

"While I do not agree with his stance on every issue, he is one of the best political leaders I have talked to in a long time," Ken Rosen, a UC-Berkeley professor who cut a $3,800 check to Christie after chatting with him at two events, told the paper. "He is willing to take on tough issues such as pension reform, education reform, mental-health issues, even if his views are not politically correct."

Meanwhile, a Gallup poll in June found Christie was actually given a higher net favorable rating among Democrats than among Republicans.
I don't know what's wrong with these people if they feel this way about Christie and consider themselves Democrats. (Well, in some cases I do know. Among the donors mentioned in the Star Ledger story are an investor, a venture capitalist, and five executives at a hedge fund -- one founded by, of all people, George Soros, not that that matters. Christie is very, very favorably disposed toward the money power, as they used to say.)

I'd just like to add this: I can imagine Hillary Clinton choosing not to run in 2016, or being unable to run for some reason such as health. I think the Democratic field will be weak if that happens. Alternately, I can imagine her running a fine campaign, but hitting a rough patch now and then. If she's not in the race, or there's a moment when she and the rest of the field seem to be struggling, I can very, very easily imagine that David Broder wannabes in the punditocracy will start penning column with titles such as "Democrats: Why Not Christie?"

Right? Don't you think at least one mainstream-media idiot will write a column like that?

Limbaugh will smirk. And for once he'll have a right to.


Glennis said...

Consider the source (Limbaugh). Don't believe it. Plus - I admire Chris Christie because he behaves like a sane politician - he works with the President and the Federal government even if he happens to be in the opposition party. But if you look at the policies he has instituted? He's unacceptable.

he only looks like a good option because all the other Republicans are insane.

Anonymous said...

Well, be fair, Mrs. Clinton, despite her high profile, has given no evidence yet of exceptional intelligence, or any intelligence, come to that! I mean, what has she actually done or achieved that would make anyone vote for her?

Steve M. said...

What has Christie done? What has he accomplished?

Victor said...

It's not what Christie's done. It's what he ain't done.

He ain't helped the trains run on time.
And that is his sole non-Fascist trait.

And as for the love shown to him by supposed "Liberals" - usually, people in the financial world - well, money loves money. And hopes that that love will spawn still more money.

And as for you, @duffand-appropriately-named-NONSENSE, perhaps you'd be better able to understand what Mrs. Clinton has done and what she's achieved, after you've been elected and reelected a US Senator, and have served for 4 years as SoS.

So, unless I'm wrong, and you, @duffandnonsense, are John Kerry, I don't suppose you'd be in a position to understand what's done and achieved in a lifetime, by being able to put on your political resume that you were a several-term US Senator, and a SoS.

As for Rush, that inhuman sociopath, all I can say is - it is what it is, and a Panzer can't change its stripes.

Anonymous said...

Victor, my dear old thing, you don't seriously believe that election to the US Senate is any sort of badge of honour or merit, do you? Have you looked at some of the rapscallions who foxed and fooled the American electorate in order to slide their well-padded bums onto those illustrious seats? You could start with Sen. Kennedy and work up or down as you see fit! The there's the Republicans - dread word!

Examinator said...

Good (sublime optimists)fellows.
One Question what has achievement got to do with being eligible for election any election?
See George W Shrub!

Be afraid very afraid.
I'll make a prediction now and mark me if I'm wrong
Any POTUS under the current system will be awful, a marionette of unelected others.