Well, someone I like very much and respect a great deal is asking that we not pile on Christie for Bridgegate. Yikes. That poses a dilemma for me because, quite frankly, I don’t see the logic in the argument that, essentially, we defend the indefensible because one day the same media now screeching for Christie’s head will come screeching for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all). I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine. Of course I don’t. But frankly, the beast doesn’t need our feeding, it’s self-sufficient and well-fed all on its own. My tossing a well-earned crumb its way doesn’t tip the scale, and it certainly doesn’t endanger any future conservative I may support.
Such a conservative would not believe his own press, for starters. Christie apparently thought, as have useful idiots McCain and Graham before him, that hugging Obama and chirping happily about gay marriage and carbon taxes would win him support among the regressive media . . . that they’d see him as one of their own. This has been tried by every RINO of the past forty years, and it’s always a fail . . . not because they aren’t recognized as like-minded regressives, of course they are, but because the media has to pretend to the ignorant masses that (R) is the “enemy” to keep the balance of power off-kilter with regressives from both parties winning in “opposition” to the last regressive.
And it’s worked. We haven’t had a conservative in the White House since Reagan. Not because we refuse to “feed the beast” but because we don’t speak up against the real beast’s latest incarnation when we should.
Let’s face it, nothing we have said or done or can say or do will change the propagandists’ game one whit, and if we try to play their game, we start out with a losing hand. It’s their game, their rules (to be changed without notice), their playing board, their pawns and pieces. Playing on that field is folly, particularly if it also requires that we support that which we claim to hate as long as it’s Obama or any (D) being the petty tyrant. According to this logic, we love tyranny, big government, big spending, and corruption as long as it comes from a (nominal) Republican.
No, thanks. I don’t think I’ll play the role of useful idiot in this regressive commie farce.
I also don’t want to fall into the trap that regressives set for themselves when they defend every horrible, bad policy, including ones antithetical to their own principles, simply because the person behind it is another regressive. Doing this damaged not only the “progressive” brand but their credibility on all their own pet issues. They know this. We know it. So why would we jump on that loser machine and do the exact same thing? They at least have the power of the media on their side to mask their hypocrisy and lack of principles. We’d have nothing but the knowledge that we did not stand for anything at all.
I can’t live with that; I must stand by my principles to hold my head high each day. I’m not a soulless scheming creature who can protest something one day and then loudly support it the next. The thing is wrong or it’s not, no matter who does it. Do I want to be a regressive who loudly and correctly protests the historic lynching of innocent black people and then equally loudly and incorrectly proclaims that modern-day lynching of TEA Partiers is well-founded and just? Do I want to have to defend lynching itself as a legitimate course of action against peoples we dislike. . . if only the “correct” party were lynched? Um, no thanks. Lynching is either right or wrong, and it is wrong. The persons being lynched should not be the root of contention as it is on the radical left.
Sure, we’re not talking about lynching when we talk about Christie’s abuse of power to “punish his enemies” but if it’s wrong for Obama to use the IRS and other government agencies to punish his enemies, then it’s wrong to do for Christie. I suppose there’s always the argument that abusing power to punish political enemies is not wrong . . . , but I would hope that no one is arguing that.
So, no, I’m not falling on my sword for any Republican (nor any politician, period), and certainly not for one who has called me a “crazy” and “ignorant.” If Obama’s abuse of power via the IRS targeting his political “enemies” was repugnant then so is Christie’s abuse of power to target his own political enemies. That the latter only involved a New Jersey bridge few have heard of and fewer care about and not the entire nation is only a function of his own limited power as governor of New Jersey. Anyone who would be that petty, spiteful, and vindictive, anyone who would use their power to use as pawns and dupes the people he “leads” on a state scale would be exponentially more dangerous and horrible at a national level.
There is no “but” there. This is about the character of the man, and Christie’s character is, to me, indiscernible from Obama’s: Chicago thug meets New Jersey thug. As is his stance on any number of issues: he’s pro-amnesty, pro–sharia, pro-AGW hoax, pro-gun control . . . I can’t think of one thing about which he is conservative. Maybe his fiscal policies . . . but hasn’t he actually raised taxes in New Jersey? Embraced the 0Care Medicaid expansion? We defend him . . . why? I just can’t wrap my head around it. I can’t stand Chris Christie; I think he’d do well to become a democrat, actually. He may yet. But then the whole early-1900’s “plan” would fall apart, wouldn’t it? I mean, if all the commie regressives joined together in one party, how could they possibly convince people to vote again and again for more regressives by plastering a fake (R) or (D) after their name?
Principles matter to me, and I will not stand by someone whom I deem to be unworthy of my support. And Chris Christie embodies everything that I cannot stand about Obama: he uses his power to “punish his enemies,” he’s petty, spiteful, mean-spirited, nasty, and thin-skinned. There is nothing admirable about Christie, nothing. And for those who think his firing and “holding accountable” his staff members is laudable, let me just remind you that they did not “go rogue” any more than the IRS agents did under Obama. They’re merely new bumps under the heartless, egocentric Christie’s bus. Bumps that will pile up just as surely as they did under Obama’s bus . . . or perhaps to be redistributed in his administration.