• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year

donsutherland1 said:
CPAC is a private entity. It can invite or refrain from inviting whomever it chooses.

Having said that, CPAC is not the Republican Party. CPAC has a voice, but Governor Christie is free to build a coalition that he believes would secure him the nomination if he chooses to run for President.

My guess is that CPAC's lack of invitation and Cardenas's subsequent explanation gives Governor Christie another fresh opportunity to build upon his emerging message of a stark contrast between doers (like him) who achieve results in governance/can appeal to a broad slice of the electorate and ideologues/purists who offer doctrinaire messages but show few results and possess only narrow political appeal. He will then translate that contrast into public policy outcomes. He will point to his fiscal results in NJ and then the lack of credible fiscal consolidation program in Washington. Of course, there is some risk in such a strategy, too, as following the nominating process, he would need to gain a decent share of support from those who backed alternative candidates. However, if he can build a strong case that he would represent the kind of problem-solver Washington has lacked in recent years, he could have a potent message.

Exogenous factors will also be important in determining the outcome. His rival will be a key factor. The state of the economy and the nation's fiscal situation will be important. International developments could also have an impact. For now, it remains to be seen whether he will, in fact, seek the Presidency. His near-term focus will be on the NJ race and an effort to win by a large landslide.
Click to expand...

And Christie still has plenty of time to work toward those measurable goals.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

TheNextEra said:
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. CPAC invited Romney last year. What did CPAC stand for again you say? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes it was stupid of them to exclude one RINO but not another. Romney is no conservative.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

jamesrage said:
Yes it was stupid of them to exclude one RINO but not another. Romney is no conservative.
Click to expand...

The Buckley Rule

The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.
– William F. Buckley, Jr.
:cool:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
The Buckley Rule

The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.
– William F. Buckley, Jr.
:cool:
Click to expand...


That is the die hard party-tard rule.In otherwords screw our values we want to win. Propping up a RINO in 08 didn't work, what made them think that running ginormous RINO was a smart idea?
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I'd rather you kept your values and never won. Christie dodged a bullet by not being asked. He remains electable by not being there.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
The Buckley Rule

The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.
– William F. Buckley, Jr.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Excellent quote choice!
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

CanadaJohn said:
In my view, it wouldn't hurt a bit if the Republican Party actually got back to being representatives of conservatism in its true sense - small government, both fiscally and socially. If they did that, they would actually attract a large number of people who are tired of having the government grow, extending it's tentacles into all aspects of individual lives and wealth.
Click to expand...

Except the Republicans never really did stand for small government, they stood for big business and isolationism. raw unbridled capitalism and some 'invisible hand' nonsense. There has never been 'true' conservatism any more than there has been 'true' liberalism. Some use 'true' whatever as a fig leaf for less pure motives.

However, you can't really go back, unring a bell, put the kid back in the mother.

The days of robber barons are over, however that doesn't mean corporations are not willing to invent a new version of Shell Oil. ;)

The GOP would do well to find a more centralist path, for all arch Conservatives holler RINO at anyone not 'ideologically pure' the bottomline is the extreme wings of both parties have no place else to go. Neither can exist as a third party and to split away only insures the other party can grab the brass ring alot easier.

Willard was invited to CPAC, not for his lifelong ideology which is as RINO as they come, but to be the poster boy for how the 'takers' 'stole' the election.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

jamesrage said:
That is the die hard party-tard rule.In otherwords screw our values we want to win. Propping up a RINO in 08 didn't work, what made them think that running ginormous RINO was a smart idea?
Click to expand...

Hello, Jamesrage.

The object when competing is to win. The authorities must agree, or there wouldn't be penalties for "taking a dive" in boxing, as an example. :naughty:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

jamesrage said:
That is the die hard party-tard rule.In otherwords screw our values we want to win. Propping up a RINO in 08 didn't work, what made them think that running ginormous RINO was a smart idea?
Click to expand...

Without William F. Buckley, Jr. there would have been no conservative resurgence in the late 20th century.:roll:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Hello Jack....any idea who Buckley's influence was?

Jack Hays said:
Without William F. Buckley, Jr. there would have been no conservative resurgence in the late 20th century.:roll:
Click to expand...
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:
Without William F. Buckley, Jr. there would have been no conservative resurgence in the late 20th century.:roll:
Click to expand...

True.

And I'd rather hold to my principles than to sell out. Then again, I'm not a politician.
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I agree that Buckley is a huge influence on late 20th century conservatives. Do you know who Buckley looked up to as influential to him....where he got his ideas?

Jack Hays said:
Greetings, JCC. Please expand on your question.
Click to expand...
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

nota bene said:
True.

And I'd rather hold to my principles than to sell out. Then again, I'm not a politician.
Click to expand...

No, you are not. A politician bears more responsibility than we do. He is responsible and accountable for political success and/or failure. His job is to win so that at least some of your principles can be acted on.:cool:
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

JC Callender said:
I agree that Buckley is a huge influence on late 20th century conservatives. Do you know who Buckley looked up to as influential to him....where he got his ideas?
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry to say I do not.:(
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I think I understand your point but it begs the question: What's more important, integrity or winning? And when is the best opportunity to sacrifice ones integrity in order to win?

Jack Hays said:
No, you are not. A politician bears more responsibility than we do. He is responsible and accountable for political success and/or failure. His job is to win so that at least some of your principles can be acted on.:cool:
Click to expand...
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

JC Callender said:
I think I understand your point but it begs the question: What's more important, integrity or winning? And when is the best opportunity to sacrifice ones integrity in order to win?
Click to expand...

Good evening,JC.

What does the word "integrity" mean to you?
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

JC Callender said:
Hi Polgara. Consistent honesty and values.
Click to expand...

Then would it ever be worth it to lose your integrity just to win? Maybe there are exceptions, but the greats in history are remembered because they did not sacrifice their integrity, even if it meant death. Just my opinion...
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I don't think it would be worth it just to win, and I think that's why politicians in general are held in such low esteem.

polgara said:
Then would it ever be worth it to lose your integrity just to win? Maybe there are exceptions, but the greats in history are remembered because they did not sacrifice their integrity, even if it meant death. Just my opinion...
Click to expand...
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

JC Callender said:
I don't think it would be worth it just to win, and I think that's why politicians in general are held in such low esteem.
Click to expand...

There are some who believe it's okay to do the wrong thing, if it's for the right reasons. As an example, Schindler and many others disobeyed the Nazi regime and saved many Jews. Few would say they did the wrong thing. Is that integrity?
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

That's a good question that I'll have to think about some more. Imo, Schindler did compromise his integrity in order to do good, meaning he lied and he also went against his formerly unscrupulous values. I think in his case he saw the light and became a different, better person. I find it hard to try and tell you that he should've never lied, as he wouldn't have been able to help those Jews.

polgara said:
There are some who believe it's okay to do the wrong thing, if it's for the right reasons. As an example, Schindler and many others disobeyed the Nazi regime and saved many Jews. Few would say they did the wrong thing. Is that integrity?
Click to expand...
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

JC Callender said:
I think I understand your point but it begs the question: What's more important, integrity or winning? And when is the best opportunity to sacrifice ones integrity in order to win?
Click to expand...


JCC, I think those are questions that can't be answered in the abstract. Best I can suggest is to study Benjamin Disraeli, my personal all time favorite conservative politician.:peace
 
Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I thought about it and I don't think Schindler was a person of integrity to begin with as immoral people usually don't make a point to be consistently honest, they only do it when they have to for their own gain. And when I said "values" I meant moral values, which Schindler didn't seem to have initially as well. It has been a while since I've seen the movie though, so I may be wrong.

I think it's different when a politician compromises his/her integrity (if they had any) to deceive voters in an attempt to win. Where Schindler turned from bad to good, and may have started to live a life of integrity, these politicians are going the other way.



polgara said:
There are some who believe it's okay to do the wrong thing, if it's for the right reasons. As an example, Schindler and many others disobeyed the Nazi regime and saved many Jews. Few would say they did the wrong thing. Is that integrity?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom