• 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!

Chris Christie ‘Not Being Invited’ to CPAC

66gardeners said:
Well at the time the Patriot Act was passed, certainly Rand Paul would have had a bigger bully pulpit than the average Joe the Plumber. Do you have any evidence that Rand Paul ever spoke out against the Patriot Act when it was first being enacted?
Click to expand...

Why would he have had a bigger bully pulpit? He was an ophthalmologist in Kentucky - no political position, elected or appointed. Sure, he was a son of the dissident Republican Congressman. Was he supposed, as such, to issue regular statements along the lines of "yeah, what Dad says" - for future possible audiences?
 
Cyrylek said:
Why would he have had a bigger bully pulpit? He was an ophthalmologist in Kentucky - no political position, elected or appointed. Sure, he was a son of the dissident Republican Congressman. Was he supposed, as such, to issue regular statements along the lines of "yeah, what Dad says" - for future possible audiences?
Click to expand...


He may not have had a political position but he obviously had political aspirations. There were many regular joes who tried to make this an issue at the time. Rand Paul did not - while GWBush was president
 
66gardeners said:
I was ignoring you by replying to someone besides you. This is the first time I ever addressed you. I'll be happy to go back to what I WAS doing, i.e., ignoring you.
Click to expand...

Please do. We could have avoided 10 posts in this thread if both of you would ignore me.
 
66gardeners said:
Well at the time the Patriot Act was passed, certainly Rand Paul would have had a bigger bully pulpit than the average Joe the Plumber. Do you have any evidence that Rand Paul ever spoke out against the Patriot Act when it was first being enacted?
Click to expand...

Dr. Paul wasn't in politics in 2001.
 
nota bene said:
Dr. Paul wasn't in politics in 2001.
Click to expand...

So. A lot of people crusaded about things which they had strong convictions. If he felt THAT passionate about the Patriot Act, he should have let his views be known then. A lot of other people did who still are not politicians.
 
66gardeners said:
So. A lot of people crusaded about things which they had strong convictions. If he felt THAT passionate about the Patriot Act, he should have let his views be known then. A lot of other people did who still are not politicians.
Click to expand...

Please share your publicly expressed opinions about the PATRIOT Act a decade ago.
 
nota bene said:
Please share your publicly expressed opinions about the PATRIOT Act a decade ago.
Click to expand...

This is not about ME, as much as you would like it to be. Rand Paul could have made an issue of it when it mattered. I see no evidence that he did.

I will say that I respect that Rand Paul voted for Chuck Hagel's confirmation today. To do otherwise would really have made him a hypocrit with regard to his anti-war views.
 
joko104 said:
Unquestionably Christie should seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for President given his extreme popularity among Democrats.
Click to expand...

Way too partisan a read on what is going on. Christie has a wave of popularity with MODERATES who didn't warm up to Willard this last go-round. Those same moderates could easily switch to a moderate Republican IF he/she can survive the primary gauntlet.

CPAC isn't GOP or even Republican, it is more like a growth on it's brain stem. For all it lacks mass it can exert an amazing amount of control over the GOP.

It will be interesting to see if Christie can figure out how to secure the nomination and still remain embracable by the moderates and attract some of those who traditionaly vote democrat.

Christie isn't beloved by the democrats, I'd bet a shiny nickle he is the LAST person they want running in 2016....

as a Republican....
 
66gardeners said:
This is not about ME, as much as you would like it to be. Rand Paul could have made an issue of it when it mattered. I see no evidence that he did.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's about you...and every other private citizen, which is what Rand Paul was in 2001.

You have absolutely no idea what Dr. Paul may have said to his friends and family or coworkers. I checked Wiki, and he only began his private medical practice in 2007, and he didn't enter politics until 2010.

Now produce evidence that you as a private citizen saved for posterity in 2001 or 2002 just in case you began posting on a public message board and needed it or decided to run for public office.

I'm only asking of you what you seem to expect of Dr. Paul.
 
nota bene said:
Sure, it's about you...and every other private citizen, which is what Rand Paul was in 2001.

You have absolutely no idea what Dr. Paul may have said to his friends and family or coworkers. I checked Wiki, and he only began his private medical practice in 2007, and he didn't enter politics until 2010.

Now produce evidence that you as a private citizen saved for posterity in 2001 or 2002 just in case you began posting on a public message board and needed it or decided to run for public office.

I'm only asking of you what you seem to expect of Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...


MANY private citizens expressed outrage when the Patriot Act was enacted. Rand Paul did not. I did not then and am not doing it now. That is the difference between him and I.

Fact, is Rand Paul did have political aspirations.


If I have a serious problem with drones and say nothing now, would I be a hypocrit if I was elected Senator in a few years and make my aversion to drones a crusade at that time? Especially if my mother was Nancy Pelosi or some other woman who had been in congress for decades?

Rand Paul was not obligated to speak out about the Patriot Act when it was enacted, but to speak out about it only after another administration is in charge makes his argument look foolish to me.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that he spoke out as soon as he decided to run for office.

Back to my point about private citizens, are you going to provide the proof that you aren't a hypocrite who said one thing then but says another now? This is what you're saying about Rand Paul, so again, and since both you and he were private citizens at the time, I'd like to see your "proof" that you did indeed speak out. Maybe you can ask your friends to produce e-mails?

Do you see the point? Private citizens don't usually speak to the media. They don't ordinarily write letters to the editor (although many people I know have), and so they don't have the proof you apparently require.

The deal here is that you don't like Rand Paul and hope to assassinate his character by demanding "evidence" that he was on the "right side" of the PATRIOT Act debate from its beginning. Unless someone were a member of a political-activist group (e.g. some "Say No to the PATRIOT Act" group), you are holding Rand Paul to an unfair and unreasonable standard simply because you don't like him and his politics.
 
nota bene said:
you are holding Rand Paul to an unfair and unreasonable standard simply because you don't like him and his politics.
Click to expand...

Oh NOs :( People holding politicians that they don't like to an unfair and unreasonable standards simply because they don't like them and their ideas????

What has the world come too!!!!

Hahahaha Geez grow up
 
CPAC's political compass isn't exactly the best, if you consider with those who had been most prominent in their convention, I would say Christie ends up looking better.
 
Fiddytree said:
CPAC's political compass isn't exactly the best, if you consider with those who had been most prominent in their convention, I would say Christie ends up looking better.
Click to expand...

Better than...?
 
I wasn't invited either.
 
Captain America said:
Christie is too well liked to be a real Republican. He stands alone in the ability to draw the moderate independants and some democrats to cross over and vote republican. The GOP shunning him is no surprise to me. They screw up everytime they turn around.
Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:
CPAC featured speakers will include:

Romney
Rubio
Jindal
Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Ryan
Palin (seriously, she's going to be a speaker at CPAC)
Perry
Santorum

As we can see, and not surprisingly, CPAC plans to play to the right of right and then pander to the extreme right from there. It's what lost the GOP their last election. It's same old, same old with the same message. It's going to have the same appeal as it has in the past, even less so, as more people, dazed and disillusioned, leave GOP as I did, as many of us did.

CPAC meanders like an old drunk to the same bar, to drink with the same people and suffer the same ills as in the past, while it blames its failures on everybody else.

Christie, at this point, doesn't fit in the list of losers above. If Christie really has big balls, he'll avoid the getting the stench of CPAC all over himself.

If the GOP is going to live, it's going to have to change. In fact, if the GOP is going to live, it's going to have to get the hell away from a lot of the speakers in the CPAC list above. Does Christie want to be mobbed up with that group? We will see.

​
Click to expand...

Bottom line: Gov. Christi isn't conservative enough in the eyes of some Republicans. Moreover, they don't like the he was willing to rub elbows with Pres. Obama in a time of crisis or even marginally since. That's what the CPAC Republican leadership have their panties in a wad over.

I don't think he'll lose any traction from this snub; the residents of NJ, as well as people nationally, like him because he's not afraid to speak his mind or buck his party when necessary, and he gets results! If anything, you'd think Republicans would be taking a page from his playbook instead of trying to alienate him. But that's the Republican party for you - still stuck on being stupid. I mean think about it...

Here's a guy who's very popular not just in his state but all across the country. He provides "straight-talk" which many people relate to AND he draws people not only across party lines but from various racial groups. If you're a party that's having problems with race relations and articulating your "message", why would you not invite the one person from your party who has the ability to do by himself what your party leadership can't seem to do alone? It's maddening! But as I posted prior to the RNC when Sarah Palin got snubbed and Romney was still struggling what to do about her, if he wasn't able to unite his party it would begin to fracture. Looks like I was right.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Bottom line: Gov. Christi isn't conservative enough in the eyes of some Republicans. Moreover, they don't like the he was willing to rub elbows with Pres. Obama in a time of crisis or even marginally since. That's what the CPAC Republican leadership have their panties in a wad over.

I don't think he'll lose any traction from this snub; the residents of NJ, as well as people nationally, like him because he's not afraid to speak his mind or buck his party when necessary, and he gets results! If anything, you'd think Republicans would be taking a page from his playbook instead of trying to alienate him. But that's the Republican party for you - still stuck on being stupid. I mean think about it...

Here's a guy who's very popular not just in his state but all across the country. He provides "straight-talk" which many people relate to AND he draws people not only across party lines but from various racial groups. If you're a party that's having problems with race relations and articulating your "message", why would you not invite the one person from your party who has the ability to do by himself what your party leadership can't seem to do alone? It's maddening! But as I posted prior to the RNC when Sarah Palin got snubbed and Romney was still struggling what to do about her, if he wasn't able to unite his party it would begin to fracture. Looks like I was right.
Click to expand...

That's what a shame too. Christie did what any Republican Governor would have done. Our Governor begged for the President to come down (rather, up) himself, when we had our last round of terrible floods.
 
Fiddytree said:
Than CPAC as a group.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. What I was thinking was compared to, say, Rubio. I'm not at all sure Christie would appear so attractive in comparison because he tends to be so bombastic and thisclose to losing his temper.
 
Peter King said:
He must count himself very lucky, he will not have to suffer through some of the speeches that will be held at CPAC.
Click to expand...

CPAC discusses important topics like how to win the war on gays and the necessity of voting rights laws.
 
I like this thread. It reassures me that the GOP hasn't learned a thing, and that they'll continue to go with the same losing strategies. Look at all the outrage that Christie would dare praise that Obama for doing a good job in a crisis. Christie believed that the GOP was standing in the way of the effort to help his stricken state, and that Obama was doing a good job helping. So he expressed that belief. He was honest, and put his state above partisan politics. I don't agree with Christie on most things, but I like the fact that he's able to be straight like that. I wish more people, on both sides, could acknowledge when the other side does something right.

But to most republicans, it seems, that is a cardinal sin. Truth be damned.
 
solletica said:
CPAC discusses important topics like how to win the war on gays and the necessity of voting rights laws.
Click to expand...

yes, because without more gerrymandering and making sure as few of the demographics that vote democratic go out and vote, the republican party will not win presidential elections/keep hold of the congress.
 
Peter King said:
yes, because without more gerrymandering and making sure as few of the demographics that vote democratic go out and vote, the republican party will not win presidential elections/keep hold of the congress.
Click to expand...

Saying that Republicans would want/try to prevent citizens from voting is really despicable.
 
nota bene said:
Saying that Republicans would want/try to prevent citizens from voting is really despicable.
Click to expand...



Yes, this was done to make it possible for more people to come out and vote. Early voting restrictions was one of the other means to dissuade people from voting.

Also, please do not put words into my mouth that I did not say, I did not say as you claim that they want to prevent citizens from voting, they are just trying to make it as hard as possible in the hope they do not turn out in droves to vote democrat.
 
nota bene said:
Saying that Republicans would want/try to prevent citizens from voting is really despicable.
Click to expand...
wrong again
saying that republicans would want/try to prevent citizens from voting is really factual
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom