Chris Christie: This Race Will Be "Turned Upside Down" After Debate - CBS Face The Na


#1

Christie better be right for Romney’s sake. If he doesn’t hit it out of the park at the debates, he’s done.


#2

I bet I have seen Romney debate at least 25 times, I have never seen him “hit it out of the park” once.
The best he has ever looked is Okay and in more than half he has come off as a stuffed suit explaining away his obvious contradictions.

Watch a couple YouTube debates against Ted Kennedy, then a Couple from the 2008 Primary, then a couple from this last Primary (it does not matter which ones) and see if you can detect any growth or improvement in his style or how he handles challenges.


#3

As much as I understand that Romney has very little personality, The man is very bright, probably more so than Obama. [ and Obama is bright friends make no mistake about it] Romney seems to rise to the occasion as far as he needs to and nothing more. He did this in the primary debates. I will agree he needs to go far beyond his mediocracy and hit some homeruns. ON A CONSISTANT BASIS! Because the liberal press is running much of the show, and you can bet they will be loaded.


#4

I hope he is right. He is glib. And Romney doesn’t have the same political bravado/acumen as Christie.


#5

No but he did put Gingrich back a pace or two, so he is capable. To me the secret , as someone has pointed out, is to take Obama off message, rile him up a bit, he does lose control every so often. Also push anyone hard enough, you will see someone else emerge, and in Obama’s case the nasty side of Obama will rise and THEN PEOPLE will see what he truly is.


#6

I might add this Chris Christy could absolutely annoy Ghandi. The man is a walking sand spur.


#7

The real problem with Romney is every time he tries to smack an opponent down, he comes off as a self-righteous, arrogant d-bag instead of a likeable leader.


#8

[quote=“njc17, post:5, topic:36377”]
No but he did put Gingrich back a pace or two, so he is capable. To me the secret , as someone has pointed out, is to take Obama off message, rile him up a bit, he does lose control every so often. Also push anyone hard enough, you will see someone else emerge, and in Obama’s case the nasty side of Obama will rise and THEN PEOPLE will see what he truly is.
[/quote]He did, but I seem to recall Newt slapped him down much harder. Anyhow, Romney is what we’re stuck with as any serious opposition to Obamama. If someone doesn’t want to back him, well, that’s up to you and your voting booth. I’m going to try and use the **tool **to defeat Obamama now, just as far as my single vote can go.

I sure as hell wish we had ANY of the other candidates. For me, it’s a tossup for worst between Ron Paul, and Romney. But, I’ve said from the beginning I’d end up supporting the winner. I think we had better choices than we did last time. I’d much rather have a Gingrich sign in my front yard.


#9

I don’t even stew over it any more. But we do need to look for the future. WE NEED to put a concerted effort to clean up Congress. Whatever Romney does or does not do, we NEED a congress responsive to the constitution. Then we NEED to somehow start the term limit rolling for congressmen AND SCOTUS.


#10

And as an aside; In the long run Chris Christy scares the everloving begeebers out of me.
More and more I seem to be leaning toward a Future Alan West. The man has leadership, wisdom, ability and seems to be able to scrap with the best of them. I’ll wait and see.


#11

west.house.gov/

You are talking about the Lt. Col who shot the gun near the terrorists ear and the libbies whined like…well like they whine.

I like him too. He has got moxy.

Did you ever hear the story of how General Patton took his tanks and troops to the town neighboring because the idiotic sherriff in that town was arresting the soldiers on b.s. charges?


#12

I disagree with that last part especially. The Court needs to be lifetime, maybe the lower fed judges, but not the supremes.

Also I don’t think we should limit congress’ terms but get rid of limits for the president.


#13

I agree, we should have 100 percent Liberty to vote like idiots or intelligent, informed voters without any gimmicks to force turnover.


#14

I am a firm believer in term limits. Yes I realize that there can be abuse when the politician knowingly decides to undermine things but on the other hand term limits keeps politicians becoming entrenched so that new ideas can flourish.


#15

[quote=“njc17, post:10, topic:36377”]
And as an aside; In the long run Chris Christy scares the everloving begeebers out of me.
More and more I seem to be leaning toward a Future Alan West. The man has leadership, wisdom, ability and seems to be able to scrap with the best of them. I’ll wait and see.
[/quote]I love that guy. If I was a gay stalker, I’d stalk him.


#16

[quote=“RET423, post:13, topic:36377”]
I agree, we should have 100 percent Liberty to vote like idiots or intelligent, informed voters without any gimmicks to force turnover.
[/quote] Thanks! I didn’t need that mouthful of coffee anyways!


#17

I want a two term limit for all elected officials. I wonder how the SCOTUS would look with a 12 year term limit?


#18

The founding fathers never believed in career politicians; they expected people to serve a term or two and then retire from politics.


#19

The founding fathers didn’t make serving profitable, that came later. Our Founders intnded service to mean exactly that, to serve, not to rule.


#20

It’s still like that in the New Hampshire State House. Pay is only $200/year, no other benefits. There are 400 representatives (biggest in the country) and they serve only part time. That’s how legislatures should be. Congressmen should only get paid a per diem, given basic health insurance, and a round trip ticket for each session Congress is open, plus lodging in DC.