NJ Gov. Chris Christie Isn't Ready for Prime Time Nor for the Presidency, So Why the Hoopla?

NJ Gov. Chris Christie is not ready for prime time, much less the presidency of the U.S., despite the adulation being heaped on him by the top Republicans, who want to see him challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

The word is that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is seriously considering a bid for the White House. Really? I don't know why there's so much interest in Christie. It's quite clear the man isn't ready for prime time and certainly not for the presidency. Besides the fact that he is a bully driven largely by an enormous ego, he couldn't possibly beat Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in the early primaries. The political landscape isn't inviting. Just because former first ladies Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush are singing his virtues, that doesn't mean the Tea Party and the right wing evangelicals will fall right into place behind him. If memory serves me correctly, both women haven't exactly batted home runs in the public opinion arenas during their stints in the White House, so who really gives a sh*t what they have to say? Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign against drugs went nowhere, like her wishes for Chris Christie to run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Christie cannot beat Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, nor can he garner enough support to win in Iowa. He certainly won't do well in South Carolina, so what's left? Without an early win in the primary season his attractiveness and viability as a candidate will fade fast. He won't generate that momentum which brings tons of cash and endorsements. Just think back to Fred Thompson debacle in the 2008 campaign. Some have said Chris Christie is as charismatic as Ronald Reagan. Um, let's not forget Ronald Reagan, with all that charisma, left this country with sky-high deficits. He is presidency wasn't one that you would want to emulate, despite what he die-hard fans, like Sarah Palin, say. Just think debt and Ronald Reagan.

I would also venture to say, Chris Christie, may be a Republican in name only, a RINO, if you will. You see, his cabinet is solidly liberal and chock full of holdovers from his Democratic predecessor John Corzine. That's a pretty good indicator of how he will govern  in the Oval Office. That might be attractive to some folks, but it will certainly not sit well with the Tea Party and the right wing evangelicals. Take the Attorney General Paula Dow, for example. She's pro-abortion and pro-gun control. That's a no-no to the Republican base.

I don't know what's all the hoopla around Chris Christie. He's a bully, who has so little respect for the elderly. Look at the crime rates in certain pockets of New Jersey? This is the same person who told a teacher not to teach. Yeah, continue the dumbing-down of American children (see video below). Sorry, I am not gung-ho about putting a man on the presidential ticket who would rather be combative than open to working across the aisle. He lives by the mantra -- my way or the highway. Some supporters feel he would be a formidable candidate to unify the Republican base, as well as attract Independents. Um, I am an Independent and no, I am not attracted to a Chris Christie run one iota. He has been a governor for a short period of time and that doesn't make one ready for prime-time. I don't believe President Obama was ready either. He lacked the experience needed to get the job done. It shows in his management style and his inability to throw his "weight" around in all the right places.

The more the GOP keeps begging Chris Christie to run, the more it works in President Obama's favor that the current slate of candidates aren't really winning the Republican base over. There's still a lot of jockeying for the top spot at this juncture. Chris Christie may be a frank, no-nonsense kind of guy, but what do you really know about his beliefs, hopes and ideals? Nothing.

Ann Coulter Questions Conservative "Worship" Of Ronald Reagan During Appearance on Fox Business (VIDEO)

Media Matters: On Fox Business, Ann Coulter Questions Conservative "Worship" Of Ronald Reagan

Rev. Al Sharpton in New Controversy Over Comments that Michael Jackson Paved Way for Barack Obama to Become President

Here we go. Fallout from the Michael Jackson memorial service yesterday is being debated this morning. Rev. Al Sharpton said, during his speech, that Michael Jackson helped President Barack Obama to become the first African American president of the United States by breaking down racial barriers. Jackson didn't seem interested in politics, but he was daring in music and broke down many barriers there. He raised the bar for entertainers very high and shattered them himself. There are no singers today who can duplicate the King of Pop. Jackson advocated self-improvement over organized action and was a tireless advocate for humanitarian causes such as anti-poverty, HIV/Aids and education programs. His only foray into race-based issues came when he called Sony Music chairman Tommy Mottola a racist, in 2002, and accusing the record industry of ripping off black artists.

“He wasn’t interested in electoral politics, but he was interested in causes in the black community. He contributed to a lot of charities and was close to the Rev. (Jesse) Jackson and to Rev. Sharpton,” says poet and essayist Ishmael Reed, who wrote about Jackson in “Mixing It Up,” an essay collection.

He has been in the company of three presidents, including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George H. Bush. Before his 2003 arrest on child molestation charges, of which he was acquitted, Republicans felt very safe to stand in his company. In 1984, President Reagan invited Jackson to the White House to thank him for supporting a campaign against drunk driving. “He is totally opposed to Drugs & Alcohol and is using his popularity to influence young people against them,” Reagan wrote in his diary at the time.

President H. W. Bush complimented Jackson, who appeared with him in the Rose Garden in 1990 and noted that Jackson had received a humanitarian award from the Capital Children’s Museum. “He does good work, what we call the ‘Points of Light’ concept,” said Bush, referring to his national volunteer program. “Glad you’re here, sir. Very pleased you’re here.”

Lastly, Jackson sang “Heal the World” at President Clinton’s first inaugural gala, in 1993. Nine years later, even after allegations had emerged of inappropriate behavior with children (child sexual abuse charges had been settled out of court in 1994), Jackson appeared at a New York fundraising concert for the Democratic National Committee.

So, it is safe to say that Michael Jackson embraced a vision of a post-racial America, but I cannot say that he is the reason why President Obama is in the White House. There are a myriad of reasons that led to his historic win and that is not solely attributable to Michael Jackson. I do understand Rev. Al Sharpton's position, that Michael Jackson transcended race early in his career. He had millions of fans of different ethnic backgrounds and he personified that "it doesn't matter if you are black or white." You will recall that the president ran a campaign second to none and he is a transformational leader, who has the charisma of Ronald Reagan, the charm of Bill Clinton, a solid education and a deep conviction that we can overcome anything. He also personified what America should be about -- unity and he was a meltingpot in his own rights. Lastly, the time had come for a serious and drastic change in America.

RNC Head Michael Steele Apologizes for Calling Rush Limbaugh "an Entertainer" During an Appearance of D.L. Hughley's Show

To the left, to the left.... That's basically what's happening in the Republican Party when conservative nutjob Rush Limbaugh is criticized. An apology always comes. So, Rahm Emanuel was absolutely right when he said that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. I cannot believe that Michael Steele, who recently made some comments about Limbaugh while on the "D. L. Hughley Breaks the News, " has apologized to the Almighty Rush.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.” “My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.”

Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.” Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon. “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not." “I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.” On Monday’s show, Limbaugh reacted both to the comment and to the assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Source: Politico

Well, Michael Steele punked out. As a result of his actions, he is now a very diminished leader of the Republican National Committee. First of all, I took offense when he excused Limbaugh as an entertainer. I am no fan of this guy, but since when is it an automatic disqualifier from political life to be an entertainer? Wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor before he became the governor of California and later served as the President of the USA for eight years? If you can't choose your words carefully and speak with some semblance of knowledge and diplomacy, then Steele is simply not ready to be in such a leadership role. Also, I am still wondering why every Republican that says something contrary to Rush Limbaugh ends up apologizing? What gives? If Limbaugh is the new voice of the GOP, then they are in way more trouble than they care to admit.

RNC Head Michael Steele Apologizes for Calling Rush Limbaugh "an Entertainer" During an Appearance of D.L. Hughley's Show

To the left, to the left.... That's basically what's happening in the Republican Party when conservative nutjob Rush Limbaugh is criticized. An apology always comes. So, Rahm Emanuel was absolutely right when he said that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. I cannot believe that Michael Steele, who recently made some comments about Limbaugh while on the "D. L. Hughley Breaks the News, " has apologized to the Almighty Rush.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.” “My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party, in part by using ads funded by labor. Americans United for Change sent a fund-raising e-mail Monday that begins: “The Republican Party has turned into the Rush Limbaugh Party.”

Steele told CNN host D.L. Hughley in an interview aired Saturday night: “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.” Steele, who won a hard-fought chairman's race on Jan. 30, told Politico he telephoned Limbaugh after his show on Monday afternoon and hoped that they would connect soon. “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not." “I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.” On Monday’s show, Limbaugh reacted both to the comment and to the assertion on CBS’s “Face the Nation” by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Source: Politico

Well, Michael Steele punked out. As a result of his actions, he is now a very diminished leader of the Republican National Committee. First of all, I took offense when he excused Limbaugh as an entertainer. I am no fan of this guy, but since when is it an automatic disqualifier from political life to be an entertainer? Wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor before he became the governor of California and later served as the President of the USA for eight years? If you can't choose your words carefully and speak with some semblance of knowledge and diplomacy, then Steele is simply not ready to be in such a leadership role. Also, I am still wondering why every Republican that says something contrary to Rush Limbaugh ends up apologizing? What gives? If Limbaugh is the new voice of the GOP, then they are in way more trouble than they care to admit.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput Says Some Catholics Treating President Obama with "Spirit of Adulation Bordering on Servility"

I find it amazing that the Roman Catholic Church suddenly has criticized President Barack Obama on so many levels, while they said very little about President George W. Bush during his eight-year tenure. The latest "godly" person who has taken offense to President Obama's popularity is Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. He told a Canadian audience earlier this week that some Catholics are treating President Obama "spirit of adulation bordering on servility."
"In democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs," he said. Wow. This is amazing coming from the same group that reappointed a Nazi denier back into their fold.

Chaput also warned that an overly deferential attitude toward Obama makes the political situation "very hard for Catholics in the United States." Guess why he was in Canada? To promote his book "Render Unto Caesar," which discusses how Catholics should bring their faith into public life. It speaks volumes that 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama, who is pro-choice, which has irked many in the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Archibishop should listen to his own words and acknowledge that President Obama, like Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were charismatic leaders. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. "President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there's no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change," the Catholic News Agency quoted Chaput as saying.

"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That's the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion," he said. So, I am guessing that the Catholic Church has stood for all those things and have pushed programs in their own churches to strengthen the very things the Archbishop is complaining about. Wasn't this the same group of people, who rather than calling the authorities on those priests molesting innocent children, they moved them around from parish to parish? Archbishop Chaput, don't hate the messenger because he is popular, focus on cleaning up the ills dogging the Roman Catholic Church. As the Bible says, pick the speck out of your own eye before you pick it out of another's.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput Says Some Catholics Treating President Obama with "Spirit of Adulation Bordering on Servility"

I find it amazing that the Roman Catholic Church suddenly has criticized President Barack Obama on so many levels, while they said very little about President George W. Bush during his eight-year tenure. The latest "godly" person who has taken offense to President Obama's popularity is Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. He told a Canadian audience earlier this week that some Catholics are treating President Obama "spirit of adulation bordering on servility."
"In democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs," he said. Wow. This is amazing coming from the same group that reappointed a Nazi denier back into their fold.

Chaput also warned that an overly deferential attitude toward Obama makes the political situation "very hard for Catholics in the United States." Guess why he was in Canada? To promote his book "Render Unto Caesar," which discusses how Catholics should bring their faith into public life. It speaks volumes that 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama, who is pro-choice, which has irked many in the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Archibishop should listen to his own words and acknowledge that President Obama, like Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were charismatic leaders. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. "President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there's no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change," the Catholic News Agency quoted Chaput as saying.

"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That's the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion," he said. So, I am guessing that the Catholic Church has stood for all those things and have pushed programs in their own churches to strengthen the very things the Archbishop is complaining about. Wasn't this the same group of people, who rather than calling the authorities on those priests molesting innocent children, they moved them around from parish to parish? Archbishop Chaput, don't hate the messenger because he is popular, focus on cleaning up the ills dogging the Roman Catholic Church. As the Bible says, pick the speck out of your own eye before you pick it out of another's.