Sounds like an unbiased opinion to me! Christy is an interesting politician and we could do with some innovative ideas from our politicians. He is a politician though and I don't trust any of them until I see what they actually do instead of what they say they will. I'm reserving judgement on him.
quote
Originally posted by htexans1:
Neptune is right about one thing though. If you espouse being a TEA party member, or a Republican, how can one support Christie, when we are supposed to be saving money, not blowing it on unnecessary elections, when a simple appointment still would do the trick
Even if such an appointment was merely to be a "placeholder" for his political aspirations to the Senate.
Just goes to show one the very definition of a "RINO" (or a hypocrite)
Of course in fairness we can find that sort of behavior on both sides of the aisle.
IP: Logged
10:21 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It's interesting that people point to one item they consider waste and say it should disqualify any Republican or TEA Party member from supporting him. Why? Yes, many are looking for saner fiscal policies, cutting spending and reducing the size of government. Given how many issues there are too look at, why would this one be the only one to judge by? It's a data point, and not a positive one for a fiscally conservative voter.
In a primary, you only have a handful of choices. In a national election, it's down to 2 choices (maybe 3). I'd have to compare each candidate to see who is closer to what I support. No candidate is going to be perfect, and if Christie were running against Obama in 2012, it would have been pretty easy to choose Christie over Obama. If Christie does run for president, I'll have to see who he's running against to make my choice.
Anything to divert attention from the current administration's activities.
IP: Logged
04:03 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Ok, seriously now. why did Governor Christie do something so foolish and obviously when he didn't need to?
quote
Originally posted by Rallaster:
Actually, I believe NJ law states that if the normal election to fill the seat vacated is more than X days/months/whatever away that a special election must be convened to elect a replacement, and the seat vacated by the deceased Senator is 2.5 years away or some such?
Edit: I've just completed about 3 hours a reading the laws and various interpretations of the law and apparently the timing of the vacancy, the timing of the proclamation of special election, the timing of the primary and general elections are all incredibly vague and conflicting. In one interpretation, because of the proximity of the vacancy, announcement and general election primaries, if he did not choose a special election date within 'x' amount of time, his appointed replacement would be in office until the 2014 NJ primary election. According to the same interpretation, the timing required for the special election proclamation puts the 2013 general election outside of the specified amount of time for the special election.
Actually, it's not obvious that he didn't have to do this. Unless you are OK with his appointment to the Senate being seated for either 6 months or 18 months depending on your interpretation of the law?
IP: Logged
09:59 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
, 
