It wasn’t hurricane Sandy this time, but once again, Chris Christie has done his level best to aggrandize himself by coming to the aid of his friend Barack Obama, but this time his contrived ire is directed at the National Rifle Association. According to Breitbart, the New Jersey blowhard couldn’t wait to take on the NRA. He continued the ludicrous lie first told by the President’s sock-puppet, Jay Carney, when he accused the NRA of attacking the President’s children. Look, I know this is difficult for thick-skulled RINOs to to comprehend, but the NRA’s ad did not attack the President’s children, and did not question the security they’re provided, but merely called into question the President’s hypocrisy demonstrated by his administration’s unwillingness to lend full support to placing armed guards in the schools your children attend. This was not an attack on the Obama children, or anything of the sort. Instead, it was all about asking the plainly obvious question: Aren’t our children deserving of some additional security too? Let me make this plain to the windy hug-meister: IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA’S KIDS! It’s about support of security for all children at school.
I feel sorry for the people of New Jersey, as they thought they had elected a real Republican elephant but instead elected a stuffed bull-RINO. As Breitbart reports, the great wind blew and blew:
“To talk about the president’s children, or any public officer’s children, who have not by their own choice, but by requirement, to have protection, and to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible …. To somehow feel, as it said in the commercial, “Well, the president has armed bodyguards for his children but thinks it’s not good enough for your children,” the president doesn’t have a choice …. It’s awful to bring public figures’ children into the political debate. They don’t choose to be there. For any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe.”
Isn’t it great that Governor Kramden(H/T to Mr. L for the nickname) is concerned for the children? Unfortunately, when David Letterman was making shameless, disgusting remarks(presented as “jokes”) about one of the Palin daughters, he was nowhere to be seen(a disappearing act equal to any by David Copperfield.) No, he didn’t have a word to say then, and he’s gone on record since describing Letterman as “really funny.” I never thought very much of Letterman, but after his attack on the Palins, I considered him disgusting, and pathetic, but never “really funny.” What’s astonishing to me is that this man is unable to distinguish between a real attack on a politician’s children and a pointed appraisal of a President’s hypocrisy. He will be hailed in leftist circles as a Republican who stood up to the NRA, but when he could have stood up to real attacks against the children of a notable Republican politician, Mr. Christie was silent. Instead he pretends a critique of Obama policies is an attack on the Obama children, and for this, he gets his panties in a wad? Who wants a bombastic, ill-tempered, ill-mannered President, and don’t we have one of those already?
Christie says he believes the NRA ad had been “reprehensible,” but in point of fact, his interjection allegedly on behalf of the President in this case simply underscores the tendency of Christie to seek out attention from media, and I don’t think there’s any doubt but that this was Christie’s entire motive. Christie wants to distance himself from “the right wing” because he hopes to make hay in the early primary states in 2016, and moving into the liberal end of the spectrum will help him obtain victory, or so he believes. He’s positioning himself as a moderate, and the whole idea is to get Democrats to crossover to vote for him in the primaries, to help negate any conservative candidate’s support among Republicans. It’s not new. This tactic has been the favorite of moderate or liberal Republicans for ages. If they can’t beat their opponents with Republican support, they’re just as happy to get Democrats to help them through the primaries, and Democrats have been only too happy to oblige, knowing liberal Republicans don’t get great turnout from the conservative wing of the party.
Christie’s schtick is getting old, and just as in the past, when his famed YouTube rants stopped drawing lots of clicks, he had to stoop to yet another outrageous rant against some teacher, or bystander, or anybody he could publicly bully. After listening to him a few times, his act quickly loses its appeal. He may be bigger than life, but he seems a small man inside, just trying to be noticed. Any Republican who sides with the left against the NRA, particularly now, is simply grandstanding for the benefit of the crowd with a mind toward future Presidential prospects, and it’s an act we ought to dismiss as that of political opportunist, and really, it’s fitting since that’s all Chris Christie has ever been.
As published at: Mark America