Skip to comments.
Chris Christie's Lautenberg Dilemma Is 2013-as-2016 All Over Again
The Atlantic Wire ^
| June 3, 2013
| ELSPETH REEVE
Posted on 06/03/2013 12:50:32 PM PDT by Hojczyk
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie can name a successor for Frank Lautenberg, who died at the age of 89 on Monday, becoming the 299th Senator to pass away in office. But it's yet another moment when what's good for Christie in 2013 might not be good for him in 2016. Christie, after all, is a Republican running a state that voted for President Obama by almost 18 points.
"Replacing a Democrat with a Democrat and then saying the voters should decide what happens next in November would no doubt be very well-received by Democrats and moderates," The Washington Post's Sean Sullivan writes. But that would mean Republicans who are already annoyed with Christie and his Obama-hugging antics would disown him
To understand the difficult position Christie's in, look at these two tweets: "What lucky Democrat will Democrat Chris Christie appoint to Sen. Frank Lautenberg's seat?" conservative thriller author Brad Thor asks. Salon's Joan Walsh adds: "Hey Dem donors giving to Chris Christie: will you rethink if he picks a Republican to replace Lautenberg?"
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlanticwire.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: 113th; christie; lautenberg; nj2013; nj2014
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: SWAMPSNIPER
Im never going to vote for Christie anyway.I don't plan to either.
41
posted on
06/03/2013 1:52:15 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: MEGoody
I’d be curious to know why it would be wrong for Christie to appoint a Republican. He’s entitled to appoint whomever he chooses, and from what I’ve read of state statute as posted elsewhere, he is under no legal requirement to choose a replacement from the same political party as the deceased.
It’s his choice. If the voters disagree with that choice, they have appropriate recourse through the ballot box.
42
posted on
06/03/2013 1:52:26 PM PDT
by
Colonel_Flagg
(Blather. Reince. Repeat.)
To: Colonel_Flagg
Id be curious to know why it would be wrong for Christie to appoint a Republican.Because the people elected a Democrat.
I'm not talking legal requirements. I'm talking fairness to the voters.
43
posted on
06/03/2013 1:53:30 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: bert
That is a perverted thought. The voters voted for Christie a Republican. To be fair to the voter he has no choice but to select a Republican.
Christie isn't replacing himself. He's replacing Loutenberg, who was a Democrat.
Now, if Christie were replacing himself (can that even happen?), then yes, select a Republican.
44
posted on
06/03/2013 1:54:54 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: MEGoody
Maybe not, but do you honestly think the voters of NJ, if given the opportunity to pick the replacement would now pick a Republican?
They picked Christie, in the not too distant past they put in 3/4s Republicans when Jim Flim-Flam Florio crammed through a massive tax bill that included a toilet paper tax. Of course, the Republicans punted when given a veto-proof majority to get anything useful done.
We can make NO assumptions about who we THINK people would vote for. Christie makes the call, and if he is way off he will pay for it. That's how it is supposed to be in NJ. I would HATE the Kansas system where I live in Illinois, where the powers selected a new party head who gave mainly to Dems. If the party can be co-opted, then true reform is next to impossible.
The United States Constitution does not recognize parties. I am grieved that state and local governments, as well as congressional rules, do. The Founding Fathers were generally wary of them.
45
posted on
06/03/2013 1:55:58 PM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
(There's no salvation in politics.)
To: Hojczyk
I predict - he’ll appoint Christine Todd Whitman
46
posted on
06/03/2013 1:56:01 PM PDT
by
FroggyTheGremlim
("God bless Planned Parenthood"- B.H.Obama, 2013)
To: MEGoody
The obvious choice is Hillary Clinton.
America needs her back in Washington.
/s/s/s/s
47
posted on
06/03/2013 1:57:29 PM PDT
by
nascarnation
(Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
To: Hojczyk
I fail to see this as a problem for Christi.... he will nominate a Rino....
You think he has any hope of support from the RNC in 2016 he he picks a democrat....?
He may have gotten a stomach lapban but it isn’ t wrapped around his head...
48
posted on
06/03/2013 1:58:17 PM PDT
by
Popman
(Godlessness is always the first step to the concentration camp.)
To: Dr. Sivana
We can make NO assumptions about who we THINK people would vote for.We know they voted for a Dem for this particular office. That's not an assumption.
49
posted on
06/03/2013 1:58:32 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: MEGoody
They also elected Christie, who is at least ostensibly a Republican, and did so more recently than they elected Lautenberg.
Would it not be fair to those same voters who entrusted their state to him to let him choose someone from his own political party?
50
posted on
06/03/2013 1:58:44 PM PDT
by
Colonel_Flagg
(Blather. Reince. Repeat.)
To: MEGoody
Because the people elected a Democrat.
I'm not talking legal requirements. I'm talking fairness to the voters.
I will accept the fact that some pretty serious people are sympathetic to your argument. Phil Gramm was a Dem Congressman who resigned his seat after switching parties, running for his still warm old seat in a special election as a Republican, winning rather handily. On the one hand, you could say he ram to see if the formerly heavily Dem district would support a Republican. On the other hand, the fact that he won big shows that they wanted Phil Gramm, regardless of party.
51
posted on
06/03/2013 2:01:16 PM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
(There's no salvation in politics.)
To: mrmeyer
Is Forrester still alive? He should pick him.
52
posted on
06/03/2013 2:02:32 PM PDT
by
EQAndyBuzz
(The reason we own guns is to protect ourselves from those wanting to take our guns from us.)
To: MEGoody
Christie is a Governor and can select anybody who he chooses, which means he should NOT select a Democrat.
53
posted on
06/03/2013 2:02:36 PM PDT
by
kevinm13
(Tim Geithner is a tax cheat. Manmade "Global Warming" is a HOAX!)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
Im never going to vote for Christie anyway. There is one way I could be persuaded: If he selects Sarah Palin. But other than that, no way will I ever pull the lever for him.
54
posted on
06/03/2013 2:02:54 PM PDT
by
Sirius Lee
(All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
To: MEGoody
We know they voted for a Dem for this particular office. That's not an assumption.
And unless they have a fresh clone of Lautenberg, it makes no difference. On that basis you could put in a Zell Miller or George Wallace of Glenn Poshard Dem, and that would be okay, even though Chrostine Todd-Whitman has more in common with Lautenberg.
I voted for Dem Lieberman over Lowell Weicker in CT. If Lieberman died, I sure wouldn't want another Dem to take his place. Legally, morally, party is irrelevant.
55
posted on
06/03/2013 2:04:00 PM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
(There's no salvation in politics.)
To: Hojczyk
Now we will see if El Gordo has any cajones.
56
posted on
06/03/2013 2:04:27 PM PDT
by
Repeal The 17th
(We have met the enemy and he is us.)
To: MEGoody
He can pick whomever he wants. Fairness really isn’t an issue either way.
57
posted on
06/03/2013 2:13:56 PM PDT
by
CityCenter
(Pleading the 5th is just so 1972.)
To: mrmeyer
Fairness is the bullsh*t excuse the collectivist NJ State Suprmeme Court argued when it violated NJ election law to permit Lautenberg to come out of retirement to replace Robert Torricelli when Doug Forrester was way ahead of RT in the polls. To hell with fairness.
*******************************************************************
Plus 10 trillion!!
To: Hojczyk
Christie’s not in a difficult position at all. The only way he’ll find himself in a difficult position is if he appoints one of his DEM or RINO allies to the senate. He can just go ahead and switch parties in that case.
59
posted on
06/03/2013 2:54:47 PM PDT
by
Blackyce
(President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always The reason it was easymeans failure.")
To: Hojczyk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson