I’ve written several recent posts about tea baggers, and they contain nothing, I’m sure, complementary. I will now give the members of this &*$#*(@% movement, a compliment: They formulate positions on issues, and as lame, deranged, idiotic, and fanatical as they may be, they stick to them, and care not who knows it.
Then there are the Mitt Romneys, and the Chris Christies. Romney, as I am sure you all remember, had a firm commitment to positions on a set of various issues while he was governor of Massachusetts. Then, for the next several years while running for President, he espoused a new set of positions on the very same issues, most notably on the elements of health care reform, among many, many others. He was not a bit reticent to detail these positions over several years time, until the 2012 debates with President Obama came around, and lo and behold, a “new” Romney told the viewing public he stood for a whole slew of different beliefs, like NOT giving the most wealthy Americans $5 Trillion in tax cuts.
And then we have the newly re-elected governor of New Jersey, described by Time Magazine as the “Elephant in the Room”.
Is that an accurate description? Perhaps, but remember, an elephant never forgets. Mr. Christie seems to have a very short memory.
It was not that long ago that Christie told everyone who would listen that he supported
many very reasonable restrictions on firearm sales, such as a ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles designed to penetrate heavy armor from up to a mile away. Earlier in his political career he had fully supported New Jersey’s ban on concealed weapons, and in 2009 actually told fixed noise’s sean hannity that he would make sure that there was never an “abundance of guns out there”, and that no, not every New Jersey citizen should have a gun, as hannity suggested. Well, this past August, the NJ legislature passed several measures limiting access to guns, and the most important of these bills were vetoed by Christie, including that one that would have banned those .50 caliber sniper rifles, one that would have required local authorities to report stolen guns to federal authorities, and one that would have established what had been called a “national model” for overhauling how states conduct background checks and issue gun permits.
republican who would seek to go further than head honcho of a blue state.
Since his re-election, Christie has seen fit to change his long-stated positions on other issues of importance, most noticeably his re-evaluation of his stance on immigration reform, as he described in his recent interview with George Stephanopoulos. On Stephanopoulos’s show this past Sunday, Christie used every smoking cinder and mirror available to keep from affirming his earlier stated agreement that immigration reform should include a path to citizenship. By the way, he had specifically stated that position – the need for a path to citizenship – on Stephanopoulos’s show three years earlier. Now, however, with White House stars in his eyes and the gop/teabagger/racist platform in his back pocket, he refused to state a position. Hmm.
Back on Oct. 1, 2011, when many in the gop were calling for Christie to run then for president, I wrote “Christieites, Are You Sure?” describing how many of those same people urging him to run may, on closer inspection, not be so happy with many of his actual positions on issues near and dear to them. Well, Christie is busy solving that problem by changing his positions on those issues.
Interestingly enough, it was earlier in 2011 that Christie announced to the world, and specifically to those of the religious right, that after being pro-choice for much of his life, a few years earlier he had changed that position as well, and was now fully supportive of ending the right to choose.
The single issue that has driven people to the left of the gop base to either support Christie or think that they could, has been that of climate change. However, what they think and what he has said in the past, have also been the subject of revision Just yesterday on the Huffington
Post, Scott Dodd wrote a lengthy piece documenting Christie’s ever-changing beliefs on this issue (“What does Chris Christie Really Think About Climate Change?”).
He succinctly lays out reality versus perception, in that on one hand, people believe Christie’s earlier statement that he believed climate change to be real and millions of voters saw him hug the President in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, while on the other hand, he shows how Christie’s record on the environment is abysmal. Christie virtually stopped New Jersey’s efforts to fight climate change, stole $1 B form the state’s clean energy fund, and he has gone back on his earlier pronouncements regarding climate change, going so far as to tell a Town Hall meeting that he was skeptical” that humans are responsible”. He has, in fact, lost his 2009 endorsement from The New Jersey Environmental Federation, that is now on record as being highly critical of his post-Sandy record on environmental issues.
Tea baggers may be vile, but you don’t see them flip-flopping on the most basic of issues. Christie is not a man who can be trusted to have a single sincere belief that he will stand up for against any interest group whose support he seeks for his presidential run.