I see Christie as this election cycle's John McCain. The media are fawning over him now but will turn on him in a general election just as they did McCain. I have little or no doubt the media will push him as the GOP's best chance for a win in 2016 and really put him out there prior to the early primaries.

I think that you are absolutely right. The media will push Christie at Republicans and portray him as something like "a no-nonsense mainstream conservative" during the primary season. They will probably even question whether he is too conservative to win in November, just to make him more palatable to voters who think that they are conservatives but do not really understand conservativism.

 

As you said, if Christie manages to win the nomination to become yet another moderate lamb for the slaughter, the media will turn on him and shift into full campaign mode. It does not matter who the Republicans nominate, the media will once again provide the Democratic candidate, most likely Hillary Clinton, with as many free political plugs as they can squeeze into their "news" programming. NBC has already ordered a four-hour miniseries on Hillary Clinton's life beginning with husband Bill's first term.

Chris Christie is a self-centered, pompous hack, who will do or say anything to win an election. If Republicans nominate him in 2016, then it should effectively bring an effective end to the party's relevance at the national level. Supporting Obama's policies and bashing Republicans may play well in a blue state like New Jersey, but Christie faces an uphill battle to overcome his betrayal of Romney in the final days of the 2012 campaign. One thing that I do admire about Christie is his ability to think on his feet and deliver a speech without a teleprompter. He is no Ted Cruz, but he is a very good public speaker.

 

I view this through a completely different lens. A big part of the problem in politics is loyalty to party at the expense of constituency, and an unwillingness to compromise. In matters of tragedy , politics need to be put aside, even during the heat of a national election.

I think that you are absolutely right. The media will push Christie at Republicans and portray him as something like "a no-nonsense mainstream conservative" during the primary season. They will probably even question whether he is too conservative to win in November, just to make him more palatable to voters who think that they are conservatives but do not really understand conservativism.

 

As you said, if Christie manages to win the nomination to become yet another moderate lamb for the slaughter, the media will turn on him and shift into full campaign mode. It does not matter who the Republicans nominate, the media will once again provide the Democratic candidate, most likely Hillary Clinton, with as many free political plugs as they can squeeze into their "news" programming. NBC has already ordered a four-hour miniseries on Hillary Clinton's life beginning with husband Bill's first term.

Who or what is "the media"? Be specific.

I view this through a completely different lens. A big part of the problem in politics is loyalty to party at the expense of constituency, and an unwillingness to compromise. In matters of tragedy , politics need to be put aside, even during the heat of a national election.

Ted Cruz has been attacked for not simply going along with party leaders. It is never the wrong time to stand up for one's core principles. Most politicians elected to Congress quickly yield to the peer pressure exerted by their own senior party leaders, by the national media, and by the people they meet on the cocktail party circuit. So far, Ted Cruz has bucked that trend. Very few manage to avoid being sucked into conventional Washington politics and those who do tend to be either very conservative or very liberal.

 

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are two examples whose political positions have not changed much no matter which party controlled the House or the White House - and both men have spent years in Washington. (Kucinich was a victim of redistricting, which made him unelectable in his new district. To his credit, he retired rather than attempt to deceive voters into believing that he had become more moderate.)

 

As for compromise, the lens through which I see tells me that there is too much compromising on important issues in Washington and that is one of the reasons that our federal government is such a mess. Compromise is great when two sides share much common ground, but I don't want my representative compromising his or her core values just to get a bill passed. We have too many laws and regulations and too few good laws and regulations. Thousands of bad laws and regulations need to be repealed or rewritten.

 

Most people running a businesses in this country today are breaking some law or violating some regulation. How could they not, given the thousands of laws and regulations to which they are subject? The result is a federal government with the power to drive political enemies out of business through selective enforcement. (Example of selective enforcement: Gibson Guitar Co., a Romney supporter vs. C. F. Martin & Co., an Obama supporter.)

 

Congress is very polarized by design. District lines are manipulated to create safe seats for incumbent Democrats and Republicans. The result is that there are many very liberal and many very conservative members of the House. Those representatives have no incentive to appeal to a broad political spectrum because that is not their path to election. It does not matter whether I am a far right wing conservative/libertarian (which I am) or a socialist on the far left wing of the Democratic Party, I do not want the person for whom I voted crafting compromises with people whose political beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine. However, if I live in a culturally diverse district populated by people with a wide range of political beliefs (which I do), then I am enough of a realist to understand that my elected representative will be forced to make compromises to hold on to his or her seat.

 

Gerrymandering of House district lines by both parties has made good compromises rare and IMO, has resulted in many very bad laws that simply allow people in Congress to claim that the "got things done." "Do something, even if it is wrong" may be good advice when refusing to act will result in a real catastrophe, but it is not a good guiding principle for passing legislation.

Thank you for that very deep and informative response.

 

Heading to mass but didnt he accuse Bush I of trying to shut down the game of golf around the world? Do I remember that correctly?

"Media" is specific. It is a well defined word that includes the printed press, television, cable channels, and radio stations. Some consider online blogs to be part of the media, but I do not. However, major websites that perform the same function as media outlets in my list are part of the media, IMO.

 

I am guessing that you are itching to point out that Fox News Channel is part of the media and my definition obviously includes FNC. Contrary to the beliefs of many liberals, FNC is not all that conservative but the organization definitely leans strongly Republican. Fox will support whoever the leaders of the Republican Party backs, and that will most likely be a moderate like Christie.

 

Now, my use of the word media should not be interpreted to mean that 100 percent of the media will be pushing for the election of Hillary Clinton, or whoever Democrats nominate in 2016, Fox will certainly be an exception that will not work to elect Hillary (although Murdock once hosted a Hillary fundraising event).

 

The same media outlets that boosted Obama's candidacy in 2008 and 2012 will be tilting their coverage to support the Democrats' nominee in 2016. That includes, among others, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC (not sure they count as news media anymore), The New York Times, Washington Post, and almost every major city newspaper in the country.

 

The media will rally around Christie during the primary season because he is very quotable and will be good for ratings. Once the race is down to two candidates, then the media will turn on Christie just as it turned on McCain and Romney. This assumes that Republicans voters will be dumb enough to nominate Christie. Either way, some in the media will admit after the election that they should have been a little tougher in their coverage of the Democratic candidate's background. Everybody should know the drill by now.

"Media" is specific. It is a well defined word that includes the printed press, television, cable channels, and radio stations. Some consider online blogs to be part of the media, but I do not. However, major websites that perform the same function as media outlets in my list are part of the media, IMO.

 

I am guessing that you are itching to point out that Fox News Channel is part of the media and my definition obviously includes FNC. Contrary to the beliefs of many liberals, FNC is not all that conservative but the organization definitely leans strongly Republican. Fox will support whoever the leaders of the Republican Party backs, and that will most likely be a moderate like Christie.

 

Now, my use of the word media should not be interpreted to mean that 100 percent of the media will be pushing for the election of Hillary Clinton, or whoever Democrats nominate in 2016, Fox will certainly be an exception that will not work to elect Hillary (although Murdock once hosted a Hillary fundraising event).

 

The same media outlets that boosted Obama's candidacy in 2008 and 2012 will be tilting their coverage to support the Democrats' nominee in 2016. That includes, among others, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC (not sure they count as news media anymore), The New York Times, Washington Post, and almost every major city newspaper in the country.

 

The media will rally around Christie during the primary season because he is very quotable and will be good for ratings. Once the race is down to two candidates, then the media will turn on Christie just as it turned on McCain and Romney. This assumes that Republicans voters will be dumb enough to nominate Christie. Either way, some in the media will admit after the election that they should have been a little tougher in their coverage of the Democratic candidate's background. Everybody should know the drill by now.

I'm going beyond Fox. AM radio has become nothing more than right-wing rage. The majority of American newspapers are right of center. Right-of-center websites (Newsmax, Infowars, Fox) attract millions of readers daily. The chit-chat rooms in Bluegrasspreps are decidedly right of center. In my opinion, "the media" is simply a fabricated term that serves as a piñata for right-wingers to poke sticks at. You make good points, but I think you discredit yourself by overusing the ambiguous "the media."

Heading to mass but didnt he accuse Bush I of trying to shut down the game of golf around the world? Do I remember that correctly?

When I Google "ted cruz bush golf" I get results from the following sources:

 

1., 2., and 3 - Think Progress

4. - Mother Jones

5. trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com

6. tv.msnbc.com

7. crooksandliars.com

 

I do not consider any of the above to be legitimate, reasonably unbiased media outlets, I did not waste time opening any except the first one. It is obvious that the left wing of the Democratic Party is terrified at the prospect of a well educated, conservative Hispanic Republican running for president. They are already busy trying to portray this guy as a nutcase. Anybody who has listened to him speak on the Senate floor will have a difficult time believing that Ted Cruz is crazy.

 

The attempt to portray Cruz as a conspiracy nut is based on his opposition to UN Agenda 21. It is a voluntary UN resolution that George H. W. Bush signed. It is supported by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and many other liberal Democrats in Congress. The 2012 Republican Platform opposes the adoption of Agenda 21.

 

You can believe or not that Cruz is crazy but you owe it to yourself to listen to him speak yourself and not rely on short quotes, most likely taken out of context, that are appearing in the blogosphere and left wing publications. Cruz is an extremely intelligent man who, although relatively young, has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The people who are trying to portray Ted Cruz as the second coming of Sarah Palin, who they can marginalize through ridicule, are greatly underestimating their adversary. If Cruz runs for president, viewers will be able to compare the real man to the caricatures that people like you are painting of him. He has already more than held his own with critics like Harry Reid and John McCain in the Senate.

Please provide 1 scintilla of evidence that The majority of American newspapers are right of center.

I'm going beyond Fox. AM radio has become nothing more than right-wing rage. The majority of American newspapers are right of center. Right-of-center websites (Newsmax, Infowars, Fox) attract millions of readers daily. The chit-chat rooms in Bluegrasspreps are decidedly right of center. In my opinion, "the media" is simply a fabricated term that serves as a piñata for right-wingers to poke sticks at. You make good points, but I think you discredit yourself by overusing the ambiguous "the media."

For some reason, I doubt that you have much first hand knowledge of AM conservative talk radio shows. I rarely visit any of the websites that you listed (never even heard of Infowars), although I do follow the headlines on the DrudgeReport, as do many liberals. Drudge links to a wide range of media, and although he is personally very conservative, he will link to anything that will drive his ratings.

 

Have you ever listened to left wing talk radio? Air America? Al Franken? Randy Rhodes? Alan Colmes? If you want to hear rage, turn to MSNBC and watch a few minutes of Ed Shultz. I have listened to quite a bit of liberal talk radio and it is easy to see why liberal talk radio shows have failed so miserably. They mostly consist of "rage" without reason. A talk radio show must first and foremost be entertaining or it will be unable to attract a large audience. I believe that Al Franken's show was the most boring one that I have ever listened to - and I enjoyed watching him when he was on Saturday Night Live back in its early days. His Franken and Davis skits were hilarious.

 

I used to listen to quite a bit of talk radio, but these days I usually limit myself to a few minutes of Mark Levin on my drive home from work. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and popular author who operates Landmark Legal Foundation. Levin wrote to the Solicitor General of the Treasury Department last year and requested that he investigate the IRS harassment of conservative non-profit organizations many months before the mainstream media was forced to cover the story. "Rage" is an appropriate response to the Obama administration's many abuses of power.

Please provide 1 scintilla of evidence that The majority of American newspapers are right of center.

 

"In 16 of the last 20 elections, a majority of American newspapers who endorse political candidates for president have preferred the Republican candidate. Democrats typically lose the endorsement race."

 

Source is Editor and Publisher, the trade magazine for the newspaper industry. Link below.

 

Editor & Publisher - Shoptalk/Commentary: How Incumbent Presidents Fare in Newspaper Endorsements

Please provide 1 scintilla of evidence that The majority of American newspapers are right of center.

How did I miss that point? I once worked with a liberal who argued that the media was right wing because newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations are almost all owned by corporations. You cannot win a debate with a person who actually subscribes to that point of view.

When I Google "ted cruz bush golf" I get results from the following sources:

 

1., 2., and 3 - Think Progress

4. - Mother Jones

5. trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com

6. tv.msnbc.com

7. crooksandliars.com

 

I do not consider any of the above to be legitimate, reasonably unbiased media outlets, I did not waste time opening any except the first one. It is obvious that the left wing of the Democratic Party is terrified at the prospect of a well educated, conservative Hispanic Republican running for president. They are already busy trying to portray this guy as a nutcase. Anybody who has listened to him speak on the Senate floor will have a difficult time believing that Ted Cruz is crazy.

 

The attempt to portray Cruz as a conspiracy nut is based on his opposition to UN Agenda 21. It is a voluntary UN resolution that George H. W. Bush signed. It is supported by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and many other liberal Democrats in Congress. The 2012 Republican Platform opposes the adoption of Agenda 21.

 

You can believe or not that Cruz is crazy but you owe it to yourself to listen to him speak yourself and not rely on short quotes, most likely taken out of context, that are appearing in the blogosphere and left wing publications. Cruz is an extremely intelligent man who, although relatively young, has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The people who are trying to portray Ted Cruz as the second coming of Sarah Palin, who they can marginalize through ridicule, are greatly underestimating their adversary. If Cruz runs for president, viewers will be able to compare the real man to the caricatures that people like you are painting of him. He has already more than held his own with critics like Harry Reid and John McCain in the Senate.

 

He used to have it on his OWN website so there goes the credibility argument. He has since removed it. You can bash ThinkProgress but they linked and quoted DIRECTLY from his own website.

 

TX Sen Candidate Ted Cruz Spouts Paranoid Fantasy About United Nations/George Soros Conspiracy To Eliminate Golf | ThinkProgress

 

A direct quote from Mr Cruz, as intelligent as he may be, said:

 

Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.

 

There is a difference in supporting a 20-yr-old bill and stating the above.

 

He may be the brightest guy in the room at all times but assuming that quote was directly taken from his website (and no one is saying it wasn't) then it tells me he either a)isn't as smart we are led to believe or b)he looks for problems in everything he disagrees with and totally blows them out of proportion. In other words, he's not a good candidate to lead the country.

Then there's the issue of nullification. If we all agree what Mitch Rapp keeps telling us ie Mr Cruz is highly intelligent then that only leaves one explanation for his stance on nullification: he wants to violate the US Constitution. He says nullification allows states to bypass the President's veto powers. He said this in order to support his case that the states can ignore the health care laws. Not true. Is he not smart enough to know that?

 

ThinkProgress didn't make up his quote. Was there some context missing?

For some reason, I doubt that you have much first hand knowledge of AM conservative talk radio shows. I rarely visit any of the websites that you listed (never even heard of Infowars), although I do follow the headlines on the DrudgeReport, as do many liberals. Drudge links to a wide range of media, and although he is personally very conservative, he will link to anything that will drive his ratings.

 

Have you ever listened to left wing talk radio? Air America? Al Franken? Randy Rhodes? Alan Colmes? If you want to hear rage, turn to MSNBC and watch a few minutes of Ed Shultz. I have listened to quite a bit of liberal talk radio and it is easy to see why liberal talk radio shows have failed so miserably. They mostly consist of "rage" without reason. A talk radio show must first and foremost be entertaining or it will be unable to attract a large audience. I believe that Al Franken's show was the most boring one that I have ever listened to - and I enjoyed watching him when he was on Saturday Night Live back in its early days. His Franken and Davis skits were hilarious.

 

I used to listen to quite a bit of talk radio, but these days I usually limit myself to a few minutes of Mark Levin on my drive home from work. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and popular author who operates Landmark Legal Foundation. Levin wrote to the Solicitor General of the Treasury Department last year and requested that he investigate the IRS harassment of conservative non-profit organizations many months before the mainstream media was forced to cover the story. "Rage" is an appropriate response to the Obama administration's many abuses of power.

Right-wing rage sells much better than left-wing rage. On the other hand, the right has no equivalent of Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart, which probably mirrors why young people don't find the GOP attractive. Left-wing talk radio is pretty much kaput. It never succeeded in getting the NPR types to tune in. Look at the demographics for who listens to right-wing talk radio: lots and lots of old Republican white men. I read somewhere that Rush Limbaugh's listeners are 96% Republican. He just serves to reinforce existing beliefs. One sees the same thing in the chit-chat rooms on Bluegrasspreps.com.