At first glance, I really liked the thought of Christie running, now, I'm not so sure. He has some explaining to do for me to get on board.

 

Christie strongly supported the assault weapons ban enacted during the Clinton administration. He opposes attempts to permit conceal carry laws in New Jersey. He dishonestly referred to the semiautomatic firearms barred under the Clinton administration’s "crime bill" as "automatic assault weapons," intentionally misrepresenting hunting, plinking, defense, and target rifles as military machine guns. I have a problem with that.

 

Obviously, some will have issues with him. My point is that he still becomes the leading R.

Obviously, some will have issues with him. My point is that he still becomes the leading R.

No question, especially considering the current field.

Obviously, some will have issues with him. My point is that he still becomes the leading R.

 

I agree & I hope we're both right, if he should jump in.

 

Another question about Christie that I wonder about is this one: Does his weight negatively hinder his campaign? That would be tragic if it would, but I just wondered if you thought it would have any significant bearing on his candidacy?

I honestly haven't been following it all as much as I should, but I have seen a few videos/interviews of him, primarily posted on here...and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat!

If he runs he immediately jumps to front runner. Other than Romney and Perry everyone else is considered 'fringe'. But both Romney and Perry have issues in the Republican/conservative/Tea party voters.

 

What keeps Christie from running:

 

- Direct, maybe overly direct, comments. Many caught on video. He certainly was not worried about his 'presidential' image in some of those. Nothing wrong with that but it would be used against him at every turn.

- He would have to resign from his governorship or split time. He may not want quit early or split time given how complex the workings are for a state like NJ. He may want to continue to focus on state issues.

- Kids. He has kids from 8 to 18. Being governor is hard on the family for sure. Being President and the campaign trail leading up to it would be hard sacrifice with kids that age.

 

He is most direct and honest stalking horse not in the Republican race. But I would currently bet the 'Dont pass' line on him running right now.

 

Some news of the day:

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64549.html

 

Despite a Fox News report that he had firmly closed the door and his own brother telling a reporter he isn’t running, a source told POLITICO that the New Jersey governor is still considering entering the presidential campaign.

 

I honestly haven't been following it all as much as I should, but I have seen a few videos/interviews of him, primarily posted on here...and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat!

That's where I am. I think he sounds like the outspoken, common sense type leader we need right now. If only for what he called Mayor Bloomberg (and why), he's got my vote!

 

*And no, we can't repeat it here.

That's where I am. I think he sounds like the outspoken, common sense type leader we need right now. If only for what he called Mayor Bloomberg (and why), he's got my vote!

 

*And no, we can't repeat it here.

There's a lot I like about him, but again, his stance on guns and gun control gives me pause.

There's a lot I like about him, but again, his stance on guns and gun control gives me pause.

I don't think he would be intentionally "dishonest" or misrepresent what was in the bill. Probably just a difference in interpretation.

He is most direct and honest stalking horse not in the Republican race. But I would currently bet the 'Dont pass' line on him running right now.

 

 

He's the most direct and honest politician in America. Period.

There's a lot I like about him, but again, his stance on guns and gun control gives me pause.

 

I love the guy. And there are several things I don't agree with him on. However, this is one that I do agree with him on.

I don't think he would be intentionally "dishonest" or misrepresent what was in the bill. Probably just a difference in interpretation.

He and many others intentionally misrepresented semiautomatic firearms as assault weapons. It's the kind of fear mongering politicians do when firearms are involved. If, by chance, he just didn't know the difference, that gives me pause as well.

I love the guy. And there are several things I don't agree with him on. However, this is one that I do agree with him on.

Color me shocked. :lol:

He's the most direct and honest politician in America. Period.

 

I saw parts of his speech at the Reagan library yesterday. He certainly presented himself as a contender and was very presidential. The question seems to be not if but when. 2012, 2016 or 2020?

 

I especially liked his part about how he works with a split party leadership in NJ and they put the states business in front of their 'caucuses' when they enter the doors of capital.

He and many others intentionally misrepresented semiautomatic firearms as assault weapons. It's the kind of fear mongering politicians do when firearms are involved. If, by chance, he just didn't know the difference, that gives me pause as well.

 

If he made an unintentional mistake, that gives you pause? Why? Are we to the point that politicans aren't allowed any type of error at all?

He and many others intentionally misrepresented semiautomatic firearms as assault weapons. It's the kind of fear mongering politicians do when firearms are involved. If, by chance, he just didn't know the difference, that gives me pause as well.

 

Well, at least there's fear-mongering on both sides. God forbid we don't have a gun! Anarchy will ensue!