I admit that I am a sucker for these kinds of predictions, but I have to agree with Andrew Sullivan that a Chris Christie vs. Ted Cruz vs. Rand Paul Republican primary fight would be very entertaining. Here is a taste of Sullivan’s post:
If Christie runs, and the egomania of last night makes it all but inevitable, he will at some point have to encounter and beat a serious Tea Party candidate. It could be Ted Cruz or Rand Paul or both. It will not just be a personality battle. Christie’s positions on climate science, Medicaid expansion, gun control and immigration reform – cited by Chait – are red flags to the base Christianists and extreme libertarians. Given Christie’s temperament, I’d say it will be a very entertaining but brutal battle for the soul of the party. Christie’s embrace of Obama during Sandy, his state’s marriage equality, his Northeastern roots, and the big establishment money behind him will also polarize the elites and the base. And his political style is not exactly to pour oil on troubled waters. He’ll say something mean and nasty at some point, and it could either cement his stature or make him look very small.
I can see him trashing Paul as someone who’s never run anything and who’s a surrender monkey in foreign policy. I can also see him lambasting Cruz for his recklessness and extreme partisanship. I guess what I’m saying is that I doubt he can win the nomination without a deep and damaging divide emerging – and maybe even a third Tea Party candidate. That’s not a good starting point for a general election, however wide his appeal in the country at large.
Tom Van Dyke says
Christie’s positions on climate science, Medicaid expansion, gun control and immigration reform – cited by Chait – are red flags to the base Christianists and extreme libertarians.
Such tortured and calculated language. Normal people don't talk like this.
Ed T. says
Disappointed to see the use of the phrase “extreme libertarian”.
Just what is the difference between a “libertarian” and an “extreme libertarian”. A libertarian is nothing more than a “classical liberal”, which would fit Madison, Jefferson et al.
I think it's probably the same as the difference between a “Republican” and and “extremist/far right/Tea Party” Republican…..one generally pays lip service to Republican ideas and eventually caves to most Democrat demands….the other at least tries to fight for his position.
Yes, such a race will be entertaining, but as I have discovered over the last 5 or 6 years, those who use terms never can rarely make a logical argument for what defines the “extreme” variety from the “ordinary” variety.
Such folks also tend to object to folks sticking Obama with a socialist or Marxist label, even though it is far easier to check off how his policies reflect that ideology and philosophy of government (“government run by elites who know better than the subjects of how to run their lives) than to explain the difference between an “extreme” Republican and a “ordinary” one.
Tom Van Dyke says
The question is how conscious they are of manipulating the language. Is it that they're stupid or is that they think everyone else is?