Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Not exactly breaking news, but he's holding a press conference formally announcing it.

Too bad, but at least he's a man of his word. Can't wait until 2016 for him. Or possibly 2020 if a Republican wins in 2012.

AZGrizFan wrote:Not exactly breaking news, but he's holding a press conference formally announcing it.

Too bad, but at least he's a man of his word. Can't wait until 2016 for him. Or possibly 2020 if a Republican wins in 2012.

Smart move by Christie to wait

"Obama has failed the leadership test."
"My most important objective is to ensure Obama is a one-termer."
"Obama has failed the absolute litmust test of being a leader."

Smart move.

More to the point - while I loathe Christie... what REALLY was pissing me off in the last week or two were these bullshit pundits saying he's "too fat" to run. Fuck that noise. Honestly, THAT was disgusting to read repeatedly.

Good idea. He should really start out with walking, then work up to jogging, then running...

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Not exactly breaking news, but he's holding a press conference formally announcing it.

Too bad, but at least he's a man of his word. Can't wait until 2016 for him. Or possibly 2020 if a Republican wins in 2012.

Smart move by Christie to wait

+1
No sense in putting up a half assed effort and have the Dems use your own words about how prepared you currently are to take you down. Looks like another 4 yrs of Obama and we'll see if there's enough country worth saving in '16. I just can't see any of the GOP bozos giving Obama much of a run despite the failures. Obama can run on getting a healthcare program that nobody wanted pushed through and giving the go ahead for killing some key terrorists, but I seriously question what else he can use to construct a platform. Maybe TTBF can weigh in and enlighten me.

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Smart move by Christie to wait

+1
No sense in putting up a half assed effort and have the Dems use your own words about how prepared you currently are to take you down. Looks like another 4 yrs of Obama and we'll see if there's enough country worth saving in '16. I just can't see any of the GOP bozos giving Obama much of a run despite the failures. Obama can run on getting a healthcare program that nobody wanted pushed through and giving the go ahead for killing some key terrorists, but I seriously question what else he can use to construct a platform. Maybe TTBF can weigh in and enlighten me.

1. Platforms are irrelevant.

2. Message is everything - and I think Obama has found a message that will work for him against the GOP.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
+1
No sense in putting up a half assed effort and have the Dems use your own words about how prepared you currently are to take you down. Looks like another 4 yrs of Obama and we'll see if there's enough country worth saving in '16. I just can't see any of the GOP bozos giving Obama much of a run despite the failures. Obama can run on getting a healthcare program that nobody wanted pushed through and giving the go ahead for killing some key terrorists, but I seriously question what else he can use to construct a platform. Maybe TTBF can weigh in and enlighten me.

1. Platforms are irrelevant.

2. Message is everything - and I think Obama has found a message that will work for him against the GOP.

What is that message?
"A vote for the GOP is a return to the Bush era?" seems like we never left it.
" Trust me, it could have been worse?" That doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence.
"I'll roll over to the conks less next term?"
"Just kidding about getting us to 8% unemployment and closing Gitmo"

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Smart move by Christie to wait

+1
No sense in putting up a half assed effort and have the Dems use your own words about how prepared you currently are to take you down. Looks like another 4 yrs of Obama and we'll see if there's enough country worth saving in '16. I just can't see any of the GOP bozos giving Obama much of a run despite the failures. Obama can run on getting a healthcare program that nobody wanted pushed through and giving the go ahead for killing some key terrorists, but I seriously question what else he can use to construct a platform. Maybe TTBF can weigh in and enlighten me.

You'll be waiting a long time! Seriously, I think Romney can take Obama down if the economy stays the way it is. With Perry self-immolating by the day, it looks like the nomination is Mitt's to lose.

Ivytalk wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
+1
No sense in putting up a half assed effort and have the Dems use your own words about how prepared you currently are to take you down. Looks like another 4 yrs of Obama and we'll see if there's enough country worth saving in '16. I just can't see any of the GOP bozos giving Obama much of a run despite the failures. Obama can run on getting a healthcare program that nobody wanted pushed through and giving the go ahead for killing some key terrorists, but I seriously question what else he can use to construct a platform. Maybe TTBF can weigh in and enlighten me.

You'll be waiting a long time! Seriously, I think Romney can take Obama down if the economy stays the way it is. With Perry self-immolating by the day, it looks like the nomination is Mitt's to lose.

Romney is the GOP's best shot...

that said - boy does he remind me of Kerry... Perry = Howard Dean... fires up the base, not ready for prime-time... Romney - nobody's first choice but he's "electable"... same calculus made by Dems in 04... just saying.

I can understand Christie not running as he would've been way behind the 8-ball starting so late.

But, this is a "L"oss for the GOP

and

it's a "L"oss for America.

Half the reason, even though Christie won't say it now that he was reconsidering running is that there is NOBODY that the GOP is running that excites the populace, heck they don't even excite the Republican party!

It seems like the GOP is running the 2012 Presidential campaign strategy using the same strategy they've used in Congress since 2008..do pretty much nothing and hope Obama falls on his face. Essentially the GOP is not really running a candidate for the highest office in the land in 2012..they're hoping their guy gets elected because Obama can't get out of his own way.

I would've been behind Christie 100%, I call him the Biddy Ryan of politics, he tells it like it is & if you don't like it - well tough sh$t. I've never worked for a campaign before but I would've volunteered for his. Obama - waste of time, Romney - you're kidding right, Cain - 9-9-what?, Perry - thanks for knowing you.

Here's hoping that in the fall of 2014 at a football game in Newark, DE that Christie will announce his candidacy for the 2016 election!

bluehenbillk wrote:I can understand Christie not running as he would've been way behind the 8-ball starting so late.

But, this is a "L"oss for the GOP

and

it's a "L"oss for America.

Half the reason, even though Christie won't say it now that he was reconsidering running is that there is NOBODY that the GOP is running that excites the populace, heck they don't even excite the Republican party!

It seems like the GOP is running the 2012 Presidential campaign strategy using the same strategy they've used in Congress since 2008..do pretty much nothing and hope Obama falls on his face. Essentially the GOP is not really running a candidate for the highest office in the land in 2012..they're hoping their guy gets elected because Obama can't get out of his own way.

I would've been behind Christie 100%, I call him the Biddy Ryan of politics, he tells it like it is & if you don't like it - well tough sh$t. I've never worked for a campaign before but I would've volunteered for his. Obama - waste of time, Romney - you're kidding right, Cain - 9-9-what?, Perry - thanks for knowing you.

Here's hoping that in the fall of 2014 at a football game in Newark, DE that Christie will announce his candidacy for the 2016 election!

Agreed.

AZGrizFan wrote:"Obama has failed the leadership test."
"My most important objective is to ensure Obama is a one-termer."
"Obama has failed the absolute litmust test of being a leader."

"There's no substitute for knowing how to lead. Everything else can be taught."

"He (Obama) has failed the American people."

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:these bullshit pundits saying he's "too fat" to run.

He probably is. Well, at least to run quickly.

He would have rolled through the primaries.

Chances he gets his stomach stapled between now and 2016?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Chances he gets his stomach stapled between now and 2016?

About the same as Obama getting capped.

Wedgebuster wrote:He would have rolled through the primaries.

You know, a person could take that two ways...

bluehenbillk wrote: It seems like the GOP is running the 2012 Presidential campaign strategy using the same strategy they've used in Congress since 2008..do pretty much nothing and hope Obama falls on his face.

Which is pretty much the strategy the Dems took from 2002 to 2008 - stay out of the way, don't do anything, and you win by default. Worked great for the Dems in '06 and '08, and it worked great for the GOP in '10. And it pretty much sucks for the rest of us that aren't hyperfocused on winning a political election at any and all costs.

89Hen wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:these bullshit pundits saying he's "too fat" to run.

He probably is. Well, at least to run quickly.

GannonFan wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote: It seems like the GOP is running the 2012 Presidential campaign strategy using the same strategy they've used in Congress since 2008..do pretty much nothing and hope Obama falls on his face.

Which is pretty much the strategy the Dems took from 2002 to 2008 - stay out of the way, don't do anything, and you win by default. Worked great for the Dems in '06 and '08, and it worked great for the GOP in '10. And it pretty much sucks for the rest of us that aren't hyperfocused on winning a political election at any and all costs.

Running as "I'm not him" is rarely an effective strategy for beating an incumbent. Think Kerry v. Bush... you've generally got to give the voters someone to vote "for"

as for the "hyperfocus"... yep. to the hacks who run campaigns, governing is an afterthought... this is more like sports, and campaign cycles are our seasons... and winning is all that matters. I'm not saying it's a healthy attitude (in fact I know it isn't) but that's the attitude.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
You'll be waiting a long time! Seriously, I think Romney can take Obama down if the economy stays the way it is. With Perry self-immolating by the day, it looks like the nomination is Mitt's to lose.

Romney is the GOP's best shot...

that said - boy does he remind me of Kerry... Perry = Howard Dean... fires up the base, not ready for prime-time... Romney - nobody's first choice but he's "electable"... same calculus made by Dems in 04... just saying.

I don't buy the Kerry=Romney argument. Kerry parlayed his antiwar "creds" and Kennedy patronage into a Senate seat, and married a wealthy second wife to bankroll his aspirations. Also, Kerry was, and is, an arrogant snob who lacks executive experience and, unlike his former Massachusetts colleague (Ted Kennedy), can't boast any significant legislative achievements. Romney's political and business backgrounds are both on the executive side, and while he's a wealthy man himself, he has no overlay of condescension. Not to say Romney's the perfect candidate -- he isn't -- but it's a stretch to say he's the same now as Kerry was in '04.

Ivytalk wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
Romney is the GOP's best shot...

that said - boy does he remind me of Kerry... Perry = Howard Dean... fires up the base, not ready for prime-time... Romney - nobody's first choice but he's "electable"... same calculus made by Dems in 04... just saying.

I don't buy the Kerry=Romney argument. Kerry parlayed his antiwar "creds" and Kennedy patronage into a Senate seat, and married a wealthy second wife to bankroll his aspirations. Also, Kerry was, and is, an arrogant snob who lacks executive experience and, unlike his former Massachusetts colleague (Ted Kennedy), can't boast any significant legislative achievements. Romney's political and business backgrounds are both on the executive side, and while he's a wealthy man himself, he has no overlay of condescension. Not to say Romney's the perfect candidate -- he isn't -- but it's a stretch to say he's the same now as Kerry was in '04.

Replace "Kennedy" with "LDS" and I don't see the difference.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
I don't buy the Kerry=Romney argument. Kerry parlayed his antiwar "creds" and Kennedy patronage into a Senate seat, and married a wealthy second wife to bankroll his aspirations. Also, Kerry was, and is, an arrogant snob who lacks executive experience and, unlike his former Massachusetts colleague (Ted Kennedy), can't boast any significant legislative achievements. Romney's political and business backgrounds are both on the executive side, and while he's a wealthy man himself, he has no overlay of condescension. Not to say Romney's the perfect candidate -- he isn't -- but it's a stretch to say he's the same now as Kerry was in '04.

Replace "Kennedy" with "LDS" and I don't see the difference.

Senator Ted LDS? Yup, all those Massachusetts Mormons put Mitt over the top in his quest for governor.

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Smart move by Christie to wait

+1
No sense in putting up a half assed effort ...

There's nothing half assed about Christie...