From Newsmax:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reconsidering his decision not to enter the 2012 presidential race — and he says he will let top Republican donors know within days about his plans, Newsmax has learned.
During the past few weeks, several leading Republican donors and fundraisers have been urging the popular Republican governor to reconsider his decision not to run and to enter the GOP primary.
These Christie supporters note that significant GOP support has remained on the sidelines of the primary fight. Many leading fundraisers have yet to commit to any current primary contender, including frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney…
In my view, the only person who could stop Christie would be Palin…if he gets in, he’s the Republican nominee for President…and most likely the next President of the United States of America.
Stay tuned.
Blogs For Victory 
I know neocon is not a fan, but it would pretty hard not too vote for him. I like his no nonsense approach and have confidence in his ability to confront the opposition head on and bring common sense back to government. I just don’t know much about his economic acumen.
Cluster,
He’s pretty solid on economics and, deep down, absolute on the most important issue of the day: Life (he actually had the courage to openly address a pro-life demonstration while governor). He has some soft spots, but I think he’d be ok.
His town hall meetings with teachers and other union members were a thing of beauty. When you actually expose the truth that the ruling class is so desperate to keep hidden, it wont take long to get everyone on board, including many democrats, and I haven’t seen anyone expose the truth more often, and any better than Christie.
cluster,
Christie is a member of the ruling class. He has spent his time attacking the middle and working class while protecting the rich..
Do you have anything to back this up, Casper? Any example of any attack on anyone? What rich has he protected? What has he done to hurt the poor and middle classes?
I would prefer Jeb Bush and Palin, and if I thought they were electable, Cain and Newt would be in front of Christie in my view. I really think if Christie got in the race now, Perry would be finished and Christies’ liberal views would evicerate him once Palin got in.
You know. .I do get a bnit tired of “Everyone who doesn’t agree with 100% of my views is a liberal!!!!”
The perfect can’t be an enemy of the good.
Christie is WRONG on islam, WRONG on AGW, WRONG on coal, Three BIG strikes, for me he is OUT!!
Today, Martin and Gov. Chris Christie filed a formal petition urging the federal Environmental Protection Agency to mandate a reduction in pollution blowing east from the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Pa., claiming the plant has violated the federal Clean Air Act for years.
UGH!!
Gov. Christie’s Strange Relationship with Radical Islam
IPT News
January 19, 2011
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s nomination of Sohail Mohammed to be a state judge shows the governor’s tin ear for radical Islam. Not only did he appoint a longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists to be a judge, but Christie has also turned a blind eye to the activities of one of Mohammed’s clients – radical imam Mohammed Qatanani, head of one of New Jersey’s largest mosques.
Qatanani has a history of Hamas support and was related by marriage to a leading Hamas operative in the West Bank. This fall, Qatanani will return to a New Jersey immigration court, where the Department of Homeland Security is fighting to have him deported. In his initial application for a green card filed in 1999, government lawyers say Qatanani failed to disclose a conviction in an Israeli military court for being a Hamas member and providing support to the terrorist group.
Oddly, Christie – a Republican who was then the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey – sided with Qatanani against DHS, allowing a top lieutenant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness at Qatanani’s first immigration trial, and publicly embracing the imam at a Ramadan breakfast at his mosque. Christie later appointed McKenna as New Jersey’s head of homeland security..
Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2506/gov-christie-strange-relationship-with-radical
His moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, when there is nothing to back up claims but hysteria, cut him off my own “possible” list. If he is this squishy as a governor, he will probably be even more so with national pressures on him.
He’s better than New Jersey has had, so leave him there where what he does will improve that state and have little impact outside the state.
It’s not that a candidate agrees or disagrees with me 100%. It’s how much they are going to roll back progressivism. If it was just the abortion issue, you would think Rick Perry’s candidacy would have been greeted with more enthusiasm from social conservatives. Well it wasn’t.
It’s the same with Mr. Christie. His support of a islamist for the NJ bench combined with his support of the agw agenda is a big issue. He is not very friendly to the 2nd amendment either.
Don’t take my word for it. This information can be found by anyone.
The big question with Mr. Christie is, how much of the progressive agenda will he work to undue? In my opinion the answer is little if any.
GMB,
As I said, he’s got some soft spots…but now AGW legislation is ever going to get through a GOP Congress, nor will any gun control measure. It is hoped that the learning curve on Islamism will be quick once Christie starts receiving daily intelligence briefings.
Over all, he understands a great deal of the problem – that corrupt interests are preventing reform because reform means corrupt interests no longer get a free ride. Christie is not my ideal candidate…but I think if he gets in he takes all of Romney’s support and most of Perry’s…the only person who could stop him at that point would be Palin, if she gets in.
Mark,
Are you saying that Gov. Christie is uniformed right now? Where has he had his head in the last 30 years? If he does not know a radical islamist now, when will he? As far as agw or gun control, what happens if we get a donkrat controlled congress? Would not Mr. Christie cooperate with them on such issues?
Ones past positions should not bear on todays issues?
Christie = mcLame 2
a good governor?
that is up to the people of NJ to decide.
If he is the best we can do on the national lever we are screwed id rather have mittens.
Neo, very much agree. Romney will screw conservatives the minute it is opportune. This is known and expected.What you know you can prepare for.
With Mr. Christie, you just don’t know.
GMB,
The Islamist threat hasn’t been his area of responsibility…there is nothing in his experience to indicate any deep thought upon the matter. One can’t know everything…
As for gun control – yeah, I suppose if the Democrats managed to take Congress at some point during a Christie Administration there might be some action along those lines…but nothing can be known for certain.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chris_Christie.htm
Chris Christie is a Moderate Populist Conservative.
a RINO!!
GMB
I really like the man, I just do not want him to be POTUS.
NJ gov? great for them.
“but nothing can be known for certain.” Mark. Which is great big minus in my book.
Neo, I agree. He is just the tonic New Jersey needs. New Jersey needs many more years of him.
GMB,
All of the candidates have great minuses in my book, too…only Bobby Jindal, in my view, combines the intellectual background, the executive experience and the moral clarity to fully comprehend the problems we have and come to the proper solutions. But as he’s not running, I must look elsewhere. Second on the list is Sarah Palin; she falls short of Jindal on intellectual background, has a bit less executive experience (but still more than Obama did on January 20th, 2009) and also has the moral clarity. But, she’s also not running (yet). Going down the list, I come across Michell Bachmann and Herman Cain…and then there is “everyone else”. The bottom line, though, is that “everyone else” still works out to “much better than Obama”.
“The bottom line, though, is that “everyone else” still works out to “much better than Obama”.”
This all depends on your point of view. From where I stand I see no difference between bams and Romney. Both are progressives and will work to implement the progressive agenda. The only difference between the two is the letter after thier last name.
Since I have never hesitated to repeat myself, let me do so again.
When Barack Obama came on the national scene, some people started to claim that he was not eligible for the presidency because he was not a “natural born citizen”, citing the fact that his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. I dismissed this as Tinfoil Hat territory, the Kook Fringe being all kook-fringey. I dismissed them rather disdainfully.
Then, finally, one of them posted some background for the claim, and I read the post, and I went to the links, and I found the arguments compelling. I am not saying I was convinced, but I found enough evidence to make me believe this is a serious and legitimate question, and one which must be addressed by whatever is the proper venue—Congress, the courts, whatever.
I am not taking a side, because I just don’t know enough and have not heard legal arguments for either side in a contemporary setting. But I do know this arose and created some controversy and conflict, and it seems logical to assume it will again.
I contend that many legal issues remain in a kind of limbo because they are simply not relevant, and then when they do become relevant they suddenly rise to the stature of being real problems. I never gave much thought to citizenship in this country before Obama’s citizenship became an issue, and I found that it showcased several of these gray areas where there are kind-of laws and general understandings and vague references to what people think might be laws and contradictory legislations and so on.
Without taking a position on Obama’s personal situation, I could see how, in this more modern world where people do move around so freely from country to country, these questions would arise again, and no doubt lead to even more strife and conflict. I have been arguing for years now that these issues should be addressed and ruled on, so they are no longer vague and indistinct, but clear and adjudicated. I have been called names—well, actually, just one, “birther”, which is meaningless anyway as it has nothing at all to do with the questions I have.
I had hoped that once we got beyond the Obama presidency, and the immediate emotional component was removed, we could address these issues calmly and get them resolved with less hostility and animosity. But now one of them has reared its head, and I contend that it has to be addressed and resolved immediately, before moving forward.
Briefly, some of the issues I found disturbing because they are so vague are:
1. What is the procedure when a child is born with multiple citizenships and we do not allow this? There is a law, or kind-of-law, that says the child should not be subject to the decision of a parent, and at the age of 21 can choose which citizenship he wants to retain—and at times in our history, that if he chooses the U.S. citizenship he must renounce the others. Yet there seems to be no formal process for this, or means of recording it. This seems sloppy, and I think it should be addressed, and a formal procedure implemented.
2. What is the procedure or law for renouncing American citizenship? If one declares himself to be a citizen of another country, is that a renunciation of his American citizenship? As far as I can tell, a person born with multiple citizenships including US citizenship could move freely among them, using an Australian passport for a while and then declaring his Russian citizenship and then, when it is convenient, bringing out an American birth certificate and saying “Now I’ve decided I want to be considered an American”. Again, it seems vague and sloppy, and rather dismissive of the importance of American citizenship.
3. What does “natural born citizen” mean? It is a rather clumsy phrase, and I have always wondered why men who were usually so precise in their wording would use it, and now that I have done some reading and research I think it needs to be addressed.
I really really like both Rubio and Jindal. I would be very distressed at having them removed from contention for the presidency. But the law is supposed to be the law, not just what one side wants.
So I contend, very strenuously, that both Jindal and Rubio need to seek out a legal ruling on their status as “natural born citizens” and get this legal issue resolved, at the very least, before we start to promote them for a position where their status is going to be unclear.
Before anyone snarls at me that “natural born citizen” OBVIOUSLY means anyone born in the United States, let me head that off by saying this is the argument I also made, and now question. The most obvious element of this, and the only one I am going to mention here, is that this was not the case when the Constitution was written, and citizenship in general was not granted to anyone born here till 1868, long after the phrase “natural born citizen” was included, so there is certainly a case for looking more closely at what the Founders meant when they used that very specific phrase.
Aside from that, all I can do is encourage anyone interested to google the phrase, as I did, and look into the historical arguments and writings.
I really do not want these citizenship and eligibility issues to be a part of our electoral process again. I thought the Democratic Party was negligent, to say the least, in ignoring these issues and forging ahead because they had a candidate they liked, and I would have the same opinion of the GOP if it did the same.