Chris Christie to endorse Romney

Note to self: Never vote for Chris Christie if he runs for President.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chris-christie…

"In what could be a game changer for Mitt Romney's 2012 bid, Chris Christie will endorse the former Massachusetts governor at an event in New Hampshire today.

According to the Romney campaign, the New Jersey governor will join Romney at a press availability at 3pm ET in Hanover, N.H—the site of tonight's Washington Post/Bloomberg Republican primary debate.

Christie's move comes just a week after he opted against his own bid for the GOP nomination.

While the governor declined to say last week when he might endorse in the contest, there have long been hints he might throw his backing to Romney.

Earlier this year, Christie held a dinner for Romney at the governor's mansion in New Jersey. He's also publicly defended Romney amid criticism over his health care reform efforts in Massachusetts.

The big question is whether social conservatives and tea party Republicans who had been hoping Christie would seek the nomination will now take a second look at Romney--just as the many of the donors who had been holding out for a possible Christie 2012 bid have now transferred their support to Romney."

 

Christie is a winner. He can spot a winner. It should be apparent by now, to anyone with half a brain, that Romney is going to be our next president - Why shouldn't he endorse him.... Is he perfect, no - but he is the best option available and far better than the current occupant of the WH.

 
MistaBooks:
Christie is a winner. He can spot a winner. It should be apparent by now, to anyone with half a brain, that Romney is going to be our next president - Why shouldn't he endorse him.... Is he perfect, no - but he is the best option available and far better than the current occupant of the WH.

Romney is hardily far better than Obama. More of the same would be more appropriate. Just another establishment placeholder.

 
MNT:
Romney is hardily far better than Obama. More of the same would be more appropriate. Just another establishment placeholder.
Bingo. Same east coast neoliberal/neoconservative BS. The main difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama won't drag us into any more wars without our allies.

Obama's domestic policy can be managed if Republicans control a house of congress. But you can't manage a neoconservative when it comes to foreign policy.

 

Two northeastern-educated neocon pols sure think alike.

No effect. Still voting for Ron Paul. Will vote for Obama if that is what it takes to keep Romney out of office. Both are closet liberals, both will spend lots of taxpayer money; Obama, however, will not charge into expensive wars without help from Europe or other allies.

Libertarians made the same mistake in 2000 voting for Bush. I'm not going to repeat that mistake.

 

While Christie may or may not realistically think that Romney will be president, he DOES understand that this is good politics for both himself and the GOP. I think Christie will take a muted "Palin Approach", and start making himself a media figure. I don't forsee him leaving his current post either or acting like an idiot, so his credibility will likely build over the next few years.

Thing is, Jersey is an incredibly corrupt state, so he's going to likely become extremely isolated from the locals and politically risk averse in order to keep his nose clean. I'd vote for him in 2016 if he ran. A lot of the changes he made were very painful, but really DID have to happen in order for the state to stay solvent.

Get busy living
 

The New Yorker has an interesting article about the electoral math and what it will take for Obama or Romney to win.

Personally, I've been a Romney supporter since 2008, but right now I would vote for Huntsman over him. Huntsman is less hawkish, has more foreign policy experience, and has almost 0 baggage besides being Mormon and part of the Obama administration.

Regardless, I will vote for the Republican candidate next November, not because I especially dislike Obama but because I truly hate his base.

 

Christie is also incredibly overweight, and would probably die due to the stresses of office. It would also make America even more of a joke to other countries, seeing as how everyone thinks we're all stereotypically fat anyways. Not sure why Christie would be better, seems like a lot of people have no clue as to why he would better, or than that view as a panacea for the lackluster candidates now.

Is anyone familiar with his policy stances? Serious question, I'm not really informed on how he differs from Romney/Perry/Cain/Paul.

 

Fiscally he looks a lot like Perry. But the guy ran the federal prosecutor's office like a tyrant. When you elect a bully as POTUS, you wind up with someone like Nixon or Bush.

Christie makes a great conservative governor for a historically liberal state with a liberal justice system when we have liberals running the show in Washington. If we sent him to Washington, he'd instruct the NSA to forward him a recording of every phone call placed by Nancy Pelosi that mentioned his name.

 

Not necessarily. We have a lot of fixed rate debt on our books that can be inflated away and we can always make some tough choices on entitlement spending when the barbarians show up to the gate. The problem is going to be our long-term obligations to military vets and the wars that we are involved in, as well as inflation-adjusted obligations. We're not in trouble there yet, but we will be if we keep getting wrapped up in unilateral wars.

 
Best Response

I'm a Romney guy but would have supported Christie over Romney. I LOVE Christie. I LOVE that man! I've never seen a Republican waltz into such a corrupt banana republic (as New Jersey is) and just pound the liberals into total submission. Schwarzenneggar was a total failture in California--you can't be a moderate and effect change in a banana republic. Christie was a solitary soldier in the war against NJ corruption while a federal prosecutor. He's completely turned around the New Jersey budget without fear of voter reprisal (and as a result he's still at 50+% approval rating). And, of course, Christie did what's rarely been done anywhere in the United States, let alone in the People's Republic of New Jersey--successfully take on the most corrupted and entrenched union of them all, the teachers' union.

The Left's vile hatred of Christie is endorsement enough for me. And his endorsement of Mitt Romney is further validation of what I already believed--Romney is the man of the hour to take on and defeat the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupted man to ever hold the Office of the President of the United States.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
I'm a Romney guy but would have supported Christie over Romney. I LOVE Christie. I LOVE that man! I've never seen a Republican waltz into such a corrupt banana republic (as New Jersey is) and just pound the liberals into total submission. Schwarzenneggar was a total failture in California--you can't be a moderate and effect change in a banana republic. Christie was a solitary soldier in the war against NJ corruption while a federal prosecutor. He's completely turned around the New Jersey budget without fear of voter reprisal (and as a result he's still at 50+% approval rating). And, of course, Christie did what's rarely been done anywhere in the United States, let alone in the People's Republic of New Jersey--successfully take on the most corrupted and entrenched union of them all, the teachers' union.

The Left's vile hatred of Christie is endorsement enough for me. And his endorsement of Mitt Romney is further validation of what I already believed--Romney is the man of the hour to take on and defeat the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupted man to ever hold the Office of the President of the United States.

Great fucking post. Although Huntsman is my first choice, I am pumped up about Romney and love Christie. If we lose in 2012, Christie is my first choice for 2016. I am concerned though about him losing re-election in 2013, most likely to Cory Booker.

Romney may be boring and not conservative enough for the base, but his intelligence, business experience, and executive experience, are essential in this uncertain economic times. America made a HUGE mistake in 2008 by electing a man who have never held a job in the private sector and never actually ran anything. The media's glorification of Obama and liberal white guilt played a major role in his election. Now we are seeing what I knew all along, that Obama is an empty suit, an intellectual lightweight, and a liberal ideologue who does not understand the economy nor what makes America great.

 

I am all for Christie as president and would vote for Romney IF it were strictly a fiscal position.

But it's not. The man will control our armed forces and intelligence agencies. We saw all of the intelligence chicanery that went on under Nixon and, to a lesser extent, under Bush. We also saw how much damage they did on foreign policy with Vietnam, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, and (under Bush) Iraq.

If you elect a Northeastern closet liberal to be president like we had with Bush and Nixon, you get wars, folks listening to your phone calls, and a bully as president. Christie is an excellent governor for NJ, but even though he's got 10-20 IQ points on the guy, he will make a worse POTUS than Bush.

We need Ron Paul as president. Failing that, Rick Perry will at least get us through the next four years without making the mess worse. But if my choices are between a closet liberal spender who will start expensive wars and listen to my phone calls and an open liberal spender who won't start wars without help from Europe and can at least be controlled by a Republican congress, I will take Obama over Romney.

 

The Republican controlled Congress is all I care about. I am more than happy to watch Obama wither and rot as the Republicans destroy everything he tries to do. Maybe 4 more years of him will solidify how horrible he is as a President.

 

Huh? Vietnam?

Besides Iraq/Afghanistan, virtually every war of the last 100 years has been started or waged by Democrats. World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War. The Gulf War in 1990 is probably the most "legitimate" war ever fought by the United States--it had overwhelming UN support, congressional approval, and Bush 41, at his height, had a 90+% approval rating during the Gulf War. How the Vietnam War can be placed at the feet of Republicans when it was waged by LBJ, one of the most liberal presidents in history, is somewhat beyond me. And the war in Libya is probably the most absurd war waged by the west since the Falklan Islands--it's served no purpose other than to empower Islamic radicals.

The problem with liberals, of course, is they don't know history. It's truly an immutable law. How conservatives can have Vietnam thrust upon them is breathtaking. Truly breathtaking.

Array
 

Well, Nixon escalated in Vietnam after promising to get us out. He also overthrew Allende in Chile, printed our way off of Bretton Woods, and played a whole lot of games with the 1972 election.

Everyone knows where Obama stands. Everyone knows where Ron Paul stands. Congress can keep them under control. Nobody knows where Romney stands.

This is GWB a second time. A republican congress can keep Obama under control. If it's Obama vs. Romney, I honestly think we're safer with Obama and control of the house or at least a strong minority in the Senate to block stupid bills. We just had eight years of a RINO in the white house getting Republicans and Democrats to increase spending. We don't need another neoconservative.

 

1) Please tell me how the war was Un Constitutional? Congress and the President authorized it. Go read the Constitution dude.

2) We have an all volunteer force. No ones kids are canon fodder. Soldiers are paid to follow the orders of the President of the USA.

Yeah, we should become isolationist. Because we don't depend on outside markets to set price or foreign countries for goods and services. Please see the oil embargo and the resulting economic pain that happened as a result.

Funny, numerous friends of mine have served overseas and none of them complain as much as people who never served in the military.

 

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. "

Congress authorizing war:

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-13/news/mn-374_1_persian-gulf

 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

" "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term."

Congress and the President voted for the Gulf. It was approved and was within the Constitution.

2) Sold a bill of goods? Told they would be only on humanitarian missions? Please cite your source. The military is a war fighting element of the government. Anyone who thinks they will be making sand castles is a moron.

You sign on the line and Uncle Sam owns your ass.

It is silly to expect only military veterans to send troops to war. In fact, civilian control of the military is ideal. If we have Generals running the USA we would be in many more battles.

Hitler and Mussolini were both wounded war vets. Didn't stop them from starting horrendous wars.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2011/01/chicago-murder-rate-the-…

435 people were murdered in Chicago in 2010. About the same as in Iraq. One US city is more dangerous (yes, not a perfect example, but to put things into perspective).

Try again. Thanks.

 

The War Powers Act, passed by Congress and signed by the president is, to this date, the law of the land and is a tool passed by Congress to allow it to exercise its constitutional authority to make war. There is no "constitutional" format for Congress to declare war so Congress made a law clarifying how it can give its authorization to make war. This is the reason the "necessary and proper clause" was added to the Constitution--it allows for Congress to make rules and laws necessary to carry out its constitutional mandates.

Array
 

Yeah, because quoting a source that quotes the document is somehow improper. That is what is in the Constitution and it saved some time.

Congressional Authorization to use military force in Iraq

http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/library/gulfwar.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Iraqi deaths are not relevant to the debate. We are talking about American deaths and America soldiers.

Please try again.

 

Bush 41 had the legal authority granted by Congress under the necessary and proper clause to wage war with congressional authorization required within a certain number of days (I believe it's 60 days). Bush 41 was well within his legal rights--there's not a reasonable, rational person in the United States that argues otherwise. The War Powers Act was Congress' method of setting the rules to make war, authority which was granted to it in the Constitution but not laid out with specificity in how to enact its authority, thus the addition of the necessary and proper clause to the Constitution.

Array
 

Well, he was well within his constitutional rights under the the interpretation we've had of the constitution in the last two thirds of the 20th century. That doesn't mean invading Iraq was all that bright of a move.

I would much rather see a president who believed that regardless of what the SCOTUS said, he didn't have the authority to wage a war unless the country or one of its allies was attacked. The world is a much friendlier place and taxes tend to be a lot lower if we follow the Cassus Belli system that the world followed from the Treaty of Westphalia until the Vietnam War.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
Well, he was well within his constitutional rights under the the interpretation we've had of the constitution in the last two thirds of the 20th century. That doesn't mean invading Iraq was all that bright of a move.

I would much rather see a president who believed that regardless of what the SCOTUS said, he didn't have the authority to wage a war unless the country or one of its allies was attacked. The world is a much friendlier place and taxes tend to be a lot lower if we follow the Cassus Belli system that the world followed from the Treaty of Westphalia until the Vietnam War.

I think this a pretty good analysis and I agree with you on the second part.

ANT- are you a strict Constitutionalist or not? Why are you so OK with using the prevailing "interpretation" of the Constitution for foreign policy issues but not when it comes to economic issues?

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

I would not say I am absolutely strict, but I am not a big fan of the living document approach either.

In the Constitution it says Congress and authorize war. It is none specific on the absolute resolution or process. Congress and the President authorized the war.

Maybe the contention is that the President massed troops without consent and then asked for final consent when the preparations were already complete. I am fine with debating that topic, but the actual invasion was sanctioned by all the appropriate bodies.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

This is an excerpt from Article 1, Section 8.

I think within the reading of the Constitution and the Congressional vote on the issue, the invasion of Iraq was within the Constitution.

Iraq II was even approved by Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_U…

I am still searching for the Congressional Authorization to declare war on Libya though. Having a tough time finding it . . .

 

IP - Considering that the Defense budget is only 20% of the overall Federal budget, I fail to see how much lower taxes should be. You still need a ready and trained, standing army, to be ready for these attacks. When you look at the break down of the DoD budget, over 25% of it is salary and benefits. Another ~25% is operations and maintenance, which will decrease as the wars overseas are wound down.

Defense is an appropriate and necessary job of the Federal budget. I am more than happy to pay taxes to support a strong military, which will ensure that the USA remains dominant now and in the future.

Remember, you can use the stick or the carrot. It is nice to know that the USA has the biggest stick on the block. The benefits we reap as a nation because of this are immense. Just wait until your predictions come true and commodities become scarce.

In a world where hunger and starvation rule, we will need a strong military to keep order and secure our borders (and shipping lanes) more so than ever before.

 

Look. I don't support the system we've had for the past 70 years, but as a more pragmatic libertarian, I'm not violently opposed to it. Interpretations of the constitution do not change overnight and the same stuff that gives the feds powers to do very important stuff that involve basic human rights- like protecting the environment- also give it the ability to do dumb stuff like shove maximum speed limits and minimum drinking ages down states' throats.

What I CAN ask for is a POTUS who won't start stupid wars while thinking he's too smart to listen to anyone else. Romney might be a brilliant guy- I'm not sure he's all that wise. Obama's got a little more wisdom than Romney on the foreign policy front in that he won't start a war without allies helping to make his share of the bill either a minority or at least down to a plurality.

 

20% works out to $800 Billion. That's $8,000 per year per US household, or the ability to go from our current graduated tax scale to a ~17% flat tax. Also left out of your budget is VA costs. Treating parapalegics and people with other long-term injuries coming back from Iraq is going to be the REAL killer. I think one of the major consulting firms back in 2007 estimated that cost at $2 Trillion over the next 25 years just for Iraq.

Yes, we need aircraft carriers, tanks, and a strong airforce. They should be used to fend off an invasion from China rather than start stupid wars that get people permanently disabled.

 

I'm surprised that you guys aren't hotter on Romney. Have you all forgotten that he's from the BUYSIDE?

I'm probably going to write-in Ron Paul, but I think the next 4 years a wash regardless of who wins. There isn't too great a difference between Obama and Romney, and quite frankly I'm not sure how much more the executive branch can do.

The biggest roadblock at the moment is fragmentation of Congress. The Tea Party has crippled the Republicans in Congress, and I fear that OWS will do the same (or worse) to the Democrats. As long as unemployment remains around 10%, I doubt the cheap political rhetoric will cool down.

Time to move to Hong Kong?

 
I'm surprised that you guys aren't hotter on Romney. Have you all forgotten that he's from the BUYSIDE?
Many of us have a little too much experience working with guys like Romney.
I'm probably going to write-in Ron Paul, but I think the next 4 years a wash regardless of who wins. There isn't too great a difference between Obama and Romney, and quite frankly I'm not sure how much more the executive branch can do.
Romney is going to lose the nomination in a landslide. Conservatives tend to rally around the strongest fiscal/social conservative in every election. Last time it was Giuliani vs. McCain; this time it will be Romney vs. Perry, Cain, or Paul.
The biggest roadblock at the moment is fragmentation of Congress. The Tea Party has crippled the Republicans in Congress, and I fear that OWS will do the same (or worse) to the Democrats. As long as unemployment remains around 10%, I doubt the cheap political rhetoric will cool down.
In other words, the anti-corporate crowd has stopped their parties from helping big business at the expense of taxpayers. How is that a bad thing?
 

It's a bad thing in the short run, which is mostly what I'm concerned with.

Unemployment can turn into structural unemployment-regardless of your politics, I think we all agree that we can't have 10% of the population unemployed, or 20% unemployed+underemployed. The Fed is out of magic bullets, and the only way we're getting out of this shithole is an intelligently planned fiscal stimulus (yeah, yeah I know big government blah blah). The odds of that happening just went from 25% to 0%, IMO.

But just as a thought experiment: what if Citi or BoA needs a bailout in 3 years? Will there be enough political will for it? I don't think there will be with the Tea Party and OWS now in play. We BARELY survived 08 thanks to some (probably unconstitutional) actions by Paulson & Co. I'm not confident that anyone in government will have the balls to take another one.

I'll agree that corporate lobbyists have too much influence. Campaign finance reform is what "the 99%" should be targeting, but I'm skeptical that will even be on the plate for the next couple of years. Instead what we're going to end up with in Congress (more so than usual) is a bunch of populist morons who are more interested in self-promotion than public policy.

But even more abstractly, having a wide spectrum of beliefs and goals in an organization will inevitably lead to poor results. That's my issue with OWS. They're a heterogeneous mix of communists, idiot liberal arts hipsters, anarchists, Ron Paul Libertarians, environmentalists, etc. Some want to end fractional reserve banking, some want to cancel out all debt (whatever the fuck that means). The only thing unifying them is dissatisfaction. Great for forming drum circles in Central Park. Terrible for passing a sensible budget.

I hope that I'll be proven wrong, but I feel that this is the going to be central theme for next couple of years. I am hopee all this political turmoil will improve the system in the long run. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Dolor assumenda aut hic et unde voluptatem voluptatem. Ipsam impedit illo quasi quisquam.

Culpa deleniti blanditiis dignissimos. Qui magni cumque voluptas corporis natus. Distinctio aliquid sit ipsum deleniti.

Molestiae possimus rerum pariatur ut autem ex. Molestiae voluptas velit dolor consequuntur quo molestiae. Nemo saepe accusantium id aliquid doloribus quia. Id nostrum vero dolores assumenda voluptas. Voluptatibus voluptatibus quam sapiente facilis autem et ratione. Consectetur eos nihil et doloribus quibusdam. Quas dolorum et sequi quibusdam delectus iure nesciunt.

Qui nemo dolorem sunt. Culpa asperiores nihil quibusdam aliquid ut. Et tenetur fugiat quos molestiae esse voluptatem.

 

Dolorem deserunt velit nulla dignissimos qui voluptatem doloribus. Officiis sed expedita officiis deserunt reiciendis officia eos architecto. Molestiae quos deleniti labore illo non inventore.

Vero cum dolorem dolor sequi aut. Atque minima in ipsum maxime eum eius. Consequatur distinctio reiciendis tempora est corporis aut itaque.

Dolor quia quia molestiae. Aut culpa pariatur dolorum corporis quibusdam quia. Odit vel nam perspiciatis est aut. Sed natus dolor et beatae.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
5
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
10
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”