Monday, December 20, 2010

Attacking Chris Christie, Again.

There's a great derogatory character the Left could use to describe Chris Christie...I thought of it as soon as he burst on to the scene and I can't believe they haven't. Especially in light of all the hit pieces that are beginning to emerge. Obviously I'm not going to give them the gift of revealing it in print...

The problem with someone becoming popular (and more importantly becoming popular when you have an R after your name) is people want to be the one to publish bad things about you. Most certainly all the Left-wing journalists in Jersey and Philly are having a field day with Christie. Now this is more than just a dilemma for Governor Christie. This becomes a problem for all of us because we have to sift through and decide what to believe.

At the end of the day what do most of us know about Chris Christie other than he takes on the unions and gets ragged on for his weight? So, as the bashing articles come out, we have to wade through the information.

The latest, an article in Philadelphia Magazine called "Mad Man" paints him as a career politician prone to histrionics that has donated to Planned Parenthood and championed gun restrictions all before he became the Tea Party darling:

"Some of his positions seem pretty moderate. Unlike Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers, Christie doesn’t talk about border fences or the constitutionality of the Commerce Clause. He’s Catholic but rarely mentions it. (“To him, I’d guess [faith] has nothing to do with politics,” says Tom Wilson, a Republican lobbyist and Christie campaign adviser. “It’s an irrelevant topic.”) He’s an ex-prosecutor who supports gun control and once donated to Planned Parenthood (although he’s now pro-life). He said it was wrong for Republicans to “demagogue” on immigration reform or make a “political football” out of the mosque at Ground Zero, and he worked with the Obama administration to set up a $141 million insurance pool under the health-care reform law." (Read the entire article)

(Since the magazine's article painted Christie as so angry, I found it interesting that when you Google him for images it's not until page 9 you find a sort-of angry face...)

So with candidates starting to test the 2010 waters and the MSM working to protect Obama's re-election does the Right navigate the information coming out?

No comments: