How Chris Christie can contrast himself with his opponents

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christie, actually, would be a much better fit for D.C. than Paul.  Unlike Paul, he has actually gotten things done.  The only major accomplishment that can possibly be attributed to Paul is NSA reform.  (Emphasis on 'possibly'; I doubt he had anything to do with why Obama is pursuing reform now.)  You could, of course, argue that this will all help Christie, but most Republicans simply have no interest in getting things done.  They want someone who does not fit in the D.C. atmosphere.

If you want to run as a candidate who's for doing things, run as a Democrat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not... quite.  The 2010 race was the only Republican-held seat Democrats seriously contested that year.  Paul very well might not be a senator today if it weren't for Jack Conway's "Aqua Buddha" ad.  Even so, the favorite son/daughter effect is quickly diminishing.  It didn't help Gore/Lieberman, it didn't help Kerry/Edwards, it didn't help Romney/Ryan, and McCain barely won Arizona due to his seniority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

>2014
>Republicans who still think it's 2004

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I've said, this is partly true.  After all, Christie is an executive and Paul is not.  Paul may have done comparably little to Christie, but even I would concede that Paul has done a hell of a lot more than a good portion of his colleagues.  Or, at least, he's been able to establish enough relevance to be considered a formidable candidate, which is kind of the game today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please stop using slogans that no one's ever used since 1996.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I'd love to see Christie use that.  Please make the next campaign about social issues and brag that you've overseen the closure of six women's health facilities.  That'll do you well in the general!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, but what are the odds that those issues will play that much of a role in 2016?  The only plank of the GOP platform on national security that unites everyone is: "Benghazi."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh.  Ryan doesn't really have that "insider stench."  Ryan's street cred comes from the fact that he's a policy wonk and actually thinks about what he says as he's saying it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're overestimating the effect that this will have.  If this is 2/3 of Christie's argument, he will lose.

Also, bridges.

Anyway, most of what you said can be attributed to Scott Walker and John Kasich.  I really don't get why a Republican, at this point, would be supporting Christie now when there are plenty of shinier toys available.

If I were a Republican who wanted to win (not that I'm trying to help the Republicans and, let's face it, a forum post isn't going to make a difference), I'd be firmly in the Walker camp.  The only problem is that he knows almost nothing about foreign policy and Clinton would trounce him in that debate.  My guess is that Walker would choose someone slightly more military-oriented as his veep if he were to win the nomination.

EDIT: Missed one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if this is true, but that wouldn't be very unusual for a Republican from, well, Pennsylvania.  And I'm not sure how this would play out as anything more than a brief mention in a debate.