If he is planning on running for president it certainly is not going to be in the Republican party.  His most recent tirade against the party is probably pushing things a bit too far.  Of course the Republican party is becoming more and more like the Dem party and viewing other boards all the conservatives are registering as either independents or libertarians.   

He sounded like a whiny Dem during his rant. I see him changing parties before he runs again for gov.  He is doing a good job for the state which is important and if he is a Dem he can stay there as long as the state lets him.  Not sure if they have term limits there.  But clearly he is not a good standing member of a party that theoretically stands for lower taxes and less government.   

I thought that Christie was a decent conservative, but it turns out that he was only a logical, common sense guy on fiscal matters, but completely open to anything that benefits him & his in all other matters.

He ends up looking rather liberal socially, and more than willing to help the Obama campaign if it means a payoff for NJ.  Now he's raging about a principled GOP stand against loading up disaster relief with unrelated pork, so he really does look just about as conservative as, oh...........Specter, Snow, Boehner, etc.

Too bad, I thought he was one of the bright spots for the future, but obviously not.  We've lost too many presumptive standard bearers in the last year.  The allure of the WH parties, golf outings, bailouts, other federal windfalls, etc.........must be too strong to resist and keep any core values.

Hmmmm. How should I put this - BULLSHIT. Live on Long Island. I have some Idea of the dangers of building by the sea shore. I don't care what you lost to Sandie, that happens to be one of the disadvantages of living by the sea shore. I'm sure that the homes and businesses that are down on the shore aren't inviting total strangers down to take advantage of living there, so don't expect those same total strangers to reimburse you when some of those advantages turn around. Perhaps I'm simply tired of people feeling sorry for other people, and making themselves feel better by throwing tax dollars at them. AND the problem with this bill is how little of it is Sandie relief and how much of it is solid pork.

Ya know, this really frosts my ass, when did it become the Feds responsibility to bail out States that have really bad storms, or fires, floods etc?
I'm from the old school that if you want to live on a boat, then you better have a damned raft in case it sinks, live in the forest, clear your property of brush and trees by the house, live on the sea shore....screw it, you're on your own unless you can afford the insurance.
But whining that the Govt wasn't there to kiss your boo boo is Bull Shit!

Can't have Marxism without a nanny state.  That is all.

To turn a phrase, "were a kinder gentler" kind of Marxism....
I about puked when Bush said that.

I'm not going to belabor this issue with you.  Just a couple of points.  First, I did not advocate the use of taxpayer funds to bail anyone out.  That seems to be the focus of your wrath, so you can keep your coarse language.  Second, there were houses and businesses that suffered major damage that were some distance from a shoreline and would not have logically expected such damage.  Third, even the houses close to the shore, many having stood for decades before being destroyed, so it would be understandable if the owners did not consider it likely that the house would experience a total loss.  The likelihood of the damage especially for the houses away from the shore might be the same likelihood as your house getting destroyed by an earthquake.  Assume you don't have coverage for that.

I can sort of understand his wrath. I live in central NC, and pay higher insurance rates, so that the people that live by the beach don't have to pay ultra high premiums. At the same time, many of the beaches have started installing parking meters, or have become private meccas for the wealthy. As you can imagine, as a lowly peon, I think that my taxes and higher insurance rates should entitle me to spend some time at the beach without having to pay extra, or be disallowed because I am not an owner.

The government shouldn't be bailing anyone out; at least not with free money.

If the government puts money into the rebuilding, it should be recouped from the insurance companies of those that had insurance, and should be considered a low interest, (1.5%), loan to those that didn't. That way, rebuilding begins quickly, and the cost to the taxpayer is zilch.

These days buildings in earthquake zones are built to withstand earthquakes. And unlike earthquakes, storms are a common, foreseeable,  risk of living near the shore. BTW, I don't particularly give a damn about your dislike of my coarse language. You can expect profanity when you're caught reaching into someone else's pocket. Voluntary contributions to some kind of relief fund is one thing, demands for my tax dollars are another.

I have to agree.

I sent $50 to the Red Cross for Katrina. It was all I could afford, and I knew it was going to the people that needed it.

There is no reason for people that live in Wyoming to be expected to pay their earned dollars, (through government), to help hurricane victims, through taxation. The government spends most of the money on administration, (or pork), with very little going to the people that need it.

The states that have coastal areas, as well as the states in tornado alley, as well as states that live in earthquake zones...............have a responsibility of their own to prepare for disasters; as do the individual communities and the owners of homes and businesses.

There's a word for having a centalized government taking care of everything.............it's called "socialism", and it's never succeeded in the long term.

I think Christie is grandstanding a bit. By pushing the vote back a few days will not make much difference. It will be months before any of the funds reach those that need it. He should be railing against those that want to take advantage of the tragedy to bring some bacon home.

I have to agree.

I sent $50 to the Red Cross for Katrina. It was all I could afford, and I knew it was going to the people that needed it.
There is no reason for people that live in Wyoming to be expected to pay their earned dollars, (through government), to help hurricane victims, through taxation. The government spends most of the money on administration, (or pork), with very little going to the people that need it.

The states that have coastal areas, as well as the states in tornado alley, as well as states that live in earthquake zones...............have a responsibility of their own to prepare for disasters; as do the individual communities and the owners of homes and businesses.

There's a word for having a centalized government taking care of everything.............it's called "socialism", and it's never succeeded in the long term.

Not if you sent it to the Red Cross.  They fill their pockets first with money.