McPherson: Chris Christie, Demagogue-in-Chief

In an act of hypocrisy and grandstanding always befitting that serpentine class known as politicians, 2016 presidential contender and New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R) is hoping to build his base by highlighting his positions – while denouncing Kentucky senator Rand Paul (R) for trying to build his base by highlighting his positions.

Worse, the bridge-closing behemoth wants Paul to be hauled before congress for daring to express views not to the liking of His Rotundity.

As a guest on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Christie said,

In townhall meetings, people are really worried about ISIS, they’re really worried about the threat of terrorism. And that’s why what Sen. Rand Paul has done to make this country weaker and more vulnerable is a terrible thing. And for him to raise money off of it is disgraceful, it’s disgraceful. And as the only guy who has used the Patriot Act, in this race, as a former prosecutor, what he’s done is -- we’re going to look back on this. Listen this morning. we’re going to look back on this, and he should be in front of hearings, in front of Congress, if there’s another attack, not the director of the FBI or the director of the CIA.

In case you missed the meaning behind that rambling, spittle-laced tirade: For a candidate seeking the nation’s highest political office to stand in defense of Americans’ privacy is “disgraceful.”

Fourth Amendment? Whaaaaat Fourth Amendment?

And what about candidates who exploit Americans’ fear of terror to promote a political agenda? There’s another word beginning with ”D” we can use to describe them: Demagogue.

Right or wrong, Sen. Paul has staked his claim. He’s taken a stand and he’s fighting for what he believes in, putting his ideas out in the political markeplace in the name of honest debate and leaving it to the people to decide.

Obviously Sen. Paul didn’t get the memo: Political candidates are supposed to slip and slide their way through the process, insuring that nothing but the scum reaches the top. In this environment, Christie should do quite well.

If another terror attack takes place, says Christie, it’s “not the director of the FBI or the director of the CIA” that should answer for it. Would this be the FBI director whose agency is 0 for 40, and is better at manufacturing terrorists than it is at catching them?

Would this also be the same CIA director who lied to congress, and the American people? Which one would we be talking about then?

No “public servants” should be held accountable for their failures, claims Christie. Oh dear goodness no! Only those who question the wisdom of surrendering liberty for the illusion of security deserve a grilling.

Quick question: Should the senator be hooded?

Last question: If no such attack takes place in the next year, will Christie waddle his way before congress and answer for the cavalier way he treats our privacy?