Could democrats also like the fourth amendment?

Sometimes he binges and eats the first and second amendments, as well.

The three-hundred-plus pounds of patriotism the media has dubbed "Chris Christie" challenged libertarians in a media event last night, according to the Washington Post:

As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.

This is really exciting for me, not because I give a shit about Chris Christie's opinions but because he points out that this strain is going through both parties. Indeed, the recent vote on libertarian representative Justin Amash's amendment to ban NSA dragnet spying drew a surprising amount of support from both sides of the aisle: 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voted for an amendment that the leadership from both parties railed against. The amendment failed (of course) but by the extremely narrow margin of just twelve votes, with even John Boehner lowering himself to go down and cast his nay.

It's good to see a paradigm of authoritarianism-vs-libertarianism on an issue, especially when it is crossing party lines. I've always felt a libertarian-Republican presidential candidate will need to draw votes from both Republican and Democratic bases in order to succeed (with some Christians and many foreign-policy hawks jumping ship from the GOP ticket). While the classical set of Paul voters would be fiscally conservative, socially liberal individuals from both parties, attracting voters on the not-being-a-police-state front is also an excellent boost for Paul in 2016.

For more analysis on Christie's remarks and what a gross statist he is there's a Reason blog post my friend Alan shared on Facebook.