Christie the politician
My first thought on reading that Christie had called the NJ senatorial election for this coming October was that, although he may find himself re-elected governor of New Jersey, he’s completely killed his chances for higher office on a Republican ticket.
Of course, he may not want higher office (yeah, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you). Or he may decide to run for president as an Independent or even a Democrat—although I doubt either move would get him very far. Can you imagine the Democrat Party nominating him? I can’t.
My second thought was that this sort of thing is why people hate politicians, and why conservatives hate RINOs. And the resultant furor (see this and this) certainly seems to support that thought.
I know next to nothing about internal New Jersey politics, except that it’s a blue state. But it did occur to me that, if somehow a Republican gets elected to the New Jersey US Senate seat in spite of everything—a la Scott Brown (a highly unlikely event, I would imagine)—that could go a ways towards Christie being forgiven by the right.
And lo and behold, a guy named Josh Barro at Business Insider writes that it is within the realm of possibility:
A low-turnout election on a Wednesday in October with nobody else on the ballot gives Republicans their best chance to win. Booker still has an advantage, but he isn’t as good a candidate as his national profile suggests. The right Republican candidate could paint Booker as a better civic booster than city official. While pursuing the education and policing reforms that built his national profile, Booker has neglected Newark’s finances. He’s repeatedly sought to liquidate or borrow against city assets instead of bringing recurring revenues and expenses into line. And when he got caught off guard because the city council rejected one of his financial engineering schemes, he had to do a major police layoff instead.
Sounds like fantasyland to me, though.
[ADDENDUM: And I agree with Ace here. Christie’s about Christie.]
Man, do I not care about this wad one way or the other.
A commenter over at NRO says maybe he’s hoping he can run as Hillary’s VP.
just this one New Jerseyite’s opinion – loved Christie until he brown-nosed Obama by giving him a “guided tour” on the Sandy-hit Jersey shore.
I will never vote for him again – the Devil would have to run against him for me to consider voting for him again. (and actually, I might look more favourably on the Devil because at least I would know what to expect from him)
So, it doesn’t matter what he does . . . he is NOT trustworthy. period.
Christie overstayed his welcome with me some time ago.
He was painted as a Conservative hero; now we know that he is just a self-serving politician.
He will join the ranks of several others who bolted to the party that seemed to be ascending.
You can only parlay fat and a mean temper so long.
Last November, while visiting with 3 of my liberal, Obama-voting sisters-in-law, I sat stone-silent as they praised Christie, agreeing amongst themselves how right he was about how dealing with the storm trumped politics. I believe it was brought up as a political olive branch–as in “look, we can like someone you probably support.” More evidence that they have no.idea where my husband and I stand as conseratives. Love my in-laws, but they and Christie are the useful idiots in service of the left.
Mr. Straightshooter all of a sudden looking like…not so much. This just seems so self-serving to me.
I am with Charles. Christie lost me when he made that fawning appearance next to Obama after Sandy. I understand that he and his state were reeling after the storm, but I still couldn’t believe he would do that just days before a critically important election. And now this.
Used to be a fan. Not anymore.
I guess there is only so much you can expect from a Republican in a purple state. I’ve lived in Jersey and my parents grew up there so Christie reads to me as a certain kind of familiar centrist Republican. I don’t know where he will be in the scheme of things in 2016 – perhaps nowhere, perhaps a contender. What I do know is that he and Rubio are the best speakers the party has right now and one or both of them could really help in some role in 2016.
A Republican and Conservative hero is defined these days as:
1. Someone who is polite with the Left but not overly cooperative with Democrats.
The ones that fight against the Left… are either destroyed or captured and converted.
Such is the power of the Left that America’s greatest resources are merely weapons against the people.
OK, contrarian take: so in a blue state he is supposed to sacrifice his chances for the good of a party that is too inept to do anything to help him?
I honestly think he can win the nomination and I think he’d be a decent enough President. I know, Romney II or blah blah. It’s not a conservative country folks. You just need someone who will be a yes vote for the Congressional agenda 75% of the time.
I’m not high on him as a conservative, just like I wasn’t high on Bush I or II or Romney as conservatives. But he’s a fiscal conservative guy for his state, he’s not afraid of the public sector unions which have overtaken the federal bureaucracy as well. What do you want? Self-actualization through voting and a counseler in chief that affirms you?
OK, that’s enough contrarian. 🙂 I’d probably literally vote for anyone else. But if he’s the nominee, so be it. Hillary can walk over my corpse to the Presidency.
holmes, anyone but Obama and anyone but Hillary. But why settle for RINO crap when you can have someone like Scott Walker?
Yes, Walker would be preferable.
Lorenz-
If the messenger matters more than the message, you should be fine with Christie and Rubio.
As for me, they are poisonous snakes in the grass.
I will preface my comments with two qualifiers:
1. I am not from New Jersey, have never lived there and have only a casual familiarity with their internal state politics.
2. Christie is not my first, second or third choice for the 2016 nomination. At present (and this will fluctuate endlessly over the next two and a half years), those would be Jeb, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker. Like many, I was utterly dismayed by Christie’s shameless brown nosing of Obama during Sandy. I understand his motivations and can forgive him for it; I also would support him wholeheartedly were he to secure the nomination and I do believe he would make a decent President. But he’s not near the top of my list for the nomination.
That said, I agree with Holmes. Based on what I’ve read, this was the smartest move Christie could make. Yes, it was also self-serving. So what? Show me a politician who is not typically self-serving and I will show you two really bad liars (you and the politician).
If Christie had delayed an election until 2014, Democrats vowed to challenge him in court. It is my understanding the state law here is vague. Vague Law + Activist Judge (and there are many of those in New Jersey) = Democrats get what they want. Period. So, an election was going to happen in 2013 one way or another.
However, protracted litigation would have afforded the Democrats the opportunity to turn this issue into an albatross for Christie. They would argue incessantly that Christie was delaying the election for pure partisan purposes, that he was beholden to the national GOP and was delaying the will of the people of New Jersey. After all, the people elected a Democrat to the seat; why should a Republican be allowed to hold it for 18 months merely due to the party of the governor at the time of the late Senator’s death?
As an aside, I find the above argument compelling in the abstract. Gubernatorial appointment to Senate vacancies is an anachronism dating back to the pre-17th Amendment days, when Senators truly represented their states. I know some conservatives favor repealing the 17th Amendment and there are several strong arguments in that regard; but no repeal is likely in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I believe gubernatorial appointments should last only until a special election can be properly scheduled. This is especially paramount when, due to happenstance, the parties of the governor and former senator differ. Indeed, an argument can be made for requiring the governor to appoint an interim senator from the former senator’s party, as is the case in Hawaii and Wyoming.
Back to Christie. So, after litigation, an election is scheduled for 2013, and probably in November, alongside him. And Democrats have been waging a PR war on his “hyperpartisan” decision. He’s damaged (maybe not enough to lose, but his victory, and corresponding coattails, are reduced) and whomever he appoints has no chance against Cory Booker.
Okay, but why not just schedule the election in November at the same time as the state election? Well, obviously, the lower the turnout, the better the GOP’s chances in this blue state. Democrats will lambaste this scheduling as “hyperpartisan” as well, but at least Christie has a counter argument: he wanted to give the people a chance to have their say as quickly as possible. This isn’t terribly strong and two immediate rebuttals come to mind:
1. How much difference does a month make, seriously?
2. Isn’t this sacrificing turnout for speed? Is, say, a 30% turnout in October more democratic than a 60% turnout in November?
Good points. But again, at least Christie has some justification. I see no justification for postponing until 2014 other than that it keeps a Republican in the Senate longer.
People are still clamoring for a “savior”, some political leader that’ll “save them”.
What idealists humans are.
People are NOT clamoring for a “savior”, they are clamoring for a principled leader. Someone whose actions, match their words.
It’s either ideals or the law of the jungle.
The question is which ideals do we aspire to.
holmes,
Let me offer a contra-contrarian point of view 😉
Whether red or blue state, placing self-interest above principle always indicates a lack of character and integrity. Doing the right thing when it will cost us to do so is the defining characteristic of character.
So… Republican party ‘ineptness’ is the primary explanation for blue states?
We’ll have to agree to disagree as to his chances of winning the nomination. Should your determination prove the more accurate, I’ll wager many more conservatives sit out the election. More and more our choice is death by the gun (democrats) or the death of a thousand cuts (republicans) either way you’re dead and at least there’s far less pretense and suffering with the ‘gun’.
True it’s no longer a conservative country. It’s a 49% conservative country, 26% low-information voter, 25% radical left country.
A ‘yes’ vote for the “Congressional agenda” or more accurately, unprincipled compromise that incrementally advances the left’s agenda… 75% of the time is resulting in the fundamental transformation of America into AmeriKa.
A fiscally conservative President, one “not afraid of the public sector unions which have overtaken the federal bureaucracy” can accomplish little without a Congress prepared to back to the hilt that President.
What we want is a return to Constitutional principles. Nothing more, nothing less.
Christie’s personal gluttony is indicative of his self indulgence and not just with food.
“Someone whose actions, match their words.”
Only sheep need to be told what to do when the wolves come.
Every independent minded person already knew, one way or another, what should be done. It’s only the kids and the animals that didn’t get it.
When Americans are able to match their actions to their words, they’ll deserve a leader of the same caliber.
Afghanistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Rhodesia, Cuba, Iraq might dispute American honor and justice. Assuming they’re still alive around to do it.
“Only sheep need to be told what to do when the wolves come.”
Leadership is NOT about telling people what to do, nor is responding to leadership about needing to be told what to do. Leadership is about articulating a coherent, principled vision of a path that leads to where people want to go. It’s about having the brightest ‘flashlight’ in the dark and the willingness to share it’s illumination.
“Every independent minded person already knew, one way or another, what should be done.”
Oh really? Tell us, what we ‘all knew’ of “what should be done”…
Many Americans are able to match their actions to their words and, do deserve a leader of the same caliber. We however live in a representative democracy and, the majority rules within Constitutional limits. Democracies are uniquely susceptible to internal subversion and we face an entirely unethical and amoral enemy.
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for (mercy and forgiveness) because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I show no mercy, because that is my principle.” (The dialectic of the left)
“Afghanistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Rhodesia, Cuba, Iraq might dispute American honor and justice.”
Now those choices are perfect examples of revised history.
Afghanistan, a country that created the Taliban, then harbored and sought to prevent prosecution of mass murderers.
Vietnam, a country (North) that sought to impose a totalitarian regime upon its entirety And achieved that goal with a campaign of repeated assistance from the American left.
North Korea; really? You want to use the most repressive totalitarian government on earth as an example of lost American honor?
Rhodesia, a tribal civil war in which we had no possible national interest. Unless of course you posit that America has a moral obligation to spend its blood and treasure acting as the world’s policeman.
Cuba, one of the most repressive totalitarian regimes toward political prisoners gets to lecture America on honor and justice? Right.
Iraq, where G. Bush made a flawed but sincere attempt to bring rational self-government to the M.E. while simultaneously sending a message to rogue regimes that support for terrorism would no longer be tolerated and was promptly and subversively undermined by the Western nation’s left wing ideologues, who place ideology ahead of American lives.
“There are two types of Americans: those who see the totality of our history and conclude, warts and all, that we are the greatest nation on earth. Then there are those who look at the same data and conclude our nation is fatally flawed and must be “fundamentally transformed.” both sides are entitled to their worldview, but we are now learning the tragic consequences of putting that latter group in charge of the nation.” commenter ata777
Geoffrey Britain…you nailed it!! Especially about “leadership” and “followers”!
What would having that extra R senator for 18 months have practically done?
Yes, GB, we heard all of those arguments leading up to 2012. Conservatives stayed home, and Obama won.
“What we want is a return to Constitutional principles. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Geoffrey, I want that too. I think most conservatives do. But for that to happen at the federal level, would require much more than “a fiscally conservative President, one “not afraid of the public sector unions which have overtaken the federal bureaucracy” can accomplish little without a Congress prepared to back to the hilt that President.”
Specifically, it would require the following:
1. A Republican Presidential landslide as large as Ronald Reagan’s in 1984.
2. Unlike Reagan’s, a massive coattail effect, ushering in 2/3rd GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.
3. The retirement or passing of dozens, if not hundreds, of activist judges, including two or three Supreme Court justices
4. The replacement of these judges with unflappable conservatives (not John Roberts types)
5. Most importantly…for virtually all of the above referenced individuals to remain steadfast to principle in the face of a tsunami of criticism from the down, but certainly not out, leftist complex (including the MSM, higher education, public sector unions, Hollywood etc.) as well as the trepidations of many on the right who agree in principle but are too tempted by leviathan to practice what they preach.
I don’t see this happening. Ever. My expectations and hopes, therefore, are quite minimal. Quite honestly, I merely hope the next president does no further damage; does nothing to accelerate the slide into statism. That’s all.
Indeed, I often feel even that is too optimistic. Rather, perhaps I should only look for the candidate who will cause the least damage, the most minimal acceleration of American’s slide into statism. In this regard, virtually any Republican is better than virtually any Democrat (some notable exceptions, of course).
Christie is exaclty the kind of loser the Republicans and Karl Rove like to nominate for President. He might make some bold statements now and then about about cutting budgets, getting tough on welfare, etc. But all the key Republican lobbies and districts can count on him to keep their dollars flowing. Even the unions know they have nothing to fear. He’s just another a big blowhard who isn’t about to kill any of Washington’s sacred cows.
holmes,
Having that extra R senator for 18 months might prevent destructive legislation from passing, keep another liberal off the bench or result in a less liberal judge being approved.
“Yes, GB, we heard all of those arguments leading up to 2012. Conservatives stayed home, and Obama won.”
That’s true and that’s why I voted for McCain and Romney. Which in no way invalidates those arguments. Poison is still poison whether slow acting or not.
Voting for McCain and voting for Romney were votes for the death of a thousand cuts that RINO’s impose. Not voting for McCain or Romney was voting FOR Barack Obama.
IMO, the conundrum we conservatives face is that we can’t win without the big donors to the Republican Party (money=votes which wins elections). But… big Republican donors mainly care about maintaining the financial status quo, not constitutionally small government.
But… there aren’t enough small government conservatives to win without the independent and low-information voters that only with big money can we reach. So we’re screwed.
Not enough money means not winning enough elections but to get the money we have to elect politicians who place big donor demands first, last and almost always… when elected Republicans pay more than lip service to small gov. principles, invariably it’s a situation where big donor interests are not an issue.
We’re caught between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place’ and unlike Hollywood movies there’s no easy way out.
holmes and Geoffrey Britain:
Several times before this I’ve discussed the fact that not that many conservative apparently stayed home in 2012; certainly not as many as originally thought. Romney got significantly more votes than McCain did in 2008, and Obama less than he had in 2008.
Some conservatives did stay home in certain parts of Ohio in 2012, and that accounted for some of Obama’s victory there. Did conservatives staying home matter in many other states? I’ve never read anything that indicates it did make the difference in enough states to have mattered; mostly in Ohio. Obama won much bigger in 2008 than in 2012, Romney in 2012 outstripped McCain in 2008 (but not in Ohio, I seem to recall), but the bottom line is that Obama won big enough in 2008 that even with his loss of votes in 2012, and Romney’s gain, Obama retained enough votes to win in 2012 anyway.
Neo- true.
GB- no, another Senator doesn’t do anything for the R’s. They need 51, so unless they get that in 2014 (they won’t), it would not have made a difference.
Ackler,
I mostly share your view and analysis. Forgive any lack of clarity on my part but “a fiscally conservative President, one “not afraid of the public sector unions which have overtaken the federal bureaucracy” was holmes contrarian POV, not mine, which is why I said that such a President could “accomplish little without a Congress prepared to back to the hilt that President.”
“I don’t see this happening. Ever.”
I don’t either absent a truly paradigm changing event. What might such an event be? The abrogation, through illegal means of the Constitution. Which I would argue is an unavoidable necessity for the left.
Consider; we are not Europe or Canada, where bureaucratic regulation and “hate speech” laws are superseding unwritten but previously assumed freedoms. Our written Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land is as much a legal document of what the government cannot do as of what it can, which is why our Constitution is a LEGALLY insurmountable stumbling block to the full implementation of the “Progressive Agenda”. It is my contention that “full implementation” is required for that agenda to last.
“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” Abraham Lincoln
Which means that sooner or later, the Far Left is going to have to discard all pretense and, through illegal means, attempt to fully abrogate the Constitution. That is when low-information, “useful idiot” liberals will face an unavoidable choice; awaken to what their political support has really wrought or become through willful denial, fully complicit in tyranny.
Upon that determination hangs The Fate of the Republic.
Walker might be my ideal candidate. A smart guy with a fairly neutral accent (the aesthetics of the southern and Minnesota/Alaskan accents did Bush, Bachmann and Palin in. Discuss.) And he knows how and when to take a stand and how the Liberal beast works, both within and outside of government. He would be very effective.
Jeb is a nonstarter because everyone is tired of the Bushes. It’s just the way it is and I think it’s a little unhealthy for a Republic to continue with ruling families basically.
I agree about the Bush’s as does Barbra Bush 🙂 and about the basic unhealthiness of political dynasty’s.
At some point in the future, I’m planning on taking a closer look at Walker. So far, so good.
I agree there is an unhealthiness about political dynasties and, further, Bush fatigue will likely still be acute in 2016. Jeb is my first choice right now (and, as I said, it will fluctuate repeatedly) mainly because he is experienced, politically savvy, a decent speaker and unlikely to say or do anything which could cause him serious damage.
I’m from Wisconsin originally, so I remember Walker when he was Milwaukee County Executive. He has always impressed me and I do think the recall victory one year ago today was a turning point in state politics (any state, not just Wisconsin), indicating there is a limit to public sector union power, that politicians can fight back against them and not sacrifice their political future.
Speaking of the need to curtail the power of public sector unions, this quote is especially noteworthy; “Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” President Franklin Roosevelt, 1937
“Tell us, what we ‘all knewEof “what should be done”…”
There you go again with that desire and clamor for being told what to do and think.
You’ll have to find someone else for that task, because I won’t participate.
A country that benefits from the betrayal at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, deserves nothing but death and fire.
A country that forced Rhodesia to crumble to internal Leftist rapists and race supremacists, deserves neither enlightenment nor salvation.
A country that divided up Korea for the promise of world peace and just left it there while it sucks the life out of everyone, American or foreigner, deserves neither food nor prosperity. For they who deny it to others, shall deserve none of it as a reward.
A country that betrays its allies, watches and hears as the loyalist South Vietnamese troops are captured and tortured on the open wave radios, while it sucks the money out to be given to domestic Democrats for their campaigns, deserves neither money nor loyalty.
A country that spits upon, curses, and throws fecal matter at returning troops after a short victorious war (for the Left) in Vietnam, deserves neither victory nor rest.
A country that took what Bush sought to change in the Middle East, and gave it to AQ, punished the rebels against Iran, killed dictators who wanted an honest alliance with the US, deserves to look at itself before every night’s sleep.
A country that seeks to change the world for the better, yet cannot even change a single one of its cities for the better, deserves a slap upside the head for hypocrisy before all else.
“American justice” goes about as far as the sheep called American citizens are willing to let it go. Which isn’t far.