Why am I worried about Chris Christie in 2016?
This endorsement from the Star-Ledger’s editorial board for Christie will give you a hint at the answer to that question.
Equally impressive is his skill at playing Trenton’s inside game. Faced with Democrats in solid control of the Legislature, he’s managed to split them down the middle by seducing a handful of pliant party bosses whose self-interest compelled them to hitch their wagons to his.
The surprise is that his achievements have been only modest. He signed an important reform to contain pension and health costs, but it was mostly done before he arrived. He signed a useful tenure reform last year, but it is a weak version that still protects bad teachers with seniority. His reorganization of the higher education system is promising, but untested.
Balance that against his measurable failures, and you have to conclude he is much better at politics than he is at governing.
The property tax burden has grown sharply on his watch. He is hostile to low-income families, raising their tax burden and sabotaging efforts to build affordable housing. He’s been a catastrophe on the environment, draining $1 billion from clean energy funds and calling a cease-fire in the state’s fight against climate change.
The governor’s claim to have fixed the state’s budget is fraudulent. New Jersey’s credit rating has dropped during his term, reflecting Wall Street’s judgment that he has dug the hole even deeper. He has no plan to finance transit projects and open space purchases now that he has nearly drained the dedicated funds he inherited from Gov. Jon Corzine.
His ego is entertaining, but it’s done damage as well. By removing two qualified justices from the Supreme Court without good cause, he threatened the independence of judges at all levels, and provoked a partisan stalemate that has left two vacant seats on the high court. This was a power grab gone wrong.
The public gives him top marks for his handling of Sandy, but the record is mixed. Why would his administration park NJ Transit trains in a low-lying area where they flooded, causing $120 million in damage? Why did the federal government have to strong-arm the state to include more relief for renters and Spanish-speakers than Christie had proposed? And why should anyone believe taxpayers got the best price on refuse removal when the governor awarded a no-bid contract through a political friend?
Our own view is that Christie is overrated. His spin is way ahead of his substance.
Their view is that an overrated failure, and yet they endorsed him. They picked him over Barbara Buono because she supports the teachers union and doesn’t like charter schools. Our media and our politics are eff’ed up.
If he gets anywhere near the nomination I’m going into full freakout mode, because he is just the kind of transparent fraud the media in this country LOVES.
I read this earlier today and wondered by they even made the endorsement. In one way, you can read this as a warning — vote for this guy and you get a politician but not someone who will care about making your government work. In another way, this seems to be a new form of the false equivalence thing worked by the media. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Christie is a mess, BUT Barbara Buono!
Sheesh. I wish Buono had been able to make it a race — and it seems like this editorial presents the right Bill of Particulars.
Christie is the only GOP candidate that can even be competitive with Hillary in 2016. Otherwise, it is a landslide 40 state blowout. With Christie, it is a tossup. But I still can’t see how he gets the nomination. He has defended and even appointed Muslims. He was against the government shutdown. He has allowed marriage equality in his state. He hugged Obama. His blasphemies against the base make him attractive to a general election audience, but they make the base hate him. And it is that base that elects the nominee.
He hugged BHO, his numbers spiked, so Democratic leaders in NJ gave up on backing Buono, who would have been a good candidate if the party infrastructure had not given up so early.
Christie may be the Rudy of 2016. The self-destruction gene looms large.
Agreed, Christie is primed for self destruct, Sandy just shoved it under the table for awhile. I have seen no figures on a “toss up” between El Gordo and Hilary Clinton, sure I’m biased but I have seen nothing like that. As noted Christie may fair well with the general public but the rabid GOP primary voters will hate him as he’s not one of them.
“If he gets anywhere near the nomination I’m going into full freakout mode…”
Jason, prepare to get your freak on!
I agree that Christie will not make it past the base, unless they secede from politics in great numbers. I am curious whether there is any viable potential GOP candidate that would not result in full freakout mode? Additionally, if the degree of progessiveness is the criteria, even Hilary would cause that reaction. Regardless, all indications are that if Hilary runs, she wins. Christie is young enough that Hilary’s candidacy would be a significant factor in deciding whether to run.
The Republican party will not return to sensibility until they nominate a wing nut presidential candidate, who is crushed in an election.
“if the degree of progessiveness is the criteria, even Hilary would cause that reaction.”
Degree of progressiveness is not the criteria. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not, and never were, Progressives.
Christie is a blowhard – a severely conservative blowhard. There’s no there there. He has a schtick. And that’s gonna be an obstacle for him. The media is dying to portray him as a “mavericky moderate” which will turn off the R base. His actual policies will turn off everyone else.
So, Christie’s problem is getting through the primary without running to the right. Is that possible? After that he’d have to follow the old guidelines of running back to the center (a place he’s never been, btw) while holding onto the Tea Party.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and increased investment in education. He gave us direct federal student loans, FMLA, CHIP, and raised the minimum wage. He signed welfare reform, and delivered jobs instead. And fended off the neocons and kept us out of major wars. That is about as good as it gets for progressives.
I’m still curious as to what GOP candidate would not cause a full freakout mode response.
The GOP is the Tea Party. Jason wrote about this awhile ago, and it’s true. The war for the GOP is over, and the Tea Party won.
Dave, were you a Republican before you became an Independent? If so… then there’s your answer.
“The Republican party will not return to sensibility until they nominate a wing nut presidential candidate, who is crushed in an election.”
You mean the way they “returned to sensibility” with the sociopathic Richard Nixon after Goldwater got crushed?
They will not “return” to sensibility because they have not been sensible for more than 30 years now. Even Hillary crushing Ted Cruz will not shake their faith, because their core value is claiming victimization. A drubbing will just make them feel more like the victims they’re convinced they are.
Mitt Romney was portraying a moderate with some success until he came out with that 47% thing.
No, I have always been an Independent. When I was younger it was because I was politically ignorant. Later it was because I recognized that party affiliation tended to disregard the individual (candidates) resulting people pulling a lever for the (X) after someone’s name. That didn’t seem to be very logical.
So, I guess the answer is any GOP candidate would cause a full freakout mode. I guess I don’t really understand that there would not be at least one possible candidate that would not cause that response, even with the GOP being in such sorry shape. Regardless, I was honestly curious about whether there was at least one possible non-freakout candidate.
Perhaps you can answer your own question, Dave? Name the GOP candidate who wouldn’t cause a freakout. Be sure to list their policies.
Inquiring minds… 😉
“Mitt Romney was portraying a moderate with some success until he came out with that 47% thing.”
Mitt Romney did not “portray a moderate” until the first debate, which is why Obama was caught so off-guard. Only then did he start gaining ground, but the tape undermined that pretty quickly.
This GOP wouldn’t nominate Ronald Reagan, right? Because even that conservative hero wouldn’t be conservative enough now.
That said, I could see Christie surviving a brutal primary (much like Romney) and he would survive because he would get enough of the base to choose him because they thought that other people would vote for Christie. This is out of the door if someone else in their field can really outraise Christie. The John Kerry story again. The difference is that I think that Christie will be endlessly entertaining for the press corps, so they’ll be happy to launder out any interest in Christie’s actual governing record.
Unless you you are hedging your investments by going short on pork bellies, you should have nothing to worry about in Christie
I could name a few who would not cause me to freak out. But my curiosity was not about what I think, since I kinda know that already.
Freak me out right: Romney (because he was really clueless, Cruz, Jindel, Ryan, Palin, et al
Not freak me out: Clinton, Obama, Powell, Christie, Daniels, Biden, Huntsman
Freak me out left: Don’t even know who would considered to be pretty far left AND viable. Seems like all the (D)s are pretty close to the center, which of course is my yardstick.
I guess my best yardstick is pragmatism. I’d list their policies, but until they are actually in that office, policies are only philosophies and don’t really mean very much. The office changes how you look at the world and the nation. I’ll note that Obama’s philosophy was to close Guantanamo. His policy is the opposite. Pragmatism got in the way turning a philosophy into policy. In summary, those who would not allow logic reason, and common sense get in the way of turning philosophy into policy are the ones that freak me out. Cruz is such a person with his John Paul Jones attitude. That’s what scares me.
Love you, but the claim that Obama changed his policy about Guantanamo is nonsense.
Complete nonsense.
You mean the way they “returned to sensibility” with the sociopathic Richard Nixon after Goldwater got crushed?
He was a paranoid SOB but he gave us food stamps, the clean air act, the clean water act, the EPA. His proposal to guarantee all Americans a income would be radical by today’s progressive standards. Yes I hate the bastard for many reasons but, if the right wing could move that far to the left the country would be better off.
You missed the point about Guantanamo. Obama wanted to close it (philosophy). As Commander In Chief, he determined it was not possible (at least yet) (policy). Candidates have philosophies. Officer holders create policy.
But your statement completely ignores Congress. You’re acting like Obama could close Guantanamo all by himself, but decided not to because he made a “policy” decision. There were actual votes about this.
I think Obama CAN cloe Guantanamo as CINC, but didn’t Repubs pass a resolution to not allow the prisoners into the USA?
Congress (with Democratic help) refused to fund a prison facility on US soil to hold prisoners. That same Congress also refused to fund trials of Gitmo detainees on US soil. Even though hundreds of federal terror suspects have been convicted in US courts since 9/11 vs 7 via military tribunal.
Offical White House policy is to close Gitmo. But without a place to hold (or transfer) current occupants, that’s not possible. Obama appointed a Special Envoy for Guantanamo a few weeks back, whose job it is to close the place. Within the restrictions imposed by Congress.
Case closed. Not a policy decision.