Click on WORD or PDF for full content
In the Boston Globe, Joan Venocchi writes about NJ Governor Chris Christie’s increasing popularity. Hey, anyone hated by government unions has to be doing something right.
…Christie has what other politicians desperately seek: authenticity.
Watching him in action was a lesson in the power of charisma — and a reminder that it doesn’t always have to come in a package that looks like Senator Scott Brown or like the fit but ever-evolving Romney.
“He’s definitely a star on the GOP national stage,’’ said Republican consultant Todd Domke, of the New Jersey governor. “He’s no less appealing because he’s a big guy. In fact, it sort of goes with his everyman persona. He is not out bicycling with John Kerry and Scott Brown. He’s busy cutting the fat out of state government.’’
Fiscal conservatives adore Christie’s tough-guy attitude toward spending. He killed a Hudson River tunnel project to double commuter rail service because he said New Jersey can’t afford it. It’s the opposite of the Big Dig financing plan that Baker came up with on behalf of a Massachusetts Republican governor. Christie also doesn’t carry baggage like “Romneycare,’’ the derisive label opponents hang on the Massachusetts health care reform law that passed with Romney’s blessing. …
And WaPo also profiles New Jersey’s governor.
…Christie has grabbed the attention of some influential national Republicans who say his battles with New Jersey Democrats offer a model for taking on President Obama if they win control of one or both houses of Congress next week.
In Trenton, Christie has done what Republicans on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail are promising: to cut spending to reduce the budget deficit. And he has made the cuts in spite of Democrats’ criticism that he is destroying popular and important programs.
This year, when New Jersey Democrats proposed a tax surcharge on income above $1 million, the state faced a possible government shutdown if Christie did not relent.
…He added, “so what happened? They sent me that tax increase, I vetoed it, immediately, within the first 30 seconds they handed it to me, I handed it right back to them. And then they passed my budget.” …
Jennifer Rubin adds her comments and highlights a YouTube video of Christie.
Chris Christie’s latest YouTube hit demonstrates the qualities that are defining his public persona and causing many a conservative to wonder whether he is “the guy” to take on Obama. (He insists he isn’t, but the conservative buzz about him has only grown.) In this clip, Christie methodically reels off a list of nonsense bills on which the New Jersey legislature has spent time, all the while ignoring major issues like property-tax relief and pension reform. Yes, what he is saying is important, but it is the how he is saying it that makes him a rising star.
His background as a U.S. attorney certainly comes through: the use of vernacular, the good humor, the methodical pacing. If the GOP wants to deliver some tough medicine in the next few years — on entitlement reform, spending discipline, etc. — they’d better find an appealing messenger and a down-to-earth manner of delivering the message.
Christie may actually mean what he says and may refuse to run. But the other 2012 contenders should take note. If you want to win an election and a mandate, you will need more than a clipboard and PowerPoint presentation. Politics is serious stuff, but it is also about performance. And with the exception of Sarah Palin, there isn’t any Republican contender for 2012 in sight who looks like he is having fun out there. There’s more to politics than a telegenic personality, a good sense of humor, and a flair for the dramatic, but none of these qualities hurt. Republican voters should look for a suitably conservative message, but they will inevitably be swayed by the skill and appeal of the messenger himself.
Scott Rasmussen hits the nail on the head. Are Republicans listening? Because they’re not winning, the Dems are losing.
…But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.
This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.
That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.
More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. …
Roger Simon points to a problematic congressman, if the Republicans gain control of the House. We will see if they play the usual game.
…One of those is Fred Upton. Who is Fred? Well, he is the Republican representative from Michigan’s 6th who has served in Congress since 1987. More interestingly, he is in line to be chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (not the Ways & Means Committee, as Eleanor Clift assumed.)
No matter there. Yet more interesting is Upton’s voting record, which might be of concern to Tea Party supporters.
…And it’s not just that he was on the wrong side of history (others were); he has been on the wrong side of the economy as well. Upton has voted “yes” on bailing out Wall Street and “yes” on almost all Obama-Pelosi spending, including the $409 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which gave Obama $19 billion more than he asked for and contained $7.7 billion in earmarks. He also voted “no” on tax cuts, being one of only three Republicans to oppose Bush tax cuts back in 2005.
But wait, as they say, there’s more. Much more — especially in areas that relate specifically to the critical House Energy and Commerce Committee. …
Tony Blankley looks at the differences between 1995 and the current political atmosphere.
…Either this is just the end of a big election that rolls back a few important mistakes, but basically changes little besides who gets the good parking spaces and whose staffers get to cash in for a few years. Or this is the beginning a great reformation that will take America back for liberty. It’s up to the people. We are so close. In 50 years in politics, I have never seen as large a percentage of the public self-motivated for reformation. For those of us who believe we are a providential country, now is the chance for the public to demonstrate it.
If the tea partiers and other liberty lovers continue to engage Washington next year, then government shutdowns can work, vetoes can be overridden and public opinion can be rallied to help defeat Obamacare, higher taxes and deficits. …
In the Economist – Democracy in America Blog, W.W. blogs on topics relating to last weeks Stewart/Colbert rally.
…One sees progressive managerial elitism most clearly in the left’s public-health and environmental paternalism. The rarely uttered idea is that the people who know best need to force the rest of us to do what’s good for us. Whatever you think of this sort of state paternalism, it isn’t liberal or liberty-enhancing in any non-tortured sense. The progressive technocrat’s attitude toward liberty is: “Trust us. You’re better off without so much of it.” The more the left is inclined to stick up for this sort of “activist government” as a progressive, humanitarian force, the less it is inclined to couch its arguments in terms of liberty. And that’s just honest. More honest, I would add, than social conservatives who in one breath praise liberty and in the next demand the state imposition of their favourite flavour of morality. …
Robert Samuelson explains, using facts and science, why high-speed trains won’t help the environment. They would give politicians another opportunity to spend more money in a wasteful manner, however.
Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research.
Let’s suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government. What would we get for this huge investment?
Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions, air travel, or oil consumption and imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why. …