What do you call a guy who runs into a burning building? Answer... a hero. But what do you call a guy who runs into a burning building so people will think he's a hero? Answer... still a hero... probably. But it does at least raise a question or two about it.
There is no doubt that Chris Christie has run into the burning building of NJ's public finances. But since the events in Wisconsin, I've had a chance to hear him equivocate a little more on the issue. He's since said that he's in favor of 'adversarial collective bargaining'. But he won't do anything about the broken process that keeps it from being adversarial every time a union sponsored Democrat is elected in the state. And since the government employees give any union sponsored Democrat a 17% advantage in statewide elections, that happens most of the time.
His fiscal actions initially made him look to me (and everyone else) like the only sane man in the Trenton insane asylum, but in light of what they look like compared to a real free market conservative in Wisconsin, he's looking a little weak kneed. He's not standing on this issue from a position of 'principle' as others have done, but from a position of 'pragmatism'. This will no doubt help him at the Newark Star Ledger, and the IBEW meeting halls, but it's not the position you would hope for from a devoted 'conservative'. And then there are his positions on the other 'hot button' national issues'.
He's pro-life, at least on paper, but he's still hyperbolically anti-gun. And he bandies about the 'comprehensive immigration reform' nonsense a little too easily for my taste. The critics of his local policies have been constant and a little wacky, which has actually helped him be seen as a lucid Conservative from a blue state. But in the end, he's still from a deeply blue state where the citizens are thought of more as subjects than elsewhere in the country. (Remember, this is a place where 7 of 11 jurors polled think Jimmy Carter is America's greatest Ex-President.)
He may not be the purely establishment Republican I feared he would, but he's no conservative when measured on the national scale. And when it comes time for him to run nationally, that's the field he'll be playing on. He's got plenty of charisma - no doubt. And he's basically smart. He's won national acclaim by looking like a real conservative, but listening to him lately, it looks like he hasn't learned anything from that.
As we ponder whether he's suited to a national role, the question really is how liberal is Christie? And I'm afraid the answer is 'too liberal' for most of the country.
7 comments:
I read about Christie's other positions. We may not agree with him on all the positions, but I like the way he simply discusses things the other politicians dont, and just answers questions.
We need a president that can handle entitlements problem and prevent the looming fiscal calamity. Christie seems to be that guy. For now, I would put him ahead of politicians that talk a good conservative game and barely make a dent on the budget when they get the role.
Make me choose between him and Pawlenty today, and I think I'd have to lean Pawlenty.
To be completely frank about it, I don't see how Christie can get through a Republican primary with his current views.
America is not a blue state.
Christie has been much better as governor than I expected. My expectations were VERY low based on what I considered a milquetoast campaign. I expected him to be Christie Whitman 2.0.
Christie is the best I think we can do right now. Considering what we put up with the previous two Governors (not including Cody since he wasn't elected as Gov. by the people), Christie is a vast improvement.
I would love to see a conservative / libertarian (small 'l' libertarian) get elected. The NJ electorate is just too far to the left to allow such a man or woman into office.
It's nice to read a contrarian take on Christie given the worshipful tone taken by many of his admirers.
Nonetheless, I think his priorities are in the right order, and that he's one of the best to (I'll drag out the old cliche) "lead the conversation." Literally, too--he's one of the few people in elected office to speak frankly about the need of his admirers on the right.
for entitlement reforms.
Christie certainly hasn't taken the initiative on loosening restrictions on gun rights, but he did pardon Brian Aitken for that obvious non-crime he committed.
I wasn't the only one disappointed when he gave up his campaign to impose stronger, constitutional restrictions on property tax increases. Wasn't it almost every day one heard of another mayor or town council voicing support for the plan?
As for Christie's take on collective bargaining, I merely think he's hedging, but would be happy to eliminate it if he believed it feasible. I think he said in another interview that he simply wouldn't have the support for a measure like Scott Walker's. After our next state election, who knows? He might get the support he'd need.
In the meantime, it doesn't surprise me that some compromises have to be made. And disappointing though they may be, they'll be necessary as long as Americans see fit to vote as they do. It obviously wouldn't help were Christie to take an uncompromisingly CATO-esque position on everything and thereby ensure he'd accomplish nothing in the service of conservative or libertarian principles. I'm sick of the word "pragmatist--"who isn't?--but I think Christie is doing nearly the best he can on the issues that matter the most to the most people, given the politics of our state. The fact is most people are much more interested in public fiscal reform than in gun rights reform, for example.
We hear all kinds of (generally) phony complaints that Christie's a bully, or that he has too aggressive a tone, etc., etc. And the fact that he can be one of the best explicators of policy makes me suspect he knows just how far he can go with the "rhetoric". The possibility that the difference between Christie's rather tepid campaign statements and his courage in office could mean he's more market-oriented than he's letting on should be viewed as a source of hope--small and provisional though it is.
Reagan gets treated as a saint by many on the right. Reagan's contradictions (and his gifts) were certainly greater than Christie's, and he polled just fine all around the country.
Pawlenty is pretty impressive, though, along with Mitch Daniels, of course, and a few others.
Oops--that was quite haphazard. No need to attach my name to this sloppy prose!
sorry about that bad copy/paste
"about the need for entitlement reforms"
Just as an afterthought, I think much of the criticism of Christie has been profoundly unfair, and not just the ridiculous criticism of the right. The Star Ledger has been it's typically laughable self, choosing the far left liberal position every time as their 'reasonable people believe' view.
But the one thing that they've both agreed on that was mentioned in the above comment was describing Christie as 'bullying'.
If you ask me, for all their touchy feely, 'it's for the children' nonsense, no organization has had a more damaging effect on our public finances, and been more irresponsible in the way they manage their charter of responsibilities than the teacher's union. They have shattered accountability in the public schools, vastly added to it's excessive costs, and done all they can to harm our children while proclaiming themselves guardians of their future.
In my experience, most of the teachers themselves are the hapless, witless tools of their marxist handlers. And no group is more deserving of some serious bullying in my opinion than these self satisfied, totally unrealistic 'useful idiots'.
Given their behavior through this whole thing, the NEA's motto should be 'We have your children so do what your told or else.'
In my mind, it's about time they get put in their place.
Amen to that!
Post a Comment