Chris Christie made a speech today at the Reagan Library. Mr. Christie has until now made it quite clear that he will not be running for president in 2012, saying that he isn’t ready yet, and also that he owes it to the electorate in New Jersey to do the job they gave him. Now it seems that he might run after all. He hasn’t come out and said so, but he hasn’t said he won’t, either, and today’s peppery speech sure sounded like a campaign-launcher.
I’ll say that I find a lot to like about Mr. Christie, and should he choose to run, and wins the GOP nomination, I would vote for him in a heartbeat over our current executive — as would, I’m sure, anyone with a conservative bone in his body. He isn’t perfect — he’s weak on some very important issues — but you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and there certainly isn’t a perfect GOP candidate in sight.
That said, I’m hoping he doesn’t run — not just because of the good reasons he spoke of himself (his brief tenure as governor, and his unfinished business in Trenton) but also because of the “Buckley Rule”: one should support the most conservative candidate who can win. His Jersey-style bluntness and working-class accent, which admittedly for a Jersey boy like me are part of his appeal, may not play well against Mr. Obama’s oleaginous smoothness and professorial tone. Then there is also — though I hate to say it — his obesity, which will surely be a disadvantage when he shares the TV screen with the sleek and imperially slim Mr. Obama (as Nixon’s 5-o’clock shadow was in his televised debate against the impeccably groomed JFK). But Mr. Christie does have tremendous political talent, with an enormously magnetic personality (which, as magnets do, can both repel and attract, and seems to do for liberals exactly what it does for conservatives, with opposite polarity). So perhaps I’m wrong; maybe he really could win. And as a questioner at the speech made clear as she rose from the balcony to beseech Mr. Christie to run, the nation certainly can’t afford to wait another four years to turn out the current management.
So I’m a little conflicted about the idea of a Christie run in 2012, and obviously so is he. If Mr. Christie does decide to run, it will certainly make for an interesting primary season (Ari Fleischer thinks it’s too late for him to get in, but the election is still more than a year off, after all). If he doesn’t, expect an electrifying keynote address at the convention next summer, and much more down the road.
22 Comments
“…he owes it to the electorate in New Jersey to do the job they gave him.”
My buddy Mike has expressed strong negative feelings about Sarah Palin because he views her as a quitter. I think Mike has a point. If Christie needs to quit his current job in order to run, such an action won’t improve his image.
Fat? When he talks about unions he looks hotter than Sarah Palin in a bikini.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_sarah_palin_bikini_pic.htm
The Republican Party is like a pregnant girl trying to fall in love. Early front runner Donald Trump’s candidacy vaporized along the birther movement. Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll, then her brand of incendiary politics went down in its own flames caused by wildly inaccurate or just plain weird statements. Rick Perry looked like the one, until people read his book. Mitt Romney’s inauthenticity and lack of conviction are there for all to see. So a desperate party turns to Chris Christie as the savior du jour, despite the fact that he has as many flaws as the others.
His massive girth is a problem, but not just for optics (even if you use a wide angle lens). Aside from a chronic inability to walk by a buffet table, it’s a health problem. There is no job in the world as emotionally and physically demanding as the Presidency: take a look at a President on inauguration day and then four years later. Christie gives the impression of someone who would be unable to walk up two flights of stairs without stopping to catch his breath, much less handle the stress, travel, and long hours of the Presidency.
As you note, his attitude is an issue. He has made belligerence into an art form. This may be fine for those who like their politics to be a nonstop WWF smackdown, but his shtick gets tiring after a while.
There is the integrity issue. When New Jersey lost the Race for the Top grant, he blamed it on the Obama administration. After the DOE produced a video which showed that it was New Jersey, and not the federal government, which was at fault, he fired his Education Secretary, Bret Schundler, for allegedly misinforming him (after earlier having said that he was ultimately responsible, and nobody would lose their job because of the snafu). Schundler then produced evidence that Christie made his second fib in a week.
Christie balanced the state budget by not funding state pension obligations by $3 billion. This is the textbook example of state fiscal irresponsibility.
Also, there are the many reasonable things which Christie has said – such as pointing out that the hysteria over Shariah law is “nonsense” – which are anathema to an unreasonable Republican primary electorate.
So while Obama loses in the polls to generic Republicans, he beats the flesh and blood ones. He has a difficult fight ahead in 2012. Republican legislatures in swing states like Florida and Ohio (among about two dozen others) have passed voter disenfranchisement laws like photo ID, limiting pre-election day voting, and restricting voter enrollment, all of which are designed to reduce participation by those who are more likely to vote Democrat. The legislatures in two states are considering changing the electoral college rules in mid-stream to tilt the game in their favor, although they are doing it in diametrically opposed ways (Pennsylvania wants to give electoral votes by Congressional district, while Nebraska wants to switch to winner-takes-all). Citizens United is the greatest gift of all, as shadowy front organizations will be able to blast the airwaves with their propaganda, without any accountability for the truth or falsity of their claims. Needless to say, Republicans in Congress will do everything they can to tank the economy, including using threats to shut down the government or default on the debt to pursue their suicidal economic policies of austerity. And there’s fatigue: we have a short attention span, and it gets tiring seeing Obama on TV night after night. Even I cringe whenever he uses the word “folks.”
So I have no idea who will ultimately win the election in 2012. However, once the votes are in, I will be happy to tell you why the results were inevitable.
I’m on a one-man campaign to get people to notice Gary Johnson:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
http://ouramericainitiative.com/about-gary-johnson
Peter,
Yes, yes, of course… I figured you’d “weigh in” on this one.
Like I said: a magnetic effect on liberals too, just with the opposite polarity. Thanks for providing such an illustrative example.
Dom,
I haven’t paid much attention to Gary Johnson, and should probably get to know him better.
Mustn’t forget the Buckley Rule, though.
When compared to the declared candidates (excluding Hunstmann), Chris Christie doesn’t even move the magneto-meter to the red zone. He does have some redeeming features, like a sense of humor, and (unlike Romney) he certainly does not lack for deep convictions.
Of course, that’s akin to saying someone is the third tallest guy in Japan. But still.
When it comes to generating outrage among progressives, Chris Christie is a piker when compared to Rand Paul. The following item from today’s news made my blood boil:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/28/MNAK1LA79U.DTL&tsp=1
If Paul wants to insist on his mistaken ideology that everything government does is bad, hence it ought not do anything at all, then that’s his business. However, when he uses his prerogative as a Senator to block legislation which is both necessary and universally accepted by everyone else, then he becomes truly dangerous. If he is successful in blocking the pipeline safety bill and there is another explosion like the one in San Bruno, there will be plenty of blood on his hands.
His father’s answer to Wolf Blitzer at the recent Tea Party sponsored debate – basically that an indigent man in a coma showing up at a hospital should be allowed to die, because it’s a matter of personal responsibility (accompanied to cheers of “let him die!” by the audience) – showed the mean-spirited and selfish nature of libertarianism. Rand Paul’s insistence that ideological purity is more important than human life is another example of the the heartlessness (to use Rick Perry’s word) of the hard right.
Those Pauls! They’re consistent, you have to give them that. That Ron Paul is one hard-core libertarian hombre, and certainly an outlier as far as most Americans, including me, are concerned. That stuff he was saying a week or two ago about a border fence being used to keep Americans in was pure poppycock.
I hadn’t heard about this pipeline business before, and haven’t had a chance to look at it for more than a moment. I will say that if we’re going to err on one side or the other, I’d rather have the government doing too little legislating and regulating than too much. But it does seem that this is a bill that everyone agrees ought to go through, and that Rand Paul is being rather mulish on this one.
Well, I respect anyone who has deeply held and principled convictions. About 20% of what Ron Paul says makes a lot of sense – among other things, he was an early and vocal opponent of the invasion of Iraq. The other 80%: not so much.
However, I have no respect for anyone who uses the Senate’s rules to gum up the works and thwart the will of the majority. (Tom Coburn and Rand Paul, I’m looking at you!) It’s bad enough that we have the profoundly undemocratic filibuster, but the Senate hold is inexcusable.
Rand Paul probably thinks that a mailman dropping off the mail is unwarranted government intrusion, and the government has no business making sure that pipelines don’t blow up, drugs are safe, airplanes are required to meet safety standards, or children’s toys don’t have lead. He’s already stated that restaurants and stores should have the discretion to exclude blacks if they choose to. There is a thin line separating libertarianism from anarchism and nihilism, and he seems to enjoy frequently crossing that line, much to the detriment of others.
Well, I seem to recall some fancy footwork with Congressional rules back when Obamacare was getting passed (and the majority of Americans were opposed to its passage). The fact is that whatever bloc is in a position to be thwarted by the filibuster tends to rail against it; I recall seeing, for an example, an amusing juxtaposition of editorials from the Times a few years apart in which they took both sides of the issue depending on who held the reins. One minute the filibuster is “profoundly undemocratic”, the next it’s a necessary bulwark against the tyranny of the majority.
I do agree that there is a thin line between radical libertarianism and anarchism — and between wanting a strictly limited federal government, with carefully enumerated powers, and wanting no government at all.
Because all government power necessarily entails corresponding limitations of absolute individual liberty, the question is what balance to strike. Ron Paul, and to perhaps only a very slightly lesser extent his son Rand, are about as far as you can go toward anarchism without actually crossing the line. They are way further off in that direction than most Americans, including me.
Of course, the less homogeneous and like-minded a society is, the more it needs to impose meaningful (i.e. noticeable) restrictions on liberty, as I argued here.
And as for children’s toys, I was really upset the other day when I tried to buy a Bag O’ Glass for the young child of a friend, and discovered that it was no longer for sale anywhere. Nanny state!
I’m not sure what fancy footwork you are referring to. Health care reform passed with 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that the bill passed under the reconciliation process, which basically limits debate to twenty hours, so the other side can’t prevent a vote by continually offering amendments. The Republicans complained that it blocked their obstructionism, but the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the bill could pass under reconciliation.
The meme that the majority of Americans was opposed to the bill’s passage is a right wing canard:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx
While the Gallup poll taken at the tie showed 49% support, when survey respondents were questioned on the individual components of the bill (e.g., should insurance companies be required to cover pre-existing conditions), they received support well over 50%.
I can’t speak for the Times, but I am opposed to filibusters, regardless of who holds the reins.
Yeah, that’s the fancy footwork I was talking about. (It was 56 votes in the Senate, not 60, by the way; that’s the whole reason the footwork had to be so fancy.)
Oh, and the meme that “the meme that the majority of Americans was opposed to the bill’s passage is a right wing canard” is a left-wing canard.
You are picking nits.
The health care reform act originally passed the Senate on 12/24/09 with sixty votes. Realizing that all forty Republicans would oppose the measure, Ben Nelson tried to use his leverage as the pivotal vote to get preferential treatment for Nebraska. A few others tried similar stunts. The reason for the reconciliation was so when the bill came back from the House, the final version could pass without giving in to Nelson’s demands. This was not a device to strong-arm the Republicans, who all voted against it anyway. It was used to get the best possible bill passed, which meant jettisoning a few Democratic votes and having a 56 vote total for the final vote.
As for the popularity of health care: as the article you cite states, you are conflating those who oppose the bill because they view it as overreach with those who oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough. I think there should be a public option – so count me as being opposed to the bill. However, given a choice between the health reform act and the status quo, I would take health reform in a heartbeat.
Picking nits? Do forgive me. I realize you’d never do such a thing.
At present, by the way, 56% percent favor repeal of Obamacare, compared to 36% who oppose repeal.
Nice piece of work.
A mighty nice piece of work indeed. Given the fact that its provenance Is conservative think tanks and the Nixon administration, one would think that its emphasis on personal responsibility would appeal to today’s conservatives. Regrettably, the right wing today abandons critical analysis in favor of a simple litmus test: if Obama is for it, it therefore is wrong and must be opposed.
Wolf Blitzer’s question was exactly the right one: “What if a man who decided not to buy health insurance somehow ended up in a coma?”
Ron Paul answered with the usual platitudes about freedom and personal responsibility, leaving Blitzer with the obvious follow-up: “Congressman, are you saying society should just let him die?”
The catcalls from the audience at the Tea Party sponsored event — let him die! — shows that there is vocal support for Paul’s implicit answer, which to be consistent with his ideology would have to be yes. This may be the society we have become, but I certainly hope not.
Because we are a compassionate society — or used to be, anyway — the state requires hospitals to treat patients in emergency situations regardless of their ability to pay. The hospitals absorb part of the cost and pass the rest along to its paying customers, raising insurance costs. To those who argue that the state has no business forcing individuals to cover their own health insurance, there is an obvious question: as someone with insurance, why should my rates go up to pay for those who are unwilling to purchase their own insurance?
The ideal solution would be a public option with some form of rationing, so society is not obligated to buy a $500,000 operation for a ninety year old man with a three month life expectancy. However, this is politically infeasible, both because taxes would need to be raised to finance expanded coverage and because its proponents would instantly be labeled death panelists. Our political discourse Is such that we have a word for any politician who makes a serious attempt to deal with complex and morally difficult problems: loser.
As you correctly note, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Obamacare is a reasonable approach which will go a long way to mitigate the problem of those who have insurance being forced to pay for those who do not. If there is a conservative proposal to address the problem of the uninsured, I am not familiar with it. Those who lack an alternative tacitly accept the status quo, and bear the burden of explaining why it Is preferable to Obamacare.
You have made it abundantly clear that you disapprove of Obamacare. How, then, would you answer Wolf Blitzer’s questions?
So — in your mind there are only two alternatives: kicking the man to the gutter to die, or a complete Federal government takeover of health-care services? This despite the fact that the entire world got along until the late 20th century without socialized medicine?
Ron Paul might have asked Wolf Blitzer: why didn’t this person buy medical insurance? Did he lack the means? If it was because the price was too high, why is the price so high? Why can’t we address some of those issues — lack of competitiveness (it’s not as if we currently have anything even remotely resembling a free market in healthcare services at the moment), the prohibitive cost of malpractice insurance in an obsessively litigious society, etc.?
The first instinct of progressives, naturally, is a coercive government solution. Have we then completely abrogated any notion of personal responsibility, and of local, community, and voluntary responses? The question posed to Ron Paul was: should “society” let the man die? (No.) But concealed in this question is a pernicious enthymeme: the implicit liberal axiom that “society” is philosophically identical to the Federal government; that the only way “we” can act — the only way “we” can discharge our moral obligation to one another — is through the coercive apparatus of the State. I’m all in favor of providing a safety net for the truly needy, but is yet another titanic Federal bureaucracy really the most efficient, most cost-effective, least coercive, and most ethical way to provide health care to everyone? I know a couple of doctors who work in the UK, and the system there is a nightmare — long waits for routine services, exploding costs, steep rationing, and so on. I’ve also asked almost every doctor I’ve come into contact with here at home, both socially and professionally, what they think of Obamacare, and they have been more or less unanimous in their disapproval. Several have even said to me that they have been advising young people not to go into medicine at all. My own family physician left medicine a few years back because he couldn’t afford the malpractice insurance.
Look, I don’t have a nifty, pat solution to the healthcare problem. In fact I’m inclined to suggest that there isn’t one. (I’m not so optimistic as to imagine that all problems actually have good solutions, and I’m certainly not inclined to imagine that the best place to look for them is in expansions of the scope and power of government.) And yes, we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But was this turgid and incoherent bill really “the good”? That the states have been lining up for Obamacare waivers, filing lawsuits in the Federal courts (several lower courts have already deemed central parts of the bill unconstitutional) and that healthcare costs have already been driven up sharply, suggests otherwise, as does the fact that most Americans favor its repeal. Perhaps we should remember the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm”.
We’ve wandered a long way off-topic here (as usual), and I’m swamped today at work. Last word to you, if you want it.
Fair enough: this doesn’t have much to do with Chris Christie. So I will end the thread hijacking with this thought:
The crux of your argument is this: “I’m all in favor of providing a safety net for the truly needy, but is yet another titanic Federal bureaucracy really the most efficient, most cost-effective, least coercive, and most ethical way to provide health care to everyone?”
The answer is yes. If you want to provide a safety net, who besides the government will do this?
Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system are far more efficient and cost effective than private health care. This is primarily due to the lack of a profit layer and economies of scale. In this case, titanic is a good thing.
It is not the least coercive. However, without coercion you have the status quo.
Finally, it is the most ethical solution. Let’s bring in John Rawls and his incredibly useful veil of ignorance. Your task is to design a health care system without knowing if you will be a hedge fund zillionaire or a widow with two sick kids. Most people operating under the veil would want a program which provides for the widow’s kids and socializes the cost. However, we don’t have Rawls’s veil, so the widows have to struggle to get their sick kids attended to, and those with health care scream “let him die.” If you want to use ethics as a criterion, it is far more ethical to spread the burden throughout society than to have the circumstances of one’s position in society — rich or poor, employed or unemployed, insured or uninsured — determine whether one has access to health care and who does not.
Most of the rest of the developed world has socialized medicine, and many countries achieve higher standards of health care than we have with much lower costs. As you correctly note, there may not be a good solution, but there is a least bad solution. I would vote for a public option as the least bad way to solve the problem.
“He does have some redeeming features, like a sense of humor, and (unlike Romney) he certainly does not lack for deep convictions.”
Deep convictions are good only if they are the right deep convictions. Far too many Republicans have liberal deep convictions, as with Bush’s “deep conviction” that American employers should be able to hire anybody in the world they wished and to hell with these pesky notions of a border and a nation. Perry seems to share this “deep conviction”. I suspect the same is true for Christie.
>”Because we are a compassionate society — or used to be, anyway — the state requires hospitals to treat patients in emergency situations regardless of their ability to pay. The hospitals absorb part of the cost and pass the rest along to its paying customers, raising insurance costs. To those who argue that the state has no business forcing individuals to cover their own health insurance, there is an obvious question: as someone with insurance, why should my rates go up to pay for those who are unwilling to purchase their own insurance?”
This entire argument is an idiotic fiction. Your health rates are not going up by leaps and bounds because you are paying for “those who are unwilling to purchase their own insurance”.
The primary driving force in rising health-care costs is the fact that newer and better treatments cost more money.
If you MUST look at the uninsured, the biggest problem in that area is that we have tens of millions of illegals in this country who do exactly what you complain about – they consume health-care resources but don’t pay for them. Under Obamacare they still won’t pay.
This liberal story-line that we can solve all our healthcare woes by forcing those with good jobs but no health insurance to purchase that insurance is, to be blunt, a lie.