Christie 2016?

After making the country wonder if he would announce his candidacy for the 2012 Presidential election or bow out the last few weeks, NJ Governor Chris Christie (R) has apparently decided he really meant what he said when he said he wouldn't run for President in 2012. Guess he decided it wasn't worth it to be the flavor of the week as the GOP continues to look for their true savior as the Governor, perhaps, begins to focus on 2016 (though as a NJ resident I'd be happy if he started focusing on getting rid of the party bosses and consolidating governmental services).

I think Gov. Christie would be a better candidate against President Obama in 2012 then any of the other GOP crop but he is probably too liberal for the Tea Party, despite his picking on teachers and essentially raising taxes on the middle class (me paying $100 for my son to play in the band is a tax increase by another name) while saving the rich from such horrors, to get the nomination this time around. Better to be the unknown potential for 2016 if the GOP loses the general election in 2012 over one of many losers who weren't conservative enough to get the nomination in 2012 I suppose.

While there is always a worry that you may miss your one chance (just ask all the Democrats who sat out 1992 when President Bush I's re-election looked certain), sometimes a politician's best move may be to sit an election out and let the extreme part of the party blow themselves up so you can come in and clean up the mess. The way the GOP is headed (and has been for many years) this may not be the worse of moves. If the Tea Party does blow up, Governor Christie will have four more years to get his political agenda aligned with the new political breeze and lose a few pounds to end the fat jokes (though I care more about a politicians abilities over his/her looks, many people are too shallow to acknowledge that the pretty, sweet talking politician is not the best leader -- and that is a bipartisan slap) as he saves the party from the Tea Party's science hating radical religious agenda.

Only a small part of the country is very liberal or very conservative. Most of us are in the middle, leaning one way or the other, potentially turned off/turned on by the extremes of one party. Governor Christie's best move may be to sit this one out, continue being a rising star in the GOP when the Tea Party implodes and hands Obama another 4 years, and get ready to welcome conservative spending leaning, but socially liberal science believing moderates, back to the big tent (no pun intended) in 2016.

Of course, the danger is that another moderate may be more appealing or some liberal Tea Party person may appear who both appeals to moderates in a general election but is still conservative enough to get the nomination or, if he gets the nomination, finds himself running against a more popular conservative Democrat governor in what I hope is improved economy (if the economy is still bad after 8 years of President Obama then forget about it for any Democratic candidate). A lot can happen in a few years. At the moment, Governor Christie is the interesting new kid on the block. In four years he may be Mitt Romney,who it seems has spent much of the last decade running for President.

One other concern: Does brash divisiveness work outside of NYC/NJ/Philadelphia? What plays well in Hoboken may not play well in Iowa, as Rudy Giuliani found out.

Don't run Christie

I have a selfish reason for not wanting to see Chris Christie, the governor of my state of NJ, run for President. His work isn't done here yet.

I lived in NYC in the 1980s and 90s. In 1989 I voted for David Dinkins (D) and his wonderful mosaic over Rudy Guiliani (R) to replace Ed Koch (a closet Republican) as mayor of New York. And while the mosaic was a laudable goal and the mayor a nice human being, I wised up enough by 1993 to realize the city needed some tough love and voted for Guiliani. This wasn't a vote against President Clinton, it was a vote against Mayor Dinkins and a vote for NYC's future. And while I didn't always agree with him, felt his tough talk and willingness to tackle the status quo were a big help in finally reforming NYC. I'm not sure what would have happened if he had left for higher office a few years later, when his star was already rising due to an improving NYC.

Fast forward to the last few years. Now I'm older, larger (side note: I have to admit that Governor Christie has inspired me to head to to the gym and drop 50 pounds this last year or so) and live in NJ. While I generally lean left, I voted for Chris Christie in 2009, despite my wife being a state worker, because I felt the state needed a new direction, even though this is proving to not have been in my family's best interests as our health care costs, among other things, are soon to rise as the state workforce gets what is essentially a salary reduction (I generally support this, the benefits were fun while they lasted). This wasn't a vote against President Obama (D), it was a vote against Governor Corzine (D) and a vote for NJ's future. And while I don't agree with all the Governor has done (aside from the teachers, I think he's been too tough on the average worker, not tough enough on the political bosses and their legal corruption and is probably more conservative than I like), I feel the state is moving in the right direction, away from its pay to play past. But we're not there yet and I worry the state will fall back into the mess it was without his bully pulpit (and it already seems whatever reform he was starting to accomplish has fallen by the wayside as he makes more speeches around the country).

That said, if you substitute Obama for Dinkins, I find myself looking at the 2012 presidential election the same way I looked at the 1993 mayoral election. The difference being I don't see one candidate who looks electable and that I would prefer over Obama (who is practically a closet Rockefeller Republican anyway). The current crop seem to be .22 caliber minds in a .357 Magnum world. And it is this that cause's me to worry -- not so much for the future of the country (unless one of the current candidates actually manages to defeat President Obama), but the future of my state.

It takes a long time to pull all the weeds from the garden and to make sure they don't come back. Just as I basically underwent a lifestyle change in diet and exercise to lose (and still losing) my weight and improve my health, it won't keep unless I stay with it. Letting things slide back to the way they were after just a few years won't be good for my health and, if the Governor were to be elected President, for my state's health.

Is Christie the answer for the GOP and for the country? Maybe. He seems more into what is bothering the average voter (it's the economy stupid, not whether you were nice to illegal immigrants once or are a gay soldier). But, fortunately for NJ (let me finish liberals), the country doesn't tend to vote for politicians like him (loud, fairly honest etc) to be President. Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman come to mind, but they got their first terms by being the VP when the President died. And then I have to wonder if running for President would show Christie to be more Koch brothers puff like Texas Gov. Rick Perry over substance like ... well almost any other Republican not currently running for President.

But, back to my initial point, NJ is still fragile. We've only had a few years of a leader telling us what we need to hear. We need a few more. As Governor Andrew Cuomo of NY, son of one of NY's most liberal governors, Mario Cuomo, has shown, this tough talk doesn't have to come from the right. Unfortunately NJ doesn't have anybody else, right or left, like Christie who will tell us what we need to hear (and I know he pulls some punches to suit his political needs). Hopefully the Governor realizes that what plays well in NJ, where our politics is somewhat descended from the NJ docks, plus Philadelphia and New York, may not play well across the nation.

PS - though some may read this post as my blasting Christie with some comments about his conservative friends, it should really be read as my blasting other NJ politicians.

Iowa comes to NJ for the flavor of the week

Now that Donald Trump's approval ratings are sinking like those of his TV show, some Iowa bigwigs (read: money men) are treking to NJ this week to see if they can talk our governor into running against President Obama in 2012. Before the GOP pronounces Gov. Christie as their candidate for 2012 they really need to address a few things.

Governor Christie hasn't seemed to have done much when he's been in state aside from yell and scream at his enemies. He has yet to really tackle the legal corruption that invades almost every part of government life at all levels here. I don't mind paying taxes for services, like police, schools and libraries. I do mind paying taxes so that the high school drop out of a friend of a low level politician can have a $60k a year job doing nothing in some government office. And I was promised lower property taxes, not a 2% annual increase cap. Not that I was really expecting a tax decrease like his millionaire friends so they can create jobs overseas, but a little piece of the action would have been nice.

Also Gov. Christie's reputation is enhanced in part because he has been very lucky that the tone deaf union leaders here have made some very dumb moves. Instead of making logical arguments, like the pensions are deferred compensation that the workers agreed to wait for and offer suggestions on how to work together with the governor regarding insurance costs, their responses have been along the lines of "Wah! You promised!!" I don't think President Obama is as dumb as the union leaders.

Then there is his woman problem. My wife and her friends, some of whom are pretty conservative (for NJ), see him as a big bully picking on women with his attacks on state workers and especially teachers, many of whom are female. Though they voted for him in '09 (or at least didn't vote for Corzine), I don't know if they'd vote for him in '13. I'm not even going to start on his plans to seemingly destroy the state's school system, which is pretty good outside of urban areas, for charter schools run by for profit corporations (it's ok for money to go to corporations, but not teachers or administrators in the field).

I don't dislike Gov. Christie. NJ needed change. The state needs someone who can tell us the truth -- that we've voted through weak, pandering politicians to make this state almost unaffordable. He's made some good points and has tackled some waste (train tunnel to Macy's -- so much extravagance when cheaper options, such as an extension of the 7 subway train, which would provide East Side access, were possible), but most of his changes have been smoke and mirrors and getting the have nots to fight with the have a little bit mores. The state is not going to get back to prosperity by blaming teachers, police officers, and blue collar workers for the state's own bad policies. Neither will the nation.

New Jersey's Machiavellian Governor

He has spent all his time attacking teachers and lower level state workers, many of whom are not that well paid and are our friends, neighbors, family or ourselves. In the meantime he has not done a thing, at least publicly, to tackle the real corruption and waste brought about by patronage jobs nor spoke of eliminating high level, six figure positions in state government. Even the majority of the 1,300 out of 63,500 executive branch level jobs he is cutting appear to be lower level employees directly involved in providing services to citizens. And people wonder why NJ Governor Chris Christie has declining popularity poll numbers? Ha.

This reminds me of upper management in a friend's company. When they announced wage freezes last year for all employees, somebody asked if that included bonuses, which only higher level management received. After some hemming and hawing they admitted the freeze did not include bonuses. As soon as they showed that we were not really all in this financial mess together, people started leaving the meeting (higher ups were in a separate location anyway).

While I agree that state spending needs to be cut, and generally support the cuts, the Governor has not shown we are all in this together. When the Governor stops picking on people who actually work for a living, providing services that citizens actually use, and starts emptying cubes and offices in state and county offices across the state of patronage jobs, he will have my full support. Until then I just see another Machiavellian who is having us, the mice, fight over the crumbs, because some of us have bigger crumbs, while the high level politically appointed fat cats keep their tax payer funded cheese.