Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

The website, Conservatives For New Jersey, has Christie's number. It has an eight-part breakdown of the myth of Christie's conservatism.

http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro

Ann Coulter is out of her mind.

The website, ConservativesNewJersey, has an eight-part analysis of Cristie's conservatism.

http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro

Christie a true Conservative? I don't think so. Coulter is clueless about this guy.

Will Christie's Islamic connections be a problem?

He's a Democrat on all of the important issues who has the spine to confront the unions. He is very good at articulating what is obvious to all except our elected officials and forced into a corner, as he was with NJ's fiscal disaster (which was and is much worse than CA's), he boldly took the only option he had and sold it effectively.

I think Ann Coulter has lost her mind. It turns out in the end that she is a "Republican Uber Alles", not a conservative. Thanks Ann. You are now part of the entrenched establishment.

I wonder who Coulter's picks were against Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama?

From way out here in California I've been very impressed with his straight-talk and fiscal conservatism, but I'm concerned by what seem to be anti-2nd amendment positions and squishiness on illegal immigration. Color me "favorable, but questions." Oh, and Ann is nuts if she thinks he's the only Republican who can win.

I think he's a great governor for New Jersey, and I'd absolutely rather have him than Obama, but for President, no. Or rather, not yet. He doesn't have a long enough record to know whether he'll make good conservative/libertarian choices.

I see where Ann's coming from. Let's face it, on Social Conservative issues, Ann isn't the strongest. She's Christian, but vaguely, and she's never been married. She obviously believes in the social side, but she's not passionate about it, and that would make Christie more attractive to her.

Ultimately Christie's strength comes from explaining why we need to lower the budget in ways no one can argue against. Instead of "Cut funding for schools," it's "Freeze teacher's pay checks at the current level: $100,000 a year." Paul Ryan does this, but he stumbles about on it.

That would be the most desirable Republican President for the average American. Actually speak plainly about reversing the debt and entitlements. More or less everything else we can turn about on the State level.

I mean, I still think Ann's coming on too strong about it, but I see what she's saying.

Chris Christie is an islamoignorant dhimmi which is a huge deal breaker for me. If he were to seek the GOP POTUS nomination I'd do everything in my power to undermine him.

One more thing: why aren't the Conservative big wigs talking about anyone GOOD like Allen West or John Bolton instead of the same old washouts over and over again?

I think Ann feels, above just about anything, that Republicans absolutely MUST have a candidate who is not only willing to stick to his guns, but who can and will--with great zest--go after both the media and his opponents. A guy who not only will take their milk money, but will knock them down, rub their face in the dirt, and laugh maniacally while doing so. Christie fits that bill. Its why most of us love him. He's a happy warrior, who clearly delights in taking reporters and the opposition to the woodshed. Its a welcome sea change from the usual republican cowering and defensiveness, conceding half of any given issue just because the press might be mean to them if they don't. The man has backbone.

To that extent, I agree with her. The Progressive vision either triumphs or is set back generations in 2012. The Pivens-type calamity is more possible now than at any time in our history. If the Progressives are to ever get their revolutionary change (be it peaceful or otherwise), the moment is now. The media will be even more in the tank for Obama than 2008.

But Christie ain't the guy to do it. He's simply not conservative enough. We need to recruit one of our other happy warriors. DeMint, Coburn, Sessions, Sarah, etc. Our bench is not so shallow that we have to settle for a moderate. Mild mannered Mitt and his ilk just aren't going to cut it.

Having worked for the New Jersey Legislature for many years, I was able to witness firsthand how the state managed to get itself into the fiscal pickle that it did.

In particular, the teachers' union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) literally owned Trenton. For the most part, party affiliation did not matter in NJEA maintaining their hegemony, in the sense that when the Republicans were briefly in control, they did not stop the steamroller. In terms of overall dollars, everything else was a sideshow, with 1/3 of the state's budget going for "education."

Over the years, the corrupt cities received the lion's share of state funding, and became huge, bloated bureaucratic patronage mills, that sucked money up into administration (political hacks), and eventually huge pensions.

On the State level, corruption was so open and so rampant that the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee (and also the Budget Oversight Committee) muscled the State's largest publicly-funded medical school, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ, (UMDNJ) to hire him as a lobbyist (at a fat salary) to lobby himself to increase the amount of money that UMDNJ would receive in the State Budget! It was a no-work job, of course. When he did show up (occasionally), he'd sit around and read newspapers! And, it was not the only state "job" he had. He did it, in part, to fatten his State pension. Christie put it all together and prosecuted the guy -- former Senator Wayne Bryant of Camden County -- and put him behind bars.

Even at that, I never thought I'd see the day someone would actually come to Trenton and do what Christie has done. The roaches are still scurrying for the woodwork.

One of his great strengths is that he was the United States Attorney with a perfect record . . . 132 - 0 . . . for convictions on indictments brought or initiated on his watch.

That not only showed great judgment in moving forward on prosecutions, but it also shows that he did not waste time pursuing cases where there was proof but perhaps an insufficient basis for ultimately obtaining a conviction.

Rest assured, however, that with all the information that came in "over the transom" Chris Christie had and to this day has a very good handle on how the bad guys in New Jersey, including the sleazy politicos, ply their "trade." He no doubt has a good outline or working knowledge of those who were beyond the net, and of the operations they maintained.

In other words, Chris Christie still knows where the bombs are buried. It's probably one of the reasons he's able to so forthrightly confront the serious problems our State is still facing, without getting nearly as much push-back as you might expect.

Heh!

These folks who snipe at Christie on this or that political issue, simply have no idea what the man has done, and how he is changing the political climate here in New Jersey.

Spitballs off a battleship!

Trochilus said..

No one here is saying that Christie is incompetent. What many of us are saying is that he is a Democrat. Why are we always nominating Democrats for president? Clinton was also a very competent Democrat and he is on the same side of the issues as Christie yet everyone here hates him.

All I want to see is for the GOP to nominate a competent REPUBLICAN who is RIGHT ON THE ISSUES. For once. Please.

That's why I vote 3rd party. The Pasadena Phil rule: I don't for for liberals or Democrats, especially if they run as Republicans.

The big attraction to Christie will be the fact that he can get the squishy middle. He won't get full support from conservatives, there are just too many issues.

The other question is can he do on a national level what he has accomplished on a state level? Not quite as easy.

If he somehow gets the nomination I would of course support him, but I don't think that will happen.

I also question Ann Coulter on many issues. Yes, she is funny. Yes, she is great at snark. But she also is promoting identity politics with GOProud. Homosexuality aside, she is saying that we should be accepting of a group that is agressively pushing conservatives in a direction that is typically liberal. I was all for GOProud being at CPAC until I saw how the behaved. No thanks, Ann I will pass.

No, Pasadena Phil, Chris Christie may not be your kind of Republican . . . perhaps on a few issues.

So, disagree with him on those.

But I think calling him a Democrat is really inapt. Just ask any of the Democrats here in New Jersey! He is exposing and going right at the heart of their game.

Please tell me, where will that sort of calling him a Democrat rhetoric of yours get us?

Under that kind of reasoning, Ronald Reagan would have still been a Democrat long after he left the party.

My sense over time is that the most pernicious sorts of Republicans, have been those who truly are squishes in the face of political opposition -- the ones who have, item by item, quietly given away the store. And we've all seen our share of those!

Well, Chris is not that!

By the way, he also says he's not running for national office right now, and I take his word for it. Personally, I'd like to see him stay around and continue to clean up this mess here in NJ.

And, you can continue what is apparently a quixotic quest for ideological purity in a national candidate you can unreservedly adore.

Well, I'd wish you "good luck with that!" but I've already seen the movie way too many times! There is no happy ending.

No conflict I am aware of has ever successfully been fought on all fronts, and all at once, by the ideologically pure of heart. It seems to me the very nature of conflict is to pick your battles wisely, and fight.

Trochilus. You can't be a champion of all causes Democrat and expect to be accepted as a Republican. What you are arguing is that because he is effective at taking on the corrupt Democratic machine in NJ, that qualifies him for being a Republican. It doesn't. He is just an honest and effective Democrat registered as a Republican.

I have no problem with Christie continuing to be the Republican governor of NJ. I have a BIG problem with having him run for president as a Republican. He supports amnesty, cap and trade, porkulus, apologizes for Islamic extremism and more.

Just because someone is not a conservative doesn't make him evil. I respect Christie as an honest (as far as we can tell) and competent politician. There is a difference and you are getting two issues confused.

Marco Rubio is every bit as competent and articulate and honest as Christie except that he is a Tea Party conservative. Let's talk about him running for prez instead of Christie. Do you have a problem with that? Or does his being a conservative disqualify him as a viable Republican candidate?

Let me put my last comment differently, Troichulus. Are you arguing that the only electable Republican is one whose positions mirror Democrats? Hasn't that been the problem with party that doesn't stand for anything?

The Tea Party just re-instated the most unpopular party ever to regain power on a very specific list of principles. Christie is not a Tea Party candidate and should not be the GOP candidate for prez in 2012.

Thanks to all who posted links and comments on Christie's problematic conservatism.

One thing that has struck me as not quite right is Gov. Christie's propensity to berate normal folks (those who disagree with him). It's one thing to get in the face of a contentious reporter (who has some position and power), but Christie too often punches down on individual citizens.

That may be good theater, but it isn't the kind of response I want from my elected representatives or the President when I disagree with their policies. There's a chilling effect on speech when the guy in power makes the questioner look like a fool (even if the questioner is a fool according to my lights).

We've already had some of that with the Obama administration calling out Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News. I didn't like it from them, and I don't like it from Christie.

Apparently you didn't take the time to read my second comment before posting essentially the same response that you had posted previously . . . almost as if you weren't quite convinced with the way you put it the first time. Suffice it to say that you certainly didn't convince me the second time either! And then you took a third shot at it by further implying that I hold positions that are ridiculous.

Please, Pasadena Phil, do not try to make your case by attempting to put words in my mouth.

"Are you arguing that the only electable Republican is one whose positions mirror Democrats? Etc., etc. . . .

That is what Democrats and their media acolytes do, a trick they have repeatedly attempted to employ, for example, with Sarah Palin.

Now, you'll notice that I'm not calling you a Democrat just because you attempted to pull that trick with me. But I am calling you out on it.

I have a sense that you really don't know much about Chris Christie, other than what you may have picked up on here or there. If you disagree with Chris on issues, have at it. But repeatedly calling him a Democrat is not going to convince anyone other than yourself.

And, suggesting that I might be opposed to Marco Rubio because he's conservative is equally risible.

Look, I don't think Christie will run (he has said he won't) and although I think he is great for New Jersey, his policies and tactics would not work in a state where the capital is run by unionists. And yes, there are some things about him that bothers me, as do all of them.

Romney is a no-go as far as I am concerned. Yes, he is a whiz at business, but so is Donald Trump, and we have more problems as a nation that just our financial problems.

I will say this: we tried running a Republican who claims to work across the aisle. We learned in November, 2008, that when people are given a choice between Democrat and Democrat Lite, they will choose the real thing every time. So please, no more Democrat Lites.

Let's have a president next time that has some street sense and understands ALL the problems we are facing.

I'm sorry, what exactly is Christie's 'problematic conservatism' here? I want specifics. By Democrat, you must mean his power base is routed in public labor unions. Or do you mean to say that he is in favor of broad public spending, higher taxes, and and overall growth of governmental operations. Or, are you saying that Christie is a product of northeast elitism, and not, a descendant of immigrants or a classic American story.

Regardless of what the few people who decided to sign into their google account and comment on this post say, Christie is by far the most talented of all the Republican politicians. The fact that he is a Republican in a Blue state does not make him Blue.

American wants someone who can stand up to Obama, who can dominate Obama in a debate, who can tell Obama to...shut his mouth. Christie is the only one who can preemptively control the terms of the discussion, he's the only one that can out-Obama, Obama.

Okay Troichulus: YOUR words:

"And, you can continue what is apparently a quixotic quest for ideological purity in a national candidate you can unreservedly adore."

That is a vintage RINO argument. That is what all of you northeast establishment country club Republicans always argue when we conservatives argue for having a uniquely (non-Democrat) Republican platform. The obnoxious "ideological purity" argument.

In case you didn't follow my argument, if platform issues are what define a candidate, Christie is a Democrat ACROSS THE BOARD. Yes, he's a COMPETENT liberal Democrat. But he is NOT a Republican. That makes me a purist? Why is Christie such a god to you RINOs but Bill Clinton is the devil incarnate?

Puhlease, you are no conservative. Run Christie and wait and see what where the Tea Party vote goes. The GOP may not even survive as a party after 2012 the way it's going.

* SIGH * focus people.....the fight we have to win if we are to survive as the nation we know is the fiscal fight. A few thousand people wearing boa's at a gay pride parade in SF won't kill us nor will the continuing insanity of abortion but having the entire nation living on a steam grate will

@TD

Tuff darts...if in the public forum I expose myself and my conservatism and you disagree I'm not going to candy coat it and why should I? Just because you don't like confrontation or debate doesn't mean a fool shouldn't be shown a fool.

Grow a pair, leadership means steeping on some toes. Comparing the idiocy of the current regime and their denigration of radio personalities AND average American citizens to Chris Christie's style is absurd.

There's a group for you, its called 'No Labels' and I hear they are looking for membership!!!

Christie is a one-note, RINO blowhard who pays a guy to make and post vids of his anti-teachers-union rants on UTube.

Outside of that, Christie's nothing special: soft on Islamic terrorism, soft on illegal aliens, thinks he's hot stuff. No, I won't get off my duff to pull the lever for him if he's the GOP candidate.

Pasadena Phil sez:

Okay Troichulus [sic]: YOUR words:

"And, you can continue what is apparently a quixotic quest for ideological purity in a national candidate you can unreservedly adore."

That is a vintage RINO argument. That is what all of you northeast establishment country club Republicans always argue when we conservatives argue for having a uniquely (non-Democrat) Republican platform. The obnoxious "ideological purity" argument.

Well, that was really pathetic! I don't belong to a country club, and never wanted to, though I do occasionally play golf. But more importantly, if you had a little more insight you realize that the gravamen of my comment was focused on concern over having a candidate "you can unreservedly adore."

I don't EVER adore candidates; I do occasionally admire people who demonstrably prove themselves as leaders. Nor am I a RINO, as you could have gathered had you read my comments above, such as when I said . . . "the most pernicious sorts of Republicans, have been those who truly are squishes in the face of political opposition -- the ones who have, item by item, quietly given away the store. And we've all seen our share of those!

I am conservative by nature because I love liberty. The biggest opponents we have living in our midst today are the statists. I also think I understand some of the basic factors motivating people, but not because some candidate with little or no experience has hired some smart-ass who has cobbled together a good list of their "positions" on the issues.

Finally, I made it very clear in my first comment above that I am not posting here to support Chris Christie as a candidate for President in 2012. I want him to stay here and finish the great job he has started.

The question posed by the Professor was, "So Tell Me About Chris Christie". That was what I was responding to, from my perspective, as a resident of New Jersey interested in public affairs.

Your beef seems to be with the position taken by Ann Coulter. And judging from your singular inability to even engage in a focused exchange with little old me, I'd strongly advise you think twice about trying to go there!

From very blue New Jersey, Chris Cristie is the only type of Republican that could win. But, from Blue Jersey, he is very much in the middle, almost Rino country. I love the guy and what he is trying to do here, but remember, he ran against Corzine, who was not the most popular person in the state. But the man has balls, taking on the teachers union, who own the state.

I think (and hope) he will help get our state house in order and, after 8 years as Governor, he will have a fiscally conservative record to run on, either for President or Senate. But not now.

Why does everybody fall in love with the new guys? Christie, Daniels (though he's been around) West, Rubio. Cain. Give them some time to find themselves.

Problems with Chris Christie:

1) He's not running:
"Listen, the president can rest easy," Christie said. "The only guy who could beat him in the poll isn't running. I have a state to run. I love New Jersey. I am not arrogant enough to believe that after one year as governor of New Jersey and seven years as United States attorney I'm ready to be president of the United States. I'm not going to run,"

2) His known unknowns: Christie on Israel, defense, American exceptionalism, multi-culturalism, imperial Islam, Global warming, Social Security, Homeland Security.

3) Known knowns: He supports cap and trade, amnesty for illegals, Obamacare, gun control and Ground Zero Mosque


On The issues

"Why does everybody fall in love with the new guys?"

Because they haven't been vilified and destroyed by the Alinskyite left working hand and glove with the MSM.

I want to really like Chris Christie, but I think many Conservatives who are so enamored with him are falling for the rhetorical flashes and hope, and missing the bigger picture. Like Rudy Giuliani, he brings an unapologetic prosecutorial style to attacking an unaddressed problem (crime and corruption in Rudy's case; unions in Christie's), that many Conservatives- for all of their philosophical tough-talk- are too meek to challenge (for fears that they will be personally smeared).

While the GOP could certainly use a lot more politicians utilizing this style in confronting their opponents, Christie's political record feels so discombobulated when you look below the surface (especially if you look at it from a national perspective). While some Conservatives have faulted him for some of his social views (and 2 Amendment beliefs, and his stance on the Ground Zero Mosque issue, etc.), my concern is more direct: he wants us to believe that unions are a serious budgetary problem- which they are, of course- but then he's (uncharacteristically...) mute on other pressing problems we face. Isn't Cap and Trade a problem hurting the economy and budgets (among other things)? Amnesty for illegals? Obamacare?

Then how come he hasn't used his hard-charging style to take on these problems in his own state? It shouldn't be that difficult if he's really as good in such confrontations as they say he is. The alternative assumption is to say that he hasn't addressed these issues because he supports them. And that's a real problem.

I have no issue with a blue state, right-leaning Republican making pragmatic compromises under the proper circumstances in order to get re-elected. As much as we sometimes wish that everybody could vote like Jim DeMint, it simply isn't feasible. But I want to know internally "where is it really coming from"? Is Christie, or any blue state Republican for that matter, open to addressing these issues if he's the nominee, or is his current stance part of his ingrained political philosophy ? I don't want to write him off by any means, but if it's the former case, he definitely needs improvement if he's serious about a national run.

" ... he's the only one that can out-Obama, Obama."

As in "fighting fire with fire?"

Are you an indomitable army? Have you fire/maneuver assets able to rout self-promoting liars and crypto-tyrants from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the US Government?

@ Trochilus: Please expound on this:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/01/governor-christies-dirty-islamist-ties.html

He's mostly liberal, and he's definitely pro-Islam in the sense that he doesn't see Sharia as a problem (obviously, it's fundamentally opposed to everything America is and everything we hold dear). He's not pro-Israel (how could he be?), and while he's tough on unions, most of what others have said above is true. He's a better fit for blue New Jersey than for the red, white, and blue White House. Heck, he may even make the whole state a "sanctuary city" and hand the courts over to his buds in the Muslim Brotherhood.