Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Ann Coulter headlined last week's CPAC when she said that if Chris Christie doesn't run for president in 2012, Mitt Romney will get the GOP nomination--and lose to Obama. "By the way," she concludes, "I warned you about McCain."
Only a few short days later--and just a day after Obama unveiled his laughable $3.7 trillion budget--Politico is reporting that the New Jersey governor is heading to Washington to deliver a speech about fiscal responsibility:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is bringing his blunt talk about fiscal responsibility to Washington this week in a speech sure to stoke speculation about his national prospects – which have intensified in recent weeks as some Republicans openly fret about the strength of their 2012 field.
Like Christie himself, the message he’ll deliver Wednesday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute is unorthodox and straightforward: he accuses both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, of “timidity” in the face of the coming fiscal calamity.
“It’s hard, but it can be dealt with,” Christie said of his speech, previewed for POLITICO, which will focus on his battles with the state’s teachers unions. “I’m a little mystified as to why they’re not doing it, on either side. Because what we’ve shown in New Jersey is that the public is hungry for this.”
“I don’t think anybody’s ever accused me of being ambiguous. So I think when I get done, they’ll have a good idea of what I’m talking about,” he said.
Christie is candid about his willingness to consider national office in the future but insists he’ll be sitting out 2012, saying he is “challenged and content and excited to be the governor of New Jersey, and I got a lot of work to do here – we are far from being fixed.”
“I’m not running for president,” Christie, 48, said by phone from his desk in Trenton Monday. “And I don’t know anybody who would want somebody like me as their vice president.”
We shall see about that. Will Christie take Coulter's words to heart?
- Comment (205)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
I'm surprised Coulter is such a Christie fan. Great for NJ but he isn't that conservative. I'm flummoxed.
Jun '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
A Romney candidacy would be a certain loss for the Republicans, but Christie shouldn't run --- yet. I don't think any of the polls are valid. Seriously, most of them put up a group of candidates who are virtuallly unknown or unappealing. There are plenty of solid candidates under the radar at the moment who I trust will emerge to push Romney into the background.
I have friends here in NJ who have worked with Christie and consider him a bully. That's not the disposition needed for VP. (Of course, one man's "bully" is another man's "forceful leader.") Could you imagine Christie & West on a ticket together in the future? There'd certainly be no ambiguity in their messge!
Jun '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
I love any politician that's willing to take on the teachers unions. It's rare, because they're so powerful. I knew, from junior high on, that teachers unions were ruining public education, and damaging the futures of kids. Unions protected the lazy burned-out teachers, who basically hated all children, and would expend as little effort as humanly possible. The teachers maintained a pulse, and paid their union dues. Good enough for us. The union also protected the simply incompetent teacher, who would try to substitute friendliness for actual education, hoping nobody noticed. Well, everybody noticed, but you couldn't get rid of them. If public-school teachers unions didn't exist, America's military enemies would've invented them, as a cruel despicable form of sabotage.
Feb '11
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Romney should not be the candidate. His style of speech is too abstract; he lacks the ability to make abstract economic ideas tangible, and he comes across as Establishment.
Dec '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
This reminds me of a statement that Jim DeMint made a while ago that riled some people up. He said you cannot be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
Some bloggers got very upset, but I viewed his statement as scientific. What evidence is there that his hypothesis is wrong? Name any major politician who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. There are none. All of the "moderate" Republicans you can name are fiscal nightmares.
Except one: Chris Christie.
Dec '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Also, Romneycare.
May '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
I'm not. She may be conservative, but she also wants to win. The only way a Republican beats The One, with all the tailwind he'll be getting from the Kneepad Media, is to win independents. I'm not sure a True Believer will win independents at this time in US history.
Sep '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
AmishDude
Name any major politician who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. · Feb 15 at 8:12am
Get a grip. They are all liars about everything. Actions are all that count.
Aug '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Obama ran after a mere two years in the Senate, so Christie's got precedent for an early run at the White House. I agree that he'd be an ideal candidate in 2016 instead of 2012, but it galls me to concede another 4 years to Obama.
Romney would be the McCain of 2012: looks good to the media, and able to win the nomination, but no way he wins in the general election.
Jul '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
AmishDude
This reminds me of a statement that Jim DeMint made a while ago that riled some people up. He said you cannot be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
Some bloggers got very upset, but I viewed his statement as scientific.
That's where DeMint lost me. How dare he tell me what kind of conservative I can or cannot be?
And by the way, not being "socially conservative" is not the same thing as being "socially liberal".
Jul '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
I have serious problems with Chrisite. He's a gun-control advocate; he appointed a lawyer with radical Islamic ties to the bench; he supported another Islamic radical in an effort to avoid deportation; he supported the Ground Zero mosque.
Feb '11
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
I really hope it is not Romney, he has basically been in hiding the last two years.
Jul '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Christie is a Bloomberg Republican.
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
AmishDude
This reminds me of a statement that Jim DeMint made a while ago that riled some people up. He said you cannot be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative.
Some bloggers got very upset, but I viewed his statement as scientific. What evidence is there that his hypothesis is wrong? Name any major politician who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. There are none. All of the "moderate" Republicans you can name are fiscal nightmares.
Except one: Chris Christie. · Feb 15 at 8:12am
"Social Cons" aren't actually "conservative." Conservatism is about conserving freedom and liberty, not treading on people and leaving your neighbor alone. Small government. "Social Cons" tend to violate those rules reflexively.
Libertarians - those folks are "conservative."
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
While I'm still a Christie fan, there are some worries, particularly with sloppy administration.
Also, we need to see him a bit longer to be sure we know him. Remember this is New Jersey, where Democrats are Democrats and so are Republicans.
Feb '11
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
I, too, think Ann is right. He has attacked the "sacred cow" of the NEA, and hasn't let up yet. During School Choice Week I was priveleged to see the film "The Cartel," which gave some up close statistics and information about the New Jersey school system. What a disaster! It is no wonder Cristie is on the war path! I am glad he is in the position to be able to actually make an impact. By the time politicians get to that level, the have been neutralized and won't take a stand.
I saw first-hand how teachers who weren't fit to be called a teacher were kept on in spite of ridiculous "lessons." The best one was the science teacher who enlisted the students to make a spaceship cake for their science project! Must have been one hungry teacher!
May '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Replace Chris Christie and Allen West and Ann's point still stands.
The point I think she's trying to make (I hope I'm not putting words in her mouth) is that lukewarm candidates could all siphon votes from each other in the primaries, thereby enabling the squish to win... as happened in 2008. At that point, many conservatives will realize that the changes America so desperately needs won't come, because someone like Romney can be expected to be manipulated, compromise, and capitulate to Democrats. Goodbye, Tea Party enthusiasm!
On the other hand, if we elect a steel-spined firebrand for our candidate, then Obama will stand in stark contrast in the main election and Republican voters will be inspired to spread the word and hit the polls.
What America needs now more than anything is the blunt and honest truth -- we need drastic cuts. Lukewarm candidates aren't known for blunt honesty or inspiration.
We need a leader; not an accountant.
May '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Tommy De Seno: "Social Cons" aren't actually "conservative." Conservatism is about conserving freedom and liberty, not treading on people and leaving your neighbor alone. Small government. "Social Cons" tend to violate those rules reflexively.
Libertarians - those folks are "conservative."
Nice bait-and-switch there.
Actually, libertarians are not conservative, they are libertarians pure and simple. I highly resent this recent effort to co-opt the label of "conservative" to mean nothing but the parts libertarians like.
You cannot have freedom and liberty without individual responsibility. And you cannot have responsibility without the values and intact families that social conservatives hold dear.
Of course, you cannot use government to legislate intact families into existence. On that we will agree.
But there is so much that government has done to actively tear down families and values, and are thus undermining the very basis for any kind of freedom, including the types that libertarians value.
Instead, government, as part of society, should encourage and support the institutions, such as family and church, that build morality and make our people responsible. The best place to do so is locally, closest to the issues that matter. Centralizing everything in Washington has been a disaster.
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Chris if you think Libertarians aren't for personal responsibility then you are confusing us with Libertines.
Libertarians have the most invested in personal responsibility as we trust the individual with their own freedom. "Social Cons" on the other hand, are nanny-staters that tend toward the imposition of rules by government to achieve responsibility. You'll find yourself dining with the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Michelle Obama.
Sorry but that reliance on government for imposed responsibility obliterates the "Social Con's" claim to conservatism.
And speaking of co-opting conservatism, if you are Social Con, you may want to avoid the topic, Dixiecrat.
Jul '10
Re: Chris Christie Goes to Washington
Chris Deleon
Tommy De Seno: "
Libertarians - those folks are "conservative."
Instead, government, as part of society, should encourage and support the institutions, such as family and church, that build morality and make our people responsible. The best place to do so is locally, closest to the issues that matter. Centralizing everything in Washington has been a disaster. · Feb 15 at 10:00am
Chris, that's exactly what libertarians believe. In accordance with the 10th Amendment, the social issues should be left to the states and the people. You might be surprised to know that many - perhaps most - libertarians share your views on family and morality. We just do not believe that it is appropriate to address those issues on the federal level.
And we're frustrated that by branding itself as the social issues party, the GOP has alienated millions of independent voters who, like it or not, are more socially liberal, but who might otherwise join with conservatives.