Obama Takes a Hit in the Gulf, The Insubordination of Stanley McChrystal, Weak Wall St Reform, Kagan Hearings Monday, Rock Star Haley

I have been somewhat derelict in my duties (such as they are) as a blogger the past couple of weeks. I've had a lot going on in my real life, having transitioned to a new job that has been consuming a large percentage of my time. To make up for my lack of coverage recently, this will be a long post to try to get caught up on the recent news. And there has been a lot.

Presidential Approval: Heading Into the Deep Sea
Gains that the President had made last month have been completely erased and he is at or near all-time lows in his Presidency. The past month has seen some interesting trending. The big one-day dip on June 14th likely has more to do with the timing of poll releases than with anything substantial (as his numbers recovered the next day), but the overall trend for the month is unmistakably down. Anger over the spill in the gulf, the White House's seeming slow response and the continued malaise in the U.S. economy is likely to blame.



After posting his first substantial monthly gain in his entire Presidency in May, President Obama is on pace to hit an all-time low in June, with an approve minus disapprove of +1.5%. One positive note for the President is that his numbers are still positive, a considerable feat given all the hits he has taken. Internals of the polls show that Democrats largely still approve of him (80% in the latest Gallup poll) and he is still holding on to about 4 in 10 Independents, while Republicans (85% in Gallup) almost universally disapprove. Obviously the Independents tend to be the ones that drive poll trends, given that the Democratic and Republican numbers seem fairly entrenched.



Good Riddance, General McChrystal
President Obama made the right call this week when he fired General Stanley McChrystal over a Rolling Stone interview where the General and his staffers mocked the Vice President, implied that the President didn't know what he was doing and mocked other civilian authority figures. The General's actions are an utter disgrace.

Let me be clear...I have no issue with criticism of the administration. Anybody who has read this space the past year and a half know that I'm not shy at criticizing President Obama and other Democrats when they are out of line, just as I took shots at President Bush and the Republicans when they were in power. I am a civilian. I am not in the government. In our great, free country, I'm free to say whatever I want about these politicians.

The military is different. Our constitution was designed with civilian leadership of the military for a very important reason: the preservation of Democracy demands that our elected, civilian officials control the machine of war, not un-elected military leaders. As such, we have created a clear divide...civilian leaders are elected to make the strategy calls, military leaders are there to execute the strategy. General McChrystal is entitled to his opinions. But he has two choices: keep his opinions to himself or leave the military and become a civilian commentator. He has no right to sit from a military office and take shots at his civilian bosses. And he did, unambiguously. He had to go.

President Obama clearly made a poor decision putting McChrystal in charge of the effort in Afghanistan. Lost in all the coverage was that McChrystal was the President's hand-picked leader. The President and Defense Secretary Gates should have done a far better job betting the General to ensure alignment, loyalty and judgement.

Kudos to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) for immediately and clearly speaking out against McChrystal and in support of the President's authority. Support from the minority for the established chain of command is important and the bi-partisan support for this constitutional principle was crucial in establishing the credibility of McChrystal's firing. Their statements were principled and correct. Nice to see that for a change.

Financial Reform That Does Something, But Not Enough
I feel like a broken record. Every time a reform bill passes recently, I have the same view: there are some good things in it, but it does not go far enough. This pattern repeats with the conference report on financial reform that was released this week and will head to the House and the Senate for final votes in the coming weeks.

It places limit on banks owning hedge funds (limiting ownership to 3% of assets), establishes processes for orderly management of crises such as the financial meltdown of 2008 and establishes a consumer protection agency.

What it doesn't do is force the break-up of institutions that are "too big to fail". This situation reinforces backward incentives around risk-taking. It also does not separate commercial from investment banking, meaning that your banks deposits can still be invested in risky assets. It does not solve the implicit government backing of almost all mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, in fact, leaves in place those sinkholes more or less as is.

Feels to me like we will be back to the table discussing this issue again the next time that there is a financial crisis. And there will be another. Asset bubbles happen and most recessions deal with their popping....Savings and Loans in the 90s, Technology in 2000 and Housing in 2008...we seem to have an asset bubble every 10 years or so. And since the reforms of the 30s and 40s we haven't made much progress in stopping them.

Let's hope this is a first step and not the final solution.

Kagan Confirmation Hearings to Begin Monday
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for nominee Elena Kagan begin on Monday. Kagan has been recently vetted by the Senate, and, barring any unforeseen new revelations, I expect relatively smooth sailing for Kagan. The days of Supreme Court nominees receiving 90+ votes in the Senate are long gone, to be sure....judicial ideology seems to be the primary source of votes these days versus qualification (this trend was started by Democrats in the 1990s and has no permeated both parties), but Kagan should easily get 65 votes or so on her final vote in the Senate. And no Republicans thus far have talked of even mounting a filibuster, although if new revelations put her ability to get 60 votes in doubt, there would undoubtedly be one.

Nikki Haley in 2012? 2016?
She came out of nowhere. A few months ago she was fourth in the polls, now she is the probable next Governor of South Carolina. Nikki Haley this week easily won the run-off for the Republican nomination for Governor in South Carolina, clearing a path for what should be a relatively easy general election victory in the heavily Republican state.

Haley's victory marks several firsts. She would be the first female governor of South Carolina. She would be the first Indian governor in the state (she is half Indian). And she is a potential rock star in the GOP.

She is female. She is attractive. She is well spoken. And she is an ethnic minority in a party that is short on minority stars (Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is the only other one that I can even name.)

She faced all kinds of opposition from the good old boy network in South Carolina. She faced ugly racism from within the party. She faced ugly accusations of infidelity (none proven, many clearly motivated by opposition to her candidacy and frankly, totally irrelevant to her qualifications as Governor.) She handled the heat with class.

There are already those talking about her as a potential national candidate in 2012 or 2016. While it is VERY early to make such predictions....she hasn't even won the election yet and we have no idea how effective she will be in governing, she quickly has joined a short list of potential new GOP stars that includes New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (who has stated he is not interested in national office), Florida Senate Candidate Mark Rubio (who may well lose to now-Independent Charlie Crist) and ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Keep an eye on this gal....she may just be the real deal.

Lessons from the Primaries and PA-12, 1 Easy Step to Squandering a Lead in Connecticut, Squeaking Through a Cloture Motion

What Happened Tuesday
Tuesday's primaries were interesting, although in my mind, none of the results unexpected.

First, and probably most significantly, Rep. Joe Sestak defeated incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination for Specter's Pennsyvlania Senate seat. Poor old Snarlin' Arlen. A lifelong moderate, he realized earlier this year that a Republican Party that never really liked him all that much had shifted to the right and was finally ready to dump him. So, he switched parties and joined the Dems, amidst promises of support from the President and the Democratic Establishment. The only problem is, the President doesn't get to vote in Democratic Primaries in Pennsylvania. And the Democratic voters in PA couldn't find a compelling reason to vote for a guy that they had spent the last 24 years voting against in general elections. So, in place of a moderate, they nominated a liberal. It's a shame that the US Senate is going to lose a moderate at just the time when more moderate voices are needed (it will either have a liberal in Sestak or a conservative in Republican Pat Toomey), but it's not that unexpected.

In terms of the general election race, Sestak has surged in the polls since the primary and now holds a modest lead over Toomey. This certainly is shaping up to be one of the more competitive and interesting races of the 2008 cycle.

Secondly, the special election in Pennsylvania's 12th district provided a clear-cut victory for a moderate (some would even say conservative) Democrat over a conservative Republican. PA-12 is a difficult district to charecterize, having voted 8 points more Republican than the nation in 2008 but 5 points more Democratic than the nation in 2004. It is one of those districts in Appalchia where President Obama significantly underperformed, but has a large advantage for Democrats in party registration. It is a socially conservative district but economically more liberal. And there was a Democratic Senate primary going on in Pennsylvania that may have aided Democratic turnout. Combine all that and Democrat Mark Critz' victory on Tuesday was a modestly positive bellweather for the Dems, but not something that should automatically make them feel good about November. And it is a district that will have a rematch in less than 6 months. It is worth noting as well, that this is yet another loss for the tea party movement. The tea party has yet to have one of their own actually win a general election.

In Kentucky, the tea party did win a primary as libertarian Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for the Senate. This is a race that the GOP should win, but Paul presents some unique challenges. First, he has some pretty radical views, such as the view that the government should not require businesses not to racially discriminate. It is an honestly held belief, he doesn't believe in much government intervention of any sort, but still problematic. Secondly, he is not particularly in line with the social conservatism of Kentucky, favoring libertarian principles like marijuana legalization. But, this is Kentucky, one of the reddest states in the country. So, Paul will certainly be favored to be the tea party's first real general election victory, but this is not a lead pipe cinch.

In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln, already in big trouble in the general election, is evidentally also in trouble from the left in the primary. She failed to get 50% of the vote and will face a very tight run-off.

3 senate primaries and not one establishment candidate with a clear cut victory. If there was any doubt that the voters are out for blood this year, this should seal the deal.

How to Blow a 40 Point Lead
If you have a 40 point lead in a Senate race in Connecticut, you just keep your mouth shut, stay on script and don't create any waves, right?

But what if you wanted to plot a way to blow that lead? Can you think of a better way then making false statements about being a Vietnam War veteran, when, in fact, you actively sought deferrments from being drafted?

Richard Blumenthal has managed to create a potentially competitive race out of one he was going to win in a walk. What an idiot. He may still win, he has a history of goodwill and popularity in a deep blue state. But telling offensive lies in a year when the voters are looking to throw out anyone that even resembles an incumbent is a good place to start if you want to lose.

Note: I will be publishing a complete updated 2010 rundown within the next week or so.

Really? A 60-40 Vote?
It took two tries and some arm twisting, but the Democrats were finally able to invoke cloture on the manager's amendment to move forward with the financial reform bill. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) opposed cloture as he felt the measure did not go far enough. The Maine Moderates, Sen's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (both R) crossed the line to vote for the measure. Other than that, it was a strictly party line vote.

Is the GOP just following my strategy of running clock to get to the mid-terms or are they really going to oppose financial reform on final passage? I can't imagine anyone facing a re-election fight that is even remotely competitive would want to have a no vote on record. But I'm starting to wonder.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

The LDP Fizzle, Bennett Kicked to the Curb, FInancial Reform Moves Along

It's Still a Hung Parliament, But the LDP Faded Fast
Just a couple of weeks before the British Parliamentary elections, it looked as if the LDP might win the most popular votes after Nick Clegg mopped the floor with the two "major" parties in the first debate. Clearly, the LDP faded faster than the polling had indicated, as my election-eve projection had them almost even with the incumbent Labour party, a mark that they decidedly fell short of. I warned you my margin of error would be larger than in a U.S. election, as I'm simply not as familiar with the ins and outs of British politics, and I missed the mark by a considerable margin. Here's the scorecard on the elections:
(1) Popular Vote
Projected: Tories = 35.5%, Labour = 27.7%, LDP = 27.5%, Minor Parties = 9.3%
Actual: Tories = 36.1%, Labour = 29.0%, LDP = 23.0%, Minor Parties = 11.9%
Error: Tories +0.6%, Labour +1.3%, LDP -4.5%, Minor Parties +2.6%

So, you can see, the margins for the other three buckets were relatively close, the LDP just underperformed all around and the votes distributed to all three groups.

(2) Seats
Projected: Tories = 282 Seats, Labour = 258 Seats, LDP = 81 Seats, Minor Parties = 29 Seats
Actual: Tories = 306 Seats, Labour = 258 Seats, LDP = 57 Seats, Minor Parties = 28 Seats
Note: 1 seat still to be decided pending May 27th special election, following the death of a candidate leading up to the normal election date.

So, you can see exactly what happened versus my predictions -- the LDP underperformed, allowing the Tories to take 24 swing districts and pad their plurality.

The Tories did not reach the 326 that you need to govern, so the LDP is still in the driver's seat in terms of "king-making". Although they are more ideologically aligned with Labour (both hold views to the left of the Tories on economic policy), Clegg severely dislikes incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown, therefore the only two outcomes that I see are that Clegg forges an unlikely marriage with David Cameron and the Conservatives, or Brown agrees to step down and Clegg forms an alliance with a new Labour leader.

Bennett Kicked to the Curb
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) has been cast aside by the Utah GOP nominating convention. Utah has a strange party selection process that is two-tiered, whereby the party has a caucus to determine the top two candidates, who then move on to a primary. Bennett finished third in the caucus and therefore will not be on the ballot in the GOP primary. He also cannot run for re-election as an independent, a la Joe Lieberman, because the filing deadline in Utah has passed. His only recourses are to either retire quietly or to run as a write-in candidate.

So what went wrong? Most of the anger in the Utah GOP centered around Bennett's vote for the original TARP bill, although there were other minor criticisms. This is kind of a shocking turn of events to me, as Bennett is a pretty conservative guy, scoring a mere 10% voting record from the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action, half that of the 20% vote scored by his fellow Utah Senator, and renowned conservative, Orrin Hatch.

But, there are a number of environmental things to consider:
(1) The state caucus is the most conservative of the conservative
The odd system in Utah lends itself to turns like this. Bennett surely would have won a primary had he been on the ballot, but the state caucus largely represents the most loyal, active and conservative Republicans.

(2) Anti-incumbent sentiment cuts two ways
Sure, it looks like a bad year for the DEMs....that's because they are in power. People aren't specifically ticked at the DEMs, they are ticked at government in general and Bennett is part of the system.

(3) It is Utah, after all
If this were Illinois or New York, this would be a true shocker. But the GOP can lean far to the right in Utah, a state in which Bill Clinton finished 3rd in the 1992 Presidential race, and still win.

So am I sad to see Bennett go? Not really....not because we aren't ideologically aligned, heck, he's probably more ideologically aligned with me than whoever will wind up being Senator. But because he reaped what he sowed. Bennett, like a number of Republicans, ran in 1992 on a promise of a two-term limit as part of his advocation for term limits in general. He got three. Seems like he got 6 years more than he deserved from his promise.

Just a thought, and it's a long shot, but wouldn't it be crazy if Bennett runs as a write-in and somehow splinters the GOP vote, allowing a Democrat to take the Senate seat? It's unlike Bennett will even run, but it's fun to conceive these crazy scenarios.

Financial Reform is Moving, Albeit Like a Snail
The Senate this week voted on a series of amendments to financial reform. All indications from my seat are still that in the final tally, Democrats will comfortably have the 60 votes that they need for passage. But the GOP is doing a good job of running clock, just as I said would be a politically wise move for them.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Latest 2010 Updates, The Giant Gulf Oil Spill, The GOP Clock Play

2010 -- A Big Year for the GOP
The Republican wave continues in polling for the 2010 race. Here are the latest updates for the Senate races. As always, I'll begin with race designation switches, followed by polls that reconfirm existing ratings:

Illinois -- moves from Toss-Up to Lean GOP Pick-Up as Republican Mark Kirk has been up by 4% and 8% in the latest two polls. This race pits a moderate against a liberal and the moderate appears to be winning.

Washington -- moves from Likely Democratic Hold to Lean Democratic Hold, as Patty Murray could be in real trouble this year. In the one poll available, she leads three potential GOP candidates by only 2 points and actually trails prospective Republican candidate Dino Rossi by 10 points. This race could shift further with additional polling.

Delaware -- moves from Lean GOP Pick-Up to Likely GOP Pick-Up as moderate at-large Rep. Mike Castle is up by 23 points in an April 30th Rasmussen poll. Castle is popular state-wide and appears to be headed for an easy victory.

Indiana -- moves from Lean GOP Pick-Up to Likely GOP Pick-Up as Coats leads by 16 and 21 points respectively in the latest two polls. Without Evan Bayh, Democrats appear sunk in this race.

Ohio -- some rare good news for the Dems as this race moves from Toss-Up to Lean DEM Pick-Up. Fisher appears headed to primary victory and leads by 3 points and 4 points in the latest two polls. This one has been very close for as long as we have been tracking it.

Florida -- moves from Likely GOP Hold to Lean GOP Hold, not because the Democrats have a shot at this seat, but because with Charlie Crist running as an independent, there is some chance that GOP-nominated Marco Rubio will not win. Rubio is still showing as up by 7% in a three-way race, so he is still favored to win, but it is quite plausible to see a reverse of what happened with Joe Lieberman in 2006 , when Republicans abandoned the Republican nominee to support the independent. This could happen with Democrats in Florida, as Meeks really has no shot. Crist may well still align with the GOP in the Senate even if he wins, but since he is running as an independent, that's what we'll consider him for rating purposes.

Other polls reconfirm existing ratings:
Arkansas -- Baker is up by 7 and 12 points in two new polls. Stays a Lean GOP PIck-Up.

North Dakota -- Hoeven is up by a staggering 45 points in a new poll. This may be the biggest rout for an open seat since Barack Obama won his Senate seat in 2004. Stays a Safe GOP Pick-Up.

New Hampshire -- Ayotte up 15 in the latest Rasmussen poll. Stays a Likely GOP Hold.

Arizona -- McCain up by 22 in the latest Behavioral Research Center poll. Stays a Likely GOP Hold.

North Carolina -- Burr up by 18 to 22 in two new polls. Stays a Likely GOP Hold.

Georgia -- Isakson up 16 points in a new poll. Stays a Likely GOP Hold.

All of this leaves us with:
Projected Democratic Holds (9)
Safe Holds (4)
Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Vermont

Likely Holds (3)
Hawaii, Oregon, Wisconsin

Lean Holds (2)
California, Washington

Potential Democratic Pick-Ups (1)
Lean Pick-Up (1)
Ohio

Potential Republican Pick-Ups (9)
Toss-Up (1)
New York (Gillebrand)

Lean Pick-Ups (4)
Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois

Likely Pick-Ups (3)
Delaware, Indiana, Nevada

Safe Pick-Ups (1)
North Dakota

Projected Republican Holds (17)
Safe Holds (8)
Louisiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah

Likely Holds (7)
New Hampshire, Kentucky, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, Kansas

Lean Holds (2)
Missouri, Florida

Net Projection: GOP +7 to 8 Seats
(10 seats needed to win control)

So, the GOP continues to project big gains. In order to take the Senate, they would need to hold Ohio, win Kristen Gillebrand's Senate seat and win either California or Washington. Still tough, but certainly not impossible, given the trend.

In the House,

Our generic polling average of averages has Republicans at +1.7%. This projects a GOP Pick-up of 35 seats, just shy of the 40 needed to retake the House. This result has been pretty consistent over the past couple of months.

Look at the race by race analysis, the Cook Political Report, shows 6 likely GOP pick-ups and 28 races marked as toss-ups, with 26 of those being Democratic seats, leading to a range of GOP Pick-Up from 4 to 32 seats. As I've said before, Cook tends to be pretty conservative (numerically, not politically) with his projections, so if the race is trending GOP, he will tend to lag most observers in projecting the size of the gain.

Realclearpolitics has the GOP projected to pick up a net 17 seats, with an additional 35 races rated as toss-ups, 34 of them being Democrats. This implies a GOP pick-up of 16 to 51 seats. This is far more in line with what I would expected, given the generic polling.

The GOP will have a big year in November, I think that much is assured at this point. Will they retake either or both houses of Congress? The next 6 months will tell us.

A Big, Nasty Oil Spill
We all know by now that the massive oil spill coming from a BP offshore oil platform is now approaching the gulf coast (as if the gulf coast needed another environmental disaster). This will have a devastating effect for years to coming on the environment, the fishing industry, tourism and public health. It is a terrible shame. And, apparently, something that happened because equipment designed to prevent these kinds of spills failed.

The political ramifications of this will be significant. This gives everyone pause about the role and regulation of offshore drilling. Clearly, additional measures need to be taken to ensure that this does not happen again. I'm not ready to say offshore drilling is a bad idea, simply that we need much better regulation of safety mechanisms. Oil rigs should be treated like nuclear plants, with intensive regulation. And the companies profiting from those rigs should pay for the cost of that regulation and oversight. And BP damn sure needs to pay not only for the clean-up, but for the damage to local economies that this spill will do.

No Shot Clock in Sight
In the era prior to the shot clock in college basketball, there was a play called the four corners that was designed to run minutes off the clock with every play. If I'm a Republican, I have a very simple strategy for the rest of this congress: run out the clock. I don't yet know if the GOP will have control of the House or Senate next year, but I do know that they'll have more seats than they do now.

So what does running the clock out look like?
(1) Move financial reform, but go slow
The House and Senate could easily be tied up for a month or two debating a financial reform bill. As I've said, I firmly believe that the final bill will pass with bi-partisan support. But the GOP has the tools to take their sweet time doing it.

(2) Run clock on a Supreme Court Nominee
President Obama will likely name his pick for the court in late May. Republicans could easily kill at least a month debating even a non-controversial candidate.

(3) Get tied up in the budgeting process
The House and Senate have to pass a full series of appropriations bills this year. Take it slow

In short, I think this strategy will be employed and utterly precludes a bill on immigration or climate change this year. That means the President will have a much tougher road with a more Republican congress next year. Perhaps he will be forced to live up to his promise of bi-partisanship.

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Why Bipartisanship Will Prevail on Financial Reform, Will Supreme Court Nominee Be a Non-Event?, The Remarkable Chris Christie

Why Bipartisan Talks on Financial Reform Will Succeed
We will get a financial reform bill and it will be bipartisan in nature. No, it probably will not be a 100-0 vote in the Senate, but there is a high probability of a 75-25 vote at the end of the day. A far cry from the long, drawn out, bitterly partisan debate over health care, Senate discussions have been downright collegial. So what gives? Several things about the dynamics of the issue and the times create a perfect bipartisan storm.

(1) No one wants to be on the side of the banks
Unlike with health care reform, where Republicans could credibly claim to be defending the 80% of Americans that have good health care, there is not much of a constituency for the financial status quo. Sure, the big banks like it. But Americans are livid about bankers taking huge risks, going broke, taking tax payer money, then paying out big bonuses a year later. Supporting some kind of reform is just good politics.

(2) Failure would be ugly for both sides
Think about it...the banking meltdown is the single biggest crisis that the country has had since September 11th. To go run for re-election saying you voted to uphold the status quo is hardly a winning formula.

(3) Everybody has taken the cash
Both the GOP and the DEMs have taken big bucks from the big banks. Do they really want this to be a campaign issue for their challengers in the fall?

(4) They aren't that far apart
Neither side, apparently, favors fundamentally changing the system by breaking up banks considered "too big to fail" and neither side is unhappy with the status quo. Unlike with health care, where there was a fundamental difference in the views on the proper role of government, the GOP and the DEMs largely agree that more regulation is needed, but not radically more.

A Supreme Court Cakewalk?
All indications point towards moderation and bipartisanship in President Obama's Supreme Court pick as well. The President has been holding bipartisan meetings to go over potential candidates, clearly looking to find someone middle-of-the-road enough to get through without a tough fight.

You know, it's an odd thing. In the aftermath of health care, the GOP was making sounds like it was armageddon for any bipartisanship. Yet, the period following that bill actually appears poised to be one of the most bipartisan in years. Lindsey Graham is even working with the DEMs to craft a compromise immigration reform bill...not that I think that it will actually become a reality this year.

I Admit, I'm Impressed
This blog is devoted to national politics, so I generally try to stay away from discussing local New Jersey politics unless it is a relevant national story. The early days of the administration of Governor Chris Christie (R) certainly fit the bill of a national story, with national conservative commentators such as George Will writing extensively about his administration.

I did not vote for Governor Christie, as frequent readers will know (I supported Independent Tom Daggett in the 2009 election.) We do not see eye-to-eye at all on social issues and in spite of the failure of ex-Governor Jon Corzine, I couldn't bring myself to vote for him.

But, I am impressed with his administration so far. Faced with over a 2 billion dollar current year deficit (9% of New Jersey's total budget) and a projected 10 billion dollar deficit next year (35% of that budget), the new Governor has taken quick, decisive and mostly correct action. He has eliminated state aid for wealthy school districts. He has cut excess services. And now he is taking on the public unions, which have incredibly generous benefit packages which cost astronomically more than their counterparts in the private sector.

Living in one of the school districts that was impacted by the state cuts, it was interesting to watch the local reaction. The school board here responded in part with budget cuts, but in large measure by proposing property tax increases. The voters responded by voting down the property tax increases in municipal elections this week and electing an anti-tax activist to the school board.

If the people behind the tea party movement want to gain real credibility, Christie is a role model. Fiscal responsibility resonates with the public, even in blue New Jersey. People are tired of government waste and high taxes. They just aren't on board with the nutsos running the tea party movement in this country. Moderate pragmatists like Chris Christie should be the role model for the new GOP. Let's hope they pay attention and remember.

If you like this site, tell your friends.