Chris Christie isn't completely awful (revisited)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He isn't just not an anti-Muslim bigot and isn't just not cruel to rape victims, as we've seen, he's also not a global warming denialist:

In case anyone had any doubts on where Gov. Chris Christie stands on
climate change, he made his position crystal clear this afternoon: It's
real and it's a problem.



In vetoing a bill (S2946)
that would have required New Jersey to stay in a regional program
intended to curb greenhouse gases — a program Christie plans to leave by
the end of the year — the governor said "climate change is real."



He added that "human activity plays a role in these changes" and that climate change is "impacting our state."

Well, okay. That's a lot to acknowledge -- for a Republican.

Still, it's not clear that Christie actually intends to try to do something meaningful about climate change. He appears to have put his skepticism behind him, seems to respect climate science (and the clear consensus within the scientific community), and for the most part acknowledges the problem ("we know enough to know that we are at least part of the problem"), if not the full extent of the crisis -- and all that certainly distinguishes him within his head-up-the-ass party -- but words, needless to say, even truthful ones, aren't enough. They're a start, and for that he deserves some credit, but the test is whether he puts the state's money where his mouth is.

Chris Christie isn't completely awful

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's a bully and a blowhard, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has actually done a couple of admirable things recently.

First he appointed a Muslim judge, rejecting fears of the imposition of sharia law and slamming those -- on the right, of course, and distinctly Republican -- who opposed the appointment on ignorant and bigoted grounds:

It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of
his religious background. I'm happy that he's willing to serve after
all this baloney.

That's awfully refreshing coming from a Republican, that is, from a prominent member of a party that seems to run on bigotry these days. Indeed, it's like he was rejecting his own party, or at least a huge part of it. See the clip below.

And now he's come to the defence of rape victims:

Health care providers in New Jersey can no longer bill sexual assault victims for forensic evidence collection.



Gov.
Chris Christie signed a bill into law Thursday that prevents victims
from being bill directly for medical screenings, medications for
sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy tests after an incident.



Christie
says sexual assault victims must be treated with respect and
compassion. He says this will help ensure their needs are met.

This was a pretty easy call, to be sure, given that victims aren't supposed to be billed directly. But they often are, and, needless to say, that's hardly what a rape victim needs.

Still, as easy as it may have been, or should have been, to sign this bill, the fact is that rape victims all too often aren't treated with respect and compassion, including by those in the political arena, and especially by some on the right.

At least this time, as with his rejection of anti-Muslim bigotry in appointing a Muslim judge, Christie did the right thing.

Gov. Christie, still unpopular in his home state

By Richard K. Barry

Just because I like to point to anything that counts as bad news for that pompous bully governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, I note a recent Public Policy Polling survey on how Christie would fair against Obama head-to-head in the state. The results were 56 percent for the president, 39 percent for the pompous bully.

It is true that Obama won New Jersey by 15 points in 2008, and the state hasn't gone Republican since 1988, as Daily Kos points out, but isn't Christie supposed to be a cut above?

His current approval rating? 43 percent approve of the job he's doing and 53 disapprove, so maybe not.

I know that a lot of people think Christie could win the White House for the GOP if he would only run, but if the guy can't even come close to carrying his own state, that might be an overly optimistic assessment.

For the record, Obama beats all comers in "The Garden State" with the following breakdown: Romney (53-39); Bachmann (55-35); Pawlenty (54-32); Cain (55-29); and Palin (59-33).

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Union-busting and the Koch brothers' plans for our future

By R.K. Barry

As we consider attempts by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin to bust public sector unions, not to mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's constant rants against these unions in his own state, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a plan afoot – a concerted effort by Republican politicians to do something that they always wanted to do but may not have previously seen a clear path to accomplish.

And, although former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been widely credited with saying that one should never let a good crisis go to waste, it seems his best students have been Republican governors.

Yes, the economy went to rat shit because of the malfeasance of Wall Street types, leaving everyone feeling vulnerable to personal economic collapse, which, in turn, has given Republican politicians the excuse they have longed for to get rid of public sector unions.

It's pretty simple. Point to people who have bargained their salaries and working conditions in good faith, have come to agreement with their employers as part of a legitimate negotiating process, and make them a target for others who are in precarious employment situations, or perhaps unemployed.

Feed on the worst aspects of human nature, which is to say that if some people are not doing well, others, with whom they may generally occupy the same economic class, should not be doing well either. Make it sound like everyone in a public sector union is driving a luxury car and vacationing in the Riviera. Divide working people so they cannot be a threat to the power of wealth and privilege in American. Make then forget who got us into this mess in the first place and stop them from asking annoying questions. Brilliant.

What is not being talked about enough, I believe, is that the assault on public sector unions is an assault on the idea that government is an effective force for good in our society. But, in this case, it's a two-for-one sale. Attacking public sector unions is an attack on the idea of an expanded role of government but also on the idea of unions: two forces that have always been a major impediment to massive private wealth in the United States doing whatever it chooses to do (while admittedly playing that role imperfectly).

Two things that wealth and privilege hate in America: government regulating their activities and working people having their own independent base of power. Take away collective bargaining for public sector unions and you clear the way for making government smaller and destroy yet another potential oppositional force. 

The rhetoric of someone like Governor Christie is priceless. In his world, gold-plated public sector contracts are paid for by working people who don't happen to be on the gravy train. This creates the potential of working people at each other’s throats with the goal of reducing the size of government and its ability to regulate the economy while destroying unions all at the same time. Who would have thought that an economic crisis could be so useful for the power elite?

How any working people can believe that smaller government and fewer effective unions will mean that they will have more freedom and autonomy to do the things they want to do is beyond me.

Whether one wants to go back and look at John Kenneth Gailbraith's theory of countervailing power or some variant of Robert Dahl's theory of pluralism, whatever else their defects, it's pretty obvious that there is real and concentrated economic power in America and those who hope to have real freedom and autonomy had better consider how they will come together, and organize, to challenge that power. Government at times can be helpful, unions as well, as can many different kinds of social movements.

Working people who fail to organize in their own interests or fail to support others who do will wonder how it is that their piece of the pie got so small.

Reduce the size and effectiveness of government, destroy the right of people to bargain collectively, to organize politically, and you will have ceded the entire playing field to the same Wall Street hacks and their cheerleaders in the Republican Party who have grown pretty comfortable with the growing inequalities of wealth in America.

The genius of the right is that they have always been able to find ways to get working people to fight amongst themselves.

Tea Partiers may think that reducing the size of government and the power of public sector unions will lead to a utopia where everyone, even the least among us, is free to realize his or her own version of the American Dream.

The Koch brothers sincerely thank you for being so naive.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #9: Christie challenges Palin to go unscripted

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Given that so many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the half-term Alaska ex-governor, it makes sense that many of our Elephant Dungs will be about Palin. Of course, given her significant popularity with the GOP base, including the Tea Party, these Republicans need to be very careful, and so their criticism tends to be indirect. Often, they're not really criticizing her, more challenging her, likely knowing that she'll fail.

This is surely the case with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's recent comments:

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey says it’s way too early to handicap the field of his fellow Republicans who might run for president in 2012, but on Wednesday he voiced a few sharp words about the most famous one.

He argued that unscripted, even adversarial exchanges with reporters and the public are essential to judging a candidate, and that if Sarah Palin continues to avoid them, "she'll never be president."

At a lunch with New York Times journalists and the newspaper's publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Mr. Christie was asked about the Sarah Palin video, released earlier in the day, that had caused a stir. He said he had not yet seen it, but he doubted that it would shed much light on her character.

"I think people need to be judged by the way they conduct themselves in the public arena, in a way that is as minimally staged as possible," he said. "That's where you really get to know people."

When it was noted that Ms. Palin has preferred communicating with the public in ways she can control, Mr. Christie said that "rightfully has been criticized."

I don't much care for Gov. Christie, to say the least, but I think he's right about this. Now, given that Palin never goes unscripted, and is as packaged as they come even if she presents herself as somehow raw (her "reality" show was just the latest example of how everything she does is carefully managed), there's no way she'll ever go "as minimally staged as possible."

And why? Because she's a self-destructive disaster whenever she goes off script, or whenever she's out on the public stage without everything pre-determined. Just think back to the '08 campaign. There was a reason she was kept away from the media. She may have given a jolt to McCain's campaign, but McCain's people clearly understood that she was not to be trusted, and that despite her popularity with the base she would only end up embarrassing herself (and further undermining McCain). And when she was sent out without a script, or put in a position where she was forced to think on her feet, as in the interview with Katie Couric, she did just that, proving to be a moron. This is why her media appearances are limited to Fox News and otherwise friendly outlets/shows. And why her other public appearances are at partisan rallies where she is idolized, as with Tea Party events.

(She's doing a TV interview on Monday, her first since the Arizona shooting. Guess which network. Answer below.)

Now, there are many other reasons why Palin will never be president -- unless the country goes completely mad, which is not out of the question. Her utterly unpresidential response to the Arizona shooting, including her incredibly awful Facebook statement/video, which was more about herself than anything else (as usual), and which featured the repugnant claim that she's victim of "blood libel," for example. (And, of course, she may not run, as I've been suggesting.)

But Christie is right that her detachment from the public -- her stagedness -- is a huge problem for her. He doesn't go so far as to criticize her directly (he just says it's right that she's been criticized by others), but you don't have to read too far between the lines. He probably thinks she's incapable, if not incompetent, and that there's no way she'll ever go unscripted.

Because Sarah Palin and "Sarah Palin," her public persona (her character), are pretty much indistinguishable. Maybe there's a trace of authenticity in her private life, but in public, wherever she happens to be, she's a big phony. And the American people, many of whom would apparently like to sit down for a beer with George W. Bush, supposedly one of the reasons he beat the far more intelligent and far more qualified John Kerry in '04, just don't care for such phoniness, such artifice, in their politicians.

* Fox News, of course, with Hannity. Duh.