Browse By

Chris Christie for President: The Pros and Cons

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has announced his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination today. By my count, that makes officially a whole buncha Republican presidential candidates so far… to be precise.

What makes Chris Christie different from all the rest? The following are the pros and cons of the Christie for President 2016 campaign;

– While Chris Christie opposes many gun control laws, he supports some of them, and admits that having a large number of privately-owned guns in New Jersey has been a problem. “I want to make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there,” Christie has said.
– Chris Christie has at times criticized extreme anti-Muslim activists, saying that it’s wrong to “paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans.”
sweaty chris christie for president

– Chris Christie supports the right of state governments to prohibit same-sex marriage.
– Chris Christie has been working hard to rival Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in weakening labor unions. Christie has taken the side of corporate executives who are attempting to circumvent workplace safety protections and are trying to keep workers’ wages low.
– Chris Christie is rude. His Republican supporters refer to this personality characteristic as “no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners”, but to the rest of America, when Christie shouts at voters, blusters at reporters, and shouts at other political leaders, he just looks like a bully who isn’t able to exercise any self-control. Do we really want a President who will expand his power with no holds barred? That isn’t the American way. We have a Constitution to put holds on executive authority, and we need a President who understands the value of those limits.
Bridgegate is a huge weight around Chris Christie’s neck. Christie used his power as Governor of New Jersey to make sure commuters trying to get into Manhattan would be blocked from doing so. Christie arranged for lanes on the George Washington Bridge to be closed, and didn’t give any notice in advance to local or federal officials. Christie thought this would be a clever way to punish the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for neglecting to endorse his re-election campaign. How would you like to see that kind of abusive withdrawal of services used as a political weapon at the federal level?
– Chris Christie vetoed oversight legislation aiming to avoid corruption and waste in spending on recovery efforts after “Superstorm Sandy”.
– Chris Christie is inexperienced in foreign policy. Even Republican cheerleader Warner Todd Huston writes of Christie that “he has no record of thoughtful foreign policy ideas”.
– Chris Christie has a low level of support from his home state. The longer he stays in the Governor’s mansion, the less New Jersey voters approve of the job he’s doing.
– Chris Christie consistently gets basic facts about tax policy wrong. For example, he commonly states that the United States is the only country in the world that taxes corporations twice on money that they earn abroad. In fact, corporations are not taxed twice on these earnings – and often, corporations use shelters and loopholes to completely evade ever paying any taxes for these earnings.
– Chris Christie has vetoed legislation prohibiting the dumping of waste products from hydrofracking into New Jersey waterways.
– Chris Christie’s tax plan would result in big benefits for the corporations and the wealthiest Americans, while forcing middle class and poor families to pay a bigger share of the price of radically-reduced government services.
– Christie’s government gave Prudential a $250 million tax break in return for relocating its headquarters to New Jersey… from another address in New Jersey.
– Chris Christie has not had a record of successful job creation in New Jersey during his time as Governor. New Jersey’s rate of job creation has been less than half that of the national average while Christie has been Governor. With Christie in charge of New Jersey, the state has ranked 49 out of 50 in terms of job growth.
– Climate change has been cited by the Pentagon as the greatest international threat to U.S. national security, but nowhere on his campaign web site does Chris Christie even acknowledge that climate change exists.
– Chris Christie has vetoed legislation that would prohibit on the job discrimination against workers in New Jersey.
– Chris Christie seeks to support big oil corporations by allowing them to export crude oil overseas, a policy that would increase the amount of petroleum being burned while increasing the price of fossil fuels here in the United States. The result: Accelerated climate change, dirty air, and degraded public health.
– Chris Christie cut a special deal with Exxon to help the big oil company to avoid paying a high penalty for pollution in New Jersey.
– Chris Christie aims to increase pork barrel spending on the military and war overseas while reducing the services government provides for American citizens get here at home.
– Chris Christie has vetoed legislation requiring materials used by the New Jersey Department of Public Works to be made in the USA.

6 thoughts on “Chris Christie for President: The Pros and Cons”

  1. R. Comer says:

    My take on the 4th and missing member of the 3 Stooges: The guy isn’t fit to be a part-time assistant to the assistant manager of a Mickey D’s, let alone a governor AND, fagettaboutit–Prez! I wouldn’t trust Christie to clean out my septic tank. He’s too full of what is already in it. He’s one of the definitions of “rotten, power-hungry, Greed-monger, Ego-Maniac, destroy the Middle-class and Poor, Plutocrat”, politician. The guy should be on a short leash at a dog pound. It is important to remember, THOSE WHO IGNORE HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO VOTE REPUBLICAN!

  2. Tom says:

    R. Comer – thanks for the realistic assessment (that made me laugh).

    On politics in general:

    Greece, Democracy and Magical Thinking


    What is representative democracy but organized bribery on a mass scale? Politicians seeking control of the spigots of state wealth and power promise endless swag to voters. Those who promise the most swag and do so with the most inspirational Soaring Rhetoric ™ win elections and gain control of the spigots of state wealth and power.

    What are promises of endless swag but lies cloaked in magical thinking? The magical thinking has many manifestations: the aptly named Laffer Curve, used to justify cutting taxes to the already-wealthy; entry into the Eurozone, a magical land of unicorns and endless prosperity, based not on hard work and the creation of value, but on membership alone; the blowing of serial asset bubbles in real estate and stocks (works equally well in Asia and the West), and various iterations of Manifest Destiny: it’s our right to grow rich, preferably on the labor and resources of others.

    Representative democracy offers choices with no consequences: no matter which politico and party is elected, the promises of endless swag remain unchanged.

    In contrast, direct democracy offers choices with consequences: voters make a choice of policies that, whether intended or not, have consequences.

    This forces voters to actually ponder consequences rather than indulge politico promises of endless swag in return for supporting a corrupt, predatory, parasitic status quo that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

    Even direct democracy is easily corrupted by magical thinking. The actual consequences may be ignored in favor of magical-thinking dreams of only good consequences and no trade-offs or sacrifices, all powered by the magic of debt.

    Debt is the ultimate political aphrodisiac, for it enables an orgy of consumption and a bacchanalia of spending on the backs of children and the yet unborn who don’t vote.

    The most potent of all political fantasies is that growth will solve every problem, i.e. we can grow our way out of corruption, artifice, lies, kleptocracy and most importantly, out of debt. [read the rest if interested]

    1. R. Comer says:

      Agree 100%. The end product of laissez-faire Capitalism is the King-Queen-aristocrats-peasants model. The absolute proof that history repeats itself is the current massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny group of people and the destruction of the Middle-class that they are pursuing. It took off with Rotten Ronnie Reagan. By the end of the 1970’s, the Ultra-Rich weren’t satisfied with their huge level of wealth and decided that the Middle-class / Unions were getting too powerful and had to be put down. And, that’s exactly what has been going on since Reagan—class warfare. And, the Plutocrats are winning, BIG! Will it get turned-around? I’m sure not holding my breath!

  3. Tom says:

    on Hillary:

    Hey, Hillary Episode 1: Your biggest donors are hurting us

    [it’s a good rant, and ends with]

    So, Hillary, the next time you meet with these guys, and they are almost always guys, ask them why they are doing what they’re doing. Does it really make sense from a business perspective? Is cutting R&D really the only thing these toadstools can think of doing to increase shareholder value? Aren’t there better ways to cut costs? Or is there a hierarchy of costs to cut that have nothing to do with actual productivity? Are these titans of industry deliberately overlooking the obvious in order to appeal to their MBA culture of smartness? What is the long term strategy or is there even a long term strategy? Is all this pain on the R&D side really necessary? And how does that result in new drugs? Is relocation to certain areas of the country really about costs and collaboration, or is it really about egos and classism? And ask to see the numbers. Tell them you’ll wait until they find them.

    Someone needs to start asking these uncomfortable questions and getting straight answers. Because if you want to be the next president and champion for us, you’ve got to start getting the executive class to explain how their McKinsey generated restructurings actually work in the shareholders’ favor. I’m not seeing how it provides value over what we had when the industry was working through new technology but still producing blockbusters. Call me extremely skeptical.

    Someone needs to start holding these people accountable for the havoc they are creating. If you’re not going to do it, don’t be surprised if the country doesn’t get all excited about your campaign. Do you really want to be another British Labour party politician?

  4. frank says:

    ..while Hilary has an immaculate record…right?

  5. briana says:

    This article feels incredibly biased. What’s the point in reading a Pros and Cons article if you’re just gonna get one-sided cons?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!