Rick Scott Aims To Govern Florida As A Business

Stephen Moore wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal on December 31 regarding Rick Scott's aims as the new governor of Florida.

I tend to be suspect of governors who swear they will run their state "like a business." Which Scott does. Regardless of how wrong-headed or wasteful you believe a governmental unit such as a large state or the federal government to be, it's not a business. The government is a structure meant to effect certain necessary social and political duties of and for a group of citizens.

What is positive about Scott's focus is on job creation. His campaign had as its centerpiece the replacement of some 700,000 jobs lost in Florida since the start of the recession.

But when you read Moore's piece, the bulk of Scott's cost-cutting is pension- and health benefit-related. Sounds familiar to anyone from New Jersey.

Oddly, what Moore's interview with Scott demonstrated for me, along with familiarity with New Jersey's Chris Christie, is a reinforcement of my observation in this recent post,

"If you think about it, aren't our wealth-transfer payment programs the ones which are deemed 'non-discretionary' and breaking our budgets? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and related transfers, enacted with no global or macro budgetary conditionality? As communal, unlimited spending pots, the withdrawals from which are on individual eligibility bases, not apportioned and pro-rated based upon budgetary limitations?



It's ridiculous! Thanks to Congressional idiocy in the 1930s and 1960s, we've elevated the poor and destitute ahead of every other need of our Republic. They never are required to share in the economies and belt-tightening shared by our other national governmental spending and taxation realities."


Now we see two large state governors struggling with budget issues which are overwhelmingly driven by state and municipal union compensation and benefits.

I find myself wondering why state workers, as well as government transfer payment recipients, should not be exposed to the vagaries of the fortunes of the taxpayers who ultimately fund their claims. Why are there no pro-rata, or normalizing conditions on any of those taxpayer-fund recipients?

It's as if those who actually create the value which is taxed are subject to risks and uncertainty, but those feeding from those tax revenues are immune.

It's completely wrong.

Andrew Cuomo's Forgotten Past

I'm simply amazed that New York Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo has been able to distance himself from the damage he personally caused as Bill Clinton's HUD secretary.

Perhaps only Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad bear as much personal responsibility for the recent housing finance crisis and the financial meltdown it triggered.

Cuomo's ineptitude was reinforced by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled Audit Faulted Cuomo's HUD Overhaul.

Within the piece, details inform us that,

"The Inspector General's audit report also claimed that senior officials under Mr. Cuomo sought to impede investigators examining the program and took the unusual step of asking the Inspector General's office for the names of HUD employees who spoke with auditors.

Several HUD employees "feared reprisal" and urged investigators to keep their communications confidential, according to the audit report."

Further on in the article, Cuomo's attempts to get these names, and the excuses offered by his minions, are provided. It makes for incredibly transparent and disturbng reading,

"Saul Ramirez, a deputy secretary under Mr. Cuomo, said the requeset for the names was "standard procedure" and intended to help headquarters  organize the schedules of field staffers involved in the auditing process."

It's a non-answer answer, isn't it?

But, moving back to the big picture, it's simply incredible to me that Cuomo has so successfully danced away from his culpability for the housing mess. And now wants to run an entire state.

It's probably a mark of the inadequacy of political opposition in New York that none of Cuomo's opponents seems to have bothered to connect the dots and hang this liability around the son of a former governor of the state.

Which I guess demonstrates that New York has a bad habit of selling its Senate seats to carpetbaggers and allowing for way too much plutocracy and cronyism in important elected state positions.

The Speedy- and Premature- Rehabilitation of Eliot Spitzer

Can it really be 2 1/2 years since former New York governor Eliot Spitzer resigned his office after being publicly revealed to have spent tens of thousands of dollars on prostitutes?

While he didn't use public money, as South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford did, when he fraudulently listed his visit to his Argentinian lover as a state business trip, Spitzer did manage to humiliate himself and his wife. And give the lie to his promises of running a highly ethical admininstration.

Still, Spitzer's exit from public life was pretty humbling and abrupt.

Now, after so little time, he's baaaaack!

Spitzer has been paired with Kathleen Parker on a new CNN evening program. The headlines one sees when Googling "Spitzer Parker program review" are hysterical. Here's a sampling-

Parker/Spitzer: Countdown to Divorce
Freak show unbearable to watch
CNN's Parker Spitzer debuts to scathing reviews
CNN's "Parker Spitzer" gets bad reviews, low ratings (this one from CNN Gossip)

Here's a smattering of reactions in the press to the program's debut.

Parker Spitzer , the new CNN Talk Show starring columnist Kathleen Parker and former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer, attracted only 454,000 viewers during its debut Monday night, according to the Los Angeles Times . By comparison, Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor tallied 3.1 million viewers and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann registered 1.1 million viewers during the same 8 p.m. time frame. Parker Spitzer replaced Campbell Brown , which premiered to 1.3 million...



Eliot Spitzer may have a ways to go in his bid for TV stardom. On Monday, the disgraced former Governor of New York bombed in his new Prime Time CNN Talk Show with his co-host, the columnist Kathleen Parker. "Parker Spitzer" drew a paltry 454,000 total viewers, according to the Nielsen Co. That ranked dead last in the Cable News race at 8 p.m., far behind Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" (3.1 million) and MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" (1.1 million)
 
The success of CNN's big gamble in mounting a new politically-oriented Talk Show in Primetime featuring the conservative columnist Kathleen Parker and the liberal former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer won't be known until the Ratings start coming in -- but the verdict of TV columnists has been uniformly disapproving. New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley said that Parker/Spitzer was "hard to watch"
 
Disgraced former President Richard Nixon took the better part of a decade to regain any semblance of respect, and that was after several noteworthy books on foreign affairs.
 
What's Spitzer done in the last 30 months to merit a high-profile talk show on CNN?
 
Well, based on Parker/Spitzer's viewership and reviews, we may not have long to endure Spitzer's latest star turn.

NY's Gubernatorial' Candidates Debate

Since I live near, but not in, New York, I see a fair amount of news coverage of the state and city. But the recent antics at a joint appearance/debate among seven candidates to govern the state drew national coverage.

I don't claim to know the names of all seven. Only Paladino and Cuomo.

But to me, the funniest line by far was by another white male candidate who said, to paraphrase,

'My qualifications are that I haven't been arrested for prostitution, I'm not a felon and my dad wasn't governor of the state.'

Hilarious. Now I just want to know which candidate is the felon. I would think that would disqualify one for governor of New York. Perhaps it was only being charged with a felony.

New York: US Capital of Corruption?

It's been quite a week for New York politicians.

First, tax cheat Charlie Rangel suffered yet another damaging disclosure. This time, in addition to revelations of his non-payment of taxes on various real estate properties, and misuse of rent-controlled apartments in New York City, the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, it was revealed that he took trips to the Caribbean which were paid for by corporations. This is a clear violation of ethics rules.

His, and Frisco Nan's reactions were both predictable and disappointing. Rangel essentially claimed that his aides' actions aren't his responsibility, so he was innocent of anything.

Of course, members of Congress are among the first to conduct public hearings accusing corporate CEOs of guilt when employees of their companies engage in misconduct.

The House Speaker, having recently alleged she runs 'the most ethical House' ever, refused to remove Rangel from his Ways & Means Committee post, claiming that there was no serious national damage involved, so she saw no reason to take disciplinary action.

Further, as the linked article notes, she was surprised a Democratically-controlled ethics panel even bothered to publicly admonish Rangel.

Suffice to say, all of this demonstrates just how hopelessly tone-deaf and out of touch with voters Rangel and Frisco Nan are. They may be re-elected in their safe districts in November, but I'm guessing neither will be in the majority when they are.

Then we come to New York governor David Paterson's decision not to run again, amidst two scandals. One is his misuse of his office to strong-arm and intimidate a woman from proceeding in her case of physical violence abuse against one of Paterson's aides.

Paterson unwisely got involved, rather than show some sense and tell the aide that, as governor, nothing he would do would be proper.

Paterson also evidently set the state police upon the complainant.

Then it has come to light that Paterson may have favored a political supporter in the choice of to whom to let a casino-related contract.

Lest you think Paterson's final capitulation to his party to not run again is good news, look who is waiting in the wings.


AG Andrew Cuomo, running for governor, was one of the major culprits in sparking the recent financial sector meltdown, as HUD secretary for Bubba Clinton.

Cuomo has behaved thuggishly, using the Martin Act to bully several financial executives and companies, including BofA, Merrill Lynch, John Thain and Ken Lewis. Oblivious, all the while, to his own culpability in the mess, due to his actions while HUD Secretary to provide more, riskier mortgages to poorer people who could not really afford home ownership.

It doesn't look like New York's governance nightmare is going to end anytime soon.

Chris Christie On CNBC This Morning

Newly-elected NJ Republican governor Chris Christie gave his first interview this morning. He chose as his venue CNBC, indicating a serious business and investment angle to his message.

What ensued was high comedy, if you were watching and listening closely.

First, the good news. Christie was absolutely adamant that he will NOT raise taxes. Period. To paraphrase his repeated reply to questions on the subject,

'Raising taxes is the easy part. That's already been done. We can't do that anymore. Our state's tax rates are too high already.'

On a program, and network, which is in passionate, big sloppy-kisses love with deposed NJ Democratic governor Jon Corzine, Christie wasted no time informing viewers, and his inquisitors, of some of the tricks Corzine & Co. performed, to the detriment of NJ taxpayers.

For example, Corzine's people wired out funds to municipalities on the morning of Christie's inauguration, so concerned were they about spending money in a way that could not be revoked or frozen by the new governor.

Christie detailed Corzine's tax and spending increases. He took full advantage of being the marquee guest at that time slot and savaged Corzine's gubernatorial record.

What was comedic, however, was the constant- and I mean constant- insistence of the CNBC co-anchors that Christie would just have to raise taxes, wouldn't he?

The Hispanic male co-anchor must have asked Christie at least four times if he would raise taxes. Wouldn't raising them 'just a little' help close the budget gap?

Becky Quick, also a liberal, chimed in two or three times, too, with the same question.

Only fiscal and political conservative Melissa Lee, dragged onto the set for this segment, focused on asking Christie how he planned to grow NJ's economy out of its current mess?

At one point, though, Christie drew himself up and repeated his campaign promises of smaller government, lower spending and taxes. He said that everyone voting in the election knew what he promised, and it shouldn't surprise them that he intends to do just those things.

In reply to the constant barrage of questions and diatribes that he simply must raise taxes in NJ to balance the budget, Christie gave a repetitive tutorial on how spending had gotten out of control, taxes were raised to attempt to close the gap, and, as a result, wealthy residents had left the state.

At one point, he silenced the co-anchors by citing the statistic that some $70B of wealth had left the state in the past year, seeking lower tax domiciles. That's why, Christie noted, taxes cannot and will not be increased.

He also hammered away on regulation, insisting that some needless rules which make doing business harder or more expensive in NJ, will be dropped.

Another topic on which he held forth- one of my favorites- was the amount and expense of state and local government in New Jersey. Citing the number of municipalities with separate police, fire and other services, and taxing authorities, Christie contends that NJ is perhaps the most over-governed state in the union. He cited one example of a town and its education board both possessing 'public works' departments.

As a current NJ resident, I can attest to the hope Christie gave for the right kind of change. Lower spending. Lower taxes.

Change we NJ voters and taxpayers can believe in.

The Usual Excuses & Lies From The Usual Liberal Suspects

It's official.

Republican governors won in blue state New Jersey and 'purple,' slowly returning to red state Virginia. In Virginia, the rest of the GOP slate swept in with Governor McDonnell.

In the upstate NY 23rd District, the Democrat squeaked by the Conservative candidate, benefiting from the bizarre endorsement by the withdrawing GOP candidate. This situation was so strange as to provide no national reading.

Of course, various Democratic pundits began excusing these losses by the middle of yesterday evening. On Fox News, Howard Dean's ex-campaign manager claimed that neither gubernatorial loss meant anything significant for Wonderboy or the greater liberal Democratic regime in Congress. If anything, he claimed, it meant trouble for all incumbents when challenged by their parties' fringes.

This morning, on CNBC, liberal apologist and businessman Don Peebles, a prominent black supporter of the country's first black president, crowed about how nothing had changed for Wonderboy. His agenda, declared Peebles, ignoring the election results, was now more important than ever, and any delays due to minor issues like free speech and opposing views were inexcusable. Health care must be passed because our First Rookie says so.

On the failure of Wonderboy's five- count 'em- trips to the Garden State on loser Corzine's behalf, Peebles excused and explained it by saying there was absolutely no credibility on the line. Presidents always must and do support their party's governors.

A lie, but Peebles has drunk so much Kool-Aid now that he can't tell the difference anymore. And, besides, he's no politician. Just a fund raiser who is probably hoping to ride somebody's political coattails.

I believe Karl Rove and Brit Hume got it right when they opined that, with health care passage stretching into 2010, these two GOP victories will quite possibly and probably immobilize the 40+ Democratic Representatives with seats in districts won by McCain last year.

Contrary to popular conceptions, an analysis of the House and Senate revealed that only a 2 seat change in the latter chamber will remove the ability of Harry Reid to prevent cloture, thus delaying votes on bills to who knows when? The House, by contrast, would need to see a 40 seat shift to give a Republican the Speaker's gavel.

Personally, I believe that 40 seat move is quite possible. If the GOP had removed the perennially, eerily tan Boehner from a leadership position, it would be a slam dunk.

But, back to last night.

There's no doubt that, had either gubernatorial race, or the rest of the Virginia contests, gone the other way, Wonderboy and his team would be crowing about the electorate re-validating his win last November. And how this reinforced the need to inject more government into every sector of American life.

Instead, they are silent and will try hard to spin the results as meaningless.

As several Fox News and CNBC guest pundits noted, the big news for all Democratic candidates next year is that Wonderboy couldn't get his personal, energized motley crew of voters out for other candidates from his party.

Bad news if you are a Democratic House blue dog, or simply worried about how much more debt and spending your district's adult, as opposed to Wonderboy's kiddie voters, will tolerate.

Sarah Palin's Resignation

What a wacky end to a wild ride in the national public eye for Sarah Palin.

As the most popular sitting governor of any state at the time of her selection for VP on McCain's presidential ticket, Palin had many desirable and impressive attributes.

Sadly, things seemed to have gone downhill from there for her. First she was badly-handled by McCain's staffers. Then the outlandish, false rumors started regarding her wardrobe and spending on her preparation for the late summer's campaign.

But perhaps the most egregious consequence of her sudden fame was a tidal wave of anger by liberals who could offer no objective reasons for hating her. I personally have several female liberal Democratic acquaintances who simply sputter and physical go into contortions when Palin's name is mentioned, but can offer no sane explanation for their reactions. They typically criticize Palin's mannerisms, eye-glasses or the state of Alaska.

I'm sure much of this liberal female- and male- rancor is based upon Palin's simple story of a rise to power through competence, likability and normalcy. She's a beautiful woman with a nice husband, both are athletic, and Palin didn't attend an Ivy League university or become a lawyer.

In contrast, Hilary Clinton is, at best, physically plain, a lawyer with no record of any important political accomplishment. She's rather bland compared to Palin's genuine excitement, multi-dimensional life and accomplishments and approach to the electorate.

Despite the confusing currents surrounding Palin's national rise and, now, departure from office, I have a few thoughts on her recent actions and near term prospects.

Like Karl Rove, I also think that Sarah Palin is pretty far from ready for the prime time, national stage of Republican politics. Being VP on a losing ticket is miles away from genuine contention for the top spot in November of 2012. For Palin, I suspect the rapid rise to national prominence has caused her to feel she's better-positions and -prepared for national campaigning than she really is.

Judging by her comments, Palin is largely focused on values and perceived splits in the Republican party, particularly between entrenched party operatives and more conservative voters who are often registered as independents.

While I always give governors the edge over Senators in presidential races, Palin does hail from a small state, and now has failed to complete even one term.

If you recall, Jimmy Carter was similarly from a small state. He, too sounded high moral values and populist themes, only to prove, once in office, that his cracker state background was simply not up to performing well as president.

I didn't give Palin much of a chance at a 2012 nomination even if she had remained governor. Now, I think it will be nearly impossible. Give her credit for heading off the continuing stress of running a distant state while trying to spend time and attention on national issues. Evidently, Alaskans were already growing weary of her obvious attempt to keep her hand in national politics.

There's another side to Palin's resignation, though, that troubles me. It seems that, like George W. Bush, she had productive relationships with Democrats in her state's legislature, until her rise to McCain's ticket.

Somehow, it seems that Alaskan Democrats became obligated to tear Palin apart every chance they got, and suddenly become contentious. The people of Alaska clearly haven't been well-served by these Democratic antics.

Is it now the case that opposition parties to a sitting governor must go negative as soon as that governor gets national attention and is touted as a presidential candidate?

What happened to state pride and some sort of bi-partisanship to actually make government- whether state or federal- work?

Palin's resignation gives one cause to worry about the divisive, damaging role our political parties seem to play toward any politician from the opposing party who has demonstrated competence, performance and genuine success in serving their electorate.

Mark Sanford's Violation of the Public Trust

As I predicted in this very recent post, Mark Sanford has already come clean about lying on his expense reports regarding his alleged business trip, on his state's behalf, to Argentina.

I wrote in that post,

"Character and values are, for the most part, integral to people. When we see lying and deception occur in a politician's personal life, you can bet it's going on, or will, when necessary, or expedient, in their professional life, as well. "

Bill Bennett voiced the same concerns, and was mildly chastised in a Wall Street Journal piece this weekend for being so old-fashioned and puritanical in suggesting that Sanford is through.

Then came Sanford's admission that he needed to reimburse the state of South Carolina for expenses he incurred on what he now terms 'personal business.'

Oh.

So, basically, Sanford was willing to misrepresent the nature of that part of his travel, and claimed reimbursement from the state for expenses then incurred. But after his confession of infidelity, he hurriedly suggested that, well, yes, maybe he had to repay the people of his state after having fraudulently claimed those expenses as public business-related.

Seems Bennett and I were right, after all.

Sanford had no problem submitting personal expenses as state ones, until he got caught in the act.

If I were a South Carolina resident, this expense fudging would be the reason I'd want Sanford to resign, or be impeached.

His marital infidelity is, our could have remained, his own business. His whereabouts, when in Argentina, could have simply been described as a story to cover some pressing personal matters.

But his using public money to visit his paramour, then claiming it as business, is fraud and a lie.

For this, he needs to leave office.

A Potentially Winning Gambit for a 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate?

I've been thinking about a truly ground-breaking approach to the presidential election that could be taken by a current Republican- or, for that matter, Democratic- governor.

Admittedly, yesterday, the guy I most identified with this approach, South Carolina's Mark Sanford, removed himself from consideration when he admitted publicly to a year-long affair with a woman from Argentina.

Never the less, here's my idea.

Imagine a governor like Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty or Mississippi's Haley Barbour running on the promise that, if elected, they will work against the steadily-growing power of the president and Congress, and with state governors and legislatures, to convene a Constitutional Convention as soon as practical. By throwing the weight of the presidency behind this step, it would much more likely occur within his four year term than it otherwise ever could.

Building on the increasing size of the segment of voters which are neither registered Republicans, nor Democrats, and increasing voter frustration with the non-responsiveness of the federal government, such a candidate might well gain broad and fervent support.

Consider that, when the Constitution was created, it was the product of 13 states. The states' existences predated and allowed the subsequent drafting of rules for, and the creation of a federal government. The latter is a concept born of the former.

It's unlikely that today's federal government would be recognizable by the Framers of the Constitution. It has nearly completely overrun states' rights and limits on its power.

I contend that a candidate who ran on the express theme of facilitating a Constitutional Convention to revise the pact to explicitly strip the federal government of ad hoc powers, limit its future power, and insert needed modifications for the modern era, e.g., term limits, staff size limits, campaign finance remedies, prohibition of non-cabinet administration officials with significant budgets or power, and new eligibility rules for Congress, would offer voters a truly fresh, positive and meaningful alternative to the tired old, similar platforms of the two current parties.

How refreshing if a presidential candidate promised to focus on Constitutional reform, and then leave office, regardless of which term it occurred. A candidate who ran to return power to the states, and limit the government of which he would be head.

I think it would be unbeatable. Even some in Congress would probably be forced to support her/him, or lose their own local races.

Mark Sanford's Confession of Infidelity

I was going to post about an idea I have for a 2012 Republican gubernatorial candidate for president today. It would have involved South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford.

However, given Sanford's shocking announcement yesterday, I'll save that post for tomorrow.

Instead, I want to discuss my own reaction to and feelings about Sanford's behavior.

In talking about the Sanford confession of a year-long affair with an Argentinian woman, a friend expressed great disappointment in a guy who had such promise as a presidential candidate for 2012.

I disagreed, and suggested that it was better to have discovered now that Sanford doesn't honor his promises.

Allow me to explain.

If Sanford had determined that his marriage was no longer functioning and productive, for him, his wife, or his children, he had the option of filing for divorce. In today's political world, that would not have been a death knell for his career, unless he quickly remarried and were found to have been having an affair with his new wife prior to his divorce.

If Sanford was simply unhappy with his marriage, but it was still productive for his children, then I think he owed it to them, whom he chose to father, to remain in his marriage, and avoid the selfish option of divorce.

However, to simply decide that it would be too messy, expensive, or otherwise dysfunctional to file for divorce, and, instead, have an affair without his wife's agreement, tells us all we really need to know about Mark Sanford.

He made a promise when he married, and broke it. He lied to his wife, implicitly at least, and almost certainly explicitly, in order to have time with his mistress. He probably also lied to his children and various staffers concerning his whereabouts, and/or other topics involving the health of his marriage and family life.

It would have been, to me, perfectly acceptable had Sanford shared the knowledge of his affair with his wife, a priori, as part of an 'open marriage.' Granted, most politicians don't feel they can get elected with that value as part of their persona. But I'd personally have had a lot more respect for Sanford, had the affair simply been something acceptable in his marriage, and not covered up.

To me, the Sanford situation has nothing whatsoever to do with his political convictions. Whether liberal, or conservative, an elected or appointed official who is found to have lied and/or obstructed justice in order to conceal behavior of which s/he was not proud has a profound character flaw which, in time, will also appear in her/his professional activities.

In former president Bill Clinton's case, it's clear he obstructed justice and lied to cover up his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. Despite Democratic charges of prudishness on the part of Republicans who brought impeachment charges, it was Clinton's cover up, not his affair, that was of concern to the voters.

Similar to my comments about Sanford, I believe that the Clintons had an open marriage. But I think they realized that they could not get Bubba elected carrying such baggage. So they pretended to be a happy monogamous couple, and even had a child. But various reports, public and private, have convinced me that the two had, and probably still have and open marriage.

While personal matters are, per se, private, we can learn a lot about an elected official, or candidate, by how they handle their personal matters. It should be fairly obvious that the character and values of a person are integral, so what you see in their personal life is pretty much how they'll behave with the public trust.

Kennedy dissembled about his affairs and health. Nixon covered up the Watergate burglary. Clinton lied and took actions to prevent the truth being discovered about the Lewinsky affair, and his wife did the same with Travelgate and the infamous missing Rose law firm documents regarding Whitewater.

Our current president has lied about his associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright when both proved embarrassing, only to return to those associations, according to various sources, when the heat was off.

Sanford has demonstrated that, when necessary, he will lie to those to whom he made promises, and will break those promises, in pursuit of selfish personal fulfillment.

Do you really want someone like that as your president? I don't.

I'm pleased that, if this were to happen to Sanford, it happened now, rather than after a presidential nomination, or election to that office.

Despite many admirable traits and political values, Mark Sanford has some glaring character flaws which should not be in a man or woman who becomes president.

To overlook distasteful behavior or values in a candidate's personal life and believe they won't also color that person's judgments and behaviors when in elected or appointed office is to be naive.

Character and values are, for the most part, integral to people. When we see lying and deception occur in a politician's personal life, you can bet it's going on, or will, when necessary, or expedient, in their professional life, as well.

A Single Editorial Changes My Primary Vote

As June draws near, the New Jersey Republican party will select a candidate who will try to oust the failed Democratic governor, Jon Corzine.

As of a month ago, I don't think I really had any clear notion of whether I'd vote for Chris Christie, a former US attorney, or Steve Lonegan, a former Bergen county town mayor.

Beginning about a month ago, televised ads on cable channels began to appear in large numbers for Christie. It painted him as a desirable, attractive conservative candidate. He even appeared on Neil Cavuto's program on Fox News last week. In that appearance, Christie roundly criticized his opponent, Lonegan, as wanting to raise taxes.

Then I read this weekend Wall Street Journal's editorial, written by a columnist for the local newspaper. According to that piece, Christie is really a traditional New Jersey GOP moderate, in the vein of Whitman and Kean. That is, they are socially liberal and spend too much money, but want to cut taxes.

But even that isn't the worst of what I read about Christie. According to the Newark Star-Ledger's Paul Mulshine, Christie has had some questionable dealings with law firms during his years as a US attorney. It is alleged that sweetheart contracts were let to old colleagues, and that Christie's brother, Todd, was given a lighter sentence than others found guilty of illegal front running, in deference to Mr. Christie's position and influence.

There's always the question of Mr. Mulshine's own objectivity, given that the Star-Ledger is hardly a conservative paper.

But, in just a few minutes, my certainty about voting for Christie vanished. I'll have to do some digging online now to get a better sense of both candidates.

As bad as Corzine is- and he's totally inept- I don't want another rerun of Christie Whitman's moderate politics. This state needs serious damage control and repair, and fast. A moderate masquerading as a conservative just to win the GOP nomination for governor is not going to get the job done.

Mark Sanford's Stiff-Arm From Obama

Last weekend's Wall Street Journal featured a revealing editorial by South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

Governor Sanford made headlines last month when he voiced his opposition to the terms of the so-called Congressional stimulus bill.

Worried, like so many other governors, about being forced to spend money on programs which won't go away when their federal funding does, Sanford spoke out loudly against the tactic. As a result, Democrats in Congress inserted a clause allowing state legislatures to accept the funding over the veto of their state's governor.

However, having been outmaneuvered on this, Sanford tried a different tack. He requested a waiver of spending the stimulus funds as directed by Congress. Instead, he asked to be allowed to pay down some of South Carolina's debt, the interest on which consumes 11% of the state's annual tax revenue.

Sanford reasoned that this is an unarguably good thing to do for the relatively poor state. According to Sanford,

"In fact, paying debt related to education would free up over $162 million in debt service in the first two years and save roughly $125 million in interest payments over the next 13 years- just as paying off a family's mortgage early frees up money for other uses.

Spending stimulus money on ongoing programs would mean 10% of our entire state budget would be paid for with one-time federal funds- the largest recorded level in state history."

Sanford continued his piece, stating,

"Last week, I reached out to the president, asking for a federal waiver from restrictions on stimulus money. I got a most unusual response. Before I even received an acknowledgement of the request from the White House, I got word that the Democratic National Committee was launching campaign-style TV attack-ads branding me for making it.

Is this the new brand of politics we were promised?

Nevertheless, the White House declined my request for a waiver yesterday afternoon."

Governor Sanford's experience is quite revealing about Wonderboy's real purpose in directing spending of the stimulus largess. So much for state's using it for what they think best. Once again, Democrats at the federal level think they know what is best for everyone else, at all lower levels of government....and society.

Principled GOP State Pushbacks On The Stimulus

Much has been made by liberals of what is, in their view, the negativism of GOP Congressmen regarding the so-called stimulus bill.

That nothing could be further from the truth, and that Republican Senators and Representatives have and had offered various alternatives which the Democrats banned from discussion, bothers these liberals not at all.

Perhaps the really interesting actions, though, are occurring out in the 50 states. As I mentioned to my business partner a few weeks ago, this is exactly what former Republican Governor of Florida, and Presidential brother, Jeb Bush, predicted and called for in an interview published last month in the Wall Street Journal.

Terry Sanford, GOP Governor of South Carolina, is fighting his legislature in order to decline the stimulus money. Democratic Congressmen included a clause specifically aimed at Sanford, that lets a state legislature accept the money, around its governor.

However, Sanford is making a lot of sense as he decries being forced to begin expensive programs like SCHIP, more medicaid spending, and the hiring of unionized public employees, such as teachers and policemen, only to have the federal funding cut off after only two years.

A Tennessee radio show host appeared on Neil Cavuto's Fox News program earlier this week to attest to his listeners bombarding him with complaints identical to Sanford's in South Carolina, begging Tennessee state government to refuse the stimulus 'gifts.'

Something important and powerful is occurring in America, and its going unnoticed by Wonderboy's minions.

The residents of the states through which the federal government is attempting to funnel some $800B of new spending are crying "STOP."

States can't print money, and many are not allowed to run deficits. People realize that they will have to pay for programs which, once begun, like an addiction to heroin, cannot easily be halted again.

Jeb Bush was spot on to identify the states as the places in which Republican fiscal rectitude could and would be reborn and regain strength.

My partner points out that people love a story with patterns. Right now, the First Rookie is in love with his own version of our current economic recession, in which he plays FDR, the recession becomes another Great Depression, and he and his team of tax cheats rewrite the American social contract to be pure socialism.

Trouble is, that's not what seems to be going on among voters. They are becoming angry, alarmed, and scared at governmental spending and impending waste of their taxpayer dollars.

As I remarked to my friend, while Wonderboy delights in his own coddled view of an FDR rerun, reality is already quite different.

Existing social safety nets like Social Security and welfare payments are easing the pain of the recession. Bank deposits are insured, so a bank failure really has little of the effect on the US economy in the way a 1930s bank closure did.

But voters in the states are informed by communications media not yet born in the 1930s. Newspapers and ordinary radio are no longer the most important news outlets. Instead, conservative talk radio, cable news, internet sites and blogs provide a wide variety of uncontrollable news and opinions.

This time, unlike in FDR's day, the failure of federal efforts to halt natural economic cyclical behavior will be publicized far and wide- immediately.

And the Republicans' positive actions to the contrary, including sensible refusals to take and spend stimulus money in many states, will lead the party back to control of at least one House in the 2010 election, as well as the Oval Office in 2012.