-
Recent Posts
- Kamala’s brother-in-law fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers | New York Post | 8.24. 24
- Coming: Global Political Recalibration
- Clark Judge: FDR, Reagan, and European Nationalism | NatCon Rome 2020
- Lady Gaga Tells All
- Trial Lawyers Use COVID-19 to Prey on America’s Corporations | Real Clear Policy | 12.1.20
Categories
- Book Reviews (12)
- Communication Strategy (23)
- Constitution and Law (14)
- Economic Policy: General (33)
- Economic Policy: Health Care (30)
- Economic Policy: The Great Financial Crisis (15)
- Economic Policy: US Debt Crisis (32)
- Education Policy (1)
- Global Issues (57)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2008 (18)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2012 (43)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2020 (5)
- Political Commentary: General (122)
- Politics & Policy (6)
- Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration (11)
- Speeches/Lectures (9)
- Uncategorized (6)
Archives
- September 2024
- March 2023
- July 2022
- April 2022
- December 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- November 2019
- December 2018
- September 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- August 2005
- March 2005
- November 2004
- August 2004
- June 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- August 2003
- April 2003
- July 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- May 2001
- December 2000
- June 2000
- January 1995
- August 1994
- August 1992
- June 1991
- July 1990
- September 1989
- July 1989
- March 1989
Tags
2012 2012 election Benghazi campaign constitution debt debt crisis Democrats economy election 2012 Energy Financial Times fiscal cliff foreign policy Gingrich Global Warming GOP Hoover Digest hughhewitt HughHewitt.com Immigration IRS National Review New York Post New York Times Obama Obamacare Republicans Ricochet Ricochet.com Romney Russia Scandal Senate SOTU speech Supreme Court Syria Tea Party Trump U.S. News Ukraine Wall Street Journal war Washington Times
How Christie Could Change Everything | HughHewitt.com | 10.04.11
Odds are that New Jersey governor Chris Christie will jump into the presidential race today (Tuesday) or tomorrow – which says a lot about how the 2012 GOP presidential primary contest has shaped up, and where it will go. Christie’s entry could change everything.
The 2012 dynamics are totally different from those of 2008. And it’s a good thing, too.
Last time around, the GOP voters broke into three issue-oriented groups – those who gave priority to economics, to social issues, and to national security.
No candidate clearly won the economic voters. They should have been the ticket to the nomination for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney or former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani. But when the conductor came around, both their tickets were missing.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee cornered the market on social issue voters. But Huckabee had nothing of substance to say about security and called for economic policies unacceptable to most Republicans.
That left the field open to Arizona senator and ultimate nominee John McCain, who won national security voters as convincingly as Huckabee won social issue voters. While he was not the first choice of those who put taxes, spending, and other economic policies first, McCain was good-enough – though barely good enough — for them, as he was for social issue voters. So he got the party’s nod.
This time it’s different.
The Obama administration’s catastrophic fiscal, monetary, regulatory, and trade policies (have they done anything right in this sphere?) have given economics top priority in virtually everyone’s mind. The next president and congress must move quickly to undo the damage they’ve done. Spending must be cut. Growth-inducing tax rates must be installed. Arbitrary and massively destructive environmental, financial, and a long list from other categories of regulations must be cancelled. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and (my candidate for the list) Sarbanes-Oxley must be repealed. I could go on. But you get the idea. This is not 2008.
To make matters worse, GOP voters are trying to get their minds around a developing national security crisis. The missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, but no one believes the region has ceased to be a serious source of threats. Meanwhile, our military’s capacity is declining. China’s is rising — and becoming aggressive. At the same time, an alliance appears to be forming among such bad actors as Iran, Venezuela, and various criminal and terrorist groups. The Europeans are degenerating into empty allies with little will and almost no capacity. The jury remains out on whether the U.K. fits that characterization, too.
So in the world of 2012, GOP voters are looking for a candidate who solidly checks the economic box and has the strength to deal with the rising global challenges. And there isn’t enough room among the candidates for social issues to play major differentiating role in winning the nomination.
Three weeks ago, it looked as though Republican voters were dividing into two clusters. One looked a lot like the people who backed Ronald Reagan for the nomination in 1980, the other like those who backed George H. W. Bush the same year. The Bush cluster was more or less supporting Romney. The Reagan cluster was starting to coalesce around Texas governor Rick Perry. But then Perry stumbled in debates. Pressure began to build for Christie to enter the race.
Christie has the capacity to unite the two clusters, a feat none of the other candidates is even close to pulling off.
Early this year, he captured the imagination of the Republican Party and conservative movement with the way he took on badgering teachers in town hall meetings. The YouTube videos (one has received more than a million views) of his respectful but tough, clear, and persuasive manner in confronting teachers-union-inspired challenges won him wide admiration. At the C-PAC convention in February, his was the only name that drew spontaneous cheers whenever it was uttered.
Then there was his triumphant performance at the Reagan Library last week – the very best American political performance in years – and the implicit endorsement he received from Ronald Reagan’s widow Nancy. The next day Christie was reported to have also taken calls urging him to run from former First Lady Barbara Bush and her son, former president George W. Bush.
As of this morning, the GOP race is down to four men. Going by the latest Rasmussen polls, Romney and Christie are effectively tied with the president. Business executive Herman Cain is five points behind Mr. Obama. Perry lags by six. No one else counts.
But if he can unite and energize the Reagan and Bush clusters and despite the move of the Florida primary to January, Christie’s actual entrance into the race has the capacity to change everything.