In The Lobby


	Three Ring Circus May 16, 2012 JERSEY LOYALTY? Remember how Rep. Michael Grimm and 64 other House Republicans sent a letter to Eric Holder asking that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate MF Global and its former CEO, and our former governor, Jon Corzine? Well, it appears that only three New Jersey Republicans -- Scott Garrett, Leonard Lance and Jon Runyan -- signed the letter. Which means that Chris Smith, Rodney Frelinghuysen and Frank LoBiondo did not. Which is, frankly, interesting. You can see a copy of the letter here. May 15, 2012 WHO TO CHOOSE? The National Hockey League layoffs present Gov. Chris Christie with a dilemma: who should he root for? Christie is a self-admitted lifelong Rangers fan -- and he loves his team, as this picture clearly shows. But he's the governor of the state of New Jersey -- and the New Jersey Devils are playing the Rangers. So will he go to games and publicly root for New York against New Jersey? What's a governor to do? May 14, 2012 HMMM... So here's another tidbit to throw onto the Will-he-or-won't-he pile. The Auditor reports that Gov. Chris Christie is skipping the AARP's biennial day in Trenton on June 7. Instead, Christie will apparently be jetting off to Chicago to join Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann. Herman Cain, and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and John Kasich of Ohio at a conference of the American Conservative Union in Chicago. So is Christie looking to shore up his conservative bonafides with a speech at CPAC, even as Mitt Romney is deciding who should be his No. 2? And should we read anything into the fact that he's willing to not attend an AARP event back home, in favor of a national conservative group? And how's this for marketing: Christie is scheduled to speak to the group at 11 a.m. on June 8; and the authors of a new Christie biography -- Gannett Statehouse writers Bob Ingle and Mike Symons -- are scheduled to sign copies of their book at 11:30. Timing, as they say, is everything.


	Guest Columns Guest Column Articles


	Three Ring Circus Archive Three Ring Circus Archive


	Sections · Home · About Us · Advertising · Contact Us · Recommend Us · Your Account


	Garden State Network Bob Ingle Blog Capitol Quickies Capitol Games (Herb Jackson blog) Common Sense Institute of New Jersey Hall Institute of Public Policy -- New Jersey Jersey Blogs More Monmouth Musings Rich Lee Online Save Jersey Garden State Smart Growth New Jersey Policy Research Organization Foundation


	Today's Top News


	Daily Muse: CHRISTIE'S GOT THIS ALL FIGURED OUT May 17, 2012 By now, you've probably seen this laugh-out-loud video by Gov. Chris Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker. If not, take a couple of minutes and watch it here. It's a takeoff of the Seinfeld-Newman rivalry on Seinfeld, and it's pretty funny. Our favorite part of the video? Well, actually, the whole thing. But the little shout out Christie gives to all that talk about his bromance with Senate President Stephen Sweeney? Priceless. So by now the video is well on its way to going viral, and its a big hit among politicos. Christie himself even tweeted it to some Hollywood celebs, telling Jimmy Fallon he could take the night off; asking Springsteen how brunch with Booker was, and tweeting Jerry Seinfeld and Jason Alexander that some find the video "Seinfeld-esque." Politico has a recap: The video ... shows Christie exasperated with doing town halls and taking “questions about being vice president,” prompting him to travel to a state police office. "You guys got any problems you want me to handle, like a fire anywhere, where people are trapped?” he asks. “Bad automobile accident where you need me to help out some folks?” The trooper responds in the negative, until Booker — who in real life has saved a *woman from a burning building* and once helped locals *shovel* *snow* *in a blizzard* — appears at the station. “Trooper, what have we got?” he asks. “There’s a two-alarm fire down on State Street. We do have a car broken down on Route 1, and yes, a little girl has lost her cat in a tree,” responds the trooper. “Governor,” says the Democratic mayor, patting Christie on the shoulder. “I got this.” “Booker!” gasps the Republican governor, in his best imitation of Seinfeld’s famous “Newman!” utterance. Booker’s feats continue as the mayor changes Christie’s flat tire, brings a replacement guitar to save a Bruce Springsteen concert. The mayor even “Tebows” after catching a falling baby. The end scene features Booker telling former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney he isn’t fit to be chosen as a vice presidential candidate. Christie walks in and takes the phone, telling Booker, “I got this.” Now some are saying that the video was an audition tape for the vice presidency. Doubtful. With Romney's people supposedly talking about looking for an "incredibly boring white guy," all this video proves is that Christie ain't that guy. If nothing else, it proves that Christie would overpower the decidedly less charismatic former governor of Massachusetts. But is it setting him up for 2016? Or even 2020? Absolutely. And of course, 2013. Here's the thing: In this video, Christie proves that he can laugh at himself. He plays a hapless second fiddle to the good deeds of Cory Booker throughout, until he gets the last laugh at the end. It's a good natured spoof, it shows off his bipartisan side, and is the kind of video that makes people like both Christie and Booker. (And by the way, it just further proves that there is no way Booker plans to run against Christie in 2013.) Wednesday's Quinnipiac Poll, by the way, gave Christie a 57% approval rating, which is not bad for a governor heading a state that's fighting a recession. That poll also found that 52% of New Jerseyans said that Christie would never be satisfied playing "second fiddle" as vice president. Which only proves that the folks back home know Christie best. You know what else this video does? Guarantees Christie's rock-star status among the pundit class, Our favorite take? This from Rachel Maddow, on her Maddow Blog on MSNBC: Not to take the fun out, but when we watched this at my house, our reaction went from Hey, that governor who *snarls at town halls* and *wants the majority to vote on our rights* seems so likeable to something more along the lines of Wow, he knows exactly what he's doing. She's exactly right. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: BET ON A TAX CUT NEXT YEAR May 16, 2012 The important thing to know about the current kerfuffle over tax revenues is that the fight has nothing to do with this year's budget. It's all about next year -- and how much, or even if -- of a tax cut there will be. Of course, Democrats today pounced on the report from Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff that April revenues came in below expectations -- and that revenues for the year were now off by $230 million. Democrats, led by Speaker Sheila Oliver and Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, and Sen. Paul Sarlo, used the numbers as further evidence why Christie's call for a tax cut is questionable -- and that Christie's economic policies aren't working. "This isn’t a mere speed bump,” Sarlo said. “In our trip to the comeback, we’ve found ourselves stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Jersey." But the truth is, the size of the revenue loss -- just 1.2% of the state budget -- isn't enough to stop any tax cut. In a budget of $30 billion, $230 million is a rounding error. Its only impact on next year's proposed tax cuts is whether the revenue shortfall is an indicator that Christie's revenue forecast for next year is too rosy, and the tax cuts should be put on hold. That's not going to happen. If Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney want the tax cut to take place, it's going to take place. And the fact that Christie and Sweeneey were scheduled to hold a press conference on Monday, reportedly to announce a compromise, means that it's going to take place. There is no way that Christie and Sweeney didn't know on Monday exactly what the Treasury numbers were going to show on Wednesday. (To read the rest the column, click Read more* below)* Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: WHY IS JPMORGAN DIFERENT THAN MF GLOBAL? May 15, 2012 So President Barack Obama was on "The View "today, lamenting about the losses at JPMorgan and how it proved the need for more regulation. From RealClearPolitics: "And what I’ve said is, look, we want a successful financial industry. . . . But what makes us the best financial industry is transparency, accountability, rules so that small investors feel like if they put their money into Wall Street, it’s not going to suddenly just disappear,” said Obama. Earlier Monday, while delivering the commencement address at Barnard College, the president made a similar point and received robust applause. “We know that we’re better off when there are rules that stop big banks from making bad bets with other people’s money,” Obama said. All noble and good thoughts. And so we ask: if Obama is so worried about the small investors who put their money into Wall Street and then see it disappear, then why is he still accepting bundled money from Jon Corzine? Why hasn't he talked about the bad bets that one of his bundler-in-chiefs made, that caused $1.6 billion in missing customer funds at MF Global? And why, if he's worried about small investors worrying about their money, hasn't he told Eric Holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate what happened to those missing funds at MF Global? Sixty-five GOP members of Congress requested he do so. Or does the president think there is one set of rules for JPMorgan, and another for MF Global? Where are the rules to protect small investors from crony justice? Read More \| Daily Muse


	Guest Column: NEW PLAYER IN TAX CUT GAME May 14, 2012 By CARL GOLDEN As the Governor and the Democratic legislative leadership take to the road to promote their competing versions of tax cut proposals, a new memo from the Office of Legislative Services suggests their respective persuasive powers might not matter very much because the state won’t be able to afford them. According to the memo, April revenues from the personal income tax and the corporate tax fell below projections, adding that the specific shortfall will be released later this month. It’s certain to be one of the more highly anticipated revenue reports, both for its political impact as well as for indicating the state’s economic growth rate. Gov. Chris Christie is standing by his recommendation for an across-the-board 10 percent cut in income tax rates for all taxpayers, while Senate President Steve Sweeney and Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald have proposed differing plans to offer tax credits tied to property taxes, but capping income eligibility at $250,000. Christie’s plan and the legislative plan would be phased in over three years and each would cost $1 billion, give or take, when fully implemented. The OLS memo -- while lacking detail -- casts doubt on tax cut affordability, raising the prospect of spending reductions elsewhere to make up for the loss. The Governor’s plan assumes seven percent economic growth, a figure widely viewed as overly optimistic and probably out of reach. Sweeney and Greenwald accepted the Governor’s prediction and developed their plans to use the money in a different way, arguing that middle income New Jerseyans need property tax relief more than an income tax cut. Their plans provide a credit against income tax liability for up to $2,500 in property taxes paid. Greenwald increased the credit by including the reinstatement of the income tax surcharge on wealthy residents -- the millionaire’s tax -- even though the Governor promised to veto it as he has done twice before. The differing plans proposed by Sweeney and Greenwald gave the Governor an opportunity to drive a wedge between the two Democrats and the two houses of the Legislature. He scathingly dismissed Greenwald’s proposal and aligned himself with Sweeney to a point at which he suggested his and the Senate President’s ideas were much the same, a conclusion Sweeney said was greatly overstated. One of the more intriguing elements in the debate is why the Democratic leaders did not unite behind a single proposal, clearing the way for their majorities to approve it, send it to the Governor and claim victory. (For more of Carl Golden's analysis, read his guest column here.) Read More \| Guest Column


	Daily Muse: CHRISTIE HAMMERS OUT TOUGH CWA DEAL May 11, 2012 One of the enduring images of Jon Corzine's time as governor is the day in 2006 when he chose to wander out to the Statehouse grounds and join a protest by state workers. He came to the stage, fist pumped in the air, and shouted "I stand with you. I'll fight with you," and the thousands of employees around him cheered. And why wouldn't they? After all, Corzine, as governor, was technically the boss of all those state workers. And if the boss is promising employees that he'll stand with them, well, then it seems pretty clear that the workers are home free home when it comes that they'll do pretty well in their contracts. Which, under Corzine, they did: 3% raises the first two years, 3.5% the final two -- all this happening at the same time the private sector enacting wage freezes and layoffs. Well, that was then, this is now. And now, Chris Christie is governor -- and we think it's safe to say that unlike his predecessor, he never viewed himself as a closet union organizer. After more than a year of negotiations, Christie reached an agreement with the 40,000 state workers last week, although no details of the negotiations were released. Well, we found the details today on the CWA website, and the difference between the deals that Corzine struck, and Christie's, is striking: July 1, 2011: 0% raise July 1, 2012: 0% raise July 1, 2013: 1% raise July 1, 2014: 1.75% raise In addition, the state tightened the eligibility of employees who receive a clothing maintenance agreement. As you may recall, state Comptroller Matthew Boxer had put a report criticizing the fact that nearly half of the state employees who received a $700 clothing allowance weren't required to wear special clothing at all, costing the state some $3 million. According to the new contract, that payment was reduced to $550, and there are strict requirements on who qualifies for the clothing allowance. Today, Christie reached an agreement with the state's corrections and parole officers, with similar guidelines. Unfortunately, taxpayers have been living with similar wage freezes and/or modest increases for years. What these agreements mean is that both private and public sector workers are operating on a more level playing field, and Christie deserves credit for that. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Guest Column: TIME TO REPLACE PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM IS COMING May 11, 2012 By CARL GOLDEN Two recent and unrelated events --- neither of which attracted a great deal of attention at the time --- illustrate once more the difficulty and frustration involved in crafting credible and long lasting control over spending on public education and the property taxes which support it. The first was an acknowledgment by Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf that his department has abandoned plans to move ahead with mandating consolidation of certain school districts because he said it would be prohibitively expensive to implement the program. A day later news accounts told of the success of a number of casino hotels in Atlantic City in appealing their property assessments, securing a considerable reduction in their tax bills but raising the prospect of a double digit tax increase for homeowners to make up for the lost revenue. While these two events were entirely coincidental, they add to the evidence in support of the contention that it is folly to continue to rely almost exclusively on property taxes to finance school districts as well as county and local governments. has abandoned plans to move ahead with mandating consolidation of certain school districts because he said it would be prohibitively expensive to implement the program. (For more of Carl Golden's analysis, read his guest column here.) Read More \| Guest Column


	Daily Muse: CHRISTIE SAYS NO TO OBAMACARE May 10, 2012 Well, a piece of it anyway. Waiting until the last possible day, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have created health exchanges in New Jersey, the first step toward implementing Obamacare. “I am concerned that a hastily created exchange in New Jersey will impose unnecessary obligations upon the state’s taxpayers,” Christie said. “The very constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is cloaked in uncertainty, as both the individual mandate to procure health insurance as well as the jurisdictional mandate to establish an exchange may not survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court.” At first glance, Christie's veto isn't surprising -- he has talked about the need to overturn Obamacare in the past. But until today, he had declined to say what he would do about the health exchange bill -- leading some conservatives another reason to question Christie's conservative bonafides. But now that the bill is dead -- the likelihood of this bill being overridden is somewhere between slim and none -- it turns out there were a couple of interesting provisions in this bill. For one, it turns out that by vetoing the bill, Christie has given New Jersey an economic development edge over New York. From the Daily Caller: Supporters warn that if Trenton doesn’t create an exchange for New Jersey, the feds will. But so what? Obamacare gives federal bureaucrats a chokehold on New Jersey’s health insurance markets no matter who runs the exchange, because it requires state-run exchanges to do everything a federal exchange would do. Obamacare has already stripped New Jersey of its sovereignty. The only question is, should New Jersey also pay for the privilege? The bill before Christie would also subject the state to a second unnecessary tax: Obamacare’s employer mandate. If employers fail to offer a government-defined package of health benefits, Obamacare whacks them with a tax of up to $3,000 per employee. When you tax hiring, you get fewer jobs. Due to an odd quirk in Obamacare, however, that tax is only enforceable if a state creates an exchange itself. It disappears in states that don’t create exchanges. What that means is that even though Trenton has the power to block the employer mandate, state legislators are actively trying to subject New Jersey employers to Obamacare’s nastiest tax. New York had approved the health exchange bill -- which means that New York companies could face that $3,000 per employee tax. Sounds like that could make New Jersey an even more attractive location to do business. The Cato Institute had outlined a number of reasons why the health exchanges were bad medicine for New Jersey, including that states that approve the exchanges will have to spend $10 million to $100 million to operate them; the federal government will pay the costs in states that reject the exchanges. You can read that list here. (hat tip Paul Mulshine) And then, because this is New Jersey, it turns out that this bill -- which was billed as keeping New Jerseyans healthy -- also went a long way to keeping politicos well too. According to NJSpotlight, the bill would have set up a part-time board with 5 members -- one selected by the governor, and four selected by the Legislature -- that would $50,000 a year for part-time work. For another, the bill pays $50,000 a year to each of the five, part-time, voting members, and Singer said "There is no reason to create another 'how can I give my friends some money' type of legislation by paying members to be on that board." He would staff the board instead with employees of the state Department of Banking and Insurance or the Department of Health "who are already on the payroll." Sen. Nia H. Gill (D-Essex) said there's no reason to postpone action on the exchange legislation until after the Supreme Court ruling. The ACA is still in force, and no federal court has granted a stay of the ACA while legal challenges to the law made their way to the Supreme Court. She said the $50,000 salary is not excessive. "The board members will be engaged in some very complicated and intensive work, and $50,000 is comparable to the time and effort they would have to put into the exchange to get it up and running. It is a complicated process and I think the money would be well spent." Money well spent? Of course Singer has the right idea about using existing state employees to staff the boards. The fact that most lawmakers didn't blink an eye over creating another board with another hefty salary for part-time work is mind-boggling. Do we really need to remind lawmakers that there are plenty of New Jerseyans working full-time who earn less than $50,000? Seriously, have we learned nothing in New Jersey? Just one more excellent reason to veto the bill. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: WHO WILL WIN IN RUTGERS, ROWAN MERGER? May 9, 2012 Something to ponder as we await what happens next in the proposed merger of Rutgers-Camden and Rowan University, which has been brilliantly nicknamed the Rut-Row merger. What eventually happens with this merger may tell us how strong the alliance between Gov. Chris Christie and South Jersey (read Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Democratic powerbroker -- and Philadelphia Inquirer co-owner -- George Norcross) continues to be. For make no mistake: If this merger happens, it's because South Jersey joined with Christie to make it happen. Of course, the news is all about how the merger is in trouble: Rutgers board of trustees voted last week to reject the merger. But there are plenty of signs that while the specific merger originally outlined by Christie may be in trouble, the possibility of a different merger -- which would still give South Jersey a major research faciliity -- is still in play. So much in play that even as the Rutgers board were voting down the merger, which would have given Rutgers-Camden to Camden -- the Ledger reports Rutgers officials were openly fretting that the vote could upset the negotiations with the governor's office. Outgoing Rutgers President Richard McCormick remained silent during the hour-long debate in New Brunswick. After the vote, he expressed "hope" the trustees’ vote would not "upset" negotiations with the state. Another part of the merger plan calls for Rutgers to take over operation of the Central Jersey campuses of the University of Medicine and Dentistry, a now independent medical school, a plan McCormick has endorsed. Al Gamper, a trustee alligned with Christie, argued against the resolution, insisting it might upset negotiations with the governor that might have allowed Camden to remain part of the university. "Even if there is only a 5-percent risk of upsetting the negotiations, why take that risk?" Gamper asked. Now the reason Rutgers would be upset is because it really wants the UMDNJ medical school it was suppsed to get as part of the merger. In effect, Rutgers wants the medical school, and it wants to keep Rutgers-Camden. It doesn't want to have to give up anything. But the South Jersey folks believe that Rutgers-Camden has been shortchanged by New Brunswick for years -- which is why they wanted Rutgers-Camden to get out of the Rutgers umbrella. But now, there has been plenty of talk about behind-the-scene meetings between South Jersey and Rutgers officials. And one emerging consensus has been that Rutgers-Camden would remain part of Rutgers, but that it would have its own board and be autonomous from the main New Brunswick campus. Norcross has hinted about such a deal, telling the Courier Post: “If you read the press, you would think there is only one merger. There are many other mergers that do not eliminate the name brand, and I don’t think anyone intended the elimination of a name brand,” he said. “And I think there are means available to create an identity for Rowan and Rutgers and…ways to be structured for the best of all worlds.” Sure sounds like they're talking about letting Rutgers-Camden stay in Rutgers, but with an autonomous board. Here's more from the Courier Post: For a number of weeks, (Norcross) has taken part in private discussions with high-level Democratic legislators and Rutgers board members in what he calls a “catalyst” role to bring about a more acceptable plan to South Jersey and with it millions of dollars for Camden and the region. “Yes, we are proudly working toward an agreement … every day and every hour,” he added. He said he anticipates that when it comes, it will be received “with a lot of support” and that if it is not reached, it will be a detriment to Camden but that failure to reach a consensus is not an option. He said there is more than one form of merger, but declined to say what type might result. He mentioned a possible qausi-autonomous Rutgers-Camden and then stressed, “I think identity matters,” referring to the national name recognition of Rutgers, the state university. Now, what's interesting about these discussions, which are said to include Norcross, Sweeney and Rutgers officials, but not Christie. And last month, Christie didn't sound like he was all that on board with their plans: Christie told reporters after an event at a Jewish community center in Bridgewater on Wednesday that the restructuring of Rutgers, Rowan and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey will happen by July 1. He said he was undeterred by vocal opposition from Rutgers-Camden faculty, students and alumni, who have gathered 13,000 signatures on an online petition to block the merger. Nor was he phased by Tuesday's report by the Associated Press that South Jersey Democratic powerbroker George Norcross III and Democratic Senate President Stephen Sweeney had met privately with other top Democrats and at least four members of the Rutgers Board of Governors _ including Rutgers' outgoing President Richard McCormick, former Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts and Public Service Enterprise Group CEO Ralph Izzo, to try to appease the opposition. One idea for pacifying opponents is allowing Rutgers-Camden to keep the Rutgers name. "I'm not going to let anybody keep the Rutgers name unless they're being governed by Rutgers,'' Christie said Wednesday. "So, I'm supporting my plan, we're going to move forward with my plan and my plan's going to be implemented. The people at Rutgers-Camden need to get ready for that." Christie said he did not know about the meetings among high-level Democrats and Rutgers board members but said he was unconcerned about Norcross being involved in state policymaking discussions. "The idea that George Norcross is involved in public issues in New Jersey, is that like a news flash to anybody?" Christie asked. "That's been going on for a decade or more. To the extent George wants to be involved and he provides some type of constructive contribution, I don't have any problem with it. He isn't making any decisions." But here's the thing about Christie. He often talks about how between two sides, there is usually a boulevard of compromise -- and that the art of negotiations is to figure out how to get both sides onto the boulevard. Here's the other thing about Christie: We can't see any way that he will allow this proposed merger -- in which he has invested political capital -- to be defeated, especially not after he has publicly gone to war with Sen. Frank Lautenberg over it. So here's our prediction: Christie and South Jersey will come to an agreement over the university restructuring; and the Legislature will vote on the proposal. And here's some predictions about what the compromise is going to look like: Rutgers-Camden will stay in Rutgers, but with get more autonomy, and more funds from the university -- as will Newark. Rowan will become a major research institution. And here's a wildcard guess: the UMDNJ medical school that was supposed to go to Rutgers? We wouldn't be surprised to see it go to Rowan instead, to join the one Rowan is building with Cooper University Hospital, where Norcross is chairman. Will it happen? It's too early to tell. But if we had to bet now, we'd bet that the plan will go forward -- there's too much invested in it by Christie and South Jersey for it to fail. Which is why Rutgers officials were so worried about upsetting the state --read governor -- with that board of trustees vote. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: iS VEEPSTAKES DELAYING CHRISTIE'S AGENDA? May 8, 2012 Could all this talk about the vice presidency be harming any chance for real education reform passing the Legislature this year? We ask, because issues like tenure reform, and the Opportunity Scholarship Act -- which would provide scholarship for private and parochial schools for students in some failing districts -- remain some of the big "undones" on Gov. Chris Christie's agenda. Most Trenton insiders had thought that education reform would be the big issue in the lame duck session last year. Yet, it never emerged. Christie went to the American Federation for Children conference last week, and gave a fiery speech about the need for school vouchers and education reform. In that speech, he also criticized Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, saying she was "the person who stands most in between the students and families who could benefit" from education reform. Oliver, for her part, told the Ledger that "We have repeatedly said that we would consider a scaled-back version of the Opportunity Scholarship Act. We welcome him to come to the table and discuss a compromise." The Opportunity Scholarship Act, which would be funded by tax deductible donations by corporations and is considered budget neutral, has some high-powered bipartisan support, including Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Sen. Ray Lesniak, D-Union, and Democratic South Jersey powerbroker George Norcross. All that got us thinking. Why is it that those reforms remain undone? Now it could partly be because of the rumored deal Oliver made that kept her in the speaker's chair: that she would not post any bill for consideration unless it had the approval of 41 Democrats in her caucus. The scholarship bill is adamantly opposed by progressives, as well as the NJEA, and their supporters in the caucus. But Christie has been able to overcome that before. So what's different? Well, what if all this talk about the Veepstakes has led to Christie opponents like the NJEA and some Democrats deciding to play a waiting game. As in, rather than oppose the bills outright, they just seek to delay any action on the bill until after Romney makes his decision about who will be his No. 2. If Christie is selected, then they can just continue to stall until he leaves. If he's not, well, then they can always re-engage Christie on the legislative battlefield once Romney's choice is made. If true, it's a smart, if cynical, political strategy -- after all, if Christie leaves for Washington, who really believes that his agenda will continue to win the day in Trenton? So rather than oppose the popular governor -- his approval rating is up to 56% in the latest FDU PublicMind poll, his highest ranking ever in that survey -- why not choose to outlast him? Let's face it -- the NJEA knows how Trenton works. They know how to push a bill, they know how to stop it -- and they also know how to delay it. Of course, that strategy also would mean that thousands of New Jersey schoolchildren continue to go to failing schools. It also means that those same schoolchildren start a step behind their peers, only because of their zip code. Obviously, Christie can't control what Romney does. But if there's a chance he might get the call -- and he would know how realistic that is -- then he needs to push for education reform now, to get it done just in case he might leave. Because Christie must also know that without him, the likelihood that those bills will happen, and those kids will the help they so richly deserve, get a lot more dim. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: CHRISTIE OPEN TO VP SLOT? May 7, 2012 National Review has a new piece up, saying that Gov. Chris Christie would take the VP slot if it were offered to him. From National Review: A few steps away from the Delaware River, in the marble halls of New Jersey’s capitol, there’s a consensus among Trenton insiders: Governor Chris Christie would gladly accept the vice-presidential nomination, should Mitt Romney offer it. “Christie is open to it, his family’s comfortable with it, and he’s been vetted before,” one top state lawmaker says. “He isn’t going to campaign for it, but it’s no secret that he would relish the opportunity to play at that level.” The open question, however, is whether Romney will actually pick up the phone and call — tapping one of the GOP’s brightest rising stars to share the stage. As one Garden State operative puts it, “It’s like asking Joe DiMaggio if he wants to play alongside Mickey Mantle.” Christie would help the team, but he may steal the spotlight. “I think Christie has enjoyed the national attention,” says Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican consultant who managed President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign. “I think he would bring star quality to the ticket and he could help energize the base,” but his “big personality might overshadow Romney.” Sources close to Christie acknowledge that the first-term governor doesn’t mind the speculation. But they’re mixed on whether he would eventually sour on staying on-message, all of the time. “This is a man who runs things, be it as United States Attorney or as governor,” one Christie ally explains. “It’s fun to imagine him debating Vice President Biden, and then there’s the reality, if he’s picked, of going along with Boston’s plan — sticking to the script and playing a role.” Romney, a Christie aide says, calls the governor on a regular basis, and the pair have reportedly bonded during their appearances together on the campaign trail. But beyond that, the aide says, there are few veep clues. As Romney mulls over his choice, an active push is underway by state GOP grandees to cast Christie as a forthright national leader, not just a YouTube star who spars with teachers. New Jersey Republicans rarely become national power brokers, which is one reason Christie’s friends want Romney to elevate him. In background conversations, many of them speak more about his pragmatism and his policy smarts than about his famous outbursts during the state’s budget wars. “The [vice-presidential] attention is well deserved,” says Nicholas F. Brady, a former United States senator from New Jersey and secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. “Maybe some would be turned off by his direct approach, but I think people appreciate it. They like it when someone tells it like it is.” One of Christie’s mentors, former governor Tom Kean, tells National Review Online that Christie did not feel ready to run for president last summer, but with regard to the number-two spot, he’s more than prepared. And with President Obama running a Chicago-style brass-knuckles campaign, Kean says, Christie’s tenacious personality would surely be an asset during the general election. Kean takes care to frame Christie’s response to the chatter as “honest and candid,” not as part of some strategy or quiet campaign to win Romney’s affection. “He does not want to be vice president,” Kean says. “But he recognizes that if Governor Romney puts the pressure on, he’ll have to think about it hard. That’s what he’s said publicly, and that is what he has told me privately.” You can read the entire piece here. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: CAN KYRILLOS SUCCEED RUNNING AGAINST 'CRONY JUSTICE?' May 7, 2012 Back in 1990, a then-largely unknown Christine Todd Whitman shocked the political establishment by coming thisclose to defeating then-national star Sen. Bill Bradley. Bradley was expected to win the race in a cakewalk.But Whitman, who had no money and even less name recognition, started pounding on Bradley asking if he supported then-Gov. Jim Florio's widely unpopular $2.8 billion tax hike. Bradley demurred, saying it was a state issue. And the voters responded, loudly, nearly knocking the formerly invincible Bradley out of the Senate. Fast forward to today, and the U.S. Senate contest between Sen. Robert Menendez and his GOP challenger, state Sen. Joe Kyrillos. Throughout the winter, Kyrillos has been rolling up county endorsements and raising funds. (Note to all you politicos out there: Did you notice how rare it was for Mitt Romney to come to New Jersey to help raise $400,000 for Kyrillos. Do Google search for "Romney raise money for candidate -- you'll see only Kyrillos' name comes up. Now maybe Romney is paying Kyrillos back, for supporting him in 2008 and again in 2012. Or maybe he's wooing Christie for VP, by raising money for one of the governor's buds. Or maybe it's a combination of both. Either way, it says something about Romney and loyalty. But we digress.) Anyway, as the June primary approaches, Kyrillos has been ratcheting up his criticism of Menendez -- and now he's taking a page out of the Whitman playbook by linking Menendez to an unpopular former governor. This time, though, the governor is Jon Corzine -- and the issue isn't taxes, but the collapse of Corzine's former firm, MF Global, and whether Menendez has a conflict of interest in investigating Corzine since it was Corzine who first appointed Menendez to the Senate seat. Kyrillos questioned how Menendez, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, could impartially look into the firm's collapse: “In the hearing last week, Menendez shifted the blame for the failure of MF Global to technology issues, poor capitalization, structural problems, or whatever other red herring he could think of,” Kyrillos said. “Menendez's refusal to even discuss the man in charge of MF Global calls his judgment into question.” More from The Hill: New Jersey state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R), who is running to unseat Menendez, argued there is no way for Menendez to thoroughly investigate the man who appointed him to the Senate in the first place. Under Corzine's watch as the head of the now-bankrupt brokerage firm, $1.6 billion of client money disappeared. Menendez's campaign did not directly address the call to recuse himself, but charged Kyrillos with a hypocritical attack and of siding with Wall Street over the middle class. Menendez owes his initial appointment to the Senate in January 2006 to Corzine, who tapped Menendez to fill his seat when he left the Senate to become New Jersey's governor. Menendez was elected later that year to a full term, and is up for reelection in November. The focus of the Senate Banking Committee's inquiry has been forward-looking, seeking to identify steps that can be taken to prevent such situations from occurring in the future. The task of investigating potential wrongdoing and the disappearance of funds has primarily been taken up by other congressional panels, notably the House Financial Services Committee. "People rightly find it inexplicable that there are no answers," Kyrillos told The Hill, adding that the Senate has a responsibility to get to the bottom of where the money went. "If you can't be objective and there isn't the confidence that you can roll up your sleeves and dig out the facts, seems to me it makes sense to step aside." Here's what Menendez's campaign said about Kyrillos' call for him to recuse himself: "This is a pretty hypocritical attack coming from Republican Joe Kyrillos who has defended Wall Street and millionaires at just about every opportunity," said Michael Soliman, Menendez's campaign manager. "Sen. Bob Menendez has been a leader in fighting back for the middle class against the excesses of Wall Street and big banks." But what about the folks who lost money at MF Global? Kyrillos also put out a press release with a Piscataway couple that lost $200,000 in MF Global, who joined Kyrillos in calling on Menendez to recuse himself: “My wife and I were devastated when money that we though was safe was taken from us with no explanation," said Dr. John Eck. "We were counting on this money for our retirement, and now we many never see it again. ... This requires a fair and comprehensive investigation, not a political whitewash.” So, is this line of attack going to score points with the voters back home? Maybe -- if the Kyrillos campaign isn't counting solely on the media to cover it. The Ecks weren't mentioned in any news account that we could find. But what worked for Whitman against Bradley is that every New Jerseyan was impacted by Florio's tax hike. The MF Global collapse is more isolated. But what if Kyrillos expanded upon what he began, by questioning, in effect, crony justice? As in how the Justice Department can fairly investigate Corzine when Corzine is one of President Barack Obama's top campaign bundlers? As in maybe Attorney General Eric Holder, along with Menendez, has a conflict of interest? As in if Corzine wasn't so well-connected, would there still be no action on the loss of $1.6 billion? As in, if Corzine was just any Wall Street executive, would the outcome still be the same? As in, who's standing up for those farmers, ranchers and small businesspeople who lost their life savings by making the mistake of investing in Corzine's firm? Is the Justice Department protecting Corzine, or the people who lost money? Does Menendez stand with those who lost money, or with Corzine? Meanwhile, Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., is circulating a letter among his colleagues, calling on Holder to step aside, and appoint an independent counsel to investigate Corzine. Grimm, a former FBI agent, says in the letter that while " 'we have no direct evidence' that the Department of Justice 'is providing special treatment…perception matters a great deal.' Still, the letter concludes that 'an independent investigation is urgently needed.' " Don't be surprised if Kyrillos calls on Menendez, as well as the of his New Jersey colleagues, both state and federal, to sign the letter. New Jerseyans may not have personally lost money with MF Global, but the idea of "crony justice" is something the residents of this state understand. It will be interesting to see how far Kyrillos takes this, and if it resonates. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: CHRISTIE, CWA REACH DEAL May 4, 2012 So, after more than a year of negotiations, Gov. Chris Christie and the state's largest pubbic workers union have reached a deal on a new four-year contract. What's interesting is that while both sides announced that a deal had been reached, neither side has announced what the deal is. The governor's office put out a two-line statement. But the CWA, which represents some 40,000 state workers, doesn't sound like it's all that happy with the final agreement: From the outset, our core bargaining priorities for this round of negotiations have been consistent. First, our members wanted to protect the integrity of our collective bargaining agreement so that whatever is bargained is honored by both sides for the life of the contract. Second, we understand the importance of negotiating job security provisions to maintain oversight of potential privatization attempts, and to provide re-training and re-employment opportunities for displaced workers. It is clear under this contract, our members continue to make sacrifices. Our tentative agreement contains small salary increases, reduces clothing maintenance allowances, and recognizes the new law governing health care for public employees. However, after a year of negotiations, our Union has rejected systematic, unprecedented attacks at the bargaining table. The State began negotiations seeking over 90 concessions from the Union which would have eliminated significant sections of our contract including both economic and non-economic language developed over decades of bargaining with both Democratic and Republican Governors, in good times and in bad. We have accomplished our core objectives during a very difficult political and economic climate, defending the integrity of our contract against an Administration hell-bent on undermining this legal right at every opportunity. Given this fact, we support this tentative agreement and recommend its ratification. Perhaps a hint of what the deal might look like can be found in the agreement Christie reached with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 195 and Service Employees International Union Local 518, which represent more than 5,000 employees. According to Bloomberg, that deal freezes wages for the first two years of the contract, followed by raises of 1 percent in the third and 1.75 percent in the final year . Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: LAUTENBERG KEEPS TOLLING AWAY, LOOKING FOR SUPPORT May 3, 2012 You have to give this to Sen. Frank Lautenberg. When he seizes on an issue, he doesn't let it go. Take his new crusade to get the Port Authority to delay its toll hikes. He held another press conference, this time with some fellow Democrats, asking the Port Authority to hold off on its proposed December toll hike until reforms are made. We can only guess why Lautenberg is so insistent: A) It's good politics, and it gives him another chance to bash Gov. Chris Christie, with whom he hasn't forgiven for canceling the proposed Hudson rail tunnel; B) He's looking for an issue he can seize on and chase away any potential primary opponents in 2014; or C) He's looking for a way to excuse away those 284 toll-free rides he got in 2005 and 2006 because once upon a time he was a Port Authority commissioner. (Of course, Lautenberg never mentions in these press conferences that if it wasn't for the audits of the Port Authority that were demanded by Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, he wouldn't know about most of the abuses at the agency anyway. But we digress.) Anyhow, here's what we continue to find to be the most interesting thing about this story. Ever since Lautenberg's big dustup with South Jersey Democratic powerbroker George Norcross, we've been waiting to see if any of the other party leaders or elected officials came to Lautenberg's defense. The answer: Hardly any. Such is the power behind the throne. So since, then, we've been noticing how Lautenberg continues to stand mostly alone. Very few Democrats came to Lautenberg's defense after his big Washington showdown with Bill Baroni. Now, a week ago, three Democrats: Reps. Albio Sires, Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell, all D-N.J., joined Lautenberg in writing a letter to Port Authority Chairman David Samson asking that the tolls be suspended. All three, we would note, are from North Jersey. But that was it. Now today, Lautenberg held another press conference, this time with Rothman, and some Bergen lawmakers: Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Robert Gordon, and Assemblywoman Valerie Vanieri Huttle. He also told us that both Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Assemblyman (and state Democratic Committee chair) John Wisniewski had joined the cause, sending letters on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week (which can be found here and here.) So once again, we notice the Democrats who are not there. First off, none of the Democrats who were with Lautenberg today are rumored to want his job. And even though Oliver and Wisniewski wrote letters, you notice, they didn't come to the press conference to stand with Lautenberg -- even though Wisniewski is the state Democratic chair. Second, Lautenberg journeyed to Fort Lee to hold his press conference, and brought along some Democratic state lawmakers from Bergen. None of whom, interestingly enough, are said to be all that friendly with Norcross. Third, we have yet to see any Democratic leaders stand up for Lautenberg since his big blowout with Norcross and Senate President Steve Sweeney. It's hard to see how Lautenberg wins a primary if South Jersey is united against him, and something tells us other Democrats don't want to back a losing horse. Something also tells us that's likely why Lautenberg keeps looking for more New Jersey support for his toll hike crusade, so he can show other Democrats that he still has support, even if he is feuding with Norcross. And fourth, where was Sen. Robert Menendez? Running against toll hikes is usually a no-brainer in an election year, so why is Menendez not joining Lautenberg on this? Is it because Menendez's kid works at the Port Authority as an unpaid intern? Is it that Menendez doesn't want to rock the boat with Norcross, especially in an elecdion year? Or is it something else? Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: WHY THE BULLY MEME DOESN'T STICK May 3, 2012 Chris Christie's opponents often try to build a case that Christie is a bully, a mean-spirited, not nice kind of guy. It never really sticks, hard as they try. And the reason it doesn't stick, we would suggest, is because of moments like today in Garfield. A sixth-grader came to Christie's Town Hall meeting, and asked him what he should do about bullying if he's being bullied by someone in authority. You can watch video here. You could tell that the 11-year-old's question touched Christie. And so he answered him, both as a parent, and as a governor: as a dad, he told Peter he should first talk to his parents. Assuming he's done that, as governor, Christie advised the boy that he and his parents should go to the bully's boss and complain, because "no one in this state should be subjected to that. It's not right." And if that doesn't work, Christie told the boy he would get a business card from one of his staff, and that Peter should call the staffer and tell him if he was still having a problem. If he was, Christie said, the bullying teacher would likely get a call from state Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf. Peter then told Christie he "kind of need(ed) a note" to be excused from school, which he apparently skipped so he could ask Christie his question. And instead of laughing the kid off, Christie picked up a "reserved seating" sign, flipped it over, and wrote: "Please excuse Peter from school today. He was with me." You should have seen the kid beaming after he got the note from Christie. You can watch the clip here. See for yourself; you'll see what we mean. The video's already making the national rounds. It's spontaneous moments like this that make Christie hard to beat. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: SEALing THE CAMPAIGN NARRATIVE May 2, 2012 Osama bin Laden died one year ago. With his death, America got some closure. The families of those who died on that horrible day got some justice. And the world got a bit safer. But the political campaign? It just got a bit tackier. Listen, no one disputes that Obama should get credit for making the call that OK'd the mission that led to SEAL Team Six taking out bin Laden. But it was SEAL Team Six who took out bin Laden. And somehow, in the Obama's campaign's seeming need to turn the president into a superhero, the emphasis is on Obama's decision, rather than the SEALS who carried out the raid. Can we all just agree that SEAL Team Six are heroes? And the fact that none of them have sought publicity, or needed to be publicly congratulated, speaks volumes of their character. The fact that Obama does speaks volumes about him, too. Obama is using every opportunity to remind Americans that he was in charge when SEAL Team Six killed bin Laden: a web ad questioning whether Mitt Romney would have made the same call released last week; a surprise trip to Afghanistan on Monday (the timing, we're sure, is coincidental); and lastly, a recreation of what happened "Inside the Situation Room" during the hunt for bin Laden tonight at 9 on NBC. Wonder if the latter will be marked as an in-kind political contribution to Obama's campaign. But the inconvenient truth is that there's new information coming to light that questions just how in charge of the operation Obama was. Time magazine got a copy of a memo that Leon Panetta wrote for the record, which makes it clear that the man in charge of the operation was not Barack Obama, but Admiral William H. McRaven. Here's the text: Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault. The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am. So yes, Obama made the call to go ahead. But it was McRaven who made all the calls that led to the death of the world's most wanted man. And, if we read that memo correctly, it was McRavne who was on the line if anything went wrong that night. But that doesn't fit the campaign narrative. Of course, the ironic thing is they are trying to raise the same questions about Mitt Romney that Hillary Clinton raised about Obama in 2008, most notably by that famous "3 a.m. ad," which featured a ringing phone in the White House, and asked viewers who would they trust to answer the phone. With their new web commercial, called "One Chance," the Obama campaign not only praises their guy, but questions whether Romney would have decided to kill bin Laden. No matter if they have to twist Romney's words, or take them out of contest. They have their narrative, and they're sticking to it. (You can watch the ad here.) The other irony is that it's former President Bill Clinton who is narrating the commercial, even though Clinton was offered bin Laden and apparently turned it down. Heck, ABC even did a docu-drama that included Clinton's failure to act. On second thought, maybe he was the perfect person to narrate the commercial after all. All we need now is a "Mission Accomplished" banner and Obama posing with the gun that shot bin Laden, and the next campaign ad is complete. Of course, what is so unseemly about all this is that the Obama campaign is trying to prove that their man is tested, and will make the tough calls, while implying strongly that Romney wouldn't. As if any American president wouldn't have made that call. As if only Barack Obama would. Please. It's not just politicos who are raising questions, Apparently, more than a few SEALs have taken notice too. From Buzzfeed: The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six. Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing? The White House narrative on the Geronimo mission would soon come under scrutiny as well, after Chuck Pfarrer, a former member of Seal Team Six, published a book length account questioning the official version of the story. The controversial book was viciously attacked—a JSOC spokesperson called it a “fabrication”—and it was widely dismissed by the press. What the pushback revealed, however, was an extreme sensitivity in the White House as to who would have the privilege to tell the Bin Laden story, best expressed in a compelling, if well stage-managed, story in the New Yorker. The piece recounted the Abbottabad raid based on interviews with senior administration and military officials, while imbuing the story with the drama of a SEAL’s eye view. Yet the author conceded he had not actually interviewed the men who did the shooting. Over the past few days, I’ve reached out to a number of SEALs, both active duty and former. Most active duty SEALs were reluctant to go on the record venting or praising their boss, but one of the most interesting responses I received from an operator was to direct me to Leif Babin, a SEAL who left active duty last year. Babin, who runs the consulting firm Echelon Front, wrote a little noticed op-ed in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal four months ago. The headline: OBAMA EXPLOITS THE NAVY SEALS. Babin took aim at “the president and his advisors, writing: “It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals.” And there's more. From London's Daily Mail: Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. ‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’ Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’ ... A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart. ‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’ Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it. ‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot. ‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’ The point is this: the American public applauds Obama for making the decision. But they also know the real credit goes to the brave men who risked their lives, to enter that compound, and face down bin Laden. And they also know that Obama was opposed to the very enhanced interrogation methods that led to the information that eventually led us to bin Laden. Frankly, Obama would have gotten more credit if he spent more time praising the SEAL team, and less time praising himself. The fact that he apparently can't -- or won't -- ought to be part of the campaign narrative too. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: LEAVING THE VEEP DOOR OPEN May 1. 2012 You have to give our governor this. Even as he tells everyone he can't see himself as vice president, he dangles the possibility out there just enough to cause politicos and the press to start breathlessly wondering if he would say yes. Has any man ever been so courted? Anyway, here's what Christie said to a group of students today about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney that has political types all a-Twitter (hat tip RealClearPolitics.com; you can watch video of Christie here too): "He might be able to convince me. He's a convincing guy, but I really love this job. I really want to stay in this job," NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R) said to a group of students today. "Do I really look like the vice presidential type? You know? Sitting behind him at the State of the Union going (clapping). I don't think that's me. I think it's unlikely," Christie said. "But if he called and asked, of course I would talk to him about it. I like Governor Romney a lot. I was one of his earliest supporters, I worked really hard for him to get the nomination and I'm thrilled that he's got it. I hope that he gets elected president. But, being Vice President is a whole different story," he said. All it took was Christie hypothesizing that Romney "might be able to convince me" for the speculation machine to kick off in overdrive. Sigh. Well, coincidentally -- or not -- there were also two articles out today, one saying why Romney should pick Christie as VP; the other saying he wasn't qualified. Here's the pro piece first, from Josh Barro over at Forbes, who cites three reasons why Romney needs Christie, including that Christie can sell moderation to conservatives; that Christie knows how to navigate a legislature, and that "Christie seems like a real human. On that point, Barro writes: Let’s face it: Mitt Romney comes off as plastic. ... It’s hard to think of a better counterpoint than Christie’s unusual shtick: arguing with voters, berating his political opponents, saying that his critics’ arguments are “crazy” and “crap.” Not everyone likes Christie’s personality, but at least he has one, and nobody will ever accuse him of being desperate to be loved. You can read the article here. Making the case against Christie today in National Review Online are Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, and Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project of Terrorism, who say that Christie has an "Islam problem" that should block him from higher office, asserting that "time and again he has sided with Islamist forces against those who worry about safeguarding American security and civilization." Specifically, they cite four examples, including his support for a Paterson imam, as well as his nomination of Sohail Mohammed for a judgeship; his support of the termination of a NJ Transit employee who burned a Koran, and his stance against the NYPD doing surveillance in New Jersey: From National Review: Two factors render this pattern especially curious: First, soft-on-Islamism policies are common among Democrats but rare among Republicans (Grover Norquist being the major exception). Second, Christie takes an ostentatiously pro-Israel stance, as reflected by his speeches and his recent “Jersey to Jerusalem” trip; this makes him unusual, for a pro-Israel stance typically goes hand-in-hand with concern about Shari’a. How does one reconcile the Christie contradiction? It could be ego: The governor is more brilliant than we are. It could be that, other than fiscally, he is not a conservative. Or, as several analysts suggest, it could be cynical double pandering: Muslims get what they want most and Zionists get what they want most, with each side ignoring what Christie does for the other. Indeed, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut pursued this double-track policy (soft on Islamism, staunch on Israel) and he became the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate in 2000, when practically no one noticed the contradiction. Whatever his reasons, we conclude that Chris Christie lacks the moral compass and integrity needed to serve as vice president of the United States. Wonder how they really feel. (You can read their article here.) The point is this: Christie isn't even running for national office. Can you imagine how much of this pro and con would be out there if he was? Question: How long will it take after Romney selects someone else for VP will it take for the national media to start writing about Christie's plans for 2016? Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: THE POLITICS OF BUNDLING May 1, 2012 Those of you wondering how Jon Corzine will pay off his legal bills arising out of the collapse of MF Global can rest easy: a judge has blocked an injunction that would have stopped Corzine and other MF Global bigwigs from accessing the company's insurance funds to pay for their legal fees. Who's going to pay for the losses from those average Americans who trusted in MF Global, we wonder? But we suppose the judge's ruling means that Corzine can continue to do what he apparently does best: raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama campaign, even as a federal grand jury is said to be probing what led to his former firm's bankruptcy, As readers know, we keep asking why no one apparently thinks it's a conflict of interest for one of Obama's top campaign fundraisers to keep bundling at least $500,000 for the president's re-election bid, just weeks after Obama reportedly returned Corzine's personal donation, even as a federal grand jury is said to be investigating the firm's bankruptcy. Well, we're not alone. Charles Gasparino of the New York Post is asking what role politics is playing in the investigation: Yet investigators say they’re having a tough time assigning culpability. Then-CEO Jon Corzine insists he was clueless about what was happening; mass confusion is the best explanation the probes seem to have found. Don't buy it. The probers sifting through documents and taking depositions from witnesses are no doubt dedicated professionals, but their bosses are political — and that’s the best clue as to why a probe that’s allegedly been running full steam for six months has made such slow progress. The bumbling Corzine, one of Wall Street’s most prominent Democrats, is a close ally of President Obama and one of his best bundlers of Wall Street campaign cash. Obama has returned some of the money Corzine has donated personally, but not the cash Corzine collected from others for the presidential re-election campaign — meaning the taint from the MF collapse isn’t bad enough to stop Obama from accepting the money Corzine brings in. Still, it would be pretty bad if a top presidential fund-raiser were implicated in the loss of more than a billion dollars of investor money. Many victims here were regular people — ranchers and farmers who used the firm to hedge their crops and livestock in the commodities market. Again, the probers no doubt want to do the right thing, but the heads of the investigative agencies can hardly be described as impartial. Many are presidential appointees or at least have a vested interest in helping Obama avoid a major embarrassment. The publicity hungry and hyper-ambitious Preet Bharara, the US attorney for the Southern District, as well as the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, are all longtime Democrats. Some, like Bharara, are fairly partisan Democrats looking for bigger future jobs. They have much to gain if the investigation doesn’t blow up before Election Day — so it’s pretty convenient that they keep hitting what we’re told are dead ends. Read the entire column here. Along those same lines, we'd like to ask this: Today, the Occupy Wall Street movement is apparently planning a massive day of protests, including picketing at a number of locations, such as the New York Times, Sotheby's, and even Beth Israel Hospital. And yet, even with $1.6 billion in customer funds missing from MF Global, even with ranchers, farmers, and small businessmen being harmed by the 8th biggest bankrupty in U.S. history, and even with a multimillionaire claiming he "simply did not know" what happened to the money, Corzine and MF Global have remained off the Occupy agenda. Why is that? Read More \| Daily Muse


	Guest Column: FROM EUROPE TO NEW JERSEY: IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY, STUPID May 1, 2012 By LORENZO CLADI and RICHARD A. LEE As Governor Christie and Democratic lawmakers argue over the true cost of the ARC Tunnel project, the wisdom of merging Rutgers-Camden and Rowan University, and the components that will comprise New Jersey’s Fiscal 2013 budget, the odds are slim that the European Union will enter the conversation. Likewise, when we make decisions on where to shop and dine, we look for good prices and quality products. We don’t think too much about economic policies set in place on the other side of the Atlantic. But in today’s global economy, the decisions being made some 4,000 miles away by the 27 member states of the European Union could easily impact how much New Jerseyans pay for food, clothing and household items. We live in a global village where speed has conquered distance and time has annihilated space. We can connect with a person living two oceans away in the blink of eye – with virtually no cost thanks to Facebook, Skype and other platforms. This is why the economic recession of September 2008 was really a global phenomenon that deeply affected millions of people worldwide, including those living in the Garden State. The simple message we learned 20 years ago from the Clinton campaign -- “It’s the economy, stupid” – still rings true today on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, the economic recession represented the sharpest contraction in the history of the European Union and had profound implications for the United States. To fully comprehend what this will mean for the New Jersey economy, one must first understand the history of the European Union and its unique relationship with our nation. (For more of Lorenzo Cladi and Rich Lee's analysis, read their guest column here.) Read More \| Guest Column


	Daily Muse: THINKING AHEAD TO NEXT YEAR April 30, 2012 So what to make of this debate challenge issued by Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald to Gov. Chris Christie. Greenwald wants Christie to debate him about the merits of the Assembly Democrats' 20% property tax rebate, vs. Christie's proposed 10% income tax cut. Well, the shorthand is that it's Greenwald's audition to be the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2013 --or possibly 2017. For what better way to boost your statewide ID by taking on a high-profile governor on his signature issue -- especially when you know that your proposal has little, if any, chance of making it through both houses of the Legislature. And that's because Greenwald's tax rebate is dependent upon reinstituting the millionaire's tax, which Christie has promised to veto. Senate President Stephen Sweeney has put forward a competing proposal, which calls for a 10% property tax rebate and does not rely on the millionaires' tax. It's also the proposal that Christie embraces -- likely because the governor, ever the cagey politician, knows that his plan has no chance in the Democratic legislature either. But by adopting Sweeney's plan, he still gets a tax cut to tout here in New Jersey, and nationally while he's out on the trail. It's what they call a win-win, and trust us, helping Greenwald jumpstart his voter ID is not part of Christie's agenda. Of course, Greenwald isn't the only one said to be considering a 2013 run. Most believe that Sen. (and former governor) Dick Codey, and Sen. Barbara Buono of Middlesex are both actively eyeing a run. Other high profile Democrats, like Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Senate President Stephen Sweeney, are widely believed to be taking a pass on 2013, instead considering Lautenberg's seat in 2014. But a decision on what Democrat will run against Christie in 2013 isn't going to depend just on how popular Christie is next year, or the likelihood of his re-election. It's also going to depend on whether the party bosses decide to play in the 2013 sandbox, or sit this one out. For make no mistake: Whoever the Democratic nominee is will depend upon whether the party bosses (read South Jersey powerbroker George Norcross, and Essex leaders Joe DiVincenzo and Steve Adubato) think that Christie is a lock for 2013, and/or whether they are predisposed to support the eventual Democratic nominee, or not. Any one who doubts that just has to think back to 2009. Corzine lost that year not just because Christie won, but because Democratic leaders decided to sit the race out. The fact that Corzine was not able to roll up the traditional margins of victory in Democratic strongholds across the state had everything to do with the fact that some Democratic leaders sat on their hands. And that meant that Christie was able to roll up insurmountable pluralities in GOP counties like Ocean and Monmouth, defeating Corzine. So, will past be prologue? Will that scenario play out again in 2013? The truth is, by working closely with so many Democrats, Christie has been able to make inroads among Democrats. He's personally liked by many, and he nurtures those relationships -- including those with the Democratic party bosses. Many of Christie's hardest fought battles, such as pensions and benefits reform, happened in no small measure because they were supported by Norcross and DiVincenzo. And Norcross also supports Christie on the proposed merger of Rutgers-Camden and Rowan-University. In other words, they've been able to accomplish part of their agenda, even with a Republican in the governor's office. But that doesn't mean that Christie will necessarily win their support in 2013. Our guess is that we'll know whether the party bosses have decided to bet for -- or against -- Christie depending upon who the consensus nominee appears to be. Matt Katz at the Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting look at the Democrats' possible candidates in 2013. He thinks that out of all the candidates, Buono is the one most unlike Christie -- and the one who has cooperated with him the least: ... (T)here's a stable of potential Democratic candidates rumored to be considering a run against him next year. Among those, one stands out not for name recognition or access to deep-pocketed political power brokers, but for contrast. Barbara Buono is as much an anti-Christie as you can get. The Middlesex County state senator contrasts with Christie's larger-than-life personality - and conservative politics - more than any other potential challenger. Buono is a 58-year-old mother of four and stepmother of two with a law degree and a congenial personality. She voted against Christie's health and pension benefit plan last year, bucking most of her party leaders and staking out a decidedly more liberal, pro-union stance. Unlike another possible gubernatorial candidate who voted against the bill - party chairman and Assemblyman John Wisniewski - Buono's the only female among the would-be Christie replacements. As such she's in a niche that touches squarely on Christie's statistical weakness: female voters. The piece notes that Buono is a favorite of progressives, and not viewed as one of the "Christie-crats" who have worked with Christie to pass pension reform and similar legislation. Codey has the same credentials. But that doesn't mean either are a favorite of the party bosses. In fact, far from it. One of the interesting things about Democratic politics is that you can argue that Norcross and DiVincenzo are more conservative than the the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Don't think that won't play a part, either. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Daily Muse: FREE RIDE, COURTESY OF THE TOLLPAYER April 27, 2012 Apparently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg has decided that fighting with Gov. Chris Christie is good for him. Or maybe he's just decided to try and regain the upper hand, after he lost the advantage during that Senate hearing where he thought he was going to embarrass Christie over toll hikes at the Port Authority. But as we all know now, Bill Baroni, deputy executive director and Christie's man on the Port Authority, turned the table on Lautenberg, pointing out that the good senator had received a free ride on the tolls at least 284 times. And that was just in 2005 and 2006. But now, Lautenberg looks ready for Round 2. From the Star Ledger: U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg and three fellow Democrats from the state’s congressional delegation asked the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Thursday to delay December’s scheduled toll increase until the agency shows it has followed the recommendations of a recent financial audit. "The planned toll hikes should be suspended until an external audit determines that the audit recommendations have been addressed." Lautenberg wrote in a letter also signed by Reps. Albio Sires, Bill Pascrell and Steve Rothman. "We are not alone in this request; state and local officials in New Jersey have recommended that the Port Authority delay the hikes while reforms are under way." Now what's amusing about all this is that as far as we can tell, Christie and New York counterpart, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, were the first to require an audit at the Port Authority in the first place. So, all the dysfunction that the audit found was apparently going on while Democratic Govs. McGreevey, Richard Codey and Jon Corzine were in office. Does anybody remember Lautenberg complaining about how the authority was run back then? Does anybody remember Lautenberg complaining about how former Turnpike Authority commissioners getting free toll rides? Especially since it was tollpayers who were subsidizing those free trips by Lautenberg and the other commissioners. By the way, since Lautenberg was an authority commissioner from 1978 to 1982, and was still getting free rides until the authority stopped the practice in 2007, that means Lautenberg was getting a free ride for 29 years. Has anyone calculated how much tollpayers paid so that Lautenberg didn't have to for nearly three decades? Don't misunderstand -- we don't disagree with the idea of postponing the toll hike. There are too many questions about how the Port Authority spends its money to justify granting the hiike without major reforms. But we just wonder why Lautenberg wasn't worrying about the tollpayer, back when he was happily letting them pay his toll for him. Read More \| Daily Muse


	Quote of the Day “Booker!" said Gov. Chris Christie, doing his best Seinfeld imitation, in his parody video with Newark Mayor Cory Booker.


	Categories · All Categories · Daily Muse · Guest Column · Top Headlines


	Hot Off The Press Too! ·Evidence is released in the Trayvon Martin homicide - MiamiHerald.com ·Stakes are high on Facebook's first day of trading - Los Angeles Times ·Romney moves swiftly to rule out anti-Wright ad - Christian Science Monitor ·Schilling Firm's Check 'Not Good': Rhode Island - Wall Street Journal ·More minority babies than whites in US: Census Bureau - Chicago Tribune ·Residents of 80 homes evacuated near growing wildfire in northern Colorado - Washington Post ·Donna Summer, Queen of Disco, dies at 63; singer influenced many performers - Washington Post ·Obama hopes summit meetings can quiet overseas questions - Washington Post ·John Edwards trial: Prosecution, defense deliver closing arguments - Christian Science Monitor ·US eases sanctions on Myanmar as reward for democratic reforms - Globe and Mail read more...