In The Lobby

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.

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)

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?

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.