Group items tagged

The conservative critics in this article are so brutal. While it is kind of funny to see their reactions, as you said, I also feel like it's pretty important to the elections cycle four years from now. I noticed something interesting in our discussion group on Wednesday when 2016 came up: names like Rubio, Ryan, and Christie were easy to come up with, but a Democrat team was much more difficult to assemble. The fact that Christie has fallen from grace and might even be blamed for Romney's loss, like you suggest, could have huge bearing on the election or, given the strength of the Republican pool, not much of one at all. It'll be interesting to see.

I feel bad for Chris Christie, as the article says, "These critics seem to believe that Christie ought to have put national-party ambitions before his state's well-being. In other words, he ought to have committed dereliction of elected duty -- hardly a good move for any official." This is a pretty great example of political desires gone astray and to blame the election on Christie, who neither deserves the criticism and should be respected for fulfilling his duties, is just ridiculous. Good point John about 2016, but I wonder how long this event will impact Christie's career?

The whole Chris Christie response has been fascinating to me during the Sandy aftermath. The way he completely shifted on Obama was really clear on the news clip I saw, where his agressive attack on Obama's ability to lead the country was superimposed with his really profound praise for him during FEMA. I agree with what you're saying about Sandy saying something real about the rhetoric of government spending. It's one thing to criticize government programs like FEMA during a period of calm, and much, much harder when they are being implemented effectively right in front of you. In the end, though, Christie's switch might not have been much of a switch at all. As someone mentioned in class, FEMA is already in large part state run and in large part private. He was likely showing a better understanding of it.

This is an interesting article. You could (for fun, not really as a legitimate exercise) expand this as a metaphor for the problem with conservatism: it works for the rich, or the people unaffected by the hurricane, but to the poor and the hurricane-affected liberal philosophy is clearly superior. I wonder how much Sandy and Christie actually helped Obama - I read somewhere that Obama jumped a whole percentage point the day after Christie praised him, though who really can ever explain a poll bounce with any certainty.

This article is full of generalizations that are not true. First off, Chris Christie is not some hero that created jobs (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/christie-talks-of-a-comeback-but-jobs-data-may-say-otherwise/?ref=christopherjchristie). New Jersey has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any state in the country. His entire "New Jersey Comeback" is essentially not true. A plethora of top scholars have pointed out that New Jersey is in fact not doing that well. In that vain, it is quite telling that Christie didn't once mention the "New Jersey Comeback" in his speech at the convention, because it is frankly just rhetoric. Second off, the claims that this author makes about Democrats are pure generalization based upon ideological rhetoric that doesn't provide for a fruitful debate at all. This statement: "Single women, a major Democrat voting bloc, like the anti-rich message for several reasons. They are more likely to be poor and use government aid. Idealistic young women enjoy feeling kind -- how enjoyable it is to feel virtuous by being generous with other people's money" is offensive. There is no statistical analysis, just a generalization about women. Also, where is this anti-rich message? Not once did the author of the article provide any basis for his idea that Democrats are anti-rich. In fact, Democrats have time and time again clarified that they are not anti-rich; they just want policies that will allow all the chance to succeed and eventually become rich. Another absurd claim the author makes is, "Our minorities who receive preferential treatment in jobs and education are happy to think the system is still unfair fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, and that they deserve more privileges and more money." The system is still unfair! There are m