Does America Know Chris?

I am watching Chris Christie on Face the Nation. Does anyone outside on NJ know what a failure he has been as Governor?

If he decides to run will his opponents devastate him?

Bobby Jindal is also preparing to run despite being loathed at home. It's hard to fathom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-he-nears-a-2016-bid-louisianas-bobby-jindal-hits-political-bottom/2015/06/06/26f9c98e-0a28-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html?hpid=z1

LOST said:
I am watching Chris Christie on Face the Nation. Does anyone outside on NJ know what a failure he has been as Governor?
If he decides to run will his opponents devastate him?

I think he's gotten by with his "ostracize the media" and "humiliate the town hall attendees" routines on You Tube. IMO, his has been a lost cause since his Sandy bromance with BHO. No idea why he thinks he's still relevant, other than to stay out of NJ until his tenure ends.

he's counting on not a single pundit mentioning his record of abysmal failure. and given the fact that the horse race is of more interest to almost all of them, he's probably right. None of them care all that much about his actual policies or whether or not they've been successful. Partially because they don't want to appear "shrill" and partisan, and partially because actual results are boring to them, especially compared to video of the big guy yelling at people.

If anybody really knew any politician, none would ever get elected. That goes for both sides of the fence.

That's not really the point, mums. I'm talking about Chris's public record here in NJ. The new host of Face the Nation asked him about the State's financial problems. He said he inherited a total mess. The host then said that when he says that he sounds like Obama who gets criticized by Republicans for it. he replied that Obama was right that he inherited a totally bad economy, but that he disagrees with Obama's policies for handling it.

The problem for Chris is that a number of his likely opponents are Governors with better records, at least on the surface, like Perry, Walker, Kasich, even Pataki.

I am not even sure that Christie will actually announce. If he does Idoubt he will survive past Iowa and New Hampshire.

LOST said:

I am not even sure that Christie will actually announce. If he does I doubt he will survive past Iowa and New Hampshire.

That's what I was thinking, too...

I don't think he remotely expects that he could make it to the final four (or even the sweet sixteen at this rate). But I'm sure it will make for some (more) lucrative speaking and lobbying engagements once he leaves office.

I'd vote for Jindal over Christie any day, and I think that Jindal is dangerous for our country. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I lived in Louisiana..

kthnry said:
Bobby Jindal is also preparing to run despite being loathed at home. It's hard to fathom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-he-nears-a-2016-bid-louisianas-bobby-jindal-hits-political-bottom/2015/06/06/26f9c98e-0a28-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html?hpid=z1

mumstheword said:
If anybody really knew any politician, none would ever get elected. That goes for both sides of the fence.

That may be true. But no governor in our history has come close to Christie in corruption, fiscal and managerial incompetence, and bare knuckled vindictiveness. Had the media paid attention to the actual Christie instead unquestionably pushing his invented persona, he would deseverdly been out of a job after the most disastrous term ever.

Though the notion all politicians are the same is mighty popue, in this case it minimizes Christie's unmatched criminality.

I don't know where Christy will stand when the history books are written. Even Nixon was sort of rehabilitated But I think the people of New Jersey will remember and rue the day they ever elected him.

author said:
I don't know where Christy will stand when the history books are written. Even Nixon was sort of rehabilitated But I think the people of New Jersey will remember and rue the day they ever elected him.

I know I'm kind of a broken record on this "worst governor" theme. By any objective measure, it's already true by a longshot, and the dirt will keep erupting long after he's left Drumthwacket. I'm sure he's covered his tracks well enough to avoid prison. But if the biggest single thief in our history, David Samson, doesn't see the inside of a prison cell, then crime pays.

His plumetting approval ratings finally reflect the unmitigated disaster he has overseen. Most telling is that 65% of New Jerseyans think he'd make an awful President.

This is large part to Christie getting away with corruption and bullying on a scale never seen previously with nary a peep in the press outside the Star-Ledger and Record. When I talked to New Yorkers, they bought the Jersey miracle story and were shocked to hear what an awful job he was actually doing.

Equally telling was seeing his interview on Meet the Press, where new host John Dickerson called out his hypocrisy and utter lack of support in his own state, among other tough questions. When Bob Scheiffer talked to him during his first term, Christie enjoyed a barrage of softballs that must have brought him back to his HS days. None of his outright lies got any push back, as he was still the anointed savior of his party.

Obviously predicting the future is pointless. But I can't imagine anything exonerating someone who cost the state billions, used government as a piggy bank for his friends, and as a tool to exact revenge that was unimaginable. Even if Christie does some harcore public service al la McGreevey, it still doesn't erase his legacy. Somehow I don't see that in his future.

Another one from dear Chris. This time he states that debt free college is wrong.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-no-debt-free-college-118879.html

"Debt-free college, Christie said, is not the answer.

“That is a typical liberal approach. It is wrong,” he said, according to prepared remarks. “If college graduates are going to reap the greater economic rewards and opportunities of earning a degree, then it seems fair for them to support the cost of the education they’re receiving.”

Instead he just found another reason for the wealthy to get a tax credit.

"Christie also wants to consider approaches like tax credits for donors to higher education grant organizations, and income-share agreements, where students repay private financing received in college with some percentage of their income in the future. (Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced legislation for such plans)."

Alright, so I have a plan. Anyone has a 3yr old? By the time your child goes to college, mine should be going as well. I "donate" to your child's education and you "donate" to mine and get can get a write off on our taxes. Who is in it with me??

And these income-share agreements sound pretty good too. They can help me subsidize my retirement income.

pmartinezv said:
Another one from dear Chris. This time he states that debt free college is wrong.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-no-debt-free-college-118879.html
"Debt-free college, Christie said, is not the answer.

“That is a typical liberal approach. It is wrong,” he said, according to prepared remarks. “If college graduates are going to reap the greater economic rewards and opportunities of earning a degree, then it seems fair for them to support the cost of the education they’re receiving.”
Instead he just found another reason for the wealthy to get a tax credit.

"Christie also wants to consider approaches like tax credits for donors to higher education grant organizations, and income-share agreements, where students repay private financing received in college with some percentage of their income in the future. (Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced legislation for such plans)."

That is just awesome. We have found a way to allow college graduates to enjoy the economic well-being of sharecroppers or medieval serfs.

In contrast with this post from Facebook...

tjohn said:

pmartinezv said:
Another one from dear Chris. This time he states that debt free college is wrong.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-no-debt-free-college-118879.html
"Debt-free college, Christie said, is not the answer.

“That is a typical liberal approach. It is wrong,” he said, according to prepared remarks. “If college graduates are going to reap the greater economic rewards and opportunities of earning a degree, then it seems fair for them to support the cost of the education they’re receiving.”
Instead he just found another reason for the wealthy to get a tax credit.

"Christie also wants to consider approaches like tax credits for donors to higher education grant organizations, and income-share agreements, where students repay private financing received in college with some percentage of their income in the future. (Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced legislation for such plans)."

That is just awesome. We have found a way to allow college graduates to enjoy the economic well-being of sharecroppers or medieval serfs.

maybe we could just pay grads in government scrip

pmartinezv said:
In contrast with this post from Facebook...

"This is America, pull yourself up by your bootstraps."

That is like what I keep telling my 4 month old grandson. People gotta stand up on their own two feet. This is Republican/libertarian America. We are not a socialist country. Instead, he just stays horizontal.... expects everything to be handed to him.

These days you need post HS education to get anywhere. Consider college part of the general education stepping stones - elementary, middle school, HS, college. College is one step of many.

Many countries recognize this. They consider college to be as important as HS and are willing to provide free education at that next level. Why stop providing at an intermediate step, the HS step? It doesn't make sense in our highly technological and competitive society.

For those who do not want to go to college, post HS trade schools such as plumbers or electrician apprentice schools and courses should exist. The apprentices get paid.

If you accept Christie's logic at face value and take it to its logical conclusion then you might as well argue "why even pay for HS?" Let those who want a HS education support the cost of the education they're getting.

pmartinezv said:
In contrast with this post from Facebook...

In response to the image that you have posted comparing US educatiuonal system versus the system in other european countries, I have provided a chart of college graduates (26-64) for various countries including the US, Finland, Denmark and Germany. As far as I know the three countries cited in pmartinev's image, all track children at an early age. Thus, those tracked for vocational careers do not obtain the appropriate high school diploma necessary to attend college. For example, Germany has a 28% college graduation rate (which is significantly lower than US) which means that 72% have not graduated college. See the following link for a discussion of the varying types of high school diplomas offered in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

A system of early tracking to limit the number of children in college preparatory classes would never work here in the US. One financial benefit of limiting the number of college students in these countries is that the gross overall financial support from the state is also limited (but sufficient to provide the chosen with free college education).

Would you be willing to endorse early tracking of children (at say age 10 or 11) so additional resources are invested in those students which standardized tests and grades identify as most worthy?

Adolescent educational tracking (read to mean limiting the pool of children who will be eligible to attend college in their home country) is a large part of how these countries are able to offer free educations to those who are tracked into college preparatory courses. Are you also advocating adolescent educational tracking?

The image that pmartinev posted is at a minimum misleading as it does not address the fact that the opportunities for college for many European children are decided at age 10 or 11 so that the chosen can get a free college education. The US has its own system which does not embrace such tracking of young children. Our community colleges are almost free (allowing those without/limited means to attend college for a minimal amount). In light of these facts I believe the US college system is better than those cited and much more democratic.