WaPo:
“When I took over as governor of New Jersey, my predecessor, Governor Jon Corzine, had left us a mess — record deficits . . . the highest top tax rates and overall tax burden in America,” the Republican governor said. “People said New Jersey could never be turned around. But we took action.”
Christie’s remarks, laced with blunt criticism of President Obama’s record, were reflective of the image that he has spent years cultivating — that of a bipartisan broker dedicated to fixing long-standing fiscal problems once and for all. That image is also one that would serve as the centerpiece of a 2016 run by Christie for the White House.
An examination of Christie’s record by The Washington Post and ProPublica, however, paints a more complicated story of his fiscal stewardship of one of the biggest state budgets. It’s a story that will probably face far greater scrutiny should he declare himself a presidential candidate.
Why wait? And if his henchmen and cronies are indicted, why treat him like a contender?
Chris Cillizza:
Chris Christie sat down with "Today" host Matt Lauer to talk about his political future on Wednesday. And, Lauer, to his credit, got right to it -- asking the New Jersey governor: "[Has] your moment passed?"
Christie gave the answer he was supposed to give. "I don't know and neither do you," he told Lauer. "We'll see."
It's a really, really good question though -- and one I've been thinking a lot about lately.
As well you should.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Politico:
Jeb Bush says that the Senate should confirm the nomination of Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s choice for attorney general. A number of Senate Republicans oppose her nomination.
“I think presidents have the right to pick their team,” Bush said, according to reports of his stop at the “Politics and Pie” forum in Concord, New Hampshire, on Thursday night.
RINO.
Dana Milbank:
Also of note is that the partisan polarization occurs even though Americans aren’t all that split on policies or ideology. Their partisanship is more tribal than anything — the result of an ill-informed electorate. “In order to have an understanding of the ideology of your party and the opposing party you have to have a lot of information,” and “that’s something that just doesn’t happen for the majority of the electorate,” said Westwood. “However, most people understand their side is good and the opposing side is bad, so it’s much easier for them to form these emotional opinions of political parties.”
This leads to a grim conclusion: The problem with politics isn’t Washington but the electorate. Members of Congress, most of whom come from safely gerrymandered districts, are behaving in a perfectly rational way when they avoid cooperation with the other party and instead try to build support within their own tribe.
This is way people like Scott Walker and Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton are dangerous, and the only way to ameliorate the danger is to defeat them. It doesn't mean treating all Republicans and conservatives as if they are Ted Cruz. But so long as Cotton does inappropriate things like interfere with foreign policy, and gets backing from the vast majority of Senate Republicans including leadership, it is what it is.
Milbank can cry in his beer all he wants about it. He's part of the problem for not calling these people out years ago. And he's got plenty of company.
Greg Sargent:
Lurking underneath the searing controversy around the GOP letter to Iranian leaders is a dynamic that will far outlast the current headlines and recriminations it has unleashed: If President Obama reaches an international deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program, all of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates will likely campaign on a pledge to cancel it.
David Drucker reports this morning: “Vowing to cancel President Obama’s budding nuclear deal with Iran is rapidly becoming a key political litmus test for the Republican 2016 contenders.” Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Rick Perry have all confirmed that they “would be willing to kill what Obama presumably intends to tout as one of his major foreign policy achievements.”
These Republicans are mostly pledging not to be “bound” by any agreement that is not submitted for Congressional approval. It’s unclear whether Republicans will muster a veto-proof majority for a bill that would require a Congressional vote on any eventual deal. But as Drucker notes, Republicans have long been criticizing the particulars of the emerging deal, which means that, if a deal is reached, the 2016 GOP hopefuls will oppose the specifics of whatever is negotiated, process concerns aside.
This goes well beyond Iran: All signs are that the 2016 GOP candidates will shape their agendas largely around rolling back Obama accomplishments on a number of fronts.