I told you Chris Christie had no good options. He called a press conference today to announce that he had set the general election for Frank Lautenberg’s Senate seat for October 16th, just two weeks before his own general election day. Why would he do that when he could have set it on the same day as his own and saved the state 25 million dollars? Because the likely Democratic nominee, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, is black, and Christie fears that Booker’s candidacy will drive higher than normal black turnout.
Faced with the choice of taking a hit for wasting $25 million in an atmosphere of fiscal austerity or dealing with higher black turnout, Christie chose the wasting money route. Flip a coin on that one, but his decision also infuriated Washington Republicans who think he just threw away a chance for them to hold Lautenberg’s seat for a year and a half and maybe even win the full term. At issue were conflicting statutes in New Jersey law that could have been interpreted in a way that would have allowed Christie’s appointment to serve until November 2014. That would have allowed a candidate to become better known, establish some seniority, and to raise a ton of money. But the primary is now set for August 13th, barely over two months away. And both Cory Booker and Rep. Frank Pallone are loaded with cash, while no Republican has had time to prepare.
Christie’s next decisions are who to pick for the seat and whether or not that person will be a placeholder or the person he expects to compete for and win the Republican nomination. The National Journal has some ideas about who is under consideration.
According to one Republican source familiar with Christie’s thinking, the leading names are former Gov. Tom Kean Sr., state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., state Sen. Joe Kyrillos, and Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno. If he opted for a Republican to hold the seat but not run for election, Kean Sr. would be the most logical choice.
The Dean of New Jersey’s Republican Party is Tom Kean Sr. He’s best known for co-chairing the 9/11 Commission, and he has a moderate reputation. Picking him will only anger people who don’t want a placeholder. Christie’s Lieutenant Governor, Kim Guadagno, is a very attractive candidate but she’s pro-choice and may not want to be pushed out of her current position for a five-month gig in the U.S. Senate. The state Senators would have similar concerns and might only be interested in taking the seat if they were allowed to run for it in August.
The Washington Republicans think that it no longer matters who wins the August nomination because they’ll just get slaughtered by Booker (or Pallone), but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any New Jersey Republicans who’d like to take their chances. They won’t be happy if Christie doesn’t pick a placeholder.
Probably the best that Christie can do is keep any surge of black voters out of his contest and select Tom Kean Sr. for a temporary position. That will anger the fewest people both locally and nationally.
If he picks a pro-choice woman for a placeholder position after rejecting the requests that he strong-arm in his appointee for an 18 month gig, his national prospects are going to be mortally wounded.
If he really wants to be President, his best bet is to run a “maybe yes maybe no” Bloomberg type independent campaign and then try to engineer a draft at the convention. That assumes a deadlocked convention. You’re much better at this than I, Boo (dare I say “infinitely better”), but I don’t see how Christie can ever make it through the Southern primaries, with “East Coast – New Jersey” tattooed on his forehead. Southern voters hate New York and New Jersey and I lived in a relatively progressive part of the South (NoVa). Pennsylvania or Ohio, maybe, although they would have to prove their crazy credentials (i.e. Bachmann), but not New York or New Jersey and don’t even think about Massachusetts.
What about Mitt Romney? Governor of Massachusetts.
Check his record in the southern primaries. In fact, if the crazy side hadn’t had so many crazies running and splitting the non-Romney vote, Romney wouldn’t have won the nomination. If it just been Romney vs Santorum from the beginning, there is a good chance Santorum would have won. Plus, Romney didn’t have to deal with a million pictures of him hugging Obama.
I’m not saying that Christie can or will win the nomination, but the comment I was responding to was a little dissonant on the Massachusetts angle, don’t you think?
Was it? I wasn’t giving a personal opinion, just thinking about comments by known Southerners transplanted North on Liberal (gay slur) Massachusetts. They practically foam at the mouth. When they say “Liberal” it’s with an intonation that you know it’s intended as a slur. I’m sure they hate it more than New York, except possibly for New York City which invokes a special hatred except for Ground Zero. But all the live people in NYC are hated, especially Bloomberg, possibly for his ethnicity, also described with slurs, but incredibly also for requiring nutritional labeling in restaurants!
Because the likely Democratic nominee, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, is black, and Christie fears that Booker’s candidacy will drive higher than normal black turnout.
Why do people automatically assume Booker will win? Pallone has plenty of money. Does N.J. want a bank friendly, public school privatizer, AIPAC tool in the Senate?
I am anguished about this one. I like Pallone’s politics better. I’m trying to decide if that is the end of the story or not.
In any case, I make sure to mention that Pallone is running. Here I noted that he’s well-funded, too.
But the assumptions being made are based on a Booker candidacy. So, that’s how I wrote it.
What if we frame this as – if Booker wins he doesn’t run against Christie for governor. In that case, would you rather have Booker win the Senate or not?
Booker wasn’t even on the primary ballot to run against Christie, presumably because he realized he had very little chance of winning.
What makes you anguished?
Pallone is a Democrat. Booker is a self described “Independent Democrat”.
You know who else used to call himself an “Independent Democrat”.
It shouldn’t be too hard to understand. My political background is as a field organizer in the black community. The black population of the country is 13 percent. The current black population of the Senate is 2%, and it includes Tim Scott who pretty much cancels out William Cowan. In any case, Cowan is about to be replaced by Markey. Not a bad thing, by any means, but it means the only black senator in the country is going to be a Tea Party wingnut.
I consider that situation as worse than no representation. Okay, you might argue, Scott proves the case that having black representation isn’t better for the black community if the representation isn’t good.
So, there I am pondering the fact that there isn’t going to be even one black Democrat in the Senate in a few weeks versus the fact that Pallone will probably be better for the black community than Booker. But it’s not like that’s a slam dunk. Booker isn’t terrible. In some ways he is quite good. He’s inspirational. He seems charmed. He’s innovative and incredibly smart. Having him in the Senate would be a positive signal to countless black kids.
And, yet, I like Pallone. I not a fan-boy or anything. I am basically skeptical of all New Jersey Democrats, as I consider them products of the most corrupt state party in the country. But Pallone seems to be pretty clean. I generally like his politics and his style.
Basically, it pains me to make a decision either way and I’d ultimately happy with either of them, although for different reasons. I am certainly not going to become a Cory Booker-basher, even if I’d rather he wasn’t so close to Wall Street.
Put it this way, I’d rather have Booker than Menendez. I’d probably rather have Pallone than either of them, but not without some serious mixed feelings.
Oh, I didn’t know that.
that said, if your experience in the black community affects you why did you support Edwards instead of a fellow field organizer in the black community, I forget his name?
I didn’t support Edwards and I don’t know why you think I did.
I’ll be honest about this. The Obama vs. Edwards decision was the only instance where I wasn’t honest with my readers, but I had an excuse. It was in the interest of domestic tranquility. CabinGirl favored Edwards, and I favored Obama. So, to avoid a headache in the household, my official position became that I would support either of them provided they could prove that they could beat Hillary by winning Iowa. Or, if they could remain viable with a strong second place.
This had the advantage of being true, but it hid my clear preference for Obama. The second Obama won Iowa I was free to be a vocal Obama supporter without fear of consequence in my domestic relations.
So how much grief did you give Cabin Girl after Edwards’s self immolation? “Told ya so” must have been beating to the point of pain to get spoken. At our house we both had the tainted good fortune to be early Edwards supporters, so the mutual shame made us stronger.
I didn’t really have to leg to stand on, Dave. Just because I preferred Obama didn’t mean I opposed Edwards. I would have supported him against Clinton if that is how things shook out.
I suppose I can respect your concerns about a black democrat representing black constituents but I personally don’t give fuck all if I’m represented by a brown guy or a white (in my case) woman. Give me someone who is the farthest left possible and with the least corporate influence. That is what will better me more than anyone with a last name that ends in -ez.
But even the liberal Rachel Maddow supports him.
“People”…people who believe what the media tells them in both superliminal and subliminal messages…”automatically assume Booker will win” because that is what they are being told by the media. The fix is being put in by the media, just as it has been put in at least since the ascension of Bill Clinton to the presidency. Is this a “conscious” decision? I really do not know anymore. I suppose the use of it is conscious among many really savvy political operators, but I think it’s more about image…and I mean real “images,” as in pictures of people…than anything else. Clinton, Bush II, Obama…and any number of other national pols like Kirsten Gillibrand…all can be easily sold on looks alone, especially when their opponents don’t have the same good relationship with the camera.
Now look at Booker and Pallone.
Whaddayou, kiddin’ me or what?
A virile young sports hero-type vs. an upwardly mobile sanitation inspector?
Please.
It’s all about image now, SK. All of it.
Pallone could be the second coming of Senator Christ and Booker no smarter than your average jockstrap and it would make next to no difference at all.
Image.
Christie just had his abdomen opened up with a knife and some kind of strap fastened around hjs stomach so he wouldn’t be able to overeat anymore. What? You think that was a health thing? Hell no!!! His image controllers said “Lissen up, fat boy. You wanna be preznit you gotta lose some weight. A lot of weight. Fast. Now it’s perfectly obvious that you do not have the self-control to do it w/diet and exercise so here’s what you’re gonna do. Have an operation. Now.”
And he did.
Image.
It’s what’s for dinner.
Bet on it.
AG
His stand for the “right of the people to decide” probably won him some voters and softened up his image as a wingnut extremist. If the Dems make an effective attack on the waste of money, it might help, but probably not enough. His Sandy record will get him a lot of moderate/indie votes, though his buddying up to Obama probably lost the wingnut primary vote anyway. He seems to be seen as something of a hero figure, at least to the inattentive. I don’t think he’s in trouble.
Crass and blatant political moves that also take money from the public purse are not infrequently punished by voters. This election scheduling decision of Christie’s is like a thousand times worse than what Gov. Brown of California did in 1964 when the incumbent and soon to retire Clair Engle died. By that time Pierre Salinger had already won the DEM primary and was running against the has-been song & dance man and political novice George Murphy. Neither candidate was particularly strong (although Salinger was a SF native), but even in CA, LBJ won in a landslide that November. In August, Brown appointed Salinger to the remaining five months of Engle’s term. Salinger lost by 3%.
Brown’s personal popularity (as compared with the approval of his public policies and executive management skills – a big reason his son was elected governor in 1974) slid after that.
The Murphy mistake was apparent to voters well before his 1970 re-election effort and he lost decisively.
Hollywood’s often tried to mix
showbusiness with politics.
From Helen Gagen to Ronald Reagan.
But Mr. Murphy is the star
who’s done the best by far …
I think it’s great …
at last we have a Senator who can really sing and dance
We can’t expect America to win against it’s foes
with no one in the Senate who can really tap his toes.
The movies that you’ve seen on your television screen
show his legislative talents at a glance.
Should Americans pick crops? George says no.
’cause no one but a Mexican would stoop so low.
And after all, even in Egypt, the pharohs
had to import … Hebrew brasseros.
Think of all the musicals we have in store
Imagine Broadway melody of 1984!
Yes now that he’s a Senator he’s really got the chance to give the public
the song and dance ….
Ah, another Tom Lehrer fan! My favorite (so hard to pick just one, though) is Vatican Rag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do
Well you mention the popularity of LBJ that year, but the main issue of contention in CA in that 1964 race was Prop 14, a ballot initiative that sought to undo a legislative measure outlawing discrimination in the sale/rental of private property.
Salinger came out against Prop 14, against the advice of his political aides. Murphy in favor of course.
Voters favored it too — by some 65%. LBJ got 59% in the state.
I’m pretty sure Pat Brown also was against the ballot measure, which wouldn’t have helped his popularity either. CA wasn’t quite the solidly blue live-and-let-live socially liberal state it is today. As the governor’s race in 1966 would confirm.
It’s a big state. The Proposition was pushed by John Birchers and the real estate industry — two long standing political problems for the state. So, the emotionally driven voters passed a Proposition that was later declared unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court and affirmed by the SCOTUS. In between those two events, CA lost federal housing funds and that led to or contributed to the Watts riots.
Pat Brown did as piss poor a job in defining and clarifying Prop 14 for the voters as his son later did for Prop 13. Or maybe after appointing Salinger, they concluded that he was arrogant and they stopped listening to him.
CA has only become solidly blue by default — after decades of falling for the nutbag Republicans (always hoping that they would be like the progressive Republicans that once shared in the running of CA) the disaster they created was too obvious to ignore. At that time public space, facilities, and accommodations weren’t segregated but neighborhoods and housing wasn’t integrated. And that lack of integrated housing wasn’t limited to whites and blacks; it included Latinos, Chinese, and Japanese. Voters were smart enough to elect a legislature that would give them a forward looking prod on that, but not smart enough to see that it was good medicine for them.
What makes you think black voters will support Booker?
a WEDNESDAY. Might confuse a few people.
Um, wait.
You’re kidding, right? I understand that Booker & Pallone have lots of cash – Pallone is an incumbent congressman, and Booker probably has his own dedicated pipeline running under the Hudson – but Republicans haven’t had time to prepare??
Lautenberg’s been on his death bed for months, and seriously ill for longer. Any pol worth his salt intending to run for that seat has had people quietly lining up money for him (or her) for months already, minimum. If they can’t be competitive – especially with national money from DC and Wall Street likely to pour into the race – it’s not for lack of time. It’s because they’re incompetent and/or their party is toxic.
republicans haven’t won a Jersey senate seat in 41 years (and that win was by a liberal republican who opposed vietnam).
41 years.
money isn’t gonna pour in
Maybe there are no better options in New Jersey, but don’t ever forget Booker is a corporate lackey.
All of which suggests that Christie’s best option was to have appointed Booker and set the election to coincide with the general. Or to have simply appointed Booker and cancelled the special electio altogether. Yeah, the Republicans would have cried, but the history of NJ would have belied their even having a ghost of a chance of winning the seat even with incumbency. The kookss in the US Senate would have forced any viable, long-term Republican into toeing the Republican line, with all of those votes Reid will likely be forcing over the next 18 months, which means said Republican “incumbent” would have been on a death march to nowhere. Appointing Booker now takes him out of the equation, clears the way for possible Republican gains in NJ politics and confirms Christie’s bipartisan credentials.
I’ll say it again:
Christie should tap Bruce Springsteen for the temp job.
(At the VERY LEAST, it would be an opportunity for giving Bruce a call)
Sure, Springsteen is nominally a Democrat, but he’s not a politician, and his fans are a bipartisan bunch. Christie would get enormous cred for picking a sure-fire “Jersey Boy” choice, and it breaks out of the politics-as-usual box.
Tour schedules, junk like that, can be worked around. It’s not as if the Senate is a 9-5 gig or anything. Lots of prima donnas in that chamber, what’s one more? With talent!
Whatever makes you think that Springsteen would choose to be a pawn in Christie’s long-term plan to become POTUS?