Chris Christie is a good governor for his people but to be elected would be to follow the 'Peter Principle'. The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where
promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that
organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of
ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "Employees tend to rise to
their level of incompetence." For more explanation, click here.
Christie has declared that the situation of the Sequester is due to President Obama's 'lack of leadership'. His speaking without knowing facts will be his downfall. It is good to have a politician who speaks his mind honestly but it should be only with fore-thoughts as to its appropriateness, tact, and accuracy. While he seems fairly bright, he does not seem to be a negotiator or systems thinker. This might protect him from being the puppet G W Bush was, but it will not be good for the country as he will alienate people who don't play by his rules.
Cal Thomas, a contributor to Fox News has written an excellent article describing why he would not be backed by the Republican Orthodoxy. To read this, click here If he would not get the backing of the Republicans and he would certainly not be a choice for Democrats who have many better candidates to run, I would suggest that his political future lies with a second term as governor followed, possibly, by a run for the Senate./
1 comment:
When it comes to an issue such as sequestration, you correctly point out that one should learn the facts before speaking. If only more journalists followed this rule: the news coverage on sequestration has generally been sensationalistic and highly misleading. For all the hysteria over drastics cuts, sequestration does not even reduce federal spending, it just decreases the rate of increase. See
http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2013/03/04/sequestration-and-the-death-of-mainstream-journalism
President Obama has engaged in this fear-mongering, much to his discredit. At the end of every war America has fought, the nation has been able to substantially reduce military spending. We are ending two wars, and yet Obama wants us to believe that unless defense spending is increased, we will be forced to ground fighters and dock battle ships, leaving America defenseless. Frankly, that is not credible.
The simple fact is that the current level of federal spending is not sustainable. As noted economist Herb Stein observed, "That which cannot go on forever, won't". At some point, we will have to make real spending cuts, and the longer delay doing so, the more painful it will be. Obama rejects this modest attempt at moderating the rate of growth of spending. Is this leadership?
Post a Comment