Skip to comments.Reagan, Christie, and Those Unelected Elites
Posted on 06/10/2011 11:30:44 PM PDT by neverdem
As he transitioned away from New Deal liberalism to Goldwater conservatism in the 1950s, Ronald Reagan began to speak out against "the enemy within" in a series of powerful speeches that celebrated America's founding principles. In his commencement address at William Woods College in 1952, and at Eureka College, his alma matter, in 1957, the future president described America as a divinely inspired, historically distinct country.
This idea of "American exceptionalism" also figured into the 1964 "Time for Choosing" speech, Reagan delivered on behalf of Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the Republican candidate for president. But the 1964 speech included an additional component that foresaw the dangers of a renegade judiciary; one that willingly bypasses constitutional restraints. The conflict between Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and his state's Supreme Court interconnects with the anti-constitutional impulses of unelected elites that Reagan foresaw during the Goldwater campaign.
Even as he remained focused on the external threat of Soviet communism during the Goldwater campaign, Reagan also felt a special need to uplift the political system created in 1776 and to defend it against a growing domestic menace...
Whatever one's views are on the constitutional question, there is no getting around the profound impact courts have had on average citizens in their everyday lives, Giordano added. Moreover, despite the vast sums of money that have been poured into Abbott school districts, the weight of evidence shows there has been little, if any, improvement to education, Giordano pointed out...
Like Reagan, Christie is relying on his court picks as a way to reinstate the separation of powers and to end the practice of judicial activism. But it is worth recalling that the end result of Reagan's own nomination efforts here were actually quite mixed and judges can be unpredictable.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Christie is no Reagan, but at least he’s trying to deal with the activist, black robed moonbats.
When the alternative is Jon Corzine, if I lived in NJ, I would hold my nose and vote for Christie. I wouldn't throw my vote away or stay home. Ditto Scott Brown in MA, where the majority of registered voters are unaffiliated, and registered rats to pubbies is about 38 to 11 percent. In some places, thwarting the rats is the best you can do. It's the northeast, but there are some places where conservatives can win. Maine got a Tea Party governor and flipped its legislature to the GOP in 2010. Go figure.
I don’t even like seeing Christie’s name in the same headline with Reagan. Christie has done a few good things, BUT he is NO Ronald Reagan and never will be.
Seriously, Brown has Kennedy's seat. How is he not an improvement over Teddy? Some people are just suicidal politically.
Christie seems like a good, reform-minded, Republican for NJ, not someone I'd particularly want in the White House.
This case of the NJ Supreme Court ordering more money wasted on schools than the legislature has decides or can afford is insanity. Worse is the chief justice making picks in violation of law. Christie has his work cut out for him.
CA doesn't have this kind of institutional insanity. Ours is an electoral problem. Public union coffers fund campaigns for those the moronic majority send to the statehouse.
If you compare Chris Christie with Governor Ronald Reagan of California, I'll bet Christie would come across as a staunch conservative and Reagan will look like a Marxist.
I'm not a huge fan of Christie myself, but you have to look at these things in the context of the jurisdiction in which they operate.
The author never says "Christie is Reagan" or anything like it, but that's what all the reactions on this thread seem to be arguing against.
More should read the article, instead of just making the obvious counterpoint to a point the author never even mentioned.
I live in the “Belly of the Beast”.
Christie is probably the best we can hope for in New Jersey as Julie Annie was probably the best New York City could hope for. I voted for him as governor, although I supported Lonegan in the primaries.
But philosophically they are both clones of northeastern fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans.
Neither one is an appropriate standard-bearer for the GOP in national office.
And in no way is Christie even REMOTELY fit to stand in Ronald Reagan’s shoes.
I wouldn't agree with a primary fight for Brown in MA, but considering the Maine results in 2010, I wouldn't have a problem with a primary fight with Snowe in 2012.
Akaka, Bingaman, Conrad, Kohl, Lieberman and Webb have annouced that they won't run for reeelection in 2012. While Sanders is probably a "shoe in" in Vermont, rats will have 16 other seats to defend in the U.S. Senate in 2012.
If we can successfully replace Snowe in 2012, then I would try to do the same with Collins in 2014. The rats have to defend over 20 seats in that year too.
Sure he is!
Thanks for the link, but the site made my computer crash. I had to reboot via the power button. My computer is too old.
Damn. Looks like my long-term plan to hold a constitutional convention and expel New England from the Union is suddenly in the sink. I'd given up on the majority of Mainers.
I believe the term is "shoo-in". As in, shoo fly pie.
Also, "home in on" not "hone", and "poring over the data" not "pouring", and "questions about" not "around". Several others are out there lurking in the darkness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.