In the last election, a number of people, including conservative author Ann Coulter, thought that NJ Governor Chris Christie would have made a good Republican Presidential candidate. Indeed, it was hard not to like the way that he stood up to the unions (see the clip in the Patriot column Unions: Myth Versus Facts). He certainly has a reputation for being a ìstraight shooterî, and effectively attacked President Obama over the Super
Committee deadlock, asking ìWell then what the hell are we paying you for?î

And some conservative friends of mine in his state admired the way he
vetoed state taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization that aborts babies and aids sexual predators of young girls
. Christie also exposed PPís deception. This modern-day successor to the Nazi death camps loves to shriek that lack of funding would deny women mammogram
funding and disease testing. So Christie sent agents to try to obtain these services, and of course, none of the clinics actually performed them.

Even after the election,

Christie criticized Obamaís inauguration speech as ìmy way or the highway


However, many conservatives had concerns at the time. For example, Dianne Belsom, President of the effective Laurens Co. Tea Party (SC), cautioned:

ìChristie is not a conservative but a moderate, and he is at the bottom of my list of choices for a presidential candidate. He has embraced global warming alarmism, seems to
have no understanding of the Muslim goal for world domination
and the push for Sharia Law to be instituted world-wide, and is lukewarm on the 2nd Amendment

She also pointed out that ìhe helped Obama win re-election by his shameless pandering after Hurricane Sandy hit,î and this is indeed hard for conservatives
to forget.

Sandy disaster: excuse for more pork

Then after the disaster, Christie lashed out at House Republicans for delaying the
vote for disaster funding for his state. However, there was ample justificationóthe greedy politicians in Congress just couldnít resistlarding this bill with billions of dollars of pork-barreling that had nothing to do with helping the victims.

Of course, it would be too much to expect for either party to follow the Constitution, and even consider whether it allows such federal spending
in the first place. But in the 19th century, the last good Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, vetoed a bill for federal aid for
drought-stricken Texan farmers, precisely because this was not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government!

ìI find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be
extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.î

Of course, people would claim that this was ìheartlessî. But President Cleveland explained:

ìThe friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and
quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness
of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common

That is, he saw what leftists today do notógovernment welfare reduces charitable impulses (see also Patriot columnThe Left vs. the Poor) andsoftens the will of the people. And of course, Cleveland was being far more compassionate to the American taxpayers! Indeed, as economic historian Burt Folsom pointed out:

ìMost of the presidents of this period, and Cleveland in particular, scorned the strategy of taxing one group to benefit another. Grover Cleveland vetoed
414 bills (more than all previous 21 presidents combined) to prevent raids on the treasury. As a result, the U.S. had budget surpluses almost every year
from 1870-1900, and American credit and standing in the world rose to new heights. The U.S. promised much economic stability and consistency. Taxes were
low, and charitable groups raised large sums to care for their fellow men and women who had stumbled into hard times. Our national standard of living grew
as our entrepreneurs began to dominate the world in steel, oil, and chemicals.î

Instead, Christie was basically trying to buy votes by pushing for this ìdisasterî funding, and his sucking up to Obama probably was also in the hope of
such favors. In this, he is following
FDR, the President who prolonged the Depression. Folsom, who has written several books on FDR, points out:

ìRooseveltís lack of character was offset by his ability, in the new politics of the modern era, to target subsidies to key voting groupsófarmers, silver
miners, unions, and senior citizens. In effect, FDR (and most of his successors) have said ëVote for me. Look at what I can give you from the government,
not at what kind of person I am.íî

NRA ad criticism

In the aftermath of the terrible gun massacre in CT, liberals renewed their putsch for more gun confiscation (see also Patriot column

Gun-free zones cost livesó so boycott AutoZone and government schools!
). The NRA produced a very effective ad in response, claiming that Obama is an ìelitist hypocriteî for making sure his own daughters are protected, while
wanting to deny the protection for other peopleís kids:

But then Christie went on a huge rant against the NRA ad:

ìTo talk about the presidentís children, or any public officerís children, who haveónot by their own choice, but by requirementóto have protection, and to
use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible.î

It is really ridiculous how a supposed conservative could go out of his way to miss the point. The NRA was not at all begrudging protection for the
presidentís children. Rather, it was pointing out the rank hypocrisy of denying any armed protection for other children in the government schools.
Leftist hypocrisy is of course very common, shown also by the schooling itself.

Obama protects the union-dominated government schools by denying school choice to the masses

, but sends his own kids to the best private school money can buy. (See also Patriot column The Hypocrisy if Hypocrisy Charges.)


Our next Presidential nominee should be like President Cleveland, not like President Roosevelt, in showing compassion for taxpayers. He or she must be a
firm defender of the Second Amendment, which enables all the other Amendments. Governor Christie just doesnít fit the bill. Last time I liked Michele Bachmann the best, but it proved
too difficult to run for President from the House. A governor seems to have the best chance, and my pickóof a number of better ones than Christieówould be
the very successful pro-life fiscally conservative Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.