Chris Christie has a conservative problem. Namely, they don’t trust him. Conversely, conservatives have a winning problem — they’ve failed to do so recently. But even after his public feud with Senator Rand Paul, conservatives shouldn’t be willing to throw Governor Christie out with the bathwater; he’s not liberal like Rudy Giuliani and he’s more electable than Mitt Romney.
Being from a blue state makes many red state primary voters anxious, for fear Christie might be a RINO or a Manchurian candidate.
But unlike many Republican governors from blue states, including Mitt Romney, Christie has tons of conservative muscle to flex.
He’s pro-life and defunded Planned Parenthood, forcing them to close two abortion mills, Christie used line-item vetoes to cut more than a billion dollars in spending, reformed public pensions ending collective bargaining for health benefits, balanced the budget without raising taxes, vetoed gay marriage, put a cap on property taxes, created a “Pension Fraud Unit” to tackle government waste, and increased charter school enrollment.
This is by no means a thoroughgoing endorsement of Christie but they do confirm that he is, in fact, conservative. His governorship compares favorably to Ronald Reagan’s, who raised taxes to balance the budget and increased abortion access in California.
Just as important as Christie’s credentials is his ability to win, something lacking within the rank and file of the GOP.
Despite a failing economy, an unpopular healthcare law, and numerous scandals, Mitt Romney couldn’t defeat Barack Obama. Romney won independents but lost moderates. Christie can bridge those voters.
Romney won Republicans and independents by a margin of 93 percent to 6 percent and 50 percent to 45 percent respectively but lost moderates 56 to 41. According to a Rutgers Eagleton Institute poll Christie wins moderates 61 percent to 22 percent.
Think of it this way: Iowa, New Jersey, and Michigan all have open seats for the US Senate in 2014. All states went Republican from 1968 to 1988, except one – Michigan in 1968. They all have gone blue from 1992 to 2012, except one — Iowa in 2004. The Republican Party should be looking to regain these formerly red states. A Christie candidacy does that.
Christie would also be the only candidate to widen the playing field. He would force Democrats to spend money and time in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, all states that have gone blue in the last three elections.
Republicans desperately need to do that, since Democrats have expanded their map in Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire, all of which President George W. Bush won at least once.
Its understandable to want the most conservative possible candidate, and Christie could definitely be stronger on issues like gun control and immigration.
But if Christie is the strongest candidate against Hillary Clinton, which all polls confirm he is, it seems prudent for conservatives to work closer with the governor and move him closer in their direction. The conservative movement can find a way to move the center closer to them without them moving closer to the center.
As for Christie’s shot heard round the world when he made his remarks on how libertarianism is “dangerous”? It’s unsettling at best, but with no clear policy remarks it shouldn’t be considered anything more than donor-baiting hyperbole.
Libertarians who are more sympathetic to Senator Paul do themselves no help by calling Christie the “pork king” or a “RINO.” Anyone who is able to enact conservative reforms like Christie’s in a state like New Jersey deserves more respect from their fellow Republicans than that.
At this stage in the game, no one in the big tent has anything to gain by having catfights.
Christie is certainly not ideal, and for some conservatives and libertarians he’s going to be a big pill to swallow — no pun intended. But he has what none of the other possible 2016 candidates have — charisma, moderate appeal, and a conservative history of governing. Christie isn’t perfect and he’s not trying to be all things to all people, neither was Reagan. But it would serve conservatives interests to stop treating him like a Democrat.