(Trenton)— Declaring that parents must be given tools to force changes in failing schools, Senator Joe Kyrillos (R- Monmouth) today announced that he has submitted groundbreaking education reform legislation to the Senate for consideration. The Parent Empowerment and Choice Act, known informally as the “parent trigger”, allows parents in chronically underperforming school districts to compel a variety of reforms be undertaken via petition.
“Children in dramatically underperforming school districts, many of which are in the poorest neighborhoods in New Jersey, report to class every day as unwilling actors in a modern tragedy,” said Senator Kyrillos. “These children are not afforded the education they need to make a better life for themselves, and are placed at a substantial disadvantage to their peers by government and the education establishment. Parents are given little choice but to look on as their children are failed in the most formative years of their lives. It is a moral imperative and an economic imperative that we not allow this to continue in New Jersey.”
Under the proposal, parents of children in a low performing school may petition to force the following reform measures at a particular school: (1) reopening as a charter school, (2) changes in school administrators including but not limited to the principal, (3) establishment of a tuition voucher program. The board of education or State district superintendent must grant the change if a majority of parents in the school in question sign the petition.
“The Parent Empowerment and Choice Act allows parents to take matters into their own hands when the system will not change on its own,” continued Kyrillos. “It allows for swift intervention to give children the educational opportunity state law requires, but all too often is not provided. While the refrain from defenders of the status quo is always to declare that change is difficult and takes time, that excuse does nothing for the children advancing through a troubled system. We cannot make time stand still in districts with severe shortcomings. Either we provide options to parents to effect rapid and wide ranging reforms, or children will continue to progress through an educational system that is not meeting their needs.”
The legislation is modeled after a grassroots initiative that originated in the Los Angeles Unified School District and was adopted statewide by the California Legislature in January 2010. It now moves to the Senate for a first reading and referral to the Senate Education Committee. For more information on parent-based school reforms, visit www.parentrevolution.org.
I can imagine Menendez and Frank Pallone sharing a laugh over a latte about this one.
Also mentioned on what D’Aprile described as the NJ GOP’s “thin bench” are Monmouth County Senators Joe Kyrillos and Jennifer Beck, Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno, NJ Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean, Jr, and former Senator Bill Baroni, now a Port Authority executive.
Scott Sipprelle and Diane Gooch should be on the list of potential Menendez challengers, especially given the NJ GOP’s historical preference for U.S. Senate candidates with the ability to self-fund their campaigns.
Sipprelle should be on the top of the list, if he would do it. His temperment and policy ambitions are more suited for the Senate than the House. Politically, Sipprelle could compete well with Menendez in Bergen County, Western Essex and much of Passaic. Menendez’s stategy would be to dominate Hudson, Bergen, Essex and Passiac, according to Democratic strategist Tony Bawidamann as quoted by D’Aprile. Sipprelle, who lived in Bergen prior to moving to Princeton, is better suited to suppress Menendez’s support in the north than the other names on the list. With a strong showing in Monmouth and Ocean combined with a competitive north, Sipprelle might actually win.
A lot can, and probably will, change in two years. If President Obama’s popularity recovers with the economy and he’s poised to win New Jersey by 15% again, Little could be the GOP nominee because no one else on the bench would want the slot and if there are no millionaires like Gooch or John Crowley willing to wage a vanity campaign.
Has anybody seen the real Anna Little lately? I haven’t seen her in months.
I’ve been intentionally restraining myself from writing about Anna Little since election day. We have a long history. Given that history, I offered her inner circle, which despite perceptions to the contrary I am not a member of, a private critique of what worked and what didn’t work about her congressional campaign. If not for our relationship, I just would have written my observations as I have after every election since I started this blog.
Little’s recent actions as Mayor of Highlands, my hometown, and the decision she will have to make next week over a labor agreement with the Highlands PBA compel me to treat her as I would any other public figure and write my observations with the candor I’ve been known for, yet have been withholding in her case.
When I started preparing this piece, it reminded me of the long running TV game show To Tell The Truth which ran in various forms from 1956 through 2002. The show featured a panel of four celebrities who were charged with correctly identifying a described contestant with an unusual occupation or experience. The “real” contestant and two impostors won the game if they fooled the panel. The real contestant was sworn to tell the truth when answering panelists’ questions. The impostors could lie. The game was over when the host said “Will the real X please stand up?”
The more I worked on the piece, the more I realized that To Tell The Truth didn’t fit. There were more than two impostors and they all inhabited the same body. Maybe Sybil is a more appropriate analogy. I don’t know that the psycho drama fits, but the multiple personalities and characters may be the majority of Little’s remaining supporters. Her Army is quickly becoming a figment of her imagination.
I think the real Anna Little is the woman I’ve known for almost 10 years. She’s been a principled public servant who would fight to do the right thing. She would fight for an ideal, regardless of the power and resources of her foes, winning and losing political battles, with scars. Often she produced improbable results. She always landed on her feet and emerged from battle with a smile. She was uncompromising to the point of being a pain the ass, but she was usually right.
The real Anna Little started the year as a Tea Party mama grizzly with charm. Tri-City News publisher Dan Jacobson called her “Sarah Palin with brains.” Her stump speech for the CD-6 congressional primary was musical and inspiring. It hit all the patriotic notes and inspired the best in her audiences. While she was challenging the establishment, she positioned herself as a uniter, promising the local and state party leadership that win or lose the primary she would rally her Tea Party supporters behind the Republican ticket.
Little delivered on her unity promise, partially, when she supported Joe Oxley for reelection as Monmouth County GOP Chairman hours after her stunning and improbable primary victory over Diane Gooch was official. However, she only went so far in uniting the troops. She never healed the primary wounds with the Gooch camp. There was griping and sniping from the Little camp throughout the general election campaign that the local GOP was not doing enough for her. She let that fester. While there was public unity with the Monmouth and Middlesex leadership, Little repeatedly snubbed the Union County GOP leadership. For now, let’s just say that Little’s horrendous showing in Plainfield was not solely the result of Frank Pallone’s superior ground game in the city.
The “real” Anna Little would not let those wounds fester.
Once she got her bearings in place for the general election, Little positioned herself as a “Chris Christie Republican” rather than a “Mama Grizzly.” This was not a Sybilesque malady, but smart political strategy. Christie had won the 6th congressional district in the previous election and his popularity was strong among the constituencies Little would have to win over in her quest to unseat Pallone.
When Little is on her game, her communications skills rival Christie’s and Palin’s. However, as the campaign progressed the inspiring stump speech she consistently delivered during the primary was often replaced with a defensive justification of her candidacy that fell flat. At home she would tell her audiences how much the national GOP and PACs in Washington loved her, as if the campaign was about her and as if her audiences cared.In Washington, she would tell her audiences how loved she was at home.
She was on her game and at her very best when among her enthusiastic supporters.Her performances at the debate at Temple Shalom in Aberdeen and at the health care forum in Red Bank were extraordinary.However, when in the presence of those who challenged her and without her “Army” to back her up, Little was often strident and argumentative. Her appearances with NJN’s Michael Aron, before the editorial boards of the Star Ledger and Asbury Park Press and one on one versus Pallone on News 12 are examples of when she was not at her best and needed to be.
Where was the “real” Anna Little?
Behind the scenes, Little actively alienated herself from long term supporters who would frankly tell her the truth about what was working and not working. It was as if she took constructive criticism from team members as personal attacks. The “real” Anna Little wouldn’t do that. She would argue and debate with trusted team members and then make a decision. The Anna Little that showed up during the general election campaign turned her back on her best local advisers and surrounded herself with “yes” men and women and people who did not know the district.She’d gone from a Palinesque Tea Partier, to a Christie Republican, to a Nixonian paranoid.
As the campaign reached its critical peak in mid-October, Little introduced yet another personality.She took a hard right turn and morphed into a Mike Huckabee Republican, only without the cornball charm.The fair tax, abortion and strict Ron Paulesque constitutionalist philosophy were not issues to emphasize during the last weeks of a general election campaign. Not when she had polling data that indicated a moderate Republican could defeat Pallone.She was pandering to her Right to Life supporters who were upset with how she handled the life question during her NJN appearance with Aron.
Despite these problems which were grumbled about behind the scenes among Tea Partiers and Regular Republicans alike, Little’s political stock was flying sky high, even after the polls closed and she lost by double digits when most observers were expecting a nail biter.In the final days of the election Monmouth County politicos were rooting for her victory because they didn’t want to have to compete with her in the event of a vacancy in the State Legislature after redistricting.Win or lose, she was expected to be a force to be reckoned with in Monmouth County politics.
In perhaps the fastest fall from grace since the Howard Dean scream, Little squandered torched that hard fought for political capitol before she got off the stage at her Shore Casino headquarters on election night.Apparently concerned about insulting either her Tea Party supporters or Regular Republicans who she never truly united, Little insulted both in her concession speech which was short on humility and gratitude and included an announcement of her 2012 candidacy for congress in a district that hasn’t been drawn yet, and the formation of three new political organizations, including one called “Anna’s Army” which she apparently presumed all of her hardworking supporters would just sign on for without any acknowledgement of what they had just finished doing and sacrificing.Did she expect to lose?How else could she have planned and even named these three new organizations within two hours of the polls closing?One television reporter commented on the air that Anna Little just wants the limelight.
Was this the “real” Anna Little?Did she have me fooled all these years?Was I the one who misunderstood her when I argued with others that they didn’t really know who she was?Maybe so.
This brings me to the present and why I’m writing this piece that has been eating me up inside since November 2.
I can support the Tea Party Mama Grizzly, the Christie Republican or the Huckabee Republican.The Nixonian paranoid is tough to deal with, but I’m Irish too and have dealt with such passive aggression for 52 years.I could forgive the election night performance and help her recover some of the political capitol she squandered.But I can’t support a Republican Mayor who is turning into a Corzine style Democrat as her latest character.
On December 1st Little sandbagged her Republican colleagues on the Highlands Council.She showed up unexpectedly and joined the Democrats on the council in approving a hastily drawn labor agreement that will either needlessly increase the costs of Highlands government or handcuff her successor in managing Highlands budget like Jon Corzine did when he made a hasty deal with the state workers unions on primary day in 2009 so that Vice President Joe Biden would join him on the stage for his campaign kickoff. Corzine’s deal prevented Governor Christie from laying off state workers during the first year of his administration.Little’s deal probably won’t prevent layoffs in the Highlands Police Department.More likely the deal will end up costing Highlands taxpayers between $60,000 and $150,000 over the next two fiscal years.Little knows this.
The payoff for Corzine’s expensive sellout was clear. What Little thinks she accomplishing, after assuring her Republican colleagues that she was with them, is a mystery.Maybe she’s delusional enough to think that her actions will win her union support in her hypothetical rematch with Pallone in 2012.Hopefully she just had a bad night and didn’t realize the consequences of her actions, despite her words to the contrary that evening and since.
Fortunately Little has a second chance with this one.The PBA agreement has to be voted on again on Wednesday December 15th.Little could miss the meeting, which means the agreement would not carry on a 2-2 vote. Or one of the Republican Littles could show up.For the sake of Highlands taxpayers, I hope the Little Corzine does not show up.
Lastly, it’s important to note here as well, that this is the product of compromise. Now, compromise can be reached in a variety of different ways, through a variety of different paths, but I want to thank the Senate President and the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the Senate and of the Assembly for traveling on this journey to the compromise with me. It is extraordinarily important that we all stand up for the principles we believe in, but also recognize that we are sent here to get the work done that the people have sent us here to do. Mayors, council people, have been crying out for this reform for a long time. And I suspect that if myself, the Speaker, and the Senate President along with the minority leaders had told you back in January of 2010 that by December of 2011, we would have a 2% hard cap on property tax levies, and a 2% hard cap on interest arbitration awards, you probably would have told us we were crazy. This is the product of people standing up for their principles, listening to the people who voted for us, and compromise where compromise is needed. The last part which I forgot, is this mirrors the 2% levy cap in respect that pension and healthcare benefits are excluded from the cap. However, the other commitment that we have made to each other and all of this have said this repeatedly over time, is that when we return in January to our work that we are going to get pension and health benefit reform benefit done. Each one of these things is a building block to finally controlling property taxes in New Jersey. We’ve got the levy cap, we’re dealing with interest arbitration, we have some other tool kit items that we’re going to have to turn to as well and then we’re going to turn to pension and health benefits as well. We’ve made that commitment to each other both privately and publically. So again, I thank the leaders of the Legislature for their willingness to work with me, their willingness to compromise, and to come to an agreement that makes sense for the people in the state. There’s nothing more important than getting property taxes under control in this state and changing the system. And I think for the first time in a long time, we have taken meaningful steps towards doing that.
Most of the mainstream news reported from Governor Chris Christie’s press conference yesterday has to do with the progress being made on the “tool kit” of municipal government reforms that will enable local officials to reduce the cost of government and live within the 2% property tax increase cap that the State government passed last summer.
Thanks to the Star Ledger’s Paul Mulshine for reporting that Christie also acknowledged that he is considering a pardon of Brian Aitken, the young New Jersey man serving seven years in prison for transporting guns he purchased legally and in a method that he had been instructed to transport them by the New Jersey State Police.
The news reports of of Aitken’s plight make a compelling case that a gross injustice has been committed. As a media skeptic and critic, I wonder what facts are missing from the stories. If the stories are reasonably accurate there is no question that Aitken should be released, his record cleared and he should go on to live the productive life he was apparently leading prior to his arrest.
I trust Christie to review Aitken’s case quickly and to make a just determination.
Conditional Veto Expands and Strengthens Bill Provisions to Better Protect Taxpayers and Provide Relief for Strained Local Budgets
Trenton, NJ – Governor Chris Christie today issued a conditional veto of Senate Bill 2220, a tool kit bill and element of the Christie Reform Agenda, to strengthen and improve upon the bill and more effectively stop the abuse of sick and vacation benefits, or supplemental compensation. While the bill accomplishes a large part of Governor Christie’s reform goals for these benefits, the Governor has identified provisions in the bill that can be improved upon to further assist strained local budgets and help meet the reality of Cap 2.0.
“This bill represents a good-faith continuation of the public employee benefits reform I signed into law earlier this year that will serve as a critical cost-savings tool for municipalities and school boards that must live within our property tax cap. I applaud the bill sponsors and the legislature for taking action on this critical reform measure. By working together, as we have in the preceding days, we are showing New Jerseyans and the country that real change is possible when to come together to work on real, meaningful solutions, in the public’s best interest,” said Governor Christie. “The changes I’ve put forward for this legislation make common sense and important improvements to strengthen the bill’s provisions and more effectively curb the unreasonable and abusive public employee payouts that come at the public’s expense.”
Governor Christie urged the legislature to act quickly to adopt the substantive changes in the conditional veto, and continue building upon the progress that has been made on critical elements of the Christie Reform Agenda, including comprehensive reforms to the interest arbitration system announced today.
“In these difficult economic and budgetary times, New Jersey taxpayers can no longer be asked to foot the bill for a system that is rife with waste and abuse. Sick days provide time off for employees who are sick, and do not represent an additional form of compensation for employees who are fortunate enough to remain healthy. Whatever rationale once justified this type of abuse, the time has come for the practice to end,” added Governor Christie. “Those individuals who abuse the public trust must not be allowed to further exploit the system for their own enrichment. The changes identified by my Administration and addressed in this conditional veto go further to put an end to these practices. I urge the legislature to continue the important progress we’ve made in delivering real reform to the people of New Jersey by acting quickly to adopt these changes and providing an important element of the tool kit to local governments.”
Governor Christie’s Conditional Veto makes the following improvements to S-2220, to improve and strengthen the legislation, better protect taxpayers and provide even greater budgetary relief to municipalities:
Strengthen the public trust by suspending supplemental compensation for any employee under indictment for a crime that involves or touches his or her public office, and mandate the forfeiture of any supplemental compensation if convicted;
Phase out the practice of distributing cash payouts for sick days by prohibiting supplemental compensation for sick days that accumulate after the effective date of the legislation for all state, local government and school district employees;
Require that sick days accrued prior to the effective date of this legislation be used before those days accrued after the effective date;
Expand to all current employees at any point during their employment, not just hires after the effective date of the bill in the twelve months before retirement, the requirement that a physician provide written verification for use of six or more consecutive sick days; and
Require that vacation days accrued prior to the effective date (those not subject to the one-year carry forward provision) of this legislation be used before those days accrued after the effective date (those subject to one-year carry forward restriction).
With 12 Days Left in the Legislative Session, Governor Christie Praises Legislative Leadership for Working Together and Taking Action
Trenton, NJ – With just 12 days left in the legislative session, Governor Chris Christie has reached a bipartisan agreement to enact critical elements of the Christie Reform Agenda. Working together with Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean and Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce, the result is action on transformational, long-overdue interest arbitration reform that will provide municipalities with the help they need to keep property taxes down for New Jerseyans.
As part of the Christie Reform Agenda, the Governor unveiled an aggressive plan to curb property tax costs through comprehensive arbitration reform. Arbitration reform, in addition to other pieces of the Reform Agenda, get at the root of the problem facing many local governments struggling to live within their means – ever-expanding operational costs. The Governor has been traveling the state since September, talking about the importance of enacting a tool kit of reforms to help local government leaders directly address cost drivers and manage within Cap 2.0 without adversely impacting core government services. Since the introduction of these reforms in May, hundreds of mayors and local elected officials across political parties have voiced their support for the tool kit, and underscored the tool kit’s importance in helping them manage their local budgets.
“Today we have shown that once again by putting the interests of New Jersey’s hard working men and women first we can achieve real, sustainable reform. Building on the first steps we took to reduce property taxes with “Cap 2.0,” we are transforming the interest arbitration process and providing a long-term solution that will help local governments keep property taxes down and costs under control,” said Governor Chris Christie. “New Jerseyans have waited a long time to see real reform happen in Trenton, which is why they deserve nothing less. Today’s agreement is a positive step in that direction, but we still have more work to do before the end of the year.
“There is no doubt that by going after the issues normally considered to be off limits politically, we are changing the conversation in New Jersey and getting results. Now we’re showing the rest of the country that if you work together on substantive solutions, you can change the way government works. We’re just starting to turn Trenton upside down and I’m confident that if we keep this same pace and continue to work together on what matters, we’re going to be able to go even farther,” concluded Governor Chris Christie.
The Christie bipartisan agreement on interest arbitration reform mirrors the Governor’s call for a meaningful cap that matches the tax levy cap of 2.0. This 2 percent cap will be applied to all salary items, such as across the board and cost of living increases, step increment payments and longevity pay. While pension and health costs are exceptions, as part of the Reform Agenda, the Governor has called for considerable measures to modernize and improve the pension and benefit system and has received assurances from Democratic leadership that these reforms will be passed in 2011.
Moreover, important to Governor Christie’s commitment to delivering meaningful and substantive reform, there will be no additional exceptions for non-salary economic terms moving forward. The agreement creates a prohibition on allowing non-salary economic issues to be arbitrated above the cap, unless already included in an existing contract. This is an important provision because arbitrators will no longer be able to create new cost items in successor contracts.
The agreement also creates fast track interest arbitration that will transform the system by establishing concrete deadlines to help accelerate the impact of the new cap.
The Christie Bipartisan Agreement on Interest Arbitration Reform
·Meaningful Cap 2.0 That Mirrors Tax Levy Cap. Provides a meaningful cap of 2 percent that will be applied to all salary items, such as the cost of across the board and cost of living increases, step increment payments and longevity pay.
·No Exceptions for Additional Non-Salary Economic Terms Moving Forward. The agreement prevents arbitrators from awarding any new economic items moving forward. The agreement creates a prohibition on allowing non-salary economic issues to be arbitrated above the cap, unless already included in an existing contract. All salary items are subject to a maximum 2 percent cap. This is an important provision because arbitrators will no longer be able to create new cost items in successor contracts
·Eliminate Accruing Labor Costs By Improving the Arbitration Process. The agreement transforms the system by putting in place concrete deadlines to help eliminate delays in the arbitration process, from contract negotiation to the receipt of the actual award. Traditionally, once a contract expires, labor costs continue to mount until a new contact is reached. Enforcing deadlines and speeding up the process will ensure timely implementation of new contracts and the cap on interest arbitration awards.
o45 Day Fast Track on Arbitration. Establishes a concrete deadline of 45 days from the filing of a request for interest arbitration to the date of award without any extensions. Both parties may request interest arbitration on the day the contract expires and awards will be implemented on the same day. All appeals must be decided within 30 days, if arbitrators do not comply with the 45 day deadline, they will be penalized.
oCaps Arbitrator Pay. The agreement will cap arbitrator compensation at $1,000 per day and $7,500 per case. Capping arbitrator pay will further incentivize speedy resolution of arbitration cases.
oIncreases Ethical Standards and Training for Interest Arbitrators.
oRandomizes the Selection of Interest Arbitrators.
·2011 Effect with 2014 Sunset. The law takes effect on January 1, 2011 and is set to sunset on April 1, 2014.
·Ensuring Responsible Implementation. The agreement also creates a Task Force to examine the impact of interest arbitration reform and the effectiveness of the cap on restricting municipal spending. The taskforce will study the impact of the cap on taxes, services, expenditures, public safety, recruitment, retention and professionalism. The Governor will directly appoint four members and two members will be directly appointed by the Senate President and Assembly Speaker. The Task Force will provide its recommendations no later than December 31, 2013.
With Repubican Randy Altschuler’s concession on Tuesday to incumbent Congressman Tim Bishop in New York’s 1st congressional district, the 2010 midterm elections have come to a close. Republicans picked up 63 seats while taking control of the House of Representatives, and picked up 6 seats in the U.S. Senate.
The 2010 midterms have frequently been compared to the 1994 midterms when Newt Gingrich lead the House GOP to pick up 54 seats, while Republicans picked up 8 U.S. Senate seats and controlled both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954.
With the midterms behind us pundits and political junkies are shifting their focus to the 2012 Presidential election. Many have pondered whether President Obama will move to the center ala Bill Clinton after the massive loss in the ’94 midterms, “triangulating” Republicans, Independents and their issues on his way to a scandal plaqued second term, or will Obama finish out his term like Jimmy Carter, dogged by a stagflation economy, unrest in the Middle East and challenged by the left in his own party.
My friend Alan Steinberg argues that Obama’s recent deal with Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax rates for two years ehances the President’s reelection prospects because of the likely improvement in the economy that will result. Steinberg says that the far left wing of the Democratic party condeming Obama for the deal will also help him by making him look like a centrist. Steinberg says an Obama primary victory over a left wing opponent like Howard Dean would boost the President further with an aura of success and centrism.
Alan overlooks the historical fact that every incumbent President since Gerald Ford who faced a credible primary challenge won the primary but lost the general election. Ford was challenged by Ronald Reagan in the 1976 GOP primary and lost the election to Jimmy Carter. Carter was challenged in the 1980 Democratic party by Ted Kennedy and lost the election to Reagan. George H.W. Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan in the 1992 GOP primary and lost the election to Bill Clinton.
Taxes could well be the issue that dominates the 2012 election. Just as George H.W. Bush’s broken “NO NEW TAXES” pledge cost him dearly with the Republican base that never revered him like they did Reagan, Obama’s broken pledge to raise taxes on the rich and redistribute wealth could yet cost him dearly with his Democratic base. Just as Bush I was no Reagan, Obama may prove to be no Clinton. Clinton, despite moving away from his leftist base, “felt their pain” in 1996. So far Obama’s message to “the professional left” is “you are a pain.”
Should a Democrat like Dean or Hillary Clinton really become a pain and challenge Obama in the primary he or she might argue that the Clinton era tax increases on the wealthy lead to a booming ecomony, the first balanced federal budget in memory and even a surplus.
Of course such a Democrat will ignore the fact that the Clinton 1993 tax increases did not boost the economy as Democrats had expected it would. The “Clinton boom” and balanced budgets didn’t occur until after 1997 when the Republican Congress lowered the capital gains tax rates, added a child credit, lowered the death tax and increased the IRA exclusions.
There is another development on the horizon that might make the 2012 election look more like ’92 when Bill Clinton defeated Bush I, than like ’96 when Clinton was reelected over Bob Dole or like 1980 when Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg might end up the 2012 version of H. Ross Perot, the billionaire businessman who ran for President as a third party candidate against Bush I and Clinton in 1992, capturing 19% of the popular vote, and many think Bush I a second term.
Bloomberg sounded an a lot like a presidential candidate yesterday when he bashed both major political parties, Washington gridlock and offered a “centrist way” to fix America. Perot built the Reform Party in 1996. Bloomberg would embrace the No Labels movement of centrists that has been building a grassroots organization over the last year. No Labels will have a major event, their “official launch,” in New York of all places on Monday December 13. The event will be simulcast in the Internet on Monday December 13.
The other factor making 2012 look like 1996 in my crystal ball is the Republican field of Presidential contenders. So far only New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has the charisma of a Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or candidate Obama. Christie says he’s not running. I believe him. He will have his hands full in New Jersey in 2011, making the kind of national travel throughout the year that would be required to compete in the GOP primaries that start in February of 2012 very unlikely. The rest of the Republican field doesn’t have “it.” They are reminiscent of Bush I, Bob Dole and John McCain.
In a head to head race of Obama vs a current Republican contender other than Christie, Obama would have to be favored at this point, assuming he keeps moving to the center. If Bloomberg runs as a No Labels candidate and spends the $1.5 billion that has been speculated, history could be made rather than repeated.
By Art Gallagher
The more I worked on the piece, the more I realized that