Monday, February 21, 2011

Chris Christie PAC?

Politico: One of Chris Christie's top political advisers revealed that he is considering formation of a federal political action committee because of the extraordinary interest in the New Jersey governor.
Bill Palatucci, often described as Christie's "political godfather," said that not forming such a fundraising committee would be "leaving money on the table."
The comments came in an interview with the  Courier-Post of Cherry Hill, N.J., published Sunday.
Palatucci, Christie's former law partner, made the remarks even as he tried throwing cold water on the notion that the governor — who's gotten acclaim from national Republicans — is taking steps designed toward a presidential run.
"If reporters would look for a second below the surface, they'd see I've never been to Iowa," Palatucci said, adding that another adviser, Mike DuHaime, "has not been to New Hampshire. There have been no lawyers hired to advise or investigate a presidential run." [MORE]
The question to ask regarding Palatucci's comment about "leaving money on the table" is money for what?  Most politicians run PACs so that they can buy support and run campaigns.  Although Chris Christie has said repeatedly that he will not run in 2012, I am not going to believe him until the end of the year.
I say this because the political stars are aligned for Christie.  After 3 years of Obama, America is still looking for that Hope and Change they were promised. This time around though Americans want someone who is the real deal and Christie has proven that to a significant degree.  If Christie waits until 2016 or 2020, he will find himself in a sea of new Republican "rock stars" (Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Allen West, just to name a few).  Right now, aside from Palin, who else is ready to run  that can get the base fired up?
P.S. For those Chris Christie fans who are looking for more signs he may run in 2012, here is another ... Christie is losing weight.
Via: NJ.Com


Jg. for FatScribe said...

ABC -- Yes, Christie is an interesting GOP candidate (by that I mean compelling), however, I don't find him to be a Thatcher or Reagan conservative by any stretch (my yardstick for modern conservatism).

When his top aid says, "leave money on the table," it's simply idiomatic for wasting a chance to explore (no pun intended) an opportunity. "Strike while the iron's hot" sort of thing. I don't read into this poor (behind closed doors/off the record, i'm sure is what he imagined) phraseology some Chicago-type machinery, where BHO gathered close to 3/4 of a $billion.

interesting times, brother ...

bd said...

has not yet been "severely" vetted - i would fear that the bright bauble of fiscal restraint, admittedly a very big deal, could lead to overlooking positions on illegal immigration approach and amnesty variations, energy policy (possibly as big a deal as financial policy), handling muslim extremism, shrinking the size of gov bureaucracy, reducing regulatory burdens, etc etc

Related Posts with Thumbnails