A check that's got stuff written on it

by: Alefa_Zegota

Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:44:22 AM EDT

This was a referendum on Christie's short months in office, and it didn't break his way. And that's damn gratifying.

It's especially gratifying to contrast it with the national media's hollow assertions last year about What Christie's Election Meant for America. Even with the country's honeymoon with our governor and our state's Tea Party invasion (why couldn't it be the British Invasion instead?), New Jersey has shown that its requirements in a leader and individual needs are hardly monolithic.
continue below the fold

Among other things, this election demonstrates to me that New Jersey is a state that as a whole wants responsible, accountable leaders who serve our interests, put the people first, make our lives easier, take on the duties only government can, and make difficult decisions that eventually lift all boats. New Jersey elected Chris Christie because they believed he would make our lives better concerning a priority that to many is the most important: the economy. (Of course, Christie's agenda often conflicts with other parts of that equation, namely putting the people first, making our lives easier, and assuming the duties only government can provide.)

This election shows that New Jersey demands more in its leaders than giving word that they will fix the economy, and it's encouraging to know that huge swathes of voters believe that the government has a key role to play in securing individual prosperity. The election of Christie does not reflect sweeping reflection of a rightward tilt in New Jersey -- it reflects a response to a political situation in our state. The failure of tea partiers to challenge Democratic incumbents reflects a response to other political situations in our state.

The reelection of Holt in particular is refreshing. He's a leader among liberals, who sponsors and pushes extremely important legislation -- reform of the Patriot Act, raising the ceiling of liability for oil companies responsible for environmental catastrophes, preventing suicide in the military -- for the right reasons.

New Jersey and Wisconsin are different, but I think Holt and Feingold have played similar roles in the House and Senate. I think we're lucky that Holt has avoided the attention of national commentators. This might be naive, but I wonder if it isn't partly the nature of Holt's record that keeps him under the radar of big-time national conservative manipulation -- he's consistently challenged big corporations and promoted small businesses, while supporting measures that encourage both security and freedom. He makes liberal positions look awfully beneficial for ordinary people. Plus he has such a nice-guy, professorial demeanor, that it's hard to make him out as a villain. But it could also be that there are more important fish for them to fry and I should count my blessings that Holt is less of a target on the national stage than other leaders out there. Either way, it's awful to lose a force like Feingold in the Senate, but thank God we have someone like Holt in the House.

It's awful to have a governor who implements policies like cutting funding for family planning, cutting school libraries, cutting education, canceling the most important public works project so far in this century, and making all of those cuts while the wealthiest people, who can afford their own private solutions for problems other people can't afford to handle on their own, don't share any of the sacrifice. But it's great to let him know that his election was not carte blanche.