With the holidays upon us, family, friends, faith and other personal aspects in life come to the forefront, as they should. Although the world does not stop rotating, priorities do shift, at least for a few brief hours. Among one of the first fields of endeavor to experience a temporary cessation in hostilities is politics.

Considering the amount of headlines pointing out the treachery and lack of sincerity often associated with politics, a stop, even a brief stop, in the business of politics is warranted during this more spiritually sincere time of the year.

With the winding down of its activity, one becomes very reflective about politics. It makes you stop and think……what is it all for?

Is all the posturing, deal cutting, eloquent speeches and snappy catch phrases done for the betterment of the people? Or is it done for the personal advantage of the deal cutters, eloquent speakers and snappy phrase makers? Is it all done to achieve personal power or acclaim? Is all the demonstrated frustration and anger involved in the process caused because of the failure to pass a particular piece of legislation that benefit’s the people or is it arrived at more because of personal failure to be credited with passing a piece of legislation?

Politics, can be a wonderful arena of ideas for maintaining a prosperous and civilized civilization or it can be a cesspool of humanities worst motivations.

It is that way because politics is comprised of politicians and politicians are only human. Some are good while others are just inappropriate or downright bad. So it is only natural that as human beings, their policies are also a mix of good and bad.

Being human, politicians bring to the table all the human frailties that we as humans possess.

The hope is that the best ideas and directions win the day due to there being a preponderance of humanities best people involved in the process. Unfortunately, I am afraid that many of today’s elected officials in the game are not humanities best, most sincere and altruistic people. I believe many of them simply want the power and perceived admiration of the masses. Many are in it simply for themselves. Take Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich for instance.

So this leads us to wonder how we tell the difference between someone who wants to win for the sake of winning or to make a true change for the betterment of al the people.

The coming year will give New Jerseyans the chance to answer that question.

As the state gears up for a gubernatorial election, Republicans have to choose a nominee to run against liberal Jon Corzine.

Popular thinking would lead one to believe that, given the polls in New Jersey, a liberal approach would be the more expedient path to victory for Republicans in Jersey.

If any Republican running for governor takes that approach, than I will know one thing about them.

I will know that they are not sincere.

The Republican who runs to the left in this election is the Republican who wants power for their own benefit and to win for the sake of winning, not for the sake of improving the lives of others.

The Republican who tries to avoid offending illegal immigrants by demanding a strict enforcement of laws regarding their illegal presence and who avoids taking control away from the unions like the National Education Association and giving more power to parents is the candidate afraid of standing up to the influence that those who impede progress may wield in the election.

Any candidate who allows the fear of losing an election to take precedence over doing what is right, is not running for governor for the right reasons. They would be demonstrating that they are running for themselves, not for the people.

The Republican nominee for Governor must be willing to stand up to the power brokers who have held the state hostage through secretive union negotiations and outrageous pension plans.

The Republican nominee for Governor must be willing to address the fact that municipalities in New Jersey must begin to consolidate. Our nominee needs to demonstrate that fewer governments throughout the state means less burden on the taxpayer and less of an affordability problem for residents.

Of course no local municipal king wants to give up their kingdom, but the people must hear about the advantages of reducing the costly proliferation of governments. They must be made aware of the fact that government has become the problem and that fewer governments in the state will lead to less of those things we don’t need. Like less government corruption, fewer operating costs, fewer bureaucrats and bureaucratic entanglements .

We need a nominee who will challenge that which hinders progress, not a candidate who goes along to get along.

Some might say that that is no way to win an election. They would argue that by offending the hands that organize volunteers and pours the mothers milk of any political campaign, money, into an election, is a road map to defeat.

If that is true, than I suggest we go down in defeat.

I would rather see Republicans lose by standing up for what we believe in than win by offering the same policies that liberals have provided us with.

I believe, like former Congressman John Ashbrook, who when asked why he often stood against the popular tide, explained that by representing what he believes to be right, the only thing he could lose was his seat in Congress.

For Congressman Ashbrook ideals meant more than power or winning an election.

His strong, uncompromising defense of conservative ideals did not always make him a popular figure.

Elected to Congress from Ohio in 1960, he came to Washington just as liberalism and big government was about to sweep out from Washington and through the rest of the nation. Yet he consistently stood against the tide of the time and articulated a hard line against communism, big government, social engineering and discrimination.

By 1970 a poll considered Ashbrook one of the 5 most influential conservative leaders in the nation.

In Congress he consistently added amendments to legislation important to liberals and successfully blocked their most detrimental effects.

In 1972 Congressman Ashbrook found himself fed up with the leadership of his own party.

Richard Nixon was President and despite his campaigning as a conservative, Ashbrook saw Nixon governing more to the left than the right. So in typical fashion, John Ashbrook opposed accepted popular thinking of the time. He ran against Richard Nixon for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Many Republicans were outraged that he would dare challenge “our” sitting Republican President but Asbrook wanted Republicans to be true to our principles and he believed that along with neglecting to fulfill campaign promises, Nixon was weakening our already lagging military.

As we know, Nixon was re-nominated but John Ashbrook was content with his poor showing in the primaries. Of it he said “I spread my message. So I guess you don’t have to be on the winning side to be victorious.” From then on, not only did John Ashbrook continue to win the favor of the voters in his congressional district, he also continued to be the voice of the conservative cause. By 1980 many in America realized that mediocrity was not what we needed in our leaders and along with John Ashbrook, people turned to Ronald Reagan for leadership. For almost two decades John Ashbrook swam against the tide. He never gave up or took the path of political expediency. Ashbrook stayed in the game for the long haul and helped to turn the conservative movement into a mainstream movement without compromising conservative principles. In 1981 the Congressman decided to take his conservative leadership to the United States Senate. He began to campaign against then popular incumbent Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum. For Ashbrook the race was to be an historic battle pitting conservatism against liberalism. Unfortunately the hoped for clash of ideas never came to be. Congressman Ashbrook died in April of 1982.

With his passing, we lost a man less concerned with himself and motivated more by doing what was right than what was popular. We lost the type of leader that Republicans need today. Leaders who campaign on the issues that differentiate us from the liberal agendas of Democrats.

Yet despite the loss of Congressman Ashbrook’s physical presence, we are still blessed by his spirit of unwavering commitment and the lessons he taught us.

He taught us that no one and no political party should establish or compromise their beliefs based on popular perceptions of the time

Ashbrook’s leadership proved that when one is right, others will eventually come to that realization. But if one fears to give the right answer because everyone else is offering the wrong answer, than no one will ever know what the right answer is.

Unfortunately, Republicans have been unwillingly to be honest about the answers we need to hear. Instead they run campaigns that duplicate the answers being offered by liberals and it obviously isn’t working.

Republicans are losing and rightfully so. Many candidates are not embracing the conservative principles that have led to our past successes. They have been more concerned with personal success at the voting booth than they have been with making life better for the voters.

During this holiday where the spirit of giving and goodwill dominates the season’s atmosphere, I can only hope that Republicans in New Jersey can find a candidate who is willing to carry that sense of sincere goodwill and giving into the political atmosphere. I hope we can nominate a person who is willing to provide us with solutions to our problems rather than rhetoric that they think will deliver them a shallow victory at the polls.

John Asbrook campaigned for President on the slogan “no left turns”. At the time he ran Americans were comfortable with the status quo. A few short years later, Americans were running away from the status quo that they once wanted. Instead they turned to the conservative principles that brought us out of the problems that the left and left leaning decisions created.

With the perceived popularity of President-elect Barack Obama some in New Jersey may feel that campaigning to the left is the politically expedient way to win an election but is it political expediency good public policy?

In the words of Congressman Ashbrook “the difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the conservative worries about the future while the liberal worries about the next election.”

That being said, I want a Republican nominee for Governor of New Jersey who worries about tomorrow, not the next election. I want a nominee who is more concerned with doing what is right for the people not what the left wants to hear.

If Republicans want to achieve a victory in November that means something, they need to make sure that they take “no left turns.”.

News has it that New York, replacement Governor, David Paterson, is unveiling 127 new items and services that the Empire State will start taxing.

Although the entire list is too long for inclusion in one blog post, I would like to focus on just two items on the list.

Together the taxing of these two items and the logic behind it demonstrates the utter hypocrisy and lack of reasoning behind liberal tax and spend policies.

The two items I am referring to are gym memberships and soda. Not all soda though. Diet soda is not on Democrats hit list. Claiming that regular soda is less healthy than diet soda, Patterson and fellow Democrats believe regular soda is ripe for a tax that penalizes those who dare to purchase it.

After all it is our health and well being which is the government's primary reason for creating such a tax.

Or is it?

If health concerns were their primary reason, as opposed to economic concerns, why then would they also penalize people who attempt to maintain their health by joining a gym?

If health reasons requires the state to tax soda because it is bad for you, what is the health reason that requires the state to tax gym memberships? Are gym memberships more unhealthy than diet soda?

Let's face it folks, Democrats are just hypocrites.

They claim that they will add a tax to one thing because it is bad for you and then in the same announcement state that they will also add a tax to something that is healthy for you.

Mind you, we are just talking about only two of the new taxes that liberals are promoting in New York. There are 125 others, all as hypocritical and as inexcusable as the next. Each one of them however, will be given a reason for taxing by Democrats. They will try to rationalize each one. But who are they kidding?

Maybe themselves.

I guess they could claim that a tax on gym memberships is necessary because of the risk of injury that could be gotten while trying to keep fit. You know, a sprained ankle on the treadmill, a wrist injury while lifting weights, who really knows. But any excuse is a good excuse.

This type of hypocrisy and illogic certainly isn't limited to New York. In fact New Jersey set this trend. When Wall Street wizard Jon Corzine came into office a whole herd of new taxes were created. Just like New York with soda, Corzine and the liberal led New Jersey legislature raised taxes on cigarettes because of their unhealthiness and at the same time, created a tax on gym memberships.

Way to go guys. While looking out for our health you also penalize us for trying to be healthy.

While doing that, Corzine's economic brilliance led to a tax on the planting of flowers, shrubbery and trees.

That's one way to help take the garden out of the Garden State.

The bottom line is this.

We need political leaders who have some brains and understand that most of their constituents have brains too. Stop insulting our intelligence by making excuses for doing what is wrong. Don't tell us you won't tax one type of soda and not another because one is healthier than the other and then tax everything else that is healthy for us.

If health was the governments true intention, then they should be creating incentives to join the gym, not a create a penalty for joining one.

We need intelligent leaders who are willing to look for solutions, not create problems.

While Blagojevich tries to sell a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois , others are trying to sell us excuses for making tough economic times even tougher for us .

Rather than cutting the cost of government, they raise the cost of living. And they do so with the rationalization of a fourth grader who tries to explain that they don't have their homework because the dog ate it.

But, just like New Jersey, Democrats in New York will make excuses and some voters will buy those excuses.

But for how much longer?

Pretty soon liberals will be adding a tax to those excuses that voters buy.

Hopefully voters will wise up. Hopefully voters will realize that we can't tax our way out of every hole in a budget or spend ourselves into prosperity. When that realization comes, hopefully we will provide liberals with an excuse for their not winning in elections.

Maybe we can tell them that, like their reasons for taxing different things, we voted against them for health reasons......our economic health.

Wondering why there is a government bureau which oversees alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, a young man called the regional office of said bureau.

He asked the man who answered the phone "What wine goes best with an M-16?"

The ATF agent did his best to be helpful and replied.....

"That depends. What are you smoking?"

Recently, State Senator Sean Kean (R-Monmouth) and Assembly members Mary Pat Angelini (R-Ocean) and Dave Rible (R-Wall) endorsed Chris Christie for the Republican nomination for Governor.

I normally find myself in agreement with those lawmakers, usually.

However in this case I do not approve of their premature endorsement of a candidate who not only hasn't articulated his positions on the issues facing the state but is not even a declared candidate for the nomination.

New Jersey Republican leaders seem to be yearning for a savior. So much so that I believe they are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

In their intense desire to win an election they seem to be placing little importance on the principles that we need a Governor to bring to Trenton along with their victory. On top of that thinking being wrong based upon its shallowness, it also ignores a basic truth. It ignores the fact that our party should not be built around any one individual. It should be built around our principles and the ideas that Republixcans bring to the table. Rather than focus on one person to lead us to victory, Republican legislators should be providing Trenton with the ideas that could win the day for us. Without those ideas, there is no need to win.

So I suggest that Republican elected officials focus on that job. Focus on bringing change through the legislative solutions they propose. I want them to do their job and let the candidates running for governor do their job.

Once the candidates have done so, or at the very, least begun to do so, then come out and endorse one of them. Don't just endorse someone for political expediency. Have some sincerity in purpose. Endorse someone for their ideas, their thinking, the direction they propose to take us. Not for their name.

I want to know these things before I approve or reject his candidacy. I want to know where he stands on issues before we say...."here take our nomination, take all that we believe and do as you wish with it to become Governor".

With Republican elected officials simply endorsing Christie before he has stated a position on any issues or even become a candidate, they are not helping matters. They are simply saying, "we don't know what you stand for but we need you". That type of courtship does not help us build a strong ticket for Governor in November. In fact it could lead to trouble.

Years ago when New York was my political arena, before becoming the Republican nominee in his second attempt to become Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani told me that losing against Dave Dinkins the first time around, taught him a lot.

You see, the first time he ran, Rudy expected Republicans allover the nation, to roll over and roll out the red carpet for his candidacy. At the time he felt that Republicans needed him more than he needed Republicans. That wasn't exactly the case.

While waiting for Republicans throughout the city to come and kiss Rudy's ring, another Republican courted them for their support. With money and conservative opinions, Ronald Lauder garnered enough support to wage a strong primary battle against Rudy. It was a battle that probably caused Rudy to lose the election by one percentage point

Instead of making his rounds and earning support from the party whose nomination he wanted, Rudy felt that it was incumbent upon them to come to him.

Not all of them did.

Many felt at home with the more conservative candidate who respected them enough to ask for their support, not expect their support.

Had Rudy maintained a little humility and earned the support of all Republicans, he may have avoided the bloody and expensive primary battle that he found himself in and by avoiding that battle he might have won the war and been elected mayor four years earlier than he was. In fact he probably would have been able to serve three terms instead of the two he was limited to by the term limits which voters adopted in the same election that finally saw Rudy win City Hall.

Four years after losing the 1989 mayoral race, Rudy admitted that the way he conducted himself, the first time, was inappropriate. He told me and a couple of county chairmen that he learned his lesson and that he knew he needed every Republican as much, if not more than they needed him.

With that lesson learned, Rudy went on to win the Republican nomination for Mayor with ease and ultimately became one of the greatest mayors New York has ever known.

Now, here we are in New Jersey and another famed prosecutor is on the verge of saving Republicans from defeat.

If Chris Christie believes like Rudy did in 1989, Christie could find himself in the same position as Rudy.

With some Republican elected officials simply endorsing Christie before he has stated a position on any issues or even become a candidate yet, they are not helping matters. They are actually saying, "we don't know what you stand for but we need you". That type of courtship does not help us build a strong ticket for Governor in November. It simply helps to create an arrogant mentality in Christie that allows him to believe that we owe him the nomination and that the job of Governor is his merely because he may want it..

Truth is, we owe nothing to Chris Christie other than our thanks for his undeniably successful tenure as New Jersey's U.S. Attorney for the past seven years.

So stop wooing Chris Christie. Let Chris Christie start wooing us, the voters. Let Chris Christie join the other official candidates and earn our support.

The most recent example of Republican leaders hastily rushing to endorse someone, long before the primary election for a Republican nomination took place, was at the end of last year, when hundreds of Republicans from county chairmen, mayors, freeholders, councilmembers and state legislators rushed to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President.

We all know how successful that was.

So stop trying to part the sea for Chris Christie. We need to let him articulate his positions on the issues and demonstrate why he would be a better Governor than Richard Merkt, Steve Lonegan, Brian Levine or any other potential nominee.

A good start for Christie would be to stop stalling. The longer he waits to make a decision, the more suspect people become. They begin to wonder, does he want the job bad enough? Is there some closeted skeleton that is making him apprehensive about running?

Whatever the answer, Christie needs to make it official, one way or the other.

Until then, I suggest that everyone stop hoping that Chris Christie can walk on water. Stop making him believe that he is the best thing since sliced bread merely because he is Chris Christie. Help us win back New Jersey so that we can turn things around. Help strengthen our ticket in November by making Chris Christie put his very best foot forward and earn the nomination that he may want.

We are not helping ourselves by rolling out a red carpet for Chris Christie while waving a white flag of surrender for what ,we as Republicans, stand for.

We need to let Christie articulate his positions on the issues and demonstrate why he would be a better Governor than Richard Merkt, Steve Lonegan, Brian Levine or any other potential nominee. We need to make sure that Chris Christie represents the Republican ideology and approach to government that we stand for.

So before Republicans officials hand over our mantle to someone, let them prove themselves to be worthy of holding it. Let the candidates campaign for the nomination so that the right ideas may help win day rather than just some empty suit with a well known name.

Q. How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None, the market will take care of it.

Q. Why did the Libertarian cross the road?

A. To start his own country.

December 16^th, marks the 235^th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Today, we still hold that impressive title but many of us see it being lost.

That greatness is a bi-product of freedom. A freedom that has allowed individuals to flourish well beyond the limited framework that any one established authority could set it’s people on. The diversity of thinking, and goals has created the greatest pool of ideas known to man.

Our freedom and individuality has been the key to our greatness but unlike the people of colonial America, today, Americans are giving up their freedom and relinquishing their individuality to a controlling authority that they want to give greater control to.

Instead of demanding “no taxation without representation” we are accepting of the practice.

If you live in New Jersey but work in New York, in addition to a litany of federal taxes and state taxes, you have to pay a commuter tax. Does paying that tax give New Jerseyans the chance to vote for leaders and representatives in New York? Heck no! But without any representation for them in New York, they are forced to pay taxes to New York.

This scenario is not limited to New York. It exists almost everywhere in the nation but that does not make it right. It is simply an indication of the spirit that has been lost since days of old.

Further indication of this is made in other areas of government.

Instead of that sense of responsibility that the colonists had, today we look towards government for everything. Where the colonists wanted less of the majesty’s governance, we want more of the federal bureaucracy’s governance.

Have a business that isn’t successful? Let the government bail you out.

Want to start a business? Let the government give you a grant to do it.

Lost money on a business deal or investment? Let the government give you the money back.

Let the government do everything and pay for everything, right?

Wrong!

The money the government gives you is not theirs to give away. It is your money, it is our money. It is the tax dollars we let them take from us and the more we refuse to do for ourselves, the more money they take from us.

Economically, that doesn’t sound like a bad thing but in reality it is anything but a good deal.

When the bureaucracy of government does something, they do so in a way that costs much more than any individual or private sector institution can. So by letting the government do more, is allowing more money to be wasted. If you needed a hammer would you buy one for 8 bucks at Home Depot yourself or would you buy the same one from the Pentagon for 108 dollars?

The government needs to get out of our business and Americans need to recapture the independent spirit that founded this country and made us the great nation that we are.

We need to start doing for ourselves what we have come to expect government to do for us. Our reliance on a controlling authority has taken control of our lives away from us. That reliance has created a dependency that has led to the growth of government and that growth has created the need for more money. Money that is raised by increasing the taxes that the people have to pay.

The Boston Tea Party may not have been a cozy afternoon gathering but it was a good thing. It signaled our deep rooted yearning for our God given freedom and believe it or not, freedom is still a good thing.

235 years later Americans are far removed from that fact. Instead of demanding less government and more personal freedom, we ask for more government and more government action. Instead of protesting excessive taxation we just held an election that endorsed more taxes and “spreading the wealth around”.

Maybe we will have to lose some of our freedom in order to realize what all the hullabaloo in Boston was about.

Slowly we already have lost some of our freedoms but apparently not enough. Not enough to select candidates who want to limit government. Not enough to force representatives to stop trying to solve problems by restricting our freedoms and creating more problems.

Just how much freedom we must lose before we begin to miss it, is quite important.

That freedom made us the great power and people that we are and the more of it that we lose, the further from greatness we shall fall.

So today, before charging the spouses gift on that past due credit card, take a moment and reflect on the participants of the Boston Tea Party. A bunch of colonists who saw more value in their freedom than any Christmas gift. A group of soon to be Americans whose desires for a better life led them to renounce the authority of a government for the sake of their freedom and the eventual freedom that we have come to take for granted and whittle away.

A man took a trip out West after a harrowing IRS audit. He stopped in a bar, and after a few drinks, stated to no one in particular, "IRS agents are horses' asses."

One of the locals spoke up on hearing this: "Mister, you'd better watch what you say. You're in horse country."