The GOP Presidential Wannabes

The following is my latest column in The Jewish Link of New Jersey, in which I take a look at some of the Republican presidential hopefuls and assess how the 2016 GOP field may take shape:

THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL WANNABES

By: N. Aaron Troodler, Esq.

To a certain extent, running for President of the United States is a glorified popularity contest. As we know, it is not always the best and the brightest who seek to secure the highest political office in the nation. While there are certainly some truly brilliant individuals who excel in the areas of public policy, international affairs, and the inner workings of the governmental process, intelligence alone will not propel you to the ultimate political prize.

In order to become president, there are a variety of character traits that are unofficial prerequisites. Charisma and charm are on the list. Good looks and good health are up there. An incredibly thick skin that can withstand even the most brutal of criticism is essential. An unassailable track record certainly helps. And the ability to raise ungodly amounts of money could very well be the determining factor.

With those somewhat superficial criteria, it is difficult to weed out the presidential wannabes who may not actually be up to the monumental task of running this country. The reality is, however, that this nation desperately needs a superstar, not a second-stringer.

As we gear up for the 2016 presidential campaign and brace ourselves for a highly competitive contest, we ought to take a closer look at some of the Republican names being bantered about as possible presidential hopefuls.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is considering entering the race, tested the waters in the 2012 primaries for the Republican nomination but his run was short-lived and filled with gaffes. No one will easily forget that embarrassing debate performance when Perry emphatically declared that he would eliminate three governmental agencies after he took office, yet was only able to name two of those agencies.

Mitt Romney’s name is being floated as a possible GOP candidate. After falling short in his bid to be the GOP nominee in 2008, Romney was the Republican nominee in 2012, when he lost to Barack Obama in the General Election. Would Romney really want to endure the stress and scrutiny of yet another presidential campaign? Does he want to run the risk of being a three-time loser in presidential politics? My guess is no.

Senator Ted Cruz is working his way into the conversation. Yet, with his Tea Part label and ultra-conservative makeup, will the darling of the Republican right be considered a viable candidate? Not if moderate Republicans have anything to say about it.

After watching his father and brother bask in the glow of the presidency, is it possible that Jeb Bush is looking to score the presidential hat trick for his family? The word is that he is indeed contemplating a run for the White House. However, with the expansion of his private equity enterprise and news that he has a new offshore private equity fund that is backed by foreign investors, Jeb Bush is highly susceptible to attacks pertaining to his financial dealings. In addition, it remains to be seen if the nation is ready for yet another Bush to occupy the Oval Office.

There are definitely some intriguing GOP stars who may throw their hats into the ring. Senator Rand Paul looks increasingly likely to launch a presidential bid. Senator Marco Rubio, who has solidified his spot as an expert on foreign relations and national security, is reportedly contemplating a run, as is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

Yet, perhaps the most fascinating potential GOP candidate hails from our very own backyard. Governor Chris Christie has spent the past several years methodically laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. His tenure as chairman of the Republican Governors Association was incredibly successful and raised his profile exponentially. His trips to Israel, Mexico, and Canada were intended to buttress his foreign affairs resume, which is relatively thin at this point. Christie’s no-nonsense approach may endear him to some, but his periodic tirades directed at members of the public and his “my way or the highway” approach have led to him being labeled a bully.

But for all of the issues that pull at Chris Christie, the one thing that could potentially lead to his political demise is the Bridgegate scandal. The controversy continues to percolate in the news, despite Christie’s adamant denials that he had no knowledge of the George Washington Bridge lane closures. Taxpayers have had to bear the burden of nearly $10 million in costs relating to the investigations that ensued in the aftermath of Bridgegate, including more than $7 million by the Governor’s office and over $1 million by the legislative committee investigating the lane closures. The shadow of Bridgegate continues to cast an ominous pall over Chris Christie and his presidential prospects.

The New York Times recently reported that Paul Fishman, the United States Attorney for New Jersey, who is investigating Bridgegate, is considering invoking a somewhat obscure fraud statute in connection with this case. Under this theory, federal charges could be filed against members of a government agency that receives in excess of $10,000 annually in federal funds, such as the State of New Jersey or the Port Authority, if it is determined that the bridge was utilized for something other than what it was intended to be used for.

This latest revelation is a stark reminder that the Bridgegate chapter in the tale of Chris Christie’s political career is not yet over. How it ultimately ends remains to be seen, but it unquestionably has the ability to singlehandedly quash Christie’s presidential plans.

As the GOP presidential aspirants jockey for position, there are indications that the person they worry about most is not a Republican, but a Democrat.

A recent story in The New York Times noted how the prospective Republican candidates are each strategizing how they are going to attack the one Democratic candidate who they all believe will present them with the biggest challenge: Hillary Clinton.

As the 2016 presidential campaign begins to get underway, let us hope that the GOP candidates will spend more time telling us who they are, instead of focusing on telling us who they are not. With no clear GOP headliner, the Republican candidates need to distinguish themselves from one another and tell us why they are best person for the job. This cannot merely be a popularity contest or an anti-Hillary skirmish. With real issues facing this nation, we need a real candidate to rise above the fray and pursue the mantle of leadership for all of the right reasons.

N. Aaron Troodler is an attorney and principal of Paul Revere Public Relations, a public relations and political consulting firm. Visit him on the Web at TroodlersTake.blogspot.com, www.PaulReverePR.com, or www.JewishWorldPR.com. You can also follow him on Twitter:@troodler

Lessons From Ferguson

The following is my latest column in The Jewish Link of Bergen County, in which I look back at the grand jury’s decision not to indict the white police officer in Ferguson who shot an unarmed black teenager and the violent protests that ensued:

LESSONS FROM FERGUSON

By: N. Aaron Troodler, Esq.

Innocent until proven guilty. As Americans, we are intimately familiar with this fundamental precept of the justice system. We may form opinions as to an individual’s innocence or guilt in any particular case, but until the matter is adjudicated in a court of law, our personal judgments carry virtually no significance. The court of public opinion is always in session, but it is the court of law whose decision is ultimately binding.

When the grand jury opted not to indict Darren Wilson for the death of Michael Brown, their much-awaited decision reverberated throughout the nation. The jurors’ conclusion that Wilson, a white police officer who shot and killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was not guilty of any crime, was met with shock and utter disbelief by many.

We need to bear in mind that the twelve jurors were privy to details of the incident that the public was not necessarily aware of. They listened to more than seventy hours of testimony and heard from sixty witnesses. The grand jury also did their due diligence by analyzing all of the physical evidence associated with this case. They ultimately rendered a decision which some may disagree with, but which we need to respect.

However, after the grand jury’s decision was made public, chaos ensued. The streets of Ferguson, Missouri were instantly transformed into a veritable war zone. Hundreds of protestors took to the streets to protest the verdict, but any hopes for a peaceful demonstration quickly dissipated as pandemonium reared its ugly head.

The protestors torched police cars and threw objects at police officers. Gunshots were fired, stores were broken into and looted, and a number of businesses were damaged or destroyed by fires set by the protestors. More than sixty people were arrested for a variety of criminal acts. The Ferguson Police Department and the Missouri National Guard tried to disperse the crowds and restore order to the area, but to no avail. The damage was already done.

The violent reaction in Ferguson was appalling. Law and order were put on the back burner in favor of violence and crime. To be clear, I understand why people were disappointed. What I fail to understand is how that disappointment gives license to engage in destruction.

You can disagree with a judicial decision and you can express your displeasure through a peaceful protest. But under no circumstances is it acceptable for your anger and displeasure to manifest itself through violence.

The chaotic situation in Ferguson almost threatened to overshadow the real issue that we ought to be discussing, which is that of race.

Let us not fool ourselves. A racial division still exists in the United States even today. We have a long way to go before we can bridge that ugly divide and achieve a sense of true parity in American society.

Putting an end to prejudice at times appears to be an insurmountable hurdle. There are individuals who possess an inherent sense of bigotry that is part of their very essence. There are undoubtedly people in law enforcement who harbor prejudicial feelings towards blacks. The challenge is how to suppress those innate feelings and get to a place where skin color no longer matters.

I am not a black man who has been stopped by the police perhaps for no other reason than because of the color of his skin. I do not know how it feels to be questioned by a police officer because he thought that I was in the wrong part of town where I did not belong. I have never experienced that feeling of being fearful of law enforcement.

I may not be black, but I am Jewish. As Jews, we unfortunately know how it feels to be persecuted. We are well aware of how it feels to have a bulls-eye on our backs. Our community, perhaps more so than most, should be particularly sympathetic to the dangers that bigotry poses to society.

In fact, the American Jewish community has a long history of standing with the black community in their quest for equal rights. Jews played a pivotal role in the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Jews took part in the famous 1963 March on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and were instrumental in its organization. Jews marched side-by-side with Dr. King in the 1965 March on Selma, Alabama.

The Jewish community has stood with the black community before and perhaps it is time for us to do so again.

We are all familiar with the expression “justice is blind.” The idea that justice is impartial is a nice theoretical concept, but in reality, I am not so certain that justice is indeed always blind. To be more specific, justice is certainly not color blind. When there are issues of race, it sometimes seems that the objectivity which we cherish is not always there.

As the protestors flooded the streets in Ferguson, they chanted “No justice, no peace,” as if to imply that in the absence of justice, there can be no peace. I beg to differ. There may be situations where justice appears to be elusive, but that in no way dispenses with the need to maintain a sense of decorum and civility. Justice and peace are not mutually exclusive.

In times of discontent and disillusionment, protesting is an ideal way to express your angst. However, the manner in which you protest is the key. You can demonstrate, but do not destroy. Feel free to protest, but do not plunder. Anything but a peaceful rally is counterproductive.

If you want to achieve progress in the quest for racial equity, arson, vandalism, and assault are not the ways to do it. March in the streets, but do it peacefully. Demonstrate, but act within the parameters of the law.

I may not be a black man, but I am a Jew who is disgusted with bigotry, whether it is directed at Jews or anyone else. When the black community rallies to achieve justice and equity, I hope that members of the Jewish community will be there to stand together with you. It is time to put an end to prejudice, wherever and whenever it exits. Let’s just do it peacefully.

N. Aaron Troodler is an attorney and principal of Paul Revere Public Relations, a public relations and political consulting firm. Visit him on the Web at TroodlersTake.blogspot.com, www.PaulReverePR.com, or www.JewishWorldPR.com. You can also follow him on Twitter:@troodler