The Obama administration has advised Congress to cut off pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard who served the nation without pay during the Japanese attack.
According to McClatchy Newspapers, the administration sent a "strongly worded" message to Congress concerning its priorities for a military spending bill, and the service members didn't make the cut.
The Army changed its minimum retirement policy in January to no longer include service in the Guard toward the 20-year service requirement. A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate lets the 26 former Guard members count their service as active military duty so they may receive retirement pay.
McClatchy reported that Alaska state lawmakers passed a bill to compensate the veterans until Congress came up with a permanent solution.
But the White House said Sept. 25 that's it's not "appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski called the Obama administration's statements "deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive."
"The administration's justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history," she said in a statement. "Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America's success in World War II by calling its service 'state service.'"
More than 6,600 Alaskans volunteered to serve in the Alaska Territorial Guard, a component of the U.S. Army organized in response to Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor Dec. 7, 1941. According to the Tundra Drums, the male and female volunteers ranged in age from 11 to 80 years old, and they guarded their assigned territory with no pay and little equipment until the Alaska Territorial Guard was disbanded in 1947.
Because Alaska was still a territory and not an official U.S. state, the volunteers' enlistments were not counted as federal military service until 2004.
In January, Alaska's then-Gov. Sarah Palin learned the retirement payments to Alaska's Territorial Guard would be cut off, so she wrote a letter to President Obama.
"This unfortunate decision was made without any notice to those affected and will cost a group of elderly Alaska veterans a significant portion of their retirement income at a time when the cost of living, particularly in rural Alaska, is substantially higher than in the rest of the United States," she wrote.
"Prior to World War II, Alaska's territorial Governor was authorized by Congress to organize a two-branch military response organization – the organized National Guard, and the ATG, which would mobilize to help defend Alaskans in the event of an invasion. An estimated 6,600 men and women, mostly Alaska Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts, responded to that call. Instead of hunting, trapping and fishing, they patrolled rural Alaska and served as the eyes and ears of the Army for more than five years without pay and benefits."
Palin said it took nearly 60 years before those men and women would be honored for their service to the country – and most died waiting for that recognition. She said the service of those soldiers is to Alaska what the service of the militia at Lexington and Concord was to New England.
"Now they are being told, again, that their ATG service is not worthy of federal recognition, and that is not right," she wrote. "These people are our heroes." Or is Obama doing it because he hates Eskimos and Inuit?
#1
Why would you expect the One to know that unlike Hawaii, Alaskan territory was invaded and occupied by the Japanese during WWII.
He's also out of the loop about his own federal laws, like Title X -
311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
If they were doing military duties in the territory during time of war, it wasn't a matter of technicalities. It was performing their citizen duties for the country picking up the job in the absence of other resources.
#7
I hope they do it and it gets reported. The only rational motive is revenge. Watch Obama's popularity go down. Congress' popularity is already so low it doesn't make any difference.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/01/2009 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hey, they're only a bunch of guys who defended their country during war time. Much better to spend five billion on a party in 2016 for his corrupt cronies in Chicago.
#9
You mean they actively participated in discriminatory imperialist violence, or the threat of violence, against the oppressed minority Japanese and Germans, DMFD?
#10
I certainly hope the other 56 states will come to Alaska's aid.
Posted by: Matt ||
10/01/2009 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It has, to me, become apparent that "men" more qualified to sell snake oil than place themselves in harms way exhibit mostly contempt towards those who place community defense and continuity over "organizing."
#12
BOA* does not give a rat's behind about the military. He does not understand the principles of duty and sacrifice. The Territorial Guard people did their duty for next to nothing, when the Japanese were invading the Aleutians and making scouting missions in other places in Alaska.
He is willing to spend trillions on his cronies and political hacks, and unwilling to spend a few bucks on 26 loyal Americans that did their part to keep this country safe in its time of peril.
*BOA = Barak Obama Administration
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/01/2009 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
#1
AND THEY'RE ANGRY AT THE REPUBS AND THE DUMBOS!!
If the 'pubs just LISTENED and got on board with their base and these angry folks they'd be golden. But no, that would mean less power and money for the slugs in DC.
#3
Outdated poll. Once those 72% learn of our lovely First Lady's sacrifice in traveling to Copenhagen (it's for the kids, you know), they'll see the error of their ways and realize there's no hardship she won't bear for the betterment of mankind.
#4
Americans are angry,boo hoo.....
When you get forced off the dole or are made to pay for your own health insurance it's quite a shock, No longer does your "employer" need to be responsible for something that smacks of individual personal responsibility ( your own health insurance) now YOU get to be responsible for yourself, what a concept!
#5
746 (aka "Seagull"): I see your point and it's well taken but I think you're missing the point of the article/poll. Americans as a whole are not angry because they're not getting health insurance or because they lack any sense of or commitment to individual responsibility. On the contrary, they see a lack of commitment to any measure of responsibility and accountability in the government while they are left to clean up after their mess. They are angry at the corruption, incompetence, and fecklessness of the government. A government which appears to increasingly work towards its own interests and not the interests of the people they were elected to represent.
That is why I am angry with the government. Both sides, both parties. Ivory tower elitists that need to be voted out before we throw them out forcefully.
#10
That was a radio producers wet dream, that woman's rant was world class.
The entire time I listented to her the term "Woman scorned" kept popping up in my mind. If the morons in DC get to the point the mothers in America fear for their kids, this will get brutal fast.
When she said," Mrs Obama may be proud of her country for the first time, but I am ashamed of America's leaders for the first time" I choke on my coffee. Well said lady in California, well said.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/01/2009 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
#12
That is an excellent audio Tom. I'm don't listen to Rush that much but I think that woman hit it square on the head.
And its not 'Republicans' who are angry - its 'Americans' (both liberal and conservative) - angry at both the Democrats and the Republican leadershit (spelling intentional) in DC. Who are more interested in being re-elected that serving the needs of the nation.
I have nothing against Rush, nor this woman who called his show in obvious frustration and distress. However, if I'm being honest here with my RB friends, she sounds a little unhinged to me (emphasis on "little"). Not only does she sound like the president of the Rush Limbaugh fan club (I found her praise of him somewhat excessive), but she could probably use a break from talk radio, at least for a few days. That's not to say I agree with the people who say Rush is a right-wing nutjob but unlike Susan here, I don't think he should be President, either.
That's why, with all due respect, I don't think Susan is a good representation of the anger that the average American is feeling right now and as put forward in Frank Luntz's book. The average American is not a Rush-junkie who takes everything he says as gospel. However, the average American is reaching the end of their rope with our corrupt and feckless government. So the frustration is real and it is palpable.
Now, many of you may argue that she has every reason to be unhinged, and I won't dispute that. As a dedicated moderate Independent who is conservative on security and fiscal issues and moderate/liberal on social issues, I'm deeply alarmed about the direction this country is heading in right now. Putting the conservative-liberal, right-left, traditional-progressive labels aside for a moment, I think the average American would agree that more government is not the solution for what ails us. In fact, most would probably say it's the size of government that is hurting us more than anything right now.
So while I share Susan's frustration and I respect her point-of-view, what we really need-- if we're serious about changing the status quo in this country-- is for people to speak out who don't listen to Rush every day but who are justifiably concerned about the direction this country is heading in. They (we) need to speak out in a clear and calm yet passionate voice. And we need to keep it simple. The Government is too big. There's too much waste and inefficiency. There's too much corruption. Government needs to get out of the way. The more problems government tries to solve, the more problems it creates. We need to scale it back. We need to take responsibility for ourselves. We need to do what we can to help our fellow citizens who need it, not the government, and we need to do it VOLUNTARILY, out of the kindness of our own hearts and in the eyes of whatever God you choose to worship, if you even choose to believe in a God.
It's time to get back to basics, people. Get an education. Get a job. Work hard. If you have kids, take care of them. Be a good parent. Be a good neighbor. Take responsibility for yourself. Stop blaming others for your problems. Because enough is enough and the cold, hard reality is that it is up to us, not the government. Yes WE can. WE as in YOU and ME. Not WE as in the USG.
Just when everybody is distracted by the health care reform debate, Congress is quietly preparing to spend billions for "home improvements" for its offices, buildings, staff salaries and facilities, and publications, via the $4.7 billion annual legislative branch operational budget appropriation. That represents a 5.8 percent increase over last year. The bill was approved by the House last week, is expected to pass the Senate today,and will be quickly signed when it lands on President Obama's desk.
The legislative branch appropriation funds salaries and expenses for the personal staffs of all 535 senators and representatives, as well as their committee staffs, committee administrative budgets, and provides money to maintain operations of the Government Printing Office (GPO), Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Capitol Police. Salaries of congressmen are handled separately.
Among the goodies, according to Politico, is a $500,000 "pilot program" for senators to mail postcards to constituents about town hall meetings. Then there is another $4 million for congressmen to hire "consultants." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, gets nine, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will have to make do with only three. Also included in the bill are increases aveaging around 4.3 percent for Vice President Joe Biden's Senate office, Reid and McConnell's leadership offices, and those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner and other House leaders. Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit approaches $2 trillion for 2010. Clearly, these people don't have a clue about how to manage a budget.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IIRC FREEREPUBLIC > [Alan Keyes] GOVERNMENT TO STAGE TERROR ATTCKS, DECLARE MARTIAL LAW.
D *** NG IT, theres US$1.0TRILYUHN-R-LESS in US Net GDP left which must be spent good and proper.
#3
ION WMF > IRAN: ANY ATTACK BY ISRAEL WOULD ONLY ACCELERATE ITS DEMISE [unto ERADICATION/
EXTINCTION]. Iranian Defense Mnistry.
* SAME > "BENDERA" RADICAL GROUP IN INDONESIA PROCLAIMS DECLARATION OF WAR AGZ MALAYSIA + JAPAN [designs for 10/8/09 Terror event in Nippon]; THE RISE OF CHINA'S NAVAL HISTORY, END OF THE US MILITARY RAMPAGE IN THE PACIFIC. US dominance likely won't end right away, but its coming.
#4
'Shovel-ready' spending. Shovel the money at the politicians and they'll spend it.
But I guess they need a 5.8% budget increase since they have so much more mega-legislation to oversee.
Seriously, how many of y'all are getting an extra 5.8% in free money this year? Of course our esteemed New Orleans City Council is trying to vote itself (effective next term, to its limited credit) almost a 100% raise.
#5
Are these the same geezers who approved giving close to a million to ACORN so they can teach low income families how to screw in a lightbulb fire safety?
About a year ago, this column surveyed the potential candidates for California governor and the problems that Arnold Schwarzenegger's successor would face, then offered a semi-facetious suggestion that "perhaps all of them should undergo mental evaluation for even thinking about governing California."
A few months later, on NBC's "Today Show," host Matt Lauer read that passage to one would-be governor, Meg Whitman, and elicited a characteristically vague response, something to the effect that while "California is failing," she was "uniquely qualified" to save it because she once ran eBay, the global online auction house.
Whitman's self-proclaimed unique qualifications apparently include an almost total failure to vote, or even register to vote, until a few years ago -- a revelation by the Sacramento Bee that plagued her during what she had hoped would be a triumphant appearance at last weekend's state Republican convention.
Ironically, as Whitman was trying and largely failing to explain away her failure to perform the most elemental civic chore, Democratic front-runner Jerry Brown was appearing before a gathering of party activists in San Diego and echoing the suggestion that running for California governor raises questions about one's mental health.
"People ask who's going to be the next governor," Brown, a former governor and now California's attorney general, told the group. "You have to ask who in their right mind would want to be the next governor.
"Anybody who thinks that they're going to be governor and going to have a great future doesn't know what's going on in Sacramento. You want somebody to take the job who has no future."
Implicitly, of course, Brown qualifies. He'll be 72 next year and knows that win or lose, running for governor next year will be his last chance at making political history.
But back to Whitman. She's filthy rich and has spent some of her jillions on high-priced political consultants, so you'd think she'd know her scanty voting record could be a killer issue and would have quickly put it behind her. But earlier this year, she told a Republican audience she had registered as a decline-to-state voter after returning to California in 1998.
In fact, as The Bee revealed and she finally acknowledged at the GOP convention, she didn't register to vote in California until 2002 and didn't declare her Republicanism until two years ago. "She misspoke, and it was wrong," her spokeswoman said.
Whitman herself did what she usually does when faced with tough questions from reporters -- she clammed up. "I've said what I'm going to say about it, so thanks for that," she responded as reporters tried to question her about why she failed to vote.
Business moguls are often surrounded by sycophantic aides who shield them from critical questioning. Politicians can't hide, and if they try, they come across as cowardly and not ready for prime time.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
spent some of her jillions on high-priced political consultants
And, of course, they told her what she wanted to hear. That should disqualify her right there.
#2
As a conservative California voter for the past three decades, when has my vote not been can canceled by an illegal alien or ACORN-types or gerrymandering? My vote perhaps counted in some primaries...so maybe Ms. Whitman felt that voting conservative in CA is futile...of course she can't say that.
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is closing in on Republic Challenger Chris Christie's lead in this year's gubernatorial race, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Corzine, the Democratic incumbent, now trails Christie by four points, 43 to 39 percent among likely New Jersey voters. In the last Quinnipiac poll taken at the beginning of the month, Christie had a 47 to 37 percent lead.
In the new poll, independent candidate Christopher Daggett received 12 percent, and 6 percent are undecided, up from 9 percent in the last poll.
The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,188 likely New Jersey likely voters from September 23 -- 28 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.
The race has become very heated in recent weeks with both candidates on the air with attack ads.
Corzine, the former senator and CEO of Goldman Sachs, has sought to tie Christe to former President George W. Bush who appointed him to be U.S. Attorney for New Jersey.
Corzine has also courted female voters with attack ads vowing that Christie would drop mammogram coverage, reports CBS station WCBS-TV. "He opposes paid family leave, even a woman's right to choose," the ad alleges.
Christie fought back, arguing that his mother was a breast cancer survivor, whose life was saved by a mammogram. Women were key to Corzine's victory in 2005, but the latest poll only gives him a 43 to 37 percent advantage now.
"The attack-attack-attack style of this rugged campaign is taking a toll on Christie, whose favorability and honesty measures are dropping," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in the poll release.
Amid the negative campaigning, both candidates remain largely unpopular with voters. Voters split 38 - 38 percent on whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Christie. Fifty-six percent say they have a negative opinion of Corzine, and fifty-eight percent of voters disapprove of the job he is doing as governor Among independent voters, the figure climbs to 63 percent. Voters also fear that Corzine will raise property taxes.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If Christie can't win by at least 5% he won't win. Reference the Al Franken 'election' and realize this is New Jersey, not Minnesota.
#2
The headline is backward - Christie is losing ground. Corzine cannot get above 42-43, so he needs all the diversions possible to get Christie below that, and drive the difference to the 3rd party. Factor in some fraud and Corzine possibly gets to 46? Regardless, if NJ picks this guy with even that plurality, they deserve him.
#4
Not long ago I tried to take a poll, this one was about "Butterfinger" Candy bars.
All questions were heavily loaded
Such as. How much do you love Butterfingers
Not "Do you, but HOW MUCH"?
3/4 of the way through they cut me off, I DON"T like Buterfingers and they didn't like to hear it, so "MY" 'POLL' was simply eliminated.
I realise this is only one incidence but I've noticed that all "Polls" now INSIST ON My E-Mail address, they're not getting it, I get enough crap E-Mail now.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/01/2009 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
It was wrong when Sarah Palin and some other conservatives were running around talking about "death panels" this summer, and it's wrong and tiresome now when a Democratic congressman, Alan Grayson of Florida, assets that "Republicans want you to die quickly."
From Politico.com:
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night.
His remarks, which drew angry and immediate calls for an apology from Republicans, were highlighted by a sign reading "The Republican Health Care Plan: Die Quickly."
This is an elected, uh, leader? Spare us. No wonder public confidence in Congress is heading for negative territory.
It's true that having a prolonged illness is extremely hazardous to family finances in America. I know someone whose family was forced into foreclosure and bankruptcy because she lived too long with cancer. If that was Grayson's point, he needed to find a high road to make it. "Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barak Hussein Obama!
He wants to kill yer mama!
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So how exactly was it wrong to call the death panels "death panels"? When care is rationed that will lead to inevitable death in the short term, instead of eventual death due to disease or natural causes, at some unknown time in the future, how is that *not* a "death panel"?
By that logic, lethal injection of murderers isn't the death penalty, because they would have died eventually.
#2
If I was on a death panel I can think of lotsa people who'd get the thumbs down from me. Sadly, I'm of an age where I'd be more likely to be in front of it than sitting on it...
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2009 7:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I love it when they talk like this. Desperate words making insane accusatiions will not convince people of anything other than another Dem has gone completely mad. Louder, please.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/01/2009 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'd vote to get rid of the Boomers first. They're such troublemakers.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/01/2009 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Your "Death Panal Advocate" (DPA) will most likely be a Rec Parks major on a 24/24/24 employment contract- 24 years old/ making $24K per year that HR hopes will last 24 months in the position.
I will more likely die trying to choke the little bastard in my living room.
When John Edwards returned to North Carolina in the course of his long quest for the presidency, Andrew Young always met him at the airport in Edwards's big black Chevy Tahoe. Young drove, and Edwards rode shotgun, silently raising his left hand whenever he wanted a Diet Coke, which Young would wordlessly supply.
When Edwards and his family arrived home, Young had made sure there was fresh milk in the fridge, a neatly trimmed lawn and neatly folded dry cleaning. When he arranged their vacation to Disney World in 2004, he naturally booked himself a ticket. And when Edwards's mistress became pregnant, Young -- at the cost of his reputation, his wife's and his minister father's -- stepped forward to say the child was his.
Young sometimes described himself as Edwards's "special assistant" and dreamed of serving in an Edwards White House. Other aides, with a combination of disgust -- and, perhaps, a bit of envy -- referred to him as Edwards's "personal servant," or worse, Edwards's "butt boy." The relationship was so intense, at least on Young's side, that it generated friction between him and Elizabeth Edwards. But if Elizabeth and John Edwards sometimes seemed to feel that Young -- at 40 no longer an eager kid, with three children of his own -- had gotten too close, there was no getting rid of him. He had made himself indispensable.
Continued on Page 49
Distracted driving is the subject of a two-day summit that the Department of Transportation kicked off today.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned more than 200 attendees about the dangers of distracted driving and pledged to take action at the federal level to combat this "menace to society."
"Every single time you take your eyes off the road or talk on the phone while you're driving, even for just a few seconds, you put your life in danger, and you put others in danger too," LaHood said. "This kind of behavior is irresponsible, and the consequences are devastating."
Distracted driving is nothing new, of course -- people have been fiddling with their car radios since they were introduced in the 1930s. But in the digital age, the potential distractions have multiplied, often with perilous consequences.
In July, a tow-truck driver in New York hit a car and crashed into a swimming pool while talking on one cellphone and texting on another. And in 2008, 25 people were killed and 135 were injured outside Los Angeles when a commuter train's operator reportedly failed to obey a stop signal while distracted by text messaging on a cellphone and crashed into a freight train.
LaHood endorsed efforts to regulate behind-the-wheel behavior, but he warned that distracted driving is foremost an issue of personal responsibility.
"We need a combination of strong laws, tough enforcement and ongoing public education to make a difference," he said. But "in reality, you can't legislate behavior . . . taking personal responsibility for our actions is the key for the solution."
But whatever approach is chosen, one is needed soon, say experts. In 2008, 5,870 traffic fatalities, 16% of all road deaths that year, occurred in crashes involving distraction, said Bruce Magladry, director of the Office of Highway Safety at the National Transportation Safety Board. In the year before, 12% of fatalities came from crashes involving distraction.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Compare wid ROBO-SHIP: THE UNMANNED STEALTH WARSHIP artic.
ROBO-CARS + "BRILLIANT/GENIUS" INTERACTIVE GPS???
IOW, Boyz, those back seat drivers known as MOM + BETTER HALF just went STEPFORD-ROBOTIC wid your car???
#4
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned more than 200 attendees about the dangers of distracted driving and pledged to take action at the federal level to combat this "menace to society."
Bureaucratic Translation: We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
Law enforcement officials have been getting training in noticing 'distracted driving' and with this training, the after crash reports have begun to include this factor more often. The 'post training' increase in reports of distracted driving is a classic of the genre (and a classic non comprehension of causality by a high level official and a classic ignorance on display by the media).
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/01/2009 9:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Wish he'd turn his attention to combating distracted bail-out syndrome in the auto manufacturing industry.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/01/2009 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Stop this foolishness (and a lot more) by taking out ALL the govt. mandated safety crap and put an eight inch spike in the middle of the steering wheels! "personal responsibility", indeed.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Just when everybody is distracted by the health care reform debate, Congress is quietly preparing to spend billions for "home improvements" for its offices, buildings, staff salaries and facilities, and publications, via the $4.7 billion annual legislative branch operational budget appropriation. That represents a 5.8 percent increase over last year. The bill was approved by the House last week, is expected to pass the Senate today,and will be quickly signed when it lands on President Obama's desk.
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is closing in on Republic Challenger Chris Christie's lead in this year's gubernatorial race, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today. 
