New Jersey governor Chris Christie used to laugh when reporters asked him if he would consider running for president. "Are you kidding, don't I have enough problems already?" was his standard, self-deprecating reply. But of course, that was before the party's latest "messiah," Texas governor Rick Perry, began stumbling so badly. Now hold-out Republican donors who've been loathe to commit funds to the lackluster -- though improving -- candidacy of Mitt Romney are just as reluctant to back the "Second Coming" of George W. Bush. They're begging Christie to throw his hat into the ring, and the plucky 49-year-old governor, after months of saying, in effect, "thanks but no thanks," seems close to changing his mind.
Conservatives anxious to jump on the Christie bandwagon are in for a big surprise, though. That's assuming they look past Christie's pugnacious style -- including his highly publicized attacks on public sector unions -- and start examining his actual record. Exhibit A, perhaps, is immigration. Christie has publicly supported the Barack Obama-George W. Bush plan for comprehensive immigration reform, which places him squarely in the dreaded "amnesty" camp. In fact, on immigration at least, Christie's even to the "left" of Perry, who supports in-state tuition subsidies to illegal immigrants but says he won't back an "amnesty" program, even a partial one like the "DREAM" Act that wouldn't just provide illegal immigrant students with tuition subsidies but would actually grant them green cards.
And it's not just immigration. On gun control, gay civil unions, and cap-and-trade, issues on which Christie has expressed strong support since taking office just 20 months ago, he's as much out of step with the conservative Tea Party base as former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels was. Daniels came under fire from Christian conservatives, and beat a hasty retreat, eventually dropping out of the race altogether. Among the current crop of candidates, Christie's closest ideological soul mate could well be former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who's been pegged -- and dismissed -- as a hopeless RINO (Republican in Name Only). Huntsman, who shares most of Christie's views, has struggled to gain traction as a GOP presidential candidate, even though he has impeccable pro-life credentials and a sterling record as a tax-cutter and jobs-creator.
And speaking of jobs creation, how will Christie, whose state is still plagued by an above-average jobless rate, hope to compete with Romney, Perry or even businessman Herman Cain? It's not Christie's fault, of course, that New Jersey's in such a deep hole, but at a time when the jobs issue trumps the deficit for most voters, and perhaps, even most Republicans, Christie will be hard pressed to distinguish himself. He's a compelling speaker, and he'll have no trouble convincing listeners that he means well. But with no past record of business success to match Romney's, for example, he'll be vulnerable on points, and may not fare well in future debates, which like Perry, it turns out, are not his forte.
So is Christie serious? At one level, he surely is. It's hard not to be flattered when a fawning horde of political donors and grassroots operatives keep appearing at your door, literally begging you to run. And there's probably nothing wrong with moving out of the "coquette" phase and actually taking a brief spin on the dance floor with your seducers. That probably accounts for the remarkable nature of his speech last week at, of all places, the venerable Ronald Reagan Library in California. Christie not only called out President Obama by name (disparaging him as nothing more than a Nero-like "bystander" to the nation's current economic crisis), he pointedly suggested that he was a better leader and "problem solver." And in a bid to portray himself as a statesman, and possible commander-in-chief, perhaps, he freely crossed over from domestic policy into foreign affairs -- a first for Christie, and another telltale sign that he's actually taking a bid seriously.
Like Sarah Palin, Christie probably has a couple of more weeks (at most) to bask in the media spotlight before a real decision must be made. And perhaps, like Palin, he'll end up exploiting his party's "messiah" complex to promote his name and his "brand," and position himself for 2016, or possibly as a VP candidate in 2012. Christie's clearly a comer, and assuming all goes reasonably well, he might one day become his party's standard-bearer, much like Reagan was. What he offers his party -- and indeed, the country, perhaps -- is a shot at building bridges with Democrats and forging tough and decidedly "conservative" bipartisan compromises, which could well move the GOP from the "party of no" into something resembling a dominant ruling party that once again commands genuine respect from voters.
If you doubt that a GOP formula of this kind could work -- or holds genuine voter appeal -- consider the latest Rasmussen poll. Christie, like Romney, is running even with Obama. But he has no campaign organization or staff, and hasn't really been vetted, certainly not in the context of a high-intensity presidential campaign, which at this late stage, makes him a risky choice.
There are skeletons in his closet, notably the role he played in attacking New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, but his chief shortcoming may simply be that the nominating process has already foreclosed candidates of his ilk, as the early withdrawal of Daniels, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush -- as well as the continuing reluctance of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to commit -- all seem to indicate.
Some have suggested that Christie, weighing in the neighborhood of 300 pounds or more, may simply be too "fat" to be president, just as Daniels, at 5'7", was deemed to be too short. But the real problem isn't Christie's girth -- if it were, he'd never been so resoundingly elected -- but the out-sized hopes and distorted expectations of those so eagerly cheering him on.
Joe Peyronnin: Christie's Big Decision
Charles Kolb: Atrial Fibrillation
McCain: Christie candidacy viable, offers caution
Christie Team Assessing How Fast a 2012 Campaign Could Be Mounted
Perry adviser: Chris Christie would be 'the real deal'
Christie's weight is irrelevant
CHRIS CHRISTIE: The 7 Most Eye-Catching Cartoons
Patrick questions whether Christie is ready to be president
O'Malley blasts Christie on 'Face the Nation'
Chris Hayes Panelist Calls Chris Christie 'Less Obviously Racist' Than Rest Of ...
Are you part of that process, too, directly or indirectly, Stewart? Or is it just a coincidence that you wrote a column that the Koch Brothers, their PR and lobbying firms, and Christie himself, would be very happy with?
And how do you explain Christie vetoing a small tax increase on people making over one million a year? This tax would have reduced New Jersey's deficit---which, supposedly Christie is so concerned about---and it would have lowered taxes for all non-millionaires in the Garden State?
Can you tell us how and why a "moderate" who supposedly believes in "revenue increases" to balance governmental deficits, would veto what a majority of the legislature, and an overwhelming majority of citizens, supported?
Again, you bring up some good points in this piece. But could your pro-Christie bias be any more obvious? At least own up to it. We'd all respect you more if you did, Stewart.
Nice try. But your attempt to make Chris Christie---an extreme conservative---somehow look "moderate" or "centrist" just won't wash.
Christie is not a "moderate" or a "centrist" or anything close. Where have you been?
Let's just take one of many examples: Global Warming. If he rejects the obtuse, industry-funded denial of global warming, then why did he withdraw New Jersey from cooperative efforts to reduce it? Ever hear of “Actions Speak Louder Than Words”?
Is Christie’s tactic of saying one thing---that is obviously designed to "moderate" his image, now that he's lusting after higher office---and doing another, when it comes to actual policy, acceptable in your book?
And if Christie really supports efforts to reduce global warming, then why did he meet privately with the Koch Brothers, who are the major funders for the denialist industry? Why did Christie let the Koch Brothers fly him out to California this summer, and why did he agree to be their headliner at the far-right wing weekend retreat for multi-millionaires and billionaires that the Koch Brothers funded and spearheaded? (And have you listened to the vile, extremist right-wing speech that Christie delivered that night? You should; it’s horrible.)
web-anonymity.cz.tc
He was a political appointee of George Bush as an attorney General.
Cristie should realize he is a media sound byte. The main stream media is looking for red meat and they are baiting Christie to enter their trap.
and Perry! Put the two of them on stage for a debate. Maybe
Christie wouldn't make a good president, maybe he would. I
do like his "in your face" style, its great political theater.
1) we cannot legislate morality, and the abortion issue is already effectively settled for a generation
2) we cannot ignore science. Good people can disagree over the origin of global warming, or evolution. But we cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence at hand, and younger generations have accepted them as fact.
3) we cannot continue to fight against the civil rights of gays and lesbians, and the younger generations have already accepted this.
I wish Christie was not openly hostile to the 2nd amendment, and that he took a firmer stance against illegal immigration. But he and Daniels and Huntsman and most of the northeast have figured all this out and see the future of our party. The tea party was supposed to be about keeping taxes low, reducing spending, and keeping the government out of our lives. Now the religious right has managed to hijack the tea party along with everything else.
It is downright sad that you can be the most fiscally conservative guy but then because you recognize evolution and the civil rights of all people, you are somehow a "liberal".
1) Sane
2) Interested in furthing the interests of the people of United States
3) Able to argue intelligently
4) Did, actually graduate from school and college.
When you can, we will still welcome you to the Democrat party.
I voted for the guy but I'd like hime to really tackle the problems here...he has not yet
How did Christie get them to go along with his plans? By buying them off with favors, backroom deals, (quasi legal) bribes, jobs to their friends, and finding a way to steer funding to some of the people and places connected with these "Democrats".
Christie has also championed the development of off-shore wind power, sided against a major coal-fired power plant project in Linden, and has signed bills to reducing fertilizer run off into Barnegat Bay and opposing natural gas ports off the coast.
His flip-flop on cap-and-trade was probably an attempt to conciliate the national GOP, perhaps because he was all along considering a presidential run. The same on immigration. After his Reagan Library speech last week he criticized Rick Perry's position on tuition aid to illegal immigrants.
Christie's in a blue state and his trajectory reflects that. He's the first Republican to win statewide office in NJ in 12 years, and he's in a blue state that once had a staunchly pro-environment governor - Whitman, who went on to work for Clinton. This is the guy who told Sarah Palin not to visit his state to help him. Rick Perry begged her, and without him, he probably wouldn't have beaten Hutchison.
Tea partiers may be glomping on to Christie, and he's making some overtures their way, but they got the wrong guy. It's mainly about style - not policy substance.