Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Chris Christie: Too Hot for TV?
Feel free to curse me privately for that headline.
Chris Christie has yet another viral video making the rounds, this one featuring a dustup he had with a radio show caller criticizing his handling of public pension and health benefits. Because the media has such a short attention span — and because the novelty of Christie’s pugilistic style has worn off — many viewers may have forgotten just how nimble the big man can be in a fight. Here’s the clip:
Now, I know many Ricochet members have hangups with Christie — and I share a lot of them. But let’s imagine for a second that he manages to secure the Republican nomination. Here’s the question: what’s the net effect of this kind of bravado? Are we better off with a guy like this who doesn’t shy away from a fight — a more blue-collar Newt Gingrich? Or does this combative style poison the well with an electorate that we’re told chooses presidents on the basis of who they’d rather have a beer with? What do you think?
Published in General
For what it’s worth, my own instinct is that this facet of Christie’s personality helps him (assuming it doesn’t devolve into a tendency to go off half-cocked). I’m not sure that would be true in all places and times, but, as I recently told some folks on the AMU, Americans tend to elect presidents as correctives to their predecessors (we’re like divorcees that way). I suspect this kind of directness is dramatically more appealing coming on the heels of a president who can’t tell you what he had for breakfast in less than 12 paragraphs.
I would listen to him as a talk radio host. He’s actually really good in the format. And, yes, I would love to see him in a debate as well prepared on the topics as he is on the issues of NJ.
No one knows.
Tell me exactly what the economy is going to look like, exactly the state of foreign affairs, and exactly how this Ebola/Enterovirus/Open Borders plays out in the summer and fall of 2016.
Elections are not held in a vacuum or in a laboratory test tube. The conditions that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 did not exist for him in 1976. It took 40 years of bad education and demagoguery from the left to create the conditions for a Barack Obama. Elections are moments in time we’re not permitted to know beforehand.
I suspect that people will mainly judge Christie by whether or not they agree with his policies and ideology. Then they may use his demeanor to bolster what they already thought of him, whether for or against. Then again, there are a heck of a lot of voters who make their choices based on the craziest criteria, so who knows? Some people voted against Mitt Romney because he had two Cadillacs, which is evidently too many.
I think it helps him. He is able to fight off media narratives single-handedly. Reagan’s style was obvious different, but he was capable of the same thing with humor.
If for nothing but pure entertainment, I’d like to see a Christie v Clinton debate. However, to repair the the country after the disaster that Obama has done, we will need more than beer and entertainment.
Who’s the real monster here? The one who wrote the headline or the one who clicked on it? ;)
No blaming the victim.
Yeah, what EJ said…
After reading Jon post and have the status of pale, male, stale, and doing fairly well I do not get much victim points.
Is it entirely coincidental that you title a post “Too Hot For TV?” while simultaneously introducing a new picture of yourself from when you were on TV?
I’d drink a Bud with him. I like his style. He didn’t merely argue with this guy, he set him up with a series of leading questions which locked the guy in. That’s the way a good trial lawyer or debater wins. My sense is that the voters may be tired of pure sophistry and ready for someone who’ll fight for them.
This was my thought as well. He didn’t abuse him. He systematically disassembled him.
If he can consistently do that in a debate against an opponent who can’t do that, he’ll look superb.
I think Christie’s weakness is time spent on the stump. He won’t get to show this.
He’s combative, but he’s not mean (like, say, John McCain). He’s just very direct. Apparently it appeals to New Jersey voters, but who knows how that translates?!
Let me just say, I swoon a little when I hear a politician talk that way. Honesty. It’s so refreshing!
P.S. Looks like the Guv needs a new shirt size. He’s trimming down!
Me too. I think it is very important to have someone who can explain conservative positions in capital letters like Chris Christie does. He is the opposite of Romney in this respect. As Christie himself once said, “Our ideas are better than theirs.” I believe that, that whoever can get conservative ideas across to the public clearly has the best chance of winning the presidency.
I would not mind Christie as Vice President on say a Perry-Christie, Walker-Christie, or Jindal-Christie ticket. Although if he were Jindal’s VP, the optics would be “I’m gonna sic my big brother on ya” the first time Christie goes full Christie on someone.
Seawriter
My take:
In response to Troy’s questions: it is to our great advantage to have a candidate with these qualities. Mitt had the first item in spades, but he was deficient in the last two items.
Regarding whether the electorate wants a president who they could enjoy a beer with: has anyone ever thought of Obama as someone they would enjoy a cold one with? Me neither.
That said, I believe that Troy meant the “having a beer test” as a proxy for “likeability” or some other such subjective standard.
For what it’s worth, I think being unlikeable would be a drag on the ticket. Scenario, John Kerry–who Jonah called “a human toothache.”
That said, Troy’s closing question about the “having a beer test” should be answered. My thinking is that only a portion of the electorate that is capable of being influenced by such frivolous concerns.
That said, I suspect that the majority of this faction only use this test as a tie-breaker when they are generally feeling secure. But I suspect that they don’t care about the “having a beer test” when they feel either the nation or themselves to be threatened. Then they are more concerned as to whether a given candidate can protect them.
This is why during the 2012 election it was imperative for the Obama administration to play down Benghazi, Iran, etc.
For Obama–at least regarding foreign affairs–perception is more important than reality. For years he was capable of stage managing perceptions so as to prevent the full extent of his disasters from intruding on the national consciousness–Scenario: Benghazi, Iran–prior to elections. For Obama foreign affairs are only a problem when the cascade of his policy catastrophes overwhelms his perception-management abilities. Which is what is occurring now.
So I do not think that the “having a beer test” will be a significant factor in the 2016 election because Obama and the MSM have lost control of the narrative and–because the velocity of the failure cascade is increasing–I don’t think they can get it back .
We have been begging for a fighter, no more courtly southern gentleman, I want an a$$ kicking street fighter. But does he realize the battle we are in against the ‘red in tooth and claw’ leftists who (with their media adjunct) feel they are so close to total victory and will viciously exploit the slightest sign of weakness. I wish I could trust him more than I do, his 2012 shenanigans left me cold and mistrustful. Keynote speech, : my mother likes me…. what was that all about ? Except for that he could be a shoe in to go up against the witch. He must be prepared to respond immediately to Hillary’s bald faced lies and to rip the throat out of Stephanopolis or Crowley when they intervene to protect her.
This is a great comparison. Gingrich is also excellent at thinking on his feet, recognizing rhetorical traps, and responding with clarity. He is skilled with expression, but the content he expresses varies greatly in its appeal. Content is hard to ignore. Similarly, Christie is a great communicator with a hodgepodge of views. He thrills and then he terrifies.
Perhaps he could be Republicans’ Joe Biden — a useful distraction on call.
Thinking on his feet is a big edge over both Romney and Bush. Romney’s profession required thorough thinking, not necessarily fast thinking. And Bush – well, to some people he’s the bee’s knees, but whatever your position on immigration, entering the country illegally “is an act of love” is just dim witted.
Talk show is cheap. Christie has a reputation for hitting back hard and effectively against liberal attacks, but also for selling out fellow Republicans.
Christie is currently engaged in a deep political romance with Andrew Cuomo. They are protecting each other from scandal allegations, and Christie is de facto endorsing Cuomo for re-election while ignoring Rob Astorino. Steve Lonegan and Mitt Romney know this game.
Also, Christie’s reputation for mixing it up with Democrats comes from encounters with local union members who appear to have limited experience with public speaking.
I think that is an excellent point. Things like presidential debates reward fast reaction times and undervalue thoughtfulness. And, as Kissinger observed, the value of a President is not to be some sort of whiz-kid that already knows all of the answers: it is more important to ask the correct questions.
That said, please don’t misunderstand my appreciation for analyzing problems to be the same as appreciating Obama’s analysis paralysis.
UPDATE: I forgot to explain the reason why it is no big deal if a President is not the above whiz-kid : a President has an entire Executive Branch staffed with subject matter experts who’ve spent a lifetime studying their specialty. It is simply unnecessary for a President to be a whiz-kid.
That said, it is essential that a President enter office with a working understanding of how the world works. In this regard Obama has shown himself to be the least suitable President in my memory
@BD- Re comment 22. If you think that is the case, I suggest you check out his reelection debate against Barbara Buono. When both were asked by the moderator to say something nice about the other, she made a snide remark about CC’s being good on talk shows. In his response, he killed her with kindness, saying roughly that while he disagreed with her, he’d never disparage her years of public service. Someone noted that her expression showed she knew she’d lost the debate after that exchange.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2013/10/kinder_gentler_gov_chris_chris.html
(backup video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFgBi7VTa9o
This is a very astute point and not to wander off-topic, but it’s a skill he shares with Marco Rubio as well.
Christie shares an important trait with Gingrich – and I love it: The refusal to accept the bone-headed premises of his questioners, whether they be media flakes or union hacks. Christie isn’t afraid to punch back. And as far as I’m concerned, I think we need someone willing to pummel every fool that stands in his way.
No, but Troy Senik is.
Congrats, your new avatar really shows off your gnomelike suavity.
Can you really use Gnome and suave in the same sentance?
I think Troy’s new picture speaks for itself here.