The State of Christie's Union
I can't say I'm surprised that Chris Christie was offered the chance to deliver the Republican response to President Obama's state of the union address tomorrow—and promptly turned it down. Responding to the state of the union is a thankless task, as Bobby Jindal (2009) and Bob McDonnell (2010) can attest. For better or worse, in our system it's the president who sets the agenda.
Christie is playing a delicate game. He's a first-term conservative governor of a blue state who wants (a) to be reelected and (b) to be president. He's threading the needle at the moment because the fiscal crisis affects the states and the federal government in similar ways. Reforming New Jersey offers Christie a way to connect with his large and growing national following. At the same time, however, Christie recognizes that alienating too many voters in his home state would damage his reelection chances—so he only comments on those national issues related to New Jersey. So far, Christie's political talent and smarts have served him well.
My guess is that Christie believes President Obama will be reelected. That would leave the presidency open in 2016—by which time, if all goes according to plan, Christie would be in his second term as New Jersey governor and ready to launch a national campaign. It's a long-range strategy similar to that followed by George W. Bush and his advisers, who began planning for 2000 as early as 1996. (See Karl Rove's book, p. 112.)
But a long-range strategy is also fraught with risk. Obama may lose reelection, Christie may lose reelection, Christie's push to overhaul New Jersey may fail, a bright new light might appear in the Republican firmament—any of this could happen. Still, I can't help thinking we're going to spend the next six years following, step by step, Chris Christie's path to the American presidency.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The State of Christie's Union
Christie has got to run in 2012. The right man, the right year, the right opponent.
He decides to pass this time--we lose our country forever. The four horsemen of the apocalypse (Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and Frank) are unleashed. The sun grows dark; the moon turns to blood; a flock of geese flies by in the shape of a swastika; cats & dogs start living together; you name it.
Re: The State of Christie's Union
But there's a risk, isn't there, to too much forecasting and future-spinning? I can't help but think of 1992, when a lot of the big names in the Democratic party sat it out -- nobody could beat George H. W. Bush, flying high after the first Gulf War -- and allowed a younger, more nimble governor from Arkansas to step in and grab the prize.
I hope he runs, because I have an insatiable need to see the Obama/Christie presidential debates. I'm sick of the Republican high-wire act, where we all watch the debates with our hearts in our throats, hoping our guy doesn't say something odd or silly or wrong. I'd like them to worry this time. I'd like them to wonder, for once in a long time, why the energy and charisma is on the Republican side.
But for all of the reasons you suggest, he might sit it out.
Dec '10
Re: The State of Christie's Union
I'm uncertain at this time just how much of a political animal Christie really is and what his ambitions beyond Governor of NJ are. In a recent TV broadcast interview he said he didn't think he was ready to be President and implied he may not want to be.
He is definitely avoiding taking positions on issues that do not directly involve NJ, but that would be a wise tactic at this time regardless of his ambitions. The MSM and Dem smear and slander machine that is currently targeting (ooops) Palin is for the most part ignoring Christie. He is not on their radar.
His willingness to address bloated government, take tough stands, and challenge the public employee unions are commendable and attractive, as is his straight talking non-nonsense rhetoric, but he may know that if he does this on a national scale he will get the same treatment Palin gets and that it might not work.
In short, I don't think he is deliberately strategizing so much as he is prudently and wisely taking it a step at a time and trying not to go too far too fast.
Nov '10
Re: The State of Christie's Union
Rob Long is absolutely right. The Christie / Obama debates would, I think, be the greatest theatre since the opening of The Globe, but just maybe Chris Christie is the real thing and actually means what he's been saying (you think?). If everything he's been saying - and doing - since he was elected has been somehow choreographed toward a 2012 or 2016 run for the White House, then, at the risk of sounding overly naive, I give up on all of them.
Re: The State of Christie's Union
One of the things I find so impressive about Christie, Matt? His single-mindedness. During his gubernatorial campaign, he said almost nothing about his plans--why expose himself to second-guessing?--instead attacking Corzine relentlessly. Now, just as you note, he's not saying anything he doesn't need to say. An admirable trait--and, in politics, a rare one. In this, Christie's positively Reagan-like.