The Jersey Boys

On a website devoted to debate (civil, mind you), we can all agree that politics is not the arena for shrinking violets. Who better to remind us of this fact than the former governor of the Garden State, Chris Christie? He gives us the lowdown on his successes in a Blue State and his thoughts on how Republicans need to keep their eye on the prize. Even with the mention of “Christie Porn,” we promise listeners a PG-rated podcast.

Also, the regular gang go from the economic blockage to “Let’s Go Brandon,” from intellectuals talking about third parties to Captain Kirk back in space. (Well, kinda-space if you wanna get technical.)

Music from this week’s podcast:  Man At The Top by Bruce Springsteen

Subscribe to Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

Boll & Branch

ButcherBox

Masterworks

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 177 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    This will be another short one for me.  I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    • #1
  2. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):This will be another short one for me. I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats in this interview, I understand  why you’re not interested.

    • #2
  3. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    This will be another short one for me. I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats, I can see why you’re not interested.

    I’m more interested in what he HAS DONE, not what he hasn’t.  Which, lately, seems to be “not much.”

    • #3
  4. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    This will be another short one for me. I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats, I can see why you’re not interested.

    I’m more interested in what he HAS DONE, not what he hasn’t. Which, lately, seems to be “not much.”

    He discusses what he’s been doing lately in this interview. Which you would know if you —you know— listened to it instead of pre-judging it. Oh, well.  🤷‍♂️

    • #4
  5. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    This will be another short one for me. I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats, I can see why you’re not interested.

    I’m more interested in what he HAS DONE, not what he hasn’t. Which, lately, seems to be “not much.”

    He discusses what he’s been doing lately in this interview. Which you would know if you —you know— listened to it instead of pre-judging it. Oh, well. 🤷‍♂️

    Except listening to his interview is not my only source to find that out.  It’s not a “scoop” for Ricochet.

    • #5
  6. ToryWarWriter Thatcher
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    I really enjoyed Chris Christie in this podcast.  Kudos to Scott for managing, barely to get him on :P

    • #6
  7. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    If the NTers etc will voluntarily split off into their own party, that would save the rest of us a lot of trouble.

    • #7
  8. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Does Rob still not understand that “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” is an error?  How old is he, anyway, to be so… uneducated?

    • #8
  9. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    P.S.  I count a minute and 15 to possibly 17 seconds of silence at the end.

    • #9
  10. Spin Coolidge
    Spin
    @Spin

    I thoroughly enjoyed the interview.  Christie spoke intelligently on a good number of things.  

    • #10
  11. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Spin (View Comment):

    I thoroughly enjoyed the interview. Christie spoke intelligently on a good number of things.

    Thanks! I was reminded why he was one of my favorites. I hope he runs again. 

    • #11
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The shot doesn’t stop transmission. They have known this for 2 1/2 months.

    The metrics are absolutely terrible in far too many high vaccination areas during their outdoor season. It’s unbelievable. It is a therapeutic for all practical purposes.

    There is no reason to focus on everybody getting the shot.

    Focus on people that are likely to clog up the hospital and otherwise put medical resources at risk of running out. This is obvious. 

    • #12
  13. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    kedavis (View Comment):

    This will be another short one for me. I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    Ugh.  I never listened to the Jeb Bush episode.  I can’t remember why.

    I’m just not fond of listening to most elected politicians.

    Christie?  Christie might be even more unbearable than Trump.  People think that Trump acts like a know-it-all, but Trump doesn’t know that much about certain aspects of politics.  Most long-time politicians of Christie’s type have wanted to be president or hold a similar high office since they were kids.

    Christie is also a high-level lawyer which only compounds the arrogance problem.  I like Ted Cruz, but the aspects of lawyer personality can be a big negative for a few people.  Of the top 9 GOP presidential candidates in 2016, Cruz and Rubio (who I don’t think of as a lawyer as he soon became a political type) were the only lawyers as Christie came in #10, Jim Gilmore came in #11, and Rick Santorum came in #12 with Lindsey Graham and George Pataki exiting the race before the primaries.

    The Republican primary class is generally skeptical of lawyers.  In the last 96 years, the only Republican lawyer to be elected president was Richard Nixon, another guy with a big arrogance problem.  We all remember how that turned out.  Cruz, Santorum, and even pre-Trump Mitt Romney have had some support from GOP primary voters, but they have been the exception.  Lawyer Fred Thompson might have had some support too due to his acting career and Tennessee mannerisms.  Rudy Giuliani had some and only some early primary support, but that was probably mostly due to the September 11th attacks and fond memories of people who lived and visited New York City when he was mayor.  I liked Bob Dole a lot more than many Republicans, but he was often seen as just another Washington lawyer turned politician than a war hero like McCain or Eisenhower or perhaps even non-lawyer George H. W. Bush. 

    Christie embracing Obama or chasing for approval from Bruce Springsteen are things that I remember.

    Most importantly, is there any indication that he is going to attack the Left and the media more than he attacks conservatives?

    • #13
  14. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Jeb Bush, Chris Christie. Wow, way to stay relevant with the conservative movement. Better book Paul Ryan, or George Will next.

    Apple podcasts top 1000 here we come!

    • #14
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I thought it was good. Chris Christie wasn’t spewing a bunch of boiler plate, which is what gets to me.

    • #15
  16. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    (continued)

    Speaking as someone who technically only voted for him once, I just don’t get all of the hatred for President Trump.

    Except for President Trump’s complete unwillingness to confront runaway and reckless federal spending, I generally thought the Trump presidency was great.  I thought the Trump presidency was great fun.  I’m so sorry that the nervous and non-humorous feel otherwise.

    If Trump had pulled out of Afghanistan the way Biden did, I probably would not have been happy, but many devoted interventionists fail to realize or understand that the all-volunteer military doesn’t want to be in Afghanistan either.  When John McCain said the United States should be in Afghanistan 100 years, he was probably right in many ways, assuming causalities were kept low.  However, that is a view that is held by only a tiny percentage of Americans.  Except for the two Bush presidencies and LBJ, most recent presidents have been rather anti-war.  I think the 1988 election was the last time the person with more military or by default foreign experience was elected president.  Military experience just isn’t something American voters care about and to the extent that they care about the issue they prefer the less hawkish candidate.

    Although he is often not extremely knowledge about certain topics, Trump is willing to confront the media, deep state/administrative state, and certain insiders in the conservative movement in ways that most Republicans care nothing about.  Unpredictability in foreign policy and other fields can also be a great asset too.

    Trump in many ways is way too much of a big spending and big government guy for me, but I think most Republicans are way too cowardly to confront big spending and big government.  The few Republicans like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul that might really be willing to confront government spending have their own downsides too.

    • #16
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):
    Trump in many ways is way too much of a big spending and big government guy for me, but I think most Republicans are way too cowardly to confront big spending and big government.

    Look at my comments on this thread. It’s too late to worry about that. For one thing, we have no choice but to try to keep the asset bubble intact. But the other thing is it’s impossible to disperse capital in a fair way through the private sector anymore. Individual initiative and honest work is just going to screw most people over now. I have been railing about this on this site for years, but this transcript of this interview shows it’s much worse than I thought. 

    https://ricochet.com/1073603/if-we-can-keep-it/#comment-5859410

    I think the best way to manage it is to school a guy like Chris Christie on it, because he has a broad appeal and I guess he’s sort of a RINO. He would be a lot better than most with that data.

    It’s just too late to be idealistic about things people on the right want to be idealistic about. 

    This is another good video. Nobody on the right has led like this. It’s too late.

     

     

     

    • #17
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The best guy to lead on all the aspects raised in Henry’s post is in my comment above is former Representative Jason Lewis. He knows all of that stuff, cold. Seriously Peter should interview him for Uncommon Knowledge.

    Jason had a talk show in Minneapolis. I’m sure James knows him. I wouldn’t hesitate to pay for a podcast from him.

    • #18
  19. Blondie Thatcher
    Blondie
    @Blondie

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Jason had a talk show in Minneapolis.

    He used to sub for Rush. 

    • #19
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Blondie (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    Jason had a talk show in Minneapolis.

    He used to sub for Rush.

    He is outstanding.

    He said that he made station managers nervous with the technical discussion of the Fed and the financial system. All kinds of things like that, but people loved it. He had huge ratings.

    There is nobody that has more comprehensive knowledge and talent to explain it for people on the right and libertarians.

    I mean seriously, some GOP Sugar Daddys should pay him to podcast.

    • #20
  21. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Didn’t Christie and the hosts get Trump’s announcement wrong? I understood it not as instructive to his supporters but predictive to the party. If the rampant fraud in 2020 isn’t addressed, voters are going to figure why bother and stay home. It sounds like everyone on the show thinks everything is normal and the Republicans will win in 2022 just by showing up. I can’t support it but I think not addressing fraud is part of the reason for the loss in Georgia. Trump campaigned there. He didn’t tell people to stay home. The governor and secretary of state didn’t reassure the voters that January would be different from November. They cowered in front of Stacy Abrams and her sister. I’m sure a bunch of voters figured, why bother, it’s going to be stolen again.

    Peter was wrong that all of the states changed voting requirements legally. For sure Pennsylvania didn’t. They didn’t follow their constitution at all. That’s what the Texas lawsuit was about, which the Supreme Court cowardly refused to hear. I’m not sure about the others.

    • #21
  22. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    This will be another short one for me. I have no interest in anything Chris Christie has to say, now.

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats in this interview, I can see why you’re not interested.

    Yeti, I don’t think that this is a fair characterization of Trump’s statements.  In the podcast, Christie also characterized Trump’s statement about voting in this way.

    Deciphering Trump’s tweets does sometimes seem like reading tea leaves.  He often seems careless, but he still leaves me uncertain about whether this is the case, or whether he’s crazy like a fox.

    In this instance, his statement about voting was:

    If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do.

    I can understand how someone could interpret this as an instruction, but I can also see how it could be interpreted as a prediction.  On it’s face, it reads like a prediction.  I do think that it is an accurate prediction, adjusted for Trump’s usual exaggeration.  I’ve seen a number of comments here at Ricochet from people suggesting that voting in the future will be pointless, because the elections are rigged anyway.  I do not share that view, but I understand their frustration.

    Turning to Trump’s statement about Stacey Abrams, he is reported to have said: “Of course, having her I think might be better than having your existing governor, if you want to know the truth,” followed by “Might very well be better.”

    It’s harder for me to understand how someone could legitimately interpret this as an endorsement, though I do see how one could spin it that way.  It looks more like hyperbole in support of Trump’s criticism of Georgia Gov. Kemp, doesn’t it?

    I don’t think that this type of hyperbole is new or unusual.  I haven’t looked up a specific example, but based on my recollection, it seems pretty common for a more conservative Republican to argue something like “you might as well elect a democrat as a RINO.”

    I do realize that my argument on these two statements is different.  In the first instance, about voting, I suggest that his statement should be interpreted literally.  In the second instance, about Stacey Abrams, I suggest that his statement should be interpreted figuratively.  But I don’t think that this is inconsistent, because people sometimes mean a statement literally, and sometimes mean it figuratively.

    Yeti, you did the same thing, but in the opposite way with respect to these two statements.

    The difference is that I give Trump the benefit of the doubt, while you appear to have opted for the more negative interpretation of both statements.

    • #22
  23. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    He makes good sense, sounds solid, but I hope he doesn’t run, or at least not become our candidate.  He can’t win.   Who ever runs needs his support and he can take a high level domestic appointment.  My problem with all the discussions is that we keep acting as if there were going to be honest elections which won’t happen unless the sweep toward the right is overwhelming.   Whoever runs for the Republicans needs Trump’s strong support, because Trump is very popular but probably can’t win.   De Santis looks the strongest now and he’ll need Trump’s support but won’t oppose Trump because that assures loss.  We’ve serious problems as the Democrats have gone berserk.  Trump did necessary things, should have had four more years, but it was stolen.  We keep pretending that it wasn’t stolen.  That Biden got more votes than anyone in history whom everyone knew was an idiot even before he was senile?   Give me a break.   We have problems and are acting as if we’re going to win. 

    • #23
  24. FightinInPhilly Coolidge
    FightinInPhilly
    @FightinInPhilly

    I thought the interview was excellent. The reason so many people turned off the interview is they are worried someone else might think it’s excellent.  Some of us are getting on with our lives, but you boys best get back to your bunker where the memes are soothing. Let’s Go Brandon!

    • #24
  25. ericB Lincoln
    ericB
    @ericB

    @jameslileks 1:10:09:

    So I don’t think that Vance was necessarily being serious about that.  But if he is being a big statist conservative who wants to use the instruments of government to direct things, well then I say that’s spinach and …

    James Thurber?  Sorry  @peterrobinson and @roblong

    Steig?  Hoff?  Sorry @jameslileks

    The phrase originated as the caption of a gag cartoon published in The New Yorker on December 8, 1928. Drawn by Carl Rose and captioned by E. B. White,[3] the cartoon shows a mother at table trying to convince her young daughter to eat her vegetable, the dialogue being

    Mother: “It’s broccoli, dear.”
    Daughter: “I say it’s spinach, and I say the hell with it.”

    (Broccoli was a relative novelty at that time, just then being widely introduced by Italian immigrant growers to the tables of East Coast cities.[4])

    For a look at the original cartoon and more, See

    I say it’s spinach

    (Ironically, the hosts later concur that E. B. White stands up better than James Thurber.)

    • #25
  26. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

     

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats in this interview, I can see why you’re not interested.

    Yeti, I don’t think that this is a fair characterization of Trump’s statements. In the podcast, Christie also characterized Trump’s statement about voting in this way.

    Deciphering Trump’s tweets does sometimes seem like reading tea leaves. He often seems careless, but he still leaves me uncertain about whether this is the case, or whether he’s crazy like a fox.

    In this instance, his statement about voting was:

    If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do.

    I can understand how someone could interpret this as an instruction, but I can also see how it could be interpreted as a prediction. On it’s face, it reads like a prediction. I do think that it is an accurate prediction, adjusted for Trump’s usual exaggeration. I’ve seen a number of comments here at Ricochet from people suggesting that voting in the future will be pointless, because the elections are rigged anyway. I do not share that view, but I understand their frustration.

    Turning to Trump’s statement about Stacey Abrams, he is reported to have said: “Of course, having her I think might be better than having your existing governor, if you want to know the truth,” followed by “Might very well be better.”

    It’s harder for me to understand how someone could legitimately interpret this as an endorsement, though I do see how one could spin it that way. It looks more like hyperbole in support of Trump’s criticism of Georgia Gov. Kemp, doesn’t it?

    I don’t think that this type of hyperbole is new or unusual. I haven’t looked up a specific example, but based on my recollection, it seems pretty common for a more conservative Republican to argue something like “you might as well elect a democrat as a RINO.”

    I do realize that my argument on these two statements is different. In the first instance, about voting, I suggest that his statement should be interpreted literally. In the second instance, about Stacey Abrams, I suggest that his statement should be interpreted figuratively. But I don’t think that this is inconsistent, because people sometimes mean a statement literally, and sometimes mean it figuratively.

    Yeti, you did the same thing, but in the opposite way with respect to these two statements.

    The difference is that I give Trump the benefit of the doubt, while you appear to have opted for the more negative interpretation of both statements

     

    TLDR version:  Take him seriously, not literally.

     

    • #26
  27. Spin Coolidge
    Spin
    @Spin

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    The difference is that I give Trump the benefit of the doubt, while you appear to have opted for the more negative interpretation of both statements.

    I’m with Yeti on this, for two reasons. 

    First. I have this constant argument with my lefty friends.  They think Trump runs the Republican party, that it’s shackled to him.  I say “No, it isn’t.”  They consider that statement about voting as an instruction to the masses of Republican voters who they see as under Trump’s trance.  Now why do we care what they think?  Because we still have to win the moderate voter.  So we have to understand how things are perceived. 

    Second, whether an instruction or not, people who are hard core Trump supporters might well see it as an instruction.  And we can’t afford to blow this mid-term, it is ours to lose.

    Whatever happened in 2020, it’s almost a year old now.  We have to look forward not back.  It’s tempting to throw up our hands and say all is lost.  If that’s your (the general you, not you Jerry) view, then what can I say.  It isn’t mine.  The two camps within the Republican party see each other as the enemy.  They don’t seem to care if they lose another election, if it can be spun as a defeat for the other camp.  This has to go.  It won’t go, because we are in our corners and we won’t come out.  Some of us see and agree with the points on both sides of this rift.  And we are pleading with the two camps to put aside their differences.  I wish they would.  

    • #27
  28. Quickz Member
    Quickz
    @Quickz

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    As Christie didn’t instruct Republicans not to vote in the next elections or endorse any Democrats in this interview, I can see why you’re not interested.

    This retort makes no sense – neither of your pull quotes say what you frame them as.

    The first is 45 stating that solving the election law mess is tantamount to bringing everyone back into the fold. And his constant hammering on this issue has according to the polls moved the public opinion away from the “Jim Eagle” frame that our media betters tried to run with (supported by mega-corporation statements and warnings) and now an even great majority of people, democrats, independents (those “folks in the middle” that decide elections), and republicans believe that there was wonky/cheating/unfairness in the 2020 election. That’s called framing a narrative for change and following through. Might be new to you. It’s working and laws are being changed, and more will be – as the façade is being pulled back with state investigations – which leads to more laws to tighten up elections, which motivates more voters, which WORKS. I understand that you might not understand 45’s tactic, but look and see that it is working, and it works through the efforts of dozens if not hundreds of state-level Rs enacting policy. This is working.

    And your second link to him mocking the Governor of GA is not an endorsement. But you know that.

    I’m going to continue this comment to address Christie’s statement on the same, “If you want to win you can’t be relitigating 2020,” tone-deaf and ignorant. Polling shows a large chunk of the party is concerned with election integrity. The above paragraph addresses how 45 is leading the charge and winning the narrative war. Meanwhile, at the state level, laws are being addressed, plans for pushing back against Elias’s next litigation assault are being made, and in general is addressing the sizeable (“most people are well over it,” no they are not Governor – polling shows the opposite) group of Rs that are concerned with this issue. They (Rs) will be pleased with the results, know they are listened too, and otherwise come back into the fold- this is what is meant by “resolved” in 45’s statement. Not hard to understand, which worries me for those who don’t get it. Christie hand-waves this group away – a poor tactic to address these voters, insane really. Likely plays well with those around him and in his bubble. But the facts are strongly aligned against him. 

    “Incredibly destructive to the party” – this party has the best realignment chances in the last hundred years to become a dominant force, and will lose that chance with “leaders” like this. I will continue to listen to this podcast to see if Christie says other things that I feel like addressing.

    /rant off

    • #28
  29. ericB Lincoln
    ericB
    @ericB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    In this instance, his statement about voting was:

    If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do.

    I can understand how someone could interpret this as an instruction, but I can also see how it could be interpreted as a prediction.

    Why not both?  — A self-fulfilling prophesy.

    Spin (View Comment):
    Second, whether an instruction or not, people who are hard core Trump supporters might well see it as an instruction.

    A key question to ask is whether or not those Trump supporters are hearing any clear message that they should be sure to vote no matter what.  If he isn’t telling them and motivating them to vote, then what conclusion are they meant to draw?

    Even if Trump and company are technically “only” giving “a prediction” and encouraging belief that the prediction is true and will come to pass, what is the obvious result that comes from encouraging many people to believe that bothering to go vote for a Republican is pointless?  Will they still bother to vote?  Or will they decide there is no point and not bother?

    Result: “See, Trump said “Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24″ and in truth Republican turn out was low.  His prediction turned out to be true.”

    “Prophecy” fulfilled.

    • #29
  30. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Jeb Bush, Chris Christie. Wow, way to stay relevant with the conservative movement. Better book Paul Ryan, or George Will next.

    Apple podcasts top 1000 here we come!

    Sorry, Matt Gaetz wasn’t available. 

    • #30