President Chris Christie? A Laughable Idea Even Before the Bridge Flap

FORT LEE, NJ - JANUARY 09: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie enters the Borough Hall in Fort Lee to apologize to Mayor Mark Sokolich on January 9, 2014 in Fort Lee, New Jersey. According to reports Christie's Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Anne Kelly is accused of giving a signal to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge, allegedly as punishment for the Fort Lee, New Jersey mayor not endorsing the Governor during the election.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Jan. 13, 2014, 2:34 p.m.

The course is pre­dict­able. An elec­ted of­fi­cial or a staffer does something that is ter­ribly wrong, un­eth­ic­al, and per­haps even mean-spir­ited. The news me­dia goes in­to hy­per­drive, a le­gis­lat­ive com­mit­tee cranks up an in­vest­ig­a­tion and is­sues sub­poen­as, politi­cians from the oth­er party at­tack, and those from the miscre­ant’s party dis­tance them­selves as quickly as pos­sible. The elec­ted of­fi­cial is ex­cor­i­ated from every dir­ec­tion, and then talk turns to pro­sec­u­tion, im­peach­ment, or — bet­ter yet — both. Last week­end, in con­nec­tion with New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie and either “Bridge-gate” or “Jam-gate” (take your pick), we have star­ted hear­ing the “P” and “I” words.

There is no ques­tion that clos­ing down three lanes of the George Wash­ing­ton Bridge simply to pun­ish the Demo­crat­ic may­or and (largely Demo­crat­ic) pop­u­la­tion of Fort Lee, N.J., was rep­re­hens­ible and in­ex­cus­able. Two staffers were fired, and their pub­lic-ser­vice ca­reers were pre­sum­ably ruined. The tra­ject­ory of Christie’s met­eor­ic polit­ic­al ca­reer has cer­tainly been altered — per­haps sig­ni­fic­antly. All of this is totally ap­pro­pri­ate. It wouldn’t be sur­pris­ing if Christie didn’t know about the lane clos­ures in ad­vance. However, even if we give Christie the be­ne­fit of that doubt, he ob­vi­ously cre­ated an en­vir­on­ment with­in his of­fice and ad­min­is­tra­tion that left the im­pres­sion that such be­ha­vi­or was ac­cept­able, even de­sir­able.

Was this ac­tion im­peach­able? Should Christie be pro­sec­uted? With the myri­ad prob­lems fa­cing New Jer­sey (and every oth­er state, for that mat­ter), is get­ting a last pound of flesh from Christie really the best use of state le­gis­lat­ors’ time and re­sources? Is the level of crime, wheth­er of the vi­ol­ent or white-col­lar nature, so low and in­sig­ni­fic­ant that scan­dals like this are what state or fed­er­al pro­sec­utors should be fo­cused on — as op­posed to murder, rape, may­hem, or fraud? Really?

One of the (many) things wrong with polit­ics today is that we at­tempt to crim­in­al­ize poor polit­ic­al be­ha­vi­or and, if giv­en half a reas­on, im­peach an elec­ted of­fi­cial, even if he or she is term-lim­ited. I am sure that some cre­at­ive law­yer can come up with some pro­sec­ut­able ac­tion taken by Christie or his ad­min­is­tra­tion, but is that really ap­pro­pri­ate here? Isn’t this just an­oth­er mani­fest­a­tion of the scorched-earth nature of Amer­ic­an polit­ics today? If you have an op­pon­ent on the ropes, don’t just knock them out and win the fight; go in for the kill, de­sec­rate the body if you get a chance. Don’t hold back! Take the op­por­tun­ity to get re­tri­bu­tion for any­thing that per­son may have ever done to wrong you.

Hav­ing said that, I also have a prob­lem with the re­cent story line: “The front-run­ner for the 2016 Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion is hit with a scan­dal.” Christie, the front-run­ner? Again — really? Christie in­deed sat at the top of some of the polls that lay out a long laun­dry list of every ima­gin­able con­tender (as well as some who are harder to ima­gine), but does that make him the front-run­ner? I think not.

Think for a mo­ment who makes up the Re­pub­lic­an Party, and most spe­cific­ally the part of the GOP base that dom­in­ates the pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion pro­cess. Think about the people they ser­i­ously con­sidered for their party’s pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion last time around. Think Michele Bach­mann, Her­man Cain, Rick San­tor­um, Rick Perry, and Newt Gin­grich. Now, quickly, think Christie. Now think Ses­ame Street: “One of these things is not like the oth­ers; one of these things just doesn’t be­long.” It’s laugh­able that the party that has pre­vi­ously ser­i­ously con­sidered some fairly in­con­ceiv­able can­did­ates as worthy of the GOP nom­in­a­tion would sud­denly re­verse course and head over to a cen­ter-right can­did­ate such as Christie.

To be sure, parties some­times re­verse course, but not that eas­ily. After the de­bacle of the 1964 elec­tion, when Lyn­don John­son decim­ated Barry Gold­wa­ter 61 per­cent to 38 per­cent, Re­pub­lic­ans did make a move from hard right to cen­ter. Four years later, the GOP nom­in­ated Richard Nix­on, who went on to win the pres­id­ency; but it took hit­ting rock bot­tom in 1964 to trig­ger that shift with­in the party. Eight years later, Nix­on des­troyed George McGov­ern by ex­actly the same per­cent­ages, caus­ing Demo­crats to move to­ward the cen­ter four years later, nom­in­at­ing a vic­tori­ous Jimmy Carter. Again, it was a wipeout that en­abled each party to tell its base to shut up and sit down, that it was time to win a gen­er­al elec­tion.

In a slightly dif­fer­ent vari­ation on the same theme, after Demo­crats lost the pres­id­ency in three con­sec­ut­ive elec­tions — 1980, 1984, and 1988 — and five out of six times, they moved to the cen­ter in 1992, nom­in­at­ing Bill Clin­ton. This move­ment shif­ted the party’s for­tunes, and the Demo­crats won two elec­tions in a row — along with the pop­u­lar vote in three con­sec­ut­ive con­tests and, in fact, five of the next six. But that suc­cess­ful shift took los­ing five out of six elec­tions, in­clud­ing three in a row.

I don’t sense that “back to the draw­ing board” men­tal­ity in the Re­pub­lic­an Party today, at least not strongly enough to make such a dra­mat­ic shift and nom­in­ate Christie or a Christie-like can­did­ate. A cen­ter-right, as op­posed to right-right, can­did­ate would prob­ably have a very good chance of win­ning, but that would re­quire an at­ti­tu­din­al change that doesn’t seem to have happened yet, and doesn’t look likely, either.

So mark me down in the cat­egory of folks who feel that Chris Christie was not the front-run­ner but that this scan­dal makes his like­li­hood of win­ning the nom­in­a­tion even less likely than be­fore. However rep­re­hens­ible the ac­tions that his staff — or pos­sibly he and his staff — may have taken, the dam­age is done, and suf­fi­cient pun­ish­ment has already been in­flic­ted.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4655) }}

What We're Following See More »
Allison Janney Takes to the Real White House Podium
9 hours ago

Carolyn Kaster/AP

When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
10 hours ago

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
11 hours ago

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
12 hours ago

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
15 hours ago

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”