Why I Was Wrong About Chris Christie

He wasn’t so smart or post-partisan, and may pay the price as a presidential hopeful.

NRCC keynoter: N.J. Gov. Chris Christie
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Jan. 30, 2014, 4:34 a.m.

A year ago, I wrote: “The smartest move in polit­ics today is to move against Wash­ing­ton and the two ma­jor parties. And the smartest man in polit­ics may be Chris Christie.” I take it back.

At the time, the New Jer­sey gov­ernor had channeled the pub­lic’s dis­gust with polit­ic­al dys­func­tion, chas­tising House Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers for re­fus­ing to al­low a vote on a Hur­ricane Sandy re­lief bill. Christie said the game-play­ing that de­railed the re­lief bill showed “why the Amer­ic­an people hate Con­gress.” He ac­cused his own party’s lead­er­ship for “selfish­ness,” “du­pli­city,” and mor­al fail­ure.

His ap­prov­al rat­ing topped 70 per­cent.

Now his num­bers are drop­ping, be­cause he wasn’t so smart. Rather than stay true to his post-par­tis­an im­age, Christie ran a hy­per-polit­ic­al gov­ernor’s of­fice that fo­cused re­lent­lessly on a big re-elec­tion win to po­s­i­tion him for a 2016 pres­id­en­tial race. In this zero-sum gain cul­ture, Christie en­abled (if not dir­ectly ordered) an in­fam­ous ab­use of power: the clos­ure of traffic lanes on the George Wash­ing­ton Bridge in a fit of polit­ic­al re­tri­bu­tion.

If not crim­in­al, it was pretty damn stu­pid. His repu­ta­tion is in tat­ters. Re­port­ing a poll con­duc­ted jointly with ABC News, Philip Ruck­er and Scott Clem­ent of the Wash­ing­ton Post wrote:

Christie has be­nefited from the per­cep­tion that he has unique ap­peal among in­de­pend­ents and some Demo­crats, a repu­ta­tion the gov­ernor burn­ished with his 2013 reelec­tion in his strongly Demo­crat­ic state.

But that im­age has been tar­nished, the sur­vey finds. More Demo­crats now view Christie un­fa­vor­ably than fa­vor­ably, with in­de­pend­ents di­vided. Re­pub­lic­ans, mean­while, have a luke­warm opin­ion, with 43 per­cent view­ing him fa­vor­ably and 33 per­cent un­fa­vor­ably. Over­all, 35 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans see him fa­vor­ably and 40 per­cent un­fa­vor­ably

Christie has fallen from first to third among po­ten­tial GOP pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates, ac­cord­ing to the Wash­ing­ton Post-ABC News poll, be­hind Rep. Paul Ry­an and former Flor­ida Gov. Jeb Bush.

A plur­al­ity of re­spond­ents said the bridge epis­ode rep­res­ents a pat­tern of ab­use in Christie’s of­fice. While most Re­pub­lic­ans give him the be­ne­fit of the doubt, 60 per­cent of Demo­crats and half of all in­de­pend­ents don’t think it was an isol­ated in­cid­ent. There is good reas­on for the sus­pi­cion.

First, the gov­ernor is deeply en­gaged in the minu­tia of his of­fice, an op­er­a­tion that doesn’t dis­crim­in­ate between polit­ics and policy. As the New York Times re­por­ted this week in a must-read ana­lys­is:

Mr. Christie has said that he had not been aware of his of­fice’s in­volve­ment in the man­euver, and noth­ing has dir­ectly tied to him to it. But a close look at his op­er­a­tion and how in­tim­ately he was in­volved in it, de­scribed in in­ter­views with dozens of people — Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat, in­clud­ing cur­rent and former Christie ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, elec­ted lead­ers and le­gis­lat­ive aides — gives cre­dence to the puz­zle­ment ex­pressed by some Re­pub­lic­ans and many Demo­crats in the state, who ques­tion how a de­tail-ob­sessed gov­ernor could have been un­aware of the clos­ings or the ef­fort over months to cov­er up the polit­ic­al motive.

In oth­er words, how stu­pid do you think we are, gov­ernor? Christie either knew or should have known that his ad­min­is­tra­tion was snarling Fort Lee in traffic and en­dan­ger­ing lives.

Second, the gov­ernor’s team is now un­der siege. Everything they’ve done and will do is cast in sus­pi­cion. Ac­cus­a­tions that pre­vi­ously might have brought them a be­ne­fit of the doubt are now filtered by scan­dal. Like the Times story today about pres­sure ap­plied to the Hoboken may­or to sup­port a de­vel­op­ment pro­ject favored by Christie. The lever­age his team used against the may­or: flood re­lief linked to Hur­ricane Sandy.

The Christie ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ac­tions were little dif­fer­ent from the game-play­ing of the House Re­pub­lic­ans that drew his wrath a year ago. A politi­cian try­ing to smartly dis­tance him­self from Wash­ing­ton can’t be a hy­po­crite.

Hav­ing leaned too far over my skis a year ago, I’m not pre­pared to write Christie’s polit­ic­al ob­it­u­ary today. But there is a grow­ing sense of how it might read, start­ing with what I wrote after Christie’s mea culpa news con­fer­ence Jan. 9:

While Christie said many of the right things in a lengthy and wide-ran­ging new con­fer­ence — the con­trast to Pres­id­ent Obama’s re­sponse to 2013 con­tro­ver­sies was un­mis­tak­able — his ac­tions were far from dis­pos­it­ive. We don’t know how voters in New Jer­sey and bey­ond will as­sess his truth­ful­ness. We can’t pre­dict wheth­er the in­vest­ig­a­tions will un­cov­er more wrong­do­ing. And we need to find out wheth­er the George Wash­ing­ton Bridge in­cid­ent is isol­ated, or part of a pat­tern of ab­use.

In the three weeks since that column, polls sug­gest a good num­ber of Amer­ic­ans doubt his vera­city and won­der wheth­er he was run­ning a cor­rupt ad­min­is­tra­tion. Voters aren’t dumb.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.