Christie as the next knight on the white horse

Now Republicans who realize that they still don’t have a candidate who can beat President Obama are fantasizing about New Jersey governor Chris Christie entering the race.  What would you think of him as a presidential candidate?

After Speech, Chris Christie Revels in Pleas to Run – NYTimes.com.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.aclutteredmind.org Kevin Sorensen

    I realize we’re talking about the secular world around us and the media is far from a “christianized” entity, but the headline you site would be enough to make me wonder about not supporting him. Of course, running for president is nearly the exact opposite of pastoral ministry (my vocation), so maybe it’s a good thing that you really want it and revel in the pleas to run. As a pastor, if I knew of another pastor, looking at a position somewhere and heard this about him, my counsel to all would be “Flee from him!”

  • http://www.aclutteredmind.org Kevin Sorensen

    I realize we’re talking about the secular world around us and the media is far from a “christianized” entity, but the headline you site would be enough to make me wonder about not supporting him. Of course, running for president is nearly the exact opposite of pastoral ministry (my vocation), so maybe it’s a good thing that you really want it and revel in the pleas to run. As a pastor, if I knew of another pastor, looking at a position somewhere and heard this about him, my counsel to all would be “Flee from him!”

  • steve

    Christie is someone I could support. I think he could make it through the primaries on his anti-union, anti-corruption platform without having to pander to far to the right for the general population. If nothing else, it will be fun to see all the same hypocrites on the Left, who went after Reagan, Bush I, and McCain for being too old, and Bush II and Palin for being too dumb (and the latter for being too female), go after Christie for being too fat. Shameless.

    The biggest concerns I have with Christie are: 1) He runs after not only claiming he wouldn’t (who hasn’t done that?) but claiming repeatedly and most adamantly that he wouldn’t; and 2) he’s a New Jersey politician so he’s likely to have some serious uncovered skeleton’s rumbling around in that closet of his.

  • steve

    Christie is someone I could support. I think he could make it through the primaries on his anti-union, anti-corruption platform without having to pander to far to the right for the general population. If nothing else, it will be fun to see all the same hypocrites on the Left, who went after Reagan, Bush I, and McCain for being too old, and Bush II and Palin for being too dumb (and the latter for being too female), go after Christie for being too fat. Shameless.

    The biggest concerns I have with Christie are: 1) He runs after not only claiming he wouldn’t (who hasn’t done that?) but claiming repeatedly and most adamantly that he wouldn’t; and 2) he’s a New Jersey politician so he’s likely to have some serious uncovered skeleton’s rumbling around in that closet of his.

  • DonS

    I think the headline is misleading, Kevin. If you heard the actual audio, you would hear a man say that he is not so arrogant as not to be totally honored to be asked in so many different ways and by so many different people to run. This was in the context of answering a question as to whether he has gotten tired of the question. To interpret that answer as “reveling” is a stretch.

    The man has said, repeatedly, that it is not his time to run, so it is time to put it to rest.

  • DonS

    I think the headline is misleading, Kevin. If you heard the actual audio, you would hear a man say that he is not so arrogant as not to be totally honored to be asked in so many different ways and by so many different people to run. This was in the context of answering a question as to whether he has gotten tired of the question. To interpret that answer as “reveling” is a stretch.

    The man has said, repeatedly, that it is not his time to run, so it is time to put it to rest.

  • Joe

    I am not sure I could support him. I really like much of what he has done on economic policy in NJ. But he has a very bad record on gun issues. I would have to spend a lot of time looking at his past record.

  • Joe

    I am not sure I could support him. I really like much of what he has done on economic policy in NJ. But he has a very bad record on gun issues. I would have to spend a lot of time looking at his past record.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS, you said (@3) “the headline is misleading”, but you then went on to — to my eyes — make the case that it wasn’t. Perhaps this is just your anti-media bias surfacing?

    Let’s see. The headline says that Christie “Revels in Pleas to Run”. You, on the other hand, say that he is “totally honored to be asked in so many different ways and by so many different people to run”.

    Just to be clear, let’s turn to Merriam-Webster to find this definition for “revel”:

    to take intense pleasure or satisfaction

    Hmm. So what you’re asking me to believe is that, while “totally honored” by these pleas, this is no way implies that he takes “intense satisfaction” from them.

    Right.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS, you said (@3) “the headline is misleading”, but you then went on to — to my eyes — make the case that it wasn’t. Perhaps this is just your anti-media bias surfacing?

    Let’s see. The headline says that Christie “Revels in Pleas to Run”. You, on the other hand, say that he is “totally honored to be asked in so many different ways and by so many different people to run”.

    Just to be clear, let’s turn to Merriam-Webster to find this definition for “revel”:

    to take intense pleasure or satisfaction

    Hmm. So what you’re asking me to believe is that, while “totally honored” by these pleas, this is no way implies that he takes “intense satisfaction” from them.

    Right.

  • DonS

    tODD — or, …. maybe it’s YOUR pro-media bias showing. I don’t see “revels” and “feels honored” as synonyms. Their usage implies very different things to me. And, apparently, to Kevin.

  • DonS

    tODD — or, …. maybe it’s YOUR pro-media bias showing. I don’t see “revels” and “feels honored” as synonyms. Their usage implies very different things to me. And, apparently, to Kevin.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I realize that Veith’s pushing his own vision here (in which, to recap, Obama will win in 2012), but it happens to be one I don’t disagree with.

    The Republicans are, to date, floundering. There’s no clear leader. Everyone who rises to the top (largely by being unknown to potential voters) is quickly cut down by his competitors, and no one is left standing once the people get to know them.

    Sure, some candidate will succeed, and the troops will (wanly) rally around him, repeatedly mumbling “Well at least he’s better than Obama”. But there will be no fire in the belly.

    Again, a replay of 2004, but with swapped sides.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I realize that Veith’s pushing his own vision here (in which, to recap, Obama will win in 2012), but it happens to be one I don’t disagree with.

    The Republicans are, to date, floundering. There’s no clear leader. Everyone who rises to the top (largely by being unknown to potential voters) is quickly cut down by his competitors, and no one is left standing once the people get to know them.

    Sure, some candidate will succeed, and the troops will (wanly) rally around him, repeatedly mumbling “Well at least he’s better than Obama”. But there will be no fire in the belly.

    Again, a replay of 2004, but with swapped sides.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@6), why do they have to be “synonyms”? You already admitted that Christie felt “totally honored” — again, are you implying that said “honor” was somehow devoid of “intense satisfaction”?

    I found some video clips of Christie’s reaction, and he said, and I quote, “it’s extraordinarily flattering” about the pleas.

    So let’s see. You said he was “totally honored”. Christie himself said it was “extraordinarily flattering”. The headline, according to the dictionary, said he found it “intensely satisfying”.

    But you’re drawing a bright line between the first two phrases and the last one?

    Hmm.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@6), why do they have to be “synonyms”? You already admitted that Christie felt “totally honored” — again, are you implying that said “honor” was somehow devoid of “intense satisfaction”?

    I found some video clips of Christie’s reaction, and he said, and I quote, “it’s extraordinarily flattering” about the pleas.

    So let’s see. You said he was “totally honored”. Christie himself said it was “extraordinarily flattering”. The headline, according to the dictionary, said he found it “intensely satisfying”.

    But you’re drawing a bright line between the first two phrases and the last one?

    Hmm.

  • DonS

    tODD — if they are not synonyms, then the reporting is not accurate, because he said he was honored, not “reveling”.

    “Reveling” was interpretive reporting, and I question the accuracy of the reporter’s interpretation.

  • DonS

    tODD — if they are not synonyms, then the reporting is not accurate, because he said he was honored, not “reveling”.

    “Reveling” was interpretive reporting, and I question the accuracy of the reporter’s interpretation.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@9) said:

    He said he was honored, not “reveling”.

    Did he? Because I listened the audio like you asked me to, and I heard him say “extraordinarily flattering”, not the “honored” term you keep resorting to in order to press your point. Feel free to point me to a source where I can hear him use your phrasing.

    Again, you have yet to lay out a convincing case for why it is “misleading” to use the word “reveling” (again, defined as “taking intense pleasure or satisfaction”) when Christie himself said it was “extraordinarily flattering”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@9) said:

    He said he was honored, not “reveling”.

    Did he? Because I listened the audio like you asked me to, and I heard him say “extraordinarily flattering”, not the “honored” term you keep resorting to in order to press your point. Feel free to point me to a source where I can hear him use your phrasing.

    Again, you have yet to lay out a convincing case for why it is “misleading” to use the word “reveling” (again, defined as “taking intense pleasure or satisfaction”) when Christie himself said it was “extraordinarily flattering”.

  • Dust

    He would lose the election, as tODD says in 7. But he won’t be the nominee anyway (my guess) and will go the way of Perry after a debate or two, if he does decide to try it on (size XXXXL!).

    The nominee will most likely be Sarah Palin. Only she can create that “fire in the belly” so crucial for victory, as per tODD in 7.

    Of course, the media will have to be nice to her this time, and my guess is they will. The NY Times did a very nice piece on her a few weeks ago; my guess is that is the beginning of her rehabilitation and there will be much more, so stayed tuned!

    Contrast that against the scandals now coming home to roost for the current administration; the horrible economy and the unstable and dangerous conditions around the world, and you have a recipe for a different kind of hope and change.

    If not, then it will be Herman Cain :)

  • Dust

    He would lose the election, as tODD says in 7. But he won’t be the nominee anyway (my guess) and will go the way of Perry after a debate or two, if he does decide to try it on (size XXXXL!).

    The nominee will most likely be Sarah Palin. Only she can create that “fire in the belly” so crucial for victory, as per tODD in 7.

    Of course, the media will have to be nice to her this time, and my guess is they will. The NY Times did a very nice piece on her a few weeks ago; my guess is that is the beginning of her rehabilitation and there will be much more, so stayed tuned!

    Contrast that against the scandals now coming home to roost for the current administration; the horrible economy and the unstable and dangerous conditions around the world, and you have a recipe for a different kind of hope and change.

    If not, then it will be Herman Cain :)

  • DonS

    tODD @ 10: From Newsmax @ http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-Reagan-library-speech/2011/09/27/id/412468

    Still, supporters were not letting it go. In a brief question-and-answer session after his speech, it was the number two question from supporter. Christie joked that he had expected the “are you running” question to be the first.

    Again, after another audience member pressed Christie, he directed people to go to a website that compiled a video version of all his no answers back-to-back.

    “Click on it, those are the answers,” Christie said.

    A few minutes later, another questioner pleaded with him to run.

    “It’s extraordinarily flattering but by the same token, that heartfelt message you gave me is not a reason for me to do it,” Christie said. “That reason has to reside inside me.”

    He continued, “I take it in and I’m listening to every word of it and feeling it too. It’s a great great honor and I really appreciate it.”

    tODD, give it a rest. Nowhere does he say he is “reveling”, and the implication of that term is celebratory and prideful, the way Kevin took it @1. Why didn’t the headline writer use “extraordinaryily flattered” or “honored”, one wonders?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 10: From Newsmax @ http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-Reagan-library-speech/2011/09/27/id/412468

    Still, supporters were not letting it go. In a brief question-and-answer session after his speech, it was the number two question from supporter. Christie joked that he had expected the “are you running” question to be the first.

    Again, after another audience member pressed Christie, he directed people to go to a website that compiled a video version of all his no answers back-to-back.

    “Click on it, those are the answers,” Christie said.

    A few minutes later, another questioner pleaded with him to run.

    “It’s extraordinarily flattering but by the same token, that heartfelt message you gave me is not a reason for me to do it,” Christie said. “That reason has to reside inside me.”

    He continued, “I take it in and I’m listening to every word of it and feeling it too. It’s a great great honor and I really appreciate it.”

    tODD, give it a rest. Nowhere does he say he is “reveling”, and the implication of that term is celebratory and prideful, the way Kevin took it @1. Why didn’t the headline writer use “extraordinaryily flattered” or “honored”, one wonders?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@12) said,

    Nowhere does he say he is “reveling”

    Ah, I think I see the problem here. You believe, for some reason, that every word in a headline is an exact quotation? That is not the case. Headlines typically summarize an article, with at most one or two words — set off by quotation marks — being actual quotations.

    the implication of that term is celebratory and prideful

    Celebratory, yes. Prideful? No dictionary I can find — and I checked the OED gives a hint of that. Maybe this is your own issue? Merriam-Webster gave this example sentence: “reveled in the quiet after everyone had gone”. Do you get “prideful” from that?

    And your quote only furthers my point, adding “I really appreciate it” to the menagerie.

    Why didn’t the headline writer use “extraordinaryily flattered” or “honored”, one wonders?

    Well, orthography issues aside :), I wonder if you understand that headlines are supposed to be succinct, in general, so the first one is kinda out. “Honored” might have worked okay with a clarifying word or two, but how is this not a game of where, if a journalist doesn’t use your particular phrasing, he’s somehow “misleading” people?

    Honestly, the only thing I’m taking away from all this is that you still don’t like the media, to the point of carping over word choices that, according to the dictionary, seem quite justified.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@12) said,

    Nowhere does he say he is “reveling”

    Ah, I think I see the problem here. You believe, for some reason, that every word in a headline is an exact quotation? That is not the case. Headlines typically summarize an article, with at most one or two words — set off by quotation marks — being actual quotations.

    the implication of that term is celebratory and prideful

    Celebratory, yes. Prideful? No dictionary I can find — and I checked the OED gives a hint of that. Maybe this is your own issue? Merriam-Webster gave this example sentence: “reveled in the quiet after everyone had gone”. Do you get “prideful” from that?

    And your quote only furthers my point, adding “I really appreciate it” to the menagerie.

    Why didn’t the headline writer use “extraordinaryily flattered” or “honored”, one wonders?

    Well, orthography issues aside :), I wonder if you understand that headlines are supposed to be succinct, in general, so the first one is kinda out. “Honored” might have worked okay with a clarifying word or two, but how is this not a game of where, if a journalist doesn’t use your particular phrasing, he’s somehow “misleading” people?

    Honestly, the only thing I’m taking away from all this is that you still don’t like the media, to the point of carping over word choices that, according to the dictionary, seem quite justified.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 13: I do understand that headlines have a summary purpose, but I don’t think “reveling” is a fair summary of what he said. The headline writer is interpreting his statements that he is honored and flattered to mean that he is celebrating the attention. Where does he/she get that? You only need to look at Kevin’s comment @ 1 to see how the word “reveling” is taken in a manner totally different than what he actually said, and it struck me the same way. I don’t think we’re alone in that. So, you’re the one who brought up the issue of media bias — I didn’t say or imply that, just that the headline writer did a poor job, and wrote a misleading headline — not a fair summary.

    The posted article is from a politics blog with which I am not familiar — perhaps it is commonplace to infuse opinion into the reporting on that blog. Because I note a few other instances in the article itself: “And he was delighted to accept the praise and the urges to run, doing nothing to discourage the speculation and sometimes eager hopefulness from his most passionate supporters.” Where’d that come from? He has said a flat “no” on dozens of occasions and in a number of settings — how is that “doing nothing to discourage the speculation …?” Is he supposed to yell and rant and insult the questioners to prove he really means it?

    So, actually, it’s not just the headline — the whole article is misleading.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 13: I do understand that headlines have a summary purpose, but I don’t think “reveling” is a fair summary of what he said. The headline writer is interpreting his statements that he is honored and flattered to mean that he is celebrating the attention. Where does he/she get that? You only need to look at Kevin’s comment @ 1 to see how the word “reveling” is taken in a manner totally different than what he actually said, and it struck me the same way. I don’t think we’re alone in that. So, you’re the one who brought up the issue of media bias — I didn’t say or imply that, just that the headline writer did a poor job, and wrote a misleading headline — not a fair summary.

    The posted article is from a politics blog with which I am not familiar — perhaps it is commonplace to infuse opinion into the reporting on that blog. Because I note a few other instances in the article itself: “And he was delighted to accept the praise and the urges to run, doing nothing to discourage the speculation and sometimes eager hopefulness from his most passionate supporters.” Where’d that come from? He has said a flat “no” on dozens of occasions and in a number of settings — how is that “doing nothing to discourage the speculation …?” Is he supposed to yell and rant and insult the questioners to prove he really means it?

    So, actually, it’s not just the headline — the whole article is misleading.

  • Dust

    He could just say “no” and “next question please” or “have answered that and with all due respect, am not going to go any further than the answers given earlier, thank you” but instead he goes on and on about how grateful and flattered he is, and how it touches him and he is taking it all in, and yadda yadda yadda (spelling).

    Nothing against Christie, it would be hard to be less than flattered and am sure he meant everything he said, but it was my OPINION that he sure enjoyed the attention and liked to hear himself talk, and is impressed with his ability to stay loose while engaging in tough dialogue and intensive questions….not that these are damning character flaws, or diminishes his other larger abilities and qualities.

    He just seemed to me and others in the room with me, to sort of enjoy the attention. And we actually talked about how he could have put a stop to it as noted above, but he didn’t…actually was wondering why he just didn’t do that, and not even respond except with a simple no way? Perhaps he was just trying to be polite? Did not want to appear rude? My OPINION is he could have cut it short without being rude, but he was sort of enjoying the attention. In the case of the author it seems their observation was he was “reveling” in the attention.

    Would agree with DonS that that is an OPINION of the writer, but one I would share, although would not express it as there is no objective evidence, just my subjective OPINION. Perhaps “grovelling” would have been a more accurate choice of words :)

  • Dust

    He could just say “no” and “next question please” or “have answered that and with all due respect, am not going to go any further than the answers given earlier, thank you” but instead he goes on and on about how grateful and flattered he is, and how it touches him and he is taking it all in, and yadda yadda yadda (spelling).

    Nothing against Christie, it would be hard to be less than flattered and am sure he meant everything he said, but it was my OPINION that he sure enjoyed the attention and liked to hear himself talk, and is impressed with his ability to stay loose while engaging in tough dialogue and intensive questions….not that these are damning character flaws, or diminishes his other larger abilities and qualities.

    He just seemed to me and others in the room with me, to sort of enjoy the attention. And we actually talked about how he could have put a stop to it as noted above, but he didn’t…actually was wondering why he just didn’t do that, and not even respond except with a simple no way? Perhaps he was just trying to be polite? Did not want to appear rude? My OPINION is he could have cut it short without being rude, but he was sort of enjoying the attention. In the case of the author it seems their observation was he was “reveling” in the attention.

    Would agree with DonS that that is an OPINION of the writer, but one I would share, although would not express it as there is no objective evidence, just my subjective OPINION. Perhaps “grovelling” would have been a more accurate choice of words :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS, you said (@14):

    The headline writer is interpreting his statements that he is honored and flattered to mean that he is celebrating the attention.

    Ah, then the problem appears to be your apparent insistence on a single, rigid definition for “revel”. While “celebrate” is, sure, a potential reading for “revel”, I must remind you, once again, of other definitions with different meanings:

    To take intense pleasure or satisfaction <reveled in the quiet after everyone had gone> –Merriam-Webster

    To take intense delight or satisfaction in something; to gain great pleasure from. –OED

    So, once more, given that Christie himself has admitted to “really appreciating” the requests, finding them “extraordinarily flattering”, on what basis could you quibble with the word “revel”, given the above definitions?

    And, of course, your answer is that you and someone else (@1) didn’t think of those definitions, so the headline writer must be held accountable for “misleading” statements. Or something like that.

    You’re the one who brought up the issue of media bias

    Oh, so I was supposed to consider your complaints about “misleading” “unfair” journalism as completely unrelated to the consistent them of media bias found in a great deal of your comments on this blog? Just a coincidence that you were complaining about a journalist’s choice of words, was it? No larger point to be made?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS, you said (@14):

    The headline writer is interpreting his statements that he is honored and flattered to mean that he is celebrating the attention.

    Ah, then the problem appears to be your apparent insistence on a single, rigid definition for “revel”. While “celebrate” is, sure, a potential reading for “revel”, I must remind you, once again, of other definitions with different meanings:

    To take intense pleasure or satisfaction <reveled in the quiet after everyone had gone> –Merriam-Webster

    To take intense delight or satisfaction in something; to gain great pleasure from. –OED

    So, once more, given that Christie himself has admitted to “really appreciating” the requests, finding them “extraordinarily flattering”, on what basis could you quibble with the word “revel”, given the above definitions?

    And, of course, your answer is that you and someone else (@1) didn’t think of those definitions, so the headline writer must be held accountable for “misleading” statements. Or something like that.

    You’re the one who brought up the issue of media bias

    Oh, so I was supposed to consider your complaints about “misleading” “unfair” journalism as completely unrelated to the consistent them of media bias found in a great deal of your comments on this blog? Just a coincidence that you were complaining about a journalist’s choice of words, was it? No larger point to be made?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 16: I actually was not making a statement about media bias. Just that, in my opinion, the headline was misleading, and that my impression, having actually audibly heard the exchange, was not that he was reveling, but that he was being gracious, and enjoying the moment with his strong political supporters in a beautiful setting. There is nothing in his words that indicates “intense pleasure”, but rather his acknowledgement that he understands the incessant calls for him to run to be an honor, not a burden.

    One can be honored, and feel flattered, without feeling “intense pleasure” or satisfaction. A poor choice of words by the headline writer, which caused Kevin to think worse of Christie than his actual response warranted, in my opinion.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 16: I actually was not making a statement about media bias. Just that, in my opinion, the headline was misleading, and that my impression, having actually audibly heard the exchange, was not that he was reveling, but that he was being gracious, and enjoying the moment with his strong political supporters in a beautiful setting. There is nothing in his words that indicates “intense pleasure”, but rather his acknowledgement that he understands the incessant calls for him to run to be an honor, not a burden.

    One can be honored, and feel flattered, without feeling “intense pleasure” or satisfaction. A poor choice of words by the headline writer, which caused Kevin to think worse of Christie than his actual response warranted, in my opinion.

  • Craig

    Christie on a horse…poor horse

  • Craig

    Christie on a horse…poor horse

  • Dust

    DonS at 17….yes, would agree he did not feel “intense pleasure” with the questions. Come to think of it, now it seems as though he may have been a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing, and his clumsy attempts at modesty (my opinion) my have been due to trying to be respectful in that beautiful setting, with folks who are very active in politics and truly concerned about the future and so he felt it was his duty to be respectful and try to give thoughtful answers to them, out of respect for the occasion and their honest, sincere concerns? In any case, it seemed to me to be awkward at best, and some other more polished and seasoned and perhaps more “grown up” (not quite the right word) politician could have given better answers. Hopefully something a reporter couldn’t spin into an unflattering negative headline? Probably not…if the media doesn’t like you, they will find a way to make you look bad, even if they have to stretch a bit as did that writer…in my opinion, of course :)

  • Dust

    DonS at 17….yes, would agree he did not feel “intense pleasure” with the questions. Come to think of it, now it seems as though he may have been a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing, and his clumsy attempts at modesty (my opinion) my have been due to trying to be respectful in that beautiful setting, with folks who are very active in politics and truly concerned about the future and so he felt it was his duty to be respectful and try to give thoughtful answers to them, out of respect for the occasion and their honest, sincere concerns? In any case, it seemed to me to be awkward at best, and some other more polished and seasoned and perhaps more “grown up” (not quite the right word) politician could have given better answers. Hopefully something a reporter couldn’t spin into an unflattering negative headline? Probably not…if the media doesn’t like you, they will find a way to make you look bad, even if they have to stretch a bit as did that writer…in my opinion, of course :)

  • DonS

    Dust @ 19: Yes, this whole thing is kind of silly — I’m not really sure where tODD is going with this, or why he has been so persistent in pushing a point that really doesn’t make much sense — equating feeling honored or flattered with intense pleasure is a weird concept.

    Fact is, while he was at the Reagan Library he was intensely pressured by Republicans such as Nancy Reagan to make the run — this does seem more discomfiting than pleasurable if you really don’t want to do it. But, the reporter and headline writers reported the way that they wanted to, for whatever reasons they may have had.

  • DonS

    Dust @ 19: Yes, this whole thing is kind of silly — I’m not really sure where tODD is going with this, or why he has been so persistent in pushing a point that really doesn’t make much sense — equating feeling honored or flattered with intense pleasure is a weird concept.

    Fact is, while he was at the Reagan Library he was intensely pressured by Republicans such as Nancy Reagan to make the run — this does seem more discomfiting than pleasurable if you really don’t want to do it. But, the reporter and headline writers reported the way that they wanted to, for whatever reasons they may have had.

  • Dust

    Yes it’s sort of silly DonS. And agree that revelry or whatever is way too strong, if not inappropriate…but that’s my opinion. Intense pleasure sounds almost eerie, if not diabolical or perverse even, but hey that’s just my opinion and really can’t defend it any other way.

    Why do the reporters do it? In my opinion, to spin the story in the direction they wish to spin it, while giving themselves some kind of plausible deniability (spelling?) as to just what is your big problem with that word. In my humble opinion, of course! And both sides do it….after all they are only human and they aren’t the only ones who play that game :)

  • Dust

    Yes it’s sort of silly DonS. And agree that revelry or whatever is way too strong, if not inappropriate…but that’s my opinion. Intense pleasure sounds almost eerie, if not diabolical or perverse even, but hey that’s just my opinion and really can’t defend it any other way.

    Why do the reporters do it? In my opinion, to spin the story in the direction they wish to spin it, while giving themselves some kind of plausible deniability (spelling?) as to just what is your big problem with that word. In my humble opinion, of course! And both sides do it….after all they are only human and they aren’t the only ones who play that game :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The evolution of an opinion:

    He goes on and on about how grateful and flattered he is, and how it touches him and he is taking it all in, and yadda yadda yadda. … It was my OPINION that he sure enjoyed the attention and liked to hear himself talk. … He just seemed to me and others in the room with me, to sort of enjoy the attention. … That is an OPINION of the writer, but one I would share. (@15)

    Yes, would agree he did not feel “intense pleasure” with the questions. Come to think of it, now it seems as though he may have been a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing. … If the media doesn’t like you, they will find a way to make you look bad, even if they have to stretch a bit as did that writer (@19)

    Agree that revelry or whatever is way too strong, if not inappropriate. … Why do the reporters do it? In my opinion, to spin the story in the direction they wish to spin it, while giving themselves some kind of plausible deniability. (@21)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The evolution of an opinion:

    He goes on and on about how grateful and flattered he is, and how it touches him and he is taking it all in, and yadda yadda yadda. … It was my OPINION that he sure enjoyed the attention and liked to hear himself talk. … He just seemed to me and others in the room with me, to sort of enjoy the attention. … That is an OPINION of the writer, but one I would share. (@15)

    Yes, would agree he did not feel “intense pleasure” with the questions. Come to think of it, now it seems as though he may have been a bit uncomfortable with the whole thing. … If the media doesn’t like you, they will find a way to make you look bad, even if they have to stretch a bit as did that writer (@19)

    Agree that revelry or whatever is way too strong, if not inappropriate. … Why do the reporters do it? In my opinion, to spin the story in the direction they wish to spin it, while giving themselves some kind of plausible deniability. (@21)

  • steve

    All I know is that 22 posts is far too much analysis of a news headline. Worst case, the person who wrote it had a bias: no surprises there. Best case, they didn’t put much though into it at all: still no surprises there.

  • steve

    All I know is that 22 posts is far too much analysis of a news headline. Worst case, the person who wrote it had a bias: no surprises there. Best case, they didn’t put much though into it at all: still no surprises there.

  • Dust

    Thanks tODD for the compliment…some of us can evolve, of course towards a more intelligent life form….and smart enough to not try and explain it to lower forms of intelligence :)

    as to DonS again….yes, silly and silly to PRETEND that that is NOT what is going on ;

  • Dust

    Thanks tODD for the compliment…some of us can evolve, of course towards a more intelligent life form….and smart enough to not try and explain it to lower forms of intelligence :)

    as to DonS again….yes, silly and silly to PRETEND that that is NOT what is going on ;

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Steve (@23), so, naturally, you decided to make it 23 posts.

    Also, I’m pretty certain that the “best case” would be that the headline got it exactly right.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Steve (@23), so, naturally, you decided to make it 23 posts.

    Also, I’m pretty certain that the “best case” would be that the headline got it exactly right.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    So having thoroughly analyzed the headline in the linked article, could we now address the substantive question? Would Christie make a good candidate and a good president?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    So having thoroughly analyzed the headline in the linked article, could we now address the substantive question? Would Christie make a good candidate and a good president?

  • DonS

    Oh, so you actually want us to address the question? :-)

    Well, as I said @ 3, I don’t think he is going to run, and if he did change his mind and decide to run now there would be questions about both his heart for the race and as to whether he could power up a campaign fast enough to be viable, with the first votes occurring in only some 16 weeks. When it is his time, I think he would be a good candidate. He is articulate, and has an ability to focus on the issues, rather than other candidates. He presents a vision, and isn’t afraid to tell the special interests that their causes are hurting the country. He would be attacked from both the left and the right, as he is not particularly conservative on some of the social issues, as is typical for a New Jersey Republican. I’m not sure how his views would translate on some of the essential conservative issues, such as opposing federal funding for abortion, vowing to appoint strict constructionist judges, and 2nd Amendment rights — as long as he toes the line on those essential big issues I think most conservatives would be glad to have him in the race. If nothing else, they would appreciate his efforts to focus the campaign on articulation of the issues and away from the petty backstabbing, Republicans eating Republicans, that we’ve seen so far.

  • DonS

    Oh, so you actually want us to address the question? :-)

    Well, as I said @ 3, I don’t think he is going to run, and if he did change his mind and decide to run now there would be questions about both his heart for the race and as to whether he could power up a campaign fast enough to be viable, with the first votes occurring in only some 16 weeks. When it is his time, I think he would be a good candidate. He is articulate, and has an ability to focus on the issues, rather than other candidates. He presents a vision, and isn’t afraid to tell the special interests that their causes are hurting the country. He would be attacked from both the left and the right, as he is not particularly conservative on some of the social issues, as is typical for a New Jersey Republican. I’m not sure how his views would translate on some of the essential conservative issues, such as opposing federal funding for abortion, vowing to appoint strict constructionist judges, and 2nd Amendment rights — as long as he toes the line on those essential big issues I think most conservatives would be glad to have him in the race. If nothing else, they would appreciate his efforts to focus the campaign on articulation of the issues and away from the petty backstabbing, Republicans eating Republicans, that we’ve seen so far.

  • moallen

    I think Christie, the great reveler who endlessly exults in pleas to run, teasing the masses with his massive girth, would be the most powerful candidate among all the Republicans whose names have been tossed around. Stronger than Perry, stronger than Palin, stronger than Romney. I think he could win. Especially with a strategically chosen running mate. There’s a reason people want him to run – he has a fearless quality that is so lacking in most politicians.

  • moallen

    I think Christie, the great reveler who endlessly exults in pleas to run, teasing the masses with his massive girth, would be the most powerful candidate among all the Republicans whose names have been tossed around. Stronger than Perry, stronger than Palin, stronger than Romney. I think he could win. Especially with a strategically chosen running mate. There’s a reason people want him to run – he has a fearless quality that is so lacking in most politicians.

  • Dust

    Although he would be a better POTUS than our current one, he would not be a good candidate (just as he said, too young, too inexperienced and my guess is he would not do well in debates…but who knows, he should give it a try and prove me wrong! also, if his heart is not in it and he runs just because, that will show and turn people off). tODD is correct on this, and it will be like 04 with the parties swapped.

    Am sure Dr. Veith wants him to run for this very reason, so his prediction of a reelection for Obama will come to pass :)

  • Dust

    Although he would be a better POTUS than our current one, he would not be a good candidate (just as he said, too young, too inexperienced and my guess is he would not do well in debates…but who knows, he should give it a try and prove me wrong! also, if his heart is not in it and he runs just because, that will show and turn people off). tODD is correct on this, and it will be like 04 with the parties swapped.

    Am sure Dr. Veith wants him to run for this very reason, so his prediction of a reelection for Obama will come to pass :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Might Christie make a good candidate? In some abstract sense, perhaps. But he’d be a fool to run in this election.

    Running against an incumbent is hard work, no matter how little you may esteem him. Incumbents come with a built-in fund-raising advantage. Plus they don’t have to go through a grueling primary season. They are, by nature of their incumbency, shoo-ins for their party’s support from Day One. At least in America, politicians who face a contested primary must very delicately balance their early appeals to their base with the centrist overtures they’ll later have to make. Such need for fancy footwork can easily trip up a politician.

    All that, and this: if the eventual Republican nominee from this year doesn’t win, he almost certainly won’t be considered a viable candidate in 2016 when the race would be wide open. John Kerry … who?

    Christie is young enough that he can easily wait until 2016 (God willing). At that point, if Veith is right, it’ll be a full primary for both parties, like 2008, so those running will all be at an equal advantage, in theory.

    And besides, he only took office in 2010. Given how much Republicans pilloried Obama for his lack of experience, you’d think a guy who has served less than two years in public office might want to wait a few years until he at least has a full term behind him. If he runs in 2012, he’ll look like just the kind of over-eager ladder-climber that Republicans accused Obama of being. If he waits until 2016, he’ll be partly into his second term as governor … like one George W. Bush was when he ran for President.

    Honestly, I cannot see a single reason why Christie should run in 2012. And if he, for some reason, actually chooses to run this election, it would cause me to seriously question his political savvy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Might Christie make a good candidate? In some abstract sense, perhaps. But he’d be a fool to run in this election.

    Running against an incumbent is hard work, no matter how little you may esteem him. Incumbents come with a built-in fund-raising advantage. Plus they don’t have to go through a grueling primary season. They are, by nature of their incumbency, shoo-ins for their party’s support from Day One. At least in America, politicians who face a contested primary must very delicately balance their early appeals to their base with the centrist overtures they’ll later have to make. Such need for fancy footwork can easily trip up a politician.

    All that, and this: if the eventual Republican nominee from this year doesn’t win, he almost certainly won’t be considered a viable candidate in 2016 when the race would be wide open. John Kerry … who?

    Christie is young enough that he can easily wait until 2016 (God willing). At that point, if Veith is right, it’ll be a full primary for both parties, like 2008, so those running will all be at an equal advantage, in theory.

    And besides, he only took office in 2010. Given how much Republicans pilloried Obama for his lack of experience, you’d think a guy who has served less than two years in public office might want to wait a few years until he at least has a full term behind him. If he runs in 2012, he’ll look like just the kind of over-eager ladder-climber that Republicans accused Obama of being. If he waits until 2016, he’ll be partly into his second term as governor … like one George W. Bush was when he ran for President.

    Honestly, I cannot see a single reason why Christie should run in 2012. And if he, for some reason, actually chooses to run this election, it would cause me to seriously question his political savvy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Moallen (@28) said:

    There’s a reason people want him to run

    Sure, but I doubt it’s the one you listed. No, they want him to run because they don’t like their other options. They need a new hero, one that’s not tarnished like their other once-potential heroes.

    I mean, there was a reason people wanted Perry to run, as well. And that love affair lasted all of, what, a month — until Perry actually started showing up on people’s TV screens and radars. Now people want Christie to fill Perry’s slot.

    Thing is, I’m still convinced that Perry will win the nomination. But the rapidity with which people have cooled on him and are ready to throw him under the bus seems to me a pretty good indicator — should I prove correct — that he stands a very poor chance of winning the presidency.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Moallen (@28) said:

    There’s a reason people want him to run

    Sure, but I doubt it’s the one you listed. No, they want him to run because they don’t like their other options. They need a new hero, one that’s not tarnished like their other once-potential heroes.

    I mean, there was a reason people wanted Perry to run, as well. And that love affair lasted all of, what, a month — until Perry actually started showing up on people’s TV screens and radars. Now people want Christie to fill Perry’s slot.

    Thing is, I’m still convinced that Perry will win the nomination. But the rapidity with which people have cooled on him and are ready to throw him under the bus seems to me a pretty good indicator — should I prove correct — that he stands a very poor chance of winning the presidency.

  • moallen

    @tODD 31

    I never understood the clamor for Perry. At all. I live in Texas and from what I can tell Perry mostly does nothing and stays out of the way (which is not a bad thing). I was not and am not impressed with Perry. On the other hand, I have been following Christie since before his election and am impressed. He won in NJ, but is far from Christie Whitman in approach or policies. I could never see Pery as President, however Christie could make it, despite his rotundity.

  • moallen

    @tODD 31

    I never understood the clamor for Perry. At all. I live in Texas and from what I can tell Perry mostly does nothing and stays out of the way (which is not a bad thing). I was not and am not impressed with Perry. On the other hand, I have been following Christie since before his election and am impressed. He won in NJ, but is far from Christie Whitman in approach or policies. I could never see Pery as President, however Christie could make it, despite his rotundity.

  • Dust

    Perry and Christie are both “regional” politicians and the “schtick” that brought them success in their backyards, in a particular time and place, just won’t play well on a national stage, in my humble opinion.

    To back that up a bit, let me submit exhibit number 1 – Perry’s debate debacle! My guess is the same fate awaits Christie?

  • Dust

    Perry and Christie are both “regional” politicians and the “schtick” that brought them success in their backyards, in a particular time and place, just won’t play well on a national stage, in my humble opinion.

    To back that up a bit, let me submit exhibit number 1 – Perry’s debate debacle! My guess is the same fate awaits Christie?

  • Martin J.

    I need to read thru these comments to catch up, but wanted to say: I love Christie. Can you imagine, if his middle name is Christopher?? Wow…

  • Martin J.

    I need to read thru these comments to catch up, but wanted to say: I love Christie. Can you imagine, if his middle name is Christopher?? Wow…

  • Martin J.

    Oh durn. I just read thru all these comments :(
    What a ginormous waste of time. Except: #33. Dust – that’s a pretty good insight. Hadn’t thought about it before, but think your dead on.

  • Martin J.

    Oh durn. I just read thru all these comments :(
    What a ginormous waste of time. Except: #33. Dust – that’s a pretty good insight. Hadn’t thought about it before, but think your dead on.

  • moallen

    @Dust 33

    I think Christie massively appeals to people who are tired of the same old political games. I am a huge fan. If he runs, I will definitely support Perry, and as I said I live in Texas. He would definitely give me a candidate to support.

  • moallen

    @Dust 33

    I think Christie massively appeals to people who are tired of the same old political games. I am a huge fan. If he runs, I will definitely support Perry, and as I said I live in Texas. He would definitely give me a candidate to support.

  • helen

    An observation was made to me that, should Perry run and win, it would get him out of Texas,
    which the observer thought would be better for Texas.

  • helen

    An observation was made to me that, should Perry run and win, it would get him out of Texas,
    which the observer thought would be better for Texas.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X