POLITICS OCTOBER 4, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
And so it ends—not with a bang, but a wimp-out. Chris Christie, who had become the most courted reluctant Republican since Dwight Eisenhower, permanently closed the door Tuesday afternoon on a 2012 White House run: “Now is not my time. I have a commitment to New Jersey that I just can’t abandon.” A self-described “regular guy from New Jersey,” Christie exudes more self-confidence than even Rick Perry out shooting coyotes. During his marathon press conference that went on so long that all three cable news networks cut to commercials, Christie channeled Popeye with his declaration, “I am who I am.” But for all his seeming candor and self-awareness (“You’ve got to know who you are in this life”), Christie may be deluding himself with his implicit belief that his time will come again during another presidential cycle. In truth, the combination of a weak Republican field and a vulnerable Democratic incumbent is a shimmering opportunity that may appear only once in Christie’s political lifetime.
Mitt Romney has everything going for him as the GOP front-runner: crisp debate performances, a disciplined campaign style, and a nine-digit personal fortune that can cover any fund-raising shortfall. But unable to get above 25 percent in the national polls, what Romney lacks—either because of his man-for-all-seasons ideological history or his cool demeanor—are actual Republicans enthusiastic about his candidacy. Meanwhile, Rick Perry is in free fall, with the three-term Texas governor running neck-and-neck with Herman Cain, a pizza executive with a thorough grounding in pepperoni. Even before the Washington Post revealed that the Perry family hunting camp came with a racial slur as its name, the Texas governor’s scorn for Social Security and the federal income tax meant that he was not the sort of Republican who would run well into the battleground states of the Midwest.
Of course, there was no guarantee that Christie would have fared well as a late-starting 
candidate. For all his love of Bruce Springsteen’s music, Christie may not have been born to run for the presidency. Nothing in his background as a federal prosecutor and no-nonsense governor gives Christie instant expertise about Pakistan, monetary policy, or natural gas pipelines. Christie’s bantering with the press corps might invite memories of John McCain’s relaxed style during the 2000 primaries, or it might have produced a TV moment yanked out of context and derisively repeated on YouTube. About all that can be said about the Christie presidential campaign that was not to be was that it would have been infinitely more interesting than chronicling Romney’s long march as the candidate of inevitability.
If ever there is a moment for the Republican long-shots, it is now. For all the obvious weaknesses of Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and even Newt Gingrich and (yikes!) Michele Bachmann, each of them was willing to take the fatal step and to stand before the TV cameras to declare, “I am a candidate for president.” That act of ego-driven courage separates them from the long grey line of major GOP refusniks like Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, John Thune, and now Christie. As Woody Allen put it—and this is the accurate version courtesy of the Yale Book of Quotations—“Showing up is 80 percent of life.”
Romney does not offer a dramatic story line, but he certainly has been having a run of good fortune, with Christie’s this-time-it’s-final decision serving as the cherry on the cake. Perry’s problems with the fading coat of whitewash covering a rock emblazoned with the prior name of the hunting camp can serve as a symbol for the way that the I-am-a-winner veneer is fading off his presidential candidacy. While Romney has been attacking the Texas governor as if it were the eve of the Iowa caucuses, it is Perry who mangled beyond coherence a debate question about Pakistan and all but accused Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke of contemplating treason. The suddenly fast-forward political calendar (New Year’s Eve again in Des Moines?) means that a month has been sliced from the time needed to knock Romney out of the catbird seat.
Make no mistake: There is no greater act of hubris in political journalism than pronouncing a presidential race all but over three months before the Iowa caucuses. Romney may never get over his 25-percent threshold, Perry could rebound, some other active candidate could surge, or a surprise Republican could emerge from the sidelines and start sprinting towards the end zone. But on the day that Chris Christie bowed out, the New Jersey governor could rightly look at the uninspiring Republican cast and have claimed in Marlon Brando-fashion, “I coulda been a contender.”
Walter Shapiro is a special correspondent for The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter @waltershapiroPD.
30 comments
Whatever. Those who don't reside in the axis of meaningful existence have no idea who Christie is, or could be. But Shapiro's point, that it's wide open for somebody, somebody, to just show up, is absolutely true.
- rayward
October 4, 2011 at 6:13pm
If this was Christie's one shot at becoming President, then he never had a shot. Romney would take him apart. At most, Christie could play kingmaker, taking enough establishment support from Romney to let Cain or Perry sneak in. That said, if Christie does harbor ambitions for 2016, it may have been a mistake to stay out this time. Romney is benefiting enormously from having done this before. He's learned what his negatives are and refined his methods for dealing with them, and he knows how things will play on the national stage. Just compare the discipline and focus of his operation to that of any other Republican candidate. There's a saying in software development: "Build one to throw away." Your first crack at a problem, you put together some crude hack of a solution. In the process, you come to understand the problem and all of its ramifications. Then you throw out your crude hack, start over, and build a clean, well-designed solution that handles everything efficiently and smoothly. Not everyone can afford to do this, of course, but it's hugely beneficial for those who can. 2008 was Romney's "one to throw away." 2012 could have been Christie's.
- Dausuul
October 4, 2011 at 6:32pm
Gary Johnson is the real winner after Christie's announcement today.
- Konstantin
October 4, 2011 at 8:16pm
Seems that relentless critic of President Obama, Sen. Mitch McConnell, should have a turn to run or reject the opportunity. The Kentucky senator is the most outspoken basher among all Republicans.
- lespin
October 4, 2011 at 8:19pm
Huh? On the same TNR page form which I linked into this story, there was a story about Texas Senator Pappy Pas the Biscuits O'Daniel, who in 1941 won his job when he defeated a pesky congressman from Austin in a special election. That was the only election Lyndon Johnson ever lost. Political obituaries should not be written until the politician's body is cold. Christie is a smart guy, who has man positions I detest. Yet unlike the shape shifters or zealots who now populate the political universe, he is in your face, with no apologies for who he is. He reminds me of another large life force from the mid-Atlantic, Philadlephia Mayor Frank Rizzo, who was detestable but irresistible. I suppose Shapiro has never met a life force like this (I met Rizzo-wow!). The man has a future and if the Democrats don't plan for it they will be a bug on the windshield of that Mack truck that is the governor of New Jersey.
- SFergessen
October 4, 2011 at 9:08pm
....But Shapiro's point, that it's wide open for somebody, somebody, to just show up, is absolutely true... I'm not sure that's his point. Christie might have given a Romney, my choice for likely winner, a run for his money. But that's because Christie is Christie, not just somebody. Somebody, someobody, did just show up--Perry. But just doing that seems not to be availing him.
- basman
October 4, 2011 at 9:14pm
Oh yeah, one other thing, this: ...But for all his seeming candor and self-awareness (“You’ve got to know who you are in this life”), Christie may be deluding himself with his implicit belief that his time will come again during another presidential cycle. In truth, the combination of a weak Republican field and a vulnerable Democratic incumbent is a shimmering opportunity that may appear only once in Christie’s political lifetime.... Why does Shapiro think that Christie is any less capable than he is at calculating his chances and understanding randomness and contingencies of what 4 or maybe 8 years will bring? ...maybe deluding himself...Respectfully, I think not, not even close.
- basman
October 4, 2011 at 9:19pm
"And so it ends—not with a bang, but a wimp-out." Hmmm. So some non-descript scribbler has the temerity to belittle the moral courage of the Governor of New Jersey and label him as a wimp. What a joke. If Shapiro ever ventured to set foot in the arena, THEN he might be in a position to render contemptuous verdicts on the other gladiators. It's as though Christie has somehow failed in his duty by refusing to provide the commentariat with adequate grist for its analytical mill over the next year. The task of running New Jersey is obviously rather uninteresting to Shapiro. I mean, after all, a journalist can't expect to write and sell books about New Jersey politics. Christie is doing the smart thing: taking time to learn the art of governance and executive leadership. Those, like Obama, who fail to build an adequate experiential base suffer for it later on when it's to late for remedial action. The real question here is how did the Republican Party sink so low that its establishment is desperately trying to yank a first-term governor of a significant and democratic-leaning state who has shown some inkling of competence and leadership ability out of his position and throw him into the most difficult job in the world? Perhaps its the right time for the Republicans to run Romulus Augustulus at the top of the ticket.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
October 4, 2011 at 10:58pm
The article's title is that this was Christie's best shot to be president. It then argues that it was his best shot to be the Republican nominee. These are two different things. I think Obama is still the favorite to win. If so, why spend all one's time and energy to win the Republican nomination only to have an uphill fight against the incumbent? If Christie could win the primary in 2012, he would also have a good shot in 2016 (would the Republican field be any stronger then? I don't see a deep bench here...), and the presidency would be an open seat with Democrats also going through what may be a bruising and money-sapping primary process. So I don't see why his chances wouldn't be just as good if not better in 2016. ...unless the economy is just terrible going into the 2012 elections, in which case anyone might be able to beat Obama--but I don't think things will be that bad (though they obviously won't be great either).
- dsimon
October 5, 2011 at 1:37am
His one shot? That implies that he had a shot. He didn't. Bully for him that he was smart enough and/or humble enough to know it.
- AaronW
October 5, 2011 at 2:41am
"Christie is doing the smart thing: taking time to learn the art of governance and executive leadership. Those, like Obama, who fail to build an adequate experiential base suffer for it later on when it's to late for remedial action." I'd argue that Christie's decision was more a political calculation than one based on gaining the necessary experience, but otherwise I grant your point, Xenophon. Whatever his mix of reasons, Christie wisely decided this wasn't his time.
- Thunderroad
October 5, 2011 at 4:39am
Romney will take the nomination and the general election. The Republicans will also win the senate and then they will have all three branches of government. Can you spell fascism? Oh happy day!
- paskunac
October 5, 2011 at 6:27am
paskunac is right on. The Repubs with BHO as the enabler have guaranteed at least 9% unemployment next September. Maybe higher (If above 9.5, BHO IS toast). And If he wins, BHO sure ain't gonna have coattails to get a Dem House or keep the Senate. In 2012 your choice is a wimpy semi-Dem vs a wimpy Repub (Mittens) or a wacko Repub (Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Pa;lin-- take your pick). The ONLY hope for Progressive Dems is that the economy collapses pdq (a collapse of the euro and EU economies would do it) rather than later -- and a Progressive challenges BHO. [say Schweitzer of Montana]. If there's time for a non-Mittens Repub-- there's time for a non-mittens-type Dem.
- drofnats1
October 5, 2011 at 7:42am
I'm close enough to Jersey to know that as long as the Democrats run a decent candidate, Christie will lose in 2013. That's why it's his "only shot". If things go as planned he will be running as a former one-term politician, kind of like Romney in 2008. Except that he will also have the baggage of NJ to deal with. Lacking a personal fortune means you can't just count on the money falling out of fat air to run one to throw away, as Dausuul notes. Not being liked by half the state you're governing means that you can't risk ignoring it, embittering your state's residents, and guaranteeing you don't win in 2013 regardless of how badly you throw 2012 away.
- chaitless
October 5, 2011 at 8:09am
talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. America will not elect a morbidly obese man, if he loses a hundred pounds and pulls a Mike Huckabee (and everyone liked him even if they didn't vote for him) then he will never get a shot. If Christie is a normal man then he must dread the prospect of giving a full medical report, such as his weight and other health issues.
- blackton
October 5, 2011 at 10:15am
If Walter Shapiro is solely going to read the GOP field through the eyes of a partisan democrat, he misses what is really going on. Shapiro should wait until the next debate, Oct. 11, before he dazzles us with his next pithy analysis. Example: the painted rock scandal has done more damage to Cain and Romney than to Perry in the GOP base, so please focus on at least one real issue. Like, why Obama is a lock on the Democratic nomination for 2012. "Perry could rebound" indeed, since his plunge in the polls was mostly due to a drop in TEA Party support over Perry's defense of broadly popular (in Texas) Texas in-state tuition for the approximately 16,000 (of more than one million students) children of illegal immigrants. And his weak debate performance in Orlando. Last night that Jon Stewart provided the Romney flip-flop montage that Perry stumbled with: "Indecision 2012 - The Great Right Hope - The Manchurian Candi-Dad: The only obstacle to Mitt Romney winning next year's Republican nomination is that, up until recently, he was the antithesis of everything Republicans stand for. (04:55)" http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-4-2011/indecision-2012---the-great-right-hope---the-manchurian-candi-dad The manic recruitment of Chris Christie was a reflection of the absence of enthusiasm for Romney. Personally, although it does not bother me, I think Gov. "Get the hell off the beach" Christie's use of certain words was NOT going to play well with GOP primary voters. Six more debates to come. Anything could happen, except that Romney will still be stuck below 30% with the GOP. Easier for them to forgive Newt's messy personal life than Romney's silver-spoon flipper. And, Perry will no longer be the center-stage punching bag. Perry's mistake was to stop being Perry after his debut, i.e., dropping the "provocative language". Meanwhile, Herman Cain is embarking on a month-long book tour.
- K2K
October 5, 2011 at 11:07am
I have to disagree with Walter on a few points. First of all, the idea that Christie "wimped out" by choosing to fulfill his duties as Governor of New Jersey (which is, after all, a full-time job, unlike Mr. Perry's in Texas) is rather silly. Christie does not owe anything to you or anyone else in the political press corps, Walter. If the man wants to stay in Jersey and not subject himself to the hell of an expensive, months-long political campaign in which is every burp will be scrutinized by an army of writers, bloggers, and TV pundits - let him. Frankly, I think he's smarter for it. Second of all, the idea that Christie has a serious chance to win either the Republican nomination or the presidency itself is a joke. As plenty of commentators (including some for this very magazine, I believe) have noted, the very qualities that could potentially make Mr. Christie an appealing general election nominee - his moderate stances on issues like gun control and climate change - are what would make him anathema to the GOP base. For goodness' sake, man, Governor Perry is taking heat from the Tea Party for acknowledging that undocumented immigrants have certain human rights. And the one candidate that has explicitly and unambiguously stated his belief in man-made climate change - Jon Huntsman - is barely an asterisk in the polls. For that matter, even if Mr. Christie could win his party's nomination, it's not hard to see how unappealing he would be to the electorate as a whole. His positions on immigration and social issues aside, the man comes across as a third-rate schoolyard bully when confronted with a voter who disagrees with him on an issue. Think of all the "town hall" style forums presidential candidates do all across the country. Americans simply will not elect an overweight, in-your-face jerk who shouts down people who disagree with him. If you think I'm wrong, ask yourself if Bill O'Reilly would have an honest chance at being elected President of the United States. Case closed. Finally, the idea that this was Mr. Christie's "one shot" at making a serious run for the presidency is also quite silly. The man is incredibly young (49, according to Wikipedia) and not even finished with a single term as governor of his state. Given the weakness of the Republican field, it seems more likely than not that President Obama will win reelection, leaving the GOP nomination wide open in 2016. Even if a Republican defeats Obama next year, Christie will still be a few years shy of 60 in 2020, the next time the party's nomination would be open again. Personally, I'd advise him to hit the treadmill and start taking classes on anger management and interpersonal relationships NOW. His best shot at the White House may be years ahead of him.
- obriendavi
October 5, 2011 at 1:56pm
Drofnats, just curious -- what do you do for a living that you are so eager to have a global economic collapse? Or have you just shorted all stocks with your life savings, so that you will be paying cash for everything the rest of your life?
- wildboy
October 5, 2011 at 3:34pm
Pollyanna checking in here. Isn't it just possible that what Christie said about not being ready is correct? Heaven forbid, there may just be some politicians out there who do not automatically assume that the alpha-male will to power is for them? Not now, anyway? Fact is, the guy probably knows about as much about Pakistan as Perry does. Knowing that, Chrisite made the right call and Perry the bad one.
- gwcross
October 5, 2011 at 5:16pm
K2K, you seem to be enamored of Rick Perry as ever. Next thing we know, he will be caught in bed with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy", and you will say that pointing this out just reflects poorly on his opponents and that the Governor was just trying to help the poor youngster with their insomnia.
- wildboy
October 5, 2011 at 5:32pm
wildboy: you continue to confuse my observations on the GOP field with being "enamored of Rick Perry". Like almost everyone else at TNR, you do not understand how much the GOP does NOT want Romney to win the nomination, because he generates less enthusiasm than a canteloupe from Colorado. I want Admiral Mike Mullen to run for president. I got suckered by John Edwards for about two months in 2004. No one since then has made me "enamored". However, watching Perry is far more interesting than anyone else, just like listening to Newt Gingrich is more interesting than any other candidate. Keeps me from going postal over the collapse of confidence under Obama. I mean POSTAL!
- K2K
October 5, 2011 at 7:17pm
Wow, that rickperry.org website is a bit slow to load. Anyhow, it seems that he wants, if he becomes president, to "invest heavily in job creation." Great. But let's wait for when that sentence disappears. He puts himself out there as a kind of tough pragmatist. Like an Obama whose big plus is that he's a white guy from Texas.
- ironyroad
October 5, 2011 at 9:27pm
Irony nails is on Rick Perry. Gee, invest heavily in job creation - what an effing genius. Maybe we can all work at McDonalds. I actually think Shapiro is right on Christie - maybe he'll be freed up now to help the GOP grow up and become a respectable party again. I won't hold my breath.
- WandreyCer
October 6, 2011 at 8:11am
I dunno, K2K, there are many more interesting GOP candidates to watch than Rick Perry -- Gary Johnson, for one, and also Rick Santorum is good for a laugh at almost any debate. And watching Ron Paul onstage is as close as we get today to the olden days when people could pay two shillings to the warden of Bethlehem Asylum in London (a/k/a Bedlam) to watch the insane cavort behind iron bars. I am fully aware that GOP voters don't like and don't trust Mitt Romney -- which means that there will be a really interesting dynamic if he becomes the nominee and even more interesting if he doesn't pick a fire-breathing Evangelical as his running mate. I certainly see a third party or at least mass apathy among the right-wing base in that case. But you do seem to have a major crush on Rick Perry that is impervious to just about every piece of evidence that has emerged of his stupidity, phoniness, unreadiness and nastiness since he joined the race. But, given the fact that you admit to having been taken in by John Edwards in 2004, I think that you come by your Perry-crush honestly. Handsome Southerners with blow-dried hair can count on your vote regardless of party.
- wildboy
October 6, 2011 at 9:35am
I used to believe that Perry is as weak as he looks. I find this debate-fluffing habit a little mysterious. I mean, you don't have to internalize the detail of a foreign policy problem to know what the key basic elements are (e.g. Pakistan and nukes). Unless he's genuinely clueless (as opposed to a good actor), then perhaps he is the guy who couldn't understand the question about abstinence-only sex education because he doesn't grasp conceptually that policy and result are two different things. I'm telling you, the GOP made a big mistake in not courting Josh Brolin.
- ironyroad
October 6, 2011 at 12:42pm
Oh, sorry --- that's "I used to believe that Perry could not be . . . ." I really wish TNR would give us a edit window of a few minutes!
- ironyroad
October 6, 2011 at 12:44pm
wildboy: WRONG on "Handsome Southerners with blow-dried hair can count on your vote regardless of party." more like my affinity for Southerners who say yes, ma'am and yes, sir; who did NOT go to elite colleges; and actually spent some time working on a real farm or real factory. My biggest mistake in life was applying and getting scholarship/loan/job to an elite NE college instead of going to University of Florida with my high school friends. But, I have always believed since college that every American should either 1) work in a factory (I did it for four years after grad school in industrial engineering), 2) work on a farm, or 3) serve in the military. I met too many trust-fund rich kids in college to ever respect them, except for one housemate from...Texas who was richest of all, but most down to earth. As to Rick Perry? The more I research, the more I respect him. What passes for "evidence" in TNR is a joke. Mitt Romney will make BAIN the new four letter word that Obama needs. Wait for the body count in BAIN-job destruction during Romney's tenure. The GOP just can NOT get in line behind him no matter how hard the msm media tries, which leaves Perry or Gingrich, because Cain just shot himself on the foot before embarking on his book tour.
- K2K
October 6, 2011 at 5:45pm
Trust-fund rich kids who are recent or current presidents: George W. Bush Not TFRC's who are recent or current presidents Barack Obama Bill Clinton Ronald Reagan I leave out Bush 41 because I'm not quite comfortable ignoring the role his WW2 service played -- lots of rich kids went to war. But it's clear that none of the recent cluster of presidents, with the exception of the Bushes, came from anything resembling "rich" or "elite" backgrounds. I'm not sure what I'm saying here -- perhaps that Perry doesn't have much about his background that Clinton didn't have (except perhaps the missing father).
- ironyroad
October 6, 2011 at 7:15pm
irony: Obama and Clinton both graduated from elite colleges and law schools. Truman has the most in common with Perry's bio, including falling in love with a childhood sweetheart for life. except Truman was the only president, due to lack of family funds, since at least McKinley who did not have a college degree. I am currently favoring any politician who is NOT a lawyer. end of discussion since you, of all TNR commenters, can not comprehend that a registered democrat will NOT vote for Obama because of his failure in leadership, a failure you do not see. you should try to respect that neither of us can ever change the other's perception of Obama, and that you can never understand my disillusionment with most of the democratic party since 2004. and that, the more I study history, the more I reject post-modern multi-cultural transnationalism as realistic. humans are tribal by nature, and evolution has not erased that.
- K2K
October 6, 2011 at 7:30pm
Unless graduating is some kind of scuzzy misdemeanor, what's your point K2K? Is dropping out better? Incidentally, why do all the people who rail against "elite" institutions want their kids to go to these places? That's what puzzles me. And the service academies are also "elite schools" -- often harder to get into than the Ivies. Are they bad news too? We have no problems with elites in sport, why should we in education? I strongly suggest that getting into a good college -- especially if your family doesn't have that educational background, if you have to struggle for it -- and graduating is not a sign of weak character. Obama has zilch to do with this. This is my personal campaign against stupidity.
- ironyroad
October 6, 2011 at 7:48pm