Why conservatives should rally around Chris Christie right now

By Dean L

Really?  Help Chris Christie? Look, I understand that Chris Christie is not our favorite conservative.  And I understand that he is not who we most want to go up against Hillary Clinton in 2016.  I know we all think that she should be beatable by anybody (though that notion will look less and less likely as the media eventually all jump on her bandwagon) in the next presidential election.  And I know that he's exhibited traits of RINOism.  A lot of conservatives are probably feeling relief that his inevitability on the GOP nomination has taken a hit.  Personally, I would prefer at this point he not be the GOP nominee for a number of reasons.  But...

There are a few things we as conservatives should consider before we hop on the liberal-driven, anti-Christie bandwagon.  Firstly, I give you Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment as a simple reminder:
The so-called 11th Commandment has served the Republican Party well over the years. Ronald Reagan is often given credit for coming up with the rule, but in fact, it was someone else's idea -- someone named Gaylord Parkinson, who years ago was chairman of the Republican Party in California. In September 1965, as California Republicans (including Reagan) prepared to compete for the GOP nomination for governor, Parkinson decreed that the candidates should refrain from attacking each other. He called it the 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." The idea was to foster party unity and avoid the acrimony of the year before, when moderate and conservative Republicans were bitterly divided over their presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater.
Chris Christie is still a Republican.  He's certainly less conservative than many other Republicans, but he has to govern in a liberal state and therefore his only chance to succeed is to be more centrist in his approach governance (though not necessarily his political views).  I'd rather not see him win the GOP nomination in 2016, but that doesn't mean he doesn't do a better, less liberal, job in New Jersey than any Democratic alternative.

Hopping on the bandwagon of a politically orchestrated, hypocritical witch hunt for anyone who can conceivably beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 does not help conservatism.  (And this is a witch hunt as you will see below). It's a case of doing nothing when they come for him resulting in conservatives as a whole being weaker when they come for whoever is next in their sites.  Every time.

Democrats know this.  That's why they will rally around the likes of Anthony Wiener.  It's why you get ridiculous pronouncements from the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz or Nancy Pelosi about people who are clearly damaged goods in the Democratic party.  It's about strength in numbers.  They get that. Conservatives are often too concerned about purity to remember that fact.  There is indeed strength in numbers.

Now if you don't think this is an orchestrated witch hunt consider this.  Shortly after it was revealed that Christie's office was committing an act of political retribution, and Christie was either a hypocrite for leading it or an idiot for not knowing it was going on under his nose, suddenly this comes out.

Via CNN:
Just days after dismissing two top advisers for their roles in the George Washington Bridge scandal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is facing questions over the use of Superstorm Sandy relief funds.

CNN has learned that federal officials are investigating whether Christie improperly used those relief funds to produce tourism ads that starred him and his family.

The news couldn't come at a worse time for the scandal-plagued Republican, who is facing two probes into whether his staff tied up traffic near the country's busiest bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who refused to endorse his successful re-election bid.
Indeed, it couldn't come at a worse time for the Republican Democrats currently fear the most with respect to 2016. If you think the timing of this is coincidental, you are akin to the liberal Utopian crowd who believe everything should be powered by rainbows and unicorns. This is a deliberate, planned, sequential character assassination of someone they perceive as a threat.  Both Christie items were clearly planned to come out in a sequential manner.

If you want to be a purist conservative that's fine, but the country is not at that point.  In order to get anywhere close to that point, you also need to be a realist.  Democrats play dirty.  If you don't want to do that, at least recognize that it is going on.  In that light, I'd actually be happy if Christie was tying up traffic as political payback.  Who cares if it happened in a Democratic district that the GOP will never win?  It won't change anything as far as most voters on either side are concerned.  Christie would deserve some credit for fighting dirty tactics with dirty tactics.

And lastly, don't be tempted to give in to the contrived witch hunt.  The Democrats are counting on that and probably are right now viewing you as a useful idiot that can help them eliminate a political rival that they are clearly worried about. You can always work for another candidate to beat Christie in 2015-2016.  But don't be a patsy for liberals and try to take out Christie on Democrats' terms.

I'll give you one more reason not to pile on Christie right now.  Every minute and every dollar spent on trying to bring Christie down, is a minute and dollar not spent on any other Republican candidate, more worth to carry to conservative banner.  

Hopefully, that's food for thought.


  1. Without "piling on" to Gov. Christie, I was familiar with the questions of possible irregularities surrounding these federal funds before Bridgegate erupted. There are a couple of questions that should be addressed, regardless of Mr. Christie's race, skin color, party affiliation or suit size: One, the federal money was earmarked for disaster recovery. Was spending the money on tourism videos the best or proper use of those funds?

    Second, I hear that the low bidder on the pro tourism videos was not selected, in favor of a more expensive bid (by two million dollars), that featured Christie and his family. Was this decision made in the best interest of the state and its people or its chief executive?

    If Christie is presidential material, now's his chance to show it. This ain't beanbag.

    1. So true Proof. Now is the time to see if he folds like a cheap suit or weathers the storm. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  2. .

    "Personally, I would prefer at this point he not be the GOP nominee for a number of reasons. But..."

    Enough with the "Waiting For Godot" - 'not him' for President. Whom do you think will become the next RepublicanT Party President? Do you think USA will have a Whig Party President before USA has a RepublicanT Party President? Will USA have to wait long for the coming of a national RepublicanT Party candidate?

    So who will the next republicanT Party nominee be, Christie (bridge-king) from NJ, Perry (oops man) of Texas, Paul (yes I wrote what I said, see footnotes) of Kentucky, Cruz (not a citizen of Canada any more) of Texas, or how about Rubio (can I get a drink of water) of Florida? Maybe Ryan (second banana to OMitt) of Wisconsin? How about Fox's sweetie Parah Salin of Alaska?

    For the record, "At this point Governor Christie for President" is a bit long for a bumper sticker, don't cha think?

    Ema Nymton

    1. I don't know who the next nominee will be for president Ema. There is no candidate who doesn't come with flaws (except of course for the anointed one himself, King Obama). There are a number of candidates that have a number of positive qualities but there is no clear front runner at this point in my mind.

      But after 8 years of Obama I can tell you that the notion of Republicans as a permanent minority is a notion that is as flawed as a notion that they could be a permanent majority. The political universe is devoid of 'permanent'. The GOP is not a rump party. Liberals who try to convince themselves of that do so at their own peril.

  3. The writer of this piece assumes that the charges against Christie are all just plants by the vast Left-wing conspiracy, but that is impossible to believe if one looks at the actual evidence.

    1. I'm not suggesting that they are all plants by "the vast left wing conspiracy", however, they are certainly not standing idly by and watching this unfold from the sidelines. My point is that the timing of these events (traffic-gate and now the investigation into the hurricane funding) are too well timed to be mere coincidence. Somebody sat on information or action until the right time to go public. Christie is no sweetheart and I'm not a fan. He may well be responsible for some or all that is being claimed about him. But that does not mean that conservatives should abandon him as a soft ally.

      Hillary Clinton apparently had an enemies list drawn up after 2008. It's not in dispute. If you are unfamiliar with the story, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/19/christie_clinton_and_the_enemies_list_question_121279.html. Who knows what has happened as a result of this list? So why does this not get the same level of press coverage and outrage? Not because there is a vast left wing conspiracy but because there is a clear and existential bias in the media. The liberal media is more than happy to excoriate a Republican but won't do the same with a liberal, any liberal.

      I am merely suggesting that for strategic reasons - strength in numbers in this case - that conservatives play the same way liberals do. Instead of rolling over on Christie, I'm suggesting conservatives, even those who prefer he not be the candidate, stand up for him and call out the media on their inconsistencies in coverage of the two stories.

      I'm less concerned personally about the political payback of traffic-gate issue than the potential mis-spending of disaster recovery funds. Should those prove to be founded, it compounds the case that Christie should not be the GOP nominee for president in 2016. If there was political motivation in the traffic-gate case, so what?


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.