From New Jersey to a New America
Does being a Governor best prepare Christie for the Presidency?
CONCORD, N.H.— When Barack Obama uttered the oath of the office of the President in 2009, he became the first Senator to do so since Richard Nixon nearly 40 years before. To Chris Christie, the choice was a grave mistake. To him, Senators are not to be Presidents; that is a role that should be reserved for governors. Right off the bat in Saturday’s G.O.P. debate, Christie made this abundantly clear, saying:
“When you’re a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn’t solve one problem for one person. They expect you to plow the snow. They expect you to get the schools open. And when the worst natural disaster in your state’s history hits you, they expect you to rebuild their state, which is what I’ve done.
“None of that stuff happens on the floor of the United States Senate. It’s a fine job, I’m glad [Marco Rubio] ran for it, but it does not prepare you for president of the United States.”
Then, this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, he reiterated the point, with an assist from Joe Scarborough, who said:
“One of the reasons governors make better Presidents than Senators is because governors from most states have to deal have to deal with people on the other side of the aisle.”
The opinion is simple: governors lead states, and thus can lead nations by applying the same skills on a larger scale. Senators…do what exactly? Show up (occasionally) to vote? Write bills (most of which get blocked before ever reaching a Congressional committee)? Whatever they do, it doesn’t prepare them for the trials of Presidency. Thus, according to this logic, Christie is qualified when someone like Marco Rubio isn’t.
Christie isn’t just saying that Rubio’s lack of governing experience prepares him poorly for Presidency. At this stage, Christie is directly speaking about which elements of Rubio’s senatorial term are faults, and which elements of his own governing are strengths.
Rubio has only served one term. Rubio doesn’t show up to vote. Christie refused to raise taxes despite a Democratic state legislature. Christie had to clean up Hurricane Sandy when it struck New Jersey.
These are all talking points the Christie campaign is emphasizing. To them, not only is a governor is inherently more qualified than senators to sit in the Oval Office, but more to the point, this governor is more qualified than that senator.
These specific distinctions are something the Christie camp needs to push through if they want any sort of success. Even if he is able to jam his “governors are better than senators” line into the head of every New Hampshire voter, he’s sitting behind both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in all of Monday’s polls. Thus advertising Governor Christie — as opposed to simply “governors” — is a must. However, this requires his governing in New Jersey to be perceived as succesful. And, as I saw first-hand today, that’s where things get muddy.
There are controversies that made national news, such as the Fort Lee lane closures. However, those must have seemed a world away to Christie as he pulled into Bean Towne Cafe in Hampstead, a sparsely populated town in Southeast New Hampshire. They weren’t.
Protesters lined the pathway to the door, withstanding sub-20 degree temperatures, speaking out against Christie’s involvement in the de-funded, bankrupt New Jersey Transit Trust Fund. There is no money left to pay these workers’ pensions, and they’d traveled over 300 miles to let us know it.
“Not good for Jersey! Not good for you!”
“Where is Christie?” “Missing!”
They chanted this as they held signs which featured, among other things, “New Jersey’s Biggest Loser” or pictures of Chris Christie on a milk carton with the heading “Missing.”
This isn’t the first time Christie has been accused of poor governing this week. What got lost in Marco Rubio’s meltdown during Saturday’s debate, is that he did cite New Jersey’s nine credit rating downgrades under Christie’s administration.
Of course, Christie has an answer for all of this. He used the protesters in NH as evidence of the adversity he faces in New Jersey. They appeared as almost perfect props to describe harsh opposition from Democrats. For the Rubio comment, he deflected it by defining it as a “drive-by shot[…] with incorrect and incomplete information.”
Here is a video of the protesters chanting.
So the question voters must decide on is whether Christie criticism is an intrinsic element of governing or a sign that he’s been governing poorly. If they decide the former, it bodes well for the Christie campaign. It suggests that his claims are true; he does see exposure and adversity that Senators just don’t, which prepares him well for the White House. If they decide the latter, the outlook is bleak. That would suggest that voters see Christie as a fraud. That they believe that, yes, governors may be more qualified than Senators. But this governor isn’t qualified for anything.
Throughout America’s history, the Secretary of State and Vice President positions have been a direct pipeline to Presidency. The 2016 Republican race sees neither of those positions in play. So the voters must decide between Senators, governors, and a Real Estate tycoon. They must decide if the those heading their respective states are most fit to be our nation’s head of state.
