Last Call For Liberals And Chris Bag O' Donuts

Chuck Pierce tries to figure out why almost a third of liberals voted for the Jersey Devil on Tuesday.

31 percent.

That's the number of the night, people.

That's the percentage of self-identified "liberals" that voted for Chris Christie, essentially endorsing the idea that he should run for president of the United States, since that was the real purpose of the New Jersey gubernatorial election yesterday. It certainly wasn't about who's going to be the governor of New Jersey, since Big Chicken is eighty-eight-and-out-the-gate as soon as the dust clears from next autumn's midterms, if not sooner. (All that talk about "Washington" in his acceptance speech was a pretty clear indication that the man has his travelin' shoes on already.) No, as soon as it was determined by the strategic geniuses in the Democratic party that Barbara Buono would be fed to the woodchipper -- and good on her for calling the duplicitous bastards on it last night -- the only issue in the election became whether or not you think Chris Christie should run for president. And 31 percent of the liberals who voted assented to that proposition. How the hell did that happen on a night when the state also kicked him squarely in the nuts by overwhelmingly reversing his veto of an increase in the minimum wage, a veto that is the perfect expression of everything Chris Christie stands for as a politician? If you want to know why actual liberalism continues to be a dead parrot in our politics, and why the only real political dynamic in the country revolves around a choice over whether we will drift slowly to the right or stampede headlong in that direction, look to that number.

BooMan, being from Jersey, explains that no, that wasn't it at all.

I am going to get myself in trouble talking about Chris Christie and New Jersey. First, you have to understand what it was like for a New Jerseyan to see the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, particularly down at the shore. I don't know what to compare it to, except maybe to how New Yorkers (and New Jerseyans) felt when the Twin Towers were suddenly missing from the Manhattan skyline. Maybe if Fenway Park were lifted up and thrown into Boston Harbor, then Bostonians would know how it felt. 

So, when Governor Christie started his "Stronger Than the Storm" ad campaign, it was a very feel-good moment. There he was, down at the shore, assuring us that we are going to rebuild it, that we'd get through it, that we were strong enough to overcome the devastation. It's what we wanted to hear. It's what we needed to hear. And it made everyone, including Christie's ardent political opponents, feel more favorably disposed to him. He wasn't talking about birth certificates and ACORN and Solyndra and Benghazi. He was working with the administration to get shit done.

That's what Charles Pierce doesn't get. But he'd feel the same way about Governor Mitt Romney if he was rebuilding Fenway Park. That's why so many self-described liberals voted for Christie. But it's also why the ad campaign was ethically dubious. Because it was financed with federal disaster-relief dollars. And Rand Paul is correct to raise questions about the appropriateness of a politician appearing in those kinds of ads in an election year. I think Paul opposes the ads regardless of who appears in them, because his tiny brain cannot understand the valuable role of marketing in reviving a destroyed tourism industry. But I agree with him that Christie got an unfair advantage in his reelection campaign by featuring himself and his family in feel-good advertisements that he didn't have to finance.

What I know is there's a lot of people who want to set up Chris Christie as the next McCain or Romney.  They think he can win nationally.  Of course, McCain and Romney both lost.  So the perception of Christie depends on whether or not you see him as national (as Chuck thinks there nothing local as Christie will resign to run in 2016) or local as BooMan does (and Christie knows he has no shot nationally and wants to go out on top).

Pierce has a point, but if Christie is the savior in 2016 and everyone "knew" Romney was going to lose, why didn't he "save" the party in 2012? 

What's different now?  Tea party still hates the guy.  He's still a bully and a jackass.  That'll play in New England, but not in Iowa or blood red South Carolina.

We'll see, but given where the GOP is now, Christie's heading directly for the fate of the last two Republicans who ran for President.