Tom Moran and The Star-Ledger Editorial Board published a bizarre editorial today, Chris Christie Endorsement Is Regrettable. It starts off by noting that they were wrong to endorse Christie for governor. Then they explain why they did it. And they finish by arguing that even with all they know, they would endorse him as Republican nominee for president. Get that? “We don’t think he should be governor, but president would be okay.”
I agree with their reasons for picking Christie rather than picking no one at all. “But voters have to push one button or the other, and we felt The Star-Ledger should belly up to the challenge and offer them our best advice.” This is the same reasoning that makes me a Democrat. Mostly, I think the Democratic Party sucks. But in a two party system, you really need to choose one of the big parties and the Democrats are far better than the Republicans.
Reading a bit between the lines, it seems that the main reason that The Star-Ledger tipped to Christie’s side is because they have very typical New Democrat thinking on education policy. I don’t personally have strong opinions about this. But it definitely seems that those in favor of “educational reform” are far too certain of the justness of their cause than the data would indicate. Reading the article, I get the impression that what the editors are saying is, “If we had endorsed Barbara Buono, who would have gone after the unions?!”
Regardless, the article is at its most bizarre when it turns its attention to the 2016 presidential election. It says, “[I]f you turn your focus to the presidential race in 2016, you might wind up facing the same dilemma we did in the fall.” Really?! Are we going to end up with Christie running against some loser Democrat? Well, no. That’s not what they are talking about. They just think that if Christie doesn’t get the nomination, Rand Paul might. And you never know; he might win.
Based upon this match-up, The Star-Ledger would pick Christie over Rand Paul. This is truly bizarre. Unless the Republicans had both houses of Congress, I don’t imagine Paul getting much done. Christie, on the other hand, with his prosecutorial hardball tactics? It might be like having J Edgar Hoover in the White House. But it would at least be like having Richard Nixon back in the White House.
In the end, the editorial seems to be a set up for their presidential endorsement in 2016. Assuming that Christie manages to survive his scandals, The Star-Ledger will be there to endorse him. They’ll start out by noting that he’s a bully and a liar and a criminal. They’ll go on to note that he isn’t actually any good at his job. And they’ll conclude, “Chris Christie 2016!” And in 2018 as Watergate 2.0 is breaking, they’ll write another article, “Chris Christie Endorsement Is Regrettable.”