Friday, Dec. 9, 2016    Login | Register        

Christie, Hillary and Obama

Thomas Sowell's picture

The first time I saw New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on television, a few years ago, my first reaction was astonishment: “A talking Republican!”

It would scarcely have been more astonishing if there had been a talking giraffe. For reasons unknown, most Republican leaders seem to pay very little attention to articulation — certainly as compared to leading Democrats, who seem to pay little attention to anything else.

Governor Christie’s nearly two-hour-long press conference last week showed again that he is in a class by himself when it comes to Republicans who can express themselves in the heat of political battle.

When it comes to policies, I might prefer some other Republican as a 2016 presidential candidate. But the bottom line in politics is that you have to get elected, in order to have the power to accomplish anything. It doesn’t matter how good your ideas are, if you can’t be bothered to articulate them in a way that the voting public can understand.

Chris Christie’s press conference showed that, unlike Barack Obama, Christie did not duck the media or sidestep questions. Nor did he resort to euphemisms or cry out, like Hillary Clinton, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

He met the questions head on and gave unequivocal answers — the kind of answers that could, and should, destroy his political future if they are not true.

More important, Governor Christie quickly fired the people he held responsible for deliberately creating a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge. Contrast that with the many scandals in Washington for which President Obama has not fired anyone.

While the creation of a traffic jam in a small New Jersey town shows the calloused ugliness too often found among political operators puffed up with their own power, this cannot compare with the threat to freedom when the Internal Revenue Service targets the administration’s political opponents during an election year.

Nor can a traffic jam compare with the Department of Justice’s gun-running operation that led to the death of an American Border Patrol agent in the southwest or the State Department’s actions and inactions that led to the deaths of four American officials killed by terrorists in Benghazi.

Nevertheless, media coverage of the traffic jam in New Jersey was several times as extensive as any — or all — of these far more consequential scandals in Washington. Moreover, many of these media reactions simply assumed that Governor Christie must have known about the traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge.

Does anyone who thinks that a traffic jam at the George Washington Bridge should attract a governor’s attention have any idea how many traffic jams there are on the various highways leading into Manhattan?

The Long Island Expressway, for example, long ago acquired the title, “the world’s longest parking lot.” Traffic backed up heading into, or out of, the Holland Tunnel or the Lincoln Tunnel is nothing new. My recollections of driving on highways in and around Manhattan include very few memories of free-flowing traffic.

Any governor who devoted his time to looking into traffic jams between New Jersey and New York would have very little time left for doing anything else.

If anything good comes out of this shabby episode of political vindictiveness by Governor Christie’s staffers, it showed what a skewed sense of perspective most of the media have on what kinds of issues are important. It is not that the media consider traffic jams more important than human lives. But the fact that Christie is the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 — and is ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls — makes him a target for a partisan media.

Given that blatant partisanship, the need for a Republican candidate in 2016 who can make his case to the public, in spite of the media, is especially acute — even though it is much too early to try to predict who that candidate will be.

Whatever the political fate of Governor Christie, he has provided an example of the kind of articulation that is needed — indeed, imperative — if the Republicans are to have any chance of rescuing this country from the ruinous policies of the past few years.

[Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is] COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM


I find it interesting that on Dr. King’s birthday, the Citizen devoted op-ed space to three African-American columnists who represent the views of only a minute fraction of their ethnicity. President Obama garnered 96% and 93% respectively of the Black vote in the 2008 and 2012 presidential election. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Bonnie Willis regularly decry any initiative pursued by the President. This is analogous to advancing Mormon interpretations of the Bible as representative of mainstream American Christian beliefs.

If the Citizen refuses to publish mainstream African-American opinions like those of Leonard Pitts, might it at least decrease its publications of this non-representative minority?

NUK_1's picture

He's syndicated and a lot better than some of the Grove College folks so why not? Otherwise, it's just "preaching to the choir" with the usual syndicated line-up here. I like some of the articles from the right like a Willis, Sowell or Williams, but don't need a steady diet of "AMEN." Cal Thomas especially.......urgh.

Maybe it's a syndication issue---I get plenty of Pitts in the AJC.

phil sukalewski's picture

Considering how conservative MLK's views were (i.e. judge a man by the content of his character instead of by the color of his skin); I'd say that the Citizen is publishing precisely the right points of view to correspond to MLK's birthday.

Further reading:

Phil Sukalewski

PTC Observer's picture

STF, I find it exceedingly ironic that you would disparage a person of color because of his/her opinions using such a term.

Uncle Tom -

usage: This term is used with disparaging intent and is perceived as highly insulting. Though usually used of a black person, it occasionally refers to a person of any race who exhibits overly deferential behavior, esp. a female.
Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. (a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person who is regarded as being abjectly servile or deferential to whites.)
[1920–25, Amer.; so called after the leading character in H. B. Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin]

Specifically, if you care to review Dr. Sowell's background you may like to post an apology for using such a term in connection with an example of a really good and fine gentleman, that just happens to be an extremely intelligent African American. Your fellow citizens deserve better STF.

PTCO - I withdraw my descriptor, but stand by my contention that mainstream African-American sentiments lack a regular voice in the Citizen.

PTC Observer's picture

it clearly was not like you to do such a thing and something in Dr. Sowell's column must have hit you the wrong way to elicit your response.

It will be indeed fortunate, when one day "mainstream" means American mainstream, as opposed to anything else. I agree that there will always be two sides to every position, sometimes even more.

Gort's picture

It has nothing to do with Obama or Hillary, that BS is just right wing fog.

The first time I saw Gov. Christy on TV, he was showboating about turning down federal funds for a bridge project that would help his citizens of New Jersey get to work in New York.

It was during the “Bridge to Nowhere” hysteria brought to us by the “TeaParty.” A lot of people liked it at the time. Gov. Christy got so caught up in it, he turned down federal funds for a bridge that would actual “go somewhere” his citizens needed to go.

Now we see that Gov. Christy’s minions throw a monkey wrench into New Jersey citizens commute on the George Washington Bridge for the purpose of some demented political retribution scheme. Live by the bridge; die by the bridge, (politically speaking of course.)

Speaking of political retribution, this scandal is more akin to our Gov. Deal turning down the Medicaid expansion for working people and families that can’t even afford subsidized health insurance policies. He, (or his staff that feeds him information,) figures they don’t vote for the GOP, so the hell with them.

IMHO, Republicans have never done anything to help the working man.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

Ad space area 4 internal