Christie has opened door, is mulling run; and why this may not be the good news that many conservatives think it is

The news comes from Newsmax, in a story dated 5:10 p.m. today:

Newsmax has learned that the effort to draft Christie culminated in a hush-hush powwow held in the past week with Christie and several notable Republican billionaires.

A source familiar with the meeting suggested that Christie seemed inclined to enter the race but said he needed more time.

Christie promised to make a final decision “within two weeks,” the source said….

Earlier this week Christie hinted at the effort to draft him when he spoke at a special forum that included Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Christie suggested to an audience at New Jersey’s Rider University that the current GOP candidates are not answering the public’s appetite for real leadership.

“I think what the country is thirsting for, more than anything else right now, is someone of stature and credibility to tell them that and say, ‘Here’s where I want us to go to deal with this crisis,’” Christie said.

Christie continued: “The fact that nobody yet who’s running for president, in my view, has done that effectively is why you continue to hear people ask Daniels if he’ll reconsider and ask me if I’ll reconsider.”

Here’s the big problem with Christie. Other than his strong profile as a cutter of spending, which seems to be the biggest issue of the moment, the indications are that he is a social liberal. As soon as he became a presidential candidate and had to pronounce on various issues other than spending, Republican voters would realize that he’s not a conservative, but more of a Giuliani type, minus the public adulteries and multiple marriages.

For example, though I have never heard Christie pronounce on homosexual “marriage,” I am pretty certain that he would not oppose it.

But the answer to that concern is: the two leading candidates of the moment, Romney and Perry, are also not social conservatives. Romney has never opposed homosexual marriage, but went along with it in Massachusetts, even more than was required; and Perry infamously stated that he had no problem with it in any state other than Texas which chooses to have it, which in practical terms is the same as approving the nationalizing of homosexual marriage.

As for immigration, I am pretty sure—though I don’t know—that Christie would have a welcoming attitude toward illegal aliens. And we do know for a fact that he has arrogantly dismissed as nonsense the concern about sharia-supporting Muslims in America.

Conservatives who are inspired by Christie’s tough handling of people who oppose his spending cuts may not like it so much when Christie turns the same bullying treatment on them over homosexual rights and the need to have an inclusive attitude toward Muslims and illegal aliens. Because of his domineering forcefulness, a nominee Christie or a President Christie could turn out to be conservatives’ worst nightmare.

- end of initial entry -

Jim C., who sent the item, writes:

He’s be a perfect VP for Romney

LA replies:

Interesting idea. But he’s not going to give up being governor in the middle of his first term in order to be VP. If he runs, it’s because he thinks none of the current candidates is good enough, not because he wants to be VP to one of them.

Jim C. replies:

Disagree with you on this. Christie is a young man who could learn a lot from someone like Romney, and with eight years’ experience as VP, Christie would be almost impossible to beat.

LA replies:

You’re strategizing too hard. He is ALREADY a hugely popular figure in the GOP whom many want to run for president, and in 2016, half way through his second term as governor, would be well situated to run for president. Of all politicians in America, he is the last one who needs to be VP in order to have a path to the presidency. Becoming VP would be a demoralizing step down for him, from a man who is forcefully running a major state and loving every minute of it, to a second banana.

Jim C. replies:

True, but being VP would give Christie foreign policy experience, which would make him more marketable. Remember also that a guy of Christie’s stature would be able to extract many job demands from a Romney.

JC from Houston writes:

Aside from cutting spending, Christie is pretty awful from a conservative standpoint. I ran across this series of articles from a New Jersey conservative organization earlier this year and it pretty well sums up his leftist social positions.

Christie has stated that illegal aliens are not really illegal and favors a path to legalization. He appointed a Muslim with possible ties to a Hamas linked organization to a judgeship and then blasted critics of the move. He dismissed efforts to oppose the Ground Zero mosque as a playing with a political football. Christie has also refused to join other states in their lawsuit against Obamacare. He has supported efforts to develop “green energy” and tax dollar siphoning industries that appear similar to Solyndra. Finally, he supports the strict gun controls that make life hell for New Jersey gun owners. The man makes Rick Perry look really far right!

LA replies:

And I repeat: Imagine having a man of Christie’s bullying forcefulness telling conservatives to SHUT UP about sharia, to SHUT UP about stopping the ground zero mosque, to GROW UP and stop opposing government subsidies for “green” energy, to GROW UP and stop demanding gun rights. The man is conservatives’ worst nightmare, yet they are lusting for him to become president.

About such blindness, what can one say? People see one piece of reality which impresses them (Christie being tough and courageous on cutting spending or standing up to reporters), and stop seeing the rest of reality, refuse to see the rest of reality. People don’t think. They think one step into an issue (“Ohh, I like that forceful tough Christie who tells reporters where to get off, that’s what we need!”), but refuse to take their thoughts to a second step (“Hmm, Christie’s a social liberal, he’ll be telling us conservatives where to get off. Who needs that?”), and thus end up passionately rooting for their own ideological enemy to be become their president. In the same way, the U.S. as a whole has been rooting for our own enemies to come to power in Egypt and Libya.

Given what unconscious fools humans are, the fact that there’s ever been a half decent, viable society anywhere would appear to be miraculous.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 23, 2011 07:33 PM | Send