Well played, sir

Friday 2nd November 2012

So you’re a Republican Governor. You’ve been in the role since 2009, and coming up to the end of your first term. You’re the first Republican to win a statewide election in your state in over a decade, and during your time as governor you’ve built up a formidable reputation. Although people told you that you should, you elected not to stand for the Republican Presidential nomination. So some other guy gets nominated, and obviously as the election nears you play your part. Talk him up, talk down the other guy. All standard stuff.

And then a fucking big storm hits your state. And then you do this.

Governor Christie, well played.

You can see the logic. This guy is good. He’s done a good job as Governor of New Jersey, and had he stood I think he would’ve had a very good chance of getting the nomination. So why didn’t he stand? Well, if your assessment that the incumbent is likely to win, you might not want to stand against him. Because if you do, and lose, then that’s it, that’s your shot. Surely better not to run, to try in 4 years against the next Democratic nominee, who won’t have the advantage of incumbency. As a bonus, you can spin it as loyalty to the people who elected you as governor, and by distancing yourself from the election now, you also distance yourself from the nutters that currently comprise the GOP.

I kinda hope this is right. Christie seems to have done a good job as Governor; he’s done sensible stuff, and has actively tried to work with the other party. He would be a substantially better President than either of the numpties that are currently on offer (although I realise that isn’t saying much).

Of course, all this is skewered if Romney wins next week. On the subject of that… I think I’m right in saying that in the UK, most people would see Obama as the better candidate. In fact I think I saw a thing in the news recently about the results of a survey carried out which said that, if they had a vote, something like 75% of Britons would vote for Obama. I’m not sure why, because Obama has been a fairly mediocre President. Sure, he’s been better than Bush Jnr, but I don’t think that’s really an acceptable benchmark. So I’m biased towards Romney purely because he’s The Other Guy.

But would he do a good job? During the campaign Romney has been chameleonic, blending himself to fit in with the views of whoever’s nearby, to try to win their vote. That’s probably logical. I think he’s generally a moderate candidate, and he’s had to at least appear more hardline to win the support of the whackjobs in his party in order to secure the nomination. My instinct is that he’d probably be marginally better than Obama as a president, but it’s really hard to tell because he’s currently saying anything to win votes. So of the two, if I had a vote, I’d pick Romney over Obama; I’d prefer to take a chance on someone who’s unknown, rather than stick with someone who we know has done a bad job. But the choice is kinda like picking which limb you’d like to cut off; there’s no good answer, only a least bad one.

But we need Obama to win so Christie can stand in 2016, so that America can have a decent President for the first time since Clinton left office… Obama for President!

Posted at 11:56 pm | Posted In: Politics Tagged:



Saturday 3rd November 2012, 5:44 pm

Obama’s been mediocre, but I think it’s a reasonable argument to make that his biggest problem has been Republican obstructionism in Congress. Remember the debt ceiling wrangle a while back, when what should have been a simple procedural issue was blown up by Republican obstruction into a crisis that actually threatened the US’s credit worthiness.

As to his economic performance, the US is doing better than the UK, so make of that what you will.

I think “chameleonic” is a rather generous way of saying that practically every word that comes out of his mouth is a deliberate untruth. Seeing how it’s basically impossible to actually pin the man down to any actual opinion or policy, I don’t know why you’re assuming his moderate. Isn’t it equally likely that say, his performance as the governor of Massachusetts was the illusion, and his current opinions are the truth? Personally, I’d go with better the devil you know.

But yeh, Christie actually sounds like a decent human being. For a Republican, that actually seems to be saying something.


Saturday 3rd November 2012, 6:50 pm

Yeah, the Republicans in Congress have been dicks, no doubt about it. But that doesn’t remove the fact that the stuff he’s done has been less than great. And some of the decisions he’s made have probably also baited the Republicans a little bit; as I noted in the previous post, passing Obamacare for instance required a lot of political capital…

The US vs UK comparison is somewhat misleading. Just for starters, for the last few years our main trading partners have been slowly going through the process of going bust. That’ll have an effect. I also don’t think our government has done a particularly good job at dealing with some of the structural problems they’ve inherited. America’s doing better than the UK because the UK has done badly, not because Obama’s made things go well.

I’m assuming Romney is moderate because I think actions speak louder than words, and his actions as governor were relatively moderate. You’re right though, it is basically impossible to work out what he actually believes in, except that he wants to be President. Personally I’d pick him over Obama purely because I think that if someone does a bad job, you shouldn’t hire them again. But as I said in the post, I don’t think either is really a good choice, so I can’t really disagree with “better the devil you know”.


Saturday 15th October 2016, 1:07 pm

Well this turned out well.

Write a comment: