National Review Represses Reason For Christie's No-Go
Print Friendly and PDF

Because of scrupulous time-management I am rarely confronted with the ongoing putrescence of National Review, but I do always read RealClearPolitics which is how I saw Christie Demurs Robert Costa October 4, 2011
This plateful of wonkery purports to explain Christie’s not running for President in purely technocratic terms – too late in the calendar, doubts about money, too many early primaries – and suggests Christie’s youth and alleged caution were also factors.

Was that all? Isn’t something missing?

Commenter Estragon saw that there was

"He never had a chance in the primaries...Christie is well to the left of the field on immigration, gun control, support for the Ground Zero mosque, Cap-'n'-Tax schemes, etc. If Perry's reality deflated the expectations of the GOP faithful, Christie's would be a full-fledged popping."

 This is completely correct. How come “political reporter” Costa forgot to discuss Christie’s policy leanings – especially with Perry blowing up because of his?

Probably the answer is in the piece. Costa says

"Christie had billionaires ready to pour millions into a presidential campaign. I spoke with many of these millionaires and billionaires and this was the case..."

(My emphasis).

Nowadays National Review is just a

"a neocon-dominated, Beltway Republican bulletin board"

in Peter Brimelow’s phrase. Naturally Costa would think it more important to talk to “millionaires and billionaires” rather than find out what the voting peasantry aka GOP faithful might think.

And from these "millionaires and billionaires" the orders no doubt came: NEVER admit Christie's candidacy is unviable because of his allegiance to our pet causes! Explain it some other way!

NR pitifully now merely makes gestures to retain the attention of the community it once led but which it now is employed to control.

Print Friendly and PDF