Filed under: Media | Tags: doomsday, fraud, Harold camping, media, reaction, the end of the world, the rapture
My profuse apologies to all who’ve been checking here to read what I’ve been writing – a blend of relative financial destitution, as well as being busy with other writings (the biggest change being my job writing for ShortFormBlog) has to this point absorbed much of the energy I could’ve been spending here. Moving into the summer, however, I intend to be producing much more than usual. For those noble amongst you who’ve been waiting three months for part two of my post about Uganda’s anti-homosexuality legislation, you will get it, though not on this particular occasion.
What I’ll consider instead is some reflection on what’s recently transpired in the world of religious zealotry, and in the exploitation of a dismal number of grossly trusting people. As you had likely heard, yesterday was the day proclaimed by a longtime Christian talk radio host named Harold Camping that the world would be plunged into “the rapture,” a Christian endgame in which the blessed would ascend into heaven, leaving behind the non-believers to face their judgements from on high. Needless to say, this did not happen. This no doubt must have been a severe shock to Camping and his followers, especially since many of them specifically burnt through all their savings leading up to the average, lazy Saturday, either in service of spreading the word or simply to not leave any money unspent. While many might have limited sympathy for somebody so recklessly credulous (I don’t think I can bring myself not to feel sympathetic for somebody taken in by such a fraud, especially because of the hell threat Christianity wields), I think everybody could agree the children in these families, now without a penny or a plan, have been failed in a spectacular and terrible way.
I’ll admit up front that my position on organized religion is pretty hostile. Not the religious themselves, mind you – faith has never caused discord in my personal relationships. My opinions on the topic are probably closer to those of Christopher Hitchens than any of the other modern atheist intellectuals, which is to say I could be called an anti-theist – both almost absolutely certain there’s no god, as well as philosophically opposed to what a god universe would mean by any standard of human morality. It would be disingenuous to say this doesn’t inform my perspective on stories like this. I have never made arguments about faith, however, that I don’t believe stand on pretty strong foundations, and I welcome any good or bad natured challenges anybody would like to put to me on the matter.
I bring this up because what bothers me most about the Rapture That Wasn’t has squarely to do with the outsized respect and deference religious claims are given by our society. That the world was not going to end yesterday, at least unless by an explicable event quite unlike what Harold Camping had in mind, is essentially a matter of scientific fact. It is as certifiably false to make that prediction as any fantastical claim that most modern Christians might dismiss with a scoff – a galactic space emperor named Xenu, for example. A news outlet covering the Harold Camping story would be entirely factually correct to make the following statement at the conclusion of their coverage: “Harold Camping’s claims of a coming Doomsday are based on his own interpretation of Christian theology, and have no scientific credibility. As such, people who spend their life savings in advance of the day will find themselves and their families destitute.”
There’s nothing in that comment that anybody could call inaccurate by any standard of journalism, and it isn’t prescriptive. It’s a simple explanation of the scam we all watched unfold in painfully slow motion. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear even something that mildly candid? But such candor will likely continue to be in short supply, unless people who make their living on fantastic faith claims begin
being held subject to the kind of hard, skeptical examination that the implausibility warrants.
In the case of Harold Camping, maybe it wouldn’t have made a difference. If you’re willing to throw away a life that’s taken decades to build on the say so of an 89-year-old doomsayer who incorrectly predicted the same thing back in 1994, you may be well below the base level of skepticism at which Brian Williams reminding you it’s nonsense has any bearing. Notwithstanding, I have trouble envisioning a better way to make things like this happen less often than to be that blunt about it over an extended period of time. Whether such reporting could take place (again, despite being unimpeachably credible) in the ever faithful U.S. Is quite another story.
Filed under: World Politics
As I plugged on here a couple weeks ago, I’ve recently joined the staff at ShortFormBlog, posting on most weekday mornings. It’s a microblog, which means brevity is the essence of success, and as my writing here perhaps attests, I find myself having to reign in my long-winded screeds. Something happened yesterday, though, that I posted a photo and paragraph caption about, and in a twenty-four hour period it was liked/reblogged on Tumblr over one thousand times, which by any general understanding I have of Tumblr (I had not been too familiar with it prior to starting) is a staggering number. It struck me especially, reading many of the comments people attached to the short piece on their own blogs, that something distinctly emotional and evocative had sparked in people when they read the post, and truthfully, it isn’t hard to understand. The same feeling washed over me when I read the news early yesterday morning. So, I decided I would take to The Crater today to try to expand on the story.
The Ugandan Parliament, for those of you who aren’t aware, is currently mulling over a rather famous and very heinous piece of legislation. Its official name is the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” though in American media circles you may be most likely to have heard of it through political host Rachel Maddow, who coined it the “Kill The Gays Bill,” which is sadly in no way hyperbolic. The legislation stipulates that somebody who is HIV-positive and engages in gay sex, somebody who engages in gay sex with a person under eighteen years old, or somebody who simply engages in repeated, or “serial” offenses of homosexuality, is subject to execution. The bill’s author and chief promoter, Ugandan Member of Parliament David Bahati, has recently floated the idea that he might remove the death penalty and replace it with a simple life imprisonment, which is the most sub-zero of all cold comforts. Additionally, your responsibility as a witness in this matter is considerable; if you know of a person engaging in homosexuality, you must report it within twenty-four hours to the authorities. Failure to do so invites a possible maximum conviction of three years in prison.
It goes without saying that what’s at stake is quite literally the freedom and justice of thousands upon thousands of Uganda’s homosexual men and women. This is not arguing a piece of legislation in a vacuum, or trying to highlight logical extremes- it is an inherently evil (so far as we can understand the word) action that MP Bahati has taken to sponsor this bill, and whatever the outcome may be, he will ideally be held responsible in some form of international criminal proceeding. His justifications for this authorship hinge on a number of tired, vicious canards about homosexuals, predominantly that they are praying on children and trying to recruit them into what Bahati considers a mortal sin. And, as he stated in this simultaneously chilling and infuriating interview (with the aforementioned Rachel Maddow), “the wages of sin is death.”
The bill comes at a time of profound terror and intimidation for Uganda’s gay community, thanks in large part to the claims of a necessity for biblical godliness, misinformation about the targeting and recruitment of children, and bullshit like this. A critical turn in the story of David Kato, though, came when a small time Ugandan tabloid, titled “Rolling Stone” (much to the chagrin of the proper version’s editors, who denounced the paper as horrific and sought legal action against them), published this cover:
"100 Pictures of Uganda's Top Homos Leak," "HANG THEM"
To summarize, for those who can’t make out the text:
The two men pictured on the cover, examples of the leaked list of Uganda’s “100 top homos?” The one on the left is David Kato, one of Uganda’s only openly gay activists, and a loud and forceful voice against David Bahati’s efforts to implement execution and life imprisonment for Ugandan gays (you can listen here to a segment Kato recorded for NPR on the topic). He sued the tabloid for this presentation, as well as for their outing and targeting of homosexuals, and on January 3rd, a high court ruled he had won that case. “Rolling Stone” was told they could no longer identify homosexuals in their pages. After this ruling, his friend Julian Pepe Onziema says, Kato complained that people had been making threats against him, harassing him and stating they’d “take care of him.” You may fear where this is going, and you’d be right to do so.
Somebody broke into David Kato’s house on Thursday, and struck him twice in the head with a hammer, according to reports. He died from the injuries en route to the hospital (another NPR story, remembering Kato, here).
David Kato, murdered January 26th, 2011
The next day, at Kato’s funeral service, an Anglican priest presiding over Kato’s funeral decried homosexuality before gay rights activists, according to BBC, “stormed the pulpit and prevented the priest from continuing.”
The Ugandan authorities have said that there is yet no evidence that Kato’s murder had anything to do with his sexuality. This seems at best dubious, and at worst deliberately negligent; and while I admit a general ignorance of Ugandan civil structure, the government that considers David Bahati’s legislation instead of drumming him out of parliament in shame isn’t one I have an overwhelming measure of trust in to prosecute David Kato’s murder.
To be continued…
Filed under: U.S. Politics
In the first politically relevant chance for Republicans to get some “good numbers” (albeit in from an insignificant sample size in a largely pointless escapade), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the day, clinching the GOP’s New Hampshire straw poll with 35% of the 273 votes cast. That’s not a surprising outcome, as Romney’s base of support in Massachusetts is considerable, so it may be more instructive, in this case, to look at who didn’t win (I know, I know, the title was “Mitt’s It,” and now he isn’t really it, sorry Mittheads).
Who didn’t come in second place is any Republican who’s presidential ambitions are anything more than idealistic fantasy. By which I mean, the Ron Paul revolution continues. Paul, crushed as he was by Romney (netting just 11% to Mitt’s 35%) nonetheless finished as the runner-up. This, much like the Romney win, is probably not especially indicative of anything one wouldn’t expect going in; the grassroots network of Ron Paul supporters tend to give him a lot of sway in smaller, local oriented polling environments like these, sometimes to the chagrin of the more mainstream conservatives participating.
What’s more interesting, seeing as Ron Paul hasn’t a shoehorn’s chance in a sandal shop of winning the nomination, are the results that shake out after him. Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty came in third, with 8%- just a notch ahead of reality TV star and half-term governor Sarah Palin at 7%. Pawlenty has undergone something of a national media blitz lately, under the guise of promoting his new book “Courage to Stand,” which is, needless to say, a blindingly trite title. Pawlenty’s appeal from an image standpoint, it would seem, is that he’s neither off the deep end of the conservative and anti-intellectual spectrum like a Palin, Bachmann, or DeMint, nor is he as vitriolic in his rhetorical style.
Should all the talk about a more civil political discourse last (for the record, the official editorial opinion of The Crater is that the pendulum of a tragedy always swings back, and we’ve probably only got another couple weeks tops), that could play to his advantage, but make no mistake; he is a hard-right social conservative. He even claimed to want to reinstate the military’s ban on openly serving gays and lesbians, which is about as tone-deaf and politically inane a position as I can imagine a presidential hopeful staking out for themselves. He also suffers from being too transparently handled by image consultants- unless, of course, you seriously believe he unwinds at the end of a long day by visiting hockeyfights.com.
“Occasionally, if I really need a good mental break and I can’t get out on the ice for one of those old-timers’ games, I’ll sit at the computer when I’m home at night and pop over to hockeyfights.com to watch a few of the latest videos… watching two guys, gloves down, helmets off, pounding each other while the ref stands back and lets it happen.” (from “Courage to Stand”)
I grant you I can’t be positive, but given that presidential hopefuls overtly and shamelessly try to remake themselves to improve their odds, I’ll just say it: I don’t believe for a hot minute that Tim Pawlenty watches hockey fights to chill out. At best, it might be a chance to make him seem a little more manly while co-opting Sarah Palin’s hockey-mom mantle. At worst… well, it could be true!
Behind P&P, the inimitable Michelle Bachmann tied for fifth place at 5%, along with her “Tea Party caucus” pal Jim DeMint. Somebody I’ve never heard of (that Politico refers to as “pizza mogul Herman Cain”) finished next with 4%, followed by a smattering of familiar conservative names at 3%; Huckabee, Santorum (yeah, right), Daniels, Pence, and Christie. Notably president-y looking Senator John Thune, along with President Obama’s ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, finished with no votes, earning them the indignity of being established Republican names who lost to Donald Trump, who netted 1%. I can’t imagine establishment darling Haley Barbour, for that matter, is that happy with his nil performance. Considering the level of institutional conservative enthusiasm for him, a sign of such poor connection with the New Hampshire GOP is staggering to his prospects (though not as much as the credible perception of him as a racist).
Taking full view of the Republican field as it likely stands now, warts and extremists and all, I frankly see little impediment to a Romney win. Paul is too extreme, Palin is too self-centered (and proud of her anti-intellectualism), and her base overlaps fatally with Bachmann’s. Rick Santorum went from mainstream conservative to extreme conservative in a half-decade’s worth of public opinion drift, and he doesn’t seem to realize it yet. Mike Huckabee is somewhat charming, but extremely hard-right, and not to be crude, but he’s regaining enough weight that it may be a prohibitive issue for him (I don’t like it, but image does matter). As much as I’ve railed against the idea in the past, it may end up true that Tim Pawlenty, who’s always struck me as a profoundly “meh” political figure (judging by charisma, which is so important for a candidate) may be the biggest hurdle in Romney’s way.
So, maybe I was right from the very beginning.
Mitt’s it!
Filed under: Media
Keith Olbermann’s long and winding reign as MSNBC’s top dog ended tonight, with the unexpected announcement that tonight would be his last episode of “Countdown.” I must confess that I’m not exactly torn up about this. While there are political opinions and personality traits of Olbermann’s that I’ve always had a soft spot for, his show was enough of a punditry echo chamber that its maximum potential for illumination and information ultimately went unfulfilled. The charity that his viewers engaged in, though, which Olbermann referenced in his final thoughts on the show, is a pleasant reminder of what the generous and politically motivated can contribute, across the ideological spectrum. It’s always worth recognizing things like that (Lawrence O’Donnell’s promotion of desks for Malawi schoolchildren, as well, has been commendable and valuable).
On to the future at the MSNBC, though- this move, coming right on the heels of Comcast’s NBC acquisition, raises inevitable questions about whether the talent that the network has groomed might be under fire for reasons unrelated to their success. To be clear, I don’t think anybody is under any obligation to employ Keith Olbermann, or any media figure, such as the deeply unpleasant Laura Schlessinger seemed to imply when she claimed protests over her racist remarks (and I’m not talking just about the word) to be an infringement of her “first amendment rights.” That said, a very important distinction between MSNBC and their arch-rival Fox News has always been the difference in how they got their political reputations.
MSNBC has not always been the way they are now. The process that created what we know today- a cable news network that is typically held up as a left-wing equivalent (generally unfairly, in my view) to Fox News, has in fact been the result of a progressive (no pun intended) evolution of the personalities that have brought them success. Many forget the brief experiment, for example, of giving infamous right-wing zealot Michael Savage his own show (which was canceled after he told a caller to “get AIDS and die, you pig”).
There has never been a liberal Fox News host who was even half as radical in their beliefs as Savage was, and that speaks to the difference; MSNBC threw things at the wall to see what would stick. What ultimately stuck was Keith Olbermann, who gave rise to a charismatic fill-in host named Rachel Maddow, as well as (a perhaps less charismatic) Lawrence O’Donnell, who also got his start filling in on Countdown. Perhaps the biggest indictment of MSNBC, to my mind, is the hiring of Ed Schultz, who’s unrelenting bombast legitimately irritates me, but that hiring still fits into a sort of Darwinian explanation for the ideological slant of the channel. Fox News, on the other hand, is editorial creationism; you write the script, then hire the players.
The concern is whether this Olbermann decision was related to job performance (which is wholly possible), or whether it reflects an effort by the new higher-ups at Comcast to alter MSNBC’s opinion content. Again, this is entirely within their right to do, and it doesn’t sting me too bad to lose Keith Olbermann specifically, but it’s important to say: such a choice would be, in reality, much more similar to how Fox News operates than MSNBC ever had been before, institutionally speaking. And seeing as this slides Rachel Maddow into the role of de facto face of the channel, which I’m enormously happy about, I nonetheless fear the chance that she might eventually meet a similar fate.
Filed under: U.S. Politics | Tags: boehner, cbo, health care, narratives, repeal
House Republicans are, as I type, moving to vote on a repeal of the Democratic health care reform law. In an early legislative season that’s been tumultuous in the wake of the Jared Loughner rampage, this has nonetheless been the expected, first major initiative that Speaker Boehner and company have taken up. They’ve conspicuously stopped calling it a “job-killing” bill, which is endearing as evidence of shame, even if it’s only political, but it’s ultimately a silly and somewhat vacuous gesture. Calling it “job-killing” versus “job-crushing” doesn’t fix the truly relevant question about that statement, namely; is it true?
The CBO says no (via Factcheck.org).
Both Democrats and Republicans have decried the findings of the Congressional Budget Office when those findings haven’t suited their politics, I won’t deny that. But what does that suggest about the CBO? Perhaps, it means that they are the very thing they’re supposed to be- a non-partisan entity that focuses on fiscal impacts, not political ones. Whether the CBO’s projections are proven to be entirely accurate, though, the Republican claim is still demonstrably false. They cite the source of their “job-killing” claim as the CBO itself, and misrepresent a portion of their analysis to an absurd extent to seal it. The above Factcheck.org link tells the full story.
So, in an honest policy debate, insofar as we have systems to predict fiscal impact of legislation, the correct answer is no, you can’t credibly call the health care reform law a “job-killer,” or “job-crusher.” They could change it to “respectfully, we know this bill will cost us jobs,” and while less verbally edgy, the core problem stands.
But what about the political benefits? Politicians, as it happens, sometimes lie to improve their standing with voters. In the case of the present Republican congress, many of the newly elected rode on a promise to their constituents to repeal health care (insurance) reform. They knew then, as they know now, that this is flatly impossible so long as Obama and his veto pen are in office. But the political value of a divisive issue only lasts so long, and as the law’s rather benign nature becomes more apparent in the years to come, waiting for a potential Republican president in 2012 to sign a repeal is futile, and would almost certainly be calamitously unpopular. If the Republicans want to make good on their umbrage, they more or less have to do what they’ve done, and tackle this as soon as possible.
I somehow suspect, though, that the entire strategy was doomed from the moment they started telling a fired-up, reactionary base that they were going to tear down the law that they loathe so well. The baldly obvious concern for Republicans is whether those fervent, passionate supporters will be sated by what essentially amounts to a show vote. With no genuine chance of repeal, Speaker Boehner has resigned himself to engineering a display of the new Republican power in the House- a power that he knows from the get-go will be insufficient to deliver the goods.
Were I a political strategist, I would argue that the first priority for such a loud, demonstrative takeover of one branch of congress should be to sponsor conservative legislation with enough crossover appeal to pass the Senate, and at least force Obama into a gut-check on using the veto. Regardless of what your rhetoric has been, nobody is going to be impressed that your bold new majority heard the people’s mandate and accomplished… not really anything. It’s an inept attempt at forming a political narrative, which is shocking considering the Republican Party has always run circles around the Democrats at narratives. And as the claims prominent Republicans made during the health care fight, the stuff of “pulling grandma’s plug” and “government takeovers” become more starkly ridiculous by the visible lack of upheaval our system has suffered, this issue’s value has nowhere to go but down.
Filed under: Misc.
It’s with great pleasure that I announce my new role as a blogger with the excellent team over at ShortFormBlog. I’m just now cutting my teeth writing for them, and I urge any and all readers here to check them out. The Crater will still be in full operation, as an outlet for whenever my long-winded, polemicist’s impulse begins to surge, so never fear! Thanks again to Ernie Smith, Seth Millstein, and everybody at ShortFormBlog for having me on!
Filed under: Misc.
You’re just a simple “follow @thecraterblog” away from getting short, sweet blips from The Crater’s radar- many of which could be entirely exclusive to that format. Please consider making this character-restricted, desolate spate of rock your permanent online home!
Filed under: U.S. Politics
“…they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you’re done.”
Those words belong to Jon Stewart, spoken about the Bush Administration in 2007 during an interview with Bill Moyers. Stewart could easily have applied this standard to the two-year cycle of the House of Representatives, as well. His words seem especially prescient as the 112th Congress has kicked off, and Republican rule under Speaker Boehner is in effect.
It seems to a certain extent trite and pointless to harp on an individual politician breaking a campaign promise. I’m not so ideological as to ignore that broken campaign promises might be the most truly bipartisan thing in Washington. I don’t entirely dismiss a politician on those grounds, either, because I realize that the process of getting elected in American politics more or less demands a certain amount of duplicity. On the subject of faith, for example; an atheist man or woman would be well served to do a few photo-ops at a church and get on their knees now and then. It may be anathema to their very core, and they may feel depressed or like craven liars to do so, but the political benefit of that lie is undeniable.
These are individuals, making individual choices (many more sympathetic than others- I tend to feel more for the closeted Senator than the guy raving about death panels, personally, but that’s my kick) that they may feel is motivated by political necessity. It doesn’t demand, though, that they abandon all the specific policy proposals they’ve made, or that the basic platform they ran on can’t hold true, even as particular promises therein may be unrealistic, or too arduous to tackle. It’s quite another thing, though, for a major political party’s entire rhetorical narrative and professed philosophies to come into such sharp conflict with the reality of their habits and desires.
To say the Republican Party sold its soul to the Tea Party movement wouldn’t quite be right; it’s more like the Tea Party loaned them a set of crutches. The Tea Parties’ stated principles, as generally defined as possible, were predominantly spending cuts, limited government, and lower taxes. There was/is also a strong reliance on the Constitution (and a generally conservative interpretation of it) and the use of Constitutional imagery to stir up the ol’ patriot’s blood. Because this movement was (in addition to a lot of funding from a number of extremely wealthy conservative and libertarian businesspeople) ideologically aligned with the stated philosophy of the Republican Party, the GOP was able to easily cash in the Tea Party, promising they’d restore fiscal sanity to Washington. Seeing as there is no credible third party in America at this moment, the choice becomes academic: can the Tea Party organize into its own elected faction? No. Can they vote third party and have any sort of impact on the government? No. So pull the lever marked “R” come November!
The problem is, limited government and reduced spending isn’t really what the Republican Party writ large is all about. True, they talk about it a lot- seemingly endlessly, as a minority party. But when Republicans have held substantial governmental power, you don’t see the kind of cost-cutting, bureaucracy reducing measures their talking points would lead you to expect. The story of the American government’s evolution is largely consistent: a state, which fluctuates in the particular ways it exerts control (business regulation vs. drug laws, for example), but never coming at much expense to the true size and power of the institution as a whole. Democrats, when they’re being honest and unafraid, will admit to you that the core philosophical difference between them and Republicans is that they believe the government can be a positive force in people’s lives, and that even at the risk of a bloated government the positives of the service provided is critically important to society. Republicans profess more or less the opposite (again, speaking in broad narratives here), that the government is an impediment to individual freedoms, economic growth, and should get out of the way whenever possible.
You can say what you will about the merits of either philosophy, but the reality is that when Democrats take power, they come a hell of a lot closer to doing what their narrative would have you believe they want to do. When the Republicans ascend, they invariably have to begin the endless, awkward dance of explaining why they were acting like Congressional supplies were going to be bought at the dollar store, when they really want to go to Staples like always.
See these past few days, as the Republican “Pledge To America,” which promised $100 billion in spending cuts this year, begins to be reeled back in. Now it’s just “hypothetical” language, and as they’re unwilling to tackle Medicare (political suicide), Social Security (the same), or defense (which is loaded with wasteful spending that the Pentagon would like to cut, but runs squarely against the other biggest Republican narrative), those cuts may not be there. And it’s only the first way in which those truly passionate about spending, restraint, and transparency in government should prepare for Speaker Boehner to mess with their world.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
More news from the fertile hills of New Jersey! From out of the maelstrom of snow and sleet, a political thorn has stuck in the side of Governor Christie. As has been somewhat exhaustively covered, Democratic activists as well as citizens throughout New Jersey (as well as Ed Rollins) are upset that Christie was absent from the state for the worst duration of the colossal blizzards that descended on the Northeast last week. Upon returning from his previously schedule family trip to Disney World, the Governor was unrepentant.
“I would have been doing the same thing here as I would have been there,” Christie said. “I would have been in a room someplace. I would not have been out, like, driving a plow.”
“This is just partisanship… I made a promise to my children… that I was going to take them to Disney World,” said Christie. “I was not going to look at my children and say we’re not going.”
In my personal opinion, Christie’s presence or lack thereof is probably of minimal importance to the function of state services during a blizzard. The absence of Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno deepens the wound, but her excuse of spending time with her ailing father seems (albeit subjectively) more sympathetic than even Christie’s. It should be said, however, that these two are the top two state executives in New Jersey, and as such, it paints an abhorrent picture from a political standpoint to have neither of them present in a time of such urgency. Christie himself recently filed for FEMA relief funds (which will be forgiven because of the crisis, but is nonetheless incongruous with much of his anti-federal and anti-spending rhetoric), which forces him to tacitly admit that he was absent during a “state of emergency.” Speaking in terms of raw politics, his decisions and subsequent response to criticism have been extremely poor.
Furthermore, it would be pertinent to know at what point both Christie and Guadagno’s plans to depart were specified. The two should have made arrangements with one another to ensure that at least one of the two people with the word “governor” in their title was in state, and that’s true any time one of them wants to take a vacation. Seeing as Guadagno’s trip is reportedly predicated on her father’s ill health, hers should likely have taken precedence. Christie’s promise to his children may be personally binding, but to tell them that the trip will have to be postponed until Guadagno returns doesn’t seem like the stark betrayal of trust that he’s been selling it as, nor can that be (strident as it may sound) his primary mentality when charged with leadership of an entire state.
But, to keep some sanity about us, let’s remember; poltiically tone-deaf or not, Christie’s right. He wasn’t going to be driving a plow or shoveling snow, and it somewhat strains the credulity to think that things were markedly worse by this particular absence. And yes, a large amount of the criticism likely has more to do with partisanship than anything else. For Chris Christie to lash out against partisanship, though, is a bit of a chuckler.
Filed under: U.S. Politics
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has, since rising to national prominence in dispatching then incumbent Jon Corzine, become something of a phenomenon of the national conservative movement. As Jason Zengerle’s article in New York Magazine detailed last month, one of the critical cornerstones of his popularity is the bevy of videos his staffers record of him during speeches and public events. Dubbed by some in the conservative media sphere as “Chris Christie porn” (a somewhat unpleasant example here), or more politely as Chris Christie “moments,” they are videos captured of the Republican governor tearing into his opponents. What is somewhat unique, though, is that the opponents he challenges aren’t necessarily other politicians or public figures. For example, his rebuke of a New Jersey schoolteacher, or the same article’s account of his argument with a middle-aged New Jersey citizen over the scrapped ARC tunnel project.
Being willing to clash with your own constituency is not a tact too many politicians are willing to take in a public setting, which is one of the reasons I suspect these confrontations have become so popular within conservative circles. Whereas the concept of political “red meat” normally refers to one politician savaging anther to flare up their base, the sight of a powerful governor willing to lock horns with the common citizen appeals to a more personal instinct. It’s one thing for Christie to call out a guy like Jon Corzine, but there’s an additional seductive appeal to the idea of him tearing down not a political elite, but the sort of person the average conservative might know personally and vehemently disagree with.
Invariably, Christie’s argumentative style and commanding presence have sparked speculation about a presidential run, which Christie has steadfastly denied. It’s difficult to ignore, though, the clearly calculated effort both he and his campaign make to instigate and circulate these conservative “pump-up” videos around YouTube. From New York Magazine:
Now in Moorestown, Christie was hoping to create another such moment. After some introductory remarks, he opened the floor to questions. “For those of you who have seen some of my appearances on YouTube,” he cautioned, peeling off his suit jacket as he spoke, “this is when it normally happens.” Then, recognizing the man who was first in line at the microphone, Christie began to grin. “This could happen right here, ladies and gentlemen! This guy at times has the tendency to annoy me … Get ready! If you have your own cameras, start rolling!”
If I had to make a reasoned guess, I’d say Christie’s presidential choice will be made very late; late enough, at least, for him to reckon whether the economy will stay mired enough for Obama to be a vulnerable incumbent. Assuming Christie has the same basic recognition of national politics that nearly every strategist in Washington has, he’s got to know that if the economy starts to surge, Obama will likely be a juggernaut in 2012. At 48, Christie is still young enough that he could sit an election cycle and make a play for it in 2016 if he so desired. The problem with this strategy, however, is twofold. The most obvious issue is whether his popularity within conservative circles, which I’d currently consider enough to make him a contender to win the Republican nomination, can hold up for that long. He’d also have to win re-election as governor in that scenario, and it remains to be seen whether his abrasive style will begin to wear on New Jerseyites who are closest to it. The second problem, at the risk of seeming too blunt, is his weight. Christie is significantly obese, well beyond the chubbiness that was enough to illicit mockery over Bill Clinton’s fitness. Nor does his body carry said weight in a particularly subtle way. I have significant doubts whether Americans will be willing to elect a president in that physical condition, which is also why I suspect Mike Huckabee, who has been showing signs of regaining some of the weight he famously lost pre-2008, may hurt his own chances.
What Chris Christie is perfectly primed for, however, is to be the Republican VP candidate. Whether Joe Biden returns for a second run, or Obama selects a new running mate, neither are likely to illicit the vibrant support that Christie could from the Republican base, especially as his combative style fits perfectly the campaign job description for an insurgent ticket. If paired with a top-ticket, reasonably inoffensive Republican (presidential lookin‘ John Thune, anyone?), his presence could bolster a surprisingly potent challenge to Obama’s re-election prospects. But in the meantime, Governor Christie (George Washington incarnate) has time to bide, and DVR tapes to buy.
The Crater 