Chris Christie, Presidential Candidate

With a full two+ (we hope) years to go before the Republican presidential primaries, the media is anointing Chris Christie one of the front-runners for the presidential nomination because he . . . won election to an office he’d already won once before.

Maybe, but to get in the spirit I’ll announce right now, years ahead of time, that there’s absolutely no way I will vote for Christie for President in 2016. I don’t really have any antagonism to Christie, and appreciate him as one of the relative grownups in the GOP. But he’s a governor, folks, and presidents need experience on the international scene. Christie, whatever his good qualities, is a non-starter for me.

Advertisements

About J@m3z Aitch

J@m3z Aitch is a two-bit college professor who'd rather be canoeing.
This entry was posted in Politics in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Chris Christie, Presidential Candidate

  1. Matty says:

    Well the last Republican president was a governor with little international experience and that turned out all r… Ah I see your point.

  2. Matty says:

    Slightly more substantively http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States,_sortable_by_previous_experience
    “17 Presidents previously served as state Governors; 9 of 17 were Governors immediately before election as President.”

    Now for international experience it’s a little trickier but lets say we can count those who were.

    Secretary of State (6)
    Vice President (14)
    in the Foreign Service (7)

    There is some overlap here but if I’m doing this right it works out at 18 people with international experience vs 17 governors, not a big difference and not much evidence that international experience has been seen as an important qualification.
    I’m curious, is this a new criterion or did you vote on this basis in the past?

  3. J@m3z Aitch says:

    International experience is not seen as an important criterion in American elections. It should be, because the president’s most important roles, both as constitutional duties and in practice, involve international, rather than domestic, affairs (excepting, say, civil war and domestic insurgencies, which are refreshingly scarce).

    It increasingly influences my evaluation of candidates, and is one of the reasons I remain deeply embittered about that sonovabitch John McCain.

  4. trumwill says:

    Weren’t you considering voting for Romney at one point?

  5. J@m3z Aitch says:

    Not that I remember. I didn’t immediately discount him as decent presidential material (in comparison with our realities, not to my ideal), but beyond what I still think is his true political moderation I never found much to like.

  6. trumwill says:

    My bad. For some reason, I’d thought he had your vote but lost it (early) along he way. I must be thinking of someone else.

    Anyway, if elected, I’d actually place Christie’s relevant experience as being the highest we’ve had in sixteen years, foreign policy experience or no.

  7. Troublesome Frog says:

    Everybody likes a plain-talking in-your-face kind of guy as long as he’s in the other guy’s face. When he’s in your face, it’s a little off-putting. The “tell it like it is” guys can be superstars with their own people and get a short grace period with the other party for a few mavericky positions, but it seems like that sort of style is always doomed to wear down too many potential allies to get a stable majority.

    I’ve always liked the saying that a good leader is someone who can step on your toes without scuffing up the shine of your shoes. It’s a real balancing act, and I suspect that the people who are best at it also tend not to make the news.

  8. Pingback: Blue Hen Nation | Hit Coffee

Comments are closed.