Back in October of 2013, the Newark Star-Leger endorsed Chris Christie and I took them for task over it: Newark Star-Ledger: Chris Christie 'Fraudulent,' 'Hostile To Low-Income Families.' Then They Endorse Him. Read the piece because their endorsement of Christie was mind-numbing.
Do you ever wonder why Governor Chris Christie has a good chance at the presidency in 2016, even though he's been a miserable failure for New Jersey? Then read this endorsement from the Star-Ledger's editorial board for Governor.
They endorsed him, even though he's refused to speak to them for four years running--while Buono did a full interview. They call him a failure with a big, fat ego who is more about spin than the truth. Oh, I guess their most important criteria is that he plays a mean game of town hall.
They disapprove of Barbara Buono because she supports the teachers union and doesn't like charter schools -- which, in their opinion, makes her fatally flawed. Well then, what do you call Christie who has been exposed as a over-hyped blowhard that's done nothing for the people of NJ?
Now, Tom Moran is saying they blew it.
How could we endorse him, she asked, when we criticized him so harshly in the same piece? Had we lost our minds?Not quite. An endorsement is not a love embrace. It is a choice between two flawed human beings. And the winner is often the less bad option.
But yes, we blew this one. When the endorsement ran, I could not get a cup of coffee in the People’s Republic of Montclair without my liberal friends taunting me. Back then, I pushed back.
Yes, we knew Christie was a bully. But we didn’t know his crew was crazy enough to put people’s lives at risk in Fort Lee as a means to pressure the mayor. We didn’t know he would use Hurricane Sandy aid as a political slush fund. And we certainly didn’t know that Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer was sitting on a credible charge of extortion by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno.
They endorsed this bozo even though he failed the state miserably.
Even before this scandal train got rolling, this endorsement was a close call and a split vote among the editorial board. We regard Christie as the most overrated politician in the country, at least until now, a man who is better at talking than governing. We criticized him for trashing the working poor, for his tea party approach to the environment, for his opposition to gay marriage and a livable minimum wage. And so on.
Yes, and so on and so on. The only reason they endorsed him was because they didn't think Barbara Buono was ready yet and they hated her beliefs on education even though they had a wealth of horrendous knowledge about Christie.
And on education, the most important issue for any governor, Buono ran well to the left of President Obama. She embraced the state’s regressive teachers’ union and its relentless efforts to protect bad teachers and stunt the growth of even the best charter schools.
This is not about who we like better. Christie has boycotted the editorial board for years, an attempt to bully us into more loving coverage. So we’ve had a front-row view of what a creep he can be. Buono is the more likable person by far.
They had a front row view of what a creep Christie is by their own reporting and still they endorsed him. Who you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes? And then they try to defend their pick of Christie by setting up an imaginary primary battle between Christie and Rand Paul. Who you gonna choose now, cretins?
Now ask yourself this: If the Republican primary came to a choice between Paul and Christie, which candidate would you endorse?
At the risk of repeating a mistake, I’d pick Christie in that primary, even now. And if you think that makes some sense, then you understand how excruciating the endorsement process can be.
See, if you had to pick a candidate between Hitler and Stalin, who would you endorse? What a weaselly excuse. Check him on twitter.
Join Tom Moran here for a live chat Monday at noon. Ask @TomAMoran