Like everyone else in the "mainstream" media, the New York Times is desperate to keep Chris Christie alive, if only as a counter-weight to the Tea Party and to maintain the fiction that we still have a two-party system. But in their haste to help Fat Boy rebuild his brand, the Times published an article that was so stupid it deserves to be considered on its own for what it says and what it doesn't say. Let's go below the fold.
Over the weekend a couple of NYT reporters followed Christie to Florida for a round of fundraisers, but the way the story was written, they weren't allowed inside the gatherings (no more 47-percenters, that's for sure) and the guests at these affairs were obviously under strict orders to keep their mouths shut around the press. So the story ends up reading like a combination of earlier stories along with a few quotes from people who weren't at the fundraisers but are involved in Republican politics (like Michael Steele) and are always good for a quote.
So the story ended basically saying nothing at all because until the next shoe drops in Fort Lee, there's nothing really to say. Except if you read between the lines you realize two things: a) this fat schmuck is really a lightweight in political terms; and, b) if he's a dope his staff is dopier still, except they can get away with being dopes because the reporters who are covering this whole deal are just as dopey. Here's my proof.
The story states that one of Christie's problems is that he still doesn't have anyone representing him in DC. Now here we are, 9 months away from the mid-term elections, by which time anyone who's seriously considering a run for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has to be out there getting things lined up and this fat schmuck hasn't even hired anyone to promote himself where all national political promotions have to begin. And the Times reports this as if it's just another little fact. It's not a little fact. It shows you how bush-league this guy really is. But there's a better one.
The story goes on to try and make you believe that Christie's aware of this problem and so here's what he's doing to get things going:
Mr. Christie started reaching out to seasoned Republican hands over the past week, including a former Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, and Karl Rove.
Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove? Like these guys know anything about Jersey? Like they've ever even been in Jersey? Are you serious?
Last week Mitchell Moss wrote a great piece about the Fort Lee mess in the New York Observer, and he threw open the possibility that Christie probably didn't understand what would happen if he tied up traffic on the G.W. Bridge because, as Moss puts it,
Mr. Christie’s base of support lies in southern and central New Jersey, not in the largely Democratic northern cities and suburbs that depend on tunnels and bridges that connect New Jersey to New York
.
So if Christie doesn't understand his own state very well, he's going to get advice from Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove? And that's how he's going to rebuild his brand? When it comes to playing politics in the Big Leagues, Christie doesn't get it, his staff doesn't get it and neither does the New York Times. I have my own theory about how and why the bridge incident took place but you'll have to wait for my next blog.