Chris Christie shows why he’s going to be a key asset to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, cutting through President Obama’s “adult-in-the-room” nonsense with this pitch-perfect critique today:
“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”
Christie is exactly right. Obama’s hands-off attitude toward Congress is really just another example of his complete failure of leadership. And it’s a politically-motivated ploy, at that – he refuses to get his hands dirty by working with the supercommittee, and then he’s the first to point fingers at Congress and say, “I told you so” when the committee fails.
Republicans have been scrambling for a consistent message on the supercommittee debacle, and Christie may be pointing the way here. Instead of acting defensive and responding to attacks on congressional Republicans, Christie has turned the argument on its head: if Obama was so sure the supercommittee was going to end in disaster, why didn’t he intervene? That is his job, after all. Instead, he sat on the sidelines for months, never lifting a finger.
This line has been used before, but it’s fitting in this context: if you want to claim you’re the adult in the room, it helps to actually be in the room.
Contentions' cheerleading for Romney has gotten downright silly. Why will Christie's critique of Obama's lack of engagement with the supercommittee specifically benefit Romney? Has Christie said he will not speak up during the general election campaign if Romney is not the nominee? The post correctly notes that Christie may have hit a good theme for Republicans to respond to Obama's tactic of the "do-nothing" Congress, but opening the post with a plug for Romney dilutes the point.
Sparklaw asks: n n" Why will Christie's critique of Obama's lack of engagement with the supercommittee specifically benefit Romney?" n nUmmm, maybe because Christie has endorsed Romney? I'm sure that Christie will support the eventual nominee, but until that decsion is made, it would appear logical that his comments will tend to help the candidate that he is specifically endorsing.
Gord11: n nUmmm, what does Christie's endorsement of Romney have to do with Christie's criticism of Obama? Did Christie only do so in relation to his endorsement of Romney? Did he copyright the criticism with the intent of licensing it only to Romney? Would Christie not make the same argument if Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann or any of the other Republican candidates becomes the nominee? It is a non-sequitor; your conclusion is not at all logical. n nMy point was and remains that most, if not all, of the Contentions bloggers have pushed Romney for months. The lead thought of Ms. Goodman's post is just the latest example of this. Other recent ones include the live blog from the most recent debate, where the blogger (Jonathan Tobin, if I recall correctly) repeatedly related how Gingrich, in particular, scored good points. Romney received all of one positive mention, yet the blogger declared Romney the winner of the debate. I watched a good portion of that debate and came away with a far different view, though I have yet to make up my mind who will get my vote.
"if you want to claim you’re the adult in the room, it helps to actually be in the room."r nr nIt helps if one is actually an adult, also.