A Proper Primary Purpose

NBC New York: Chris Christie Backs Mitt Romney for GOP Nomination

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he is backing Mitt Romney for president as “the man we need to lead America” and said attacks on his Mormon religion are “beneath the office of the president of the United States.”

Christie announced his endorsement at a surprise appearance in New Hampshire with the former Massachusetts governor on Tuesday.

The event comes a few days after the Rev. Robert Jeffress, a supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, called Romney’s religion a “cult” and said he was “not a Christian.” Jeffress was at an event where he introduced Perry.

On Tuesday, Christie said “any campaign that associates itself with that type of comment is beneath the office of the president of the United States.”

For those of you who lost respect for the New Jersey governor, or for those of you simply disheartened that Chris Christie’s interpretation of William F. Buckley’s golden rule–support the most conservative candidate who can win–is different than your own, this endorsement should serve as a vicious slap in the face as to the purpose of the primary system.

Look, I like Christie.  I think that his steadfastness on certain issue–union involvement in education and state-level fiscal responsibility chief among them–is admirable.  Yet I also knew that Christie was a moderate with regard to other issues vitally important to the conservative and libertarian-conservative base of the GOP.  For that reason, I did not join in the cacophony of advance praise and hero worship that took place among those in the resurgent right prior to Christie’s final acknowledgment of his non-candidacy.  Is he a great guy? Yes. Would he make a good chief executive despite his moderate leanings? Very probably. Does he have unquestionable conservative bona fides? Absolutely not.

To be honest, the Christie endorsement comes as anything but a surprise to me.  I did not think it would happen this quickly, but I believe that Romney and Christie share a certain ideological mold, and for that reason I believed it inevitable. Personally, I don’t think that anybody on the right should be surprised.  Those who genuinely are, are probably those who participated in the hero worship in the first place.

What this should do for everyone on the right, however, is show exactly how valuable the primary process is.  While any one of the GOP candidates–yes, even Jon Huntsman–will likely receive my vote against Barack Obama in the general election (this election, of all elections, is not the time to vote Barack Obama back into office as a lame-duck president for ANY reason, as NONE of the GOP candidates would be worse than a lame duck Barack Obama), I want the candidate who best articulates and espouses conservative-libertarian ideals, who does so in a way that can trounce the president in the general election, and who will not wither under the intense scrutiny of a sycophantic media clearly in the corner of the other guy.

The primary is THE time for separating the wheat from the chaff.  I understand Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, but we must also understand that the left is not playing games, and that any attack made by one Republican against another would be made against that same Republican by Barack Obama and his flunkies.  We need to know that our nominee rises to the top.



  1. Linda C. says:

    So, we allknow that the the head honchos in the Republican party were pushing Christie to run because he has more charisma than Romney (and, even though Cain has more charisma than Romney, they won’t allow him to have hte nomination because he doesn’t owe anyone anything). Seems to me that they also made a deal that if Christie decided not to put himself in that position (at least for now), they were asking that he back Romney (the head honchos’ second choice) in exchagne for a Vice Presidential nod. Seems very plausible to me. Why else the immediate endorsement of Romney?

  2. Laurie says:

    Could not agree with you more Jeff. I was not the least bit surprised by the endorsement…RINO to RINO…it was expected. I like you will fight for whomever our candidate is, but indeed we need to make sure they will win.

  3. Randy Wills says:

    A good and timely reminder, Jeff, but, truthfully, I’m struggling with the “inevitability” of the Romney nomination. I simply do not trust the guy. He has demonstrated that he really doesn’t care which policy bus he’s on as long as it is going in the direction of the Presidency.

    Unfortunately for the Conservative cause, as represented by the majority of the Tea Party movement, Romney’s nomination may well do more for Obama’s reelection effort than any of Perry’s gaffes, although I’m astounded by Perry’s ineptness in the debates. Too bad, but I wouldn’t count him out yet.

    And by the way, Huntsman made an excellent point last night regarding his “business experience” versus Romney’s. The kind of experience that Romney touts has no more to do with job creation than any other Wall Street investment manager. As Huntsman said, his family’s business has been built on actually producing something (i.e. manufacturing, which is our grestest deficiency, economically) other than wealth. On that basis alone, I would prefer Huntsman to Romney.


  4. Linda C. says:

    Randy, while I’m not a Huntsman fan, your last paragraph is well said. Why is no one asking those questions? (Never mind . . . I know.)

  5. Randy Wills says:

    I don’t know, Linda, but they’re letting Romney get away with the catch-all phrase “business experience”. The fact is that he simply increased the Romney family wealth, which was considerable, and increased it by means of a built-in network of good connections and astute equity management.

    There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but the process typically does not create jobs. More typically, the investment and acquisition function consolidates organizations and, in the process, U.S. employment is reduced significantly. To be successful in that business, it helps to not be too concerned with the effect of your transactions on the employment market.

    I’ll take the guy who has actually grown a manufacturing business in which success depends, to a large extent, on the enthusiastic and dedicated participation of the workers who then share in the success of the business. It’s an entirely different business model and requires a different mind-set.


  6. Bob Upton says:


    I think you’re becoming my idol!

    Since idolatry is a sin I’ll change that to role model. You possess a rare kind wisdom. One that is part experience, part observation and part revelation. Thank you for sharing that wisdom with us.

    When will you run for President?

  7. Randy Wills says:

    Bob Upton @7:06 PM:

    That’s high praise, Bob, particularly coming from someone whose comments are typically right on target – at least until this most recent one – but anything I have to say that makes sense has its roots in a love for the God of the Scripture and the better part of 50 years absorbed in the design and manufacture of useful products in a competititive marketplace. Both have proven to be fountainheads of practicality and common sense.

    But you know, Bob, that if it weren’t for Jeff and his “AmericasRight”, I’d just be sitting here at my desk, fuming and mumbling to myself about the morally corrupt social trends and failed economic policies that are driving this great country to the brink of collapse. My hat’s off to Jeff for all of the effort that he has put into providing a place of intellectual and philosophical refuge for persons such as you and I (and, of course, all of the others who make it a practice to check in at AR).

    So, thanks for the contribution that you and the other commentors continue to make to AR, including those who often, but respectfully, disagree with me. Keep it up.


Speak Your Mind