Either Chris Christie really doesn’t want the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2016, or he is suffering from the delusion that setting yourself on fire is a good way to get people’s attention. His recent feud with Rand Paul has probably served to finish the job that his hand holding with Barack Obama began in the last election. In his obvious intent to endear himself to establishment Republicans (a vanishing breed), he has destroyed all the credibility he had remaining with both the Tea Party and Libertarian factions of the party, who had at one time been among his biggest fans.
Christie began the feud by saying that he wanted us to be really “cautious”, and then went on to warn against the libertarian strain in both parties. When coaxed, he threw Rand Paul under the bus, and warned that what many might consider constitutional considerations are just “esoteric and intellectual” debates that should be eschewed in favor of what works to keep us safe. The governor will forgive me I hope, if I wax “intellectual” here, but isn’t being cautious and safe what gave the GOP its last two losing presidential candidates? He went on to bring up the victims of 9/11 in a display of emotion worthy of Hillary Clinton. I’m just waiting now for him to say that he doesn’t like the label of “conservative”, but prefers to think of himself as a “proud modern American Progressive”.
Rand Paul is not likely to be the Republican nominee in 2016, but no other nominee has a chance of being elected without the enthusiastic support of those voters whose first choice would have been Paul, and the countless others who might not be entirely behind Paul, but agree with him on many of the issues. Christie’s tirade against the dreaded threat of “Libertarianism” revealed one truth that the governor seems to think will win him points with the big money Republican establishment, and that is the bi-partisan appeal of libertarian politics. Actually, many of the Libertarian positions do not fit neatly into either establishment political party, and that is refreshing to many voters. The Libertarians and the maverick Tea Party factions are entirely anathema to the Progressive/ Democrat establishment, but they are more directly threatening to the establishment Republican Neo-con dinosaurs who have grown fat (sorry Chris) and comfortable in their position of perennial losers.
There is indeed a civil war in the Republican party, and Paul and Christie are the faces of the two sides. I would not expect either of them to be the 2016 candidate. Libertarian/ Tea party republicans have the passion and the voters, while establishment Republicans have the big money… both are needed to win elections. So if Republicans hope to beat Hillary in 2016 (assuming she is well enough to run), they will need a candidate that appeals to both sides, or at least does not alienate one or the other. The passion of the Libertarian/ Tea Party side makes them the more easily offended, but the big money investments of the establishment side makes them the more cautious. The perfect candidate would need to show strong constitutionalist, small government credentials, while at the same time solicit a sense of security when it comes to national defense, terrorism, and the economy. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan is no longer with us; one wonders why his son Michael never comes up in a discussion of candidates. Marco Rubio has been damaged in the immigration debate, but might still be able to rehabilitate himself, he is more savvy than Governor Christie is proving to be.
IMHO: Several pundits have described the Hatfield and McCoy style feud between Christie and Paul as a win/ win for both candidates. I don’t see it that way. I suppose it’s possible that it could be re-elevating Christie to the spotlight enough to propel him to a victory over worse candidates in a Romney style primary; but in alienating an entire wing of the party (which he seems intent on doing), such a victory would be a pyrrhic one. It’s definitely a win for Paul, who seems to have a gift for keeping himself in the spotlight without needing to resort to the impolitic bomb throwing of his father, but it will take a hitherto unseen ability to gain credibility with the establishment for Paul to succeed in the primaries. If he can do that, though I don’t believe he can, he might actually have a better chance in the general election than Christie, who’s really just Romney with an attitude. The civil war in the GOP is a needed one, as the establishments of both parties increasingly resemble each other. The question is whether the war will cost Republicans the next election, and if it does, what will be left of the country by the time the next one rolls around?
