At the Republican National Convention, pretty much every speech is going to have two main arguments: President Obama and his vision are bad; Mitt Romney and his vision are good. The speakers will try to strike some kind of balance between the two, while emphasizing different specifics.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who delivered last night's keynote address, chose a different approach. Christie decided to use this opportunity to celebrate ... himself.
Watching the remarks, it occurred to me that Christie was trying -- and failing -- to emulate Barack Obama's 2004 DNC keynote, in which the then-state senator talked about how improbable American journey is, and "in no other country on earth, is my story even possible."
But Christie badly missed the point of Obama's speech -- it wasn't about him, specifically, but rather Obama's salute to America's exceptional qualities. Last night, the governor wanted to argue that he too has lived an improbable his American journey, not because of the extraordinary opportunities the nation offers, but because he's a Republican in a Democratic state.
And from there, it got worse. Christie went on (and on) celebrating himself and his virtues. As Rachel noted last night, "He waited 1800 words into a 2600 word speech to even bring [Romney] up."
Even Christie's theme seemed bizarre. The keynote was ostensibly about "hard truths" -- he used the word "truth" 21 times -- and the need for bold political "courage," but all of this only reinforced the degree to which Mitt Romney disagrees.
As we've discussed before, Romney's afraid to offend conservatives; he's afraid to push back against extremist rhetoric; he's afraid of the religious right; and he's afraid of Limbaugh. He's afraid to release his tax returns because he thinks Democrats might be mean to him; he's afraid to disclose his bundlers because he worries sunlight may scare his wealthy benefactors away; and he's afraid to take a firm position on key issues because he thinks he'd lose. His campaign said last week presenting specifics to voters would be "suicidal."
Romney's campaign isn't about courageous "hard truths"; it's about hiding the truth and hoping voters don't notice.
Indeed, Christie almost seemed to be patting Obama on the back, since it's the president who had to take the political risks -- rescuing the auto industry, passing health care reform, endorsing marriage equality, implementing the goals of the DREAM Act -- leaders sometimes have to choose.
By the time the speech was done, I still didn't know why I was supposed to vote for Mitt Romney, why Romney's agenda had value, or even what Romney would do in office. I now know why Chris Christie loves Chris Christie, and I'm glad he put his bullying persona on hold for the night, but I thought the point of the keynote was to advance Romney's ambitions, not the governor's.
Christie treated Romney like an afterthought. I assume Team Romney approved the speech before it was delivered, but I'm not sure why.
Leave a Comment:
I would like to thank Christie. Watching him waddle to the podium made me feel skinnier, then he opened his mouth and my IQ leaped to heights I found humbling.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It brings into focus all the absurd critisism of Romney's remark on birth certificate. It also shows, how the comments here show, a tainted view of the speech. It was an introduction to the idea Republican ideas can take hold even in a very blue state. It was a statement about the need for leadership. It was a statement about the need to face reality. And, it was a statement that the old (read Keynes) ideas haven't worked.
Oh please, it just simply showed the world the shameless, crass, rhetoric of a 2016 hopeful. Nothing more.
@ Tom
From my view point of Christie's speech. I may not agree with his politics. But he can deliver a speech. But last night, it was just off. It wasn't the best or even one of the best ones he has ever given.
His speech was also more about him and the Republican Idea. Than it was about why people should vote for Mitt. And if people actually paid attention to his speech and how he delivered his lines. And the wording of them. He wasn't just blaming Democrats for how things are. he was also blaming his own party as well. Because "Those who want to keep the status qua" and "Oh not not me, we can't" and "pandering to their base". Was just as much about the GOP and the House, as it was a jab at the Democrats. If the Rep Party actually paid attention to the wording of his speech. he threw the Dems under the bus. But The Rep Party was also chained to their feet and as being dragged along.
Was that what his speech was about? Because I honestly couldn't tell. He'd whine about how Obama is being so divisive and then immediately turn around and say something divisive or something negative about Democrats and Democratic policies. Then he'd say we need to get rid of all the politicians in DC while ignoring the fact that he is a politician and the people he's electing are all politicians one of whom has spent his entire working life IN DC (and ignoring that calling out "DC" as opposed to the politicos themselves is divisive). And it's funny how he's talking about a lack of leadership. When you are elected as an official to represent the public you are in a position of leadership. Why then are Republicans whining about lacking leadership? Seriously if Republicans wanted to fix these failed policies all they'd have to do is start working across the isle and getting bi-partisan support on policies. But they haven't been doing this- by their own admission they have not attempted to work with Democrats on compromise and passing legislation since the 2008 election. So apparently leadership only applies when you feel your party is in control. And that is hypocritical (just as calling out politicians! while being one yourself; just as calling out divisiveness! while being divisive yourself).
Interesting how hypocrisy equals facing reality and interesting how saying the old ways haven't worked when I'm pretty sure blatant hypocrisy is synonymous with politician. I heard nothing new in Christie's speech; I heard a bunch of claims about Christie's own political record that are not true (face the truth! here I'll start with a lie!), attacks against Democrats and the Democratic president (because they're the ones spreading hate and division!), fear mongering (facing reality!), and non-specific statements (truth and reality!).
Chris Christie and the Republicans told the American people that we're to blame for our broken economy. He told families to tighten their belts. He told seniors to live on less. He told teachers to stop fighting for fair pay.
He never, ever mentioned how much more the richest have taken, and he had no mention that those who broke our economy still haven't been held accountable.
Romney is not a leader for this country, that is why they choose him. They want a puppet to do what he is told and they found Pinocchio.
Some people do not lie as easily as others so Gov. Cristie stayed in his comfort zone. The GOP wanted Gov. Christie so took what it could get.
When it came to mentioning Romney, Christie's speech was a fill-in-the-blanks effort. He could have given the same speech about Paul, or Cain, or Gingrich, or Santorum or anybody. If he's not the Party's nominee in 2016, he could give the exact same speech again and just fill-in-the-blanks with the new names.
Thank you all for watching so I didn't have to .
I just don't have the stomach for it .
A Faux News world with the fake Obama they have constructed , including the use of an out of context quote for their convention theme.
The Post truth campaign dutifully reported by an MSM, to lazy to do their jobs.
As Bette Davis said to Leslie Howard, "I'd love to kiss you, but I just washed my hair."
On the other hand, I watched- on my doctor's orders. (He told me to avoid excitement.)
Chris Christie and Paul Ryan epitomize the triumph of style over substance and the [weakening] of US social contract.
if it was tailored to the conservative base,then i can understand why he was allowed to give such a speech.On the other hand,if this speech was to paint a grand vision of the conservative idea of the country,i think he failed miserably.
If the former is true,i think i understand now why Psychologists say,totalitarian impulses appeal to conservatives.You always read/hear them talk about strong leadership,even if the word is hollow or meaningless.
e.g George Bush showed strong leadership.when you look at his record,it's a catastrophe,but he did talk tough.
Saint Reagan showed Strong leadership.When you take a look at his record,he tripled the national debt,but he did talk tough.
Chris Christie shows strong leadership,even though his Handling of New Jersey is a mess
Paul Ryan shows strong leadership,even though he his plan for the country would add 62+trillion to the debt(his plan wouldn't balance the budget until the 2060's),leaving seniors with coupons to go shop for doctors and leaving young Americans to borrow money from their parents to pay for Education.
USA!what went wrong?
Robert Altemeyer is a retired psychology professor and has been studying the right wing and evangelicals since 1966. John Dean used his findings in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience". Dr. Altemeyer is sounding the alarm about how these people think and how destructive they would be to out country. He is so concerned that he has put his book FREE ONLINE. I would suggest that anyone who is interested to please read. It is frightening. It is real. It is happening now. Theauthoritarians dot com.
Some of Obama's Achievements to Pass Along: http://www.democratichub.com/obama-administration-accomplishments.aspx?o=ps&t=lc
http://obamaachievements.org/list
http://3chicspolitico.com/president-obamas-accomplishments/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog
Rachel, Your analysis of Christi's speech was typical and did not disappoint. You missed his message because you took it by itself instead of hearing the overall message of the evening. Every Republican governor outlined what they did as fiscal conservatives to turn their troubling states around. Where fiscal conservatism is being used, economies are improving. Instead of counting words to find out how long it took Christie to mention the name of Mitt Romney, you should have been listening to the message. It wasn't about Romney alone; it was about the spiraling debt and deficit spending this president is saddling us with, it was about Obama's and the Democrat controlled Senate's failed policies, and it was about the need for fiscal conservatism to return this country to an improving economy.
My only fear is that we are at point of no return, that no matter who becomes president, the economy will not recover, that the deficit will not decrease and the country will experience eventual economic disaster and extreme hardships. One thing is for sure, if Obama is re-elected, that WILL happen, and he WILL own it. Question is, if Romney is elected, and the ecomony continues to worsen, will you and the rest of the Democrat Apologists allow him to blame Obama.
Once again another conservative crackpot.
WE face two problems in the country right now.
1)the unemployment(Potential tax payers) 2) the debt.
For a sane Person,you can not address 2) without first addressing 1). since we do not elect emperors or we are not in a parliamentary system,the president can't do much without the consent of congress!!!!!
Obama has a road map(A PLAN) to addressing both but the likes of Boehner and Ryan care more about his defeat than they do about the health of the Economy,What don't you understand?
It is a classic in American Politics,that Chris Christie was suppose to sell Romney to a broader America and paint a grand conservative idea of the Republican platform,did he do that?
What grand solution did offer the country with regard to the Debt?aside from saying it huge?(my son,who is 7knows that)
You guys have very short memory span,Did Obama inherited a healthy Economy with Surpluses?
Don't you see what is happening in Europe,especially Great Britain with their Austerity?
Thanks, khayyam, for clearing the fog from the windshied! Now PFCrot can see the road ahead- and the many potholes put there by Bush and Cheney and Mitch "Make him a one term president" McConnell.
PFCrot= CrockOfCrap, where in the country specifiaclly is fiscal conservatism WORKING?? Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, CA, Idaho, TX.... where?
I live in the liberal land of Massachusetts. Funny how MA is holding it's own and will be even better when Scot Brown is defeated by Elizabeth Warren!!!
So tell me, what did the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate do for the first two years of Obama's first term that has turn this country around? Consent of Congress? Congress is supposed to represent the people and pass legislation that serves the people, not strip liberties and redistribute wealth. The Pelosi-Reid congress purposefully failed to pass budgets to allow the last Bush budget to be extended from year to year, the same budget from the same man they continue to blame. Consent of Congress? Presidents do not pass law by edict, but this one does. Sounds like an emporer to me.
Do people not realize that this is a paradox??? If you claim that what politicians do on the local level singularly outweigh what politicians do on the national level then this immediately invalidates any claim you can make about national policies effecting local governments. Therefore you just contradicted yourself by advocating for conservative policies at the national level. Please people use some common sense in your reasoning.
Likewise this argument completely ignores the fact that growth has been occurring every single month in every single state since President Obama took over and put his policies in effect. The nation as a whole has been adding jobs. This comment entirely ignores that in the places where liberal policies have went into effect they have also seen gains. Any gain at the local level is a gain for Obama. So we're supposed to believe that no growth has been occurring, yet we're also supposed to believe that growth has been occurring. Not a contradiction at all!
I should also add that this statement is not factually true, either. How's that line go? Three strikes and you're _____?
No. You blame Obama for the economy worsening and the national debt which came about NOT because of Obama's spending but because of the Great Recession and the economic policies put into place by Bush. You state that by bringing this factual reality into place we are blaming Bush and apologizing for Obama. Why, then, would we allow Mitt Romney- by using YOUR own logic and reasoning- to claim that after he has been elected president that he is now the person to whom blame follows? This argument doesn't even make any sense. You're saying Obama can't blame Bush for what is correctly Bush's fault, but then you say that Romney should be able to blame Obama for whatever Romney wants. Hypocrisy much?
And for the record the only blame that has been thrown Bush's way has been to explain how the Great Recession came about. You cannot fix a problem unless you understand how that problem came about in the first place. You also cannot understand why growth has been slow or why the debt is where it's at today unless you understand how the previous administration's policies affect us today. Remember the debt and deficit clock didn't start over at zero the day Obama was elected.
Actually, the state with by far the largest recent gains in jobs, recently, seems to be California (July 2012,CES), that red-state haven of fiscal conservatism. And the job growth hasn't been in inland California where all the blue-stater liberals live, but along the bright red coastal zone, particularly that outstanding exemplar of true libertarian fiscal rigor, the San Francisco Bay region.
If we were to run our personal lives according to the GOP ideology it would go like this.......
When the parents of a family of five lost their jobs, instead of finding new jobs and bringing in more REVENUE, the GOP would suggest you get rid of your children, (kids are very very expensive), sell all your furniture, get rid of the car and just try to hang onto your house with your fingertips, but if the bank takes it you can just move under one of our crumbling bridges.
I am an open minded conservative who enjoys your show. I know that you lean left, but felt that it was fine as I like hearing all perspectives and on many issues I am more liberal than conservative. Tonight I lost that enjoyment as I tuned into MSNBC for convention coverage and found that although the GOP had Ted Cruz, Brian Sandaval, Luce’ Vela Fortuño, Arthur Davis and Mia Love as speakers none of their speeches were covered? Not one.
Opting out of one or two speeches, i can see, but not showing 5 of them, no mention of them? You make Fox look fair and balanced.
Both sides play games but this is beyond games, information matters and even though you have an opinion let the people hear the words and see the candidates. What are you afraid of? Turns out that you are no different than Limbaugh, out for your agenda instead of truth.
Programming doesn't depend on the Anchors.Did CNN air those five speeches?What was suppose to be the reason for airing all of them?
Journalism is not about fairness and balance.It's about truth and holding politicians accountable.Stop drinking from the FOUNTAIN OF BOTH SIDES MYTH,it makes you dumb and blind.
Disclaimer:I am not saying that i know the truth,but i know what good journalism is.It has nothing to do with fairness.
Garry, I eagerly look forward to next week, when FOX airs, -without editorial snark- every speech at the Democratic convention!
If you want to see the speeches, watch C-SPAN.
I'm going to pretend like this criticism makes any sense.
So apparently MSNBC was supposed to have all day coverage of the convention- not just of the big name speakers, but of ALL the speakers. Oh and then they should've went booth to booth and covered what each person was selling! And then interviewed every single person at the convention to make sure they got an appropriate level of conservative representation! And then they should've interviewed the people who built the building in order to make sure that they didn't miss any potentially useful information! And how many toilets were at the convention? Were the port-o-potties adequately staffed with toilet paper? What about bottled water?! You know it'd be a HUGE scandal if there wasn't enough bottled water!!! And what did Chris Christie eat before he appeared on stage?! WE NEED TO KNOW!!!
Mr. Carlson, if information really mattered, then critical posts like yours could be sent to a plethora of conservative "news" outlets on a daily basis. Yet, to compare the coverage of a single event with Rush's continual disingenuousness only goes to show how uneven the standards, and how partial the judges.
I wonder where the dear Governor lost his gravitas? Behind the clothes hamper in his closet?
Where was his purported mojo? OTL?
I was far from impressed by Christie as he selfishly projected drivel! His over use of "they" in setting up a contrast spoke more to his hollow being than his ability to offer effective public service! -Kevo
Lucky for me, I taped the convention. I watched 3/4 of Christie's blowbag speech, I couldn't take another second. If his speech was his debut for a run in 2016, he delusional!! Those southern, staunch, right wing conservatives wouldn't spit on Christie if he was burning on fire.
The hyposcisy of him mentioning that his father, who grew up poor, put himself through college on a GI bill after WWll was beyond stupid. It's like, "we got ours" and now I need you all to applaud me for success and now that I'm such a success, I'm going FIX government making sure NO one has those same oppotunities my father had.
His father should be ashamed.
I watched all five of those speeches on line @ nbcnews. The only one that got cut short was Nikki Haley, right after she talked about her immigrant parents who made millions and millions after coming to America. How did they do that without help from anyone? Christi said PBO is driving us "off a cliff", and that the President's absentee leadership (what?) has given us the status quo of Doubt & Fear (as opposed to hope and change, I guess). But my big question about Christi's diatribe is "Real leaders change poles" (or polls). What the h--- is he talking about?
It's politics folks. It is always about him; why else speak? He is positioning hemself for the next time, in the event of a Romney loss. And if Romney wins, he was a good soldier.
It's pretty pathetic that, in order to get a rousing standing ovation for his speech, Chris Christie actually stooped to demanding that the audience stand up, purportedly to stand up for AMERICA, but really ... At least he didn't have to yell "Fire!" to get the crowd to rise. And we were spared his singing the National Anthem to make his fellow and underwhelmed Republicans jump to their feet. This was not one of the jolly guy's best efforts.
Christie has difficulty NOT talking about himself, after all how can you ignore the elephant in the room?
just a new jersey republican... who lived in a van - down by the river!
I'm just wondering if the big message we are getting from the Republican Party is that they are concentrating on state legislatures and governorships. Last night we saw a parade of state governors giving testimonials about the benefits of Conservative state government. In the past few years they have pushed their agenda through individual state legislation quite successfully. The presidency would be a nice bonus but not a "must have".
Christie reminded me of a crude Tier II football coach delivering a "How great I am" brag instead of the halftime pep talk he was hired to give.
Calvin is correct in saying that Christie was in many ways speaking to his own party. He kept referring to "Bi-partisan efforts" and "compromise" in order to be successful. He was clearly trying to send a message to his own people to snap back into reality. And he didn't mention Mitt until the end for good reason; if it was his choice he probably would not have mentioned him at all.