The Christie Doctrine

“I have a policy of not answering this in every interview.”

By
26

What would be the foreign policy of a Chris Christie administration? The GOP candidate and former governor joins Jamie to discuss Israel’s war with Hamas, Henry Kissinger’s influence, the threat of China invading Taiwan, and whether Donald Trump is going to prison.

By
Comments (26)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Spook1320-Generaluse

    Had never been a big Chris Christie fan over the last dozen-or-so years that he's been nationally visible. And, had been among those who were especially appalled when he effectively became DJT's wing man at the 2016 cycle debate in which he scorched Rubio.

    But he's evolved. I find him today to be the only voice on the debate stage who is willing to say what needs to be said, even if it hurts himself politically, and that's admirable. Everyone else seems to be wishy-washy in comparison. Don't agree with every point of what he's said, but certainly agree with most.

    Here's something I disagree with, though, and it's actually no small issue, and it came up in his recent town hall in Concord NH: https://youtu.be/5hSHQcB8HCQ?si=QI7fOpwteIbPQg5q

    Look (... in my best Chris Christie voice :) )...

    DJT only is powerful to the degree that his supporters give him their support. MAGA is his oxygen.

    So, no, Governor, it's not one, it's both. Both are the problem.

    And/but because we're not going to fix the Crazy Old Man, our best hope, of course, is to see his supporters evolve... to reclaim an allegiance first to the Constitution, which inherently means dropping support for anyone who picks and chooses the parts of the Constitution he's okay with, and as it serves his own interests.

    Maybe... probably... they don't in the short term. And for that reason, I sure hope some Dems and Indys are prepared to cross over and vote in open primary states. If he's able to create some momentum, though, and make it popular to align with the one guy who has been insistent to tell the truth from the start, perhaps he gains enough traction at just the right moment. It's happened before. Heck, Biden was a goner, until SC, and then everything changed.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Best answer he gave was when asked if he’s afraid of Trump going after him with DOJ.

    Collapse
  3. Slowdave1

    So nice to hear from an actual adult running for president! How refreshing!

    The dodge, not so much. Come on Christie. 😒

    Collapse
    1. Spook1320-Generaluse

      To be fair, CC's not lying. I've watched practically every town hall, every Sunday commentary show, every weeknight commentary show. If it's on CC's YouTube channel, or if a search on YouTube brings it up, I've almost certainly watched it, or most of it. He gets ***a lot*** of the same questions over and over.

      So, to the point here, it's at a point that there's a flood of clear distinct answers asserting CC's rejection of having anything to do with Trump in the future... and that it's so ubiquitous, that it has become arguably counterproductive to allow the question any further credibility.

      Thus, I took Christie's answer to be a polite way of saying to Jamie W, "C'mon. Really?"

      Look. I, too, appreciated how well the interviewer prepared. I really did. It was refreshing to hear some new answers, arising from fresh, informed questions.

      But that one, then, was like driving down the road enjoying a beautiful summer evening with the windows rolled down, only to have that stench of dead skunk hit your nose. No offense to Jamie W, but it was jarring because it didn't fit with the rest of the interview, for reasons I just suggested in the previous paragraph. I'd even propose that Christie, given truth serum, would admit to feeling a little offended that Jamie W thought there was any legitimate doubt remaining that would justify the question.

      Collapse
      1. Slowdave1

        I don't get that perspective to be honest. Of COURSE you're going to be asked that in EVERY SINGLE INTERVIEW you do from now until the election after you were the first mainstream candidate to endorse Trump in 2016 and give him legitimacy. And a simple "no" and you're done with that question every time. About 3 minutes simpler than the long, evasive answer he actually gave. If you want to get a dig in, you could answer, "Same as I've answered in the previous 1000 interviews, no." But I wouldn't want to put that much effort into it.

        And after seeing so many R candidates attack Trump and then do an about-face and serve on his staff, it's a very valid question.

        Collapse
        1. Spook1320-Generaluse

          Free country. Your welcome to that opinion.

          But no, I think there comes a time that, to continue to answer that question you've answered 1000 times is, instead, to encourage it to be asked 1001 times, and in so doing, implicitly helping to give oxygen to the idea that suspicion will continue to be merited ad infinitum. Those who need it answered 1001 times will need it answered 1002, 1003, 1004... you're never, if you're Christie, winning THAT person's vote anyhow. At some point, it's counterproductive to your larger purposes.

          And I come back here on 12/7, the day after the debate, to put into evidence this. There's not a micron of wiggle room here. There is no validity to any further question about this man's position. To ask it is to implicitly insult him, imo. I know I would be.

          https://youtu.be/OFf5aBWWVyw?si=pa1JzZciaR5REnuc

          Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Interesting interview, deftly done Mr. Weinstein. Thank you for it, and the preparation you put into it.

    I like Gov. Christie, and he should continue to bash Trump and grab as much free media doing so as possible. It's expiation. As a past lickspittle for Trump, he owes it to the country. I'm talking bloody-knees-level contrition.

    And he should learn to do so with better grace than he showed in the question he refused to answer in this podcast! It's a legitimate question because of HIS history with Trump, not Trump's history with him. Throwing a snit-fit is an act of egotism. All politicians suffer from that to some degree, but again, his history with Trump makes it particularly inappropriate for him to let his own ego run so wild.

    Regardless: He can't win the nomination. And staying even to the first actual voting will only help Trump.

    He therefore should drop out a week before the first caucus vote and endorse Haley. If he can't see fit to do that, then he's just another clown with a particularly barbed tongue.

    Collapse
    1. Spook1320-Generaluse

      No offense, but if you'll pardon me saying so, it absolutely kills me that people still have the hubris after 2016 and 2020 to play political Nostradamus. It's not as bad if you or I do it, much "badder" when men and women with gigantic audiences do so.

      What am I talking about?

      I'm old enough to remember this time in 2015, and really all the way until New Hampshire in 2016, there was a loud persistent chorus claiming that the Trump thing would eventually pass... that the GOP would get serious eventually... that there was no way that someone without any political experience whatsoever would become a major party's nominee in the end.

      Ooops.

      And of course, I'm also old enough to remember in 2019 how the Dems couldn't seem to settle on anyone in particular, and over time, it became the popular assessment to suggest that if Biden hadn't gotten traction already, his time must have run out... he was going to be passed over... he was old news... put a fork in him, he was done. Until he wasn't. It took until the third state's contest, but South Carolina resuscitated a campaign/candidacy that was considered widely to be mostly dead.

      Ooops.

      That to say, I advocate for us all, especially given those recent factoids, to resist talking in such absolute terms about what ***will*** happen or ***will not***. It's not that we shouldn't say how we see the winds blowing, present tense. That's altogether fair. But intellectual humility is a good thing, and to the degree we embrace it instead of trying to gain esteem as the next great political soothsayer, I believe it's more than just good, but helpful.

      My two cents... er, nickels.

      Collapse
      1. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

    2. Avatar photo
      Trevor Reid

      Yes, especially the last paragraph.

      Collapse
  5. Smross7

    While Christie has his faults and politician reflexes, I find him remarkably refreshing and devoid of bull****. He also seems like a very competent leader and someone who takes bipartisanship and governance very seriously. I wish Haley were as skilled an interlocutor. I know it's likely doomed if he doesn't win NH in a stunner, but I frankly can't get enough of the guy.

    Collapse
  6. R. James

    When is Christie going to drop out of the race? This is the question I care more about than the hypothetical foreign policy of a former governor of New Jersey.

    Collapse
  7. Keith Schooley

    Could easily like Christie as a president, but I really didn't like his elaborate evasion of the question of whether he would support Trump as the nominee. Many words when a simple "no" would have been quicker and much more effective in laying the matter to rest. It's a completely reasonable question given what happened in 2016.

    Collapse
    1. D. Lee Grooms

      100% agree. I don't see a path for Christie to the presidency in 2024, so it probably doesn't matter, but that was so lame. "No, next question" carries the same or more punch than…whatever the flopping around he did about "I have a policy" was. And if that's not a question you're up for answering, repeatedly, then you aren't the guy, my guy.

      Collapse
    2. Christopher Lake

      I don't have a problem with him referring Jamie to his previous statements on the subject. For over two years now, Christie has been publicly, consistently saying that Trump is unfit to ever be President again. Christie has said, numerous times, that that he will not support Trump for the nomination, and that Trump will likely be a convicted felon in the near future.

      Collapse
      1. Keith Schooley

        Sure, I actually appreciate the fact that he's the most outspokenly anti-Trump candidate in the race. But he brought this problem on himself in 2016. "No" just deals with the question faster and avoids sounding evasive. No one is giving him points for not deigning to give a response.

        Collapse
        1. Christopher Lake

          I fully agree that Christie brought the problem on himself by supporting Trump for the Republican nomination in 2106, and in 2020, too. Since 1/6/21 though, Christie has been publicly calling Trump out, and consistently saying that Trump should not ever be the Republican nominee for President again. The whole reason that Chris Christie could even say to Jamie here, "Look at my previous statements on this issue," is that, for over two years now, Christie has been consistently stating that he opposes Trump and will not support him for the nomination.

          Collapse
    3. Smross7

      To be fair, he has answered that question several times before. But I agree, a simple "no" is more efficient.

      Collapse
      1. Slowdave1

        And since it's more efficient, it is HIGHLY suspect when he dodges it. Good follow-up would have been, "Well the issue is that if we listened to all your pre-endorsement statements about Trump in 2015, we'd have also concluded that you would not support him. So... is this going to be a repeat of 2016 or are you going to stay the course this time?"

        It's a bit harsh, but you deserve harsh when you spend 3 minutes deflecting a question that should have been answered with a simple "No. Never."

        Collapse
    4. R. James

      Christie still doesn't know whether he is the anti-Trump candidate in the race. Time for him to drop out so any non-Trump candidate has a chance at winning.

      Collapse
      1. Christopher Lake

        Christie has been far more anti-Trump, as a candidate, than either DeSantis or Haley has been, both of whom are still publicly agreeing to support Trump for the nomination, even if he is a convicted felon. Christie has been speaking the truth about Trump since 1/6/21, and they haven't, which is part of why he'll be getting my vote in the primary.

        Collapse
  8. Kbirkett

    Very interesting interview. Thanks! The "if only's . . . " I appreciated his clarity on Ukraine and Israel.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Theirnscott

    I really enjoyed this interview. I do wish you had asked him a question about when his continued participation in the primary process works against his goal of making sure Trump never becomes president again.

    Collapse
    1. Spook1320-Generaluse

      The premise of the question is bothersome. It pretends he's not even a legitimate contender in New Hampshire, when in fact, he is.

      And not just that, but he's gotten *that* question in one form or another quite a bit the last couple of weeks since Haley's become the flavor of the month (... and by the way, for now, that's what she is, because in mid-to-late October, she had no such wind at her back. To be fair, maybe she's able to maintain the momentum. But for now anyway, that's an open question.)

      His reply, if you haven't heard it, is to point out that November polls in early primary states in 2007, 2011 and 2015 all pointed toward a winner that, it turned out, ***didn't*** win. And, he's added that this current GOP field is smaller at this stage of the GOP campaign season than anytime in a long time (... he specifies the date, but I've forgot, and I'm too lazy to look it up).

      It's go time, but it's only now arrived. He's not wrong to say history suggests a slower, more patient attitude is appropriate.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Theirnscott

        I’m good with Christie if he can bring the numbers. Or Haley. Ronny D., not so much.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Klw.Howard

    “I have a policy of not answering this in every interview.”

    Uh huh. He knows darn well why people keep asking this.

    Those sorts of issues aside, he sounds like he would be a competent president.

    Collapse