I’m going to make this brief, because I think Tom Moran’s criticism of the Manchester Union-Leader endorsement of Gov. Chris Christie for president is very much on point, even if it reads like proselytizing from the recently converted.
He called the endorsement “a short love poem” that was “was written by people who took only a passing glance at his dismal record as governor in New Jersey.” Christie’s appeal, Moran says as a direct rebuke to the New Hampshire folks, has nothing to do with his actual record and has everything to do with his ability to sell himself, his ability to perform. Christie’s rhetoric, Moran points out, is rarely backed by actual governing. The governor bemoans a war on drugs that stigmatizes drug users, saying treatment should be the first line of defense, Moran says, which is a “home run’ on style points, even if “it turned out to be fluff.”
Christie has not increased funding for drug treatment; he has decreased it slightly. And the number of people admitted to treatment programs has dropped on his watch.
The endorsement is another good example. If you are from New Jersey, it was hard to read.
It said he “dealt admirably” with Sandy, despite the polls showing that 60 percent of those affected think he’s done a poor job.
It didn’t mention Bridgegate, or jobs, or the state’s sinking credit rating.
On pensions, I asked the editorial page editor, Grant Bosse, what he thought of Christie breaking his promise to deposit funds. “I don’t think we got into the weeds on pension reform.”
Moran makes the point, in critiquing the Union-Leader editorial, that
we have entered strange new territory this year. This contest is not about substance. It’s more about style, as if we were electing a star for a reality TV show.
Moran adds that, “as a performer, Christie is tough to beat.”
All of this is true but, as Moran himself writes, “if you are from New Jersey, this Moran column (there is an earlier one that makes the same points) “was hard to read” unless you are willing to forget the Star-Ledger’s own endorsement missteps. I criticized the editorial at the time, pointing to its convoluted logic, to its willingness to overlook even as it details the problems with Christie’s record during his first term.
I don’t want to re-litigate the 2013 election or the endorsement. Moran later called the endoresement “regrettable,” and said they “blew this one,” though he also says the board probably had no choice — an incredibly defensive statement, a mea culpa that was very light on the culpa.
My point is that Moran’s criticism of the Union-Leader may be accurate, but also might be better turned inward. The Union-Leader likes the idea of Christie, but has no interest in understanding the real Christie; the Ledger, while purporting to know the real Christie, ultimately was willing to overlook all the baggage because a) he had the same position on education and pension reform as the paper and b) it refused to take opponent Barbara Buono seriously, even if it agreed with her on far more issues than it did with Christie.
That was then. The Union-Leader’s endorsement — light on facts, as it is — focuses primarily on one issue (in this case, terrorism), while calling into question the credentials of his opponents (freshmen Senators, business leaders lacking in public experience, etc.). That’s essentially the recipe used in 2013 by the Ledger editorial board when it backed Christie. Aside from the tone, I’m not sure there is a lot of difference.
Send me an e-mail.
