Today the New York Times‘ Michael Barbaro (9/2/14) reports that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s trip to Mexico will be “a chance to demonstrate a level of acumen on foreign policy that has so far eluded him.” Christie, Barbaro reports, is consulting with the likes of Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice–what better way to develop acumen?–to get past a previous foreign policy problem: saying something completely accurate about Israel.
Of course, that’s not how the New York Times put it. Barbaro writes that Christie
has already committed several foreign policy faux pas this year–by the unforgiving standards of Republican presidential politics, anyway.
They range from the minor (omitting the word “Israel” from a speech before an influential Jewish group) to the more meaningful (calling the West Bank the “occupied territories” before another influential Jewish group). Audible gasps ensued in a Las Vegas ballroom, and an apology from Mr. Christie soon followed.
As FAIR noted when it happened (FAIR Blog, 4/1/14), Christie was of course indisputably correct about the West Bank. But his comment was treated as a”gaffe” by political reporters because it was something he wasn’t supposed to say. The Times piece, with its muddy and unhelpful reference to the “unforgiving standards” of GOP politics, doesn’t shed much light.
If anything, citing it in a piece about how little Christie knows about foreign policy serves to reinforce the notion that a completely accurate observation about the world is evidence that a politician doesn’t have enough “international savvy.”
Isn’t shutting down the GWB for political payback reason enough to ignore someone for higher office?
Mr. Narins has said all that needs to be said about Chris Christie, and yet the New York Times continues to regard him as a viable candidate for President of the United States.
Christie is the sort of political hack sock puppet who acts, then reacts not according to facts or even to ethical or moral standards, but rather by the signals he gets from those at the end of his money trail; the string pullers.
I suppose that would be most, if not all politicians these days. Some are just more convincing than others?
Why shouldn’t the NYT, fer rice cakes? Christ, they still, still publish David Brooks. Don’t get me started. And my own beloved Chicago Tribune still publishes Charles Krauthhamer’s syndicated column. It will be a world tough to live in when the Tribune goes the way of the dinosaur and pay telephone.
I watched the video RepPress. Loved it; it was too pregnant and too ironically humorous for me to grasp fully. Despite the fact that if wishes were dreams trees’d be falling, wish I could have shared it on Facebook.