New Jersey Star-Ledger Would Blow It All Over Again

You could almost call it an early endorsement for president.

Now that the New Jersey Star-Ledger has had time to reassess and rethink their world famous flop of an endorsement in the race for New Jersey governor last year between Gov. Chris Christie and Barbara Buono, they’d do it all over again.

Star-Ledger editor Tom Moran:

An endorsement is not a love embrace. It is a choice between two flawed human beings. And the winner is often the less bad option.

But yes, we blew this one. When the endorsement ran, I could not get a cup of coffee in the People’s Republic of Montclair without my liberal friends taunting me. Back then, I pushed back.

He pushed back against his liberal friends who were correct all along. Because he’s strong. Editor-strong. And he don’t take no lip from reality.

Yes, we knew Christie was a bully. But we didn’t know his crew was crazy enough to put people’s lives at risk in Fort Lee as a means to pressure the mayor. We didn’t know he would use Hurricane Sandy aid as a political slush fund. And we certainly didn’t know that Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer was sitting on a credible charge of extortion by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno.

A known bully who put people’s lives at risk? Where do we keep signing up for that?

Tom Moran goes on to express the paper’s regularly evolving reasoning, providing a new double backflip to compliment the mental gymnastics it takes to carry on this laughable fraud, essentially stating that because Barbara Buono supported teachers and unions, Chris Christie wins because he’s an insensitive leader who can throw people into traffic without hesitation.

But something in this next paragraph doesn’t seem right.

If one of the tea party favorites gets the Republican nomination, then the country is at risk. Because as we have just seen, one scandal can flip the board in politics. What if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and some dark secret emerges about her tenure as secretary of state? How does President Rand Paul sound to you?

Now ask yourself this: If the Republican primary came to a choice between Paul and Christie, which candidate would you endorse?

At the risk of repeating a mistake, I’d pick Christie in that primary, even now. And if you think that makes some sense, then you understand how excruciating the endorsement process can be.

For the good of the country, now that the good of New Jersey is so last year, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and an editorial board that relies on hypothetical scenarios to come to ridiculous, harmful conclusions, even in hindsight.

And, rather than applying facts and reason to the debate, the Star-Ledger is just going to go ahead and fit its entire head up its ass for the duration of America.

All it takes for Hillary Clinton to blow it is some unknown “dark secret” drummed up by right wing media. But Gov. Chris Christie and the Star-Ledger, on the other hand, get as many tries as they need to make it right. Because being losers shouldn’t prevent you from winning, especially if you’re a Republican.

This entry was posted in Epic Fail, Republican Party, The Media, WTF and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • muselet

    If the Star-Ledger had merely endorsed Chris Christie in the Republican primary, then Tom Moran’s palaver about the Tea Party candidate and least bad options would make some sense: a thin-skinned bully is indeed a less bad choice than a thin-skulled crazy.

    The paper, though, endorsed Christie in the general election. Is Moran arguing that Barbara Buono was somehow the equivalent of Rand “I’m A Libertarian Except When It Comes To Ladybits” Paul? If so, based on what evidence? If not, then his whole “ZOMG the Tea Party wins!” routine is just patter to sucker the rubes.

    Never forget, the Star-Ledger‘s endorsement gave the game away: “His ego is entertaining …” Nearly everything the paper had to say about his governance was negative, but he was going to be fun to cover for the next couple of years as he very publicly ran for president.

    I live a continent away from New Jersey. I’m not directly affected by Chris Christie’s tough-guy antics, or his and his staff’s ratfking of insufficiently-tractable mayors. However, whenever a newspaper screws the pooch this badly, it makes every news organization look bad.

    If the members of the Star-Ledger‘s editorial board want to destroy New Jersey for the sake of amusement, that’s their own lookout, but to pretend its endorsement of Chris Christie was somehow a principled, if utilitarian, stance is an insult.

    (Goodness, I do bang on, don’t I?)

    –alopecia

  • Sabyen91

    “What if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and some dark secret emerges about her tenure as secretary of state?”

    What if Hillary Clinton sprouted wings and fangs and started feasting on newborn babes? They have to bring up some theoretical scenario to dismiss the Democrat while ignoring that some dark secret emerged about Christie’s tenure as Governor.

  • http://www.broadwaycarl.com Broadway Carl

    I do live in New Jersey, and my jaw hit the floor when I read this editorial. They would still back Jabba the Governor in a GOP primary over Rand Paul?! It’s ridiculous on its face because they’re completely dismissing the fact that the candidate would still have to win over the voters. And any deep, dark secret Hillary might have would have been completely exposed by now considering she’s been a target in the public eye for the last 30 years. Or do they think Benghazi is an actual scandal? The loudness of the Tea Party is not a measure of its quantity. I’d be more concerned about the Koch brothers than a nominee Paul any day of the week and twice on Election Day.

  • DZ

    Now ask yourself this: If the Republican primary came to a choice between Paul and Christie, which candidate would you endorse?

    At the risk of repeating a mistake, I’d pick Christie in that primary, even now. And if you think that makes some sense, then you understand how excruciating the endorsement process can be.

    And Moran and our other members of the political cognoscenti apparently have no understanding that these two paragraphs should, among sentient people, evoke a national examination of the state of today’s Republican Party.

  • Axomamma

    Why does the paper “have to” endorse anybody? If both choices are bad, why not just say so and leave it at that. Moran is appropriately monikered.

    • http://www.msadesign.com/ Michael Spencer

      This is about the only sensible comment on Bob’s wrong-thinking (Geez, Bob, did you even read the piece?). But this, Axo: ‘No choice’ isn’t a choice for voters, so why should the paper not take a position? Decisions are made at a point in time and are based on what is known. The paper’s explanation is very straight-forward.

      Voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is very firmly entrenched in America, by the way.

      • mrbrink

        Moran is already preparing to endorse Chris Christie for president, once they hose him off and put that pretty pink bonnet on his head, which evidently would still be preferable to a Hillary Clinton candidacy due to some unknown dark secret yet to be exposed by right wing media.

        Moran is still giving the benefit of the doubt to Christie, even complimenting his toughness with teachers, suggesting that a guy who puts lives in danger for political retribution is a ‘lessor evil’ because “something” damaging(by what standard?)could leave us with no choice but the lessor of two evil republicans to choose from reeks of a mentally deficient double-standard.

        If Moran can continue to sell us on Chris Christie, I’m sure he could sell us on Hillary Clinton and whatever ‘unknown’ scandal they drum up because after all, she’d still be the lessor in his wildest “two evils” scenario. His judgement is in serious doubt.

      • http://www.broadwaycarl.com Broadway Carl

        And did you even read the original endorsement? They basically called him, his policies and his tenure horrific and still endorsed him. No one put a gun to their head to write this new editorial admitting their mistake – a mistake they say they’d do again with some misguided hypothetical reasons. How fucked up is that?!

  • Christopher Foxx

    Why is it really, really so hard for some folks to just admit they got it wrong and re-think their opinion?

    Seriously, “We got it wrong. We’re going to have to think this through again.” is not that difficult. Certainly has to be easier than the effort required to come up with more and more convoluted explanations just so you can claim you didn’t really make a mistake.

    What if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and some dark secret emerges about her tenure as secretary of state? How does President Rand Paul sound to you?

    Like the same nightmare it sounds to me now.

  • Christopher Foxx

    What if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and some dark secret emerges about her tenure as secretary of state? How does President Rand Paul sound to you?

    Like the same nightmare it sounds to me now.