As NewsBusters reported, James Pinkerton on Fox News's MediaBuzz Sunday predicted that all the press's gushing and fawning over Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie will end if he gets the nomination to face Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Washington Times columnist Joe Curl echoed such sentiments Sunday while adding, "The kingmaking certainly has shades of the media love affair with Sen. John 'Maverick' McCain":
In coronating the rotund governor as the next sure-fire GOP presidential nominee in 2016, none of the mainstream media pointed out his stances on issues that they no doubt hate: Mr. Christie vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage, vetoed several “gender parity” bills and was for abortion until he was against it. Of course, the same media played up his support of gun control and a Dream Act-like immigration overhaul. And they noted repeatedly that the governor had not followed through on a threat to appeal New Jersey’s top court ruling legalizing gay marriage.
The kingmaking certainly has shades of the media love affair with Sen. John “Maverick” McCain. The MSM loved his battle with the conservative wing of the Republican Party and lauded him as a true moderate, capable of bridging partisan gaps to work for the betterment of all. Sound familiar?
Once nominated, though, that same MSM lashed Mr. McCain as nothing more than a vicious right-winger in moderate’s clothing. Sure, the Arizona senator was forced to move right to get through the party’s primaries (as Mr. Christie likely will be), but gone was the love for their “maverick.”
Much as Pinkerton, Curl rightly concluded:
Still, the media love affair will end the second Mr. Christie wins the nomination. And you always have to wonder: If the media loves him so much, just what’s wrong with him?
I'm not sure that there's necessarily anything "wrong" with Christie per se other than he represents less of an ideological threat to the left and their media minions than other potential 2016 candidates such as Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
As Curl noted, Christie's positions on gun control, immigration, and his evolution on same-sex marriage make him far more palatable to liberal journalists than Cruz and Paul.
Such folk also love the pictures of Christie hugging President Obama after Superstorm Sandy hit last year, and see him as someone willing to reach across the aisle which is an essential attribute for a Republican candidate to press members almost universally ON that side.
Readers are reminded that the goal of the media is to nominate the most moderate Republican for president possible so that if their Democratic candidate loses - heaven forbid! - the new White House resident will be as much like them as they can manufacture.
Right now that seems to be Christie.
But we're three years away from Election Day, and the press have a lot more kings to make and take down before Republicans go to the polls to pick their nominee.
As such, although they will certainly change their stripes if Christie does end up facing Clinton, it seems quite likely that in the coming months and years they're going to try to champion someone to the left of the New Jersey governor.
This means the attacks on Christie aren't necessarily on hold until the middle of 2016.
If someone like former Utah governor Jon Huntsman were to emerge as a candidate, the media would drop Christie like a bad habit.
Count on it.
