Republicans stuck with current field

 
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has publicly insisted he will not be running for president

Related Stories

President Obama has declared himself the underdog (albeit one with a vision) and indeed a majority (55%) of Americans think he'll lose the next election. But if he does lose, it won't be to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Mr Christie has done himself no harm at all by declaring, with some passion, that he's not going to stand as president, that "now is not my time".

He told of a letter to his children, urging them to tell their dad that they wouldn't mind him missing ball games and concerts because "the country needs me".

He said his wife woke him at six in the morning and told him if he wanted to run he should go for it. His son said it would be a great adventure.

But he decided New Jersey needs him more.

He said he felt in his gut that it was "not the time to leave unfinished business".

Pride, passion and concern for one's home state always goes down well in America, and unlike Sarah Palin he can't be accused of walking away from a big job.

It is impossible to peer ahead beyond this coming election, but if President Obama does win re-election in 2012, Mr Christie could be positioned well for 2016.

But has he harmed the Republican cause?

As I wrote yesterday, the party remains unhappy with the choices before them.

Although time has ticked away, leaving virtually no chance of another candidate coming in, they will still cast around for a saviour.

But largely, they are stuck with what they've got.

I guess Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann could surprise us all.

But it looks like they will have to accept it boils down to Rick Perry or Mitt Romney.

Mr Romney's team are said to be quite delighted that all the attention is not on their man.

If it is Mitt in the end, it raises a big question.

Can a man who fails to inspire his party, inspire the country and beat an underdog?

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

An ending - and a beginning

Mark Mardell says farewell to his years as North America editor, and introduces his new analysis blog.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 317.

    @312 Inflation has been occurring in an exponential pattern since at least '72. There are graphs of data freely available that show this. Are you actually arguing that producton of goods & services fell during that period? Are you? I say it again, the increase in the supply of money DIRECTLY CORRELATES INFLATION during that period. Goods & services have increased but failed to keep pace.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 316.

    @313 You act with caution and discretion in your judgement every day when you avail of goods and services in the marketplace. What is it about money that convinces you you're unable to do the same with it? It's a pretty profound question, but I hope you'll realise that, like any other good or service, it's served much better by a marketplace than by a government monopoly. See post #309 for why.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 315.

    @313 So you'd rather leave your currency in the hands governments, who would continue to be able to employ inflationary policy to tax you behind your back & incite more of what we've been experiencing? Besides, under the system I propose it wouldn't be too long before 1 or 2 currencies were preferred by peope & settled on. The government would regulate by monitoring & prosecuting fraud...(cont)

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 314.

    @312 Yet, by every measure of data, goods & services have not declined in correlation to inflation; they've increased during the inflationary period 1985-2011. Whereas inflation HAS increased in DIRECT CORRELATION to the increase in the supply of money. Explain this in a way that shows inflation is not related to an increase in the money supply...the facts speak for themselves. Ready to back down?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 313.

    306. seanthenoisemaker

    Spending all my time trying to avoid getting cheated and trying to figure out the right currency is not the way I want to spend my time. It is much more efficient to delegate oversight to the government and pay for the services with my taxes. Government regulations are not perfect or perfectly enforced but much better than trusting to the market -- markets brought us rec

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 312.

    #301 "And how, pray, do you think there came to be too many dollars chasing too few goods?"

    By decreasing the number of goods. You assume an increase in the number of dollars. I can think of at least 5 scenarios which cause inflation without any entity printing a single additional dollar. Find some other excuse, the inflation one is dead in the water.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 311.

    @288 To reiterate...inflation is not some immutable law of nature, like gravity. It is a matter of policy. It occurs as a result of an increase in money supply that is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in total goods and services. Seriously, if you've understood what I'm saying, you owe me an apology for trying to convince everyone reading that I'm wrong...though I hold out little hope.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 310.

    @288 Did you know that the cost of living in America between 1665 and 1905 was almost constant? Every time the government printed money to pay for a war (including the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 & Civil War), inflation of the money supply (where d'you think that word came from eh?) meant prices rose, and when they returned post-war to the gold standard, prices returned to their pre-war levels.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 309.

    @302 The reason, by the way, that allowing government to judge whether banks are trustworthy or not is madness, is because that leaves hige incentives for and the system open to massive corruption. Consumers have, over history, proven time and time again to be much wiser arbiters than governments when it comes to commercial enterprise and prosperity. They have more to lose!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 308.

    @302 I would probably support laws which require a banks' activities to be audited externally, probably by competing private accountancy firms to begin with, then by some kind of governmental authority if any suspicions were raised. I'm not saying the government shouldn't be able to investigate and punish fraudulent activity; of course they should!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 307.

    @302 You trust government to judge a bank's trustworthiness more than you'd trust your own judgement? I'm astonished! Under the system I advocate, the act of providing disinformation (or, to put it another way, the act of fraud) needs to be strictly enforced & punished severely, but it'd be suicide to get caught doing this anyway, the consumers would have too much power themselves to punish banks.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 306.

    @302 This is where the advent of the internet, and the freedom of information that it allows, comes into play. You could quite easily have instant information about the minute-to-minute value of your currency from any number of sources (in case you'd be worried, as I would, about any one source of information being corrpted/manipulated).

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 305.

    @294 You would have to find a bank that you trusted. The market would punish banks that were not trustworthy and reward banks that were. As a consumer, you would be free to make bad choices in this regard, just as you are free to purchase fizzy drinks that ruin your teeth & so on. But most would be savvy enough to make careful judgements with their money, given a free choice from good competition.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 304.

    @289 I'm using the term moral hazard strictly according to its economic definition. Specifically, I referred to the ability of institutions to make loans without requiring them to shoulder all of the risk. The issues you mention are what happens when this moral hazard is present, but they are not the root, they are the branches. Follow the trail of bad debt and see where it takes you.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 303.

    @287 You, as a consumer or a merchant, would have to decide which currency you trusted the most, and insist that debts you are owed are paid in that currency. Legal tender laws would have to be abolished. As I've stated, you wouldn't necessarily have to carry commodities or cash with you. One can use a card to spend in all sorts of different currencies when we cross borders, no fuss required.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 302.

    299. seanthenoisemaker "In a free market, good money drives out bad as merchants either refuse bad money or lower its value,"

    And just how am I going to distinguish whether the merchant is trying to fool me by down grading the value of the currency I have so he can make more? I suppose I am suppose to know enough about the quality of my bank so there is no need for FDIC? Get real!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 301.

    @288 "Inflation means too many dollars chasing too few goods." And how, pray, do you think there came to be too many dollars chasing too few goods? Do you think maybe because the supply of dollars was increased? But don't just take my word for it. There are graphs of data freely available that show how strictly inflation direct correlates to the increase of the money supply. Look it up.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 300.

    297. JClarkson "you may want to consider reading George Orwell"

    Oh now I understand the origin of your rhetoric. Good is bad, bad is good, selfishness is generosity, generosity is selfishness. Polluted air and water are signs of health. Check out the New York Times articles on pollution in China. Your preferred environment in action. BBC keeps putting my links to articles in the freeze.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 299.

    @284 If monetary value is established by govt decree, Gresham's Law applies. In a free market, the opposite applies; good money drives out bad as merchants either refuse bad money or lower its value, so its popular use shrinks. The most trustworthy currencies come to be accepted more prevalently, with one or two eventually replacing the rest. This is how gold & silver became pre-eminent.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 298.

    @284 No, I didn't travel Europe before the Euro, but I grew up in a border town (Enniskillen) and I did work in retail. I know that it's not too hard to post prices in alternative currencies because I DID IT!

    You're misunderstanding Gresham's Law. It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good", but is more accurately stated: "Bad money drives out good if their exchange rate is set by law."

 

Page 1 of 16

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.