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, North America editor Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell North America editor

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

 

Comments 5 of 317

 

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.