1. Despite the scenario differences, Pete and I agree that we need a candidate that’s an articulate policy wonk.
2. That means, at this point, Romney or Christie.
3. Romney just can’t can’t the love going, and he won’t win Republican primaries.
4. Christie is a conservative fiscal hero, with the right combination of principle, anger, and compromise in effectively reforming his state.
5. It’s sad to say, but being a Mormon is baggage. Christie isn’t a Mormon.
6. It’s sad to say, but being an out-there Evangelical is baggage. Independent voters really can get psyched up over the “theocracy, Republicans hate science” issue. Christie is genuinely religious and socially conservative, but he’s not out-there in a symbolic way. He can say both that marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. So simply being homosexual could hardly be a sin.
7. He’s a rock-star or at least You-tube star kind of guy because of his incisive bluntness. How often have we seen in the last couple of days his message to the people of Asbury Park: Get the hell off the beach!? (We Republicans also secretly like funny, fat-guy candidates, or at least we fat-guy Republicans do.)
8. Christie, obviously, actually understands fiscal conservatism and is all about prudent reform on its foundation. He’s a quick study, a policy wonk by nature.
9. He can’t run now. But if Perry implodes or if there’s seemingly no alternative to Perry early enough in the process . . . ?
10. He says he’s not ready and all that. That’s true enough. But I hope he’s ready to be as ready as possible, just in case.
11. It’s also true, in my view, that he’s the only Republican candidate who could do more than slip by in a close election. His victory might have a genuinely positive and affectionate dimension. He also might flame out and lose. These are times for high rollers!
