The Dispatch Podcast - Chris Christie Talks Future of the GOP

Episode Date: July 16, 2021

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie joins Sarah and Chris Stirewalt to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the Republican Party. They discuss why Republicans should make education a priority issue, why inflation is a liability for Democrats, and why Republicans are doomed if they continue to relitigate the past. Plus, how do Republicans win back the suburbs? Christie argues that suburban voters didn’t abandon Republicans because of issues; they just didn’t like Donald Trump. Finally, are we going to see Chris Christie run for office again? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Isger, joined by Chris Steyerwalt. And we are talking to Governor Chris Christie. That's right. He's the former governor of New Jersey, the former U.S. attorney, former 2016 candidate and current ABC political commentator who occasionally... Actually, I never get to sit next to him, tell you the truth. I'm always across the table from him. Never.

They don't let Republicans sit next to each other, Sarah. They don't let Republicans sit next to each other on ABC. Let's tell the truth. Come on. Let's dive in. Governor, you are one of those rare Republicans who has criticized the party, praise the party, defended President Trump, criticized President Trump. Going into the midterms, what are the Republican Party's strengths and weaknesses? Well, listen, I think we've got a couple of strengths.

The first strength is I really like the candidates that we're recruiting for the midterms. That job's still incomplete. We've got some recruiting for the Senate that we have to do in places like New Hampshire and Arizona, where hopefully we get the best candidates we can to take on Maggie Hassan and take on Senator Kelly, but I think our candidate recruitment has been very strong. And secondly, unfortunately for us, the next biggest advantage we have is what the Democrats are doing. You know, their continued shoveling of money out of Washington, D.C., the inflation now at up

over 5%. You can begin to see what the impact of these Biden-Harris policies are going to be. I think that's an advantage for us. Our weaknesses is that a majority of the party is still looking backwards. instead of looking forwards. And in my experience in politics, you know, winning campaigns are the campaigns that look forward

and that talk about the future. Losing campaigns are the ones who dwell on the past and grievances and anger of the past. And I think that's our biggest weakness at the moment. And hopefully we'll get on to a more, you know, positive, and by positive, I mean, critical agenda about what the Democrats are doing

and what our alternative is. you look back to let's say October 2020 and people were predicting a total wipeout a death of the Republican Party that's not quite what happened and let's set aside then November to March or something but you look forward to 2022 and people are saying it's almost sure that the Republican Party will take back the House and you know a coin flips chance of taking back the Senate Why isn't the Republican Party dead like everyone thought? And does that undermine your looking backward theory? It doesn't undermine the looking backward theory.

But what it says is that when we talk about our issues, because remember, in October 2020, we weren't looking backwards, especially at the congressional level, the gubernatorial level. And below that on the ticket, people were talking about Republican policies that people generally support. I still believe it's a right-to-centered country. But the problem was at the top of the ticket, we weren't doing that.

And that's why we lost on the top of the ticket. The presidential loss, unfortunately, was one that many of us who were working for the president saw coming. We tried to counsel him against it. We tried to tell him to ease off on the grievance politics and the anger that he had. You know, it's one thing when you're a politician to be channeling the anger of others. It's another to be chattling your anger to others. And that's what he did. So when you look at the party, that's why I still have optimism about how we can do because we did add 12 seats in the

House. We applied it to a draw in the Senate. We could talk about why we even didn't keep the Senate. The only governorship that flipped in 2020 flipped from Democrat to Republican in Montana, which has a Republican governor now for the first time in 20 years. And we flipped two state legislative chambers in New Hampshire. So it was good news down ticket. It was up ticket that that was the problem. And unfortunately, we have a lot of Republicans who are still focusing on that issue rather than talking about what the people in the country are concerned about. Because I don't think anywhere near a majority of the people in the country are still worried about the 2020 election. If I'm hearing you, right, the Democrats have what you describe

is their major liability, which is inflation is on, and there are concerns about we may be heading for a cliff here. And the people are concerned about deficits and spending. The other things that Republicans would probably have in their advantageous issue set are concerns about excessive wokeism. A lot of parents have about schools and those things, and crime and questions about policing. If that's the positive, or if that's the good news for Republicans,

Would you agree then that the bad news for Republicans includes vaccine resistance or people who are on the Republican side who are, and we have like Senator Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and others who are part of a chorus that are anti-vaccine? That seems to be problematic for suburban voters. And the other one is looking backwards. The January 6th stuff, the fight, don't Republicans necessarily have to get through it to get past it, has there been some willful ignorance on the question about January 6th? Well, look, I think the Republicans do have to get through it to get past it, Chris.

I think that's a good way to put it. And the only way to get through it is to talk about it, be honest about it, lay the facts out. And not to have history as we wish it would have been, but to talk about exactly what happened, not only in January 6th, but in November and in the special election in Georgia. And let's stop saying that the election was stolen because it wasn't. Let's stop saying that it made no sense to vote in Georgia in January because of what happened in November. We saw what happened. That's how two Democrats won seats in Georgia.

And let's stop saying that the people who were shoving chairs and wood planks through the windows of the Capitol were there to take a tour. you know, they weren't. And so, you know, we need to say these things. We need to debunk this stuff the same way we need to debunk the Q&on movement, the same way we needed to debunk birtherism a long time ago. And we need to, we need to debunk, you know, Pizza Gate and all of the things that have consumed a lot of people in the Republican Party unnecessarily and distracted us. I do think you're right, though, on the other issues. I think, to me, me, the most important issue for Republicans to talk about in order to be successful is the education issue. And by the public education, I mean three different aspects. One, the unnecessary

closures of our schools and the impact that's having on kids and we'll continue to have on kids. And do we go to a year-round school year for the next year or two to help those kids catch up? I think that should be a conversation Republicans should be having. As long as kids can't vote, that's an okay conversation, as long as kids aren't voting. That's exactly right, Chris. Keep those kids out of the ballot box. There you go. We need to actually be the adults in the room.

Second, you know, this critical race theory issue, which to me is not just on that, but it's the bigger issue of how do we teach our children about our history is a huge issue for parents. And the overall control the teachers' unions are now taking on the public education discussion because they've got the greatest allies they've ever had in the White House and Joe Biden and Teachers Union member Jill Biden. Those are things we should be talking about. Look, we lost this election in 2020 at the presidential level because of suburban white voters.

And those suburban white voters abandoned Donald Trump in large numbers. And to get those people back to voting for us, I think one of the big issues that they're upset about and concerned about and then the Democratic Party is out of touch on, is the public education issue. What does it mean? You're mentioning the demographics of the Republican Party, the suburban sort of flight from the party,

the education divide now within the two parties, college versus not college educated. If we're seeing, if Donald Trump has started a shift with both parties, frankly, of who their core voters are, what is, how will that affect the issues of the parties, you know, everyone's saying like, well, the Republican Party can't go back to the 2012, you know,

Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan Party. I agree. So what is the Republican Party? What defines the Republican Party over the next few years? Listen, Sarah, I'd say that we can have our cake and eat it too on this one. Suburban white voters didn't abandon us because of issues. They abandoned us because they didn't want Donald Trump any longer. It was a personal rejection.

You can't come to any other conclusion. When we add 12 seats in the House, when we add a governorship, when we add to legislative chambers, you can't say this is a problem with the issues as articulated by the Republican Party. Those suburban voters, I'll give you an example. I had a woman who came up to me the day before the election

in my supermarket in my suburban Republican town and asked me what was gonna happen in the election. And I said, look, I think it's gonna be close, but I think Biden is probably gonna win. And she looked down at her shoes. This is a woman who had volunteered for both of my governor campaigns. And I said, what's wrong?

And she said, I can't believe I'm telling you this, but I voted for Joe Biden. And I said, why did you vote for Joe Biden? And she said, because I can't listen to that voice for another four years. Right. So this is, and I do believe that that's not just anecdotal. And when you look at, to me, the kind of bellwether of suburban voters are the four collar counties outside Philadelphia. You know, when you look at those four counties, Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden by 104,400 more votes in 2020 than he lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And what did he lose Pennsylvania by? 80,000 votes. So he didn't lose Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, as the myth goes. In fact, he did better in Philadelphia in 2020 than he did in 2016. he lost because of those suburban voters. So, Sarah, I don't think there has to be an either-or choice here. I think we can talk about the issues that Donald Trump has raised, the populist issues, but it doesn't preclude us from also being able to articulate those issues in a way that

will be appealing to white suburban voters. What about fiscal responsibility, limited government? Are those things, I mean, no one's talking about those things. No, they're not. And they need to come back into vogue pretty quickly. or we're going to be, you know, we're going to be selling our houses to the Chinese. You know, it's, it's something where the Republicans failed during Trump's years. Trump never thought it was an important issue.

In fact, you know, to give him credit, he made it clear during the presidential race that I was involved in. They didn't care about that stuff. I mean, wasn't going to talk about it. And he governed that way. That's where in the first term, you needed a Republican House and a Republican Senate to impose some discipline on that. and Paul Ryan failed in that regard, and Mitch McConnell failed in that regard. So, look, it hurts our credibility in terms of complaining too much about the spending that's going on among Democrats now if they were doing just the normal irresponsible spending.

Fortunately for us, the Democrats are doing what Democrats often do, which is like, hey, we know we can get away with something. Let's try to get away with everything. And so, you know, we have $1.9 trillion in January, another $1.2 trillion on a proposed deal on infrastructure, and now another $3.5 trillion on top of that just to continue to shovel money into people's pockets. It's not going to work for them. And it's going to give us an entree back into saying, all right, maybe we weren't great, but we're not as bad as these guys. And that's got to be the argument in the beginning. And then when we get back to governing, we've got to show people that we're, willing to make tough choices. Now, in 2009, your election in New Jersey was a harbinger, and I got to write approximately one million columns, talking about the connective tissue between you and Bob McDonald and Virginia and the coming Republican wave, and it materialized.

We have a New Jersey governor's race, so just to clear out all the suckers, we'll get down to just the real politics nerds. Handicap for us how things are going in the New Jersey governor's race. I'm going to mispronounce his name, but it's Catrelli is the Republican nominee. Listen to Starwold. I know. A New Jersey Italian is going to have to give this one to you a Starwalt. Jack Chittarelli. Chittarelli. Okay. Jack Chittarelli. Is doing the same thing that you were, is trying to do the same thing that you did in 2009, which is to unseat a Democratic incumbent. How's the race going? Should we be looking for bellwether status here? Should we be reading more into the race? It's a hard race because of COVID.

You know, New Jersey lost more people per capita than any state in the country. There was a real crisis here, as there was all over the country, but particularly here. And it kind of just made people check out of politics, Chris. And, you know, Phil Murphy has a lot of weaknesses, the incumbent governor. And, you know, Jack right now, if you had a handicap, the race right now, you'd say that Murphy will be reelected based upon all the polling numbers I've seen and what I feel sitting here in the state. But there were two indications in the last public poll I saw that both of you as veterans of looking at this stuff will know, this means

there's at least some concern for Phil Murphy. The first one is his re-elect number is below 50. It's relic numbers below 50 at 47 with a guy whose favorability, unfavorability rating in the poll in Chirrelli was 1614, right? So, okay, so. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no. Right, and you're underwater. He's not underwater, right, yeah. Right, right.

Then the second piece in the poll is when you break out independence, which is always important in New Jersey, there are more independents than either Republicans or Democrats in New Jersey. The guy who only has 30% name ID in Jack Chitorelli is beating Phil Murphy by five points amongst independents right now. So think about that for a second. 70% of the people of New Jersey in that poll don't have any opinion on Jack Chitorelli.

Yet, the independence subsumed within that poll by five points say, we don't know him, but we like him better than Murphy. Those are two, would be two concerning points to me if I were Phil Murphy. The question for Jack Chitorelli is what always is the question for Republicans in New Jersey

are running statewide. One, can you raise the money to be competitive in the first and fourth most expensive media markets in America so that you'll be heard? And second, you have to have a sharp economic-based message. People vote for Republicans in New Jersey when they think that Democrats have screwed up the economics of the state and the state budget. Phil Murphy's clearly done that, and that's where Jack has to make the case. And just to give you one example of that, my last budget on my year I was leaving office was $34.7 billion in four years, not counting federal money now, this is purely state money. The budget has gone to 46.7. It's a lot of money. A $12 billion increase in four years. So a cliff is coming. And Jack's got to make that case. So, you know, COVID makes it entirely different, Chris. If there was not COVID,

I think Phil Murphy would be in huge trouble, but he's still enjoying a bit of a hangover from COVID in the electorate where they go, well, you know, he did the best he could. It was really hard. And I don't think they're holding him accountable for some of the stuff that, in normal circumstances, he would be. So right now I'd say uphill race for Chittarelli, but not an impossible race. Do, am I right to say that my Paizan, Mr. Chittarelli,

and Glenn Yonkin, who the Republicans nominated in Virginia, whether they end up winning their races or not, are reflective of a Republican primary electorate that seems to want electable candidates, right? This is, if I'm a Republican, I'm looking at the results of these two primaries and saying normal humans who seem to be able to participate in the normal election space and not some of the catastrophes that they might have seen or might see in 2022. Is that fair? I think it is, although in New Jersey, I will tell you, and I think the same thing existed in Virginia, you had multiple candidates trying to be Donald Trump. And so, for instance, Chittarelli did not get a majority of the vote in the primary, but the two Trump candidates split a majority of the vote, and Chittarelli won with 49%. And Yon had a similar experience in Virginia, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Right. So I don't think we're quite out of the woods yet on that issue. But here's what I think these candidates are going to learn. Donald Trump can be Donald Trump. You know, I, I've known him for 20 years. We've been friends for 20 years. He can do things and get away with things that nobody in my lifetime in politics has been able to get away with, starting with calling John McCain not a war hero, right? And I remember sitting in my home at that moment. I'd been in Iowa the day before. And I got a call from another candidate in the race who shall remain unnamed. But his initials are Jeb Bush. And Jeff said to me, did you hear this comment? He's going to be out, right?

He's got to get out now, right? That was everybody's concept. How it applies to today's politics is that other candidates, both people currently in office and one's aspiring to office, think somehow they can do the same act as Donald Trump. Let me warn them. You can't. And I think we're seeing that over and over again. You will not be successful on a statewide scale. you might be able to win a heavily gerrymandered, you know, congressional district.

But any Republican or Democrat would win that heavily gerrymandered district. But statewide races and national races are not going to be one trying to act like Donald Trump because there's only one Donald Trump, and he's the only one who could pull off that act. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life

insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little is 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ethyos.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary.

Let's talk about presidential politics. Let's talk about 2024 a little. So looking back to 2016, obviously I was working for Carly Fiorina. You were in the race. We saw each other quite a bit. I mean, me as, you know, stitting along the wall. And then the candidates in the center like kindergartners that we were like, don't pull Marco's hair. That's not nice. But, you know, week after week, rules about how you run a presidential campaign on the Republican side were just tossed out the window lit on fire. What are the things that we don't know yet about 2024, the new rules for an open Republican presidential primary that people haven't grasped onto yet? We don't know if Donald Trump's going to run or not. I think that's the single biggest determining factor about what the rules will be.

It's not that the party will go back to what it was before Donald Trump. It will not. But the rules will look a little more like they used to. And those who try to break those rules will not get the same deference that Donald Trump got. So you pick any fill in the black with any candidate who's kind of a Trump, pure Trump acolyte. if that person tries to go in there and give the Rosie O'Donnell answer, you know, in the first debate, it's not going to work. You're giving me flashbacks.

They're going to be giving that speech that says, I'm so sorry for having offended the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And we're suspending my campaign and giving myself a time to reexamine myself personally. And then I'll make a decision later. You know, it's going to be one of those, right? So I think the biggest determining factor on the rules will be, does Donald Trump run or does he not run? And that will determine the rules and it will determine, obviously, the size of the field. I do not believe Donald Trump will run on opposed for the Republican nomination for president.

But we're talking about the difference probably between a three or four person field versus a 15 to 20 person field. on whether he runs or he doesn't run. And that will change the rules. And you know, Sarah, from being involved in that race. Everybody's, you know, I will tell you, everyone said to me, look at the way you went after Marco Rubio, you know, so effectively. Why didn't you do the same thing to Donald Trump? And I said, well, look at, you know, Rick Perry,

look at Rand Paul, look at Carly Fiorina. Look at the people who went after Donald Trump and their roadkill. So you can't do it in the space of a big field where he's got all these polling numbers and everyone else is dividing everything else up. But if it's a smaller field, I think you can be much more effective in that kind of politics. And unfortunately, every one of us, Carly, was playing the same game. Let me just get by the first two primaries. Let me be in the finals against Donald Trump and then I'll beat him. You know, and who was left?

Ted Cruz and John Kasich Ted Cruz who very few people like and John Kasich who even fewer governors like people would say to me like why when I would say John Kasich is just not a nice guy and people would say to me well no what makes you say that it doesn't give you one proof point

when the race for president came down to Donald Trump Ted Cruz and John Kasich how many Republican governors endorsed their colleague, John Kasich? And the answer is zero. And that tells you something. It's this thing that I tried to tell people. It's like no one believes me.

Like, he is not a nice person. No, he's not. And listen, Larry Hogan, take Larry Hogan, for instance. Larry Hogan endorsed me for president. But when I dropped out of the race, you can't find somebody who's a bigger, never-trumper in a gubernatorial seat than Larry Hogan, right? Larry Hogan did not endorse John Kasich. Why?

You've got to ask yourself why, right? And so I think that, you know, for the Republican Party going forward, all of us will be, all of the way the rules will be played in the presidential race in 24, will be determined by what the field is. And once the field is formed, then we'll find out what the new rules are, Sarah, but they won't be the 2016 rules. under that unless Donald Trump's in the race. And then everyone else who runs is going to have to decide how do you conduct yourself

in the context of a defeated president, defeated president, who, you know, led the party to losing the House, the Senate, and the White House in two years. The last president who did that for the Republicans, who wasn't, Sarah? Come on. I don't like this pop quiz. Wait. Who, I mean, was it mixed? In two years, it was not.

It was not, it was Herbert Hoover. Oh, yes. It was Herbert Hoover. And then the Democrats took the White House for 28 of the next 36 years and 48 of the next 52 years they had the House. So that's what Republicans need to be thinking about contextually when they're looking at whether they want to run a forward-looking race in 24 or whether they want to try to settle the grievance politics of 2020. we could wind up in the same shape that Hoover left the Republican Party in in 30 and 32. You ran in a contest that was arranged by a Republican Party that was thinking in the old fashion. So in 2016, the thought was, we want to protect a frontrunner, right?

So you have winner-take-all primaries, front-loaded primary calendar, because the old Republican thinking was you're going to have that guy whose initials are Jeb Bush or somebody who's going to be out front and you want to validate his lead, seal it in, sort of the experience George W. Bush had in 2000. If you can make it to South Carolina, then and roll on from there. As the Republican Party nationally and locally thinks about the actual rules, not just the conditions that you guys are talking about, but the rules about primaries and the rules about debates, what should they be thinking about to try to create optimal outcomes for 2024?

Look, I think the Republican Party has always generally been a winner-take-all party. The question is going to be on front-loading, as you put it, Chris, you know, are we really going to be charging to the front of the line and trying to front-load things, or do we want to give this a little time to steep and simmer, you know, in order to be able to decide who the candidate is? But that's going to be decided by the RNC, and the RNC is still pretty firmly in the control of Donald Trump, or at least people who have been put there by Donald Trump. So, you know, if he wants to play a role in determining those rules, I suspect you will. Now, on debates, the person now put in charge of debates is Dave Bossie, an old friend of mine, but also a, you know, someone who works for the president.

And so Dave's going to make those determinations. I think Dave, from talking to him, is much more focused on how the debates are going to be conducted, like who hosts them, who are the questioners going to be, kind of, you know, the idea of excluding the liberal networks from, you know, hosting Republican conservative presidential debates. I think that's where Dave is focused. But the other thing's got to be, who gets on the stage and how? Because I could tell you, I was pissed when Sarah's candidate got in the second debate, even though, you know, now of a sudden we had 11. Great. Why? Why?

Because, you know, she complained enough. And the networks, and we had a liberal network, CNN hosting the second debate. And they wanted to be inclusive. And put Carly on the stage, even though her poll numbers didn't support her being. there and everybody else had to reach poll numbers. So we've got to get some consistent rules. And secondly, it was a waste of money for people like me. I will tell you, we watched those polls and we were doing the math. Are we going to be in the top 10 or aren't we? And where are we going to be? And do we spend some money on Fox National to raise our poll numbers a little bit so that we make sure

we're in the debate? This is stupid. It was a waste of hard dollars. by my campaign and every other campaign that spent hard money that way. And every one of them, except for Trump did, spend money that way because everybody at one point in time was in danger of falling out of the debate stage. And, you know, so I think the polling numbers thing, I don't think is a way to determine it. I think the Democrats actually did a better job with their crazy field in 2016 because everybody got in. there were two nights of debates.

It was random so that, you know, there were some quote-unquote frontrunners in each one of the debates. And I think, you know, in a wieldy field that gave everybody a chance. So I think the Democrats did a better job at that than we did. And we shouldn't be like sitting here to sign. I mean, like literally I got knocked out of the only debate where I wasn't on the main stage. I got knocked out because of a morning consult internet poll. I don't know. Doesn't seem to me, you know, that wasn't, that wasn't us at Fox, was it?

We didn't do that. Yes, it was. Yes, it was. No. Yes. And I called the late, the late Mr. Ayles and said to him, you're a professional. What are you doing? Like, seriously, Roger, would you do anything based on a morning consult internet

poll? Anything? And he's like, no, I wouldn't. I could, well, what are you guys doing? And, you know, so I had to do one round on the, on the, on the, on the, on the kiddie table stage. And then I was back in the, after our, my performance there, I was back. You wrote like Lazarus, like Lazarus, you came back, you showed your comeback power. I don't know about that, Chris.

I don't know about Lazarus, Chris. That might be overstating the case a bit. But so I think on the rules of the debates, we need to, need to get to a way where everybody who's a credible candidate in the race needs to have an opportunity to show themselves in these debates. and we should do it in a way where, you know, people are not wasting money on ads to try to make sure that there are three or four percent so they get in the debate. All right.

Now I'm going to start my seven-part series on why Carly absolutely belonged on the CNN debate stage according to the rules as they were written. But you know what? I'll actually, I'll take it as a compliment that I was so persuasive that I got her on the stage against them. I mean, either way, it's a win. Otherwise, it's a win for you.

It's a win for you, Sarah, no doubt. I want to do some lightning round with you on policy, what the solution is. First question, crime. Look, there is a way to do police reform smartly and to be able to increase public safety and increase the sense of justice that people have on the streets. We did it in Camden, New Jersey. We fired the entire police department, we hired a brand new police department, and we trained them in de-escalation theories, and we put them on bikes and on foot, so they became part of the

neighborhood. And what's happened in Camden? 75% reduction in the murder rate, 66% reduction in the overall crime rate over the last 10 years, and when the George Floyd murder occurred, the white police chief was marching with the black and brown citizens of Camden against that type of police violence. No violence in the city of Camden. There's a way to do it and do it smartly. We need to do reform, not to the police, but with the police and include the community. Big Tech. Big Tech, Section 230's got to go. They, their view was we're not going to be editors. We're just a bulletin board where people are posting on there. Well,

guess what? They become editors. And if you want to become editors and deciding who's going to be on and who's going to be off, well, then you need to be subject to our courts, just like everybody else in this business that we're doing right now, whether it's podcasts or TV or radio or newspapers or other, you know, folks who provide news on the internet are subject to the laws of our courts. 2.30's got to go. What do you replace it with? You know, look, I think that they should be treated the same way that newspapers, TV stations are treated, Chris. I don't think there's any difference anymore between them. In fact, you could argue that they're now the dominant media. 230 was put in place because we didn't want to crush a burgeoning new technology with legal

costs and threats of lawsuits. Please, Facebook's a trillion-dollar company. I don't think they're worried anymore about paying a few lawyers if they get sued, and they should be held accountable for what they're doing. Inflation. Bad and going to get worse. And the only way, the only way to do this, of course, is to start spending less, stop overheating the economy, and you're going to have to tighten interest rates. In terms of your quality of life, how you like life, do you ever feel wistful about politics? Do you say, I need to be back in? I want this. I can tell how attached and attentive you are, and I get to listen to you comment on it on television.

Will there be another Lazarus? Are we going to see you again one day? oh yeah you never say never um i mean look at i i've enjoyed the last three years but i think anybody who really cares about this stuff it never gets out of your blood and i think anybody who says it does is just not telling you the truth if you really believe that you can make a difference in that you have ideas that matter and and that you have a voice that needs to be heard chris it's always in you but for me the question's going to be about any further run for public office is going to be is there a path to winning? I don't need to do it for the experience.

I've had the experience. I've been a two-term governor. I've run for president. I've chaired a presidential transition. Like, I don't need the experience. So if I see a place where I think I can make a difference and a pathway to winning, then sure, I'm 58 years old. I'm not ready to retire.

But on the other hand, I'm not going to go on some, you know, Harold Stasson-like mission. Now, if we didn't, clear him out with prognostication on the New Jersey governor's race. A Harold Stassen reference gets us down to the really core audience. This is definitely the core audience. Sarah is just going, who's Harold Stassen? I literally have no idea. Yeah, there you go. Well, we'll get up later, Sarah. That's it. I'm not doing your homework later. I'm going like right now. As Carlos Fiorita, she'll know who Harold Stasson. Follow up. You've said that Donald Trump

running or not running won't affect your decision about whether to run in 2024. But what about what we already talked about, which is, yeah, Larry Hogan gets in and, I don't know, feeling like someone else. Like, will you run regardless of the other people running against Trump or will you, will all of you come together to say, yeah, we don't want 2016 to repeat itself, we're going to get in a room and draw straws or jello wrestle or something? Yeah. Well, the jello wrestling is an interesting idea. I hadn't thought about that, although that might be deeply disturbing to the American people. we're not ready yeah i don't think i don't think i don't think america is just not ready no i think i think this idea of drawing straws and stuff in a in a back room just doesn't usually happen anymore

i think people have to come to their own conclusions on viability but what i mean is when i say whether trump runs or not's going to not determine whether i run is i don't think anybody else any singular candidate should determine whether or not you run for president or not that's got to be in your heart, in your mind. You guys have been involved in big campaigns. You know what it's like. If you don't believe it in your heart and if you're not willing to work like crazy, you don't belong in the race anyway. So, and I'm going to allow someone like Donald Trump or anybody else to determine whether I really feel that or not, no chance. But that has to be balanced against what I said in the answer to Chris's question, which is, I got to determine if there's a pathway

to winning. And if I believe there's a pathway to winning, well, then you go for it if you believe you got something to contribute. But if you don't think there's a pathway to winning for you, it's not like I haven't been in New Hampshire at a town hall meeting and know what it's like to run for president. I got that. I know it. I'm not going back up there because, you know, I miss doing that. I'd only be going up there because I wanted to be president and thought I could be. All right. So unfortunately, I crashed this podcast, which otherwise could have been some wonderfully punny name on Chris's conversation or something. So here's my question to both Chris's. Chris Christie, like I feel like your parents had a really good idea of what they

were doing there. They didn't accidentally name you Chris Christie. But I'm curious if you had been a girl, were you going to be Christy Christie? Like what was the plan for Chris Christy, you know, the other possibility, the road not taken? There was not a plan. I'll give you the real brief answer. When you say that my parents couldn't have done it by accident, you're, as George W. Bush would say, you're mis-underestimating my parents. I was supposed to be James Christopher Christie named after my deceased grandfather. But my father has a brother, James Christopher Jr., his wife and my mom, were pregnant at the same time. I came first. My uncle said to his brother, my dad,

you can't name him James Christopher after dad. I'm naming my son after James Christopher. My parents had agreed on no other boy's name. So for three days, I was baby boy Christy in the hospital with no name. They're finally getting ready to send me home. And the nurse is like, we got to do a birth certificate. You got to give him a name. And my mother finally said, well, why don't we just reverse it and name him Christopher James. And they went, okay, never thinking about the nickname until I got home from the hospital and my grandmother, supposedly, picked me up out of the basket and said, look at little Chris Christie.

And my mother said she nearly passed out. She said, oh, no. Oh, no. So that's how, by the way, the two footnotes to that is footnote one. my uncle had three girls so there is no James Christopher and secondly my mother after admitting to me that it was an error

it was a mistake when we have our first child who's a boy I call my parents to tell them and my mother said is he going to be Chris Jr.? And I'm like, are you insane? You've been telling me for 30 years my name was a mistake

and now you want me to perpetuate that mistake? No, his name is Andrew. Thank you. There will be no Chris Jr. There is no Chris Jr. I have Andrew and Patrick on the boy side. So that's how it became Chris Christie. It was a total mistake. It wasn't like my mother was sitting there going, he may run for office. People will remember the name, you know? No. They just couldn't agree on another name and completely blew it. It gave me Chris Christie. By the way, the interesting thing is my Republican predecessor as governor was Christy Whitman. And she said to me, you know, if we ever got married, we would be Chris and Christy-Christy.

And I'm like, that's why we're not married, Governor. Wow. I feel like that was the real breaking news from this podcast. I got to tell you. Yeah. Chris, Christy, total mistake. A very happy accident, though. That would talk about a great political moniker, a great accident.

It was. And my mother, years later, as most. good political mothers tried to do, attempted to rewrite history, and started telling people, yeah, we knew he was going to be special. And that's why we did that. I'm like, come on. I got the real story. And I'm going to out you. So stop it. You know, the only good thing about my mother having not been here when I ran for president was I convinced that she would have gone on Fox News. Steyerwald would have booked her. And she would have been on Fox News telling that completely false story about my name. And I would have had to have.

a press conference repudiating my own mother. Yeah, that would have been a scandal. Candidate repudiates mom, describes, describes falsehoods. Yeah, I like it. Mom's a liar. I'm not, you know? Exactly. It would have been very, very ugly.

So that's how, that's how the name happens, Sarah. And there is no James Christopher because my uncle has three girls. Wow. Wow. This is really, this is important stuff. Breaking news, babe. This would be a breaking news thing on CNN. They would have to banner across it.

I'm glad we got to the bottom of this. There you never know what you're going to get, Sarah. You never know. 2021, the year we found out that it was all a mistake. All right. Well, thank you, Governor, for joining us. This is a real treat. And you do have a book coming out in November.

I do. I'm very much looking forward to. But perhaps we'll have to have you back on closer to to discuss some of the details. Here it is, Sarah, right here. Oh, my God, he's holding up a three-ring, D-ring, binder. It's black. It looks very official, frankly, compared to, like, what my writing would be,

which is, like, some note cards, maybe some loose leaves. Yeah, once you've been a governor, you never give up the three-ring binder. It's just a fair, fair. But, yeah, it comes out, November 16th. It's called Republican Rescue, How to Save Our Party from the Conspiracy The Truth Deniers and the dangerous policies of Joe Biden. All right. With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex presale tickets can score you a spot trackside.

So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Turns and conditions apply. Learn more at amex.ca.com.