From the native newspaper:
“Pragmatic, competent. . . undoubtedly not a hater, eh? Okay, no matter you say, Bret. If this complete presidential marketing campaign factor fails, Christie may need a shot at changing into Transportation Secretary.
Critically, I assume the sport within the plug trade lately is to be in probably the most ridiculous place attainable after which simply watch the clicks come. So perhaps the columnist made this silly assertion simply to get seen. Any publicity is nice publicity, proper? On this case, I performed into his arms. . .
P.S. Simply to make clear, my objection to the quote above is that it’s ridiculous to name Christie “pragmatic and competent.” . . definitely not a hater,” on condition that he clearly has a repute for being an unpragmatic and incompetent hater. I am not saying you may’t say Christie is “pragmatic and competent.” . . definitely not a hater”; Chrstie did lots of issues, and I am positive you may identify occasions he was pragmatic, occasions he was competent, and different occasions he wasn’t hateful. However calling Christie “pragmatic and competent…”. . undoubtedly not a hater” is a scorching take to say the least, and so in the event you’re going to explain it that method, you’d need to present proof for such a counterintuitive declare.
Additionally, I do not actually suppose Bret was on the lookout for clicks when he gave the quote above. My greatest guess as to what occurred – a guess I base not on any data of Bret however relatively on my common impression of newspaper columnists – is that he writes what seems to be good, not what’s. factual. He began by eager to say one thing good about Christie, and he provided: “Pragmatic, competent. . . undoubtedly not a hater. Sounds good, so mission achieved. Who cares if it is smart? It isn’t like anybody reads these items for the content material.