THIS seems to be a logical method for choosing a President.
Democrats and progressives are apparently terrified that a Republican will enter the presidential race who isn’t a religious zealot, a libertarian ideologue, a political tyro, a Mormon or a Texan, but a charismatic governor of a big northeastern state who is pragmatic, credible and successful. That would be Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, who may be about to throw his hat in the ring. So the word has gone out to the media, or the media is just sufficient trained to protect Democratic presidents without further instruction, that it needs to define Christie before the American public has a chance to form its own opinion, and the definition it has arrived at is fat.
You know, fat. As in Rush Limbaugh fat, fat like the political cartoonist Herblock always drew lobbyists and “Big Business.” Diamond Jim Brady fat; fat like Sydney Greenstreet, the villain in all those Humphrey Bogart movies. Fat means bad; fat means lazy; fat means unhealthy, and ugly. Fat people consume more than their share, and are disproportionately responsible for global warming and soaring health care costs, don’t you know. They have no self-control; they don’t have self-respect. We dread being stuck next to one of these porkers in an airplane. You can’t trust fat people. That’s really all you need to know about Chris Christie. This is America—we worship beautiful people. Fit people. Thin people….like, say, President Obama. Do we want to be led by someone who is fat? Of course not!
The voices of liberalism, protectors of the weak, guardians of the disabled, advocates for the persecuted, certainly do rush to use naked bigotry when it suits their purposes. Al Kamen, Washington Post columnist, filled his Friday column about Christie with juvenile fat jokes. “A leader for these belt-tightening times?” his column was headlined, accompanied by a photo of the corpulent governor standing next to the wispy Obama. “While New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is weighing his options regarding a presidential campaign, and the political pundits are taking his measure, it seems a fitting time to ponder the role of the large man in politics,” Kamen wrote. Then he had the utter gall to quote a psychologist about the biases faced by overweight people in America, which, of course, his own column was designed to encourage, at least enough to cut a menacing Obama rival down to size.
On TV, the liberal wing on the syndicated “Inside Washington” couldn’t restrain themselves, or recall basic values like respect, civility, kindness, or fairness:
Politico’s Evan Thomas: Christie would be a very appealing candidate except that he weighs too much. I mean, it’s an issue that everybody is uncomfortable with but it’s really an issue. […]
Colbert King, Washington Post: He’s a guy that I would love to have breakfast, lunch, and dinner with at the same setting!
Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg: Yeah, the all you can eat! [laughs all round]
Mark Shields, PBS: Now, the weight thing is a problem, and I can say that when you sit in the bathtub, and the water level in the toilet does rise, it’s a pretty good indication that you probably ought to cut the second dessert. And I think that’s a problem with the Governor.
It’s a problem, all right…if you’re a shallow, superficial bigot. Being overweight wasn’t “a problem” for Winston Churchill, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Grover Cleveland. It wasn’t even “a problem” for William Howard Taft, a much bigger man than Christie, who managed to serve as President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, retiring when he was 73. Woodrow Wilson, Taft’s successor to the presidency, was built approximately like Obama, and suffered a stroke in the middle of his second term at the age of 63 that left him disoriented and an invalid until his death. The real “problem” for U.S. presidents is the lack of leadership ability, not an imperfect fat to muscle ratio. All indications are that by this measure, it is President Obama, not Gov. Christie, who has “a problem.”
Yet to the bigot, it is external, physical, genetic or cultural qualities—-weight, age, gender, disabilities, nationality, ethnicity and skin color—that matter. They are members of a group that the “better” people can feel superior to, so the individual is reduced to the group’s unpopular trait, and nothing more. Using these characteristics to denigrate and diminish men and women of demonstrated character, achievement and potential has been a devastating political weapon for centuries. Everyone knows it’s wrong; it is so wrong, in fact, the Democratic Party specializes in claiming uses of bigotry where none exists. After all, everyone knows that good liberals and progressives oppose bigotry—unless the bigotry involves fat people. Make that conservative fat people. Ted Kennedy’s fat, for example, was good. Tip O’Neil? Good fat.
Eugene Robinson, or “Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson,” as he is usually called, on the very same day that the “Inside Washington” panelists relived their happy school days teasing the fat kids, and Al Kamen decided to warn America and the GOP how much everyone hates the overweight by being hateful himself, devoted his entire column in the Post to Christie’s weight.
All for the Governor’s own good, of course. “Today, I’d just like to offer him a bit of unsolicited, nonpartisan, sincere advice,” Robinson wrote. “Eat a salad and take a walk.”
And allow me to offer Eugene Robinson some unsolicited, nonpartisan, sincere advice: mind your own damn business, and learn some integrity and manners.
The Governor’s weight and how he chooses to allocate his priorities are his concern and his alone. Luckily for him, President Obama can hide his smoking habit, and President Clinton was adept at lying about his sex addiction. Franklin Roosevelt’s many maladies were his own burden to overcome, and a bullet, not the many illnesses and conditions he hid from the public, killed JFK. What matters is whether a President can serve out four or eight years in good enough health to do his best for the country. Robinson has no way of knowing whether a dieting Chris Christie would be too stressed out and miserable to function, and whatever the columnist claims, his real purpose in writing about Christie’s weight was to define him to the public by his waist size, before Christy could define himself with his words and character. That an African American and an admirer of Dr. King (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character…”) would stoop to such a hypocritical and despicable tactic tells us all we need to know about the content of his character.
Chris Christie has never disagreed with the assessment that he should lose weight, but what is supposed to matter in choosing a leader isn’t who looks best in a bathing suit, but who best knows how to fill out the Oval Office. The left-biased media’s relentless emphasis on Christie’s weight—before he has even announced his candidacy!— is a transparent, hypocritical, unethical appeal to bias and bigotry by the habitually self-righteous on that topic. Any fair-minded American, fat or thin, ought to be outraged by it, and reject it.
Ethics Alarms 
Was that the guy who keep saying, almost unequivocally, that he won’t run for President?
Slightly related: Did you hear the comments that blonde jagoff whose name I don’t know made when they were talking about Chaz Bono, how he might be eliminated for a knee problem, and they joked it was one of the few parts he hadn’t had operated on? (It was on the Daily Show on Wednesday, I think) That was uncool.
That’s the guy. You know that there is a long tradition in American politics that the more reluctant a candidate is, the more worthy he is seen as being, and the more eager, the less fit.
I cannot understand why people can’t give Chaz Bono a break.
So, here’s an idea for a campaign slogan, “Vote fat!” Should get about 40% of the American population on that alone.
Seriously, when the various arms of the mainstream media demonstrate such intellectual and moral depravity, the usual response would be to boycott them (as we would with most other items that we find reprehensible). I say, shut down the NY Slimes and the Washroom Pest and their ilk by not patronizing them as subscribers.
In addition to finding a way to try to look superior in the eyes of the public (He’s fat; I’m not, and neither is my candidate), these unfunny jokers and bullies have latched onto a school-yard topic that gives them (they think) the edge on clever. It’s so easy to riff on something like this, and they do not disappoint in coming up with the easy one-liners. Really, they think they’re so clever. But let’s call this exactly what it is — sanctioned discrimination. Weight/size-ism seems to be the last great bigotry that few seem to feel the need to call out for the ugliness that it truly is.
I have endured the gentle bigotry of ‘oh you have such a pretty face, if only you would lose weight’ all of my life. As one of those criminally obese individuals who is using up the resources of the planet, I find the “junk” science being used to damn us just that – junk. It is rather fascinating the lengths both sides of the political aisle will go to keep us out of sight. I’m beginning to think we remind them of something they might like to be, but are too afraid. During the past 2 years of the Obama Administration, what I am seeing is above and beyond anything I’ve experienced over the years.
I keep thinking about the Randy Newman song about short people, only rewritten to be ‘Fat People Have No Reason to Live’.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
It’s despicable. Prejudice against “fat” is publicly discussed now as ruining the health our young female adolescents who starve themselves to be model-thin, but general prejudice against obesity is still rampant. Fat people aren’t smart, don’t deserve good jobs, etc. It is a widely practiced prejudice in every walk of life, especially in the job market and the televised news. I am convinced, for example, and though I watch it in the afternoon, that Fox News has its high ratings because of its blonde and beautiful hosts in the morning shows (who, by the way, wear the most ridiculous clothing I’ve ever seen on “professional” women… could it be because they’re such fun to watch? They would be “talked to” about their wardrobe by human resource managers at corporations, and tossed out of court by judges who expect their dress to reflect the respect they presumably have for the Court).
When it comes to Chris Christie, I think it’s simply that the Democrats are absolutely terrified that he will run. So let’s get on him early, guys. Go after him before he’s even announced! Make fun of him. Make him a non-entity as soon and as despicably as you can. Go for it. Get him now…
Notice no one says he’s stupid, too conservative, ill-educated, too much of a nut to be president, or ill-equipped to deal with the problems our nation faces. Nope: all they can come up with is, “He’s fat!” So ipso facto we can’t take him seriously? Christie’s response should be this: “If being fat is my major negative, keep it coming! Criticize me for something issue-related, or ideology-related — if you have the nerve to do so.” (And the “health” issue, considering our past presidents, is a non-issue; and being thin isn’t helping Obama make good decisions, is it?)
I sincerely hope he is “drafted” by the Republican party. He can take care of himself on the fat issue, as well as anything else thrown at him by a bunch of paranoid Obama-ites.
Actually, I did hear some NPR stories on the Chris Christie things that the Reps probably won’t like if he steps in- like when he worked WITH the opposition and they agreed on something, quickly, that was best for everyone, and stuff like that. I don’t recall the specifics, but at least that was one place where the topics had nothing to do with his size.
But I also can’t imagine why no one will leave the guy, WHO REPEATEDLY SAYS I’M NOT RUNNING, alone about running! If you don’t WANT to be President, you shouldn’t have to hear all this crap about trying to BE the President. Something is broken in people who want to be the President, I’ve always thought. Who’d want THAT job?
I recently watched that episode of Inside Washington. Evan Thomas’s statement is a little ambiguous. It is unclear whether or not he thinks that Christie’s weight should be held against him or whether he is just stating that it will. He says that it is “an issue that everybody is uncomfortable with but it’s really an issue.” When he says “everyone”, does he mean that “everyone” is uncomfortable with Christie’s weight or that everyone is uncomfortable with the fact that Christie’s weight would be an issue that could negatively influence the electorate. Compare this statement to a (hypothetical) statement that about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. A pundit could say that it is an issue with the electorate (because it is), without having anything against Mormons in particular, and could state that he was uncomfortable with the fact that it was even an issue.
As for Colbert King and Mark Shields, I think both men were being self-deprecating. Neither man is slim. Mr. King was making a joke about fat people eating together. Mr. Shields’s statement “I can say that when you sit in the bathtub, and the water level in the toilet does rise…” he implied that he was speaking from experience.
Thomas, I’ll give you. The rest…a real ssttrreettcchhhhh. And Carlson’s comment was unequivocal even using your generous standards. And his weight is only a “problem” if the media intentionally makes it one. We’ve had about 8 fat presidents, and only one black one. The difference is that people who say Obama’s race “is a problem” are rightly called bigots, regardless of whether they meant it “ambiguously.”