Bill Kristol sigue llamando a filas a Christie con un nuevo artículo en Weekly Standard:
Christie’s answer is eloquent and sincere. But—if I may say so, and I say so with some diffidence—it seems incomplete.
Is it right, as Christie says, that “the reason [to run] has to reside inside” him? Doesn’t the reason reside more importantly in the crises the country faces? The reason fundamentally has little to do with what Chris Christie feels in his heart. It has everything to do what he thinks the nation needs. If he thinks he can benefit the nation, he should run.
It’s one thing for someone who has never run for office—a Colin Powell or a Bill Bennett or a David Petraeus—to decide he’s just not cut out for elective office, and to choose not to embark on that course. But Chris Christie—like Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels, to mention only two others—already holds elective office. If any of them honestly thinks he could win the nomination and the presidency, and would be a better candidate and a better president than the rest of the Republican field—and if there are no show-stopping medical or family issues—doesn’t that public official have some obligation to step up to the plate?
You don’t have to “feel deeply in [your] heart” that you’re called to run for president. You have to think you’re the right man for the job. And, if that’s the case, you have a duty to your country to step forward.
It’s not about you. It’s about your country.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario