Chris Christie Says GOP Committing Political Malpractice
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican and former presidential candidate, said Sunday on ABC News’s “This Week” that Republicans were committing “political malpractice” in their closing arguments to maintain House and Senate majorities. Responding to remarks by Rep. Tom Emmer on the same program, Christie said the party’s argument for the prior three weeks was that it is acceptable to buy oil from a “thug, KGB dictator in Russia,” that Americans “just don’t get” that “the economy is great” when they pay more at the grocery store and gas station, and that it is acceptable “to livestream a murder by the United States government executing on the death penalty.” He said remaining in House or Senate leadership requires standing by “everything Donald Trump says and does,” that Emmer “knows better” but was “on his knee in front of Donald Trump,” and that Trump’s claim he can “say the stupidest things in the world and people will believe him” is “not true anymore.” Christie also discussed a competitive U.S. Senate race in Kansas.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Chris Christie
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 11, 17:03 UTC by Breitbart, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage is more complete on what Christie said. Left-leaning coverage presents his Sunday remarks as a warning that the GOP is committing malpractice in trying to retain Congress. The same coverage flags a surprisingly competitive Senate election in Kansas. Right-leaning coverage quotes him charging that leaders must "stand by everything Donald Trump says." It also reports him listing a livestreamed government execution among the GOP's closing arguments.
The same split shows up in what each side leads with. Left-leaning coverage leads with that Kansas race and the fight to keep Congress. Right-leaning coverage opens on Christie shaking his head at Tom Emmer and describing him as "on his knee in front of Donald Trump."
Neither account quotes the Republican Christie was answering on air. What did Tom Emmer actually argue on the same ABC broadcast?
Bottom line
Christie's attack on Trump loyalty ran in Breitbart, not in The Hill. The Hill tied the same malpractice line to a Kansas Senate race instead.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Christie said remaining in House or Senate leadership requires standing by everything Donald Trump says
- Christie listed buying oil from a Russian KGB dictator as one of three GOP closing arguments to keep Congress
- Christie said the GOP argument is that Americans just don't get that the economy is great when they pay more at the grocery store and gas station
- Christie said Trump can say the stupidest things in the world and people will believe him, and that it is not true anymore
The Left View
The Hill framed the remarks as a Republican calling his own party’s bid “malpractice” while trying “to try to win Congress” in a tough midterm environment. It treated Christie as an intra-party validator of campaign trouble, tying the comments to a “surprisingly competitive” Kansas Senate race rather than dwelling on a fight over Trump personally.
The Right View
Breitbart foregrounded Christie’s full attack on Emmer and on a Trump loyalty test, quoting him that Emmer was “on his knee in front of Donald Trump” and that the duty to defend “everything Donald Trump says and does” is “malpractice to good Republicans all across this country.” It also carried Christie’s line that it is “not true anymore” that people will believe Trump even when he says “the stupidest things in the world.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left-leaning account’s strongest point is that a Republican former governor and presidential candidate applied “malpractice” to his own party’s closing pitch, with Kansas cited as a race competitive enough to make that charge politically salient. The right-leaning account’s strongest point is the loyalty charge itself: Christie said leadership now requires standing by everything Trump says, even from someone who “knows better.” The central unresolved tension is whether Christie’s three-theme sketch fairly describes the GOP closing argument, or whether a longtime Trump critic is characterizing remarks in terms most Republican officials and voters would reject.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.