Chris Christie Gives The Sherman Statement

Chris Christie has consistently stated that he isn’t running for President — three times so far — but the question keeps getting asked.

Perhaps, this will put an end to the speculation:

So, he says he’s out there saying the state is cutting spending without raising taxes, but stresses, again, that he’s not running for president.

Christie says, “If nominated, I shall not run. If elected, I shall not serve. How about that? I’ll try that one tonight.”

What else do you want the guy to say? He isn’t running, move on.

H/T: The Pajama Pundit

FILED UNDER: 2012 Election, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. John Burgess says:

    I’m hoping that he’s planning for a run in 2016, myself. 2012 was too soon, anyway.

  2. wr says:

    By 2016 he’s going to be a bug on the windshield of history, as he discovers that when voters say they want someone to cut spending, they mean cut spending that doesn’t affect them in any way. Christie’s passion for the subject, which has already led him to kill a desperately needed infrastructure improvement decades in the making so he could steal gas taxes for another purpose, is going to cut deeper and deeper into services New Jerseyites need and want. He’d better cut the rest of the road budget now so there’s no extra tar lying around when the people with pitchforks come for him.

  3. Nate says:

    “If nominated, I shall not run. If elected, I shall not serve. …” I think that is the best reason in the world to vote for this guy. No annoying campaign, and no president that wants to run your life. Pocket vetoes for all the crummy bills in Congress and a President who does nothing. The only bills that could pass would be the ones that have a super majority. I think it would be the closest we can get to “None of the above.”