From the local paper:
“Pragmatic, competent . . . most definitely not a hater,” huh? OK, whatever you say, Bret. If that whole presidential run thing fails, maybe Christie has a shot at Secretary of Transportation.
In all seriousness, I guess the game in the takes industry nowadays is to hold the most ridiculous position possible and then just watch the clicks roll in. So maybe the columnist made that asinine statement just to get some notice. All publicity is good publicity, right? In which case, I played right into his hands . . .
P.S. Just to clarify, my objection to the above quote is that it’s ridiculous to refer to Christie as “Pragmatic, competent . . . most definitely not a hater,” given that he has a clear rep of being a non-pragmatic, incompetent, hater. I’m not saying you can’t make the argument that Christie is “pragmatic, competent . . . most definitely not a hater”; Chrstie’s done a lot of things, and I’m sure you can put together some occasions where he’s been pragmatic, some times he’s been competent, and some times when he’s not been a hater. But referring to Christie as “pragmatic, competent . . . most definitely not a hater” is at the very least a hot take, and so if you’re going to describe him that way, you’d want to supply some evidence for such a counterintuitive claim.
Also, I don’t really think that Bret was trolling for clicks when he gave the above quote. My best guess of what happened—a guess I base not on any knowledge of Bret but rather on my general impression of newspaper columnists—is that he writes what sounds good, not what’s factual. He started by wanting to say something nice about Christie, and he came up with “Pragmatic, competent . . . most definitely not a hater.” That sounds nice, so mission accomplished. Who cares if it makes any sense? It’s not like anyone’s reading these things for content.