Let the voters decide that Chris Christie is horrible

I've noticed recently that newspaper editorial pages really, really want a lot of people to resign or stop running for office or at least stop doing whatever the hell it is that they're doing. This is not totally a new phenomenon -- the Inquirer (and some other big papers) famously called in 1998 for Bill Clinton to resign over the Monica Lewinsky affair, a classic case of what-newspaper-editorial-writers-care-about being way out of whack with the everyday concerns of regular folks who, at least potentially, buy newspapers.

It's just that it's happening more often. Earlier this year, I wrote about how I strongly disagreed with the Inquirer and its call for Pa. AG Kathleen Kane to resign before she's had a chance to defend herself in court, even though to say I'm not a huge Kathleen Kane fan would be an understatement. This week, we saw the Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale call for Florida homeboy Marco Rubio to resign from the Senate because he's missed so many votes and told friends he hates it there.

Then today, the New York Times editorial board threw down this:

It's that time in the ever-long presidential campaign when candidates lacking money and mojo are starting to go back to their plows. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey should join them.

Mr. Christie has been called a lot of things, but until Wednesday's debate performance, "barely there" was not among them. In eight minutes of speaking time, Mr. Christie said little of substance. As for his parting pitch that he's "deadly serious about changing this culture" of government, well, his constituents in New Jersey know better.

This isn't strictly about Mr. Christie's fitness for the presidency. His role in New Jersey's budget crisis, betrayal on affordable housing and the interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to "the chairman's flight," say a great deal about that.

The point is that New Jersey is in trouble, and the governor is off pursuing a presidential run that's turned out to be nothing more than a vanity project. Mr. Christie's numbers are in the basement, and he's nearly out of campaign cash. This is his moment, all right: to go home and use the year left in his term to clean out the barn, as Speaker John Boehner would say.

First of all, that's an odd statement for editorial writers at the most prestigious newspaper in America (after our own Daily News, of course) to make: You've totally trashed New Jersey, Gov. Christie, so please come home and work more of your magic! But beyond that massive logical hole that you could drive an $180 million blimp through, there's something that makes me very, very uncomfortable with newspaper editorial boards badgering a candidate to leave the race.

Why? I've always argued that journalism and democracy are very much intertwined -- it's impossible to have one without the other. And how does it serve democracy to want voters to have fewer choices? I don't get that. If Christie is as flawed a candidate as the New York Times editorial board believes, his donors, or his family, or most certainly the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, have ways of communicating that to him.

Personally, I think Christie is one of the worst governors in America (pretty remarkable when you think he has competition like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Maine's Paul LePage) -- whose only interest in governing seems to be steering financial contracts or tax breaks to his supporters. But shouldn't we let the voters agree that Christie is truly horrible?