Analysis: Why people don't trust politicians, in one Chris Christie interview

On Sunday, Christie had a blunt, very plausible, and possibly just a bit cynical explanation for why voters should forget what he had to say back then, but pay attention to what he has to say now.

First, to the transcript via CBS's "Face the Nation," in which John Dickerson asks Christie about Trump's plan to force Mexico to pay for Trump's border wall:

DICKERSON: So, because the wall is such an important part of his candidacy - you said during the primaries, "This makes no sense," referring to the wall. "I have met President Peña Nieto a number of times. I don't think if we present him with a bill, he's going to pay for it." So, were you wrong then?

CHRISTIE: Yes, I disagreed with Donald Trump at the time. Big shock. I was running against him, John. And so let's pull out all the quotes where people who are now supporting Hillary Clinton disagreed with her during the primary as well, so we can be fair about this. Of course I disagreed with him, because I was running against him.

(CROSSTALK)

DICKERSON: But do you think it's possible now?

CHRISTIE: But, John, a lot of people - John, a lot of people, a lot of people, myself included, have lost betting against Donald Trump. And I think he's going to be a very good negotiator for the American people, not only on this issue, but on trade deals that will help improve our economy to make the world safer and more secure.

---

Christie's justification for having said what he said about Trump is literally that he "was running against him." He said it twice in this interview. And perhaps that's fine. People assume that politicians change their approaches between the primary and the general election, when the party needs to unite behind its nominee.

But usually when that occurs, a politician will simply claim a thoroughly convenient political conversion -- 'I didn't think it was possible Mexico would pay for the wall, but Donald Trump has now convinced me.' Alternatively, they might say, 'Well, I don't agree with him on that particular issue, but we're both Republicans, and we have to defeat Hillary Clinton.'

Christie skipped over both of those options on Sunday and basically suggested he was just saying something because he was running against the guy.

In some ways, you have to admire that level of honesty. But the logical extension of Christie's comments is that he was either being disingenuous before or he's being disingenuous today. It sounds a lot like Christie is saying that he staked out a position that he didn't believe in - or at least, didn't feel all that strongly about - during the primary mostly because he was running against Trump and thought it would be politically advantageous. This isn't a shocking concept. It isn't usually one politicians admit to publicly.

Christie, in the course of this interview, also suggests he's being singled out for this treatment. "And so let's pull out all the quotes where people who are now supporting Hillary Clinton disagreed with her during the primary as well, so we can be fair about this," he says.

And yes, there were things on which Bernie Sanders clearly didn't agree with Clinton. But he never suggested her policy ideas were "ridiculous" and "the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they're talking about." He never suggested Clinton was an unserious politician - just an entertainer - who would be out of her depth in the presidency. He suggested her ideas were wrong, not that they were pie-in-the-sky. The tenor of Christie's criticism of Trump - not to mention Marco Rubio having labeled Trump a "con man" -- is on a completely different level. It cut to the core of whether Trump is fit to serve as president.

To hear Christie tell it, though, he was just . . . saying things, because it was the primary season. In the general election, we should apparently take everything he says to the bank.

Aaron Blake covers national politics and writes regularly for The Fix.