Jonathan Tobin makes a good case that Christie 2012 hype is misguided, but then makes this odd statement near the end:

The hoopla over Christie ignores the fact many of his stands on social issues may not work in Republican primaries and that, unlike someone like Ryan, he has never articulated a vision about foreign policy or defense [bold mine-DL].

Until three months ago, Paul Ryan hadn’t articulated a vision on foreign policy, either, which never stopped his boosters from promoting a presidential bid before that. Ryan probably would have never bothered giving that awful speech to the Hamilton Society over the summer if there had not already been an effort to draft him for the presidential race underway, and it is doubtful that anyone would have paid much attention to the speech had it not been so closely linked with speculation about his possible candidacy. If giving a bad speech larded with ideological slogans is all that one needs to do to acquire credibility on foreign policy in the GOP (and unfortunately it may be), that wouldn’t be much of an obstacle for Christie to overcome. If candidates are going to be expected to know something, Christie’s lack of foreign policy experience could be a serious problem.

On social issues, Christie has started positioning himself as a newly-converted pro-lifer in the finest tradition of Romney-like pandering. His position on marriage is not going to satisfy some social conservatives, but by itself it is not going to make him unacceptable to most primary voters. The main problem for Christie is that he hasn’t been in office very long, and he hasn’t done very much so far. It simply doesn’t make sense for him to enter the 2012 race.