I don't know enough about the specifics of the various stories to be able to answer that question. Were any of those department heads directly responsible for what happened as Kelly was ?

Not that it matters of course, since two wrongs don't make a right, or even a lesser wrong. We're talking about Chris Christie here, and his prospects for getting the Republican nomination in the light of this particular scandal. It's getting extremely tedious to have to keep making that point. The relevant other people that Christie has to be measured against in this context are people like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, not Obama.

Sassenach wrote:I don't know enough about the specifics of the various stories to be able to answer that question. Were any of those department heads directly responsible for what happened as Kelly was ?

Not that it matters of course, since two wrongs don't make a right, or even a lesser wrong. We're talking about Chris Christie here, and his prospects for getting the Republican nomination in the light of this particular scandal. It's getting extremely tedious to have to keep making that point. The relevant other people that Christie has to be measured against in this context are people like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, not Obama.

Of course we are talking of Chris Christie. It is so much more convenient to. It just makes your point seem so much less hypocritical if you had the same opinion when the shoe was on the left foot.

****POINT OF CLARIFICATION****
I am not a Christie supporter. He is too moderate for me...

bbauska wrote:Who do you think Obama should have fired?

DOJ sec?
HHS sec?
IRS head?
GSA head? (resigned)
ATF head?

I hate this kind of "whataboutery" (a word I learned from Danivion, but which I like very much).

I will say, however, that one of the big differences between this scandal and most others is the motive. For instance, for however stupid Fast and Furious was, it's motive was OK. For better or worse, we tolerate incompetence and stupidity, but have no patience or forgiveness when people have impure motives and use their position to hurt people, especially when those people are completely innocent taxpayers.

Christe's got to do the state of the state today. Yeah, I'm sure people are going to be listening to anything else he says.

Of course we are talking of Chris Christie. It is so much more convenient to. It just makes your point seem so much less hypocritical if you had the same opinion when the shoe was on the left foot.

As DF never tires of pointing out, I'm a foreigner with no vote in your politics. I also have no inbuilt partisan preference, having favoured both Dems and Reps at various times depending on my current perceptions. There's no basis for calling me a hypocrite just because I prefer not to be sidetracked by unrelated issues.

I'm quite certain that there are any number of Democratic politicians who have engaged in all kinds of dubious shenanigans like this. In fact I'd be shocked if there weren't a whole bunch of similar stories just waiting to be discovered right now. Politicians do this kind of thing a lot after all, and neither side is exactly chock full of saints. That said, there probably aren't a whole lot of people on either side who have potentially career killing scandals on the horizon while also being leading contenders for the Presidential nomination. It strikes me that those of you who think Christie comes out of this well are being blinded by partisanship. It's clearly a massive problem for him.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Who do you think Obama should have fired?

DOJ sec?
HHS sec?
IRS head?
GSA head? (resigned)
ATF head?

I hate this kind of "whataboutery" (a word I learned from Danivion, but which I like very much).

I will say, however, that one of the big differences between this scandal and most others is the motive. For instance, for however stupid Fast and Furious was, it's motive was OK. For better or worse, we tolerate incompetence and stupidity, but have no patience or forgiveness when people have impure motives and use their position to hurt people, especially when those people are completely innocent taxpayers.

Christe's got to do the state of the state today. Yeah, I'm sure people are going to be listening to anything else he says.

As well they should. I said she should have been fired before this was a scandal. Of course there could be the wrongful termination problems... (that might be another forum)

I hate whataboutery as well. I heard quite a bit of it concerning Bush. They thing I hate more is blind allegiance that leads to hypocrisy.

bbauska wrote:I hate whataboutery as well. I heard quite a bit of it concerning Bush. They thing I hate more is blind allegiance that leads to hypocrisy.

So two wrongs do make a right, then?

More trouble for the Fat Man....http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/politics/ ... sandy-ads/

freeman3 wrote:More trouble for the Fat Man....http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/politics/ ... sandy-ads/

Meanwhile, where actual people died, the Administration has been proven a liar by the no-good partisan committee led by the GOP-hack Senator Feinstein.

Wait. She's not a Republican? She's a Democrat? From California? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/al- ... nopager=1#

“Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.”

Each of the groups named in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report were previously identified in THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s reporting and analysis as being involved in the attack.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) are both official branches of al Qaeda and have sworn allegiance to Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s emir.

The Mohammad Jamal Network is run by an Egyptian who was trained by al Qaeda in the 1980s and has long been a subordinate to Zawahiri. Jamal was in direct contact with Zawahiri in 2011 and 2012. And, according to both the U.S. government and the United Nations, Jamal conspired with AQAP, AQIM, and al Qaeda’s senior leadership. Jamal, who was re-arrested by Egyptian authorities in late 2012, was seeking to establish his own official branch of al Qaeda.

But, what's REALLY important is what happened in Jersey, right? After all, if the President lied to the American people during a Presidential campaign, who cares? #liberalpriorities

Are you sure there isn't already a thread for that stuff, DF?

On the bridge lane thing, there is an allegation that someone died because an ambulance was delayed by the closures. So please try not to be too smug when discussing fatalities.

freeman3 wrote:More trouble for the Fat Man....http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/politics/ ... sandy-ads/

That will not go down well, if there's substance to it:

Pallone wrote that he was concerned about the bidding process for the firm awarded the marketing plan; the winning firm is charging the state about $2 million more than the next lowest bidder.

The winning bid of $4.7 million featured Christie and his family in the advertisements while the losing $2.5 million proposal did not feature the Christies, Pallone said.

Now, why would Chris Christie pay more out of federal funds to put himself on an ad during an election year?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/family-woman-died-doesn-blame-bridgegate-article-1.1571844

Or she could have been dead already...

bbauska wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/family-woman-died-doesn-blame-bridgegate-article-1.1571844

Or she could have been dead already...

Possibly. The paramedics tried to reviver her, rather than just calling it there, but maybe he knows more than trained professionals.

danivon wrote:Are you sure there isn't already a thread for that stuff, DF?

On the bridge lane thing, there is an allegation that someone died because an ambulance was delayed by the closures. So please try not to be too smug when discussing fatalities.

http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry ... 62c146e1/1 The family doesn't blame Christie.

I know no liberal wants to discuss Benghazi.. People died, Obama lied and lied and lied. Oh, and the attack could have been anticipated. Everything I said months ago is vindicated by the Senate report.

How inconvenient.

Main point: you all are dying for a scandal or two to knock out Christie. Meanwhile, you don't give two figs about Benghazi, the abuse at the IRS, the abuse of executive orders, the fact that the whole Middle East is a mess because of the Amateur's incompetence, etc.

So, let's worry about Christie!

I don't really give a damn about Christie other than the fact that it's an interesting story to speculate about for a political junkie like me. I do think this will finish him though.

As it happens I'm a big critic of Obama's foreign policy myself so the linkage you're trying to make is irrelevant to me. It's possible to take an interest in Christie's misfortunes without endorsing Obama's handling of world affairs.