Archduke Russell John wrote:Additionally, the news around here is showing most people believe Christie is telling the truth (something like 70%) and his overall popularity ratings haven't taken that big of hit.

Seems to indicate my original comment, those who think he's a bully and don't like him will see this issue as confirming that opinion, and those that think he is a fighter and like him will see this issue as confirming that opinion, seem to be correct.

Which leads back to my assertions: 1) this only hurts him if it is demonstrated he lied; 2) if he is not proven to have lied, it actually makes him a more likely candidate.

As to the second point: if the press goes after him and doesn't hurt him, he becomes more attractive to movement conservatives (like me). While I may not agree with him on many issues, his leadership and honesty (if vindicated) are the qualities many Americans find lacking in the current President. I know this bothers the liberals here--and I'm fine with that. Most Americans have concluded the President is dishonest and not a good leader. You may resent the facts all you like; they remain facts.

Which leads back to my assertions: 1) this only hurts him if it is demonstrated he lied; 2) if he is not proven to have lied, it actually makes him a more likely candidate.

I don't buy this. What this does is create serious doubts in the back of a lot of minds. It doesn't really matter what liberals think since they wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but if enough large Republican donors, right-wing opinion formers and other kingmakers in the Republican party begin to think that there may well be some fire with the smoke then they're likely to look at other candidates. Even if it isn't conclusively proven that Chrisie had anything to do with it, there will always be the calculation that another candidate would be a safer bet in an election that's desperately important for the Republicans to win.

You also need to consider the fact that it isn't just Hillary who stands to gain by this. Christie has rivals and probably enemies in his own camp too, and they'll be delighted to try and exploit his difficulties. I don't think many people are going to bend over backwards to help him at this stage in the electoral cycle.

Sassenach wrote:

Which leads back to my assertions: 1) this only hurts him if it is demonstrated he lied; 2) if he is not proven to have lied, it actually makes him a more likely candidate.

I don't buy this. What this does is create serious doubts in the back of a lot of minds. It doesn't really matter what liberals think since they wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but if enough large Republican donors, right-wing opinion formers and other kingmakers in the Republican party begin to think that there may well be some fire with the smoke then they're likely to look at other candidates. Even if it isn't conclusively proven that Chrisie had anything to do with it, there will always be the calculation that another candidate would be a safer bet in an election that's desperately important for the Republicans to win.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not a conservative American voter, so I doubt you grasp the mindset.

You also need to consider the fact that it isn't just Hillary who stands to gain by this. Christie has rivals and probably enemies in his own camp too, and they'll be delighted to try and exploit his difficulties. I don't think many people are going to bend over backwards to help him at this stage in the electoral cycle.

No, they're not helping him. But, if the press continues to OVER-stress this and it is proven that he's innocent, how does that hurt him? Because it creates doubt . . . about what? His ability to withstand scrutiny?

If anyone cannot withstand scrutiny, it's Hillary. Look at her testimony. Instead of answering questions a la Christie, she flew into a rant about "What difference does it make?"

But, if the press continues to OVER-stress this and it is proven that he's innocent, how does that hurt him? Because it creates doubt . . . about what? His ability to withstand scrutiny?

The doubt is about whether something else like this will blow up at any moment during the campaign and scupper his chances. At the very least we know he employs people who take part in petty minded bullying and score-settling (yes, I know Obama does the same, I'm not making a value judgement). There's every chance other material might come to light. If that were to happen after he wins the nomination then it would make it harder for him to win the Presidency. If you're a big donor looking to back a Republican candidate with the best chance of getting elected then would you want to take the risk ?

As you say, I'm not an American conservative and I may very well be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that this will be more likely to drive funding away from Christie than to strengthen his campaign for the nomination.

Sassenach wrote:

But, if the press continues to OVER-stress this and it is proven that he's innocent, how does that hurt him? Because it creates doubt . . . about what? His ability to withstand scrutiny?

The doubt is about whether something else like this will blow up at any moment during the campaign and scupper his chances. At the very least we know he employs people who take part in petty minded bullying and score-settling (yes, I know Obama does the same, I'm not making a value judgement). There's every chance other material might come to light.

But, that is quite some way down the road. Furthermore, I'd say the odds of any new stunts like that are infinitesimal. If old ones are discovered, you're right. But, new ones? No chance. They will be on "less than zero" tolerance for shenanigans and paybacks.

If that were to happen after he wins the nomination then it would make it harder for him to win the Presidency. If you're a big donor looking to back a Republican candidate with the best chance of getting elected then would you want to take the risk ?

You could be right, but if he does well in primaries, the money will follow.

As you say, I'm not an American conservative and I may very well be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that this will be more likely to drive funding away from Christie than to strengthen his campaign for the nomination.

I think it depends on how it all pans out. That's not yet determined. If a skeleton or two were all it took to scare off donors, Obama would not be President and Hillary would have no shot.

We'll see. You're obviously better placed than I am to understand the mindset of republican primary voters, but the way I see it there are currently 3 or 4 decent candidates who all have a good shout of getting momentum behind them and sealing the nomination. Only one of those is currently fighting for his political life amid a media shitstorm and I don't see how that's more, rather than less likely to improve his chances.

A Republican operative at a large super PAC used the same metaphor — a favorite among political observers at the moment — to describe the unease in the party.
“Everyone thinks there’s probably a 60% chance the other shoe will drop,” said the operative, who like many of the people quoted in this story, requested anonymity to speak freely about a situation that is still evolving. “When I saw the press conference, I said, I don’t think he’s lying… But for the deputy chief of staff to do something like that requires a culture in the office that he would have set, and it probably requires other examples that would have made her feel like that was acceptable to do.”
He added, “My gut is that they’ll probably find something else.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/ch ... eeper-into

The other shoe:

Two senior members of Gov. Chris Christie’s administration warned a New Jersey mayor earlier this year that her town would be starved of hurricane relief money unless she approved a lucrative redevelopment plan favored by the governor, according to the mayor and emails and personal notes she shared with msnbc.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mayor-christ ... ey-hostage

Too bad. From a distance he seemed like a good candidate

Sassenach wrote:We'll see. You're obviously better placed than I am to understand the mindset of republican primary voters, but the way I see it there are currently 3 or 4 decent candidates who all have a good shout of getting momentum behind them and sealing the nomination. Only one of those is currently fighting for his political life amid a media shitstorm and I don't see how that's more, rather than less likely to improve his chances.

Conservatives are to the media what liberals are to the Constitution. Liberals distrust and loath the Constitution, which is why they constantly go to Court to change it. Conservatives distrust and loath the media because it's filled with liberals.

As I've said, Christie would not be my choice. In fact, I'd rather have Romney than Christie. However, that's not saying much. I would prefer Cruz, Lee, Rand Paul, Paul Walker, Rubio, Ryan, and I'm sure others.

However, the media is not going to influence primary voters. Ultimately, the money will follow the votes. There are going to be a lot of Republicans who will see electing another liberal President as akin to losing the Second Civil War.

The other thing Democrats don't like to talk about is they won in 2012 based on the idiot vote. Yes, they "got out the vote." And, those who were delivered to the polling places flew under the radars of pollsters. Why is that? Because they're so dumb they are dismissed in "likely voter" polls. They know nothing, so pollsters presume they won't show up.

rickyp wrote:

A Republican operative at a large super PAC used the same metaphor — a favorite among political observers at the moment — to describe the unease in the party.
“Everyone thinks there’s probably a 60% chance the other shoe will drop,” said the operative, who like many of the people quoted in this story, requested anonymity to speak freely about a situation that is still evolving. “When I saw the press conference, I said, I don’t think he’s lying… But for the deputy chief of staff to do something like that requires a culture in the office that he would have set, and it probably requires other examples that would have made her feel like that was acceptable to do.”
He added, “My gut is that they’ll probably find something else.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/ch ... eeper-into

The other shoe:

Two senior members of Gov. Chris Christie’s administration warned a New Jersey mayor earlier this year that her town would be starved of hurricane relief money unless she approved a lucrative redevelopment plan favored by the governor, according to the mayor and emails and personal notes she shared with msnbc.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mayor-christ ... ey-hostage

Too bad. From a distance he seemed like a good candidate

Again, I think we need to wait and see. I think it's funny that liberals are upset about things like this: this is the Rahm Emanuel/Obama playbook! And, picking some developers over others? Ha! This is all they have done in office.

But, hey, if they can bury Christie in dirt, awesome!

I'd so prefer a real conservative.

Let's see what happens. You all can bury Christie. I'll wait and see what the facts are.

However, the media is not going to influence primary voters.

Really ?

Steve, you're a movement conservative who pays very close attention to the media and its coverage of all things political. I don't think that really applies to most primary voters. Christie's big pitch was that he was the conservative who could appeal to non-conservatives. If he loses that, or at least has it called into question, by this scandal then why would he suddenly become the popular choice of primary voters ? Isn't it more likely they'll just see damaged goods and vote for the candidate who more closely conforms to their views anyway ?

Sassenach wrote:

However, the media is not going to influence primary voters.

Really ?

Steve, you're a movement conservative who pays very close attention to the media and its coverage of all things political. I don't think that really applies to most primary voters. Christie's big pitch was that he was the conservative who could appeal to non-conservatives. If he loses that, or at least has it called into question, by this scandal then why would he suddenly become the popular choice of primary voters ? Isn't it more likely they'll just see damaged goods and vote for the candidate who more closely conforms to their views anyway ?

Yes, really. Look, the media has been showing Christie as the frontrunner, but that is without a single vote being cast. Look at the early primaries/caucuses. He's not winning Iowa. I don't care how many deep-fried Snickers bars he eats. He likely would carry New Hampshire. After that, he has to pray for Florida because South Carolina is a no-go.

His pitch is the same pitch we heard from President McCain and President Romney. What did they do in their second terms?

To me, he was always a longshot. His style, which plays well in Jersey, the "get out of my face" stuff, will not work in a lot of the country. The media loves to say he was the only Republican who could win and then destroy him. Wonderful! I'm so happy for the media! They're about 2 1/2 years too early.

bbauska wrote:It is not a fair comparison. If you blame Christie for his administration, do the same for Obama.

You are bright enough to see the difference, and I am sure this is just an oversight.

Heh, I'm a wishin' and a hopin' that I'm never that "bright."

If you plan to successfully murder a person, you should go to prison, right? If you kill that same person in a car accident, maybe even one that's your fault, do you believe that you should also go to prison and serve the same period of time? How about if your spouse dies because you did a home repair you're not qualified to do and filled your house up with carbon monoxide? What about if you lied about the repair because you were embarrassed, or because you couldn't admit to yourself what you had done? Do the crime, do the time?

To most people, motive--or the reason why we do the things we do--is fundamental to how we evaluate actions. Some people like to view the world in black and white, good vs evil, right vs wrong. But many people--apparently people like myself who are not very bright!--believe, indeed understand, that our culture is not one of simple binary choices. Thankfully (at least to me) our system of jurisprudence was designed by people who see the world in the same way. Why his office did what it did is the reason why Christie's career is over.

You don't have to understand it, but don't be surprised.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is not a fair comparison. If you blame Christie for his administration, do the same for Obama.

You are bright enough to see the difference, and I am sure this is just an oversight.

Heh, I'm a wishin' and a hopin' that I'm never that "bright."

If you plan to successfully murder a person, you should go to prison, right? If you kill that same person in a car accident, maybe even one that's your fault, do you believe that you should also go to prison and serve the same period of time? How about if your spouse dies because you did a home repair you're not qualified to do and filled your house up with carbon monoxide? What about if you lied about the repair because you were embarrassed, or because you couldn't admit to yourself what you had done? Do the crime, do the time?

To most people, motive--or the reason why we do the things we do--is fundamental to how we evaluate actions. Some people like to view the world in black and white, good vs evil, right vs wrong. But many people--apparently people like myself who are not very bright!--believe, indeed understand, that our culture is not one of simple binary choices. Thankfully (at least to me) our system of jurisprudence was designed by people who see the world in the same way. Why his office did what it did is the reason why Christie's career is over.

You don't have to understand it, but don't be surprised.

All of that to say: it's not Obama's fault, but it is Christie's. Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.

Doctor Fate wrote:All of that to say: it's not Obama's fault, but it is Christie's. Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.

I'm not saying that Obama has no fault on these scandals: the health care fiasco, his office really messed it up, but that was (probably) incompetence, not malice. It's more akin to the carbon monoxide poisoning example I used: the guy who did it is at fault, but we don't punish him the same way as someone who had malicious intent. Do you disagree?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:All of that to say: it's not Obama's fault, but it is Christie's. Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence.

I'm not saying that Obama has no fault on these scandals: the health care fiasco, his office really messed it up, but that was (probably) incompetence, not malice. It's more akin to the carbon monoxide poisoning example I used: the guy who did it is at fault, but we don't punish him the same way as someone who had malicious intent. Do you disagree?

Yes, because you presuppose your outcome (incompetence). He lied about being able to keep current plans and doctors--and knew that was a lie as far back as 2010. That's documented.

He lied to the American people about Benghazi. He knew within minutes that it was a terrorist attack.

He lied about holding people accountable for the IRS, Benghazi, AP/Fox News scandals.

And, talk about political favoritism: what was the "Stimulus?" It was nothing but a handout to those who supported the President--mostly unions and government employees.

He also used the government shutdown to punish Americans unnecessarily, hoping that they would put pressure on Republicans.

None of that is "incompetence."