An alternative theory as to why the Bridge scandal occurred that seems more plausible than getting back at a democratic mayor who did not support Christie...http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4572367/?ir=Politics

Sassenach wrote:DF: if Christie runs in 2016 he won't be up against Obama, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Look at the media frenzy here; it's like sharks at a shipwreck. By contrast, look at the collective yawn as Obama continuously says, "I didn't know."

The question here comes down to whether this will be damaging for Christie, which it might be irrespective of whatever Obama did or didn't know about any number of things.

Well, let's look at Hill's response to Benghazi. There's a real portrait of leadership.

The bottom line here is that he either authorised this or presided over an administration in which his chief of staff felt quite comfortable in doing it (and presumably any number of other questionable things) in her boss' name. Either way it reflects badly on Christie.

I think that's up to the voters to decide. They'll have other matters to look at too: Benghazi, the Russian reset button, all of the thrilling foreign policy accomplishments of Hill.

It will obviously be much worse if he can be shown to have known in advance and subsequently lied about it, but I don't think he simply walks away scot free if the press fail to locate a smoking gun.

That's your opinion and you'll never get to vote.

Mine is that if this is all there is, he winds up . . . looking stronger. Why? Because the American people, contra your sophomoric dismissal, do have a contrast: the Obama Administrations history of lie and deny. They will look at this incident through that lens and I think Christie comes out looking like someone who takes problems seriously--precisely the opposite of President Obama.

Considering the amount of scorn you've demonstrated over the years for Obama's association with the 'Chicago school' machine politics your blind spot here is rather puzzling. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Read this carefully: I am not supporting the Chicago-style retribution alleged here (I say "alleged" because there's no statement of threat, only the action taken).

Just because the Prez has also been associated with some shady political operators it doesn't mean you can simply ignore similar associations when it's a Republican involved. This kind of thing does lead to serious questions about suitability to govern.

Wow.

Compare and contrast governing styles. One guy is surrounded by shady operators and never fires any of them. One has a shady operation go down and fires (basically) two people in 24 hours.

Talk about "suitability to govern!" If you're consistent, you must favor impeaching the President, who has shown himself to be completely incompetent and dishonest.

freeman3 wrote:An alternative theory as to why the Bridge scandal occurred that seems more plausible than getting back at a democratic mayor who did not support Christie...http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4572367/?ir=Politics

Either reason is just as bad. Though the transcripts derogatorily refers to the "Serbian" in apparent reference to the Croatian mayor of Fort Lee, so his sins had to be a least part of it.

Breaking down the press conference, people have rightly pointed out that he fired Kelly, not because she was involved in closing down the bridge, but because she lied to him. While he's embarrassed and very "sad," he's sad because people lied to him and betrayed him, not because of the abuse of public trust. Think about it, if you were in Christie's role: people lied to you because they were caught, and your big worry is that they lied to you, not because of what they did? It takes a very special person to have their moral compass so askew.

The two things Obama and Christie have in common is that they are pure political animals. And while Christie is great in front of the camera, you cross him and he will crush you. It's been his way; the highway is littered with people who have dared to stand up to him. This is merely an extension of his way. It's a long time to 2016, but I don't think he did a good enough job yesterday. I'm calling it: his political viability expired at January 10th, 1:31pm EST

Doctor Fate wrote:Look at the media frenzy here; it's like sharks at a shipwreck. By contrast, look at the collective yawn as Obama continuously says, "I didn't know."

There is a big difference here: Incompetence is one thing. Lying is another thing. Lying to cover up your incompetence is a third thing. All bad, but all pretty common. Taking your political retribution out on common citizens through abuse of of the power the public put in you, well, that's just not all that common because it crosses a big bright line.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I guess plausible deniability is a viable option. Then it comes down to how plausible people think it is that Christie had no idea what his office and campaign staff were up to.

This is one incident.

Yes, it is. But already in the thread we had other examples of issues with Christie and/or his close circle

1) Setting up the date of a special election (at a cost of several million dollars) so that it did was not on the normal election day and so the popular Democrat standing would not affect his chances of re-election (or perhaps to make it more likely that the special election went to the Republican candidate, either way it was a naked partisan move that was paid for by state taxpayers)

2) Getting a 43-count indictment against alleged corruption by a pro-Christie Sheriff quashed. The AG concerned (who had worked with Christie) later got a plum job at the Port Authority, and is now on the Superior Court for NJ - both appointments made by the governor. The case where the local prosecutor is alleging he was unfairly fired for complaining about it is due to be heard this month.

3) That fantastic endorsement in the Star Ledger brings in several issues:

Balance that against his measurable failures, and you have to conclude he is much better at politics than he is at governing.

The property tax burden has grown sharply on his watch. He is hostile to low-income families, raising their tax burden and sabotaging efforts to build affordable housing. He’s been a catastrophe on the environment, draining $1 billion from clean energy funds and calling a cease-fire in the state’s fight against climate change.

The governor’s claim to have fixed the state’s budget is fraudulent. New Jersey’s credit rating has dropped during his term, reflecting Wall Street’s judgment that he has dug the hole even deeper. He has no plan to finance transit projects and open space purchases now that he has nearly drained the dedicated funds he inherited from Gov. Jon Corzine.

His ego is entertaining, but it’s done damage as well. By removing two qualified justices from the Supreme Court without good cause, he threatened the independence of judges at all levels, and provoked a partisan stalemate that has left two vacant seats on the high court. This was a power grab gone wrong.

4) He did not make it through the vetting for Romney's VP slot. The issues raised (as expounded in 'Double Down') include: expense problems when at the US Attorney's office; a defamation suit launched against Christie by opponents in a Republican primary election; lobbying on behalf of a Bernie Madoff company; his brother's problems with the SEC; steering contracts to political allies

As was said above, if the bridge lane closure thing was the only incident, then it means little. But clearly it is not. He also has problems if he does want to run for the GOP - his lack of opposition to gay marriage and his thanking of Obama over Sandy.

Again, if he's lying we'll find out.

Perhaps. But even if he's telling the truth it does raise questions about his judgement in terms of hiring and of supervision of key employees.

As has been pointed out, Obama won't be a candidate in 2016. If your opinion of Obama is so low (which is pretty evident), it doesn't really do Christie many favours to compare them. How does he compare to someone you actually respect? For example, is he looking better than Romney right now?

John Stewart's bit on this. Funny.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-9-2014/the-neverending-sorry

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Look at the media frenzy here; it's like sharks at a shipwreck. By contrast, look at the collective yawn as Obama continuously says, "I didn't know."

There is a big difference here: Incompetence is one thing. Lying is another thing. Lying to cover up your incompetence is a third thing. All bad, but all pretty common. Taking your political retribution out on common citizens through abuse of of the power the public put in you, well, that's just not all that common because it crosses a big bright line.

There is no evidence (so far) that Christie engage in retribution.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Obama is incompetent, a liar, and has lied about his incompetence.

You think Obama is great . . . so, I guess it takes all kinds.

danivon wrote:But even if he's telling the truth it does raise questions about his judgement in terms of hiring and of supervision of key employees.

1. I am not supporting Christie for President.

2. If it's him vs. Hillary, I'll vote for him--even if he's proven to be a felon. She's worse.

3. That statement (from you) is so ironic in light of all the morons appointed and supported by this President. He never, ever, ever, holds anyone accountable for anything. He never knows anything.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. I am not supporting Christie for President.

So what is the context of you saying it won't do him any harm? He's already been re-elected as Governor (so cannot stand in 2017). No-one is saying he's committed an impeachable offence. Even if you don't support him (despite the clear preference you express in the very next point), the thread is about whether Ryan or Christie are likely to be the Republican candidates.

2. If it's him vs. Hillary, I'll vote for him--even if he's proven to be a felon. She's worse.

Again, care to compare Christie to someone you don't despise? I'm sure he's 'better' than John Wayne Gacy but it's hardly the point. Why set the bar so low?

3. That statement (from you) is so ironic in light of all the morons appointed and supported by this President. He never, ever, ever, holds anyone accountable for anything. He never knows anything.

Whatever. You have any number of threads in which to whine about Obama. This is about Ryan and Christie.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:1. I am not supporting Christie for President.

So what is the context of you saying it won't do him any harm? He's already been re-elected as Governor (so cannot stand in 2017). No-one is saying he's committed an impeachable offence. Even if you don't support him (despite the clear preference you express in the very next point), the thread is about whether Ryan or Christie are likely to be the Republican candidates.

Neither will be. Ryan won't run. He won't risk his current position. Christie likely won't be running unless this is completely extinguished.

2. If it's him vs. Hillary, I'll vote for him--even if he's proven to be a felon. She's worse.

Again, care to compare Christie to someone you don't despise? I'm sure he's 'better' than John Wayne Gacy but it's hardly the point. Why set the bar so low?

There is no lower bar than Hillary, except the current occupant of the White House.

3. That statement (from you) is so ironic in light of all the morons appointed and supported by this President. He never, ever, ever, holds anyone accountable for anything. He never knows anything.

Whatever. You have any number of threads in which to whine about Obama. This is about Ryan and Christie.

Sure, but if we're going to talk about "judgment," then why not go to the "gold standard?"

You know, the man who said, "If you like your plan . . ."

The man who said the website would be like amazon, kayak, etc.

The man who said it was deplorable that the IRS was used for political purposes, he didn't know anything about it, but those responsible would be held accountable.

The man who promised a full investigation into Benghazi . . .

On and on it goes.

This incident is not close to comparable with all the negligence, incompetence, and deceit we've seen from the White House. When/if there is anything to connect Christie with it directly, that will be something. Until then, the most probable reality is that Christie was lied to by people he trusted. When he found out, he took action.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Look at the media frenzy here; it's like sharks at a shipwreck. By contrast, look at the collective yawn as Obama continuously says, "I didn't know."

There is a big difference here: Incompetence is one thing. Lying is another thing. Lying to cover up your incompetence is a third thing. All bad, but all pretty common. Taking your political retribution out on common citizens through abuse of of the power the public put in you, well, that's just not all that common because it crosses a big bright line.

There is no evidence (so far) that Christie engage in retribution.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Obama is incompetent, a liar, and has lied about his incompetence.

You think Obama is great . . . so, I guess it takes all kinds.

Christie engages in retribution all the time, it's status quo politics in NJ, which he elevated to a new level through the course of his political career (even before he was gov.) On the Fort Lee situation, there is evidence that his office ordered these closures, but he professes ignorance. That may be true, it may not, but it doesn't matter: it was his office and his hand-picked people. You talk about leadership. Is that leadership? To inspire those closest to you, life-long friends in some instances, to do the exact opposite of what you wanted?

But that's not what happened. He is a leader, they were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing, and that's why he wasn't sad about what they did, just that they lied to him. It may be that he did not know about this particular act simply because it wasn't noteworthy. NJ is a messed up placed, and when you're in a messed up place long enough, what is clearly wrong to the rest of the world, seems acceptable.

But, Fate, you are exposing yourself as such a political animal yourself. If you could get your head out of the partisan fight between good and evil maybe you'd see that what happened here is government gone completely off the rail. What happened was wrong, terrible, and it can't be defended. Defending Christie only tarnishes you.

Finally, why do you say that I think Obama is so great? He completely messed up some very important things, he lost my vote in 2012, and it didn't get any better after that. But, whatever, I know you have this need to classify people into black and white categories, but, geez, this thread is Christie and more broadly about the future leadership of the Republican Party. Perhaps you should talk about the next generation of GOP leaders rather than just rehashing how bad Obama is. We've heard that one before.

This is exactly how I look at it. Freeman brings up Christie, but does not bat an eye about the laundry list on Obama's watch.

Personally I think this entire situation helps Rand Paul.

Politics is retribution. One side punishing the other. Just recall the commercial about Granny being thrown over the cliff by a Paul Ryan look a like. Who can play the victim card the most.... All a bunch of BS in my opinion.

That's your opinion and you'll never get to vote.

Sure. That's not particularly relevant though.

Look, I want to see a strong, competent Republican candidate in 2016. I may not have a vote but the fact is that the identity of the American President is a matter of great importance worldwide. At some point the Republicans are going to get back in, so I have an interest in seeing the best Republican candidate possible at every Presidential election. As such, stories like this one, which are incredibly trivial to a global audience, suddenly become a lot more interesting solely because they involve people like Chris Christie, who may end up being the most powerful man on the planet in 3 years time. I don't particularly care whether he's better or worse than Obama, who in truth has been a disappointing President in my opinion. That's not really the issue for me because I'm not looking at everything through a narrow partisan lens like you are. I'm just interested in having a look at the character of the potential candidates for most powerful man in the world, and I think this incident reflects badly on Chris Christie. I'd like to think that American voters will agree, but we'll have to wait and see about that.

NB: I hope this quells any talk of Christie for President. He is GWB with an attitude and an elevated ability to communicate. I'd rather have a real conservative. I don't think the country will vote for 4 more years of socialism. The voters rarely keep a party in the White House for more than 2 terms.

geojanes wrote:Christie engages in retribution all the time, it's status quo politics in NJ, which he elevated to a new level through the course of his political career (even before he was gov.)

Maybe. I don't know. I haven't seen that. I've seen a politician who doesn't put up with the typical liberal garbage--like planted questions and hecklers.

On the Fort Lee situation, there is evidence that his office ordered these closures, but he professes ignorance. That may be true, it may not, but it doesn't matter: it was his office and his hand-picked people.

It does matter. If he knew about it, he should resign.

Read that again.

I'm not making excuses for him. If he knew about it, he should resign.

Of course, by that standard, Obama would be out of office about 15x over.

You talk about leadership. Is that leadership? To inspire those closest to you, life-long friends in some instances, to do the exact opposite of what you wanted?

You have zero proof of that. It's what you believe, but there is nothing (so far) to back it up.

But that's not what happened. He is a leader, they were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing, and that's why he wasn't sad about what they did, just that they lied to him.

Pure fabrication.

But, Fate, you are exposing yourself as such a political animal yourself. If you could get your head out of the partisan fight between good and evil maybe you'd see that what happened here is government gone completely off the rail. What happened was wrong, terrible, and it can't be defended. Defending Christie only tarnishes you.

Um, I'm not defending what happened. It was petty, vulgar, nasty, and potentially dangerous. In the Obama Administration, they have a term for it: "Thursday."

When Christie found out that people who worked for him were responsible, he fired them. If you have evidence that he knew they did it, ordered them to do it, or turned a blind eye toward it, then put it forward.

Perhaps you should talk about the next generation of GOP leaders rather than just rehashing how bad Obama is. We've heard that one before.

Sadly, we've got three more years of him betraying the country. *

Yes, "betraying."*

When you send young men to war without believing in their mission, you have failed to uphold your oath.

Doctor Fate wrote:Neither will be. Ryan won't run. He won't risk his current position. Christie likely won't be running unless this is completely extinguished.

OK. So what you seem to be saying is that this will damage him, unless he can make a clean break from it somehow.

There is no lower bar than Hillary, except the current occupant of the White House.

Exactly. It is no surprise that you say this. I am asking you if you would care to compare to Christie to someone higher, not the least.

That you seem to avoid it, speaks volumes for your true opinion of Christie. Not sure why you have bothered to defend the guy, really.

Sure, but if we're going to talk about "judgment," then why not go to the "gold standard?"

The "gold standard" would be someone who exercises good judgement. I know you love to turn everything into a conversation about how awful Obama is, but, hey, we get the point, labouring it is redundant.

An example, perhaps of a higher standard, would be Romney. He (or his team) decided not to risk letting Christie join the ticket in 2012. Looks like a good call in retrospect.