Sassenach wrote:

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.

Agree 100%. We've seen what having an incompetent President for the last 5 years has done.

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.

Reflect badly?

Only if he was involved. That's not been established. So far, we know he didn't cover up, didn't protect his underlings, and he didn't dodge the press.

That is refreshing.

Shall we compare his actions with Hillary's?

bbauska wrote:Politics is retribution. One side punishing the other.

Not to me it isn't.

In fact, that view is incredibly depressing. If it is prevalent among voters, well, I guess like in any democracy you get the government you deserve (and good and hard).

danivon wrote:

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.

If there's nothing linking him to any of this more directly, it will have minimal effect.

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.

I think Walker, Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and about a dozen other Republicans would be better than Christie. In fact, I'd rather see Romney again than Christie.

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.

Because you liberals have made a molehill into, um, well, Mt. Christie.

If he did this, it is "bad." But, it's not as bad as . . . lying about a video being the cause of an ambassador being killed, and many, many other items from the Obama/Clinton regime. And yet, none of you dare critique the Dear Leader. Where is the criticism on Redscape of Obama? It's basically been . . . me. Not one forum started by a liberal to examine what Obama is doing/has done.

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.

In this case, so far, it appears Christie has done the right thing. You all want to hang him, but there's just one little problem: what he has said so far jibes with what we know. If new evidence comes out, fine. But for now, what's wrong with his judgment? People whom he trusted betrayed his trust. He fired them.

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.

But, there could be a lot of reasons for that. For example:

1. Christie is a more dynamic personality. You don't want a VP nominee who outshines the man atop the ticket (thus Biden instead of Hillary).

2. Two northeastern governors of blue States? Imbalanced.

3. The focus was to be on economics. Ryan is better--knows the budget inside and out.

4. With all due respect to Christie, name the last fat man to get elected President or VP?

5. Christie is unscripted. Is that something that appeals to Romney? I doubt it.

You have no idea. You're just being vitriolic because you think you know more than you do.

Oh, and I left out Mike Lee. Really like him.

DF,

You sure are a character. The topic here could be ancient Mayan politics and whether or not human sacrifice was justified and you would relay your points back to Obama as the incarnation of evil.

However, I must thank you for this quote....

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."

I laughed out loud for 1 solid minute on this one. Good shout!

Dag

Doctor Fate wrote:If there's nothing linking him to any of this more directly, it will have minimal effect.

Well, I am sure we will be watching out to see what happens.

I think Walker, Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and about a dozen other Republicans would be better than Christie. In fact, I'd rather see Romney again than Christie.

What about Ryan?

Because you liberals have made a molehill into, um, well, Mt. Christie.

Is that a fat joke? Letterman and O'Brien were perhaps less subtle...

In this case, so far, it appears Christie has done the right thing. You all want to hang him, but there's just one little problem: what he has said so far jibes with what we know. If new evidence comes out, fine. But for now, what's wrong with his judgment? People whom he trusted betrayed his trust. He fired them.

As part of a pattern, I'm not sure

But, there could be a lot of reasons for that. For example:

1. Christie is a more dynamic personality. You don't want a VP nominee who outshines the man atop the ticket (thus Biden instead of Hillary).

2. Two northeastern governors of blue States? Imbalanced.

3. The focus was to be on economics. Ryan is better--knows the budget inside and out.

4. With all due respect to Christie, name the last fat man to get elected President or VP?

5. Christie is unscripted. Is that something that appeals to Romney? I doubt it.

You have no idea. You're just being vitriolic because you think you know more than you do.

I cited the source of the other negative factors. Please don't make such claims about what I do or do not know - you know full well that your attempts to read my mind are not appreciated in the least.

Also, please also explain what you mean by 'vitriolic' - I can't see anything I've written on Christie that is vitriolic, so perhaps you could point it out.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I laughed out loud for 1 solid minute on this one. Good shout!

Dag

I aim to please and my aim is true.

Out of interest btw, does anybody actually believe that Christie is telling the truth ? I mean, his depuity chief of staffsent a text saying "time for some traffic problems" and got a reply saying "got it" and the next thing you know carnage descends on the town. That's quite obviously something that was agreed long in advance between them. Would they really have done that without having already gotten the nod from the Governor ? What's in it for them ? It strikes me as massively implausible that they'd just decide to do something like that behind their boss' back. Also, this story didn't just emerge from a blue sky, it had been rumbling for weeks. Why didn't Christie investigate it all right away instead of avoiding meeting her at all for ages ?

It seems logical to me to infer that he at the very least knew about this a long time ago, and quite possible that he authorised it. Christie is finished. There were already plenty of Republicans who had their doubts about him, now there will be plenty more. He won't be up against either Obama or Hillary in the primaries, and all of a sudden he goes from being a proven winner to a potential liability.

I think that Christie knew about it after the incident happened. He fired the person after he should have (IMHO), as it would have looked even better if he had fired her before it was an issue.

Contrast this issue with the scandals in the IRS, where some were "extra" screening was performed on some groups opposed to the President and his policies. Who was fired out of that deal?

I think you got it exactly right, Sass. He gave it his best shot at the press conference to make it sound like he knew nothing, but it just makes no sense that he would be that out of the loop and if he were that out of the loop he would have investigated and got rid of people long before this.

I think he may not have known, but only for the worst reason: because this kind of political payback is so common in NJ, there no reason to tell your boss every detail about what you do everyday. To me this is even worse than if he knew. The big difference here is that it impacted thousands of common taxpayers, which this kind of payback normally doesn't, and there was blowback. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Hah!

I think that Christie knew about it after the incident happened. He fired the person after he should have (IMHO), as it would have looked even better if he had fired her before it was an issue.

So do you think he'd still have fired her if the texts hadn't come to light ?

Christie's a narcissist. I guess most politicians are, but still a good read.

http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/13/yes-chris-christies-a-narcissist/

Sassenach wrote:

I think that Christie knew about it after the incident happened. He fired the person after he should have (IMHO), as it would have looked even better if he had fired her before it was an issue.

So do you think he'd still have fired her if the texts hadn't come to light ?

I don't know if he would. I said he SHOULD have.

Sassenach wrote:

I think that Christie knew about it after the incident happened. He fired the person after he should have (IMHO), as it would have looked even better if he had fired her before it was an issue.

So do you think he'd still have fired her if the texts hadn't come to light ?

Who do you think Obama should have fired?

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