Did you actually read this before posting, or are you playing Devil's Advocate?
If you really mean what you write, that's just down right scary.
A representative is there to represent ALL of the people, not just those that voted for them. A Governor is there to do the best for ALL of the people of his or her State, not just the ones that supported him (or her.)
This is fundamental for all government, it must represent all of the people or it isn't doing it's job.
This doesn't mean that the government has to represent their views, but rather their rights and needs. When the people they are representing need help, or approach the government, they need to be treated exactly the same way regardless of how they voted. When local officials deal with State officials, again they should be dealt with exactly the same, regardless of if they oppose the state government politically or not, they are all there for the same reason, to do the best that they can for the people of the City and State, not to conduct petty politically squabbles that end up effecting the people negatively.
The same with public officials, these people need to be apolitical, they need to treat everyone the same. A city or town should not be cut out or made to suffer because the Mayor doesn't agree with the Governor. A Governor who demands yes-men to surround him and cuts off the State's support to any that refuse to do so is far from a representative of the people, he's nothing but a bully and should have no place in politics.
Interesting point of view. I would say that the ongoing fight against political corruption is to make it so that this way of doing things it is not considered normal and acceptable.
You do get the difference between party and government, right?
This was a meeting between the leadership of the state and the leadership of the 2nd most populous city in the state. It was not a 'networking event hosted by a rival party'. The fact that they are of two different parties SHOULD take a backseat to doing what is right for the constituents.
Of course.
For sure a retaliatory bridge closure is unacceptable. If Christie is shown to be involved, he should hang. In fact, he should probably hang just for being close to the people that we already know were involved.
I hope my stance is now sufficiently clear on that matter.
So.
These are right and good ideals that you all have alluded t. We should absolutely hold our politicians to this high standard.
My question is more along the lines of "how does it actually play out in reality today?"
PhantomWolf, my post doesn't arise from genuine belief, nor from some attempt to play the devil's advocate. Rather, I'm simply curious: What did the mayor expect would happen? Did his concept of the reality of government in New Jersey match the ideal alluded to by you and others in response to my post? Or did it more closely match the kind of petty partisan politics expressed in such an extreme and unacceptable form by the Christie administration?
What was going through his head? Did he expect backlash? Maybe, but not this much backlash? Did he see his relationship with the governor's office improving, as a result of his choices?
Did he think to himself, "Christie is a political bully, but surely the
ideal of good governance will prevail in this state"? Or did he think something else?
You don't think the mayor of the second largest city in New Jersey owes a lot to special interests? You don't think that perhaps his decision not to endorse Christie arose not from some high-minded ideal of good governance, but rather from the same kind of self-serving, mean-spirited political corruption that created a culture in which retaliatory bridge closure could even be considered as an option?
That's my question. Sincerely, simply: What was the mayor's actual expectation in political reality? We'll probably never know, but I suspect it wasn't a naive assumption that the Christie administration would nobly separate party from government, as hgc--and hopefully all of us--would like.
