• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time for some TRAFFIC!

Mumbles said:
If we take him at his own word, Chris Christie has abdicated his leadership role and refuses to look into it.
Click to expand...

And doesn't this speak volumes?

To expand on this: Christie has a unique power here to get to the bottom of things. Not only is he the boss of all of these people, but he's also their friends. And in the case of Wildstein, he's been his friend since junior high. To find out why this actually happened, and what motivated the actors, all he'd have to do his ask. And especially right before canning them. The fact that he hasn't done this, when most of us would consider that our first act as someone's boss who did something so wrong that reflects on us ("Bridget, tell me, please, what were you guys thinking? Why would you do this? Do you have any idea how this makes us look? Give me the whole story") tells me that he already knows everything he needs to know. And all he wants to do now if make it all go away.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
And doesn't this speak volumes?

To expand on this: Christie has a unique power here to get to the bottom of things. Not only is he the boss of all of these people, but he's also their friends. And in the case of Wildstein, he's been his friend since junior high. To find out why this actually happened, and what motivated the actors, all he'd have to do his ask. And especially right before canning them. The fact that he hasn't done this, when most of us would consider that our first act as someone's boss who did something so wrong that reflects on us ("Bridget, tell me, please, what were you guys thinking? Why would you do this? Do you have any idea how this makes us look? Give me the whole story") tells me that he already knows everything he needs to know. And all he wants to do now if make it all go away.
Click to expand...

I think the excuse he gave is that if he talked to them now, it would be "tampering with witnesses".
 
mumblethrax said:
I don't buy the Helen Hoens story at all. You'd think Christie would have at least fought for her appointment if it meant that much to him, and it's impossible to square with the fact that the mayor of Jersey City got the same silent treatment from Christie's office as the mayor of Fort Lee.

A much more plausible account of why this was done when he didn't need those endorsements to win re-election--he did need them to bolster his image as someone with broad bi-partisan support, which would have been valuable to his aspirations in 2016.
Click to expand...

I don't really get why Christie withdrew Hoens, either. It could be that she would damage him in grilling, it could just be personal like. That's a missing piece in that theory.

But why would he care more about the Mayor of Fort Lee, than the Senate majority leader who was blocking his agenda? The guy has no aspirations, he apparently took mayorship as a side-job, he's going nowhere politically and likes it that way, and he's not even up for election until 2015, and there are hundreds of democrats who didn't endorse Christie for re-election. And what's worse, both the mayor, and Christie, agree that the guy wasn't on Christie's radar at all, and there's no reason to disagree with them. His endorsement was basically worthless. An even if we assume it was about endorsements...um, the Senate Majority Leader's endorsement strikes me as more important than the mayor of Fort Wherever.
 
Puppycow said:
I think the excuse he gave is that if he talked to them now, it would be "tampering with witnesses".
Click to expand...

Since everyone on his staff seems to have known of this, I can only imagine the staff meetings to be something like Billy Crystal's imitation Don in "Analyze This".

> Uh, we have item three on the agenda. It's the problem about that thing.
> Which thing? The thing with the teacher guy?
> No that other thing with the other guy.
> Oh that thing. I say we didn't know anything about that thing.
> Me, too. I didn't even know that thing was a thing until that guy mentioned it.
> Bring the canoli.
 
This sounds like a straightforward explanation of the Hoens affair.

Hoens, who was up for reappointment after seven years, will not be re-nominated, Christie said, because State Senator Ray Lesniak, a senior Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently said that Hoens would not be reconfirmed as political retribution for Christie not re-nominating Justice John Wallace in 2010.
Click to expand...

He withdrew the nomination in order to prevent her having to go through a pointless confirmation hearing, knowing that in the end, she would be blocked--pretty much as he said the other day.
 
Unabogie said:
And doesn't this speak volumes?

To expand on this: Christie has a unique power here to get to the bottom of things. Not only is he the boss of all of these people, but he's also their friends. And in the case of Wildstein, he's been his friend since junior high. To find out why this actually happened, and what motivated the actors, all he'd have to do his ask. And especially right before canning them. The fact that he hasn't done this, when most of us would consider that our first act as someone's boss who did something so wrong that reflects on us ("Bridget, tell me, please, what were you guys thinking? Why would you do this? Do you have any idea how this makes us look? Give me the whole story") tells me that he already knows everything he needs to know. And all he wants to do now if make it all go away.
Click to expand...

That's my view as well. And part of why I have to laugh when the pundits come out and say about what leadership he's shown. No, he hasn't. He had four months to get ahead of his, and only pretended to do so when it became inescapably clear that his office was involved. If A leader I was under acted like this, I would not respect him enough to my neck on the line the way these people did.

And I'll leave it at that...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There was an interesting political analyst on Charlie Rose last night. He made a good case that Christie will survive this just like Obama, Clinton and Bush Jr survived numerous revelations during their campaigns.
Click to expand...


I think that's going to depend a lot on what these investigations uncover. We'll see, but I will reiterate that at this point things aren't looking good for Christie.
 
Puppycow said:
I think the excuse he gave is that if he talked to them now, it would be "tampering with witnesses".
Click to expand...


But then he wants people to think that he's "investigating the matter". How else do you investigate than to talk to the people involved? Duh.
 
Caper said:
I don't think Christie had anything to do with this..... and I think that's pretty clear. Either way, if he did, there is no way it doesn't come out.

It really looks bad on him when he flipped out at the reporter a few months back.... to me, that looks just awful and he has to seriously has to apologize to that reporter just doing his job.
Click to expand...

And being an abusive jerk is what people voted for so why should he only be that way to teachers?
 
ponderingturtle said:
And being an abusive jerk is what people voted for so why should he only be that way to teachers?
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of truth to this statement, regardless of its probable ironic intent.

This is also why I think this has cemented Christie's standing in the GOP. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power (like Cheney, 'W', Dumbsfeld, etc) and brazen it out. It's his "rite of passage".
 
Personally I think he is toast. While some will stick with him through this, his only chance at anything more politically was to appear to moderates and independents.

This incident makes him out to be either a vindictive, immature bully or a clueless, mood who can't even control his own staff.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Personally I think he is toast. While some will stick with him through this, his only chance at anything more politically was to appear to moderates and independents.

This incident makes him out to be either a vindictive, immature bully or a clueless, mood who can't even control his own staff.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know for sure, but I do know that strongarm tactics are required in present-day GOP politicians.

They might abandon him if he looks unelectable.

Of course, given their prior rage at his DARING to talk to Obama, well, maybe they scripted this whole thing. Now there's a conspiracy theory for you! (No, I'm not serious, but one never knows, eh? :) )
 
When a political crisis like this erupts there's one politico whose opinion I'm always curious about. Yeah that's right. The former Governor from the great state of Alaska.

Sarah Palin called it “a pretty atrocious act, to snarl traffic,” adding “What an inconvenience, what a dangerous situation.” At the same time, Palin said what Christie’s office did is “nothing compared to what some leaders in our White House have engaged in and covered up,” citing [among other incidents] "Benghazi" Link
Click to expand...
 
MattusMaximus said:
I think that's going to depend a lot on what these investigations uncover. We'll see, but I will reiterate that at this point things aren't looking good for Christie.
Click to expand...
For you and I, I suspect that is true. For someone who was stuck in that traffic, I suspect that is true. But for people who want a GOP candidate in 2016, there are already Net echoes that it was minor, business as usual, "look how well he handled the press conference" :rolleyes: and so on. For that group, who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom