home

Document Dump Today on Chris Christie's Bridge Scandal

The New Jersey Assembly will release 907 pages of documents obtained pursuant to the subpoena of Port Authority official David Wildstein. The documents will be posted to a state website today.

The previously released emails are here.

Christie took a big risk yesterday when he emphatically and categorically denied any knowledge of his aides actions and said he was blindsided. If the new batch of documents shows differently, he's got big problems.

< DOJ to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages in Utah | New Target Numbers: 110 Million Customers Affected by Breach >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Absolutely, he's got big problems. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    Gov. Christie's entire story hangs upon the willingness of his now-former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly and now-former Port Authority executive David Wildstein to keep their mouths shut and take the fall for the Ft. Lee debacle.

    Wildstein has already been subpoenaed to appear before the Assembly Transportation Committee, and yesterday pleaded the 5th before its members, while his attorney sat next to him and pleaded openly for the legislature, state attorney general and New Jersey's U.S. Attorney to grant his client full immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation.

    Likewise, Kelly is expected to be subpoenaed by legislators within a matter of days, and may well be seeking similar assurances in exchange for her testimony. Entirely understandable, given that neither would want to see themselves placed in legal jeopardy for things they told legislators under oath in a public hearing.

    (In Hawaii, the state legislature's grant of immunity to a witness under oath effectively binds the hands of local prosecutors and the state attorney general with regards to whatever that witness subsequently tells lawmakers, but does not preclude federal authorities from seeking charges should a violation of federal law have occurred. I'm assuming that New Jersey law is much the same. In all of my 18 years at the Hawaii Legislature, we granted immunity to only one witness, and that was the girlfriend of the then-State Superintendent of Education, who then explained to us in detail how several DOE no-bid contracts were steered in her company's direction by his staff.)

    Absent a backroom deal between the governor and those two, and because his denial was so apparently absolute, Chris Christie is dead in the water if either Kelly or Wildstein says but two words to state legislators: "He knew."

    At that point, if the governor doesn't resign, state lawmakers would no doubt subpoena him to appear before them and explain himself. If he refuses to do so by virtue of claiming executive privilege, he would no doubt be risking his impeachment by the Assembly, subsequent dismissal from office by the State Senate, and consignment to the litter box of political history.

    All this is entirely speculative of course, and predicated entirely upon the notion that Christie knows more than he's heretofore admitted publicly. And as of this writing, there's no evidence to indicate that he does. Whether that in fact changes as we learn more, we'll just have to see.

    But this has thus far been a fascinating political story which has unfolded in New Jersey, and I'll be staying tuned for further developments.

    Aloha.

    Ooh (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    Wondered if you would ever mention this

    In all of my 18 years at the Hawaii Legislature, we granted immunity to only one witness, and that was the girlfriend of the then-State Superintendent of Education, who then explained to us in detail how several DOE no-bid contracts were steered in her company's direction by his staff.)

    As I have a personal connection.

    Interesting....

    Parent

    Do you now? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    Do tell, and don't leave anything out!

    Actually, you don't have to if you don't want to, because if it involves a friend, I don't want you to make him or her uncomfortable. But for those here who might be intrigued, here's a quick synopsis of what happened:

    Hawaii is rather unique in public education, in that we have the only statewide school district in the nation. Back in 2001, the state Dept. of Education was under a federal consent decree (Felix v. Cayetano) because of some clearly egregious deficiencies with regards to state special education programs.

    The woman in question had secured for her company a sub-contract from LeMahieu, which was further piggybacked on a $2.3 million contract awarded to another private agency to fix the state's problems in this area.

    As near as I can recall, this was a very ugly scandal and ultimately became a sad story about what might have been. Paul LeMahieu, who was an otherwise decent superintendent with much promise, showed a truly astonishing lack of personal judgment here -- and from my perspective, not the least of which involved his dubious choice in girlfriends. She proved to be quite the self-absorbed chatterbox who didn't hesitate for one second to throw him under the bus, when subpoenaed to testify before the joint House-Senate investigative committee I was assigned to staff at the time.

    Quite frankly and in my honest opinion, she used sex to get something from LeMahieu for which she was otherwise completely unqualified to do, given that she had absolutely no background in special education -- and indeed, she admitted as much before the special committee.

    Ultimately, thinking below the waistline cost LeMahieu his job, while she walked away with about $615,000 in state Felix funds for her troubles. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot -- she was already married, and there was some evidence that her husband was actually part of this scheme.

    As for the hapless former superintendent, I think LeMahieu can consider himself lucky that he avoided a criminal indictment over the matter.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Correction: (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    In the third paragraph, I mistakenly implied that the woman in question received a single subcontract from the state DOE, when she had received several over the course of eight months totaling $615,000. Apologies for any misunderstanding as the result of my error, because it was inconsistent with my original comment.

    Parent
    Let's just say (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:50:24 AM EST
    I have, or rather, had a familial connection with Dr. LeMahieu.

    Parent
    Well, unlike Obama or GW Bush, ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    ... Lyndon Johnson was a longtime and very successful Senate Majority Leader before becoming vice president in 1961, and then succeeding to the presidency upon JFK's assassination in 1963.

    LBJ could successfully twist arms on Capitol Hill because he was its creature. He knew exactly how Congress worked and which buttons to push, because he knew where the bodies were buried, so to speak -- that is, he knew its members' strengths and weaknesses personally, and wasn't at all hesitant about exploiting either of them for the benefit of his own political agenda. Nor did he recoil at calling in chits from members for past political favors.

    At heart, Johnson was an almost stereotypical political operative, the kind of backroom backslapper and wheeler-dealer that many will always profess to abhor, but which nevertheless is so often instrumental in breaking legislative logjams and carrying the water to the finish line. He knew how the game is played, and quite frankly, he enjoyed and even relished playing it.
    That's why he was so successful in the first half of his presidency in getting so many landmark pieces of legislation to his Oval Office desk for signature and approval.

    By contrast, Chris Christie's entire political career is the resultant product of a volatile mix of personal bravado, a lot of chutzpah, and no small amount of methane and hot air. And if you ignore the political rhetoric and really look to his public record as governor, you'll note that he really hasn't been all that successful in his dealings with the New Jersey legislature, with which his public relationship has been bitterly contentious at times.

    (Given my own personal experience, I would offer that most longtime state legislators are highly experienced political players in their own right, and they really don't respond well at all to perceived bullying from the governor's office, which tends to thus ensure the opposite of its intended effect. As so many longtime local Democratic legislators did during the eight years that Republican Linda Lingle served as governor out here, they simply chose to ignore her and wait her out, secure in the knowledge that when she eventually left office, many of them would still be there. And the Democratic preponderance in numbers was such that she couldn't do anything without their expressed approval.)

    Assuming for the moment that Christie survives this scandal and subsequently gets elected president, what makes you believe that he'll be any more successful with Congress than he was with Garden State legislators?

    Aloha.

    LBJ was strong-arming (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    primarily Southern Democrats or other Democrats.  There weren't many Republicans in Congress in 1965.

    Parent
    No, there weren't. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:51:47 PM EST
    But LBJ nevertheless had to depend upon a number of Republican votes to get both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress, given the near-universal opposition by Dixiecrats in the South to both measures.

    And for that, the fact that he maintained excellent personal relations with both Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) and Rep. Gerald Ford (R-MI) helped secure those votes for him.

    And as Senate Majority Leader in the 1950s, because he did no small amount of favors for Republican senators, LBJ was able to call these guys -- there being only one woman in the Senate at the time, Maine's legendary Margaret Chase Smith -- to return the favor.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Republican votes (none / 0) (#117)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 08:48:06 AM EST

    That's a fact Jack.  A higher proportion of Republican senators voted for those bills than the Dems.  

    Parent
    In 1965 (none / 0) (#18)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:57:39 PM EST
    Number of Democrats in Senate = 68
    Number of Republicans in Senate = 32

    Number of Democrats in House = 295
    Number of Republicans in House = 140.

    Parent

    Many of those Democrats back then... (none / 0) (#56)
    by unitron on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    ...weren't exactly flaming liberals, but just hadn't gone Dixiecrat yet.

    In other words, they couldn't all be counted on to automatically vote in favor of civil rights bills by a long shot.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    in 1965, Republicans had not yet gone Teapublicans!

    The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed when Eisenhower was President.

    Parent

    The idiots thought the Mayor of Ft Lee (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    would be hurt by this..typical rats-backed-into-a-corner, GOP "payback"; albeit on a smaller scale..

    ..like the ACORN sting, Valerie Plame, McCain's black love child, Carter's debate notes, Nixon's dirty tricks..

    This is them getting bit once again by their own maliciousness and stoop-to-any-level-to-win ethos.

    Parent

    Johnson certainly wasn't the only one (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    like that back then, or even the best one at it..

    There's an element of Being There-ness to the legend of Lyndon Johnson; which isn't to say he wasn't a shrewd, canny political operator..

    Parent

    A notable difference (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    It is one thing for politicians to "strongarm" and similarly persuade fellow politicians via the non-beanbag reality of politics ... and something very different to "strongarm" the unsuspecting, general populace via bridge or other harsh, uncalled for pressures to make a political point.  Nope, I don't think the citizenry would see that application of "strongarm" as acceptable.

    What BS (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    Christie wasn't "strongarming politicians into supporting him when needed" to pass legislation".  If he was involved in this, he was punishing his political opponents by using his governmental authority to punish everyday commuters and endanger his own citizens, all because he didn't get his way.

    Your analogy fails on so many levels it's ridiculous.

    Springsteen & Fallon (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 06:45:53 AM EST
    Awesome! (none / 0) (#172)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    Hysterical! (none / 0) (#181)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    Fallon does a very good Springsteen impression, too.
    (Although, the "old man" is, impressively, much more "ripped" than Fallon.  Especially considering that Bruce will be 65 this year.)
    This video may actually do more harm to Christie's Presidential aspirations than the original bridge traffic tie-up scandal itself.  When people start laughing at someone, it does not bode well for their electoral ambitions.  Although, we shall see.

    Parent
    at the next Springsteen concert in NJ!

    Parent
    Hahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#186)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    I do wonder if Chris Christie is still such a big Springsteen fan after this, though.     ;-)

    Parent
    Considering this involved... (none / 0) (#4)
    by unitron on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    ...a bridge connecting one state to another (think Interstate Commerce Clause), there's probably a good chance someone could dig up some kind of federal charge if necessary or useful.

    Donald writes: (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    Gov. Christie's entire story hangs upon the willingness of his now-former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly and now-former Port Authority executive David Wildstein to keep their mouths shut and take the fall for the Ft. Lee debacle.

    Donald, you do not have the vaguest about whether or not Christie was involved. And neither do I.

    Yet you write:

    "...to keep their mouths shut and take the fall for the Ft. Lee debacle."

    That, pure and simple, is an accusation and demonstrates the partisanship that runs through every fiber of your body.

     

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    Accusing someone else of being partisan and making accusations without evidence?!?

    You - of all people - want to go there?

    Parent

    Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    Benghazi, Benghazi..

    Like Jack Nicholson in The Shining..

    Take a look in the proverbial mirror, Rush.

    Parent

    Did you read the entire comment, Jim? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:58:17 PM EST
    Because at the end, I also wrote the following:

    "All this is entirely speculative of course, and predicated entirely upon the notion that Christie knows more than he's heretofore admitted publicly. And as of this writing, there's no evidence to indicate that he does. Whether that in fact changes as we learn more, we'll just have to see." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Your accusation is therefore without foundation.

    Parent

    Wow. Seriously, and no offense intended. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    You write a(nother) opus, and buried your disclaimer that it is entirely speculation in paragraph, what? 8? 10? And expect that to be acceptable?

    No wonder J deleted your comment.

    Parent

    is in para 7, not 8 or 10.

    My point stands.

    Parent

    Like I said yesterday, ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:41:19 PM EST
    ... whatever floats your boat, dude.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    But maybe the Repubs should (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:42:25 PM EST
    thank you guys for giving them 2016 election.

    They won't elect Demo lite. McCain and Romney proved that.

    Parent

    For (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    all of you out there who think that any moderate is going to be nominated in 2016 I give you the above post. This is typical of what your average GOP voter thinks. They think that someone like Newt Gingrich would have won an election that Romney lost. This is why I would not be surprised to see Ted Cruz as the GOP nominee in 2016.

    Parent
    Not again, Jim (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:44:41 PM EST
    You are trash talking about 2016?

    With your track record on 2012?  President Romney?

    Just repeating the same stuff.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:46:22 AM EST
    The point was about 2008 and 2012.

    Whether or not the Repubs will offer a candidate that offers a clear difference in policy in 2016 I do not know.

    I do know that Reagan, GHWB and GB were clearly different than the Demos candidates.

    Trashing Christie makes it more likely that as the new "Democrats will vote for him" he won't be nominated.

    The Conservatives are ROFLTAO.

    Parent

    Right about now (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    the main thing Christie and Jim's "conservatives" have in the common is they're both praying for another hurricane to hit the Northeast.

    Parent
    Then the conservatives are fools (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:52:00 PM EST
    Hey Jim (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    On which side are you? link

    Parent
    Too bad. You could learn something. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    Donald, your actions (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:34:47 PM EST
    past and present speak.

    Parent
    I think we are overlooking (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:41:52 PM EST
    some very important evidence:  Christie ordered flags flown at half mast when James Gandolfini died.  

    Christie idolized New Jersey's Tony Soprano.
    Christie loves this thug stuff.

    Parent

    As I wrote (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:43:25 PM EST
    Donald, you do not have the vaguest about whether or not Christie was involved. And neither do I.

    Parent
    Sure he was involved (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:47:29 PM EST
    His immediate staff was involved.   That implicates him one way or the other:  Bad choice of staff, or direction to staff to act badly.  

    President Christie would be Tony Soprano with nukes and the FBI to settle scores.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#74)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    Obama style, "I know nothing" immunity doesn't apply?

    If serious heat of investigation is applied it all comes down to the willingness of minions to take the fall for the boss. Nixon didn't have that kind of staff loyalty, Clinton did, so far so does Obama, no idea yet on Christie.

    Parent

    So Nixon got nailed ,,, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:51:33 PM EST
    ... due to a lack of loyalty from his minions while Clinton got away with some, unspecified wrongdoing because he had loyal minions.

    Heh.

    BTW - You skipped a few Presidents in between.

    Parent

    It seemed (none / 0) (#108)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 05:42:04 PM EST
    to me that Nixon did just fine with his minions.
    Haldeman and the other guy. Loyal as an old dog.
    Defended by a very arrogant and offensively aggressive press secretary...
    And then there was old creaky creepy Kissinger.
    All loyal to Der Herr Nixon.

    The tapes are what did Nixon in.
    They not only revealed his involvement, but also his willingness to throw selected members of his minions to the wolves in order to save his own pathetic keister.

    Nixon's lackeys were as faithful to him as the rest of our scoundrel presidents' minions.

    It always happens.
    Everyone is loyal as long as they see a chance to save their own bacon.

    When the jig is up, they run like rats and sing like canaries.

    Can't blame 'em.

    Parent

    Excellent! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    I have not seen the classic conservative defense of "everyone does it, Nixon just got caught" in a quite a while.

    Parent
    Who (none / 0) (#107)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    has "taken the fall" for Obama?

    Just asking.

    I have no idea.

    Parent

    Bad choice of (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    staff..

    Yes.

    Kind of like appointing Gates.

    Parent

    Want to wager on that? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    The idea that nobody in Gov. Christie's inner circle told him -- not his incoming chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, corporate counsel, campaign manager, or his three major appointees to the Port Authority -- is beyond farfetched.

    Further, why did Christie ask New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last December to rein on his own appointee to the Port Authority, executive director Patrick Foye, who had launched his own investigation into the matter because no one had bothered to clear the lane closures with him?

    But, hey, if he really and truly didn't know, he was derelict in his duty and should resign his office, on account of his gross negligence and incompetence.

    Face it Jim, it sucks to be Chris Christie right now. I'm starting to wonder whether his administration will survive the winter.

    Aloha.

    's responsible for not only the tone and conduct of his office but

    Parent

    Do you think (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    If the new batch of documents shows differently, he's got big problems.

    He or someone on his staff have not scoured the documents before he made his emphatic denial?  Nothing wrong with looking, as long as nothing was deleted or changed.

    So, am I the only one who (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    wonders why it's taken almost five months for Christie to "find out" that all these people in his inner circle were responsible for this?  That somehow, this is a secret that managed to be kept all this time, even with an e-mail and text trail?

    There's a lot about this that doesn't add up for me, so it will be interesting to see if there are any shoes left to drop.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    You're not the only one.  I will pass you the popcorn as we wait to see this all played out.    ;-)

    Parent
    I think this scandal ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 08:10:20 PM EST
    ... also calls for nachos and margaritas.

    Parent
    Sounds good (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:02:27 PM EST
    to me!


    Parent
    lol; don't forget the Tzatziki sauce. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    Amazingly I have a fresh batch (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    of Zorba's Tzatziki dip but I'm not going to wait around for the New Jersey thugfest.  We have football this weekend...yea!!!

    Parent
    If you like garlic, fishcamp, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 03:46:22 PM EST
    Remind me to send you my recipes for hummus and skordalia, as well.
    A really tasty platter would involve a whole bunch of crudités, pita bread wedges brushed with olive oil and warmed, and pita chips, served with your choice of tzatziki, hummus, and skordalia.
    Super Bowl is when I tend to trot this out.  
    Oh, and although not Greek, also a bunch of Buffalo wings and St. Louis style toasted ravioli with marinara sauce.
    The guests leave happy, even if their team didn't win.      ;-)

    Parent
    PS (none / 0) (#109)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    Check your emails.  I sent you my recipes for skordalia and hummus.     ;-)

    Parent
    thanx Zorba... (none / 0) (#110)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    can't wait to see what scordalia is other than another difficult Greek word.

    Parent
    I used both the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 06:25:47 PM EST
    email addresses I had for you, so look in both(or all, as the case may be).
    "Skordo" is the Greek word for garlic.  "Skordalia" therefore means a really garlicky sauce.
    And in some parts of Greece, they replace some or all of the potatoes with bread (white part of the bread without the crusts) and/or ground, blanched almonds.
    Depends upon where your "folks" were from.  ;-)

    Parent
    His story (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 06:28:17 PM EST
    He "investigated" the allegations by asking his senior staff if they were involved and telling them he was holding a news conference in an hour.  No one came forward, so he held the conference and denied it.

    From a former U.S. Attorney ...

    ... who investigated (among other things) political corruption.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Too bad Obama (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:39:08 PM EST
    didn't ask his senior staff and then have a two hour  meeting with hostile reporters over....

    The IRS....

    Benghazi....

    But then again Obama dares not.

    And there aren't any hostile reporters.


    Parent

    Too bad that's not the topic, huh, jim? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:52:46 AM EST
    You want to defend Christie?  That's fine - have at it - but it can't be done by deflecting to Obama.  

    You want to read through all the e-mails, the transcript of the presser, the many articles on the bridge situation and come up with a defense?  Be our guest - it's good to be informed.  It's good to have actual facts on which to base your opinions.

    Too bad that's not really how you roll, though.  And why there are very few people who will consider anything you say more than talking points from the right-wing corner of the sandbox.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    Anne, you do not have the vaguest about whether or not Christie was involved. And neither do I.


    Parent
    Well, you know Obama (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:39:40 PM EST
    was involved in all kinds of fairy tale stuff.

    If you use your standard,  Christie is way beyond guilty.

    Parent

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    All fairy tales..

    Yet some things he can't hide.

    Parent

    Wow, more whack a mole (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:04:06 PM EST
    by moving on to something entirely different....

    Standard rat-a-tat, bob-and-weave, drive-by one-liners.....Constantly on the move, proving nothing, always distracting.....

    Parent

    All we have (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    ...to support a "conspiracy theory" about the bridge closure is thousands of pages of emails exchanged over a period of months by participants now numbering in the dozens.  These emails discussed the target, the means of attacking it, then the gleeful reaction afterward.

    No rumor.  No extrapolation.  No information derived from torture.  Nothing but thousands of signed documents.  Obviously we have a different understanding of the word "conspiracy."

    Moving on, there are only two possibilities.  Occam's Razor suggests that Christie is lying.

    The only other possibility is that he isn't.

    Any assumption that he is NOT lying includes the assumption that he is unbelievably incompetent, and that all his FRIENDS are crooks.  

    He has built an image of competence and hands-on attention to detail.   The fired staffers worked with him for five years.  He had five months to find out about it.  The victims rained communications of all types on his office.  A major event paralyzing a town in his state should have got his attention JUST BY WATCHING TELEVISION.

    But he remained blissfully ignorant of both the event and the months-long conspiracy taking place among his own staffers in his own office.

    Obviously presidential material.

    Parent

    And did I forget (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:40:03 PM EST
    Fast and Furious?

    Why yes. Yes I did.

    lol

    Parent

    None of which (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:42:35 PM EST
    are scandals at all.  Except for Fox News viewers.

    Parent
    So it is okay (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:45:49 PM EST
    to politicize the IRS??

    Remember. Once you open the door the Repubs will have their turn and their turn will come.

    And it is okay to give guns to criminals??

    And lie about letting Americans die??

    Your agenda is despicable but not unexpected.

    Parent

    The IRS was not politicized (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:51:47 PM EST
    The IRS's mistake was going too easy on the Tea Party groups.  Under the statute, the only groups entitle to the tax break they were seeking had to be politics free--engaged "exclusively" in social welfare activities.  Or, engaged "primarily" in social welfare activities if you go by the Regulations.

    Here, they were overtly political--which is fine, but they do not get a tax break. Bunch of Tea Party whiners....didn't get their tax break fast enough.

    Get back to me when someone in the White House was involved.

    Parent

    Obama (1.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:39:57 PM EST
    Made speeches saying those groups need taming, and the IRS listened. It was political, and targeted at getting him personally reelected. Whether the groups met the letter of the statute is immaterial, they were politically targeted for opposing Obama and or his policies. Dirty tricks way beyond anything Nixon would have allowed.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    The IRS did nothing wrong.

    A group with the name "Tea Party" in it is clearly political--when the standard for the tax break is no politics....

     

    Parent

    And here I thought (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:32:09 AM EST
    de nile was a river in Egypt.

    BTW - You can run but you can't hide.

    Parent

    You are just babbling (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    nonsense.

    Christie is in trouble and you change the subject to Obama.  This tells me you know Christie in trouble.

       

    Parent

    MKS, so???? (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    Do you opine that I want Christie?

    Really??

    I mean, I thought I was this evileeeeee Tea Party Conservative Repub.

    lol

    Parent

    "Run"? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    Why would anyone be scared of a silly, wingnut fairy tale?

    Parent
    You also forget... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by unitron on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    Congratulations, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 01:17:39 AM EST
    You forgot ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:02:41 AM EST
    ... a LOT of wingnut conspiracy theories.  Honestly, Jim ... you could only come up with three, tea party fairy tales?

    Parent
    Don't you (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    mean phony scandals, don't want to slip from the party line do you?

    Parent
    Is this the party line (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    on Christie?

    Fox must be talking about the IRS and Benghazi to protect their boy Christie.

    Parent

    "Wingnut, conspiracy" theories (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    "Phony" seems redundant, but feel free to add it if you'd like.

    Parent
    Why does he "dare not"? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:00:40 AM EST
    Are you claiming that Obama was involved?  Are you claiming these winger conspiracy theories were intentional acts of political retribution, as was the case here?  From the same guy who just above was attacking Donald for being partisan and making accusations without evidence, after Donald specifically stated:

    All this is entirely speculative of course, and predicated entirely upon the notion that Christie knows more than he's heretofore admitted publicly. And as of this writing, there's no evidence to indicate that he does.

    You gave me my first, good laugh of the day, Jim.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Obama was either directly involved (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:38:45 AM EST
    or lied to by his staff

    or dumb enough to think a video caused it.

    Anyone of the above condemns him.  

    BTW

    WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration for the first time on Friday identified two militant groups in Libya, including one led by a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, as being allegedly involved in the attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    Link

    "What difference does it make [whether American's at Benghazi died from a protest or not?"

    Guess Hillary will get to find out.

    Parent

    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    The State Department now - 16 months after the attack - thinks that two other groups were involved in the attack, and you think this proves that Obama was lying a few days after the attack.  Not to mention the fact that the two, potential causes (the video and terror groups) are not mutually exclusive.

    Heh.

    BTW - I thought it was Al Quaeda.  You guys really have to keep your stories straight.  Were you lying when you made that claim or were you just "dumb enough" to believe it?

    Parent

    Author unknown (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    THE  BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI

    We're  the battling boys of Benghazi
    No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.  
    Just a fiery death in a blazing hell
    Defending our country  we loved so well. It  wasn't our job, but we answered the call,
    fought to  the Consulate and scaled the wall.
    We pulled twenty Countrymen  from the jaws of fate
    Led them to safety, and stood at the  gate. Just  the two of us, and foes by the score,
    But we stood fast to bar  the door.
    Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,  
    So we fought, and we fought, and we fought 'til we died.  We  gave our all for our Uncle Sam,
    But Barack Obama didn't give a  damn.
    Just two dead seals who carried the load No thanks  to us.........we were just "Bumps In The  Road".


    Parent

    Prrof that it doesn't take ... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    ... a three-digit IQ to write a poem?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    Or that even ... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    ... a stone-cold racist can write a poem?

    I found the purported author, Jim.  His name is John Edwin Roberts and he's (surprise, surprise) a conservative wingnut who writes for a blog called San Diego Beachlife Magazine.  You should read some of the other garbage he's written:

    "Stand By For Heavy Rolls" - Where he predicts race riots by African Americans emboldened by Obama's election:

    Should Obama prevail, the celebrations will start immediately among the so called African American segment of the population. That will shortly be followed by drunken revelry, rioting, looting and wanton destruction. This segment of the population, as a consequence of one of their own being elected, will feel themselves above the law and proceed accordingly.

    He's also a birther and Corsi fan.

    Yeah, ... that's an impressive poem and author you've got there ...

    Parent

    Can't attack the idea (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    attack the person. Not a quality I admire in the left.

    Parent
    What "idea"? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:02:54 PM EST
    It's a silly poem based on a wingnut theory.  Give me specific claims to back it up and I'll be happy to demonstrate how wrong you are.  But I understand conservatives prefer to deal in generalities rather than facts and evidence.  Not a quality I admire in the Right.

    Parent
    No, it is that conservatives love (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:05:14 PM EST
    fantasy and stories rather than reality.  This is the real legacy of Reagan.

    Parent
    Can't attack the idea? That's exactly what (none / 0) (#89)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 07:34:44 PM EST
    is being attacked - "the person" in question has some very ugly ideas, and based on his body of work, it's not at all unfair to believe that ugliness informs even his "poetry."

    Leave it to jim to offer something that couldn't win a 5th grade poetry contest, and think it has some relevance to Chris Christie's bridge access problem.

    I don't know why he bothers, really; it's embarrassing in its lameness.

    Parent

    All of which explains (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 07:48:58 AM EST
    why he said "author unknown".

    Parent
    He may be a paranoid (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 08:19:30 AM EST
    hysteria-mongering racist sh*thead, but I bet he's also a social liberal.

    Parent
    Gee Yman, thanks for the research (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    remind me to increase your allowance.

    As for the author, whatever else he is...

    is phrase that

    "But Barack Obama didn't give a  damn."

    Is exactly right.

    And all of you "critics" know that to be true.


    Parent

    What we "know to be true" ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    is nothing of the kind, particularly since your opinion of what Obama feels is nothing more than another silly, wingnut fairy tale.

    OTOH - What we "know to be true" is that you can't address the issue so you - like your friends at Faux News - try to make everything about Obama.  Then you pretend to know what he feels.  Oh, ...

    ... and you pick some very "interesting" authors to cite and (not surprisingly) agree with ...

    Wonder what other silly opinions you share...

    Parent

    Come on... (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    Let it all out, Yman.

    BTW - I have also read Marx...and Hitler....Does that mean that I am both a Marxist and a Nazi?

    lol

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    No one said you were are Marxist, but if you quoted Mein Kampf to bolster your argument, people might start to wonder a little about you..

    Parent
    It's not about "reading" anything (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 05:58:52 PM EST
    It's about agreeing and sharing the same, twisted views.  Not to mention putting them on your own blog, along with a "quote" from Obama that is (as usual) simply another lie.

    Don't you ever tire of being caught doing that?

    Parent

    Did you know Obama is not on the (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    ballot in 2016?

    So, go after Obama all you like based on fantasies, it won't help Christie.

    Parent

    MKS (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    Why do you repeat yourself??

    Parent
    Some people (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:57:31 PM EST
    catch on faster than others....

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#91)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:05:45 PM EST
    Jim reads stuff like this and thinks it is real.

    How crazy can people get? You now have people saying that Bridgegate is going to help Christie and hurt HRC. Are some people being paid to look stooopid?

    Parent

    Oh?? (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    No Americans were slaughtered at Benghazi??

    Wow.

    The things I learn from you.

    Parent

    Obama is not on the ballot, and, (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 08:47:05 PM EST
    apparently, Christie didn't know
    he was either.

    Classic Borowitz:

    TRENTON (The Borowitz Report)--At a hastily called press conference today, Chris Christie revealed that he only became aware that he was the governor of New Jersey in the past seventy-two hours.

    "Unbeknownst to me, some people I thought I could trust were secretly working to elect me governor of this state," a visibly stunned Christie told reporters. "I have acted swiftly and fired them
    ********************************** *****************

    "It's sad that this was allowed to happen," he said. "It's a sad situation for me and for New Jersey."

    LINK

    Parent

    The massive liberal media conspiracy.. (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    ..to establish secularist-socialist-sharia law. And mandatory tree hugging.

    Parent
    The "Am I the only one" question (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    No, Anne, there are a number of us, by my count. The release of the emails did seem to be a strong motivator.  To me, the question isn't whether shoes-will-drop; rather, what type and size.

    Parent
    No, Anne, you're not. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    Nor are you the only one who's probably quietly enjoying no small amount of Schadenfreude over his present predicament.

    Karma, baby!

    Parent

    Gail Collins re yesterday's presser: (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06:18 PM EST
    NYT

    Note on the emails (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    I was reading last night about this load of documents and part of the commentary was that the NJ freedom of information laws were insufficient to find the emails because as is the practice within the Obama administration the people were using private email accounts unconnected to their jobs or I think names. Somebody did some IP snooping to fine them, is my guess. Look at some official emails, find the IP's used for posting, then look for other emails posted from the same IP's.

    Just curious (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:54:14 PM EST
    I was reading last night about this load of documents and part of the commentary was that the NJ freedom of information laws were insufficient to find the emails because as is the practice within the Obama administration the people were using private email accounts unconnected to their jobs or I think names.

    When you make these kind of accusations without the slightest bit of evidence to support them, are people supposed to take them at face value because you read it on the internet?

    Parent

    Not at all (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 05:52:08 AM EST
    People should keep up with common knowledge issues like Obama minions using private email accts, certainly not take my word for it.

    Parent
    "Common knowledge issues" - heh (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 08:10:21 AM EST
    It's amazing what people will claim is "common knowledge" when they continually fail to produce any evidence to back up their claims.  Funny thing is, it takes about 10 seconds and a Google search to find evidence of things that are actually "common knowledge".

    Parent
    Doing your homework for (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:15:29 AM EST
    you, but googling Obama cabinet private email accounts, should not have been that hard.

    First hit in the search

    Parent

    "Homework" grade - "F" (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 06:43:25 AM EST
    Sorry - I thought you were going to provide evidence to support the claim you made:

    as is the practice within the Obama administration the people were using private email accounts unconnected to their jobs or I think names

    But congrats on establishing "The possibility that unsearched personal email accounts may have been used for official business" by some at the EPA."

    That's quite the revelation.

    Parent

    What part don't you (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:26:44 PM EST
    understand? This is just one of the modern set of dirty tricks, dirty politicians use to conceal their dirty actions.

    Several posted here about how foolish it was to rely on email remaining confidential, and the missing point was that they did not use the email accounts associated with their public office and subject to FOI requests, they made "burn" accounts to use for the dirty work.

    Parent

    Nothing. I understand it all (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 06:15:04 AM EST
    You made this claim:

    as is the practice within the Obama administration the people were using private email accounts unconnected to their jobs or I think names

    and this one:

    ... they made "burn" accounts to use for the dirty work

    ... then - as usual - you couldn't provide evidence to back up the claim.

    Parent

    Or like, (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    "when people make a habit of failing to cite any support for their assertions, others are free to take those assertions less-than-seriously."

    Have I "heard" about the use of private e-mail accounts to put suspect communications beyond the immediate reach of FOIA requests?  Sure - but if I were going to raise it as an issue, I'd cite a source so others could read and judge for themselves.

    And even if you had cited a source, what does whether members of the WH staff have or had private e-mail accounts have to do with what's happening in the NJ governor's office?

    Try, for a change, to focus on the immediate topic/situation - the constant need of you and others to keep trying to change the subject and talk about what Democrats have or may have done isn't working here.

    Parent

    You know who else likes to ... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 01:25:36 AM EST
    ... change the subject and shift blame when things become unpleasant for them? Children. We've all seen our kids do it, and no doubt our parents saw us do the same when we were young.

    I find it amazing to see how often those who constantly fashion themselves as "the adults in the room" will suddenly find their inner ten-year-old when their own people's hands are caught in the cookie jar.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Its the same (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:21:12 AM EST
    tool box of dirty tricks, hiding connections, and keeping a minion handy to throw under the bus while you claim to know nothing of what happened.

    Parent
    It seemed (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    to me that Mr. Christie's fame seemed to rise when he was lavishing love on Mr. Obama during the president's Hurricane Sandy tour.

    Wow!

    A Republican reaching across the aisle praising the Democrat in the White House.

    Obama is pumped up.
    Christie is puffed up.

    Chapter Two:  Obama's ratings begin to sink. One mess after another. The lame duck blahs loom.

    Meanwhile Christie's stock rises. A moderate republican who can unite us all. A man of the people.

    Time to blow that boy out of the water.
    Time for Humpty Dumpty to take a great fall.

    TrafficGate!
    Perfect!
    Couldn't have asked for more.

    Whoever dreamed Christie could (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    "unite us all" besides a few unimaginative-and-increasingly-desperate Republican holdouts forced to choose between banality and loonytunes?

    Parent
    Jondee, I agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 03:04:25 PM EST
    The RINOS should have known that you cannot work with the Left.

    Parent
    And then there's that other (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    Looney tunes faction: obsessed with climate science hoaxes, secret Muslims, and the impending race war..

    Parent
    There is (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 07:22:11 PM EST
    the other "looney tunes" faction. There's only one and it's the teavangelicals.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    called someone an evangelical here in GA a while back and they started throwing hashed up language at me. Apparently calling someone an evangelical is considered right down there with four letter words.

    Parent
    Ga, you are so scared (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    of Christians... Is it true you want drive by a church?

    lol

    Parent

    Are you (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    really so clueless to think that all christians are evangelicals? Apparently so from your post. I'm glad that most Republicans think the same way you do. It's why they continue to lose elections outside of the south.

    Parent
    not since you guys (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    were blowing them up in the sixties.

    Parent
    Well, I knew you were obsessed (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    with the MMGW hoax and thought a race war was imminent but I didn't know you were worried about secret Muslims.

    The things I learn.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    believe for a second that the guy is a uniter - or any of that malarkey.

    I'm just trying to explain for myself - or trying to understand - why in the world this guy was suddenly elevated to such a position of prominence. President Christie. Give me a break.

    And he did appear to emerge after his comparatively warm embrace of Mr. Obama during the Hurricane Sandy tour.

    I have also taken note of the glee with which his crashing star has been greeted in some partisan quarters.

    My only thought about the traffic-gate situation is that a purely craven politically motivated move on the part of Christie's camp resulted in death - and threatened the lives and well-being of many.

    Christie's political fortunes mean absolutely nothing to me.

    Why we're even talking about him is a mystery.

    Parent

    Because the polls showed him (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    to be a threat to a Left wing Demo, AKA Hillary.

    Surely you knew.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#127)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    what I have been trying to express.

    He became suddenly a national figure - after his duet with Obama during the Hurricane Sandy aftermath.

    At first the dems were OK with that because a repub was endorsing the democratic president.

    But then, he became a threat.

    He becomes mentioned as presidential.

    He may or may not survive this traffic mess.
    It depends how much people are desperate for something different... Bush survived drunk driving, drug snorting --- everything. Teflon.
    Clinton did also during the campaign of 1990. Because people wanted a change.

    But really - what did or does Christie have to offer? Is there any reality to his rocket to stardom?

    So - yes we are talking about him because he posed a political threat --- but not because he had or has anything to offer us.

    I'm really tired of these people being elevated in a manner that is more reminiscent of those idiotic "talent" shows than anything based on reality.

    And that goes for Mr. Obama as well...

    Parent

    The thing is (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    Christie couldn't win a national election. Democrat lite didn't work for McCain or Romney.

    Yet a clear choice, Reagan, GHWB and GB did work.

    So yes, it may be perfect for some other governor... Say WI??

    Parent

    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    ...when a crazy POW, who lives and breathes republicanism. is referred to his base as Democrat lite there is no way anyone with a lick of sense will get the nod.

    It's the one thing Fox News has done for liberals, literally taken the the thought process out of politics.  It's why the average Fox Viewer was in shock on election eve, they just couldn't spin the actual results like they spun the polls.

    Parent

    I keep (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    making this point but some people around here refuse to believe me. What Jim is saying is pretty common thought amond Republicans. They think that a fire breathing lunatic like Cruz or Palin would win the presidency.

    Fox News really has been deadly to conservatives. It has convinced them that everybody thinks just like they do, that they represent the majority American view. One thing Fox and talk radio has been very successful at is "fleecing the rubes". I guess it's a good jig if you can get it. LOL

    Parent

    And yet (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 08:06:57 AM EST
    Fox News has been around for years, and still the Republicans haven't nominated a fire-breathing lunatic.

    In fact, Republicans are more likely to nominate a moderate conservative for a presidential nominee than a hard-core conservative.

    Romney, as Lynn Vavreck and I show in "The Gamble," was never the unanimous choice of the party, but he was by far the front-runner.   He didn't lead the polls every day and he didn't win every primary (few nominees do).  But by the eve of the Iowa caucus, the underlying fundamentals of the race were in his favor, and Gingrich's and Santorum's later challenges never amounted to much in terms of actual delegates.

    One reason is precisely because the "GOP base" is not composed only of people who prioritize ideological purity above all.  In "The Gamble," we show that about half of Romney's supporters voted for him despite being ideologically closer to another, more conservative candidate.  These people tended to believe he could beat Obama in the fall.

    In fact, given recent Republican presidential nomination battles, if anything it is more common for the GOP to nominate a relative moderate than a hardcore conservative: Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney.  If we want to talk about the actual Republican nominees, not the also-rans, the type of candidate that's "not like the others" are the conservatives.



    Parent
    The problem may be that while the (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    front-runner may be all about that moderate image, remember that, in that #2 spot - you know, the one that's a heartbeat away from the presidency - they've been pandering to the loonier elements of the party.

    Sarah Palin?  A poster child for that branch.  Paul Ryan?  Not for nothing does Charlie Pierce refer to him as the "zombie-eyed granny-starver."

    If a Ted Cruz-type comes within 10 miles of the ticket, it won't matter if the presidential nominee is "acceptable;" they'll lose.

    Parent

    I give you Mike Huckabee.. (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    according to a study someone linked to the other day, the second "hottest" politician in the country right now.

    If the point is that hard Right exerting too much influence in the GOP is nothing to be concerned about, I ain't buyin' it.

    Parent

    Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    Was a Hail Mary pass by McCain (even though she had been mentioned as a dark-horse VP candidate as early as February) to attract thoe disaffected Democrats who wanted to vote for a woman.  It didn't work.

    Keep in mind, that Sarah Palin wasn't (as publicly) batsh!t crazy until after she got a taste of fame and a gig on Fox News.  She was very conservative, yes, but during her terms as Mayor and Governor, she did things like building bike paths, got a bi-partisan ethics bill passed, and went up against the Alaska Republican establishment.  She's more like an Ann Coulter and says crazy stuff because she knows some people will love it, most will hate it, but everybody will still be talking about it, which in turn, makes her more wanted by the FOX News community and for paid speaking gigs.

    It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#173)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    the build up to 2016 may be more like the build up to 1964.

    Before 1964, you had Wilkie, Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon. Then came Goldwater.

    A seccessionist, firebreathing lunatic like Rick Perry would have got nominated in 2012 itself, if he was not such a goofball. He was trouncing Romney till he started having those "Oops" moments in debates and GOP primary voters thought he would be weak against the President in a debate setting. Rick Perry did not get beaten because he was "firebreathing", he got defeated because he was a bad debater. Ted Cruz would never have let go off the opportunity that Rick Perry had in 2012.

    I am expecting the 2016 GOP nominee to be very socially conservative (Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan types). IMO, even Ted Cruz has a better chance than someone like Christie, who you think will get nominated.  

    Parent

    Jesus, just reading those names makes (none / 0) (#174)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    me gag; the vision those people have for this country is nothing short of insane.

    Parent
    I never bought Reagan and Bush II (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    as "moderates". The late-seventies , early-eighties was when the neoconfederate, "old fashioned values" crowd, conservative Catholics and Elder Romney's  Mormons got lean and mean and very well organized and established themselves as an indispensable part of the overall GOP coalition that continues to present day and that still requires it's pound of flesh from any Republican "moderate" running for President.

    This doesn't even take into account the influence in the GOP of the "fiscally conservative" Norquist- Koch brothers, scorched earth libertarian faction that people like Paul Ryan kowtow to..

    Parent

    Read again (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    I didn't say Christie would for sure get nominated.

    I said none of those people you mentioned (Cruz, et al) will get nominated.

    Big difference.

    Parent

    Who do you think will get nominated (none / 0) (#178)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    in 2016? Do you think it will be a Rockefeller Republican?

    Please answer this question without any hedging (by picking a choice).
    The Republican nominee in 2016 will be
    (a) Economic conservative, social liberal
    (b) Economic liberal, social conservative
    (c) Economic conservative, social conservative
    (d) Rapacious looter of poor and middle class, social conservative
    (e) Rapacious looter of poor and middle class, social liberal.

    It will be helpful if you can also come up with a few names of candidates that you think can get the GOP nomination.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    There's a lot of posturing out there right now, and since it's only 2014, and there is a mid-term election yet to be had, anyone who says for sure or with certainty that they know who or what kind of candidate will be the Republican nominee is basically a crackpot and should not be taken seriously.

    Parent
    Did you see (none / 0) (#183)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    how many times I have used words like "may", "am expecting" etc. That does not imply "certainty". It only implies "strong chances, IMO".

    Nothing is certain in life. Businesses can never be certain about what consumer tastes will be in 2-3 years, yet they speculate and plan about products they need to build or what they expect to see in the market. Same thinking applies here and nothing more!

    It seems that you are backing down now after trying to project an air of "certainty". Ofcourse, there is nothing wrong in taking that position!

    Parent

    I have no idea what you are talking about (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    As usual, since you make no sense.

    "Air of certainty"?

    I have never said Christie would be the nominee.  I said there was a good chance, as the rest of the field are crackpots and as much as the Republicans on Fox News like to yammer, the party would never allow Ted Cruz to be the party's standard bearer.

    But please, do continue to make things up.

    Parent

    How are you so "certain" (none / 0) (#185)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    that Ted Cruz would not have a secret deal with GOP Wall Streeters that he would tone down the craziness, once he got the nomination.

    How are you also so sure that Sarah Palin crazy is an act but Ted Cruz crazy is the real thing?

    Parent

    Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#187)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    I think her public persona is one of crazy. I think she's as smart as a fox (if you will pardon the pun).  She's played lots of people for lots of money.

    I don't think Ted Cruz is crazy either.  He's a very smart man - you don't get to his position while being stupid.

    But I don't think his crazy politics will get him the nomination he craves, because the loudmouths on TV that you hear are not representative of the entire voting bloc (or money giving) of Repbulicans.  Unless, of course, Democrats decide to (idiotically) swoop in and vote in the Republican primaries.

    Parent

    Re: Cruz. He plays to the stupid people, that's (none / 0) (#193)
    by Angel on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 09:24:54 PM EST
    how he got to where he is.  And he is batsh!t crazy.

    Parent
    Rockefeller was a sh*thead (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    not to put too fine a point on it..

    He let those men at Attica get butchered to prove Republicans are "tough on crime"..

    And Elder Mitt's "moderate" forty seven percent remarks pandered to the race-baiting, scapegoating lowest common denominator on the Right. Some moderate..

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    they are not likely to nominate a moderate. You don't seem to understand that they believe that is why Romney and McCain lost--becaues they were moderates. They are done being told who to vote for.

    And even though Romney started out as a moderate by the time the primaries were over he had signed onto every crackpot idea the tea party put out.

    I keep telling you that it's not 2008 or 2012 anymore. They are not going to do a repeat of McCain or Romney.

    The GOP base is about 75% of whom DEMAND ideological purity and they are forgetting that Santorum actually won Iowa not Romney. And you also have to realize that they think anybody they put up can beat Hillary. So to them the electable argument does not work.

    Parent

    And it doesn't say much for (none / 0) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    Democrats, either, I don't think; being called "Democrat Lite" isn't a compliment - or at least it shouldn't be.

    I guess that's the thing that irritates me - that Democrats have not taken advantage of the insanity of the GOP to draw some clear lines in the sand - they keep trying to meet them on the crazy side, for some reason.  Oh, they'll talk about it from time to time, but that lasts about as long as it takes for some GOP nutcase to take some issue hostage - and then the conceding and accommodating and rolling over starts.

    For as much as we complain about how dysfunctional the GOP is, Democrats are co-dependent in that dysfunction, and their behavior enables the GOP to keep getting what it wants.

    We need to start moving things to the left, and soon, or there isn't going to be anything particularly recognizable to Democrats about the Democratic Party except the symbols.

    Parent

    I don't know about Democrats in (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:29:46 PM EST
    general but yeah, Obama has been trying to work with them. One of the problems i had with him from the beginning is that he has been all over the Republicans talking about working with them. Well, I think it finally might have dawned on him that they truly are crazy and only represent the far righ 20% of the country.

    Parent
    The more moderate Obama got (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jack203 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:38:54 PM EST
    The crazier the Republicans got.  As a militant moderate, it's sad really.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#128)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 11:51:30 AM EST
    maybe... but republican lite has worked for the dems... and it looks as if they're mired in it for the foreseeable future.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    please, please, please remind everybody of George W. Bush. Please, please, please!!! Remember he didn't even win the popular vote in 2000. The GOP just can't face reality that it's not 1980 anymore.

    Parent
    Could be more trouble for Chrisite. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Angel on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 09:00:34 AM EST
    Second post on this (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    You folks really are scared of him!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:29:39 AM EST
    Just like liberals were "scared" of Palin?  You guys always mistake laughter at incompetent buffoons as fear.

    They may have laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo, and Christie is a lot closer to one than the other.

    Parent

    Not scared, just enjoying (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:02:49 AM EST
    the spectacle.  In terms of being scared, I sense some projection....as in you are scared you are losing your guy....

    Parent
    I would have said (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    "your boy" but you think that is a racial comment somehow even though Christie is white.

    Parent
    And yet, today (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    The latest Pew Poll (keeping in mind the usual caveats, as with all polls this early out):

    The public paid far more attention to last week's cold snap than to the controversy swirling around New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. There also has been little short-term change in opinions about Christie: 60% say their opinion of Christie has not changed in recent days, while 16% now view him less favorably and 6% more favorably.

    The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-12 among 1,006 adults, finds that just 18% paid very close attention to Christie's apology on Jan. 9 for the highway lane closures ordered by his aides. By contrast, 44% very closely followed news about the cold winter weather that gripped much of the U.S. and 28% tracked news about the economy.

    The release of a book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that criticized the Obama administration drew even less interest than news about Christie. Just 11% followed news about Gates' book very closely.

    The survey finds that majorities of Republicans (69%), Democrats (55%) and independents (60%) say that their opinion of Christie has not changed lately. Among Republicans, about as many say their opinion has become more favorable (9%) as less favorable (10%).



    The misuse of sandy (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 07:21:51 PM EST
    funds is going to be the one that ends his presidential aspirations. Rand Paul has been kicking that dog for months already and should Christie decide to run Paul is going to be on him like white on rice.

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 07:14:48 AM EST
    Just looking at several major media websites, the Sandy-relief investigation isn't even on the front page.  The only mentions of Christie are that 1) he's proposing longer school days, and 2) he's giving his State of the State tonight.  Even NBCnews.com  MSNBC.com leads with "Christie suffers among key group" (talking about polling).

    IF something comes out of the investigation, you may be right.  But since there isn't anything there right now (and since some see it as piling on - which could backfire and make him more popular), I wouldn't be so quick to make definitive statements like "he's done".

    Parent

    It takes time for things to (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:00:59 AM EST
    sink in.....

    Few Republicans are coming to Christie's defense.  Santorum and Rubio are sticking the knife in.

    Once Ted Cruz gets revved up, he will eviscerate  Christie over this.  

    The conservatives are looking for a reason to go with principle over pragmatism.  Christie's scandals will be the ticket.

    The default candidate could be Jeb Bush, but he polls terribly against Hillary--the Bush name is not all that great nowadays.

    Parent

    While I usually do not watch the (none / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    early morning shows--unless some big event or breaking news has occurred--I happened to turn on the CBS morning show today when it started out here at 7:00am.  A lead segment, complete with various paper headlines about the potential "new" advertising $$$ story and how Christie may have used the funds as well as a purported "new" example of heavy-handedness with another Jersey mayor, highlighted Governor Christie's problems.  The opening segment also shows that the matter of "honesty" and how the stories have been handled by the Governor are beginning to turn negative per the CBS poll now reported (51 to 49 percent negative, as I recall.)

    These stories can take their toll no matter how by-the-books the mea culpa by the one at the center.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 08:04:08 AM EST
    Rand Paul or whomever are going to be beating him over the head with this stuff over and over. And then on top of that he's not liked by the GOP base.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 08:38:29 AM EST
    But then again, Rand Paul and others will also have dirt being thrown against them which they will have to defend.

    This won't be a one-sided conversation.

    And then Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will enjoy some nice golf games around mid-February.

    Christie may be the nominee, or he may not be.  But Rand Paul et al can talk all day long about what they want - none of them will be the nominee either.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:39:03 PM EST
    but my point is the GOP base does not like Christie. So they are LOOKING for another reason to not vote for him and people like Rand Paul are going to help them dislike Chrisite even more.

    Parent
    When George Will (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    on national t.v. compares Christie to Nixon, you know there's a problem.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:04:57 AM EST
    George Will called Mitt Romney the Republicans "Michael Dukakis".

    Most people, even Republicans, don't care what George Will thinks.

    Parent

    Was George Will wrong about Romney? (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:11:29 AM EST
    Since he was speaking about the primaries (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    Yes, he was.

    Parent
    Your comment makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:14:03 AM EST
    Dukakis won the Democratic Primary.  

    Parent
    You're being obtuse (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:16:39 AM EST
    George Will didn't like Mitt Romney any more than he likes Chris Christie, so his comment about Christie isn't "shocking".

    And again - no one cares what George Will thinks anyway - to use him as a speaker for what Republicans think is a joke.

    Parent

    Perhaps we should listen (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    to you over George Will to understand what Republicans think?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 07:21:40 AM EST
    you seem to think you speak with authority for all Democrats, so sure, why not?

    The fact that George Will, along with Karl Rove, predicted a Romney landslide on election night should tell you how credible he is.

    Parent

    I doubt Romney or Christie (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    are conservative enough for Will. He still likes to rhapsodize about the eighties like it was some Golden Age of Pericles in America.

    Parent
    Most people (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    probably do not care what George Will says but Republicans sure do. He was part of the Reagan campaign and they love the guy.

    Parent
    Christie (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:27:18 AM EST
    Has never been a viable candidate for me, way too slimy politician, better to let HRC win and push the public pendulum enough to get somebody in from the right that can start cleaning up the mess.

    Heh (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 06:44:30 AM EST
    Good luck with that.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    I don't think HRC (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    has a good chance of winning, but the campaign could be fun to watch.

    Makes me wonder though for the left, if not HRC who, who is a rising star on the left?

    Parent

    Another silly claim (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 06:16:48 AM EST
    I don't think HRC has a good chance of winning, but the campaign could be fun to watch.

    But it's pretty funny (and telling) that you consider her the candidate for "the Left".

    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#195)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 03:43:12 AM EST
    If not HRC, who?

    Sooner or later Obama will let everyone know.

    Parent

    No idea ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 06:36:03 AM EST
    ... what you're trying to say now.

    She may well be the candidate (it's not up to Obama), but she is not the candidate of "the Leftists".

    Parent

    Still not losing support (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    Fewer people now consider him a 'bully' and more consider him a 'leader'.

    Go figure.

    New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie is more of a leader than a bully, voters say 54 - 40 percent today, one of his lowest "bully" scores since the Quinnipiac University poll first asked the question June 17, 2010.

    Gov. Christie gets positive marks on key characteristics: Voters say 51 - 41 percent that he is honest and trustworthy; 74 - 23 percent that he is a strong leader and 55 - 41 percent that he cares about their needs and problems.

    Today's results show more leader and less bully than the 50 - 45 percent results in a July 17, 2012, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

    Today, men say 53 - 42 percent that Christie is more of a leader than a bully and women agree 55 -39 percent. Opting for "leader" are Republicans 78 - 17 percent and independent voters 55 - 40 percent. Democrats say 56 - 37 percent that the governor is more of a bully.

    New Jersey voters approve 55 - 38 percent of the job Gov. Christie is doing, down from his all-time high 74 - 22 percent February 20, 2013. Women approve 55 - 37 percent while men approve 54 - 39 percent. Approval among Democrats drops from 56 - 38 percent last February to a negative 36 - 55 percent today.

    "New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie is doing better with the public than with the news media. His job approval has dropped from the stratosphere, but it's still double-digit positive, pretty much where he was before his Superstorm Sandy hug with President Barack Obama," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    "We stopped asking that 'bully' question 18 months ago. But we tried it again and, even with all the 'Bridgegate' stories, he still scores higher as a leader than as a bully. Except with Democrats. More than half of them still say 'bully' - and not in a good way."

    Some 93 percent of all New Jersey voters have read or heard something about the controversy surrounding the September traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge.

    Voters in that group say 66 - 22 that the governor did not personally order the traffic jam. Even Democrats say 53 - 32 percent that Christie was not involved.



    Are you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 07:29:29 PM EST
    jbindc writes "Still not losing support"

    And yet link

    The poll presents sharp gains for Clinton in the last month; in the same survey in December, Clinton led Christie by a mere 3 percentage points, 48 percent to his 45 percent.

    The new numbers comes after the revelation that top Christie aides were involved in malicious lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. The survey showed, however, that the scandal hasn't significantly hurt Christie's favorability rating among voters. Moreover, 68 percent of registered voters participating in the survey say their opinion of him hasn't changed in light of the controversy.

    Parent

    Two things: first, the poll jb cited was (none / 0) (#190)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 08:00:10 PM EST
    on on what people thought of Christie - she didn't make any claims with respect to the head-to-head numbers for Christie v. Clinton.

    Second, the sentence in your excerpt that you didn't bold supports the very thing jb pointed out:


    The survey showed, however, that the scandal hasn't significantly hurt Christie's favorability rating among voters. Moreover, 68 percent of registered voters participating in the survey say their opinion of him hasn't changed in light of the controversy.

    Namely, that the controversy isn't affecting in any appreciable way what voters think about him.

    Parent

    But the head to head numbers changed (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 08:22:19 PM EST
    since Bridgegate. The polls that jbindc showed is a textbook example of missing the forest for the trees. I reproduced the part that I did not highlight ()without cutting it off just to emphasize how irrelevant that section was.

    Parent
    jb's commentary all along has been on (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 08:58:23 PM EST
    how Christie is viewed within the GOP and by the voters; she has not ventured into head-to-head, GOP v. Dem, territory, other than in a tangential way.

    We get that that head-to-head is where YOU want to go, and that your interest is in how Clinton is looking for 2016 - and that's a great subject for discussion - but you have an annoying habit of butting into an ongoing discussion about apples with an argument about oranges, and then trying to convince people that the argument you want to have is the only one worth having.

    jb isn't wrong to bring up the points she's raised just because that's not the conversation you want to have; you want to talk electoral politics in terms of possible nominees - have at it, but you might try having some respect for the fact that some people's interests aren't focused there yet.


    Parent

    Nope (3.50 / 2) (#194)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 15, 2014 at 09:42:01 PM EST
    Anne wrote "jb's commentary all along has been on how Christie is viewed within the GOP and by the voters; she has not ventured into head-to-head, GOP v. Dem, territory, other than in a tangential way"

    The way Christie is viewed by voters can have different levels; I just pointed out levels that jbindc's post seemed to have missed. You seem very sensitive about it.

    Nobody is wrong in bringing up points and nobody is also wrong in saying that points that were brought up are irrelevant! That is the nature of debate. You also do it all the time.

    If jbindc is interested in presenting how Christie is seen within the GOP, she should only show polls among Republicans (which show him lagging many Republicans). She presented poll numbers where Democrats were also polled-hard to see why it does not enter Dem Vs Rep territory.

    Parent

    And here you go (none / 0) (#199)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 07:37:47 AM EST
    Christie poll among Republicans.  He's gone up in approval among Republicans according to a Monmouth Poll - to 89%.

    The Q poll has him down 15 among Republicans - but down from 96 to only 81.

    I don't think Republicans despise him as much as you want to believe.

    Parent

    The head-to-head numbers (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 07:15:48 AM EST
    Don't mean squat at this stage of the game.  Why do I care how Clinton fares against Christie right now?  The bigger question is - why do you? The post Jeralyn put up was about Christie, not Clint, so why do you want to get into that theoretcial discussion? If she puts up a post about how she thinks Clinton will do, then that's the place for it.

    As Anne tried to point out to you, this is a poll about how Christie is seen by voters - both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton is only mentioned because the poll asks a variety of questions, and Clinton being talked about all the time as the potential nominee (which is silly at this stage) also makes for an interesting data point.

    You are the one missing the forest for the trees, as usual.

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 07:32:36 AM EST
    Here's another poll that says the same thing -"Bridgegate, so far, has not impacted how voters feel about Christie." (Shockingly, it's from NBC News).

    Nearly 70 percent of Americans say the bridge-closure scandal engulfing Chris Christie has not changed their opinion about the New Jersey governor, according to a new NBC News/Marist poll. In addition, 44 percent of respondents believe he's telling the truth about his knowledge of the events surrounding the controversy.

    And far more Americans view him as a strong leader rather than as a bully.

    And while, yes, he has lost ground to HRC, again - so what? We are a year and a half away from those numbers meaning anything.  Some more information could come out about Christie that could plummet his numbers - who knows?  Or, favorable information could come to light that could make his numbers go up.  The same for HRC.  Which is why head-to-head numbers at this time make fun parlor games for political strategists, but don't really mean much or tell us what will really happen.

    When Republicans voters were asked whom they support if the GOP primary or caucus were held today, 16 percent picked Christie, 12 percent sided with 2012 running mate Paul Ryan, 9 percent said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and 8 percent said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

    Those percentages are virtually unchanged from last month.

    Rounding out the rest of the field: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., (7 percent); Texas Gov. Rick Perry (6 percent); former presidential candidate Rick Santorum (5 percent); Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, (5 percent); Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (4 percent); and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (3 percent).

    Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio aren't really even in the conversation at this point. And I don't expect those support percentages will change much for them. (But...but...THE TEA PARTY!!!)

    Parent

    You are really doubling down (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    on this pro Christie stuff.  It appears you are  personally vested in vindicating your opinion that Christie will be the nominee.  You rush to cite any pro-Christie articles you can.

    Charlie Cook said he did not think the Bridge scandal would diminish Christie's chances to be the nominee--because he had zero chance in the first place.

    How many of Christie's staff will take the Fifth?  There are so many of his staff involved in this that it will be ongoing for quite some time.  The scandal will hurt him.

    When you have Bruce Springsteen in a duet with Jimmy Fallon singing about Christie closing the Bridge and being against the common man, you are in trouble...

    You could be wrong, you know.  Most think you are.  But dig in and tell us again how Romney would do so well in Michigan in the general because well you just knew all about Michigan.  

    Parent

    No, it is not silly at this stage (none / 0) (#201)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 08:53:02 AM EST
    to talk about Clinton.  Not with the all the efforts by others to start organizing on her behalf.  Her committee has snagged Obama's National Field Director, perhaps the most talented member of his campaign staff.

    Tell us about Rudy Giuliani as the Republican.  I used to thinkt you were right, but for the wrong reasons, that Christie would be the nominee.  But now, not so much.   It would do you good to consider altering your position as circumstances change.

     

    Parent

    nver underestImate the power (none / 0) (#202)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    of magical-wishful thinking..