I'll admit I still have not made up my mind on this guy Chris Christie, who everybody is suddenly saying is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. This breaking fiasco may be a good chance for me to form more of an opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/08/emails-reportedly-suggest-christie-office-involved-in-controversial-lane/
Some of you may pass this off as some sort of "dirty trick", the kind that Nixon operatives used to do. It still would amount to an abuse of power. It is unacceptable. Here is the interesting point: Christie has basically admitted that something wrong was done. It was not a mistake. It was not a misunderstanding etc. So now he is on the spot. If one of his top aides (whose name we know) deliberately caused this to happen then she must be held accountable as the governor said. That means we should look for her to resign or be fired, right?
What if that doesn't happen? Does that mean that Christie can't fire her because she would then spill the beans on him for knowing about it, agreeing to it, or thinking up the idea to close the lanes?
Just speculating here. After all, that's what I have suggested about President Obama for not holding the Eric Holders and Kathleen Sebelius's of the world accountable and firing them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is too bizarre to even make sense of yet. There is no rationale given for why the lanes were closed in the first place. It apparently was decided by the Port Authority, not by NJ state officials. The email referring after the fact to "helped us retaliate" is obscure until more facts are known. As a way to retaliate against political enemies, it is still bizarre: The lanes in question are not, primarily or exclusively, used by residents of Fort Lee, but by people from all over northern New Jersey.
On the other hand, Christie "doth protest too much" for there to be nothing wrong.
This is too bizarre to even make sense of yet. There is no rationale given for why the lanes were closed in the first place. It apparently was decided by the Port Authority, not by NJ state officials. The email referring after the fact to "helped us retaliate" is obscure until more facts are known. As a way to retaliate against political enemies, it is still bizarre: The lanes in question are not, primarily or exclusively, used by residents of Fort Lee, but by people from all over northern New Jersey.
On the other hand, Christie "doth protest too much" for there to be nothing wrong.
I have now read the New York Times coverage of the matter -- its still bizarre, but it was a straightforward factual article, and it seems unmistakable that some of Christie's aides and one guy at the top of the Port Authority did pull off this stunt.
I believe Christie didn't know... because he would have thought up a more precise way to get even, not one that generated more embarrassing collateral damage than harm to the adversary.
This isn't merely corrupt, its STUPID. No region votes in such overwhelming blocs that you can target a daily commute and mostly inconvenience opposition voters... especially not the GW Bridge. I personally have met conservative Republicans who use that bridge to commute to work every day.
Too dumb to believe, but it seems to be true. He should fire them for stupidity, without even reaching corruption and abuse.
He fired her. Unlike Obama, he takes the chance and gets rid of a corrupt official.
BTW in 2007 Hillary was the front runner. See how that worked out.
Siarlys--I am one of those (essential, at least) conservatives, though not always Republican (with a capital "R"), who a LONG time ago indeed used to drive the GW (we called the bottom deck the Martha Washington) to and from 5 days a week and sometimes on weekends for fun in the city. I will never forget the HUGE flag that used to fly from the bridge, and hope it still does.
To the subject at hand, it should be fairly obvious by now that Christie almost certainly had no hand in, or even knowledge of, this particular little debacle. He has already taken speedy and decisive action by firing his Deputy Chief of Staff and accepting the resignation (most likely in lieu of firing) of one of his Port Authority appointees (who is apparently acting like IRS' Lois Lerner by taking the Fifth).
In addition, it is reported that Christie has asked his former campaign manager, whose involvement in this little deal is unknown to me at this time, to withdraw his name from consideration to become NJ's GOP chairman and to also dissolve his consultancy with the Republican Governors Association, chaired by Christie.
Let us see if these people "have anything" on Christie. If they do, it will certainly come out now. If nothing comes out, that should tell you something.
These are at least fairly significant actions in today's political world, and exceed by a LARGE margin anything than Obama has done to date in any of the much more significant misdeeds in multiple capers by members of his staff/administration.
Interestingly enough, Ed Rendel, that Democratic paragon of bipartisanship and comity, is quoted as saying on CNBC that if Christie did not know about these closures "he looks like an administrator who's totally lost control of his office and his staff". Wonder if the illustrious Mr. Rendel, et al, would be prepared to apply that same yardstick/measure of incompetence to Obama and demand that he also fire the perpetrators?? Naw, didn't think so.
As to Christie, elwood, we are in full agreement. As your and Gary's facile analogies to various allegations about the Obama administration, the secretaries you mention have not been shown to have committed violations of the United States Code. They have either pressed policies that political opponents disapprove of, or they have exercised poor discretionary judgement. Thus, it is very much up to the President whether they have impaired their ability to serve the people of the United States.
When you have evidence that the White House staff closed federal toll bridges in states that didn't vote for President Obama, then you would have an analogous situation.
As with the GW Bridge affair, it would be incredibly stupid, because just as many conservative Republicans drive across the GW every day, there were more Democratic voters across Dixie in 2004, 2008, and 2012 than live in New York and New England -- only distributed differently among a somewhat larger number who vote differently.
I recall when Hillary was the front runner in the press -- before the first primary votes. I'm not sure that the Dems have among them a 2016 version of either Barack Obama, or better someone like John Edwards, except with better self control in his personal life -- someone who would inspire Bonnie Raitt and Willie Nelson to do benefits and appear at campaign rallies.
I had thought Christie might be worth voting for. Now one has to pause and think. Maybe I will vote Socialist after all -- except the fragmented socialist tickets don't have candidates with the caliber of Eugene Debs or Frank Zeidler any more.
We have Constitutional protection against "self-incrimination", not embarrassment. As I pointed out previously, Lois Lerner of the IRS took the Fifth. That should be, but is apparently not for Siarlys, at least an exceedingly strong implication/indication, if not proof positive, that she in fact violated the United States Code, or at least believes she did, most likely along with others we don't know about yet, since it is difficult to have a conspiracy of one. One of Christie's appointees also took the Fifth but he has also, of course, already resigned. And, of course, criminal behavior is not the only criterion for removal from office by firing, "voluntary" resignation, or even impeachment.
It is, of course, up to the President (or Governor) to determine whether subordinates have impaired their ability to serve the people. In the case of Obama, that is much like something involving foxes and chicken houses.
Siarlys,
Evidence that Obama closed toll roads...? I think you'd better go back over that IRS scandal again when they targeted the Tea Party. Reread those emails between Lois Lerner and the White House. Why do you think she took the 5th?
Elwood,
And who after all the scandals, has Obama fired? Nobody.
If everyone who takes the fifth is guilty, there might as well be no privilege against self-incrimination.
My best guess is Lerner took the fifth because she is an incoherent coward, who did something she thought she should do, without giving it much thought, can't think of exactly why, and is afraid she may be in jeopardy.
I would have scrutinized the filings of those groups too. Now if she denied the application of a group that was plainly in full compliance with the law, that would be different.
Post a Comment