QuoteE-mails emerged on Wednesday purportedly from top aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie bolstering the case that George Washington Bridge lane closures last year that tied up traffic were borne from a political vendetta and not bureaucratic incompetence as his administration claimed.
Christie's office could not be reached for comment, but he has previously said he knew nothing about allegations of political retribution against the Mayor of Fort Lee, where the traffic lanes feed into the nation's busiest bridge across the Hudson River, for not endorsing him in his re-election bid.
Those cited in the series of e-mails and text messages subpoenaed by Democratic legislators and obtained by CNN and other news outlets did not respond to requests for comment or to verify the communications.
The politically charged controversy comes with Christie considered a likely candidate for President in 2016 and leading national polls for the Republican nomination.
Democrat: It's a sad day for New Jersey
What did Christie know about closed lanes? The e-mails, if accurate, are the most damaging information to surface supporting Democratic suspicions of political retaliation in this case involving the Christie administration, which has put the blame on a mishandled traffic study.
The exchanges began three weeks before the closures in September, which caused heavy traffic backups, and cite a senior Christie staffer and political appointees at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the bridge.
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie's deputy chief of staff for legislative and intergovernmental affairs, said in an e-mail to David Wildstein, then the highest-level appointee representing the state at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
"Got it," Wildstein replied.
Democrats allege the lane closures were to punish Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for not endorsing Christie in his re-election effort.
Christie acknowledged that mistakes were made but forcefully denied the lane closures were politically motivated.
He said at a news conference last month that he could only repeat what another appointee, Port Authority Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni, had said publicly blaming the lane closures and resulting congestion on the transportation analysis.
"Which is, they believed the traffic study was necessary and that they ordered it, but the way they did it was mistaken and they didn't follow protocols," Christie said.
Christie said at the time that Baroni would leave his job, which he has. Wildstein also has resigned since the controversy broke.
In response to a phone message from Sokolich regarding an "urgent matter of public safety in Fort Lee" on the first day of the lane closures, Kelly asked Wildstein in an e-mail if the Mayor's call had been returned.
Wildstein wrote to Kelly: "Radio silence. His name comes right after mayor Fulop."
Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, a Democrat who also didn't endorse Christie, raised his own suspicions.
He claimed this week that his decision to not endorse the Governor was met with news that New Jersey Cabinet and other high ranking officials were canceling meetings with him and that a pension reform bill he had worked on was scuttled by a Democrat who had backed Christie.
On the second morning of the closures, Sokolich apparently sent a text to Baroni: "Presently we have four very busy traffic lanes merging into only one toll booth. ... The bigger problem is getting kids to school. Help please. It's maddening."
Seeing that text, a person whose name has been redacted from the e-mails and text messages writes to Wildstein: "Is it wrong that I am smiling?"
"No," Wildstein responds.
"I feel badly about the kids," the unknown person writes.
"They are the children of Buono voters," responds Wildstein.
Barbara Buono was Christie's Democratic opponent in the election last November.
On September 13, Wildstein wrote to Kelly that New York authorities gave "Fort Lee back all three lanes this morning. We are appropriately going nuts. Samson helping us to retaliate."
David Samson chairs the Port Authority's Board of Commissioners and is a close Christie ally.
Sokolich reached out to Wildstein on September 17 seeking an explanation.
"We should talk. Someone needs to tell me that the recent traffic debacle was not punitive in nature. The last four reporters that contacted me suggest that the people they are speaking with absolutely believe it to be punishment. Try as I may to dispel these rumors I am having a tough time. A private face-to-face would be important to me. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the errors of my ways. Let me know if you'll give me 10 minutes. Regards, Mark," Sokolich wrote.
Other documents raise questions, too
Wildstein sent the texts to Baroni.
"Have not heard back from Bridget," Wildstein noted.
"F**k," Baroni wrote back.
On September 18, Wildstein e-mailed Bill Stepien, Christie's campaign manager, and forwarded him a story from the Wall Street Journal titled "Bridge Jam's Cause a Mystery."
"I have empty boxes ready to take to work today, just in case," Wildstein wrote, an apparent reference to being fired. "It will be a tough November for this little Serbian," an apparent reference to Mayor Sokolich.
On October 3, Baroni asks Wildstein what the "Trenton feedback" is. Trenton is the capital of New Jersey and where Christie's headquarters are.
"Good," Wildstein wrote.
"Just good?" Baroni wrote. "S**t."
"No I have only texted brudget (sic) and Nicole they were VERY happy," Wildstein responded. "Both said you are doing great. Charlie said you did GREAT."
The Port Authority, which is run jointly by New Jersey and New York, oversees the tunnels, bridges and seaports between the two states, as well as the metropolitan area's airports.
Christie, who's now criss-crossing the country, campaigning for fellow GOP governors as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is seen as prime political target for national Democrats, who rarely attacked Christie during his re-election campaign but are now becoming more aggressive with the bridge controversy unfolding.
"These revelations are troubling for any public official, but they also indicate what we've come to expect from Governor Christie - when people oppose him, he exacts retribution. When people question him, he belittles and snidely jokes. And when anyone dares to look into his administration, he bullies and attacks," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair, in a statement.
A source close to Christie said "there will probably be some sacrificial firing and that'll be it."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/08/politics/christie-bridge/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
So this is going to be the republican nominee?
I sure hope so.
True story: I once spoke with an Asian police officer in Fort Lee whose name was Bruce.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 04:03:13 PM
I sure hope so.
If this story holds up, I think it will be very damaging. Is a traffic jam the end of the world? No. But this has a Nixonian feel to it. To make voters lives miserable because of something as trivial as a mayoral endorsement is nuts.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 04:13:28 PM
But this has a Nixonian feel to it.
Christie just secured the Albertan vote.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 04:13:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 04:03:13 PM
I sure hope so.
If this story holds up, I think it will be very damaging. Is a traffic jam the end of the world? No. But this has a Nixonian feel to it. To make voters lives miserable because of something as trivial as a mayoral endorsement is nuts.
This seems a little inelegant for Nixon. It's more Jersey than near-psychotic ex-Quaker.
It looks bad for Kelly but where is the connection to Christie personally?
That sounds pretty disgusting and petty. Christie hasn't been implicated directly so far, but it's kind of hard to believe that he was blissfully unaware of this whole plan, and that Port Authority would take part in this solely at the aide's encouragement.
As an aside, my prediction for this thread is that the usual retards will continue trolling this thread with non-sequitur remarks, and once my post goes through, they will uncover a plot by me to besmirch the name of yet another moderate Republican who is a threat to Democrats.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 04:13:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 04:03:13 PM
I sure hope so.
If this story holds up, I think it will be very damaging. Is a traffic jam the end of the world? No. But this has a Nixonian feel to it. To make voters lives miserable because of something as trivial as a mayoral endorsement is nuts.
I bet New York Times is combing through the obituaries as we speak, looking for heart attack victims whose ambulances got stuck in traffic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 05:37:58 PM
It looks bad for Kelly but where is the connection to Christie personally?
The problem is it fits into his personality. It may be left ambiguous whether he was directly involved, but it will color people's impressions of his youtube clips berating various people.
I don't buy that either. He is a law-and-order guy. I don't see him crossing that particular line.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 06:19:44 PM
I don't buy that either. He is a law-and-order guy. I don't see him crossing that particular line.
I don't see an alternative explanation that passes the smell test. If Christie would really find such a plot deplorable, then what exactly is the motivation for so many of his aides and allies to act behind his back? What would they be risking their careers for?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 05:49:10 PM
The problem is it fits into his personality.
How so?
He is a bully.
You can interpret the youtube clips of him in that manner, and he looks very unattractive.
Or you can see them as he just stands up to opposition.
If you put in people's minds that he might do stuff like this, I think the bully viewpoint will predominate.
I suppose you are referring to the teachers heckling his press conference?
I haven't seen it. Anyone have a link?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chris+christie+yells+at+teacher&sm=1
This what you talking about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 06:59:11 PM
I suppose you are referring to the teachers heckling his press conference?
I haven't seen it. Anyone have a link?
My bet is he is referring to the regular stream of videos recorded and released by his aides where he berates someone during a town hall meeting. His team always comes to town halls prepared to record the beat-downs as they come and post them on YouTube. You're going to need to drink a lot of kool-aid to not see bullying tendencies in that kind of behavior.
I'm ridiculous.
Look at it this way: either he's directly involved, in which case he's not fit for executive political office, or he's incapable of keeping his overly vindictive minions from pulling stupid stuff, in which case he's not fit for executive political office.
Frankly, those of us in NJ seem so confused when he comes up because Republican media all but calls him the Second Coming of Reagan. Those of us that have to live under him on a daily basis think he's a completely uncharismatic schoolyard bully who only won as the lesser of two evils, because the Democrats fronted really terrible candidates in the past two elections. Corzine should have dropped out after all the crap that was flung and stuck to him, and Buono's campaign was almost non-existent.
That explains his approval ratings then. What's he at, around 80%?
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 06:26:19 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 06:19:44 PM
I don't buy that either. He is a law-and-order guy. I don't see him crossing that particular line.
I don't see an alternative explanation that passes the smell test. If Christie would really find such a plot deplorable, then what exactly is the motivation for so many of his aides and allies to act behind his back? What would they be risking their careers for?
They could simply be 'working towards the Führer'. After all, if Christie had to make every decision himself, why would he even have aides?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 08, 2014, 07:24:15 PM
Look at it this way: either he's directly involved, in which case he's not fit for executive political office, or he's incapable of keeping his overly vindictive minions from pulling stupid stuff, in which case he's not fit for executive political office.
Frankly, those of us in NJ seem so confused when he comes up because Republican media all but calls him the Second Coming of Reagan. Those of us that have to live under him on a daily basis think he's a completely uncharismatic schoolyard bully who only won as the lesser of two evils, because the Democrats fronted really terrible candidates in the past two elections. Corzine should have dropped out after all the crap that was flung and stuck to him, and Buono's campaign was almost non-existent.
I wouldn't argue about the first election, it was an election that Corzine lost rather than an election that Christie won, but I think you're dead wrong about the second election. Christie faced a terrible candidate like Buono precisely because no non-terrible Democrat wanted to be slaughtered by him. Christie won his re-election on his own merit. That said, I think a lot of "Christiecrats" thought that he was an effective politician with a mean streak, and this scandal can destroy that generous perception.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 06:26:19 PM
I don't see an alternative explanation that passes the smell test. If Christie would really find such a plot deplorable, then what exactly is the motivation for so many of his aides and allies to act behind his back? What would they be risking their careers for?
Are aides overreaching/acting on their own any less likely than Christie risking his presidential aspirations over something so petty?
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 07:08:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 06:59:11 PM
I suppose you are referring to the teachers heckling his press conference?
I haven't seen it. Anyone have a link?
My bet is he is referring to the regular stream of videos recorded and released by his aides where he berates someone during a town hall meeting. His team always comes to town halls prepared to record the beat-downs as they come and post them on YouTube. You're going to need to drink a lot of kool-aid to not see bullying tendencies in that kind of behavior.
Yes.
Do I need to drink a lot of kool aid to not see bullying tendencies in that video I linked?
Quote from: Kleves on January 08, 2014, 08:57:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 06:26:19 PM
I don't see an alternative explanation that passes the smell test. If Christie would really find such a plot deplorable, then what exactly is the motivation for so many of his aides and allies to act behind his back? What would they be risking their careers for?
Are aides overreaching/acting on their own any less likely than Christie risking his presidential aspirations over something so petty?
It seems highly unlikely to me. What's the motivation for them to act alone? They conspire to commit an act that they know can be dangerous for their careers, and yet even if they succeed, there is no benefit to them. They lose if NYT catches them, they lose if honest Chris catches them and gets rid of them as dangerous loose cannons, and they don't really win much for themselves if all goes according to plan.
It's a very popular PR device to claim that the aides lost their mind in the attempt to please their boss, and the poor boss got completely floored when he learned how the aides he thought he could trust let him down so badly. It gives plausible deniability, and it often works well enough to shield the top boss, but it's total bullshit.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:19:44 PM
It's a very popular PR device to claim that the aides lost their mind in the attempt to please their boss, and the poor boss got completely floored when he learned how the aides he thought he could trust let him down so badly. It gives plausible deniability, and it often works well enough to shield the top boss, but it's total bullshit.
:yes: It also gets less effective the closer you get in the chain of command- that's why suggestions his aides are in on it are considered "damning."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
Do I need to drink a lot of kool aid to not see bullying tendencies in that video I linked?
I don't know what video you attempted to link to, but in any case, the claim wasn't about any particular video that may or may not have been cherrypicked. The claim was about a pattern of behavior, where his team is always prepared to capture and broadcast him dressing someone down, and then in effect brag about it by posting in on YouTube. That's literally building yourself up by tearing other people down, and if you take the fact in that previous sentence as a given and still don't see any bullying tendencies in that, then I'm not sure there is a way to get through, honestly.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 06:38:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 05:49:10 PM
The problem is it fits into his personality.
How so?
He is a bully.
Yeah. I've always thought this side of his personality was part of his attraction but also his biggest risk.
I think there's now a story about a 90 year old woman dying because her ambulance was held up because of this.
He needs to fire everyone involved, say he had nothing to do with it and hope to God that's true.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:30:19 PM
I don't know what video you attempted to link to, but in any case, the claim wasn't about any particular video that may or may not have been cherrypicked. The claim was about a pattern of behavior, where his team is always prepared to capture and broadcast him dressing someone down, and then in effect brag about it by posting in on YouTube. That's literally building yourself up by tearing other people down, and if you take the fact in that previous sentence as a given and still don't see any bullying tendencies in that, then I'm not sure there is a way to get through, honestly.
I think there's room for other characterizations of this occurrence.
I really don't like this Chris Christie dude.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:30:19 PM
I don't know what video you attempted to link to, but in any case, the claim wasn't about any particular video that may or may not have been cherrypicked. The claim was about a pattern of behavior, where his team is always prepared to capture and broadcast him dressing someone down, and then in effect brag about it by posting in on YouTube. That's literally building yourself up by tearing other people down, and if you take the fact in that previous sentence as a given and still don't see any bullying tendencies in that, then I'm not sure there is a way to get through, honestly.
In fact the claim was about a pattern of behavior shown in a regular stream of videos. I grabbed the first one I found. You can view it by clicking the link.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:19:44 PM
It seems highly unlikely to me. What's the motivation for them to act alone? They conspire to commit an act that they know can be dangerous for their careers, and yet even if they succeed, there is no benefit to them. They lose if NYT catches them, they lose if honest Chris catches them and gets rid of them as dangerous loose cannons, and they don't really win much for themselves if all goes according to plan.
I think you're probably right about his aide's lack of motivation. I think it makes even
less sense for Christie to order this. His motivation would essentially seem to be that he's an out-of-control bully that could not help himself.
Quote from: Kleves on January 08, 2014, 09:47:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:19:44 PM
It seems highly unlikely to me. What's the motivation for them to act alone? They conspire to commit an act that they know can be dangerous for their careers, and yet even if they succeed, there is no benefit to them. They lose if NYT catches them, they lose if honest Chris catches them and gets rid of them as dangerous loose cannons, and they don't really win much for themselves if all goes according to plan.
I think you're probably right about his aide's lack of motivation. I think it makes even less sense for Christie to order this. His motivation would essentially seem to be that he's an out-of-control bully that could not help himself.
What if he happens to be an out-of-control bully who could not help himself?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 09:43:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:30:19 PM
I don't know what video you attempted to link to, but in any case, the claim wasn't about any particular video that may or may not have been cherrypicked. The claim was about a pattern of behavior, where his team is always prepared to capture and broadcast him dressing someone down, and then in effect brag about it by posting in on YouTube. That's literally building yourself up by tearing other people down, and if you take the fact in that previous sentence as a given and still don't see any bullying tendencies in that, then I'm not sure there is a way to get through, honestly.
In fact the claim was about a pattern of behavior shown in a regular stream of videos. I grabbed the first one I found. You can view it by clicking the link.
Hard to determine a pattern from one video.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:52:41 PM
Hard to determine a pattern from one video.
That's the kind of response one throws out there when one has nothing better to say.
One of two things is true: either the claim that he's a bully is received wisdom, and all right-thinking people just *know* he's a bully, or the fact that he's a bully is derived from observation of his actual behavior. I've asked the group to link to any videos they're aware of that contain an example of his bullying. No takers. I've linked to a video. No attempt to defend that as an example of bullying. I wouldn't call it bullying.
Quote from: sbr on January 08, 2014, 09:49:39 PM
What if he happens to be an out-of-control bully who could not help himself?
Not impossible, but wouldn't there be more evidence of this? I mean this is a lot different than shouting down hecklers. Is there anything else this Nixonian on Christie's resume?
Quote from: Kleves on January 08, 2014, 09:47:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:19:44 PM
It seems highly unlikely to me. What's the motivation for them to act alone? They conspire to commit an act that they know can be dangerous for their careers, and yet even if they succeed, there is no benefit to them. They lose if NYT catches them, they lose if honest Chris catches them and gets rid of them as dangerous loose cannons, and they don't really win much for themselves if all goes according to plan.
I think you're probably right about his aide's lack of motivation. I think it makes even less sense for Christie to order this. His motivation would essentially seem to be that he's an out-of-control bully that could not help himself.
I don't think your conclusion is that unlikely. History is full of examples of bullies that eventually become too brazen and fuck up somewhere.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 09:57:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:52:41 PM
Hard to determine a pattern from one video.
That's the kind of response one throws out there when one has nothing better to say.
One of two things is true: either the claim that he's a bully is received wisdom, and all right-thinking people just *know* he's a bully, or the fact that he's a bully is derived from observation of his actual behavior. I've asked the group to link to any videos they're aware of that contain an example of his bullying. No takers. I've linked to a video. No attempt to defend that as an example of bullying. I wouldn't call it bullying.
That's the kind of response one gives when the point is nearly impossible to prove by links even when true. Yes, I can spend the night looking through all the Christie videos, and making a list of the ones where he tears into someone with no provocation, and I know those exist because I heard them at the time they happened, but that's too much work for the benefit.
But here is the next best thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/08/chris-christies-problem-is-that-hes-really-truly-a-bully/?tid=pm_pop.
Quote from: Kleves on January 08, 2014, 09:47:52 PMI think you're probably right about his aide's lack of motivation. I think it makes even less sense for Christie to order this. His motivation would essentially seem to be that he's an out-of-control bully that could not help himself.
It's not as if there's a shortage of needy alpha males within politics - at least Christie can safely be said to not be part of Paul Ryan's Crossfit group in Congress :lol:
But I think there is a bullying streak to him and I think he relishes confrontation. That personality is part of the appeal, but it's also a potential weakness if he ends up fighting the wrong person or if they get in the way.
Personality explains why we do things that from an outside perspective don't seem to have a good reason. People aren't rational but rationalising. There are all sorts of actions, big and small, by politicians that don't make sense objectively. I'd say it's normally because of their personality/character/self-perception.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 09:57:32 PMI've asked the group to link to any videos they're aware of that contain an example of his bullying. No takers. I've linked to a video. No attempt to defend that as an example of bullying. I wouldn't call it bullying.
Okay. Take the word bullying out of it. His love of a good fight and sort of brashness is what I've meant by him seeming from the outside (and from someone whose only reference is pop culture) quite New Jersey in style. It only travels well if you're okay with both the approach and the targets.
Sandy changed my view on him, but I always thought this style might not work in other contexts like a national election and some people may find him overbearing, rude, discourteous, or bullying.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 10:09:20 PM
But here is the next best thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/08/chris-christies-problem-is-that-hes-really-truly-a-bully/?tid=pm_pop.
Those all seem pretty tame* and/or not examples of bullying at all. Other than interactions with hecklers, the article pretty much has four examples of "bullying": "a former governor who was stripped of police security at public events; a Rutgers professor who lost state financing for cherished programs; a state senator whose candidate for a judgeship suddenly stalled; another senator who was disinvited from an event with the governor in his own district." The first two may or may not be scandals. The latter two are laughable. You could probably find similar incidents from every governor in the country. That such incidents are recounted as some of the most egregious examples of Christie's "bullying" does nothing to inspire confidence that there is any fire behind all this smoke.
*Though the article does its best to sex things up. The WaPo article says that "a New Jersey assemblyman... got a nasty note from Christie after making some relatively innocuous radio comments." The original NYT story describes the note as "a handwritten note from Mr. Christie, telling him that he had heard the comments, and that he didn't like them." That sounds pretty far from "nasty." Also funny is how the writer describes Christie telling a heckler to "keep walking" as "not typical behavior for an adult. It's definitely not typical behavior for a national politician. But it's typical behavior for a bully. In fact, it's not even very creative bullying. Anyone who's ever been a boy in an American middle school has heard "keep walking!"" Personally, I have never thought of "keep walking" as a bully's favorite insult, but YMMV.
It's possible that they're just attacking him to try and get rid of an electable Republican. After all, it's not like the Republicans have a lot of prominent non-lunatics.
Quote from: Neil on January 09, 2014, 12:07:13 AM
It's possible that they're just attacking him to try and get rid of an electable Republican. After all, it's not like the Republicans have a lot of prominent non-lunatics.
That may be true, but still irrelevant. Of course the opposing party is always going to be a harsher critic and will be happy to damage a dangerous rival, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the criticism is unwarranted. Abusing the power to spite the people for not being in your camp is a dangerous trait in democracy.
Quote from: Neil on January 09, 2014, 12:07:13 AM
It's possible that they're just attacking him to try and get rid of an electable Republican. After all, it's not like the Republicans have a lot of prominent non-lunatics.
He has his moments. Get him started on teachers, he'll be frothing at the mouth in five minutes.
Quote from: DGuller on January 08, 2014, 09:30:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2014, 09:11:43 PM
Do I need to drink a lot of kool aid to not see bullying tendencies in that video I linked?
I don't know what video you attempted to link to, but in any case, the claim wasn't about any particular video that may or may not have been cherrypicked. The claim was about a pattern of behavior, where his team is always prepared to capture and broadcast him dressing someone down, and then in effect brag about it by posting in on YouTube. That's literally building yourself up by tearing other people down, and if you take the fact in that previous sentence as a given and still don't see any bullying tendencies in that, then I'm not sure there is a way to get through, honestly.
In Nebraska that's bullying, in NJ, NYC and Boston that's just normal debate. People in the northeast are jerks and like it that way.
As political scandals go, this one is pretty weak.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 01:42:34 AM
As political scandals go, this one is pretty weak.
Yeah, I don't think the scandal in and of itself has much going for it, to be honest (though you never know where these things go). What may be significant is if it changes the perception of Christie's narrative. If "spiteful bully" becomes something that sticks over the next few years (and it will have to be bolstered by other things), that'll play somewhat differently than "forceful personality but does what's right" or whatever.
Ultimately, I think if this leads anywhere significant it'll show in the "likability" rating rather than in the "serious corrupt malfeance has been exposed".
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 01:42:34 AM
As political scandals go, this one is pretty weak.
I think if the story about the 90 year old woman who died in an ambulance is true then that changes. That would make petty political bullying have a human cost.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 01:42:34 AM
As political scandals go, this one is pretty weak.
The actual act is small potatoes, but the mindset it reveals is, well, revealing.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 01:50:00 AMYeah, I don't think the scandal in and of itself has much going for it, to be honest (though you never know where these things go). What may be significant is if it changes the perception of Christie's narrative. If "spiteful bully" becomes something that sticks over the next few years (and it will have to be bolstered by other things), that'll play somewhat differently than "forceful personality but does what's right" or whatever.
Ultimately, I think if this leads anywhere significant it'll show in the "likability" rating rather than in the "serious corrupt malfeance has been exposed".
I think it indicates how people see Christie already though. It works as a scandal because it feeds into an existing view of Christie which is that he's confrontational.
Like the story over here of a Tory cabinet minister calling a police officer a 'fucking pleb' (which may not be true) - in itself it's not actually that big a deal. The guy's former army and has a reputation for having a very short temper. But that story lives because it's about a Tory with an attitude of entitlement having a go at an ordinary person.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2014, 02:00:15 AM
I think it indicates how people see Christie already though. It works as a scandal because it feeds into an existing view of Christie which is that he's confrontational.
Yes and no. Personally, I'm not surprised that Christie would do something like this, but at the same time I didn't think he was doing things like this. My impression of Christie was that his belligerence was genuine to some extent, but also exaggerated because he found it to be a shtick that worked. He played it up as a negotiation ploy before settling for a pragmatic compromise. This scandal really makes him look like a genuine thuggish asshole.
Reading Double Down (story of the 2012 election by a couple of hacks) at the moment. The authors discuss Romney's vetting of Christie. According to one of Romney's aides, there was so much dirt on him that theer was no way he could be picked and that if Christie had stood against Mitt in the primaries, he woudl have been destroyed to the extent that he wouldn't have been able to continue as Gov.
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 04:03:59 AM
Reading Double Down (story of the 2012 election by a couple of hacks) at the moment. The authors discuss Romney's vetting of Christie. According to one of Romney's aides, there was so much dirt on him that theer was no way he could be picked and that if Christie had stood against Mitt in the primaries, he woudl have been destroyed to the extent that he wouldn't have been able to continue as Gov.
Then why didn't the Democrats do that during the last election?
Christie wasn't the nominee?
He was reelected last November.
My understainding is that the spotlight is dimmer at the state level than the national. Presumably the Dems just didn't undertake the vetting that Romney's team did when considering the veep choice.
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 06:19:42 AM
My understainding is that the spotlight is dimmer at the state level than the national. Presumably the Dems just didn't undertake the vetting that Romney's team did when considering the veep choice.
:huh: Are you arguing that Christie's opponent in the race for governor didn't scrutinize his record as well as someone who was merely looking at him as a potential running mate? That's hard to believe.
As for the scandal, it doesn't seem to me that Christie or his aides had any particular motivation to order or engage in the behavior the aides seemingly engaged in. I find the over-zealous aides scenario as plausible as the overbearing bully narrative, so don't draw any conclusions from the facts available. I think that the situation merely allows the tribal among us to take the usual tribal positions, and leaves the non-tribal among us wondering why people are reading so much more into this than the facts support. I agree, though, that this story could well be another straw on the camel's back, even if it isn't the one that beaks that back.
And Sheilbh, I am not sure that 90-year-olds dying in ambulances can be successfully elevated to full-scandal proportions. That's not exactly a shocking event.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 06:19:42 AM
My understainding is that the spotlight is dimmer at the state level than the national. Presumably the Dems just didn't undertake the vetting that Romney's team did when considering the veep choice.
:huh: Are you arguing that Christie's opponent in the race for governor didn't scrutinize his record as well as someone who was merely looking at him as a potential running mate? That's hard to believe.
I'm not arguing anything - how the hell shoudl I know? But this book certainly makes that assertion. The vetting process is described as extremely through, involving more than half a dozen staff members working full time for several months. In addition, of course, the potential candiates co-operate in the vetting process by providing responses to questionnaires etc.
The description of the veep vetting was republished in Time
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/02/the-hunt-for-pufferfish/
It's too long to cut and paste but here's the bit I was referring to:
The list of questions Myers and her team had for Christie was extensive and troubling. More than once, Myers reported back that Trenton's response was, in effect, Why do we need to give you that piece of information? Myers told her team, We have to assume if they're not answering, it's because the answer is bad.
The vetters were stunned by the garish controversies lurking in the shadows of his record. There was a 2010 Department of Justice inspector general's investigation of Christie's spending patterns in his job prior to the governorship, which criticized him for being "the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government [travel expense] rate without adequate justification" and for offering "insufficient, inaccurate, or no justification" for stays at swank hotels like the Four Seasons. There was the fact that Christie worked as a lobbyist on behalf of the Securities Industry Association at a time when Bernie Madoff was a senior SIA official—and sought an exemption from New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. There was Christie's decision to steer hefty government contracts to donors and political allies like former Attorney General John Ashcroft, which sparked a congressional hearing. There was a defamation lawsuit brought against Christie arising out of his successful 1994 run to oust an incumbent in a local Garden State race. Then there was Todd Christie, the Governor's brother, who in 2008 agreed to a settlement of civil charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission in which he acknowledged making "hundreds of trades in which customers had been systematically overcharged." (Todd also oversaw a family foundation whose activities and purpose raised eyebrows among the vetters.) And all that was on top of a litany of glaring matters that sparked concern on Myers' team: Christie's other lobbying clients, his investments overseas, the YouTube clips that helped make him a star but might call into doubt his presidential temperament, and the status of his health.
Ted Newton, managing Project Goldfish under Myers, had come into the vet liking Christie for his brashness and straight talk. Now, surveying the sum and substance of what the team was finding, Newton told his colleagues, If Christie had been in the nomination fight against us, we would have destroyed him—he wouldn't be able to run for governor again. When you look below the surface, Newton said, it's not pretty.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
:huh: Are you arguing that Christie's opponent in the race for governor didn't scrutinize his record as well as someone who was merely looking at him as a potential running mate? That's hard to believe.
Perhaps he didn't look in the right places. If Hillary had known about Rev. Wright before Super Tuesday, she'd most likely be President now. And W's DUI came out the week before the election, none of his primary opponents had both the knowledge and desire to use it.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 06:19:42 AM
My understainding is that the spotlight is dimmer at the state level than the national. Presumably the Dems just didn't undertake the vetting that Romney's team did when considering the veep choice.
:huh: Are you arguing that Christie's opponent in the race for governor didn't scrutinize his record as well as someone who was merely looking at him as a potential running mate? That's hard to believe.
Heck, even if you're just running for the local dogcatcher's office, your opponent will dig into your past to find any potentially embarrassing incident, even if they can't find anything worse than the time you got in trouble in 3rd grade for chewing gum in class.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2014, 07:41:30 AM
Perhaps he didn't look in the right places. If Hillary had known about Rev. Wright before Super Tuesday, she'd most likely be President now. And W's DUI came out the week before the election, none of his primary opponents had both the knowledge and desire to use it.
Looking at the evidence amassed by the Romney campaign, it's all quite public except for the bits about Christie's brother. Now, none of it seems particularly damning, and I think the idea that it would have destroyed Christie to be hilarious, but it was there. Probably his opponents didn't use it because complaining about stuff that petty would have made them look foolish. In a beauty contest like the selection of a veep candidate, that stuff can count. In an election, that stuff doesn't amount to anything.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2014, 10:39:27 PM
Okay. Take the word bullying out of it. His love of a good fight and sort of brashness is what I've meant by him seeming from the outside (and from someone whose only reference is pop culture) quite New Jersey in style. It only travels well if you're okay with both the approach and the targets.
Disagree. In both the linked videos he's not the instigator. A person who declines to cower and whimper in the face of provocation is not showing "brashness" or "New Jersey style."
Then again, I'm sure this guy thought that he could also 'destroy' Obama for Romney, so what does he know?
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 01:50:00 AM
Yeah, I don't think the scandal in and of itself has much going for it, to be honest (though you never know where these things go). What may be significant is if it changes the perception of Christie's narrative. If "spiteful bully" becomes something that sticks over the next few years (and it will have to be bolstered by other things), that'll play somewhat differently than "forceful personality but does what's right" or whatever.
Ultimately, I think if this leads anywhere significant it'll show in the "likability" rating rather than in the "serious corrupt malfeance has been exposed".
It's just gotten a hell of a lot worse for everybody involved: at least one patient died due to ambulance delay, thanks to the manufactured conditions.
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
It's still a developing story, and I don't see how it can develop positively for Christie. He's already on record mocking the suggestions that the closings were a political payback. It's not inconceivable that he would be caught in a lie there on the aftermath, even without having any involvement in the official decision. Who was behind the bogus "bad traffic study" explanation? Was Christie still being misled when that explanation was floated to the public?
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
No, but nobody's blaming the situation for her heart attack. Just the delay in treatment. If it comes out that the delay was the major contributing factor in her death, that's good enough for criminal charges.
Of course, being good enough and something being done about it are two completely different beasts, since a 91 year old doesn't make a perfectly sympathetic victim. Shame it wasn't a 21-year-old mugging victim.
Actually, you know what? I'm out. Your selective apathy is pissing me off.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
No, but nobody's blaming the situation for her heart attack. Just the delay in treatment. If it comes out that the delay was the major contributing factor in her death, that's good enough for criminal charges.
Sounds like a pretty big if and a far cry from your: "at least one patient died due to ambulance delay"
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
I *think* the issue was backups on the bridge ramps creating traffic jams in Ft. Lee. But that's just speculation.
I'm a little surprised Ft. Lee has a white mayor.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
Nurse Snooki just wasn't working out for her.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
Patient's choice, bed availability, specific specialists... there are actually quite a few reasons critically ill patients would be taken over the bridge- our local ambulance corps take critically ill patients into PA to go to Hahneman or Chester-Crozer all the time.
At first thought my feeling is that Christie knew about this going to happen, had his minions get this going. Why would his minions take it upon themselves for some political payback? A chance that he wasn't involved but if so, with a major roadway being tied up for hours he would have to know about it the first day and have someone check into it. Just as any Governor is in the know about an important state issue or problem. I feel that if he goes the denial route then he's just pulling an Obama on the various scandals afflicting his admin, many of them much worse than NJ's highway gate. IRS, AP/Fox spygate, and others. Difference will be if the Repubs circle the wagons around Christie and I tend to doubt, and hope not, that he'll get very much cover and excuses from Repub pols and conservative news for this kind of crap, especially as they've been slamming Pres Obama and the Dems on similar type things.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 01:42:34 AM
As political scandals go, this one is pretty weak.
I think it's pretty serious that someone would order something that would directly harm thousands of their constituents (and their children - a new school year was starting) in order to get revenge against a local elected official over a trivial political slight.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2014, 09:49:12 AM
I *think* the issue was backups on the bridge ramps creating traffic jams in Ft. Lee. But that's just speculation.
That's correct. The traffic jammed up Fort Lee streets themselves. Children on the school bus weren't commuting to a school in New York either.
QuoteI'm a little surprised Ft. Lee has a white mayor.
:huh: I'm not. Ft. Lee has the biggest Russian community in New Jersey, for one.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
No, but nobody's blaming the situation for her heart attack. Just the delay in treatment. If it comes out that the delay was the major contributing factor in her death, that's good enough for criminal charges.
Of course, being good enough and something being done about it are two completely different beasts, since a 91 year old doesn't make a perfectly sympathetic victim. Shame it wasn't a 21-year-old mugging victim.
Actually, you know what? I'm out. Your selective apathy is pissing me off.
Selective apathy? My point was that it doesn't make for a particularly strong or damning case as it'll be pretty hard to prove that the delay cause said death.
It is also quite different from again what you portrayed of definitive proof that the delays caused at least one death.
Also to your point about the 21-year-old mugging victim - no, I'd prefer if no one died. :huh:
Quote from: KRonn on January 09, 2014, 09:53:18 AM
Difference will be if the Repubs circle the wagons around Christie and I tend to doubt, and hope not, that he'll get very much cover and excuses from Repub pols and conservative news for this kind of crap, especially as they've been slamming Pres Obama and the Dems on similar type things.
:lol:
Fat Boy just gave a 2 hour press conference.
Wildstein just invoked the 5th at state legislative hearings.
The committee chair said this could expose him to contempt charges, which I found interesting.
The Wolfman said all this conniving was done via the flunkies' personal email accounts, for whatever that's worth.
If he can be directly linked to the order, would that be the end of him politically?
If not, how damaged is he in terms of poor judgement in picking staff?
How's the GOP field shaping up for the primaries (or is it to early)? Any chance Daniels will run this time?
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 01:32:22 PM
If he can be directly linked to the order, would that be the end of him politically?
If not, how damaged is he in terms of poor judgement in picking staff?
How's the GOP field shaping up for the primaries (or is it to early)? Any chance Daniels will run this time?
1. After a 2 hour press conference in which he vehemently denied any knowledge, yes.
2. I think the answer to that question depends on whether you supported or opposed the guy to begin with.
3. Have not heard any other names tossed in the ring yet.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
No, but nobody's blaming the situation for her heart attack. Just the delay in treatment. If it comes out that the delay was the major contributing factor in her death, that's good enough for criminal charges.
Please don't give legal opinions.
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 01:32:22 PM
If he can be directly linked to the order, would that be the end of him politically?
He's a Republican, so yes.
QuoteHow's the GOP field shaping up for the primaries (or is it to early)? Any chance Daniels will run this time?
Lord, I wish. But I get the impression Mitch is too smart to want to do it.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:09:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
No, but nobody's blaming the situation for her heart attack. Just the delay in treatment. If it comes out that the delay was the major contributing factor in her death, that's good enough for criminal charges.
Please don't give legal opinions.
Why not?
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2014, 02:30:53 PM
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 01:32:22 PM
If he can be directly linked to the order, would that be the end of him politically?
He's a Republican, so yes.
QuoteHow's the GOP field shaping up for the primaries (or is it to early)? Any chance Daniels will run this time?
Lord, I wish. But I get the impression Mitch is too smart to want to do it.
Isn't there a story about how he took a break with his wife, and she went to live with some other dude, and then they ended their break and are a couple again? Supposedly that would get him beat up a bit.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:09:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
No, but nobody's blaming the situation for her heart attack. Just the delay in treatment. If it comes out that the delay was the major contributing factor in her death, that's good enough for criminal charges.
Please don't give legal opinions.
Why not?
Because I'm a lawyer who routinely does give opinions on whether or not charges are warranted, and we have nowhere near enough information to make that kind of assessment here.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2014, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2014, 02:30:53 PM
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 01:32:22 PM
If he can be directly linked to the order, would that be the end of him politically?
He's a Republican, so yes.
QuoteHow's the GOP field shaping up for the primaries (or is it to early)? Any chance Daniels will run this time?
Lord, I wish. But I get the impression Mitch is too smart to want to do it.
Isn't there a story about how he took a break with his wife, and she went to live with some other dude, and then they ended their break and are a couple again? Supposedly that would get him beat up a bit.
UNless she left him because he was beating on her or picking up hookers two at a time, I can't see how marital problems are a political problem...
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:46:03 PMBecause I'm a lawyer who routinely does give opinions on whether or not charges are warranted, and we have nowhere near enough information to make that kind of assessment here.
So because you are a lawyer, DSB shouldn't shoot the shit about possible criminal charges? That seems a somewhat tenuous argument.
Do you really want to go down the road of people not posting about things they aren't 100% qualified to give professional opinions about?
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:46:54 PM
UNless she left him because he was beating on her or picking up hookers two at a time, I can't see how marital problems are a political problem...
I don't know the circumstances, so it may be a political problem, but regardless it could also be a personal problem. His wife may not want to go through a zillion insinuations about her character. He may not want his family to go through that.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 02:49:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:46:03 PMBecause I'm a lawyer who routinely does give opinions on whether or not charges are warranted, and we have nowhere near enough information to make that kind of assessment here.
So because you are a lawyer, DSB shouldn't shoot the shit about possible criminal charges? That seems a somewhat tenuous argument.
Do you really want to go down the road of people not posting about things they aren't 100% qualified to give professional opinions about?
BB has taken issue with DSB making legal claims on many occasions. I suppose the latter's dilettantism could be grating if it was taken place in one's field.
Jacob should cool his heels in gaol IMHO.
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 02:49:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:46:03 PMBecause I'm a lawyer who routinely does give opinions on whether or not charges are warranted, and we have nowhere near enough information to make that kind of assessment here.
So because you are a lawyer, DSB shouldn't shoot the shit about possible criminal charges? That seems a somewhat tenuous argument.
Do you really want to go down the road of people not posting about things they aren't 100% qualified to give professional opinions about?
Shooting the shit is fine. It's what we do. DSB was far more conclusive in his opinion than that.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:54:58 PM
DSB was far more conclusive in his opinion than that.
:huh: He's always conclusive in his opinion, even when he's not wrong.
What's the point in knowing everything if you can't share that fact with others?
No one knows everything. At least I hope no one knows everything.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2014, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 02:46:54 PM
UNless she left him because he was beating on her or picking up hookers two at a time, I can't see how marital problems are a political problem...
I don't know the circumstances, so it may be a political problem, but regardless it could also be a personal problem. His wife may not want to go through a zillion insinuations about her character. He may not want his family to go through that.
Which sort of takes us back to my point that he's probably too smart to run.
Quote from: fhdz on January 09, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
Nurse Snooki just wasn't working out for her.
Different part of Jersey.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
Patient's choice, bed availability, specific specialists... there are actually quite a few reasons critically ill patients would be taken over the bridge- our local ambulance corps take critically ill patients into PA to go to Hahneman or Chester-Crozer all the time.
My understanding is that in case of heart attacks, they take you to the nearest hospital, period. Though I could be wrong about that.
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2014, 06:27:18 PM
My understanding is that in case of heart attacks, they take you to the nearest hospital, period. Though I could be wrong about that.
Under normal circumstances, yeah, but an ambulance crew's supervisor can make limited judgment calls in situations where roads are impassible or the nearest hospital has no beds available.
Also, Beeb, get your panties out of your crack. I'm thinking out loud on a somewhat-unruly Internet forum. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I often am, but you don't have to be a dick about it. Also, I'm beginning to think you guys take my posts far more seriously than I intend them to be taken. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 09, 2014, 03:38:06 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 09, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
Why would anyone be trying to transport a critically ill patient from New Jersey to New York anyway?
Nurse Snooki just wasn't working out for her.
Different part of Jersey.
I know. Not a lot of thought went into the joke, as you can see. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 09, 2014, 07:56:08 PM
I'm thinking out loud on a somewhat-unruly Internet forum.
QuoteIf I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I often am, but you don't have to be a dick about it.
:hmm:
Beeb has to be a dick about it. It comes with the pleats.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
If a politician's defence is that the elderly woman would have died anyway, then I think they've got a problem.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:33:09 AM
Is the only person that 91 year old woman? Is cardiac arrest uncommon in someone that age?
If a politician's defence is that the elderly woman would have died anyway, then I think they've got a problem.
A politician would never say that. However, when ones is adamantly trying to prove that a politician is culpable, one shouldn't highlight a very old woman who died of cardiac arrest as definitive evidence of guilt.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:55:06 PMA politician would never say that. However, when ones is adamantly trying to prove that a politician is culpable, one shouldn't highlight a very old woman who died of cardiac arrest as definitive evidence of guilt.
Why not?
A homo hates old people! News at 11!
QuoteTim being his usual Assburger self - 1 drink
:P
Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2014, 10:05:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2014, 09:55:06 PMA politician would never say that. However, when ones is adamantly trying to prove that a politician is culpable, one shouldn't highlight a very old woman who died of cardiac arrest as definitive evidence of guilt.
Why not?
It isn't very clear cut. Not on the culpability of the politician in the act or that the old person died as a result of the act.
Quote from: katmai on January 09, 2014, 10:12:27 PM
A homo hates old people! News at 11!
I think you'll need to pick a position. You can't claim that I party too much in Palm Springs on one hand but then say I dislike old people on the other. ;)
I have never been one for rational thinking, and like hell if i'm starting now!
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2014, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2014, 02:30:53 PM
Quote from: Gups on January 09, 2014, 01:32:22 PM
If he can be directly linked to the order, would that be the end of him politically?
He's a Republican, so yes.
QuoteHow's the GOP field shaping up for the primaries (or is it to early)? Any chance Daniels will run this time?
Lord, I wish. But I get the impression Mitch is too smart to want to do it.
Isn't there a story about how he took a break with his wife, and she went to live with some other dude, and then they ended their break and are a couple again? Supposedly that would get him beat up a bit.
She divorced him and left him with the kids to set up with a married guy who left his wife and kids for her. After a year or two, she got divorced again and re-married Daniels. According to the double-down book, she vetoed him standing in 2012 and their kids were dead set aganst it too.
The story seems to have legs.
I suspect the important part is not how culpable Christie may or may not be personally, but the fact that it makes such a good story about petty, vindictive jack-in-office oppression by officials who literally do not give a shit about the public they claim to serve - of which the public suspects there is much about that we have no evidence for.
Quote from: PDH on January 09, 2014, 09:20:37 PM
Beeb has to be a dick about it. It comes with the pleats.
With pleats come much responsibility.
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 09:33:25 AM
officials who literally do not give a shit about the public they claim to serve
Are there any other kinds of public officials? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on January 10, 2014, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 09:33:25 AM
officials who literally do not give a shit about the public they claim to serve
Are there any other kinds of public officials? :hmm:
In many parts of the world, yes.
Sucker.
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2014, 01:42:05 PM
Sucker.
You guys sound like a bunch of basement dwelling teenage goths; you're sure you've figured out how the world is just totally rotten and aren't you awfully clever.
Quote from: Caliga on January 10, 2014, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 09:33:25 AM
officials who literally do not give a shit about the public they claim to serve
Are there any other kinds of public officials? :hmm:
They can at least have the decency to convincingly pretend otherwise. ;)
Of course, in New Jeresy, contempt for the public may be difficult for a rational person to conceal. :P
But seriously ... there do exist honourable public servants with the best wishes of the public at heart. Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2014, 02:00:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2014, 01:42:05 PM
Sucker.
You guys sound like a bunch of basement dwelling teenage goths; you're sure you've figured out how the world is just totally rotten and aren't you awfully clever.
:D
He has at heart what he thinks are the public's best wishes, Malt.
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
A Machiavellian prosecutor who wants to lock everybody in his jurisdiction in gaol?
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
A Machiavellian prosecutor who wants to lock everybody in his jurisdiction in gaol?
If you'll remember the original source, my "Machiavellian plan" was to send repeat drunk drivers to jail. :(
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
A Machiavellian prosecutor who wants to lock everybody in his jurisdiction in gaol?
... where they can do no harm to society. :)
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
If you'll remember the original source, my "Machiavellian plan" was to send repeat drunk drivers to jail. :(
You monster!
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2014, 02:00:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2014, 01:42:05 PM
Sucker.
You guys sound like a bunch of basement dwelling teenage goths; you're sure you've figured out how the world is just totally rotten and aren't you awfully clever.
Ouch!
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
A Machiavellian prosecutor who wants to lock everybody in his jurisdiction in gaol?
If you'll remember the original source, my "Machiavellian plan" was to send repeat drunk drivers to jail. :(
What is: "jail"?
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
But seriously ... there do exist honourable public servants with the best wishes of the public at heart. Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
I've been accused of being naive before, but I actually believe that most people in public service, and this includes most politicians, honestly and truly do in fact have what they perceive as the best interests of the public at heart.
The struggle is that in order to serve the best interests of the public, you have to be in power to do so - and sometimes that process of getting into power means that you have to put aide what you may see as the short term best interests of the public in order to serve the political realities of needing to win elections, get funding, etc., etc.
And the longer you spend in that world, the easier and easier it likely becomes to set aside those best interests in the interests of the "greater good" which then involves making sure you get re-elected, or elected to a yet higher office.
But I think most of them, even the ones that I vehemently disagree with, do believe that they are acting in the best interests of their country.
And as a result, I bear a special kind of contempt for politicians who are clearly ignoring the interests of the people to simply score political points in the political game.
I totally agree with you Berkut for what its worth.
Same here. By the same token, the road to hell is paved with ethical shortcuts for the greater good.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Same here. By the same token, the road to hell is paved with ethical shortcuts for the greater good.
Indeed.
There is nobody more dangerous to individual liberty than the person who is willing to restrict your's because they really do believe they are doing it for your own good.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 10, 2014, 02:02:07 PM
But seriously ... there do exist honourable public servants with the best wishes of the public at heart. Hey, we have our very own BB. :)
I've been accused of being naive before, but I actually believe that most people in public service, and this includes most politicians, honestly and truly do in fact have what they perceive as the best interests of the public at heart.
It's comforting to know that they are complete morans.
Quote from: Berkut on January 10, 2014, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Same here. By the same token, the road to hell is paved with ethical shortcuts for the greater good.
Indeed.
There is nobody more dangerous to individual liberty than the person who is willing to restrict your's because they really do believe they are doing it for your own good.
:huh: That's not an ethical shortcut, that's an ideological stance.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Same here. By the same token, the road to hell is paved with ethical shortcuts for the greater good.
Do you think it's a shorter route than ethical shortcuts for personal gain?
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2014, 04:30:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Same here. By the same token, the road to hell is paved with ethical shortcuts for the greater good.
Do you think it's a shorter route than ethical shortcuts for personal gain?
No, it's just that my point was that a lot of people we consider bad and rotten started out with good intentions (but yes, some were psychopaths to begin with). It's just that the process of taking ethical shortcuts can rot you, and make you indistinguishably bad from the natural-born scumbags.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:34:48 PMNo, it's just that my point was that a lot of people we consider bad and rotten started out with good intentions (but yes, some were psychopaths to begin with). It's just that the process of taking ethical shortcuts can rot you, and make you indistinguishably bad from the natural-born scumbags.
That's fair enough.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:34:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2014, 04:30:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2014, 04:08:00 PM
Same here. By the same token, the road to hell is paved with ethical shortcuts for the greater good.
Do you think it's a shorter route than ethical shortcuts for personal gain?
No, it's just that my point was that a lot of people we consider bad and rotten started out with good intentions (but yes, some were psychopaths to begin with). It's just that the process of taking ethical shortcuts can rot you, and make you indistinguishably bad from the natural-born scumbags.
All the King's Men (the 1950s movie) dealt very well with that. It's one of my favorite films.
I agree with Berk too. I liked this piece on 'strong leaders':
QuoteThe Chris Christie scandal proves it: strong leaders are dangerous
The disgrace of New Jersey's Republican governor shows how political strength can fast become bullying – or worse
Friday 10 January 2014 20.01 GMT 44 comments
Chris Christie (second left) with his deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly last year. 'For a while, Republicans especially liked the fact that Christie seemed more Goodfellas than West Wing.' Photograph: Handout/Reuters
Jonathan Freedland
You can learn a lot about a country from its scandals. In Britain we have Plebgate, revived today by a police officer's admission that he was lying when he said he'd seen Andrew Mitchell raging at protection officers manning the gates of Downing Street. At the heart of the scandal was class, a posh Tory cabinet minister accused of calling salt-of-the-earth coppers "plebs". What it's about now is the disgrace of yet another once-trusted British institution: the police. Both things say much about this country, about how it's always been and how it is now.
In France the scandale du jour is, naturally, sexual, with President Hollande photographed apparently making overnight visits to the home of an actress. To add to the exquisite Frenchness of the affair, the presidential security detail reportedly arrived to pick him up in the morning bearing a bag of croissants. Press disclosure of the romance hints at changing French attitudes to sex and privacy.
Meanwhile in the US, the great scandal rocking the republic centres on ... traffic cones in New Jersey. There's no denying the comic aspects of the trouble now imperilling the state's Republican governor, Chris Christie, and – accounting for wider interest in the story – his presidential ambitions for 2016. It's a tale that could be a Sopranos pastiche, the governor's aides shutting off access to the nation's busiest bridge, creating four days of traffic chaos, just to punish a local mayor who had refused to back Christie's bid for re-election. But this provides more than an amusing insight into the hardball nature of New Jersey politics. It also says something about what we want in our leaders, here as much as in the US – and why we might be getting it wrong.
Start with Christie himself. Political scientists might study his Thursday press conference for years to come. He went long, standing by the podium for a full 108 minutes, deploying a technique familiar to fans of the West Wing. Talk until the reporters are begging for release. That way you can claim you've been candid: after all, you've addressed every possible question.
There are downsides, chiefly the risk of revealing more of yourself than you intended. Christie's performance showed him to be magnificently self-absorbed. He, rather than the people of Fort Lee, whose town was traffic jammed into paralysis, was the real victim, lied to by his "deceitful" staff. To long-serving allies, he all but announced, "You're dead to me". He denied that one key figure, a high school chum, had been anything of the sort. "You know, I was the class president and athlete. I don't know what David was doing during that period of time."
More risky, Christie made the classic error of turning what should be an end to questions into an invitation for more. By insisting he knew nothing of his aides' vengeful traffic scheme – serious because when politicians use government machinery to hurt their enemies it reeks of Richard Nixon – he's put a major bounty on any proof to the contrary.
More dangerous still, he promised that this action was the "exception, not the rule". On that score he is far more vulnerable. Even before "bridgegate", Christie was dogged by stories of punishment inflicted on those who had dared cross him – including a former governor suddenly stripped of police protection and an academic who lost state funding for his research.
This is now Christie's problem: that he will be seen as a bully with a gangster's approach to politics. The irony is that that's not so far from the image the Christie team had been cultivating for the would-be president. Opponents now frantically posting videos of Christie bellowing at and humiliating members of the public did not have to look very hard. Until this week, his team would eagerly post them, on the governor's own YouTube channel, regarding them as a source of pride. They were held to be proof of his tough, no-nonsense style, a refreshing alternative to the timid, focus-grouped political herd. But what was hailed as his greatest strength is now his greatest liability.
And strength is the key word. "Strong leader" is the medal every politician wants on his chest, pinned there by the voters. Those who have succeeded – Thatcher, Blair, Reagan – are those who've been branded strong, while weak is synonymous with failure: step forward, John Major. No matter what else the polls say, Conservative strategists draw comfort from the data showing David Cameron trumping Ed Miliband on the "strong leader" measure.
Yet the Christie affair suggests our desire for strength is a complicated business, that we want it but only up to a point. For a while, Republicans especially liked the fact that Christie seemed more Goodfellas than West Wing, happy to intimidate teachers or tell a disgruntled voter to "keep walking" (unless, one presumes, the voter wanted to get hit). But when that machismo turns into outright abuse of power, at the expense of large numbers of ordinary citizens, it loses its lustre. There is, it seems, a line that separates the muscular, decisive leader from the aggressive bully – a line Christie has crossed, to what could prove his fateful cost.
Perhaps we are already drawing the line in the wrong place. In April, the veteran political scientist and former professor of politics at Oxford, Archie Brown, will publish The Myth of the Strong Leader, suggesting we should cure ourselves of our attraction to the alpha male model of leadership. Once a dominant single individual rules, the way is paved towards "important errors at best, and disaster and massive bloodshed at worst". Brown is struck by Tony Blair's insistence in his memoirs that, when it came to the Iraq war, "the leader had to take the decision" rather than the cabinet. Brown believes this cult of the strong leader has blinded us to the successes of more collegial politicians. He cites Attlee and Truman, noting that one of the latter's greatest achievements was credited to someone else: the Marshall plan.
Strength may be what we look for in a weightlifter, but it's facile to make that the only criterion by which we judge our politicians. Instead, says Brown, we should look for "integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy and boundless energy".
While he's doing his professed "soul-searching" Chris Christie might want to run himself through that checklist and see how he's doing. And when the rest of us are next choosing a head of government, perhaps we should do the same.
Twitter: @Freedland
On the strong leaders point, I definitely have a preference for people who are able to identify, promote, and credit strong subordinates rather than ones who are all about themselves.
QuoteStrength may be what we look for in a weightlifter, but it's facile to make that the only criterion by which we judge our politicians. Instead, says Brown, we should look for "integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy and boundless energy".
While he's doing his professed "soul-searching" Chris Christie might want to run himself through that checklist and see how he's doing. And when the rest of us are next choosing a head of government, perhaps we should do the same.
OK
He's got intelligence, articulateness, shrewd judgment, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, and boundless energy.
Integrity, collegiality, a questioning mind - not enough info to go on, but I have no reason to believe he doesn't have those things.
Courage, vision, empathy - very vague terms, no reason to believe Christie is particularly deficient in any of those.
On these measures, Christie looks pretty damn good
(BTW I am not pro-Christie. Because he misses IMO on something left off the list - supporting good policy).
I'm shocked, shocked to find New Jersey politics is going on here.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/politics/christie-scandals/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
The mayor of Hoboken (who, as an added bonus, is pretty damn good looking) is claiming that the Lt. Governor told her Sandy relief funds for Hoboken were conditional on city approval for a development project the governor favored.
For those not already aware, Hoboken's claim to fame is it was the birth place of Frank Sinatra.
Good looking? Yi is off my Christmas card list.
Hey gimpy, that's the Lt. Gov.
Check out the videos in the left margin.
Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2014, 02:00:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 10, 2014, 01:42:05 PM
Sucker.
You guys sound like a bunch of basement dwelling teenage goths; you're sure you've figured out how the world is just totally rotten and aren't you awfully clever.
Hey!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 06:58:26 PM
Hey gimpy, that's the Lt. Gov.
Check out the videos in the left margin.
I've seen Hoboken chick. Horse face.
Also, her penmanship in her journal is just awful.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 06:39:02 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/politics/christie-scandals/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
The mayor of Hoboken (who, as an added bonus, is pretty damn good looking) is claiming that the Lt. Governor told her Sandy relief funds for Hoboken were conditional on city approval for a development project the governor favored.
For those not already aware, Hoboken's claim to fame is it was the birth place of Frank Sinatra.
:x Woof.
She looks better straight on! :ultra:
Straight on into those crazy eyes.
Damn, Yi. You're off the mark sometimes, but you just bombed the fuck out of an Afghani tribal wedding on that one.
The tribal elders have spoken. Yi is expelled from the tribe.
No way, Yi is the perfect wingman - able to take out the uggs while leaving the juicier targets.
OK, she looks like hell.
:weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 08:51:41 PM
OK, she looks like hell.
:weep:
Next time, don't argue with me. I am the grand arbiter of beauty.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 08:53:57 PM
Next time, don't argue with me. I am the grand arbiter of beauty.
I thought you were confusing the spherical Lt. Governor with the mayor. Honest mistake.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 08:56:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 08:53:57 PM
Next time, don't argue with me. I am the grand arbiter of beauty.
I thought you were confusing the spherical Lt. Governor with the mayor. Honest mistake.
I forgive you.....this time.
Jesus, Yi. This is attractive to you? :wacko:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fww3.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F25%2F72%2F02%2F5742746%2F3%2F628x471.jpg&hash=5d8f13508736e46efbbc3689dfc8429d4e9bba16)
Look Wigger, I had one quick look at her on a TV across the room without my glasses, and thought she looked pretty good.
I went hunting for a good looking pic to prove gimpy wrong, and discovered she really is a bowser.
Satisfied?
I am never wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 09:43:03 PM
Look Wigger, I had one quick look at her on a TV across the room without my glasses, and thought she looked pretty good.
I went hunting for a good looking pic to prove gimpy wrong, and discovered she really is a bowser.
Satisfied?
It happens to the best of us.
Once I caught a bumping Watusi ass out of the corner of my eye and nudged my partner about it, calling Tally Ho without getting eyes-up visual verification.
Imagine everybody's surprise I was scoping out 13 year old asses.
Never heard the end of that one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2014, 09:46:33 PM
Once I caught a bumping Watusi ass out of the corner of my eye and nudged my partner about it, calling Tally Ho without getting eyes-up visual verification.
Imagine everybody's surprise I was scoping out 13 year old asses.
Siege thought she was too old and too fat.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2014, 09:48:26 PM
Siege thought she was too old and too fat.
Watusi? You're probably right.
Also, too black.
13 or not, could've rested a beer bottle on top of that ass and never see it fall.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 09:43:03 PM
Look Wigger, I had one quick look at her on a TV across the room without my glasses, and thought she looked pretty good.
I went hunting for a good looking pic to prove gimpy wrong, and discovered she really is a bowser.
Satisfied?
Jesus, your glasses must look like a pair of magnifying lenses.
Stop Yi Shaming Now! :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview2%2F1199551%2Fleave-britney-alone-o.gif&hash=dd6fa3e455941ae4971ea23c0d57cfebd81871d7)
"Leave Yi alone!"
Under certain angles and lightning conditions* I can see that woman looking attractive.
*almost complete darkness