Is Chris Christie's BridgeGate a Real Scandal?

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 10 years ago

   Just when I think politics and the talking heads of news programs can not get any sillier - along comes Bridgegate...
   
   The known facts to-date are that a Christie staffer and a Christie supporter at the Port Authority colluded to bring a little grief to the Fort Lee, NJ. mayor by closing two of three on-ramp lanes to the George Washington bridge...
   
   Chris Christie's Bridgegate Story
   
   OMG! Is Chris Christie's political career over! His presidential aspirations doomed! Should he resign as governor? Is it possible someone died from this dastardly deed?
   
   Was Christie involved? What did he know, and when did he know it?
   
   Obviously I think this is a bunch of phooey over what amounts to childish political shenanigans by a couple of shallow folks, but... I could be wrong, it could include a childish governor too! But I don't think so. I think Christie is too smart and too politically savvy to even consider a stunt like this.
   
   And... a Federal investigation already? How long did it take to get a Federal investigation of Benghazi?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Is it a scandal? Depends how he handles the press and what other scandal elsewhere takes the limelight away from the "National Enquirer" style of media we now have in this country. I guess if the press doesn't want to report the news and just news you have to begin to make it up.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip2Yg0k5w9U

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         cute link - don't you wonder about the context, the "rest of the story"?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Sure, but you have to admit it was funny!  And, unfortunately, all to common today...

            replyreport
         2. 70

            rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I recall listening to the story John Stewart was lampooning. However the specifics escape me. There was a story about the writers strike that caused the cancellation of several shows. Gretchen was commenting on how they cope on their show.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               That sounds about right. But wilderness is also right it was funny. As long as folks remember they were talking about commentary segments - not hard news segments. (I hope LOL)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I hope also. But given the current penchant for people to quote the opinions of newscasters as fact, it has become increasingly difficult to promote any meaningful debate on topics as they cloud the issues with conjecture and misunderstandings. I am frustrated by the news reporters failed attempts to inform as they carry on with a story that doesn't express the facts but rather the meaning of what happened. Most times I don't know the when, where, what or who of a story but the reporter is clear as to the "why" as their thrust. I don't want the "Cliff Notes" of the story but I want a credible report of the story itself. Most news is now a "National Enquirer" wow story that is meant to be more provocative rather than informative. The big scoop sometimes proves to become the big dump.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     You are right, even to the point that at times, and in comparison, the National Enquirer is seen as a credible source.
                     
                     Regarding the Christie "scandal," at this point there appears to be no credible evidence he was linked to the bridge fiasco, yet that was the first screaming headline every news segment I saw led with.
                     
                     He may be involved, but rather than lead with facts, they lead with ratings-grabbing speculation. And, as you say, too many people hear just that, and that is the information that forms their opinions.
                     
                     I reject that type of speculation until it is proven. Like CMerritt, I think Christie is much too savvy to pull such a dumb stunt. My opinion is that this antic was instigated by a staffer that thought they were just soooo smart and clever and full of self-importance, and watches too much TV. Aided by an ardent Christie supporter with the same issues.  They both deserve the fullest measure of retribution.
                     
                     But look at the disservice the newscasters are doing for the public whose life does not allow them, (or they are too lazy to pursue), the time to look for validation of what they hear.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I absolutely concur. I have railed against the news media for years with the lack of competent and responsible reporting. I can't believe anyone would accept the news coming from a newspaper when the newspaper endorses someone for their candidacy. Talk about bedfellows! Funny how it is like appointing or electing a judge who only approaches a verdict from a certain slant or point of view. Opps! We already do that.
                        
                        The founders of our constitution realized in order to have any semblance of fairness and competence in electing and making correct decisions, it would have to rely on free speech or should I dream an impartial press. Those that practice this in the press soon find themselves unwanted and unemployed.

                        replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A quick comment in the video seems to indicate there was one death as a result.  That's not "childish political shenanigans" any more.  Actually, neither is an hours long traffic jam for what was probably tens of thousands of people.  Can you imagine what the cost of that "shenanigan" was?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Ok, take a deep breath...
         
         I have seen comments trending both ways on that "possibly" connected death. The connection to the traffic jam seems iffy, and a straw detractors are grasping. One comment from a medical person indicated it would be a stretch to tie the lady's death to the traffic jam.
         
         I am surprised you are attaching weight to that claim at this point.
         
         Sure the traffic jam issues were real. And sure it could be costly when individual time and expense is aggregated - the same as pennies can be a lot money when you add up enough of them.
         
         For now, I still call this political shenanigans by people too full of themselves. Nowhere near the level of an important political scandal involving an elected official.
         
         But I must be wrong because Pres. Obama already has the FBI and an attorney from the DOJ looking into it. How long did it take to get that kind of scrutiny of Benghazi?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I don't put much weight on the death, just note in passing that it could very well have occured were an ambulance used rather than a chopper.  When the road is virtually shut down for hours, ambulance rides are not good.
            
            And I have the same problem with these idiots as I did with the occupy people or any other "civil disturbance"; when their politics require other people to stop and take notice it has gone too far.  Maybe if people would make that connection we could put a stop to some of the nonsense.

            replyreport
   3. 78

      Credence2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well, GA, until more is known, this seems kinda of petty to me. In spite of all of this, the Governor's reaction was tempered and responsible. While I am not a Republican adherent, I think that he is the party's best chance for a comeback, and it will take a lot more than this to sour my attitude towards him.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. Of course more could come out to change my mind, but at this point I think you hit it on the head.
         
         As for Christie, I very much like what I see, but that has only been from the news. I need to look deeper to feel comfortable with my currently favorable opinion of him.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 75

   CMerrittposted 10 years ago

   I would like to think that Chris Christie is TOO smart for such of an idotic thing to do.
   
   It would be refreshing to see the media respond to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, FBI leaks, IRS scandals as they have this.
   
   IF, Christie knew about and IS involved...then screw him..and let the chips fall where they may.
   
   I think NOW is the time for the so-called republican party to stand up and point out these things and stand behind him.
   
   Maybe Christie is NOT the ideal consevative, he IS the closest thing to it, in a very liberal state.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That is the way I see it too.
      
      And if he is clean, and the Republicans don't support him - then screw them too! (although they don't appear to need much help in that area)
      
      GA

      replyreport
3. 77

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   What in the world makes any of us think this kind of "retribution" is not SOP in politics at every level in every state?
   I don't condone inconveniencing so many real people.
   But it doesn't surprise me.
   And actually the reported language used is kinda funny (and sooo Jersey-esque).
   
   What I do wonder about is who does this "scandal" hurt and who does it help?
   The jockeying toward 2016 is already starting. We all know that.
   If Christie is, as some (many?) suggest, the GOP's best hope of taking the WH in 2016, it's going to take a long, sustained campaign of discrediting to keep him out. Can never start too early, can they?
   Someone wants to paint Christie as a "bully."
   Maybe it's Hillary's people. But more than likely it's coming from his own side.
   Will this one incident be enough to keep him off the GOP ticket? I doubt it. But the seed of "Christie the bully who doesn't care what little people he hurts" is being planted. We have a loooonnnnnnggg campaign season to see it tenderly cultivated.
   Have you also seen the media interviews of Sandy victims who are still waiting for their homes to be repaired a year later?
   Now we have another "example" of Christie not really caring about his constituents.
   If Sandy was all a show and he's a mean bully don't stick, expect to see "He's too fat" (I'm not joking -- wish I was!) used.
   He's officially the biggest target right now.
   Let the shenanigans begin...
   Oh yes. MM's prediction:
   The GOP will run someone waaaayyy right of Christie.
   Then wonder why they lose again.
   

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Spot on. That is also the way I see it, and the reason I posted.
      
      Let the Christie games begin...
      
      I will call your prediction, and raise you a primary catastrophe...
      
      Christie will run in the primaries...
      The Repubs will paint him as a rino... (your prediction)
      The independents and center-right Repubs will be so disgusted with the Party's actions and offering that they will:
      1) cross the aisle and vote Dem
      2) Stay home
      
      or... 3) the catastrophe - make their disagreement with the party so public that they lose all but their extreme far-right and Tea-party base only - and lose the House too!
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Duly noted, sir.
         I agree completely with everything you've said.
         EVERYTHING.
         
         Yet to be seen if Cruz is a novelty or the perceived messiah of the party. :
         I do wonder about people who want to be elected to government so they can destroy government. If there's no more government, won't they be out of a job then?

         replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you. Lets wait and see the GOP dissect itself in public again and try to rehabilitate a candidate who they don't like again. The GOP is so scared of losing control with their subterranean TEA party segment that they lose their way and find themselves running a grafted convert to sell us a bunch of lies and misdirection. The democrats knew that and the penchant for the American voters dislike of switching to somebody they don't know. We all knew who Obama was but with the spin and ducking Romney was gyrating too, who knew what he was. Hillary is a shoe in if the GOP doesn't get it's s#*t together and establish a plausible opponent. But what else is new?

      replyreport
4. 77

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   Finishing up a (hellatious) copy project tonight I turned on MSNBC for background noise.
   Every show -- Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews -- focused on exclusively on Chris Christie, dissecting the "scandal" from every conceivable angle.
   The mayor of Fort Lee does not seem to recognize this as political retribution against him. Hmmm.
   Much speculation on whether Christie's 2016 campaign is dead in the water or not. However, apparently he could face IMPEACHMENT if a solid link is established.
   Gotta wonder who leaked this.
   And yes, Tea Party stands to benefit most, second only to Hillary (would she strike so early???)
   
   My sense is that the MSNBC folks are not emotionally invested in the outcome here, although fascinated by the story and investigations.
   However, compared to outright GLEE shown by all of them over the 47 percent tapes -- this isn't blowing their skirts up.
   
   Has anyone watched to see how Fox is covering? Just curious.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Could the impression that they are "not emotionally invested" be due to their lack of conviction that Christie will be found to have been involved?
      
      I have been following this on CNN and am surprised at the extensive airtime they have been giving it. As you say about MSNBC, CNN has also had pundits and commentators pushing almost every conceivable interpretation. They are showing a definite bias.
      
      I have always digested Fox and MSNBC with a heavy dose of skepticism, and now, (on this issue), I am finding CNN to be more biased than usual.
      
      CNN is making taking a big gamble that will blow-up in their face If. Christie is not involved.
      
      Could Christie be that big a threat to the political status quo - for both parties?
      
      ps. The "Christie games" have begun. Now his Federal Sandy expenditures are being investigated.
      
      pss. re. the above ps. - Winning Ad agency bid documents are clear that Christie/family were not initially considered to be in the ads, and, the winning bidder was found to be the low bidder - yet, CNN still featured Christie bashers that claimed the Ad agency was higher by $2 million, and only got the bid because they promised to feature Christie in these election year ads - Geesh! Shame on you CNN.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that MSNBC is almost sickly invested in this story. All of their pundits have grasped onto this story like it is the Holy Grail and thier mission is to bring it home to roost in the next election. The only one with any impartiality is Joe Scarborough. He said today that he estimates at least 45 out of the sitting Governors have participated in this type of politicking. I have to wonder where America gets the notion that our political process turns out honest upstanding public servants in such high places. With the dirty slime bag tricks and payoffs who is not to reason that the dirtiest and slimiest rise to the top? The question should not be if he knew what he knew when they say he did, but rather how is he going to handle the scandal. If he can weather this storm with enough competence he may be able to handle the Beltway Barbs of Washington.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Semi agree/semi disagree on MSNBC.
         Ed Schulz (on now) is amped about the story, but honestly, the rest seem a bit more low key than I might expect. I just heard some Democrat Ed had on who said "Well, if this is what it seems like it could be, we Democrats enabled him..." Admitting our part? How mature!!!
         
         But totally agree on
         1. Of COURSE this shit goes on in government. Ever watch the show Treme???
         2. The true test of Christie's future is not the nitty details of how far up the chain the traffic gnarling command went. It's how Christie handles the accusations.
         That's what it's always about.
         He doesn't want to be slapped with an obstruction of justice charge, now does he??!!!
         
         He's looking tired. Holding his temper thusfar, but the inconsistencies are coming out.
         Me personally: I hope he makes it through.  If for no other reason than the GOP primary debates simply won't be the same without him!

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I flip on the TV when I wake and spend about twenty minutes or so flipping through the major cable news stories to get an idea of what happened while I was asleep or the latest developments of ongoing stories. I would say at least 90% of the time it is some provocative Hollywood based scandal or a commercial for one of their sponsors products or if we get a story it rarely meets the four "W's", who,what, where and when. That always seems to get in their selling me the "why" which does not belong in the story at all. I get hardly any world news from the domestic news wh#&es so I tune into the BBC America where at least you get something from Syria or Afghanistan and not the latest weight loss craze from California. The news organizations in this country are doing us the greatest disservice we can possibly imagine. Instead of news light as it is fed to us (anybody remember the war?) we are put at ease with mindless gossip and advertising.
            
            On a different note I believe this Christie scandal will test how well he distances himself from the ordeal while not compromising his appearance of mismanaging his staff and their choices and his competency as a executive in office.

            replyreport