Post: #1

tl;dr - Appears that his team ordered closure of some roads. Resulting in long traffic delays. Analysts think it is over petty politics that a local mayor did not give him his endorsement when Christie ran for re-election. Apparently, a 91 year old women died because she could not receive medical assistance in a timely manner.

Just curious what you guys think? I like his style, he has a bit of a thug thing about him. He isn't perfect but I was slightly pleased to see him welcome Obama during Sandy.

Article below.

http://nypost.com/2014/01/08/e-mails-rev...-closures/

Chris Christie’s top aide ordered crippling rush-hour lane closures at the George Washington Bridge to get back at the mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to back the Jersey governor’s re-election bid, damning e-mails revealed Wednesday.

Christie, who had long denied foul play by his staff in the traffic mess, was not “cc’d” in the e-mails and claims that his closest, most trusted appointees kept him out of the loop on the plot.

“I am outraged and deeply saddened to learn that not only was I misled by a member of my staff, but this completely inappropriate and unsanctioned conduct was made without my knowledge,” he said in a written statement after canceling his only public appearance on Wednesday.

“What I’ve seen today for the first time is unacceptable.”
The Christie aide at the center of “Bridgegate” is his deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, who requested the lane closures in an August e-mail to Christie-appointed Port Authority executive David Wildstein.

“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” she wrote.
“Got it,” Wildstein replied.

Two of three on-ramps to the bridge were closed during the morning rush from Sept. 9 to 12 — the first days of the new school year — causing hours-long backups on the streets of Fort Lee.
The delays were aimed squarely at Democratic Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, who snubbed Christie’s request for a bipartisan endorsement.

When Sokolich complained in phone calls to the PA, Kelly asked Wildstein in an e-mail if anyone returned his calls.
“Radio silence,” he replied.

On the second day of lane closures, a sender whose name is redacted wrote Wildstein, “I feel bad about the kids.”

He replied, “They are the children of Buono voters” — referring to Democrat Barbara Buono, whom Christie defeated easily in the November gubernatorial election.

The lane closures were halted after four days by a PA official appointed by New York Gov. Cuomo.

Wildstein reacted in an e-mail, saying the Christie-appointed PA chairman, David Samson, “is helping us to retaliate” against the New York officials.

The PA blamed the surprise lane closures on a “traffic safety pattern” study.

Christie denied any involvement and said in December that the closures were “not a big deal.”

But Wildstein and Bill Baroni — another Christie appointee to the PA — resigned as New Jersey officials investigated the traffic tie-up. Christie claimed it was unrelated.

Baroni got a letter from Sokolich on the fourth day of the closures, saying they had “wreaked havoc upon our community,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

The gridlock delayed emergency responders in four medical situations.

Ambulances were slow to get to a 91-year-old woman who lay unconscious in the street, and she later died of cardiac arrest, according to The Record of Hackensack.

A state Assembly committee hearing is scheduled for tomorrow in Trenton — and Wildstein is scheduled to testify. But Wildstein’s lawyer has filed a lawsuit to block the subpoena.

New Jersey Democrats were furious at the e-mails.

“These are terrible people and shouldn’t be in office,” Buono said.
“How dare you schedule a man-made traffic disaster in my community?” said Sokolich.

Sokolich, who is of Croatian descent, was also angry that one of the e-mails referred to him as “this little Serbian.”

Christie vowed to clean up the mess.
“One thing is clear,” he said in his statement. “This type of behavior is unacceptable and I will not tolerate it because the people of New Jersey deserve better. This behavior is not representative of me or my administration in any way, and people will be held responsible for their actions.

Post: #2

he wont sell west of NJ, just like Giuliani, hes a dead duck outside of the NY area

Post: #3

The GOP loves nominating RINOs for POTUS (e.g., McCain, Romney), but this particular northeast corridor RINO can't win the GOP POTUS nomination (at least I hope not). Too liberal and too fat.

Post: #4

(01-09-2014 01:38 PM)assman Wrote:  The GOP loves nominating RINOs for POTUS (e.g., McCain, Romney), but this particular northeast corridor RINO can't win the GOP POTUS nomination (at least I hope not). Too liberal and too fat.

That is one fat fuck. Really disgusting whenever his full girth is displayed on television, though often it's concealed from viewers.

I like his confrontational style but he's too moderate on social issues to ever appeal to the Republican base in tea party country. The kind of Republican that can win in NJ (a heavily democratic state) isn't the same kind that can win nationally. I think he's done now that this scandal has surfaced. Americans want someone who can come to DC and work with whoever. Seeing this type of vindictiveness over something as petty as a Mayor of a small city not coming out to support your election - which was a surefire victory anyway - really doesn't help one's case to run for President in the very partisan political climate that is DC.

That said, you're right in that the GOP establishment has tended to favor mild Republicans to run in presidential elections.

Even this forum, which I consider liberal or libertarian more than anything else, overwhelmingly favored Obama over Romney. Guess it was the lesser of two evils as most people here (myself included) aren't too thrilled about the guy to put it mildly.

Post: #5

(01-09-2014 02:18 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Even this forum, which I consider liberal or libertarian more than anything else

It blows my mind that a red pill forum could be liberal. Libertarian, yes, absolutely. But liberal? There is some serious cognitive dissonance going on for someone to be liberal and red pill simultaneously.

ETA: I suppose it's because there are so many guys in their 20s here, fresh out of institutions of higher liberal indoctrination (like I was in my 20s). If we did a poll that accounted for age, I'd bet we'd see a significant split by age of average position on the political spectrum.

Post: #6

He can still survive...but he will need pretty food crisis management and get out on top of this with masterful PR. I think it can be done. Whether he is electable as a nominee by the Republicans is debatable, and most likely not. But who else do they have? If Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 (and she will), who could possibly stop her? Christie has had lap band surgery so he has time to become thin; otherwise he is grotesquely obese.

Post: #7

(01-09-2014 02:23 PM)assman Wrote:  If we did a poll that accounted for age, I'd bet we'd see a significant split by age of average position on the political spectrum.

Reminds me of that popular quote:

Quote:If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain.

Post: #8

(01-09-2014 02:25 PM)Menace Wrote:  He can still survive...

I think his survival will depend on whether he's able to convince people that the appointees under him who were responsible for the bridge story were acting on their own accord and not receiving direction or support from him in carrying out that decision.

Post: #9

Since everything and everyone tends to be so partisan, it all depends on how you feel about Christie to start with. If you don't like him, you'll do your best not to forgive this. If you do, you'll pin it solely on his staff. Realistically, aides and staff are supposed to take bullets for the chief exec, but when it comes out, it reflects on the kind of people he appointed, so it's still his fault.

As far as being Red Pill and Liberal...I think people compartmentalize the personal and political. Political ideology doesn't necessarily inform all decisions people make in other phases of their lives. Also, the labels don't always fully describe what a person thinks about a majority of issues.

Post: #10

(01-09-2014 02:35 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 02:25 PM)Menace Wrote:  He can still survive...

I think his survival will depend on whether he's able to convince people that the appointees under him who were responsible for the bridge story were acting on their own accord and not receiving direction or support from him in carrying out that decision.

That seems like the only non-fatal option, but it is not without risks:
1. He's going to have to guarantee some favors for the staffers he is asking to fall on the sword for him
2. If he can't manage his staff as governor, how is he going to manage the executive branch of the federal government?
3. The culture of an organization is set at the top. Even if Christie did not explicitly direct the retaliation, underlings tend not to undertake that kind of action unless they think the boss would approve.

Post: #11

It's not Christie's fault. I don't think that he is going to be harmed by this, at least more than by his explosive and undiplomatic character. Wait and see.

As for the liberal thingie, I would instantly vote for any candidate that wanted to do a red pill thing like eliminating alimony, introducing hard upper limits on child support, strengthening the burden of proof needed for rape and domestic violence accusations, cutting funding for gender studies and similar institutions and the like. The only thing such a candidate would have to do to earn my vote would be to not be completely corrupt, racist, plain evil or capable of causing even worse damage than feminism. The fact that the Republican party is consistently failing at such an easy task is laughable. I'm sitting here itching to vote for them (or some Croatian equivalent) and they won't let me.

Granted, I used to believe in Obama as a positive force back in 2008 or so, but I have long since come around and view him as the lesser evil. Nowadays I'd probably just abstain from voting because I realize that the banks have both candidates in their pockets, so why bother.

Post: #12

I only find this interesting because Christie was the one hope who appeared to be maverick enough and yet likeable enough for moderates since he is governor of a blue state (NJ is right?). The rest of the potential candidates (from what I can tell) are hardcore that would struggle in a national election.

I guess the republicans are just going to have to work harder to fuck with voting laws to ensure that minorities can't vote. etc. I don't want the laws to be fucked with, I think every citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of arty affiliations. But without a mass appeal candidate, Republicans need to shrink the eligible voting population and make sure their team turns out.

There is almost another 15 months or so before it starts to get heated up if my math is right. I can only imagine the ads that will come out to hammer him about this. Plus, the fatality of the elderly lady - I am sure some lawsuit and grieving family will generate a lot of publicity.

Post: #13

(01-09-2014 02:45 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Nowadays I'd probably just abstain from voting because I realize that the banks have both candidates in their pockets, so why bother.

You should still vote.

Welcome to the libertarian party.

Post: #14

(01-09-2014 03:00 PM)assman Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 02:45 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Nowadays I'd probably just abstain from voting because I realize that the banks have both candidates in their pockets, so why bother.

You should still vote.

Welcome to the libertarian party.

I'd love to, but the last libertarian candidate around here (as far as monetary system was concerned) was a clown who said live on TV that he is only running to get diplomatic immunity so he could cause scandals in Brussels. Plus, he said he was for feminism with all his heart because women were too oppressed and feminism was liberating them.

If I were in the USA, sure, I'd vote for that last libertarian guy, despite thinking that he is poor at selling his message.

Post: #15

This is good. I don't care for Chris Christie. This should give an opening for Rand Paul.

Post: #16

2014 is a week old. The average voter can barely remember what happened two weeks ago. Christie may not ultimately win the GOP nom, but it won't be because of this.

Some may disagree, but the days when the GOP could win a national election are over. The demographics simply aren't there for them to win anymore. Shrinking middle class, fewer families, more immigrants have killed their electorate base. The Dem nominee has to actively lose the race AND the GOP nominee has to be of a more moderate variety, particularly on social issues.

For the GOP, just getting the right candidate in place will be difficult enough though.

Post: #17

This is pretty inside baseball, but very plausible to anyone who watches politics closely. Rachel Maddow posits that it's about judges, and she makes a very good argument in terms of timing (especially) and other circumstances.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...1611971764

You can watch the whole thing if you're not familiar with the details so far, most relevant passage begins at 10:30.

Post: #18

Besides using the word muscular in reference to Christie, Brit Hume delivers a good assessment of the culture.

Post: #19

He's an idiot for hiring a stupid bitch to begin with. I understand politically he has to have a woman or two around, but for God's sake don't give them any real power or have them be in a position to bring you down.

That kind of incompetence is what loses my vote.

Post: #20

Taking down someone in politics these days is about a thousand cuts; no longer the "one big" scandal.

This story doesn't take Christie down but it solidifies the narrative about him permanently. Christie's a big fat bully.

He will never be able to shake that anymore.

If I were an adviser to Christie I would tell him to spin that narrative rather than attack it; the scandal will be forgotten but not the narrative.

Also, expect there to be one or two more scandals headed his way; this will open up an avalanche of shit the Dems had waiting.

Post: #21

(01-09-2014 02:45 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  As for the liberal thingie, I would instantly vote for any candidate that wanted to do a red pill thing like eliminating alimony, introducing hard upper limits on child support, strengthening the burden of proof needed for rape and domestic violence accusations, cutting funding for gender studies and similar institutions and the like.

Those are mostly state issues over which the federal government has no authority. Any red pill candidate would say exactly that: "Those are states rights issues over which an already intrusive federal government should not tread."

Post: #22

(01-09-2014 09:05 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  This is good. I don't care for Chris Christie. This should give an opening for Rand Paul.

I do not like Chris Christie either. Rand Paul is also my first pick.

But we must also be fair. As it stands right now, Chris Christie did not do anything wrong. A staffer did.

Just today, following a months-long investigation led by an Obama contributor, the FBI announced that it does not plan to file criminal charges related to the IRS targeting of conservative Tea Party groups. No one in the Obama Administration is held accountable for criminal acts.

In New Jersey, however, Chris Christie mans up and takes responsibility for something that he did not do, immediately fires the person responsible, and holds a two-hour press conference disclosing everything that he knows.

Quite a difference -- and quite the double-standard.

Post: #23

(01-15-2014 12:34 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  But we must also be fair. As it stands right now, Chris Christie did not do anything wrong. A staffer did.

[...]

In New Jersey, however, Chris Christie mans up and takes responsibility for something that he did not do, immediately fires the person responsible, and holds a two-hour press conference disclosing everything that he knows.

So a staffer/set of staffers go out of their way to do something illegal for their boss

which he directly benefits from

for days

which they will not benefit from (because if Christie finds out about it and he was innocent he would fire them)

and he doesn't know a thing?

Post: #24

(01-15-2014 01:00 AM)tmason Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 12:34 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  But we must also be fair. As it stands right now, Chris Christie did not do anything wrong. A staffer did.

[...]

In New Jersey, however, Chris Christie mans up and takes responsibility for something that he did not do, immediately fires the person responsible, and holds a two-hour press conference disclosing everything that he knows.

which he directly benefits from

Are you even following the news story? How on earth did Christie benefit? It was entirely gratuitous spiteful post-election payback for a mayor not endorsing Christie. How did Christie possibly benefit?

This stuff is common. Clinton staffers vandalized the White House before George W. Bush arrived. So Clinton ordered that? Again, no benefit -- just spite.

Post: #25

Duplicate