The rain is starting to pour for Governor Christie.
Feds investigating Christie’s use of Sandy relief funds
I look eagerly forward to the charges of “witch hunt” from the partisans.
Christmas 2014 seems to be coming quite early. About the only difference between Christie and Boss Hogg is the color of his suits. I’m wondering if there is truth to the development project angle in that it could have gone down like “Nice little project you’ve got planned there. Course, it would be nicer for you if the lanes on the GWB stayed open. There’s a little slot in my desk for you to put in your envelope while my back is turned…”
Christie’s next electoral triumph might be in getting elected cell block president.
Who is this “we” you seem to be speaking for?
You took that line out of context so I included the entire post for your benefit.
The problem with this bridge story is that there are so many unsubstanciated rumors being (deliberately?) floated in the media. MSNBC employees have suggested several theories, WSJ has a few of their own, etc, etc, etc. Some people still believe that there was an actual traffic study. There wasn’t.
The media, pundits, bloggers would rather be first than to get the story correct. They want to fill airtime/print space with something and they’ll resort to printing rumors if rumors is all they have. It’s up to you to decide if the authors of those rumors should be trusted in the future. And it’s up to you to find out who these rumor-mongers are (for future reference).
The investigation continues. Two people have been fired, the NJ legislature is conducting an investigation, and now the Feds are involved. If Christie was involved in the lane closures or the cover-up, somebody is going to rat him out. The NJ voters may or may not re-elect Christie regardless of the outcome.
At this point in time, I would like to know what actually happened, who knew what, and when they knew it. Unsubstanciated cut-and-paste media stories of other media cut-and-paste stories are pointless.
So…the publication of the actual emails and texts doesn’t count as “substantiation”?
:smack: The emails and texts have been substanciated. The fact that there was no traffic study has been substanciated. Facts are being uncovered, subpoenas have been issued, and the investigation continues.
Is there any basis in fact to MSNBC’s Kornacki or Maddow theories? Or are they just filling airtime or possibly playing politics?
I’ll wait for the state and federal investigators to uncover the truth. Unless, of course, you can supply some reason that the state and federal investigators can’t be trusted or are incompetent.
Doorhinge, did someone at Daily Kos **just make up **a story? It’s a True/False question.
That’s a lot of Christmas wishing. There’s no evidence linking Christie to having direct knowledge about the bridge closing. If he was directly involved, there’s nothing linking him to it other than speculation. In fact, the manner in which he handled the immediate firing of staff members, should sway positively with independent voters.
Since there was no cite provided at that point in time, the answer would be - I had no way of knowing at that point in time.
Your turn.
Someone at the daily kos said something about the bridge today. Is it true or do you need more information before you decide? Would it make a difference to you if the article was cut-and-paste? What if you were told that another media outlet might have published something similar?
You should really stretch first if you’re going to back-pedal that hard.
This exchange has been a perfect illustration of how politicians can survive scandals even when everything seems to point against them.
This is the argument being made:
Left: The Daily Kos had an article that said X.
Right: Why should I believe lies from the left-wing media?
Left: Because this article was quoting directly from the Wall Street Journal. Therefore you are claiming that the Wall Street Journal, not left-wing media, told the lie.
Right: I have never said anything against the Wall Street Journal. But other people at other times in other places may have told lies, although I can’t prove that.
Left: Why does that have to do with this argument?
Right: Everything. As long as I filter reality through my biases then neither facts nor logic need to make an impression. You’re offering mere facts and logic. How can that compare to my suspicions of all things left-wing and support for all things right-wing. It is impervious. An unshakable cage. From inside I will denounce you regardless of your stance.
It is beautiful in its simplicity, the current split in the culture in microcosm. Larger studies claim that the public is not really as extreme as this might indicate, because majorities actually do agree on many of the supposedly wedge issues. That’s undoubtedly true and undoubtedly irrelevant. As I said repeatedly during the last election cycle, people do not vote or support because of policy issues. They do so because of identification. doorhinge’s argument wouldn’t change substantially if the party identifications were reversed.
I’m stumped. Sure, doorhinge’s argument here seems crazy because it is. But the real issue is the bubbles and the filters and the lack of believable middle ground that both sides can accept. We need that. I suspect we’ll go smash before we can get to that point, but I’m not looking forward to it.
Why did you chose to use your strawman instead of quoting the actual posts in their proper timeline? Do you believe your altered version would be easier to launch personal attacks against?
Four months is immediate? That’s how long he took to be informed about it, in his version.
So is he simply that lazy/incurious/incompetent that he could learn about problems greatly affecting a large part of his constituency, and for several days didn’t even make a fucking phone call? That, once he knew the problem was bogus, didn’t even ask any of his own staff or his PA appointees if they knew what was going on?
To call him innocent, you also have to call him clueless. Good luck with that.
Often, a writer will offer a parody of an opinion and its supporting premises to highlight and emphasize the logical flaws that the writer wishes to focus upon.
Just to set the record straight. There was a bridge study. Emails and even a power point substantiate it.
Was it a cover for political dirty tricks? I’d say it certainly was. But the study was real.
“Since there was no cite provided at that point in time, the answer would be - I had no way of knowing at that point in time.”
In other words, just something you made up. Got it. When you make up something that turns out not to be the case, you call it a ___?
And actually, your statement is false. There was a way of knowing that this info was not “made up by Kos”, which we immediately pointed out to you.
All done with this tangent.
Funny how the only documents that mention the existence of a “traffic study” came after the fact.
May we trouble you for the business case that was produced and signed off on before the cones got broken out?
I expect Jose Rivera will be appearing before the state committee for questions. He should be an interesting witness. His one line email about the study didn’t seem too enthusiastic.
Linkedin profile.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jose-rivera/46/776/329
Even if this isn’t the specific event that kills Christie’s future, the behavior pattern it reveals will. For example, here’s the storyabout his (or, OK, that of the staff he hired) stiffing the mayor of Jersey City for similar reasons.
Making too many enemies unnecessarily is not good for business, as Tony Soprano could tell him.
Hmm. My entire point was that you refuse to acknowledge what is transparently true to every other reader here. And then you confirm that in the very next post.
Thank you! You didn’t need to do that, but it’s appreciated.
A strawman is still a strawman. Why you chose to create one is your business.