Says the guy who’s gonna vote for Hillary, and probably voted for Kerry.
I’m starting to think Romney will give it a third try. There is no Wall Street entry now that Christie has crashed and burned just like the Hindenburg. Rubio? Not really. The Wall Streeters know the Republicans are not about to nominate, let alone elect, an ethnic. So Romney jumps back in, the whackadoodles again split themselves as the un-Romney clown car, and he gets nominated again, only to be squashed by Hillary. Then in 2020, his fourth try also ends up in a landslide loss to Hillary.
You say that like it makes him appear to have poor judgement.
He can go down in history as the Republican version of William Jennings Bryan!
Too bad he’s not a lawyer. His curtain call could be a grandstanding show trial for some kind of right-wing shibboleth.
Like I said upthread, folks from northern NJ get most of their TV news from New York City and quite a few from southern NJ get it from Philadelphia. This media inattention produces scope for all manner of nonsense. If Christie wasn’t a Presidential candidate, this story might not have grown legs. Then again, Fort Lee wouldn’t have had its traffic problems under that scenario - though the mayor of Hoboken would still have been muscled.
Note again that all of this is petty corruption, however lucrative it is in practice for certain real estate developers. Not the sort of thing that attracts national attention usually.
I lived in NJ for a while and national calls to bring governance back to the states have never held a lot of attraction for me. Now you know why. Petty amateurish corruption.
The articles I’ve read say that Huckabee has the lead in the polls. Even after his “women can’t control their sexual urges” rant.
Or maybe because of it.
What, was that a campaign promise? Hell, if so, I might vote for him myself.
He probably saw the recent Shredded Wheat commercial. I blame Sandra Fluke.
Huck’s the evangelical favorite, but he has no appeal beyond that group. It’s just not enough. The Bushes have always enjoyed at least enough support among all factions of the party to be acceptable. At least before the Tea Party, anyway.
So what exactly did Wildstein say in this letter? Nothing actually. Wildstein’s lawyer began by asking Darrell Buchbinder of the Port Authority of NY/NJ to pay Wildstein’s legal fees. Wildstein’s lawyer will still get paid but not by the Port Authority. (Unless the Port Authority changes it’s mind or loses a court challenge over the issue.)
As an incentive, Wildstein’s lawyer suggested that Wildstein could/might/maybe have information about what Christie mighta/coulda/woulda/shoulda have known about the lane closings. Wildstein’s lawyer doesn’t even suggest that Christie ordered the lane closings.
The article by Kate Zernikejan of the NYT leads off with her impression that Wildstein is suggesting that this letter is somehow proof that Christie is guilty. Doesn’t really matter what Christie is guilty of, it’s sufficient to repeatedly say that Christie is guilty. The public lynching continues.
Which brings up another point. Was there an ethical, if not legal, breech of confidentiality by someone in the Port Authority for releasing this letter to the (biased) media? Wildstein’s lawyer is negotiating to get the Port Authority to pay Wildstein’s legal fees. This letter is not something that a prosecuting attorney would present in court as evidence of the Great Lane Closing scandal. Prosecutor - Your Honor, we have evidence that, during the normal course of his duties, Wildstein’s lawyer was negotiating with the Port Authority before Wildstein would testify. Judge - So what?
The media’s pssst poor performance is embareassing. If any of these so-called reporters had followed up the Dec 6-page PowerPoint presentation of the non-study study with requests and FOIA demands for the specifics of the study, it would have been painfully apparent “then” that there had been no study. Oops, it’s not their responsibility to investigate a story just because they’re reporting on it.
Well that was a fine whine.
That’s from another thread. The New York Times reported today on an email blast that Christie is sending to his buddies, basically an attack piece against Wildstein. I love it when they eat their own. It touches upon incidents from Wildstein’s childhood (Christie and Wildstein grew up together) as well as unflattering portraits of Wildstein behavior. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Another piece of the puzzle. I’ll go out on a limb here and state my tentative opinion that Wildstein is even more of a sleezeball than Christie. That doesn’t say anything about the accuracy of one statement or another though. And Wildstein has his defenders: one writer for Wildstein’s old NJ blog said that he always had his employees’ backs. That said, Wildstein is pleading the fifth at the moment and has every incentive to dangle unspecified evidence in front of the NJ investigative committee. That doesn’t imply that said evidence amounts to anything.
Pst: doorhinge. Facts, quotes, links and citations are a lot more persuasive than suppositions and blinkered complaints about media conspiracies. There’s plenty of ammo for Christie apologists in the linked NYT article for example.
ETA: Wildstein’s claims: The Noose Tightens Yet Again Around Chris Christie – Mother Jones
Of course the latest story doesn’t prove anything, but IMO, politicians aren’t entitled to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. They enjoy a public trust. They must be proactive in demonstrating their innocence when plausible accusations are made. When they stonewall, or not tell the whole truth, or get caught making something up, then that implies strongly to me that they are guilty.
And it seems to work that way for most Americans who aren’t invested in these politicians. Christie’s sinking badly in the polls.
And it’s hard to believe it’s real and not the Onion. Here’s the list:
[QUOTE=Christie’s Email]
In David Wildstein’s past, people and newspaper accounts have described him as “tumultuous” and someone who “made moves that were not productive.”
• As a 16-year-old kid, he sued over a local school board election.
• He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior.
• He had a controversial tenure as Mayor of Livingston
• He was an anonymous blogger known as Wally Edge
• He had a strange habit of registering web addresses for other people’s names without telling them
[/QUOTE]
He forgot ‘on more than one occasion, he went through the 12 items or less lane with 14 items’ and ‘back when he was in high school, there was one time when he didn’t scoop his dog’s poop when he took it for a walk.’
How Wildstein is going to survive this ruthless attack without rolling on the floor laughing, I’m sure I don’t know.
Isn’t Wildstein a Christie appointee?
Yep.
Reading my mind…
Amusingly, the article that the email cites for most of its criticism of Wildstein is titled “Ex-blogger is Christie’s Eyes, Ears in the Port Authority”. It gets cited by title three times in the two page email.
Kind of an unfortunate title to have to use for a source if your Christie trying to show that Wildstein was a loose cannon and not only implemented the scheme himself, but then hid it from CC.
But more generally speaking, the email is surprisingly amateurish as a hit-piece. You’d think Christie, of all people, would be better at going after people.
He’s not. His main tactic is to just yell “oh yeah! sez you! Idiot!”
So I find it rich that this list, aside from being absurd, also is mostly* stuff that Christie and his team would have known about before they appointed him to the Port Authority.
So … … why wasn’t it a problem for them then? It can make one think that this is yet just another example of Christie’s ineptitude in picking staff/people.
- 4 of the 5 I think, all but the web addresses thing
I think Christy’s toss of Wildstein under the bus was a big mistake. Wildstein seems to have been a major “Behind the curtain” player. If anyone knows whether Christy has bodies buried and where they are, it’s Wildstein.
(shortened for clarity)
Just to be clear, I’m not apologizing for Christie. I have no idea if Christie is guilty of ordering the lane closings. I question the lack of actual evidence presented by many in the media who then go on to repeatedly suggest that Christie MUST be guilty of the Ft Lee lane closings because something else may or may not have happened.
What “facts” are you concerned about? Actual proof that Christie is guilty of the Great Lane Closing debacle? Should the “information” being supplied by the media be questioned or should the public just accept that the media’s speculation is fact?
Wildstein’s lawyer didn’t provide any evidence that Christie ordered the lane closings. He only suggested that Wildstein might have information that Buchbinder might want to hear. Someone in Buchbinder’s office, Buchbinder himself, or someone at the Port Authority of NY/NJ responded by releasing Zegas’s letter to the media. (I’m still not sure if that is considered an ethical violation of some kind. Maybe not?)
The full 3 page letter presented by Wildstein’s lawyer, Alan Zegas, to Darrell Buchbinder, General Counsel, Port Authority of NY/NJ -