Well, he has to come up with a better reason for fucking up the traffic in Fort Lee. Shutting lanes for a traffic study? It doesn’t work that way. If it wasn’t political retribution, what was it? And if it WAS political retribution, that disqualifies him from office.
Last I checked Politics do not work this way. It would be better if they did, but lets face it, they do not.
Got a logical reason for closing 2/3 of the lanes from Fort Lee onto the George Washington Bridge? And for doing so on the first day of school? And specifically ordering the bridge authority NOT to breathe a word of it to anyone? Christie has a lot to answer for here. Funny how the guy who ordered the closing resigned- looks like he fell on the sword for his old high school chum. What Christie needs to do is say that his men did something foolish without his knowledge. If he keeps trying to cover this up, it’ll do him in just like it did Tricky Dickie.
How does this hurt Ft. Lee’s mayor exactly?
It sounds more like a dumb plan than political maneuvering to me.
I find it hard to believe that Christie would be so stupid (and ineffective; this wouldn’t really prove a point or get him what he wants). But, readying the article, it does sound suspicious. If Christie did order this, I think people would punish him for it. I’m still skeptical.
What is baffling about the story and demands a full investigation is why would they do this? Take perfectly good lanes and just not use them and make sure that nobody finds out about it in advance. Intentionally mess up traffic in an entire city, putting people’s lives in jeopardy, and for what purpose? To make the town angry with the mayor? There just isn’t an innocent explanation here.
Nobody’s going to investigate anything. It’s just not a big enough deal. Christie will just give a big Fuck You to any reporter who asks, and the state will just write it off as missed communications.
It’ll be interesting to see where this goes from here. Seemingly minor incidents are blown up to major failings because they are taken as shorthand symbolism for the entirety of the way people feel about a politician.
But nobody knows in advance which minor incidents get treated in this way. I’m not making any predictions about this one. Just saying that if it does get legs it will be because people use it as a symbol of a petty, vindictive politician not because it is or isn’t intrinsically important.
I think it will have some legs. The state assembly needs to get the recently-quitting but still drawing six figures David Wildstein under oath and get him to say what went through his mind when he ordered the closing and why he told bridge officials to keep the planned closing secret. Now I would expect him to fall on his sword for Christie and give him deniability. If Wildstein was just a loose cannon, damage to Christie will be minimal. But if it turns out that Christie approved of the plan, then all bets are off. The point is somewhat moot- there is no danger of Christie getting the nomination anyway.
I put this firmly in the wait-and-see category. Even facts that should be easy to come by are pretty sparse in what I’m reading there. For instance, one of the people involved is a police officer named “Licorice”, but nobody knows how his name is spelled? How is that not known?
This story should either become clear (one way or another) within a week, or fade away to nothing in the same time.
Waaaaay too early to say, but I have my doubts that Christie will (a) wear well with the American public for the next three years, and (b) appeal to the very conservative GOP primary and caucus electorate in early 2016.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
[QUOTE=bup]
No, but they can change the rules for the nomination process. If they want the nominee to be Christie, it’ll be Christie.
[/quote]
What do you think they’re going to do? Stop the far right from voting?
[/quote]
GOP Having Meetings to Reconfigure Nomination Process
I didn’t think I’d get vindication so soon. In 2013 they’re talking about how to change the nomination process in 2016.
The changes they’re planning are to protect moderates.
This move has some backfire potential. If it is brazenly set out to protect moderates (ie cut out the Tea Party candidates) the Tea Party guys could conceivably head out on their own. If the goal is to anoint Christie, they might end up with Christie and Paul vs the Democratic candidate.
This, perhaps?: Dear Romney Campaign, This Is How You Make a Venn Diagram - The Atlantic
Yup, looks like he said it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/15/romney-obama-won-votes-due-to-promise-gifts/
John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s very good campaign book Game Change makes it clear that the McCain brass’s internal polling showed that if Pawlenty were picked, McCain would lose. It was a “safe choice” and wouldn’t shake up the dynamic of the campaign enough for McCain to overcome Obama’s by-then-substantial lead. They turned to Palin as a potential running mate in near-desperation, and gave her a very cursory and rushed vetting; the rest is history.
The story goes that JFK, flying on Air Force One, was jokingly asked by a reporter what would happen if the plane crashed. Kennedy thought for a moment and said, “Your name would be in the paper the next day, but in very small print.”
Ugh, never mind. Taking this to the pit.
You want loud? Manowar. Accept no replacement.
Okay, okay. Topic.
Rand Paul would be a decent pick, wouldn’t he? He’d certainly have the conservative bend to get through the primaries (and the heartless, callous, stupid streak necessary). Plus he stands very little chance of winning the general election, because, well, heartless, callous, and stupid.
If Christie is nominated he will get an extreme amount of scrutiny, far more than he ever has had in his life. Remember that all you need is a few strikingly offensive stories that cement on-the-fence voters’ sneaking suspicions, and I think Christie is a sure bet to provide them. Clinton has already gone through her trial by fire and successfully come out the other side. I feel fairly safe in predicting that a vindictive power-hungry blowhard with a long history of dirty politics, like Christie, will be crisped in the process.
I still think he’s the guy to beat, but you may be right. I overheard a group of old folks in my rural western state talking about how they didn’t care for Christie because he’s “too loud and pushy.” I know that’s anecdotal, but he does seem to rub a lot of midwesterners and southerners the wrong way.
I like Christie and his willingness to reach outside his party to help his state. He could be a good President. But he is thin skinned and takes criticism personally. I can’t see him surviving a long election without blowing up.
I think that is going to be accurate, but honestly he will not do well in the primaries of those states either based on his relative moderate positions compared to those that vote in Republican Primaries in the south and midwest. If he can win the primary battle, it will be by winning what are basically the Blue states. If he wins all the Blue States and those like Florida and Penn, I am pretty sure he can get the nomination over a Tea Party darling or the like.
The problem there is that even in the blue states the republican primary electorate can be extreme, or at least problematic for a moderate candidate.
In 2012, early in the game a candidate more extreme that Romney - who, other than Huntsman, was the moderate candidate - either won or took a strong second in:
Florida
Colorado
Missouri
Minnesota
Maine
Michigan
Washington
Later these swing or blue states had Romney lose or have a strong second:
Ohio
Virginia
Illinois
Hawaii
After that it was largely over with Romney the clear long-term winner. Still, past that there was a strong primary showing for more extreme candidates in:
Maryland
Wisconsin
Delaware
Rhode Island
That was with Romney playing a more-extreme-than-usual card to try to win primary votes. Christie will have trouble in some of those states without that tactic. If he does take that tactic it’ll make it easier for the D candidate to knock him around in the general. It’s a conundrum for whomever becomes the R candidate, frankly.