Posted on 01/15/2014 7:51:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The course is predictable. An elected official or a staffer does something that is terribly wrong, unethical, and perhaps even mean-spirited. The news media goes into hyperdrive, a legislative committee cranks up an investigation and issues subpoenas, politicians from the other party attack, and those from the miscreant’s party distance themselves as quickly as possible. The elected official is excoriated from every direction, and then talk turns to prosecution, impeachment, or—better yet—both. Last weekend, in connection with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and either “Bridge-gate” or “Jam-gate” (take your pick), we have started hearing the “P” and “I” words.
There is no question that closing down three lanes of the George Washington Bridge simply to punish the Democratic mayor and (largely Democratic) population of Fort Lee, N.J., was reprehensible and inexcusable. Two staffers were fired, and their public-service careers were presumably ruined. The trajectory of Christie’s meteoric political career has certainly been altered—perhaps significantly. All of this is totally appropriate. It wouldn’t be surprising if Christie didn’t know about the lane closures in advance. However, even if we give Christie the benefit of that doubt, he obviously created an environment within his office and administration that left the impression that such behavior was acceptable, even desirable.
Was this action impeachable? Should Christie be prosecuted? With the myriad problems facing New Jersey (and every other state, for that matter), is getting a last pound of flesh from Christie really the best use of state legislators’ time and resources? Is the level of crime, whether of the violent or white-collar nature, so low and insignificant that scandals like this are what state or federal prosecutors should be focused on—as opposed to murder, rape, mayhem, or fraud? Really?
One of the (many) things wrong with politics today is that we attempt to criminalize poor political behavior and, if given half a reason, impeach an elected official, even if he or she is term-limited. I am sure that some creative lawyer can come up with some prosecutable action taken by Christie or his administration, but is that really appropriate here? Isn’t this just another manifestation of the scorched-earth nature of American politics today? If you have an opponent on the ropes, don’t just knock them out and win the fight; go in for the kill, desecrate the body if you get a chance. Don’t hold back! Take the opportunity to get retribution for anything that person may have ever done to wrong you.
Having said that, I also have a problem with the recent story line: “The front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination is hit with a scandal.” Christie, the front-runner? Again—really? Christie indeed sat at the top of some of the polls that lay out a long laundry list of every imaginable contender (as well as some who are harder to imagine), but does that make him the front-runner? I think not.
Think for a moment who makes up the Republican Party, and most specifically the part of the GOP base that dominates the presidential nomination process. Think about the people they seriously considered for their party’s presidential nomination last time around. Think Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. Now, quickly, think Christie. Now think Sesame Street: “One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn’t belong.” It’s laughable that the party that has previously seriously considered some fairly inconceivable candidates as worthy of the GOP nomination would suddenly reverse course and head over to a center-right candidate such as Christie.
To be sure, parties sometimes reverse course, but not that easily. After the debacle of the 1964 election, when Lyndon Johnson decimated Barry Goldwater 61 percent to 38 percent, Republicans did make a move from hard right to center. Four years later, the GOP nominated Richard Nixon, who went on to win the presidency; but it took hitting rock bottom in 1964 to trigger that shift within the party. Eight years later, Nixon destroyed George McGovern by exactly the same percentages, causing Democrats to move toward the center four years later, nominating a victorious Jimmy Carter. Again, it was a wipeout that enabled each party to tell its base to shut up and sit down, that it was time to win a general election.
In a slightly different variation on the same theme, after Democrats lost the presidency in three consecutive elections—1980, 1984, and 1988—and five out of six times, they moved to the center in 1992, nominating Bill Clinton. This movement shifted the party’s fortunes, and the Democrats won two elections in a row—along with the popular vote in three consecutive contests and, in fact, five of the next six. But that successful shift took losing five out of six elections, including three in a row.
I don’t sense that “back to the drawing board” mentality in the Republican Party today, at least not strongly enough to make such a dramatic shift and nominate Christie or a Christie-like candidate. A center-right, as opposed to right-right, candidate would probably have a very good chance of winning, but that would require an attitudinal change that doesn’t seem to have happened yet, and doesn’t look likely, either.
So mark me down in the category of folks who feel that Chris Christie was not the front-runner but that this scandal makes his likelihood of winning the nomination even less likely than before. However reprehensible the actions that his staff—or possibly he and his staff—may have taken, the damage is done, and sufficient punishment has already been inflicted.
They’ll consider impeaching a white politician with one strike against him but won’t consider a black politician with over 100 strikes against him at all? Folks PC has sold us out...
“I don’t sense that “back to the drawing board” mentality in the Republican Party today, at least not strongly enough to make such a dramatic shift and nominate Christie or a Christie-like candidate. A center-right, as opposed to right-right, candidate would probably have a very good chance of winning, but that would require an attitudinal change that doesn’t seem to have happened yet, and doesn’t look likely, either.”
Christie is “center-right”? I guess that depends where you stand.
But there’s no doubt that Christie is the “picked candidate” that the MSM & Democrats would love to run against. He’s right in line with John McCain & Mitt Romney in that regard.
Right, lest go 24/7 on Christie over a few days of lane closings in NJ.
I don’t know how many Northeastern RINOs we must endure before it becomes clear that they cannot win because a) they are indistinguishable from the Dems and c) will rarely, if ever, convince the red states that they can be trusted.
mitt romney was ted kennedy without the fat and the bad haircut. chucky is insane!
Based on recent presidential elections I wouldn't count anyone out.
Jimmy Carter, a total unknown out side his state, walks into a factory an puts his hand out saying, I'm Jimmy Carter and I am running for president. A joke considering the heavy hitting dems he would have to beat for the nomination.
Bill Clinton another unknown, and the Jennifer Flowers scandal, causing many prognosticators to say "Stick a fork in him he is done.
The unknown Barack Obama getting in the race with the first potential woman president, Hillary Clinton, and getting the nomination and wrecking her coronation.
Nothing would surprise me about the next election. - Tom
The name Ronald Reagan is conspicuously absent from this narrative.
This Christie stuff is more and more boring.
You would think that there are no national issues left to fight over,
I just recently moved from PA My personal opinion is that Christy isn’t that bad....I think the DemsRats and media are afraid of him because he will tell them where to go and what to do when they get there, and oh my the demsrats and media can’t be talked to that way...this is a way to make sure Christy’s name is in the mud before 2016....
I thought a Marxist Muslim from Chicago who attended a black racist church was “laughable” as a presidential candidate.
He’s right. This whole hype about Chrispy is BS. I don’t know even one person who has ever said he was on their list much less at the top. If memory serves Crispy came in 31 out of 32 right ahead of Jeb at CPAC last year.
Any sane person would have written the ignorant sack of blubber off after this:
Christie goes berserk over criticism over his appointment of muzzie judge:
“Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed,” he told a reporter asking about the complaints that he may be inadequate to be a judge because he defended Muslim Americans who were wrongly arrested post-9/11. “He is an extraordinary American who is an outstanding lawyer and played an integral role in the post-September 11th period in building bridges between the Muslim American community in this state and law enforcement,” Gov. Christie argued, adding that he was “disgusted, candidly, by some of the questions he was asked… at the Senate judiciary committee.”
But it was a follow-up question on the fear of Sharia Law that set the governor off. “Sharia Law has nothing to do with this at all, it’s crazy!” he cried. “The guy is an American citizen!” He concluded that the “Sharia Law business is just crap… and I’m tried of dealing with the crazies,” adding with disgust and frustration that “it’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.”
The magazine was established in 1969 by Thomas N. Schroth, who formed the publication after being fired from his post as editor of Congressional Quarterly, with many CQ staff defecting to the new publication.
National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders. It is mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations, and lobbyists.
My opinion from the beginning was that Christie was neither nominatable nor electable (in 2016, as President, as a Republican) but consider the source. If there there is any group of people who are even more clueless than San bushmen in the Kalahari Desert as to what's going on in America, it's Washington insiders.
So I'm re-thinking my opinion. There probably isn't any "smoking gun"/text message record from Christie. Even if he ordered the traffic jam as some bizarre punishment of the mayor for some personal offense -- I don't see how Christie could punch the little keys with his fat fingers.
A Quinnipiac Poll seems to show that this hasn't hurt him too much.
What most understand is that this is a scandal about moving a bunch of traffic cones causing a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, which has traffic jams as a daily occurrence. There aren't 300 dead Mexicans on the bridge, or even four dead Americans. Christie's job approval is still at 55%. If he weathers this, he might still be a VP contender -- which is what I had thought all along. We will see, "in the fullness of time".
The writer hasn't been paying attention since at least 1988.
Think for a moment who makes up the Republican Party, and most specifically the part of the GOP base that dominates the presidential nomination process. Think about the people they seriously considered for their party’s presidential nomination last time around. Think Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. Now, quickly, think Christie. Now think Sesame Street: “One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn’t belong.” It’s laughable that the party that has previously seriously considered some fairly inconceivable candidates as worthy of the GOP nomination would suddenly reverse course and head over to a center-right candidate such as Christie.
Where has Cook bee for the last 20 years? "suddenly reverse course and head over to a center-right candidate such as Christie" Who since Reagan has the party nominated that is not of Christie's political ilk? RINO's all!
The liberal media has overplayed this Bridgegate story. Nobody outside of the NYC area cares about it at all. I do not think most people in NYC or NJ care about it either. It certainly is not going to influence anyone’s vote in NH or IA. It is just a distraction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.