As someone who sympathizes intensely with your political position, I'd vise you to let up on this particular topic, my dear. Too much is often worse than not enough.
Do you actually ever read The New Yorker? I have for years.
Great reporting, stories, reviews, and cartoons.
You're showing your bias when you dismiss it out of hand.
There is no "slobbering" over what happened in the Christie administration and his aides closing down the most busily traveled bridge in the country. It was a very stupid thing to do. Christie could have extracted his political revenge in a more subtle way. But he's not a subtle man. This scandal shows that he's petty, mean, and vindictive. And that's the culture he surrounded himself with. Not a good quality for a president.
Is the Wall Street Journal an "authority" on anything? Here's a report from there:
[T]he WSJ reported something that looked exceptionally fishy at the time; that Christie had talked with Andrew Cuomo and asked him to get Patrick Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to back off investigating the Fort Lee bridge closure.
Mr. Christie, a Republican, complained in a private phone call to Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, that Patrick Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was pressing too hard to get to the bottom of why the number of toll lanes onto the bridge from Fort Lee, N.J. was cut from three to one in early September, according to this person. The lane closures occurred without notice to local authorities, officials have said, and snarled traffic for a week in the small borough on the Hudson River bluffs.
According to the WSJ story, that phone call was the week of December 12."
This is going to get worse. The GOP tried to pin some sort of scandal on Obama for Benghazi and the IRS story, but nothing underhanded came up. If there were a scintilla of any sort of evidence of wrong-doing, it would have come out by now because of the right's rancid hatred of Obama.
The fact that both Benghazi and the IRS situation were not conspiracies like this Christie scandal has sent the right into orbits of outrage. Even Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst thinks that any further investigation into Benghazi is looking at a "non-story" since "there is nothing there, in terms of a scandal." It's rather pathetic how far a party would go to make the President of the United States of America look bad. To implicate the president and Hillary Clinton. This is a non-story. Yes of course Benghazi was a tragedy. It's not a scandal. But the Republicans are going to investigate this until the end of the Obama administration, and most likely until the Cows Come Home! But they will find nothing, because there's nothing to be found there. There's no scandal, there never was, this was all BS to make the president look bad and to make Hillary look like a inept women who shouldn’t be allowed to be President. . These are brave, honorable people who were killed in the line of duty, a tragedy? Yes of course, but nothing more. At some point Congress needs to realize that we have a country to run. We keep re-hashing Obamacare, and calling for more "scandal" investigations.
Obamacare cost/benefit is debatable, depends on your political sway. But the constant re-hashing of Benghazi and Benghazi and more Benghazi is not beneficial. It is wasting our government time. I believe that other issues I've mentioned Obamacare will have much more impact on our future than Benghazi so why are we not talking about t\it? We are being distracted on purpose.
As someone who sympathizes intensely with your political position, I'd vise you to let up on this particular topic, my dear. Too much is often worse than not enough.
Just a friendly thought, not a criticism."
I just re-read the above comment from "Anonymous" with the name "Ellie Rosenfield" under "Anon."
First: Apparently Anonymous Is "Ellie Rosenfield" and I misunderstood the original comment which advised me that the second post on the Chris Christie scandal was too many posts on it, even if this "Ellie Rosenfield" sympathizes with my opinions. Too many? The second post was nothing more than a copy of a magazine cover with no comment.
Secondly, someone who sympathizes with another's opinion doesn't suggest to that person to shut up.
Yes, Ducky, I have that option, but it's not the "Anonymous" commenters who are the PitAs, it's the people who steal IDs and avatars like Radical Redneck and the newest faker to come on the scene, "Ellie Rosenfield," nee, Eleanor Roosevelt. How clever!
Besides, some of my friends and family post under "Anonymous" because the don't want to be bothered with setting up an ID.
And that's one of the reasons I have comment moderation on, so I can weed out the morons and the sickos who spam my blog with filthy language and taradiddle.
"If you’re going to wage a vendetta, at least make it a well-thought-out one. How can Christie & Co. run a national campaign when they can’t even aim straight? How moronic to think the mayor of Fort Lee would get blamed for problems on a bridge that everyone knows is controlled by the Port Authority. If you want to be malicious, it would be so easy to put a project close to the mayor’s heart on hold for a few months or redirect 60 state snowplows the night before a storm. The governor groveled to New Jersey residents after his aides so gleefully burned them (even joking about children being late for the first day of school because of the orchestrated gridlock on the George Washington Bridge).
After zapping Obama for being so clueless that he couldn’t find “the light switch of leadership” in a dark room, Christie is trying to salvage his once blazing career by claiming he was in a dark room, clueless to the bogus traffic study masking a revenge plan that top aides were executing in plain sight."
Here are some question a commenter over at Talking Points Memo raised:
"hangdogit yesterday
Among the things that don't add up:
1. A hands-on governor known for his bullying manner had a staff that, just by coincidence, bullied Ft Lee -- but kept him totally in the dark about it.
He just found out about it the day before yesterday -- although the story has been in the news and his high-school buddy at the Port Authority and another official he had appointed, had to resign over it. Why such a lack of curiosity, hands-on governor? (Because you made an effort *not* to know?)
2. As that hands-on governor, why did you not demand, and get, a satisfactory explanation of what happened at the bridge and why -- and take appropriate administrative action?
It must have been on the news and calls must have been received from irate citizens and officials. Why the inaction, even *presuming* that you had nothing to do with it as you claim. As governor, you had final responsibility to act -- to make sure that anyone in your administration was accountable *before* the media stories pushed you into acting.
Note: Had you acted as soon as this happened, you would be in far better shape to survive this. Now, you look like a drowning man who is simply pushing down those around you to try to survive a little longer.
3. Why do you [TPM] still hint that there may have been a traffic study? There was none. That was a cover story concocted by aides (presumably)."
skud did a drive-by troll attack again by changing the subject to Obama and the IRS, as though the two were they same. They are not. But I don't expect folks like skud to understand that.
President Obama does not have regional IRS offices across the country reporting to him.
This is a report from the initial Congressional hearings:
"Republicans came to the hearing armed with plenty of outrage and examples of Tea Party groups from their home districts running into red tape in their nonprofit applications, which they used to pummel Miller throughout the hearing. The outgoing commissioner parried their attacks by responding that he was not permitted to comment on specific cases.
Democrats spent the bulk of the committee’s hearing, though, warning their GOP colleagues against cultivating evidence of a scandal where there is none. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., asked both Miller and George, the inspector general, whether they had unearthed any evidence of political motivation in IRS officials’ scrutiny of conservatives.
They replied identically: “We did not, sir.”
Chris Christie's DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF who reports directly to Gov. Christie sent the email saying it was time for a traffic jam in Ft. Lee.
People like skud are in a holy snit because the closing of the George Washington Bridge is a serious REAL scandal involving Chris Christie's people, and the IRS controversy was not. To their everlasting chagrin, no wrong-doing was uncovered and certainly no involvement by the White House was ever uncovered as well.
The GOOPers a enraged over this. And, of course, enraged that the Benghazi tragedy did not show any cover-up or any deliberate deception by the Obama administration.
Had either the IRS or the Benghazi stories been anything more than a cock-up [the IRS] and a horrible tragedy [Benghazi], the GOP would have impeached the president by now.
Trolls drive by wanting to make Chris Christie's scandal all about Mr. Obama.
Here's another article from Talking Points Memo about the GOPers bringing up the IRS controversy as a diversion from Bridgegate:
"Rand Paul went for a double-whammy in an interview over the weekend.
Asked to address the scandal enveloping his rival, Paul dredged up one of the GOP's favorite attacks against President Obama — but a reporter made sure the Kentucky Republican gave the whole picture.
Paul told the Arizona Republic that the George Washington Bridge scandal currently dogging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) resonates because "people don't want their officials to use government against them."
He then followed the lead of his fellow Republicans by bringing up the controversy surrounding the Internal Revenue Service.
"A good example of this is the IRS scandal. President Obama used the IRS — or is alleged to have used the IRS — to go after conservative groups and tea party groups —" Paul said.
"And progressives," the off-screen reporter chimed in, forcing Paul to acknowledge both sides of the IRS ordeal.
"Yeah, nobody likes it," Paul said.
"Nobody likes the idea of using government against us for political reasons. I think that's what's being addressed here and I think that's why it's a bigger issue than just traffic. If it is true, if it looks like someone who won an election is punishing people they beat in the election, that leaves a really bad taste in people's mouths."
Although he's gone out of his way to criticize Christie in the past, Paul has been largely reticent about the bridge scandal. He said very little when asked about the matter last week.
"I don't know who emailed who and who works for whom," Paul said. "I have been in traffic before though and I know how angry I am when I'm in traffic and I've always wondered, 'Who did this to me.'"
Many of Christie's defenders have tried to deflect attention from the bridge scandal by invoking the IRS debacle, but the comparison ignores the fact that the agency flagged both liberal and conservative groups."
18 comments:
Ellie Rosenfield
As someone who sympathizes intensely with your political position, I'd vise you to let up on this particular topic, my dear. Too much is often worse than not enough.
Just a friendly thought, not a criticism.
Like the New Yorker is the authority on anything. Yep, no agenda here for certain.
Tedious watching all the slobbering over Benghazi and now BridgeGazi. No, amusing really.
Carry on...
Do you actually ever read The New Yorker? I have for years.
Great reporting, stories, reviews, and cartoons.
You're showing your bias when you dismiss it out of hand.
There is no "slobbering" over what happened in the Christie administration and his aides closing down the most busily traveled bridge in the country. It was a very stupid thing to do. Christie could have extracted his political revenge in a more subtle way. But he's not a subtle man. This scandal shows that he's petty, mean, and vindictive. And that's the culture he surrounded himself with. Not a good quality for a president.
So Nixonian.
Is the Wall Street Journal an "authority" on anything? Here's a report from there:
[T]he WSJ reported something that looked exceptionally fishy at the time; that Christie had talked with Andrew Cuomo and asked him to get Patrick Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to back off investigating the Fort Lee bridge closure.
Mr. Christie, a Republican, complained in a private phone call to Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, that Patrick Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was pressing too hard to get to the bottom of why the number of toll lanes onto the bridge from Fort Lee, N.J. was cut from three to one in early September, according to this person. The lane closures occurred without notice to local authorities, officials have said, and snarled traffic for a week in the small borough on the Hudson River bluffs.
According to the WSJ story, that phone call was the week of December 12."
Yep, have actually read the New Yorker. Once in awhile I enjoy articles found in the mag.
Bias, sure. Everyone has their biases. Yours show as well, and often.
Quick to determine Christie KNEW you seem to be methinks. I suggest reading my post as well.
If Christie knew nothing about this whole thing as he claimed in his presser on Wednesday, why would he have done that?
Christie obviously has been lying.
Gotta Love those New England Patriots!
This is going to get worse. The GOP tried to pin some sort of scandal on Obama for Benghazi and the IRS story, but nothing underhanded came up. If there were a scintilla of any sort of evidence of wrong-doing, it would have come out by now because of the right's rancid hatred of Obama.
The fact that both Benghazi and the IRS situation were not conspiracies like this Christie scandal has sent the right into orbits of outrage.
Even Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's senior legal analyst thinks that any further investigation into Benghazi is looking at a "non-story" since "there is nothing there, in terms of a scandal."
It's rather pathetic how far a party would go to make the President of the United States of America look bad. To implicate the president and Hillary Clinton.
This is a non-story. Yes of course Benghazi was a tragedy. It's not a scandal. But the Republicans are going to investigate this until the end of the Obama administration, and most likely until the Cows Come Home! But they will find nothing, because there's nothing to be found there. There's no scandal, there never was, this was all BS to make the president look bad and to make Hillary look like a inept women who shouldn’t be allowed to be President. . These are brave, honorable people who were killed in the line of duty, a tragedy? Yes of course, but nothing more.
At some point Congress needs to realize that we have a country to run. We keep re-hashing Obamacare, and calling for more "scandal" investigations.
Obamacare cost/benefit is debatable, depends on your political sway. But the constant re-hashing of Benghazi and Benghazi and more Benghazi is not beneficial. It is wasting our government time. I believe that other issues I've mentioned Obamacare will have much more impact on our future than Benghazi so why are we not talking about t\it? We are being distracted on purpose.
Guess my follow up post didn't make the cut.
Great headline at Huffpost.
"Chris Christie Scandal Is An 'Impeachable Offense' If He Knew, Dem Lawmaker Leading Probe Says"
" Anonymous said...
Ellie Rosenfield
As someone who sympathizes intensely with your political position, I'd vise you to let up on this particular topic, my dear. Too much is often worse than not enough.
Just a friendly thought, not a criticism."
I just re-read the above comment from "Anonymous" with the name "Ellie Rosenfield" under "Anon."
First: Apparently Anonymous Is "Ellie Rosenfield" and I misunderstood the original comment which advised me that the second post on the Chris Christie scandal was too many posts on it, even if this "Ellie Rosenfield" sympathizes with my opinions. Too many? The second post was nothing more than a copy of a magazine cover with no comment.
Secondly, someone who sympathizes with another's opinion doesn't suggest to that person to shut up.
Third. This type of behavior is recognized as "concern trolling," q.v.
Fourth. Ellie Rosenfield is a not so cleverly disguised "Eleanor Roosevelt."
I don't know who you are "Ellie Rosenfield," but your little game is not very entertaining.
Shaw, you may be able to solve your troll problem by banning anonymous posts.
I believe you have that option.
Yes, Ducky, I have that option, but it's not the "Anonymous" commenters who are the PitAs, it's the people who steal IDs and avatars like Radical Redneck and the newest faker to come on the scene, "Ellie Rosenfield," nee, Eleanor Roosevelt. How clever!
Besides, some of my friends and family post under "Anonymous" because the don't want to be bothered with setting up an ID.
And that's one of the reasons I have comment moderation on, so I can weed out the morons and the sickos who spam my blog with filthy language and taradiddle.
Maureen Dowd sticks it to Christie:
"If you’re going to wage a vendetta, at least make it a well-thought-out one. How can Christie & Co. run a national campaign when they can’t even aim straight? How moronic to think the mayor of Fort Lee would get blamed for problems on a bridge that everyone knows is controlled by the Port Authority. If you want to be malicious, it would be so easy to put a project close to the mayor’s heart on hold for a few months or redirect 60 state snowplows the night before a storm.
The governor groveled to New Jersey residents after his aides so gleefully burned them (even joking about children being late for the first day of school because of the orchestrated gridlock on the George Washington Bridge).
After zapping Obama for being so clueless that he couldn’t find “the light switch of leadership” in a dark room, Christie is trying to salvage his once blazing career by claiming he was in a dark room, clueless to the bogus traffic study masking a revenge plan that top aides were executing in plain sight."
Here are some question a commenter over at Talking Points Memo raised:
"hangdogit
yesterday
Among the things that don't add up:
1. A hands-on governor known for his bullying manner had a staff that, just by coincidence, bullied Ft Lee -- but kept him totally in the dark about it.
He just found out about it the day before yesterday -- although the story has been in the news and his high-school buddy at the Port Authority and another official he had appointed, had to resign over it. Why such a lack of curiosity, hands-on governor? (Because you made an effort *not* to know?)
2. As that hands-on governor, why did you not demand, and get, a satisfactory explanation of what happened at the bridge and why -- and take appropriate administrative action?
It must have been on the news and calls must have been received from irate citizens and officials. Why the inaction, even *presuming* that you had nothing to do with it as you claim. As governor, you had final responsibility to act -- to make sure that anyone in your administration was accountable *before* the media stories pushed you into acting.
Note: Had you acted as soon as this happened, you would be in far better shape to survive this. Now, you look like a drowning man who is simply pushing down those around you to try to survive a little longer.
3. Why do you [TPM] still hint that there may have been a traffic study? There was none. That was a cover story concocted by aides (presumably)."
skud did a drive-by troll attack again by changing the subject to Obama and the IRS, as though the two were they same. They are not. But I don't expect folks like skud to understand that.
President Obama does not have regional IRS offices across the country reporting to him.
This is a report from the initial Congressional hearings:
"Republicans came to the hearing armed with plenty of outrage and examples of Tea Party groups from their home districts running into red tape in their nonprofit applications, which they used to pummel Miller throughout the hearing. The outgoing commissioner parried their attacks by responding that he was not permitted to comment on specific cases.
Democrats spent the bulk of the committee’s hearing, though, warning their GOP colleagues against cultivating evidence of a scandal where there is none. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., asked both Miller and George, the inspector general, whether they had unearthed any evidence of political motivation in IRS officials’ scrutiny of conservatives.
They replied identically: “We did not, sir.”
Chris Christie's DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF who reports directly to Gov. Christie sent the email saying it was time for a traffic jam in Ft. Lee.
People like skud are in a holy snit because the closing of the George Washington Bridge is a serious REAL scandal involving Chris Christie's people, and the IRS controversy was not. To their everlasting chagrin, no wrong-doing was uncovered and certainly no involvement by the White House was ever uncovered as well.
The GOOPers a enraged over this. And, of course, enraged that the Benghazi tragedy did not show any cover-up or any deliberate deception by the Obama administration.
Had either the IRS or the Benghazi stories been anything more than a cock-up [the IRS] and a horrible tragedy [Benghazi], the GOP would have impeached the president by now.
Trolls drive by wanting to make Chris Christie's scandal all about Mr. Obama.
So sad.
Here's another article from Talking Points Memo about the GOPers bringing up the IRS controversy as a diversion from Bridgegate:
"Rand Paul went for a double-whammy in an interview over the weekend.
Asked to address the scandal enveloping his rival, Paul dredged up one of the GOP's favorite attacks against President Obama — but a reporter made sure the Kentucky Republican gave the whole picture.
Paul told the Arizona Republic that the George Washington Bridge scandal currently dogging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) resonates because "people don't want their officials to use government against them."
He then followed the lead of his fellow Republicans by bringing up the controversy surrounding the Internal Revenue Service.
"A good example of this is the IRS scandal. President Obama used the IRS — or is alleged to have used the IRS — to go after conservative groups and tea party groups —" Paul said.
"And progressives," the off-screen reporter chimed in, forcing Paul to acknowledge both sides of the IRS ordeal.
"Yeah, nobody likes it," Paul said.
"Nobody likes the idea of using government against us for political reasons. I think that's what's being addressed here and I think that's why it's a bigger issue than just traffic. If it is true, if it looks like someone who won an election is punishing people they beat in the election, that leaves a really bad taste in people's mouths."
Although he's gone out of his way to criticize Christie in the past, Paul has been largely reticent about the bridge scandal. He said very little when asked about the matter last week.
"I don't know who emailed who and who works for whom," Paul said. "I have been in traffic before though and I know how angry I am when I'm in traffic and I've always wondered, 'Who did this to me.'"
Many of Christie's defenders have tried to deflect attention from the bridge scandal by invoking the IRS debacle, but the comparison ignores the fact that the agency flagged both liberal and conservative groups."
skud,
You are very rude. You've come here again changing the subject of this post.
Why do you continue to post comments that are trollish and that will always be deleted?
Your friends over at the con blogs are more likely to listen to your opinions which have no basis in fact.
Post a Comment