TheMadCap Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/09/ross-baker-governor-christie-bipartisanship/4391591/ You guys must have really beaten down all the DNC folks around here, I figured they'd be dancing in the streets right now. If this was anyone on the "other side" would this even be news?
Nanker Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Nah. The libs are pizzed now that their favorite Repub has been tainted by his own staff.
Dante Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 When it comes right down to it, he's pretty much a democrat anyway. If he goes down no loss.
Doc Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Not gonna mean much. And this was a known issue from back in December, yet suddenly blew up after the Gates book came out. Hmmmm.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Why would anyone be concerned about a liberal, pro-state, big government bully getting exposed for what he is? Edited January 9, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
Koko78 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 1.) No one is going to remember this scandal in a year. 2.) Christie is too moderate and confrontational to win the GOP nomination.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 1.) No one is going to remember this scandal in a year. 2.) Christie is too moderate and confrontational to win the GOP nomination. It will be well remembered in the primaries, when candidates are campaigning against executive overreach.
jr1 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Christie signing the NJ Dream Act this week probably won't help with the primary
Keukasmallies Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Don't want no bully on Pennsylvania Avenue; rather have a full blown kitty..
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Don't want no bully on Pennsylvania Avenue; rather have a full blown kitty.. Is this a defense of using government to do intentional harm to the constituents of people who don't support you politically?
B-Large Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 1.) No one is going to remember this scandal in a year. 2.) Christie is too moderate and confrontational to win the GOP nomination. I'd bet you survey 10 people walking down the street in any American city, 9 have no idea what the actual issue is or why its even a story. They just know Christie = Bad
Nanker Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I'd bet you survey 10 people walking down the street in any American city, 9 have no idea what the actual issue is or why its even a story. They just know Christie = Bad That's clearly the message now from the MSM. However, until this "revelation", he was their heaven-sent candidate to be the foil for Hillary's coronation.
TheMadCap Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Is this a defense of using government to do intentional harm to the constituents of people who don't support you politically? Certainly an abuse of power, and makes him look very bad. This should never happen. The biggest differences between this and the similar IRS controversy for the White House : 1. Christie moved relatively quickly to address the issue directly, took personal responsibility for it happening under his watch. He should have done so in Septemeber when it happened and not months later when the story broke, however. When has the POTUS EVER taken full responsiblity for ANY of the things that have happened under his watch? 2. He immediately fired the person directly responsible. 3. He didn't mockingly refer to it as a "phoney scandal" and blame it on a couple of poor chumps in an regional office somewhere. 3. Obama got away with it. Edited January 10, 2014 by TheMadCap
GG Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Certainly an abuse of power, and makes him look very bad. This should never happen. The biggest differences between this and the similar IRS controversy for the White House : 1. Christie moved relatively quickly to address the issue directly, took personal responsibility for it happening under his watch. He should have done so in Septemeber when it happened and not months later when the story broke, however. When has the POTUS EVER taken full responsiblity for ANY of the things that have happened under his watch? 2. He immediately fired the person directly responsible. 3. He didn't mockingly refer to it as a "phoney scandal" and blame it on a couple of poor chumps in an regional office somewhere. 3. Obama got away with it. You forgot the other major difference. The DoJ is investigating one case and not the other.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 You forgot the other major difference. The DoJ is investigating one case and not the other. The actions of Christie's administration gives me zero confidence that a White House under his leadership would be any different.
GG Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) The actions of Christie's administration gives me zero confidence that a White House under his leadership would be any different. The difference is that whenever Christie's subordinates got caught doing something wrong, he immediately took responsibility & tossed them overboard. Still waiting for the first act of accountability from Obama, even if it is in line with firing an Ike Hilliard. Edited January 10, 2014 by GG
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The actions of Christie's administration gives me zero confidence that a White House under his leadership would be any different. He's from New Jersey. That's like Chicago on steroids.
TheMadCap Posted January 11, 2014 Author Posted January 11, 2014 The difference is that whenever Christie's subordinates got caught doing something wrong, he immediately took responsibility & tossed them overboard. Still waiting for the first act of accountability from Obama, even if it is in line with firing an Ike Hilliard. It's even more than that though. It's not like he blamed a couple of subordinates and cast them off, while claiming he had nothing to do with it. He said it was his responsibility, and said the buck stops on his desk. Has there been one, single, solitary instance of Obama doing this? Even once?
B-Man Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 It's even more than that though. It's not like he blamed a couple of subordinates and cast them off, while claiming he had nothing to do with it. He said it was his responsibility, and said the buck stops on his desk. Has there been one, single, solitary instance of Obama doing this? Even once? He personally shot Bin-Laden. .
Recommended Posts