TheMadCap Posted January 9, 2014 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Nah. The libs are pizzed now that their favorite Repub has been tainted by his own staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 When it comes right down to it, he's pretty much a democrat anyway. If he goes down no loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 9, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2014 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Christie signing the NJ Dream Act this week probably won't help with the primary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Don't want no bully on Pennsylvania Avenue; rather have a full blown kitty.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 10, 2014 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 And Hilly would be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 11, 2014 Share 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts