Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

"...GW Bush's 2007-2008 Great Recessionary image..." LOL, where do you get this stuff?

"I haven't got a chance to watch MSNBC lately as they seem to be the only network carrying on the crusade to lynch him."

Ask not on who the Intergalactic Meathammer of Irony falls...

It falls on thee.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

"...GW Bush's 2007-2008 Great Recessionary image..." LOL, where do you get this stuff?

So, you don't think the recession started during the Bush administration? Or you don't think people remember it did? Or you don't think people care?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So, you don't think the recession started during the Bush administration? Or you don't think people remember it did? Or you don't think people care?

No, I read quite a deal of political pieces. Never had I read about GW Bush and his "Great Recessionary image" (capitals nonetheless ). I'm just wondering were BS gets this stuff, or if she’s just makin’ it up as she goes along.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

No, I read quite a deal of political pieces. Never had I read about GW Bush and his "Great Recessionary image" (capitals nonetheless ). I'm just wondering were BS gets this stuff, or if she’s just makin’ it up as she goes along.

If in fact you "read quite a deal of political pieces," I am uncertain how you could have missed the "Great Recession," as well as its frequent capitalization within the text of a sentence. There were perhaps thousands of pieces, as well as when referring to this specifically named business cycle "Great Recessionary" (i.e. referring to proper name).

Citing one of the worst recessions in US history that began during the 2nd term of the GW Bush administration as the "Great Recession" is not new or original to me; rather it has been quite common during the past 5 years or so in many publications (Nor are the G and R capitalization of Great Recession or Great Recessionary unique). For example:

Wall Street Journal 8 April 2010: "But does it deserve the heavy mantle of 'The Great Recession' that it seems to be acquiring? 'Great' is a big word, a mark of enormous historical significance."

Center for Labor Market Studies, Northwestern University, May 2011: "The Job Dislocation and Reemployment Experiences of America's Older Workers During the Great Recessionary Period of 2007-2009."

Money: MSN 15 August 2011: "We're lucky that this Great Recession is not turning into another Great Depression."

Wall Street Journal 2 September 2011: "The origins of the financial crisis and the Great Recession are widely attributed to market failure."

Motley Fool 18 September 2012: "Five Great Recessionary Growth Stocks."

Business Week 11 October 2012 "The Great Recession: An Affair to Remember."

Future of Film Summit 5 December 2012: "Traditional lending has not come back from pre Great Recessionary levels, yet equity investors, soft funding, debt financing and more can be had for the right project."

Fox News 11 July 2013: "Across the country, others of Miller's generation heard that same wake-up call as the Great Recession set in."

Given that the "Great Recession" began during the 2nd term of the GW Bush administration, whether you blame him or not, it is not a huge leap of faith to assume that GW Bush's "image" had been negatively affected by his association with the "Great Recession." Given this negative GW Bush "image" associated with this "Great Recessionary" period in the US economy, I think it's safe to assume that 2016 Republican presidential candidates (including Gov Chris Christie) will try to avoid this negative "image," and Democrats will attempt to exploit it.

Amerika

Anyone else, like me, looking forward to months of non-stop media coverage exonerating Christie from the Bridgegate scandal?

https://grabien.com/share.php?id=30055&userid=2096&code=c2ca90ca297f10a57c9e2cf1a19c9697&big=1

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Anyone else, like me, looking forward to months of non-stop media coverage exonerating Christie from the Bridgegate scandal?

https://grabien.com/share.php?id=30055&userid=2096&code=c2ca90ca297f10a57c9e2cf1a19c9697&big=1

Just like the non stop coverage of when the GOP led committee exonorated the Obama administration of any fault in Benghazi scandal....lol
Pretty quite when that report came out ????
A simple sorry for would be nice
What a waste of everyone's time that was, from government resources to filling the media waves with such propaganda.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Just like the non stop coverage of when the GOP led committee exonorated the Obama administration of any fault in Benghazi scandal....lol
Pretty quite when that report came out ????
A simple sorry for would be nice
What a waste of everyone's time that was, from government resources to filling the media waves with such propaganda.

The House committee had a limited scope in their investigation. The House Select committee (which received praises from the top Democrat over Gowdy’s handling of the first round of the Benghazi hearings. “I thank you for holding this hearing today,” ranking Democrat committee member Elijah Cummings told the chairman, and lauded the hearing as a “transformational moment” comprised of “the kind of oversight that can be productive.”) has a much wider intent, and unlike the Intelligence committee, the Select committee will be using the emails that were not provided to the House committee, and will be interviewing key personnel the House committee didn’t.

A spokesman for Trey Gowdy's House Select panel said it received the Rogers report months ago and suggested that, while helpful, it isn't a definitive explanation of the events surrounding the attacks: The special committee “has reviewed it along with other committee reports and materials as the investigation proceeds,” said spokesman Jamal Ware. “It will aid the select committee’s comprehensive investigation to determine the full facts of what happened in Benghazi, Libya, before, during and after the attack and contribute toward our final, definitive accounting of the attack on behalf of Congress.”

And excellent read and in-depth analysis as to why the House committee report is pretty much garbage, and why the need for the House Select committee investigation exists.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-report_820665.html?page=1

Question: Does this report bother anyone? Or should it be ignored?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-staffers-covered-benghazi-files-ex-official-article-1.1941046
I'm sure records exist that would verify those people were there, if anybody bothered to investigate that is.

I’m holding final judgement on the Benghazi tragedy until the thorough House Select committees report comes out.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I’m holding final judgement on the Benghazi tragedy until the thorough House Select committees report comes out.

It will probably not be issued until after the Republican majority has been confirmed (oath of office) in both houses of the US Congress late January 2015. Makes me wonder how congressional control by one party may influence the report, although claimed to be objective and unbiased (i.e., a condition I find rare in US American politics regardless which party is in control at the moment).

Of course Benghazi has nothing to do with the "Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie" thread topic, unless Hillary uses it against Christie and he counters with Benghazi during the presidential campaign.

Unfortunately for both the Democrats and Republicans the voter will not consider resurrecting Bridgegate or Benghazi as NEWS. Is there something called OLDS? To what extent is "old news" a political oxymoron? Both issues will be exhausted in the US American voter short-lived political memories by early 2016. If the voter can forget that the Great Recession and the 2 longest wars in US history occurred under the Republican Bush administration (when putting the Republicans back in control of Congress during November 2014 elections), they will surely forget about Benghazi and Bridgegate by early 2016, no matter how each party tries to resurrect and bring these issues back to life years later.