Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie

Brian? · 15-01-2014 07:44PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's Chicago politics. I don' t know how the rest of the country is not getting how dirty they are.

Both sides are dirty.

My own favourite Tea Party darling:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/12/13-outrageous-allen-west-comments-house-democrats-communists-more.html

The Black Oil · 15-01-2014 08:18PM

Allen West? AKA, troll.

Brian? · 16-01-2014 12:31AM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Allen West? AKA, troll.

Unfortunately he's not a troll. He's an idealogue.

Amerika · 16-01-2014 04:17PM

Brian? wrote: »

If you think Christie should be defended, actually defend him. If not, then acknowledge he was wrong.

Well I’m glad Christie took responsibility for his staff’s action, and either fired or took harsh action against the people responsible, deviating from the democrats usual tactic of promoting their offenders of abuses of power and negligence of duty. And if Christie’s hands are dirty in the matter, then I feel he deserves appropriate punishment. Happy?

Brian? · 17-01-2014 11:51AM

Amerika wrote: »

Well I’m glad Christie took responsibility for his staff’s action, and either fired or took harsh action against the people responsible, deviating from the democrats usual tactic of promoting their offenders of abuses of power and negligence of duty. And if Christie’s hands are dirty in the matter, then I feel he deserves appropriate punishment. Happy?

Very happy.

I think to be the fairest critic of your opposition you need to have the moral fortitude to criticise your own side when they're wrong.

I actually have a lot of respect for Christie, even though I don't agree with his politics. He's one of the few big names left in te GOO who's rational
and could work in a bipartisan fashion if he ends up in the White House.

I also think he was very smart during the last presidential campaign. He knew Romney was going down and did a fine job of distancing himself while appearing statesman like.

His praise of Obama during hurricane Sandy says a lot about his character, he strikes me as pretty fair minded. There could well be people in te GOP waiting to punish him for that though.

I can't see him approving anything like this "Bridgegate" carry on. He's too good a politician for that. He's not thinking locally anymore, from here to 2016 or 2020 he's thinking nationally.

Black Swan · 19-01-2014 04:27AM

If Chris Christie fails to overcome the current scandals in time for the 2016 campaign season, does the GOP have any moderate candidate(s) to take his place? A candidate that knows the art of compromise, can stop all the dysfunctional infighting both within party and between parties, and can unify and motivate a large number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in their nation's best interests?

20Cent · 19-01-2014 04:34AM

Black Swan wrote: »

If Chris Christie fails to overcome the current scandals in time for the 2016 campaign season, does the GOP have any moderate candidate(s) to take his place? A candidate that knows the art of compromise, can stop all the dysfunctional infighting both within party and between parties, and can unify and motivate a large number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in their nation's best interests?

Don't think so. They seem to be in a competition to see who can be the most extreme none of them are shouting stop. Ronald Raygun their so called hero wouldn't have a chance in the modern Republican party

InTheTrees · 19-01-2014 06:42AM

Its going to be between rubio, cruz, ryan and paul.

I cant wait for the primaries.

Brian? · 20-01-2014 10:44AM

Black Swan wrote: »

If Chris Christie fails to overcome the current scandals in time for the 2016 campaign season, does the GOP have any moderate candidate(s) to take his place? A candidate that knows the art of compromise, can stop all the dysfunctional infighting both within party and between parties, and can unify and motivate a large number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in their nation's best interests?

Up to recently I've been convinced Jeb Bush was the candidate. It looks like his mammy won't let him run though. It's all a bit strange.

Amerika · 20-01-2014 02:56PM

The GOP doesn’t need to run another moderate three times in a row. McCain and Romney were moderates, and it got the republicans nowhere. They need to run a real conservative this time around or suffer the same fate as the last two presidential elections. And if they still lose running on true convictions -- then so be it, but at least not lose on the hopes of pandering to the democratic vote and independents who would rather just vote for a democrat than a republican who appears to act like a democrat for political expediency. The press might appear to treat someone like Christie with compassion and fairness at times, but when it really matters this current situation shows they will pounce on someone just because they have an (R) behind their name.

InTheTrees · 20-01-2014 03:34PM

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP doesn’t need to run another moderate three times in a row. McCain and Romney were moderates, and it got the republicans nowhere. They need to run a real conservative this time around or suffer the same fate as the last two presidential elections.

Any republican contraction of support will make their job of winning electoral college votes even more of a struggle and they're already far behind. Republicans need something like 6-8 states to go republican and you'd have a hard time figuring out which those were right now.

They're going to need huge growth in support from people not traditionally associated with the republican party if they want to win.

Brian? · 20-01-2014 04:25PM

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP doesn’t need to run another moderate three times in a row. McCain and Romney were moderates, and it got the republicans nowhere. They need to run a real conservative this time around or suffer the same fate as the last two presidential elections. And if they still lose running on true convictions -- then so be it, but at least not lose on the hopes of pandering to the democratic vote and independents who would rather just vote for a democrat than a republican who appears to act like a democrat for political expediency. The press might appear to treat someone like Christie with compassion and fairness at times, but when it really matters this current situation shows they will pounce on someone just because they have an (R) behind their name.

Do you honestly think being too moderate was what sank Romney and McCain? They didn't lose because the base didn't turn out, they lost because they couldn't win the swing voters. Winning elections is about maximizing all available votes, not just turning out your own base. There's a not enough middle aged white men to win the White House for the GOP anymore.

Why couldn't they take those undecided/swing/non affiliated votes? I have a few theories, but not being conservative enough is not the answer.

The Obama machine was actually too good to be beaten in 2008 and 2012 to be honest.

Putting aside the efficiency of the Obama campaign, I think the biggest mistake both McCain and Romney made was their choice of running mates. They both knew they were viewed as moderates to the GOP base and chose running mates that would make the base happy rather that running mates who's win them swing voters. Palin was a complete disaster, I really don't need to go into that. Ryan was the perfect candidate to appease the Tea Party, but his quasi-Libertarian politics on fiscal issues added to his hard right position on social issues seriously put off the swing vote IMO. Ryan also looked like a lost child playing at politics in the VP debate, he may have made a few decent points but the abiding memory for most people was Biden laughing at him.

Ryan, Paul Jnr, Cruz etc. can't win a presidential election IMO. Too polarising.

Brian? · 20-01-2014 04:26PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

They're going to need huge growth in support from people not traditionally associated with the republican party if they want to win.

Or a candidate who can have a more universal appeal. I honestly don't know who that could be, as I said in the last post it won't be any of the Tea Party darlings.

InTheTrees · 20-01-2014 04:36PM

Brian? wrote: »

Or a candidate who can have a more universal appeal. I honestly don't know who that could be, as I said in the last post it won't be any of the Tea Party darlings.

Yup. The tea party certainly isnt about universal appeal.

InTheTrees · 21-01-2014 01:25AM

New problems for Christie. The mayor of Hoboken is claiming she was denied Hurrican Sandy relief funds because she didnt support the govenor. Apparently she has proof of being coerced by Christies cronies. If true it would be even more damaging then the bridge allegations.

Its the end for Christie.

Amerika · 22-01-2014 08:21PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

New problems for Christie. The mayor of Hoboken is claiming she was denied Hurrican Sandy relief funds because she didnt support the govenor. Apparently she has proof of being coerced by Christies cronies. If true it would be even more damaging then the bridge allegations.

Mayor Dawn Zimmer seems to have some serious credibility issues. Didn't she about a week earlier claim something else, with a different storyline? That her loss of Sandy aid was tied to failure to endorse Chrisite, and not some development deal?

But if it is true, why wasn’t the incident immediately reported to the state Attorney General or FBI? Instead after the alleged incident Zimmer tweets: "He (Christie) has done a great job for NJ & Hoboken. We have a non-partisan mayoral election on Nov 5th." And another, "To be clear I am very glad Governor Christie has been our Gov. I am not endorsing bc of Hob's non-partisan mayoral race." Methinks something is rotten in Hoboken.

Sure doesn’t sound like someone emotionally distraught going through a shakedown by the Governor’s office. Or was she an accessory to the crime? So questionable is Zimmer’s actions that MSNBC had to break character and put on a rare display of journalistic integrity.

Its the end for Christie.

Mission Accomplished?

Amerika · 23-01-2014 03:36PM

Recent events in New York City might give credence to the contention that Chris Christie’s "Bridgegate" is little more than a political witch-hunt.

In a possible politically motivated stunt, the new liberal mayor of New York City (population of 8.3 million – comparable to the population of all of New Jersey at 8.9 million) Bill de Blasio many be involved in road-related retribution against the Upper East Side for not supporting his bid for mayor. Apparently by Tuesday evening, after a major crippling snow storm hit the city, no efforts had been made to open the streets of the Upper East Side from snow. Yet other areas of the city, by the same time, who supported de Blasio in his effort to become mayor, were plowed so extensively that Justin Bieber could have dragged raced on them.

So... will we be inundated, ad nauseam, with reports in the media of "Plowgate," of people lives put in danger because they were stranded, of any deaths because of the inability of emergency vehicles unable to respond or the inability of people to escape, of politicians using their authority to punish adversaries? Will the Attorney General get involved, will there be nationwide reporting of legal investigations initiated into an apparent abuse of power? Or, more likely, will it all be forgotten in a couple of days?

Memnoch · 23-01-2014 03:44PM

More endless what whataboutry from Amerika.

It's not surprising that Chiritie is a dirty bully, no more surprising than that Blagoiawich was one also. A lot of these political heavy weights seem to be that way. He might not be finished politically but he will never be president now.

Wonder if the GOP can find another moderate to run in 2016 otherwise Hillary will be the first woman to be president of the USA. The tea party darlings haven't a hope.

Brian? · 23-01-2014 05:08PM

Amerika wrote: »

Recent events in New York City might give credence to the contention that Chris Christie’s "Bridgegate" is little more than a political witch-hunt.

In a possible politically motivated stunt, the new liberal mayor of New York City (population of 8.3 million – comparable to the population of all of New Jersey at 8.9 million) Bill de Blasio many be involved in road-related retribution against the Upper East Side for not supporting his bid for mayor. Apparently by Tuesday evening, after a major crippling snow storm hit the city, no efforts had been made to open the streets of the Upper East Side from snow. Yet other areas of the city, by the same time, who supported de Blasio in his effort to become mayor, were plowed so extensively that Justin Bieber could have dragged raced on them.

So... will we be inundated, ad nauseam, with reports in the media of "Plowgate," of people lives put in danger because they were stranded, of any deaths because of the inability of emergency vehicles unable to respond or the inability of people to escape, of politicians using their authority to punish adversaries? Will the Attorney General get involved, will there be nationwide reporting of legal investigations initiated into an apparent abuse of power? Or, more likely, will it all be forgotten in a couple of days?

Can you cite a source of this story please? It's terrible if it's true.

Amerika · 23-01-2014 06:10PM

Brian? wrote: »

Can you cite a source of this story please? It's terrible if it's true.

I got the information regarding the story from watching The Morning Joe Show on MSNBC this morning. (yes I admit I watch MSNBC regularly, which I’m afraid would be automatic excommunication from the republican party

). Many contributors on that segment were against de Blasio and the snow removal situation, but it is understandable as most of them live in the Upper East Side. I don’t know if there is a way for you to see the replay of that segment on MSNBC so soon after it aired -- perhaps they will make it available at a later date. I’m sure I could site partisan sources now that both condemn and make excuses for the situation, but I don’t think you would be interested in them.

InTheTrees · 23-01-2014 06:50PM

Off we go with republicans pointing fingers at other people to try and distract attention. This non story will last about as long as equating bridgegate to benghazi.

The difference with New York is that there isnt any emails saying "time for snow chaos on the upper east side".

Well that and the fact that the mayor has been in office about a week.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-de-blasio-dismisses-claim-plows-skipped-ues-article-1.1587823

Amerika · 27-01-2014 04:06PM

Notice Chris Christie’s alleged attempts to extort Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer has dropped off the media radar? Why? Well CNN reported that Zimmer denied any Sandy funds were withheld because of political shenanigans just one week prior to her bombshell on MSNBC. Belmar, NJ Mayor Matt Doherty (D), who was present for one of the supposed extortion encounters, stated for the record that Zimmer’s account does not coincide with his. And from a review of NJ grant data, Hoboken has received the same level of aid as 39 other communities of similar size. And suddenly Dawn Zimmer is no longer discussing her allegations... Hmmmm!

I guess if Christie’s administration does use extortion practices, they’re really really really bad at it. But it seems the truth doesn’t really matter, as the Democrat's mission to discredit Christie in the lead up to the 2016 election is going ahead quiet swimmingly.

Paleface · 27-01-2014 07:03PM

Amerika wrote: »

But it seems the truth doesn’t really matter, as the Democrat's mission to discredit Christie in the lead up to the 2016 election is going ahead quiet swimmingly.

How do you know its not his own Republican party members who are behind this?

These allegations are good news for Cruz, Ryan etc. who now have a stick to beat him with in the primaries.

Amerika · 27-01-2014 07:47PM

Paleface wrote: »

How do you know its not his own Republican party members who are behind this?

These allegations are good news for Cruz, Ryan etc. who now have a stick to beat him with in the primaries.

You may have something there. But it would make more sense for the Democrats to do these kind of things as I think they see Christie as the only real challenger to Hillary Clinton, and capable of appealing to a sizable portion of Independents and a large enough contingency of disillusioned Democrats. And there are plenty of examples already of things conservatives could beat Christie up on in a primary, like the Obama hug, his moderate stances on immigration and gun control, and his big government ways.

Black Swan · 29-01-2014 01:06AM

After the Bridgegate scandle, has Rand Paul replaced Christie as Rupublican front runner for 2016? The Atlantic article suggests this.

I doubt that the American electorate is ready for a conservative Libertarian presidential candidate running on the Republican 2016 ticket. The GOP needs a moderate to challenge Clinton successfully.

Amerika · 29-01-2014 04:08AM

The GOP had moderates the last two elections. As I recall it didn't work out very well.

Brian? · 29-01-2014 06:09AM

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP had moderates the last two elections. As I recall it didn't work out very well.

Again, it wasn't because the candidates were "too moderate" as you seem to think. I'm going to quote myself here as you never responded to it last time:

Brian? wrote: »

Do you honestly think being too moderate was what sank Romney and McCain? They didn't lose because the base didn't turn out, they lost because they couldn't win the swing voters. Winning elections is about maximizing all available votes, not just turning out your own base. There's a not enough middle aged white men to win the White House for the GOP anymore.

Why couldn't they take those undecided/swing/non affiliated votes? I have a few theories, but not being conservative enough is not the answer.

The Obama machine was actually too good to be beaten in 2008 and 2012 to be honest.

Putting aside the efficiency of the Obama campaign, I think the biggest mistake both McCain and Romney made was their choice of running mates. They both knew they were viewed as moderates to the GOP base and chose running mates that would make the base happy rather that running mates who's win them swing voters. Palin was a complete disaster, I really don't need to go into that. Ryan was the perfect candidate to appease the Tea Party, but his quasi-Libertarian politics on fiscal issues added to his hard right position on social issues seriously put off the swing vote IMO. Ryan also looked like a lost child playing at politics in the VP debate, he may have made a few decent points but the abiding memory for most people was Biden laughing at him.

Ryan, Paul Jnr, Cruz etc. can't win a presidential election IMO. Too polarising.

Black Swan · 29-01-2014 08:05AM

Amerika wrote: »

The GOP had moderates the last two elections. As I recall it didn't work out very well.

McCain and Romney may have been Republican moderates, but as Brian? noted, both their VP running mates were not. Rather, Palin and Ryan were very polarizing and far from a moderate position, which may have contributed to the two repeated GOP losses.

Amerika · 29-01-2014 02:39PM

Black Swan wrote: »

McCain and Romney may have been Republican moderates, but as Brian? noted, both their VP running mates were not. Rather, Palin and Ryan were very polarizing and far from a moderate position, which may have contributed to the two repeated GOP losses.

So now the GOP not only needs a moderate presidential pick, but also a moderate vice presidential pick? Heck, just vote the Democratic ticket then! The choice of vice president does little more in the overall scheme of things than capitulate to the section of the party who might not feel representated enough in the presicential pick, and create short term fodder, buzz and discussion for a starved media. It might in some miniscule manner contribute to the results of an election, but I’ve seen studies that indicate the net effect of a vice presidential candidate is generally less than 1% in terms of getting voters to cross party lines. Joe Biden is seen by many to be little more than a symbolic smiling old Ken Doll who has been given little responsibility other than to promote the administration’s agenda, and has even been kept from the microphone in recent years because of his tendency to go off the reservation. What important stuff has he been tasked with or accomplished? Gun control didn’t work out so well for the administration. Yet his baggage didn’t seem to hurt Barack Obama in either of his two runs. Dick Cheney was the only vice president of any importance in modern history and he did little to appeal to Independents and nothing to draw Democratic votes, yet George W Bush won twice. Presidential choices matter, not the vice presidential choice.

IMO what will matter in the 2016 election if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem's nod is... how many low information voters will make their decision in the voting booth simply becasue all that resonates with them are pithy slogans like "People Died, Hillary Lied?"

Brian? · 29-01-2014 04:09PM

Amerika wrote: »

So now the GOP not only needs a moderate presidential pick, but also a moderate vice presidential pick? Heck, just vote the Democratic ticket then! The choice of vice president does little more in the overall scheme of things than capitulate to the section of the party who might not feel representated enough in the presicential pick, and create short term fodder, buzz and discussion for a starved media. It might in some miniscule manner contribute to the results of an election, but I’ve seen studies that indicate the net effect of a vice presidential candidate is generally less than 1% in terms of getting voters to cross party lines. Joe Biden is seen by many to be little more than a symbolic smiling old Ken Doll who has been given little responsibility other than to promote the administration’s agenda, and has even been kept from the microphone in recent years because of his tendency to go off the reservation. What important stuff has he been tasked with or accomplished? Gun control didn’t work out so well for the administration. Yet his baggage didn’t seem to hurt Barack Obama in either of his two runs. Dick Cheney was the only vice president of any importance in modern history and he did little to appeal to Independents and nothing to draw Democratic votes, yet George W Bush won twice. Presidential choices matter, not the vice presidential choice.

IMO what will matter in the 2016 election if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem's nod is... how many low information voters will make their decision in the voting booth simply becasue all that resonates with them are pithy slogans like "People Died, Hillary Lied?"

Are you ever going to directly address the points I made?

2 disastrous VP picks in a row. Both to appease the far right.

If you think Palin only cost McCain 1%, you have a very low opinion if the electorate.

Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie

Comments