Tag Archives: Chris Christie

Uncategorized

Coverup looms as worst part of bridge battle

If Richard Nixon taught politicians of the future anything, it should have been that the cover-up usually is worse than the crime itself.

The president got caught in covering up the Watergate burglary by using federal authorities to quash an investigation. It cost him his job in August 1974.

Is there another cover-up under way in New Jersey?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-nj-documents-show-extensive-coverup-in-fort-lee-traffic-shutdown/2014/01/10/09af4efc-7a1f-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

The Washington Post suggests there might be some serious trouble brewing for Gov. Chris Christie, who’s been investigated for the closure of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, allegedly as payback for a Democratic mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie’s re-election bid.

Did the governor order the lane closures on the world’s busiest bridge? I doubt it. But did he know about it when it occurred? Was his staff acting on orders given by those quite close to the governor?

Does all of this testify to Christie’s reputation as a vengeful bully?

What did the governor know and when did he know it? That question — a form of which was posed by Republican U.S. Sen. Howard Baker during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings — went to the president of the United States. It seems valid today to ask it of Gov. Christie.

Uncategorized

Spotlight gets hot as it shines on Gov. Christie

Welcome to center stage, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Now that he seems to have implied an interest in running for president of the United States in 2016, the media are looking at him with intense attention to everything he says or does, or doesn’t say or do.

That’s how it goes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-bridge-controversy-exposes-a-gop-rising-star-to-new-scrutiny/2014/01/11/f49dee40-7aed-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html

This is nothing new in politics. The media are trained to do this kind of thing, irrespective of party. My friends on the right can spare me the “liberal media are out to get Christie” nonsense.

I will remind them of what happened to Sen. Barack Obama when he ran for president in 2008. You’ll recall the Rev. Jeremy Wright mess and his association with a Church of Christ pastor who said God should “damn America.” Also recall all those questions about the senator’s birth and whether he was constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president. Let us nor forget, either, the associations that young Barack had with the likes of William Ayers and other members of the infamous Weather Underground anti-Vietnam War crowd.

The media were quick to pounce all over him.

John McCain got the treatment during the 2008 campaign, as did Mitt Romney in 2012. Bill Clinton’s love life became media fodder during the 1992 campaign. Michael Dukakis and convicted murderer Willie Horton were joined at the hip — so to speak — during the 1988 campaign because of a furlough that Dukakis granted Horton while serving as governor of Massachusetts; the furlough ended tragically, if you’ll recall.

The media’s mission is to report these things, to expose candidates to the people who will decide whether they are the right fit for high office.

The bridge fiasco in New Jersey is a legitimate news story insofar as it will determine whether Chris Christie is a bully. It also might determine if he is truthful when he said he didn’t know in advance that key staffers ordered the lane closures of the world’s busiest bridge to get back at a political opponent.

The media will tell the story. It will be up to individual Americans to determine for themselves if it’s a story worth telling.

That’s the way it is, the way it’s been and the way it always will be.

Uncategorized

U.S. attorney to probe N.J. bridge fiasco

A word of caution is in order as the investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane closure picks up steam.

I said I wouldn’t comment on the closure itself until or if we learn Gov. Chris Christie knew more than he’s let on. I’ll stick with that pledge.

The entry of the U.S. attorney into this matter deserves a brief look.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/us-attorney-bridge-closure/2014/01/09/id/546188

Paul Fishman holds the job that Christie held before Christie was elected governor of New Jersey. Fishman is now the federal government’s chief prosecutor in New Jersey.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees. They are chosen ostensibly by the president of the United States. The current president, of course, is a Democrat. Thus, so are U.S. attorneys who are appointed by him. Fishman, therefore, is an ally of sorts of Barack Obama.

Chris Christie is a Republican whose office allegedly closed some lanes of the world’s busiest bridge to get back at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., for failing to endorse Christie’s bid for re-election as governor.

A Democratic U.S. attorney is investigating a case involving a Republican governor. Will politics get in the way of a thorough, unbiased and objective investigation? My guess is that GOP faithful will say it does if the investigation turns up some dirt on Christie, such as determining that he knew all along about the lane closures and endorsed the move to punish the Fort Lee mayor.

Democrats will say quite the opposite in trying to protect the integrity of the investigation that could harm Gov. Christie’s dream of running for president himself in 2016.

Politics. They get in the way all the time.

Uncategorized

Lane-closing story going to get very ugly

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hoped he could have put down the story about the closure of lanes on the George Washington Bridge.

His marathon press conference this morning didn’t do the job. It only has fanned the flames.

The battle lines are being drawn. Republicans say the kerfuffle is a diversion from the Affordable Care Act debate. Democrats say the growing scandal speaks to a possible extreme abuse of power by the Republican governor.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/09/embarrassed_christie_fires_aide_in_bridge_scandal_121179.html

Christie fired a couple of key aides today. One of them, his former deputy chief of staff, reportedly is the author of an email that said it was “time for a traffic” jam on the bridge. The lanes were closed allegedly as payback for the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J.’s refusal to endorse Christie’s re-election. Christie said he knew nothing about the email until just two days ago.

This is a big deal because Christie is considered a probable candidate for president in 2016. He’s sold himself as a hands-on, no-nonsense chief executive. Yet this situation seems to suggest the governor had his hands off the levers of power while his underlings went rogue right under his nose.

Let’s not dismiss this as much ado about nothing. This is the kind of story that gets the media worked up, kind of like it did over the Benghazi disaster in September 2012, the phony controversy over President Obama’s place of birth, and the IRS probe of political action groups’ tax-exempt status … to name just three recent examples.

This is how the game is played. Gov. Christie had better steel himself for a rough ride.

Uncategorized

Gov. Christie isn’t out of the woods

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is one of my favorite Republicans.

His press conference today, though, leaves a key question unanswered. It is simply, how did he not know the details until now of a story that has been boiling for weeks around the state he governs with an admittedly firm hand?

http://politicslive.cnn.com/Event/Christie_news_conference_2?hpt=hp_t1

At issue is what the governor knew about a lane-closure on the George Washington Bridge, the busiest span in the world.

He fired the aide today who reportedly was responsible for closing the lanes. We still do not know why the bridge was effectively shut down. Allegations have been swirling that the governor’s office did it to get back at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who had declined to endorse Christie’s bid for re-election. Christie said today he didn’t know the mayor and said he “couldn’t pick him out of a lineup” if he stood before him.

The worst case is that Christie’s office has exercised a terrible abuse of power, using the authority of his office to get back at a political opponent. The best case might be that a governor who proclaims himself to be a hands-on, no-nonsense chief executive has been duped by staffers who did bad things without his knowing it.

This story is going to keep bubbling.

Uncategorized

Lane closures may block Gov. Christie’s ambition

This story cracks me up and it will make me howl if the worst of it turns out to be true.

Democrats are seeking ways to derail Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s possible presidential ambitions by making hay out of a lane closure on the famed George Washington Bridge. The word is that Christie ordered the lanes closed at peak traffic time ostensibly to perform a traffic study. It’s been alleged, though, that he did it to get back at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who had refused to endorse Christie’s bid for re-election.

What’s more, no one can determine whether a traffic study ever took place.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/193821-dems-seek-to-puncture-christie-with-bridge-controversy

The closures caused tremendous traffic chaos in and around Fort Lee. A couple of Christie appointees to the New York and New Jersey Port Authority have quit. U.S. Senate committee chairs — Democrats, by the way — are looking into the matter as a possible abuse of power.

Democrats’ aim, apparently, to blow a hole in Christie’s reputation as a no-nonsense, straight-talking, bipartisan governor who’s above this kind of alleged political back-stabbing.

Many Democrats apparently don’t believe Christie actually ordered the lane closures, nor do they believe they’ll find evidence of any direct involvement from the governor.

Christie has gotten his back up over media questions about the incident … which of course is no surprise. He’s been known to bristle at constituents’ questions as well.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this story is that the 2016 presidential campaign is still two years away but the silly season already has begun.

Just wait until the candidates on both parties start filing their papers to run.

Hold on. This could get really wild.

Uncategorized

Two elections should send GOP a clear warning

Two gubernatorial elections occurred Tuesday that ought to serve as a serious wakeup call to the fractious Republican Party.

One GOP candidate won big; another one lost a nail-biter to a Democrat.

The big winner, Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, won huge in a Democratic-leaning state. The loser, Ken Cuccinelli, lost in Virginia, which has been leaning a bit Democratic in recent years. Christie — despite his claim of being a conservative — has governed as more of a centrist, mainstream Republican. Cuccinelli, the state attorney general in Virginia, is a tea party favorite who campaigned as a far-right conservative.

Christie’s win and Cuccinelli’s loss should tell the Republicans they’d be better served in 2016 if they nominate a candidate who can appeal to voters other than those who adhere to the right-wing fringe elements who comprise the party base.

Yes, Cuccinelli lost a narrower-than-expected race to Democrat Terry McAuliffe. He’d been down as much a 12 points, but ended up losing by just 2 percentage points. But … he still lost.

Christie, on the other hand, cruised to victory by a landslide margin in a state President Obama has won twice by impressive margins.

The GOP is fighting among itself. The tea party fringe is seeking to wrest control of the party from the so-called “establishment wing.” However, the establishment types have shown time and again they’re ability to work with Democrats to legislate effectively. The tea party wing has demonstrated equally well that it doesn’t care about working with Democrats or anyone else.

The lesson now for the Republicans is staring them in the face as they ponder the 2016 campaign for the White House. Will they nominate a candidate who represent all Republicans or will they march in lockstep behind someone who follows the narrow dictates of the dedicated zealots?

The clock is now ticking on the next presidential campaign.

Uncategorized

Tell whole truth about weight loss, Gov. Christie

Congratulations belong to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who cruised to re-election Tuesday.

As The Business Insider website reports, the governor has just “basically” launched his 2016 campaign for president of the United States.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-christie-2016-campaign-begins-election-results-new-jersey-2013-11

Which brings me to the point here: He has lost a good bit of weight and says he is about halfway to his weight-loss goal. My question is this: Why not tell us the complete reason for losing the weight, governor?

Christie underwent weight-loss surgery several months ago. He proclaimed then it was to ensure he sticks around for his family. He doesn’t want to die early because of conditions associated with being significantly overweight. I accept that stated reason. But my sense is that he has more “political” reasons stashed away that he’s not telling us.

Allow me this bit of candor. I believe he is losing the weight because he wants to present a more physically appealing image to Americans across the land if he chooses to run for president in 2016.

What’s more, I see nothing wrong with him saying so. What can be so damning for a politician who prides himself on blunt talk and being frank with constituents to actually tell us the whole truth about such matters? Didn’t he once tell a New Jersey woman he didn’t care what she thought when she criticized him for sending his children to private school? Voters forgot about that snarky remark, as seen by the resounding victory this self-proclaimed “conservative Republican” scored in a heavily Democratic state.

Perhaps the governor could tell us what many of us know already: The Media Age requires national politicians to present pleasant images to voters. Such wasn’t the case prior to TV. Imagine someone who looked like, say, Abraham Lincoln being elected today. How about William Howard Taft, the heaviest president in history at 320 pounds?

If the New Jersey governor is entertaining thoughts of a presidential campaign in 2016, he has taken the first step — admittedly a cosmetic one — on that long road.

What’s wrong with acknowledging it?

Uncategorized

Gov. Christie faces key election challenge

Republicans love Chris Christie, by and large.

The New Jersey governor is expected to cruise Tuesday to an easy victory in a state that’s twice voted overwhelmingly for Democratic President Barack Obama. He’s done a good job running the state. Christie has been outspoken at times, to the point of being perhaps overly blunt with constituents. But that seems to be part of his tough-guy charm.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/04/21278657-centrist-or-a-conservative-christie-faces-fork-in-the-road-for-2016?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

He’s also been willing — unlike many of his GOP colleagues in Congress and in statehouses around the country, such as the one in Texas — to work with the president when the need arises. Hurricane Sandy, which ravaged New Jersey on the eve of the 2012 presidential election, offers a case in point. Christie’s glowing comments about the federal response to the storm relief angered many on the right.

So now the New Jersey governor is considering whether to run for president in 2016. His good pal, Obama, won’t be on the Democratic ticket, given that he’s term-limited out by the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment. The field, therefore, is wide open.

Does the governor tack to the right or stay on course down the center?

He ought to follow the late Richard Nixon’s advice, which is good for candidates of either party: Run to the fringe of your party in the primary and then steer toward the center during the general election.

I’m supposing that Christie knows about President Nixon’s advice and he’ll follow it. His particular concern at this moment in time, though, will be whether the tea party fringe followers of his party will forgive him if he moves toward the center and plays up his across-the-aisle working relationships.

Heck, they might not be able to forgive him for saying all those kind things about Barack Obama a year ago.

Oh, the joys of running for office in this highly polarized climate.

Uncategorized

Clinton vs. Christie in 2016

I know it’s early. I shouldn’t even be thinking like this. But I’m starting to lick my chops at the prospect of a 2016 presidential campaign between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chris Christie.

Neither of them has declared their intention to run, although both are beginning to act ever so slightly as though they’re interested in seeking their party’s nomination. Clinton already has run once for the Democratic nomination. Christie has been the Republican governor of New Jersey for three years.

Both are dynamic presences within their own key constituencies. They’re fierce defenders of their records. They’re politically savvy.

Why Clinton?

She might have the most comprehensive resume for the job since, perhaps, George H.W. Bush. Former first lady, former U.S. senator from New York, former secretary of state. Prior to all of that, she was Arkansas’s first lady and at one time was an accomplished lawyer. She’s been close to the center of power, given her marriage to one Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States.

Some pundits have compared her White House inevitability with that of General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, who was deemed unbeatable during the 1952 presidential campaign. Turns out they were right about Ike.

Why Christie?

He is a no-nonsense guy. Christie is unafraid of the ideologues within his own party. He rolls up his sleeves and works for New Jersey. My favorite moment of the 2012 political season occurred when a Fox News Channel talking head, Steve Doocy, asked Christie if GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney would visit the Jersey Shore, which had been battered by Hurricane Sandy … on the heels of President Obama’s tour of the destruction. Christie’s response, in effect, was: I don’t give a damn whether he comes here or stays away; I’ve got a job to do. He added that he wasn’t the least bit interested in how it might affect the presidential campaign.

I ought not to engage in this kind of speculation. I’m doing it anyway with the hope that it comes to pass.