I think Christie is finished

[Anonymous]

The difference is that the only people who care about Benghazi are the nut jobs who'd never vote for her anyway. Christie ostensibly attracted folks from across the aisle by claiming to be different and this demonstrates he's no different and in fact worse.

[Anonymous]

The difference is that the only people who care about Benghazi are the nut jobs who'd never vote for her anyway. Christie ostensibly attracted folks from across the aisle by claiming to be different and this demonstrates he's no different and in fact worse.

The media and the Dems love Christie. Not a lot of R's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference is that the only people who care about Benghazi are the nut jobs who'd never vote for her anyway. Christie ostensibly attracted folks from across the aisle by claiming to be different and this demonstrates he's no different and in fact worse.

No - there are many people who still care about the truth of Benghazi including the FAMILIES of those who were killed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/poll-finds-strong-support-deeper-benghazi-probe/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The difference is that the only people who care about Benghazi are the nut jobs who'd never vote for her anyway. Christie ostensibly attracted folks from across the aisle by claiming to be different and this demonstrates he's no different and in fact worse.


No - there are many people who still care about the truth of Benghazi including the FAMILIES of those who were killed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/po...support-deeper-benghazi-probe/

Really what about all the Americans killed in the Iraq? When do they get the truth from you fucker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The difference is that the only people who care about Benghazi are the nut jobs who'd never vote for her anyway. Christie ostensibly attracted folks from across the aisle by claiming to be different and this demonstrates he's no different and in fact worse.

The media and the Dems love Christie. Not a lot of R's.

No, not a lot - just Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't matter. The moment he finishes, he just orders the next course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I don't see that this is too bad for him. He retains plausible deniability...


He isn't going to have plausible deniability for long. There are already four different members of his staff involved.


And how many of Obama's staff were involved with the Benghazi cover up using the fake story of a video causing the attack?



zzzzzzzzzzz...... coverup of what. Has everyone agreed that the administration did not provide adequate security, and that it cost the lives of four of our own? Yes.


Assume Christie caused a traffic jam, and then did some other political dirty tricks in Hoboken. Assume he did what MSNBC says.

The premise of this thread is that those scandals sink him as a candidate in 2016.

Are those scandals worse than Benghazi, where you just said "everyone agree(s) the administration did not provide adequate security..."? Is Hillary responsible for what you just said everyone agrees about? If so, is she "finished" by those four deaths, just as the OP of this thread suggests Christie is finished by a traffic jam and some back room political chicanery?

Which is worse?

Benghazi is not a scandal. It is a made up thing by republicans. The Christie thing will be going on well in to the primaries. So yes it will sink him. He will have to answer questions about and money will walk away.


I am the poster you quoted.

Lets use your terms. Benghazi is not a scandal. Lets assume I agree that it isn't a "scandal". My questions still stand. A bi-partisan senate committee (chaired by a democat) says the deaths there were preventable. Is the non-scandalized preventable death of four state department employees more damaging to Mrs. Clinton than a traffic jam and back-room political games in Hoboken are to Christie?

I think you are saying the Christie stuff is more damaging. Those on the right think that it seems sorta unbalanced when the claim of this thread is that Christie's problems kill his chances, but Hillary's do not. In fact, a lot of conservatives probably think it is laughably one sided to think this.

It is laughably to think Benghazi, a right wing funding exercise, will have any impact on Clinton. The report did not blame Clinton. The Benghazi thing is so worn out it is only seen as a Fox/conservative grifter thing. Clinton will be able to raise money and run with no drag from Benghazi. The Christie thing is not a "traffic jam". It is a misuse of government power that will put people in jail. The us da just got involved interviewing witnesses this weekend. This will be an active investigation well in to primary season. The money people will stay away until it is done. Did you see Christie's change of attitude on Sunday? He was at fund raisers over the weekend and got a lot of "we will wait and see how things turn out, talk to us next year". He needs money and commitments now, not next year.

You do realize he was in FL as Chairman of the RGA, don't you. Ask Rudy what good so-called commitments do three years out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I don't see that this is too bad for him. He retains plausible deniability...


He isn't going to have plausible deniability for long. There are already four different members of his staff involved.


And how many of Obama's staff were involved with the Benghazi cover up using the fake story of a video causing the attack?



zzzzzzzzzzz...... coverup of what. Has everyone agreed that the administration did not provide adequate security, and that it cost the lives of four of our own? Yes.


Assume Christie caused a traffic jam, and then did some other political dirty tricks in Hoboken. Assume he did what MSNBC says.

The premise of this thread is that those scandals sink him as a candidate in 2016.

Are those scandals worse than Benghazi, where you just said "everyone agree(s) the administration did not provide adequate security..."? Is Hillary responsible for what you just said everyone agrees about? If so, is she "finished" by those four deaths, just as the OP of this thread suggests Christie is finished by a traffic jam and some back room political chicanery?

Which is worse?

Benghazi is not a scandal. It is a made up thing by republicans. The Christie thing will be going on well in to the primaries. So yes it will sink him. He will have to answer questions about and money will walk away.


I am the poster you quoted.

Lets use your terms. Benghazi is not a scandal. Lets assume I agree that it isn't a "scandal". My questions still stand. A bi-partisan senate committee (chaired by a democat) says the deaths there were preventable. Is the non-scandalized preventable death of four state department employees more damaging to Mrs. Clinton than a traffic jam and back-room political games in Hoboken are to Christie?

I think you are saying the Christie stuff is more damaging. Those on the right think that it seems sorta unbalanced when the claim of this thread is that Christie's problems kill his chances, but Hillary's do not. In fact, a lot of conservatives probably think it is laughably one sided to think this.

It is laughably to think Benghazi, a right wing funding exercise, will have any impact on Clinton. The report did not blame Clinton. The Benghazi thing is so worn out it is only seen as a Fox/conservative grifter thing. Clinton will be able to raise money and run with no drag from Benghazi. The Christie thing is not a "traffic jam". It is a misuse of government power that will put people in jail. The us da just got involved interviewing witnesses this weekend. This will be an active investigation well in to primary season. The money people will stay away until it is done. Did you see Christie's change of attitude on Sunday? He was at fund raisers over the weekend and got a lot of "we will wait and see how things turn out, talk to us next year". He needs money and commitments now, not next year.

I understand the report did not blame her. Who do YOU think is responsible for for preventing the "preventable" deaths in Benghazi? FYI, my tone here isn't argumentative. I am seriously asking. I think the difference in views on how these "scandals" are predicted to impact or not impact Christie and Clinton is fascinating.

[Anonymous]

The report blamed the State Department. Who was in charge?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I understand the report did not blame her. Who do YOU think is responsible for for preventing the "preventable" deaths in Benghazi? FYI, my tone here isn't argumentative. I am seriously asking. I think the difference in views on how these "scandals" are predicted to impact or not impact Christie and Clinton is fascinating.

There are two different issues here:

1) Who is to blame for the deaths in Benghazi, or more accurately, who failed to take the preventative steps (the killers are responsible for the deaths)? Obviously, those preventative steps are not planned or decided at Clinton's level. Four State Department officials who were responsible were removed from their posts. So, I think that answers that question.

2) What about the fallout? One thing the BENGHAZI enthusiasts fail to realize is that not everyone lives in their Fox News-dominated universe. The average person doesn't give a fig about BENGHAZI at this point. Particularly, Democratic-primary voters do not have it on their horizons and it will not factor into their voting decisions. The Christie scandals (at this point there are multiple of them), on the other hand, do directly impact that group of Republican voters most likely to support him. This makes an already difficult primary challenge even more difficult, if not insurmountable. The idea that there will ever be a BENGHAZI-Bridgegate battle during the general election is delusional.

[Anonymous]

Christie presents as a bully and ample evidence appears to support that impression. He also has little charisma. And I don't think he seems all that bright.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I understand the report did not blame her. Who do YOU think is responsible for for preventing the "preventable" deaths in Benghazi? FYI, my tone here isn't argumentative. I am seriously asking. I think the difference in views on how these "scandals" are predicted to impact or not impact Christie and Clinton is fascinating.

There are two different issues here:

1) Who is to blame for the deaths in Benghazi, or more accurately, who failed to take the preventative steps (the killers are responsible for the deaths)? Obviously, those preventative steps are not planned or decided at Clinton's level. Four State Department officials who were responsible were removed from their posts. So, I think that answers that question.

2) What about the fallout? One thing the BENGHAZI enthusiasts fail to realize is that not everyone lives in their Fox News-dominated universe. The average person doesn't give a fig about BENGHAZI at this point. Particularly, Democratic-primary voters do not have it on their horizons and it will not factor into their voting decisions. The Christie scandals (at this point there are multiple of them), on the other hand, do directly impact that group of Republican voters most likely to support him. This makes an already difficult primary challenge even more difficult, if not insurmountable. The idea that there will ever be a BENGHAZI-Bridgegate battle during the general election is delusional.

Yes, every administration needs its sacrificial lambs. While these four employees may have been "removed from their posts," they remain government employees. Let's make that clear.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/20/kerry-lets-benghazi-linked-employees-back-job/?page=all
http://nypost.com/2012/12/26/benghazi-penalties-are-bogus/
I would agree that die-hard Democrats would support Hillary (or the Dem nominee), regardless of any factors. However, to say the average person doesn't give a fig is another inaccuracy. Maybe this is true in your world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/poll-finds-strong-support-deeper-benghazi-probe/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I understand the report did not blame her. Who do YOU think is responsible for for preventing the "preventable" deaths in Benghazi? FYI, my tone here isn't argumentative. I am seriously asking. I think the difference in views on how these "scandals" are predicted to impact or not impact Christie and Clinton is fascinating.

There are two different issues here:

1) Who is to blame for the deaths in Benghazi, or more accurately, who failed to take the preventative steps (the killers are responsible for the deaths)? Obviously, those preventative steps are not planned or decided at Clinton's level. Four State Department officials who were responsible were removed from their posts. So, I think that answers that question.

2) What about the fallout? One thing the BENGHAZI enthusiasts fail to realize is that not everyone lives in their Fox News-dominated universe. The average person doesn't give a fig about BENGHAZI at this point. Particularly, Democratic-primary voters do not have it on their horizons and it will not factor into their voting decisions. The Christie scandals (at this point there are multiple of them), on the other hand, do directly impact that group of Republican voters most likely to support him. This makes an already difficult primary challenge even more difficult, if not insurmountable. The idea that there will ever be a BENGHAZI-Bridgegate battle during the general election is delusional.

Yes, every administration needs its sacrificial lambs. While these four employees may have been "removed from their posts," they remain government employees. Let's make that clear.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/20/kerry-lets-benghazi-linked-employees-back-job/?page=all
http://nypost.com/2012/12/26/benghazi-penalties-are-bogus/
I would agree that die-hard Democrats would support Hillary (or the Dem nominee), regardless of any factors. However, to say the average person doesn't give a fig is another inaccuracy. Maybe this is true in your world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/poll-finds-strong-support-deeper-benghazi-probe/

Yeah, go ahead and bank on that poll. Go look at Gallup's most important issues tracker and show me where it says BENGHAZI:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

[Anonymous]

Yeah, go ahead and bank on that poll. Go look at Gallup's most important issues tracker and show me where it says BENGHAZI:

Maybe you could roll it into "dissatisfaction with the government"--number one of non-economic issues.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, go ahead and bank on that poll. Go look at Gallup's most important issues tracker and show me where it says BENGHAZI:

Maybe you could roll it into "dissatisfaction with the government"--number one of non-economic issues.

Typical of myopic Republicans to believe that "dissatisfaction with the government" is entirely due to BENGHAZI. I'm sure the government shutdown, repeated debt limit crisis, and a general inability to pass any legislation are insignificant in comparison.