Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right-wing Republicans may hate him but he did an excellent job of apologizing this afternoon. I don't care for his politics or him but I don't think he is going to lose ground with his supporters one bit. But whether those supporters can get him the Republican nomination is another story.

Sounds like a Republican grading scale. Excellent apology! Not his fault, but he's really pissed at the people who were to blame!

Oh FFS, I didn't say I was accepting his apology. The point is the guy knows how to make political theater. He's very good at it.

I was/am a Christie supporter and I thought he did a good job apologizing. But, the people who ask how he could have let this go on for four days are right. I don't think it was because he was involved though. In my opinion, he's so used to ignoring unfair criticism that he wasn't able to hear legitimate criticism when it came. So when people were freaking out about the bridge, he probably brushed it off thinking that it was for a greater good (e.g., the traffic study) and that it would all work out. Now we know that it wasn't for a greater good and that the problems should not have been brushed off. He should have asked more questions. I don't know whether to be concerned that he might ignore legitimate criticism again or mollified because he has now learned a valuable lesson and hopefully gained a little humility (which, even as a supporter, I can see he needed).

Wow. You are incredibly naive.

After 20 years in state politics? Uh, no. Not naive. Not cynical either.

And apparently not reading this AM's news: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bridge-scandal-christie-aide-email

It turns out that the Port Authority's warning that the decision was hasty, ill-advised, and likely illegal was sent to his chief of staff.

Do you think his chief of staff would brush off a letter stating that something they were doing could be illegal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right-wing Republicans may hate him but he did an excellent job of apologizing this afternoon. I don't care for his politics or him but I don't think he is going to lose ground with his supporters one bit. But whether those supporters can get him the Republican nomination is another story.

Sounds like a Republican grading scale. Excellent apology! Not his fault, but he's really pissed at the people who were to blame!

Oh FFS, I didn't say I was accepting his apology. The point is the guy knows how to make political theater. He's very good at it.

I was/am a Christie supporter and I thought he did a good job apologizing. But, the people who ask how he could have let this go on for four days are right. I don't think it was because he was involved though. In my opinion, he's so used to ignoring unfair criticism that he wasn't able to hear legitimate criticism when it came. So when people were freaking out about the bridge, he probably brushed it off thinking that it was for a greater good (e.g., the traffic study) and that it would all work out. Now we know that it wasn't for a greater good and that the problems should not have been brushed off. He should have asked more questions. I don't know whether to be concerned that he might ignore legitimate criticism again or mollified because he has now learned a valuable lesson and hopefully gained a little humility (which, even as a supporter, I can see he needed).

Wow. You are incredibly naive.

After 20 years in state politics? Uh, no. Not naive. Not cynical either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right-wing Republicans may hate him but he did an excellent job of apologizing this afternoon. I don't care for his politics or him but I don't think he is going to lose ground with his supporters one bit. But whether those supporters can get him the Republican nomination is another story.

Sounds like a Republican grading scale. Excellent apology! Not his fault, but he's really pissed at the people who were to blame!

Oh FFS, I didn't say I was accepting his apology. The point is the guy knows how to make political theater. He's very good at it.

I was/am a Christie supporter and I thought he did a good job apologizing. But, the people who ask how he could have let this go on for four days are right. I don't think it was because he was involved though. In my opinion, he's so used to ignoring unfair criticism that he wasn't able to hear legitimate criticism when it came. So when people were freaking out about the bridge, he probably brushed it off thinking that it was for a greater good (e.g., the traffic study) and that it would all work out. Now we know that it wasn't for a greater good and that the problems should not have been brushed off. He should have asked more questions. I don't know whether to be concerned that he might ignore legitimate criticism again or mollified because he has now learned a valuable lesson and hopefully gained a little humility (which, even as a supporter, I can see he needed).

Wow. You are incredibly naive.

It was his high school friend and best buddy who did this. How likely is it that he did something so drastically out of character with Christies style?

Whether Christie knew or not, it seems to me that political retribution was probably Christies way of playing politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right-wing Republicans may hate him but he did an excellent job of apologizing this afternoon. I don't care for his politics or him but I don't think he is going to lose ground with his supporters one bit. But whether those supporters can get him the Republican nomination is another story.

Sounds like a Republican grading scale. Excellent apology! Not his fault, but he's really pissed at the people who were to blame!

Oh FFS, I didn't say I was accepting his apology. The point is the guy knows how to make political theater. He's very good at it.

I was/am a Christie supporter and I thought he did a good job apologizing. But, the people who ask how he could have let this go on for four days are right. I don't think it was because he was involved though. In my opinion, he's so used to ignoring unfair criticism that he wasn't able to hear legitimate criticism when it came. So when people were freaking out about the bridge, he probably brushed it off thinking that it was for a greater good (e.g., the traffic study) and that it would all work out. Now we know that it wasn't for a greater good and that the problems should not have been brushed off. He should have asked more questions. I don't know whether to be concerned that he might ignore legitimate criticism again or mollified because he has now learned a valuable lesson and hopefully gained a little humility (which, even as a supporter, I can see he needed).

Rachel Maddow did an excellent piece with an alternate theory about why this happened. The whole thing with the Fort Lee mayor not endorsing Christie makes no sense. He was up over 20 points. What does make sense is the frustration Christie was feeling with Democrats repeatedly blocking his judicial appointments and then Christie (or his office) striking back at the Democratic state senator for this. She represents Fort Lee. The timing of all this is in line with a press conference about a judicial appointment and the email that started the bridge closure ("time for some traffic problems in fort lee") email. I think this will be the story to watch:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/rachel-maddow-chris-christie_n_4572367.html

I think it will be interesting to see if any of the Democrat mayors who endorsed Christie got any "swag". I think the next year will likely show a lot of corruption in this administration. Any enemies that Christie has made, and I am sure he has made a few, will now feel emboldened to go after him while he is weak. It could get ugly.

Anonymous wrote:Poll numbers come out showing Christie beating Clintom in a presidential election and *poof* scandal...

Uh, the state legislature has been investigating this for some time. I suppose you must be used to the idea that all such inquiries are political witch hunts. I can see your confusion, because of the behavior of the US House of Representatives.

Anonymous wrote:Poll numbers come out showing Christie beating Clintom in a presidential election and *poof* scandal...

What are you saying? Are you saying the e-mails were forged? Are you saying there's nothing wrong with political revenge on regular people, using public resources? Can you clarify that you're suggesting?

Anonymous wrote:Poll numbers come out showing Christie beating Clintom in a presidential election and *poof* scandal...

Some people have been talking about this for months, way before the poll. It went "poof" because the emails, requested months ago, just came out.

Christie wasn't getting out of your nut factory primary, anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right-wing Republicans may hate him but he did an excellent job of apologizing this afternoon. I don't care for his politics or him but I don't think he is going to lose ground with his supporters one bit. But whether those supporters can get him the Republican nomination is another story.

Sounds like a Republican grading scale. Excellent apology! Not his fault, but he's really pissed at the people who were to blame!

Oh FFS, I didn't say I was accepting his apology. The point is the guy knows how to make political theater. He's very good at it.

Poll numbers come out showing Christie beating Clintom in a presidential election and *poof* scandal...

Has Christie ever explained why he allowed this to go on for FOUR days? Did he really believe that it was just a traffic study, and asked for no further insight about why a traffic study was taking 4 days to royally screw up a major artery? One day, I can understand. But I don't know how a productive and active governor could allow something like this to continue for 4 days, almost totally unexplained.

Hard to say...if either Wildstein or Kelly is offered immunity and is prepared to leave politics for good, Christie may have something to worry about. Alternatively, if they're offered a payoff from the party and a plea deal from prosecutors this all may go away for Christie. I always wonder how many little guys take the fall for the boss and take their secrets with them on the way out the door. I also don't believe for a second that all of this was a surprise for Christie. Your top aides don't pull this kind of sh*t without an endorsed atmosphere of similar sh*t. This is probably just the incident that got out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so petty and stupid. What is wrong with his aides? Do they think they can play with little people's daily lives and get away with it? And leaving a trail of emails and texts - what a bunch of reckless morons.

I think there is nothing wrong with his aide. He was involved and knew and probably ordered his aid to do so.
Just wait for a tell all book someday.

I don't think you will have to wait for a book. As soon as Federal subpeonas start being issued, all of his "loyal" aides are going to go into "saving their own ass" mode.