Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I smell a rat.
HRC is definitely not above some Jersey style politics.
Money talks, maybe she paid someone to stir up this mess.
3, 2, 1...go lefties!
^^You are one smart cookie! Now, can you brew up a HRC-backed story for the use of the Hurricane Sandy funds issue that CC is now dodging?
Anonymous wrote:I smell a rat.
HRC is definitely not above some Jersey style politics.
Money talks, maybe she paid someone to stir up this mess.
3, 2, 1...go lefties!

Anonymous wrote:I smell a rat.
HRC is definitely not above some Jersey style politics.
Money talks, maybe she paid someone to stir up this mess.
3, 2, 1...go lefties!
There is something more to this story.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.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!
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.
A "traffic study"? Really? What was the hypothesis of the study? That closing three lanes of the busiest bridge on the planet for four days might cause traffic problems? Christie is either a liar or needs to be a bit more curious.
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?
It's possible. (And no, I had not read the morning news when I posted.) Plenty of senior staff think they are untouchable.
It would also not surprise me if the CoS did not disclose the letter to Christie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.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!
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.
A "traffic study"? Really? What was the hypothesis of the study? That closing three lanes of the busiest bridge on the planet for four days might cause traffic problems? Christie is either a liar or needs to be a bit more curious.
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?
It's possible. (And no, I had not read the morning news when I posted.) Plenty of senior staff think they are untouchable.
It would also not surprise me if the CoS did not disclose the letter to Christie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.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!
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:Anonymous wrote: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.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!
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?