Christie is the closest thing the GOP has to a candidate who might actually be able to win some electoral votes in the NE and break the Dems' grip on their 20 presidential "safe states." And now he and the "moderate" Republicans have to deal with "Bridgegate." This is bad news for Roger Ailes and George Will.

 

Christie is the leader and that's why between now and the election every detail of his life will be exposed. He should know this and prepare. I stand by the fact this will have zero influence on the election. The American people have short term memory on scandal. If they find a smoking gun that links directly to Christie then maybe it will last longer. If this is all that is to the story outside of MSNBC it will be off the air by the end of the week.

My comment .... We sure love to condemn our leaders don't we? No evidence that Christie had anything to do with it and yet there is talk of impeachment.

 

I think Americans have heard of so many scandals where the president/governor/senator/whatever always says it was someone in their administration and they had no knowledge of it that people are now just assuming that the president/governor/senator/whatever is probably lying to them. The fact that Christie actually fired one or more people does lead some credence to maybe he didn't know and those truly at fault have been fired. However, when things happen and no one gets fired, that immediately makes it suspect whether the head guy or gal didn't know anything.

I heard a political science professor say yesterday that this story gets a lot of coverage because its a simple issue to follow AND its something that hits close to home. The issues you and others referenced are more complicated and do not hit us close to home on a daily basis.

 

I'd say he is spot on.

 

I read the same thing but put a bit differently: this story writes its own "elevator pitch," i.e. you can explain the whole thing to someone in the course of an elevator ride. The simplicity makes it compelling. A more complex story allows for more obfuscation, denial, and the public losing interest, whereas there's no choice but to deal with this one straight-on. I think that's why we've seen the narrative emerge that "this isn't a big deal" instead of a defense of Christie's administration.

I think Americans have heard of so many scandals where the president/governor/senator/whatever always says it was someone in their administration and they had no knowledge of it that people are now just assuming that the president/governor/senator/whatever is probably lying to them. The fact that Christie actually fired one or more people does lead some credence to maybe he didn't know and those truly at fault have been fired. However, when things happen and no one gets fired, that immediately makes it suspect whether the head guy or gal didn't know anything.

This weakens Christie's credibility either way. If he didn't know, then his critics will say he failed to supervise his underlings' dirty tricks. But, hey, this is Jersey, right?

I find it hard he didn't know anything. I also think this will mean nothing come presidency.

 

A quality that seems OK with the old mainstream media, as they seemed alright with Obama not knowing anything about numerous topics.

This is another example of abusive government. Americans need to realize that government is coming after them and the only way to stop it, is to reduce the size of government and punish those who comment offensives against the public.

At least Christie did stand up and take it like a man. Fired those responsible and answered questions.

Christie is the leader and that's why between now and the election every detail of his life will be exposed. He should know this and prepare. I stand by the fact this will have zero influence on the election. The American people have short term memory on scandal. If they find a smoking gun that links directly to Christie then maybe it will last longer. If this is all that is to the story outside of MSNBC it will be off the air by the end of the week.

Last poll I saw had Christie leading the GOP presidential pack, but with only 18-19 percent of the vote. In other words, he's a weak frontrunner. The much larger question is to what extent will Bridgegate hurt him in the primaries.

If this helps Rand Paul get the nomination, I'm all for it.

 

You want another Democrat president?

 

Sorry ... please disregard. I don't want to take the thread down a different path.

Last poll I saw had Christie leading the GOP presidential pack, but with only 18-19 percent of the vote. In other words, he's a weak frontrunner. The much larger question is to what extent will Bridgegate hurt him in the primaries.

 

Like I said since the scandal broke Christie's favorable rating has increased with those labeled conservatives. I can't explain it. Rand Paul has been my first choice since day one. I would probably vote for Christie second even though we disagree on a lot of topics. He does get things done.

I find it hard he didn't know anything. I also think this will mean nothing come presidency.

 

I dont think its hard to believe he never knew. Obama says he never knew anything from the IRS, Benghazi, and stuff.

This is a big story because polling shows Christie is the current front-runner to become the GOP presidential nominee in '16. This Tony Soprano-like retaliation scandal also opens the door wider for someone like Rand Paul.

This is exactly right. The Dems are falling all over themselves trying to knock Christie down, in hopes that Rand Paul will rise to the top in the Republican race for 2016. They see him as easy pickings in comparison to Christie.

I dont think its hard to believe he never knew. Obama says he never knew anything from the IRS, Benghazi, and stuff.

 

I also don't believe Obama. I'm pretty consistent on that.

This is exactly right. The Dems are falling all over themselves trying to knock Christie down, in hopes that Rand Paul will rise to the top in the Republican race for 2016. They see him as easy pickings in comparison to Christie.

Disagree. GOP in '08 and '12 went with "safe, electable" candidates and got 8 years of Obama. I think more GOP voters in '16 will vote their ideology instead of letting polls influence their choice.

This weakens Christie's credibility either way. If he didn't know, then his critics will say he failed to supervise his underlings' dirty tricks. But, hey, this is Jersey, right?

 

I will agree but a politician who had a rogue underling do something w/o their knowledge while not showing good supervision is preferable than the politician being part of it completely.

 

When the politician fires the underling is suggests to some degree that maybe the politician wasn't involved. When no one is fired, it makes that a little harder to believe.

Disagree. GOP in '08 and '12 went with "safe, electable" candidates and got 8 years of Obama. I think more GOP voters in '16 will vote their ideology instead of letting polls influence their choice.

 

I would think Obama had more to do with winning in 08 and 12 than the GOP candidates. Obama is very articulate and has a charm about him that many Americans were attracted to even if their political ideology would put them closer to McCain or Romney. Didn't one of the news agencies state that from political opinion polls that more voters actually lined up with Romney than Obama but Obama was just the "sexier" candidate who won?

 

Some call this low information voting where people vote on things completely unrelated to the political issues but rather focus on the candidates looks or their charm etc..

I will agree but a politician who had a rogue underling do something w/o their knowledge while not showing good supervision is preferable than the politician being part of it completely.

 

When the politician fires the underling is suggests to some degree that maybe the politician wasn't involved. When no one is fired, it makes that a little harder to believe.

Headline in N.Y. Times today: "Aide fired by Christie is called loyal team player, not rogue operative"