Hey, let’s pile on Christie!
Like sharks in the water, they smell blood. So there will probably be more of this sort of allegation, which seems to rest on word of mouth and involves two more officials in Christie’s administration.
And I would not be a bit surprised if some woman comes forward with sexual harassment charges soon. They are especially useful because they’re so hard to prove or disprove. In addition, no doubt teams of reporters are going through dumpsters in Christie’s vicinity even as we speak. At the very least, they might find some empty ice cream cartons.
Bridgegate was clearly true since it was substantiated by emails from the culprits themselves. Nothing has tied their actions directly to Christie, and probably nothing will. These new allegations – and whatever ones will follow – have the purpose of trying to create an atmosphere around Christie that will lead people to conclude (if they haven’t already) that of course he’s behind all of it.
That’s the way memes work. Bush is a dummy. Palin is a troglodyte Christian science-denier. Romney is an uncaring rapacious capitalist pig. Cain is a serial rapist. Christie is a corrupt bully.
My reaction? I thought threats like these were the way New Jersey politics works. I can’t imagine how, even if Christie were completely innocent (and I have no idea whether he is or isn’t), he could possibly keep this sort of thing from occurring at the hands of someone somewhere in his administration.
Of course, this is the way politics is done in Chicago, too. President Obama is part of that culture, and there is very little doubt that his administration is rife with such behavior. But hey, he doesn’t look like a corrupt bully, does he? And the MSM is playing a very different game with him than they are with Christie.
It goes toward shaping the zeitgeist. That’s just part of the Marxist-method activist game, which is the only social-political game there is.
As long as it feels wrong to vote for a Republican, any Republican, even if there’s hardly an articulative reason for feeling that way, that’s good enough. Any reason can be added on as window-dressing, if anyone asks. No one needs to pass a critical defense of their justification in order to vote.
A vague vote against the Republicans due to the prevailing zeitgeist is just as good as a vote for the Democrats for well-thought reasons.
The Republicans need to go all-in on the ground to fight the battle of The Narrative and seize control of the zeitgeist.
The only way to do that is with a proper Marxist-method activist popular movement, which can only be generated from The People on the ground, led by expert, dynamic Marxist-method activists, not from candidates.
He deserves it.
He thought he could cozy up to the Left and that would make them leave him alone.
What an idiot. What a fat, blithering, bombastic, calculating, conniving, narcissistic, self-centered, craven, duplicitous, cowardly idiot.
May Chris Christie exit from his brief American Idol McCain Political Category stint in the shame he deserves – as soon as they are done piling on even more and totally ruining him.
He chose unwisely as the man said.
Next!
Mike:
The point is not Christie.
If you think this has much to do with Christie you are wrong. The point is to undermine anyone perceived as the GOP “frontrunner” if that person has any chance of defeating the Democrat.
Whether Christie even was the frontrunner in the first place is irrelevant. Whether he could have defeated whoever the Democratic nominee will be is also irrelevant. Whether you like him or not, or think he deserves it, is irrelevant.
The point is that this will be done to whoever becomes the frontrunner and whoever is the threat to the Democrat. And then it will be done to the next one, and the next.
If there are no real offenses (and for almost everyone in public life there will be a few, or a few by subordinates, as with Christie) then some will be manufactured.
This is the danger, and some way must be found to combat it. When you pile on Christie and celebrate because you already hate his guts, beware. You are playing into their hands, and the bell will toll for your favored candidate soon. No human being can be pure enough to escape.
Amen..Amen…AMEN, Neo.
I’m not a big fan of the Big Man, but there isn’t a Democrat politician nor an MSM-Lapdog worth the fecal residue on his loafers.
Neo, you are exactly right. It’s the name of the game no matter who the Republican candidate is.
But, as you say, how do we combat it? Maybe do more TV shows like Letterman? I was somewhat encouraged to see that Letterman on Thursday night, for example, went off on the media’s fixation on Bridgegate. He even contrasted it with Rod Blagojevich’s bribery convictions and said the bridge closure amounts to “Justin Bieber-level stuff”.
Of all the potential Republican presidential candidates out there, I think Christie could do the best job of sparring with folks like Letterman and perhaps go a long way in dispelling the poisonous/evil label stuck on Republicans.
I understand what the point is. And I understand it is not Christie.
The problem is not the MSM either – anymore than we could say the Bubonic Plague is to blame for being a Plague.
The problem are the Rs who think they can cozy up to the Plague, and survive.
The other problem is the Rs who think that we owe any allegiance or respect to the MSM and anyone who listens to them at all.
We owe them nothing. They deserve nothing. The fact that we even allow them to set the agenda and destroy people is our own fault.
As long as we give them power they do not legitimately have, we’ll suffer our well-earned fate.
There is no longer an excuse for not being 100% defiant of these people who are in fact enslaving us, or working hard at it.
Christie hugged and helped re-elect a monster of a man – and the 50m people he fronts for – and thought he could avoid being eaten by the monster. Everyone saw what he did; and predicted what would happen. It happened.
Now, as the new election season approaches, what will we do? More MSM sponsored debates? More Meet the Pravda Sunday interviews? More “let them set the agenda” attack reacting?
Or do we go on the attack. From the get go. As in now. All over the place. In the streets, on the air we have, on the internet, etc.?
Or we can moan and groan that darn it once again they are being unfair to us!!!!!
We can go Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh! all the way to the certain end of America and the end of Liberty on Earth for the foreseeable.
Or we can fight the bastards inch by inch and never stop until we win.
? “Of all the potential Republican presidential candidates out there, I think Christie could do the best job of sparring with folks like Letterman.”
Ann, your idiotness presents again. Why, then, didn’t you support Gingrich.
And all of you Ann like arguers: Why so against G and not C? Hmmm? If anything, G is more erudite and scholarly and adept and accomplished. You weren’t so ready to forgive his indiscretions. Maybe the lame stream media affects you more than you think?
Hmmmm?
Women. Can’t live with em, can’t live without em.
waitforit:
Now, now waitforit. Calling people idiots (or, to be more exact, saying they are showing “idiotness”) doesn’t really get you very far, does it?
I can try to answer for Ann: Gingrich and Christie are both feisty and smart, and both can spar with the best of them. But Christie tends to have more charm (that’s not exactly the right word, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment—maybe humor?) when he does it. And that appeals to people, of both the male and female persuasion.
Whether you are immune to his charm/humor is irrelevant. You may not even see that he has any. But he does. He’s funnier than Gingrich. Both are egotists, by the way, and IMHO Gingrich is an even greater egotist than Christie.
I’m sorry, I meant for my “over the top-ness” to be an indication of its own suspicion.
I always like what Ann says.
I meant friendly banter.
But, there is something you bring up which puzzles me: the female “acceptance” of Christie. I don’t know whether it is an innate protection of a fat person readied to be bullied, or if it is something else.
But C is funnier than G? How. Because he is Fatty Arbuckle? Abbot and Costello?
This needs more articulation. I think you think C is more funny because his youtube success is more demonstrable. If you were strictly consistent, then Gingrich’s “Contract with America” success should be most hilarious.
But, in any case, Ann is my foil, and I hope she knows that.
No human being can be pure enough to escape.
Far as I know, Sarah Palin was. None of the charges or dumpster diving or allegations ever proved true. They had to resort to personal demonization ala Bush and manufacturing ethics charges.
So even if a person is pure enough, they still cannot escape the Left’s evil.
Ymarsakar:
That’s what I mean. Innocence is irrelevant, although most people do have some dirt in their background (or in the background or actions of subordinates or aides).
As for counters, having your own youtube channel and communicating everything through it, not touching the press, would be a nice touch.
Palin seems to crop up every once in a while, poking Hussein in the eye via FB and twitter too. Some of it actually got a response from the Left.
They may have nearly bankrupted her family with those ethics charges, but she should be making much more in the reality tv and private business arena, like the Duck people.
waitforit:
Then I stand corrected about your comments directed towards Ann.
As for Christie vs. Gingrich, and humor, I’ve watched a great deal of both in interviews and giving speeches. And I find Christie to be more humorous and Gingrich far more dour and sour, based on those things. That doesn’t mean that Gingrich is incapable of humor on occasion.
I don’t see Christie as in need of protection in the least. I couldn’t care less that he’s fat (Gingrich is not exactly a sylph himself, by the way, although I don’t care about that either). I don’t know about other women, since I’m sort of an outlier in my reactions to politicians anyway; most of the women I know do not agree with me at all about anybody in politics. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about.
What I do find appealing about Christie’s humor—and I’ve explained this quite a few times on this blog—is the New York/New Jersey quality it has. That’s where I’m from, remember, and the milieu that speaks to me of home. Whenever I go home I am struck by how funny people are, and how much they like to wisecrack and joke. I happen to enjoy it.
I would not vote for someone based on that, of course. But I think humor (up to a point, anyway) makes a politician more appealing in general and therefore, all else being equal, more successful.
Humour, like cancer (is that a good metaphor) grows. I love humour (rhymes and spells with tumour.)
And to get the particular flavor, whether it’s New York flat pizza or Chicago full pie, well, that’s true diversity.
Love it, love it, love it.
But, aren’t women mothers? (Or in the past used to be?)
And instinctively extend protection and acceptance to those under attack, like fat kids?
Here’s sumpin:
Should women have been given the right to vote?
Consider, since they have, we’ve got the 20th century, which was the bloodiest century ever. And it was pretty much women who outlawed alcohol which had to be brought back.
And women on the Supreme Court are “democratic” v. “liberty” and unified in that stance, so that it make sense to postulate that women have an innate disposition against republican government.
Isn’t biology a determinant? What else is Darwinism? Darwin postulates that government of the nation is left to men and government of the family left to women. Eat the paleo diet.
Why shouldn’t there be “men studies” in colleges. Why shouldn’t there be “children studies” and “unmarried women” studies?
There should be, strictly speaking, from a dispassionate science view.
Science, even more than in the Roman Catholic period, today serves planning rather than discovery.
Like Neo, I really like Christie’s humor.
One other advantage he’s got over Gingrich, I think, is that he does well-informed yet still regular-guy talk, while Gingrich usually tends toward the verbose and comes across as a sort of smarty-pants.
I’ll duck now while someone throws “friendly” barbs my way.
waitforit:
There are plenty of conservative women, including woman judges. They are not the majority of women, but they are a large minority.
And I’m not in favor of the special interest group “studies” departments in universities.
By the way, Prohibition was extremely popular with both sexes, and the drive was from both sexes, if you study its history. The Women’s Christian Anti-Temperance Union was only one wing; the Anti-Saloon League was a huge part of the final drive towards prohibition. In fact, prohibition was a popular international movement, and was predominantly religious in origin. And the Eighteenth Amendment (prohibition) preceded the Nineteenth (universal women’s suffrage; before that it was a state-by-state thing).
Ann:
Agreed.
Gingrich has no “man-of-the-people” aura. Whereas that’s how Christie comes across.
Neo are you so sure bridgegate was “demonstrably proved” by those emails that are repeatedly cited? The WaPost about a week ago linked to all the documents in the case and, having no life I guess, I read them all. I found nothing I could remotely call a smoking gun and much to disprove the hypothesis Christie’s aides ordered the shutdown.
There was, for example, a 14 page letter from, I believe, the Traffic Engineers office dating from before this all blew up which laid out why they needed a traffic study, how they were going to perform it and what they found from the study. There was also a letter from the Head of the Port Authority Police Union in which he stated that the whole study controversy was ginned up and was actually an attempt by NY appointees to seize power from the NJ side of the Port Authority. He characterized the relations between the two sides as like gang warfare and that the Christie aides were not responsible.
The emails from the aides had no context around them but appeared by their timing to be more commentary on the effects of a long planned shutdown of the lanes than an actual order to shut them down. All in all I came away thinking that the Dems are really good at turning nothing into a huge scandal when they have the willing help of the media.
I urge you to read all the docs as I’m not convinced they say what many think.
Steve W from Ford:
That’s certainly interesting.I’ll try to look at them more closely when I have a moment. Thanks for the heads-up.
Thanks for the links, Neo. And you’re right. All through history I’m sure there were women and men who drank and were against drinking.
But is there a correlation between the temperance movement and the Marxist/feminist subterfuge? Was there ever a temperance movement before then? I don’t know, I just find it suspect. Maybe it’s the wrong question to ask. But I’ve read that the whiskey/wine consumption of the American colonists was huge.
I thing eugenics and planned parenthood and sociology replacing the family is disaster. That’s progressive value. I really don’t know where Christie stands on that, and that is the problem. I would rather have Gingrich, who has articulated that divide, rather than Christie, who, really, hasn’t.
It’s a very complex subject, like evolution.
Motherhood changes everything. New laws have been passed that are ridiculous. They give so much protection to “pregnancy” claims that soon, just like black people getting 40 % of welfare, pregnancy will follow. Soon, there will be a backlash that prohibits the very entrance that the law tried to encourage.
Motherhood. It changes everything. A woman can’t be a mother and an 60 hour a week attorney or 80 hour a week entrepreneur.
Motherhood. Why the feminists have denied it and embraced lesbianism.
Neo, you’re right in that this is NOT about Christie; it is the way the news media goes after those with a R after their names while ignoring the flaws of those with a D after their names.
If Christie is guilty of even half the stuff they will accuse him of then, truth be told, he does not deserve to be in a position of public trust. But, by that measure most of our politicians should not be there either.
There has never been, nor will there ever be, a politician who is my, or anyone else’s, “perfect” candidate. But, if the news media would be more fair and balanced in how they dig up dirt of BOTH sides then we would all be better off.
However, I won’t hold my breath for the MSM to be “fair and balanced.”
waitforit:
You ask whether there was a temperance movement before Marxism and feminism? Yes. From the link I gave you before:
If Christie has a “man of the people” aura, it must be the people of NYC and Joisey, people among whom I could not live comfortably. Christie has also never struck me as bright or well-informed, unlike Gingrich. I am more inclined to forgive Newt his many personal indiscretions than I am Chris’ preening self-adulation in the face of his ignorance.
Don Carlos:
Yes, it is exactly the people of New Yoik and New Joisey. My people! 🙂
So tell me Waitforit, which Democrat do you want to see elected in 2016? Hilary? Michele? Nancy? Harry?