In addition, a plurality – 44 percent – believe Christie is mostly telling the truth, 33 percent say he’s not and another 23 percent are unsure.That means at least 7% of those whose opinion hasn't changed (or who like him more) think he's not telling the truth. What's up with them? I'm guessing they're the cynics who think all politicians lie or the pragmatists who think you've got to be able to fudge the truth to get things done in the real world.
Why do you think this bridge business isn't having much of an effect? Maybe people feel that this sort of political payback is going on all the time and is small stuff. Perhaps the question should be: Why was this a story at all? Obviously, one answer is the interest in tearing down a presidential frontrunner, and another is that it was a good distraction from the Obamacare rollout and the Gates memoir.
But there's something more general here that we ought to be prepared to deal with in the future, with different characters and in different times. And that is the way writing has taken the place of speaking. People don't talk on the phone anymore. They send email and texts. So there are many more speech-like remarks — casual or brusque or allusive or jocose or elliptical — set down in writing.
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee"/"They are the children of Buono voters." That's the junk that saw the light of day and blew up this brouhaha.