February 1, 2014

Christie was "low-key" yesterday, but today, he's getting "aggressive" against the NYT.

"A media firestorm was set off by sloppy reporting from the New York Times and their suggestion that there was actually ‘evidence’ when it was a letter alleging that 'evidence exists.'"

19 comments:

Sam L. said...

I should believe the NYT and/or Politico? I think not, until there's anything that looks like truth and is attested to by impartial observers.

David said...

Mood swings. Must be menopause.

Eric said...

The NYT new motto; We serve our perfect master. Or mistress, but that sounds like something we don't want people to think about so we'll just leave it at master.

Mark O said...

"Evidence" can mean almost anything. If there were something convincing it would have been produced.

The NYT embarrasses itself.

YoungHegelian said...

Aside from the question of Gov. Christie's competence in the BridgeGate matter, I'm still stuck on why everyone in the media wants to think this guy is the presumptive Republican front runner. I'd believe it a lot more if the media pulled some local yokel off the street in East Bumfuck, TX and asked him if he thought Christie was the man to beat, and he said "Yes".

Every time you hear the pundits drone on & on about Christie just remember: these are the same people who thought Giuliani was the front runner in 2008.

I take a very different view through the long prism of American history: regionalism is still very strong in American politics & northeastern Republicans are doomed from the cradle in American national political struggles.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The New York Times has been known to manufacture stories, and presumably evidence as well. It's probably safe to assume that they are guilty until they are proven innocent, in accordance to modern evidentiary standards, which are notoriously skewed in socially-sensitive domains.

traditionalguy said...

The Times jumped the gun. Christie's scandal drip, drip, drip drama cannot be ended so soon.

In the art of journalistic sadism killing the victim before he has suffered long enough is malpractice. Besides Obama is enjoying watching the slow death.

Illuninati said...

Christie's first mistake was apologizing. His second mistake was firing his aide of many years and then publically humiliating her by calling her actions dumb. By alienating his staff he has almost guaranteed that someone on the staff will remember that he knew all the time. By now, Christie is toast.

chr1 said...

Crackerjack stuff.

Lydia said...

Young Hegelian said… I'm still stuck on why everyone in the media wants to think this guy is the presumptive Republican front runner. …I take a very different view through the long prism of American history: regionalism is still very strong in American politics & northeastern Republicans are doomed from the cradle in American national political struggles.

Something to think about, though, is what if he were the nominee in 2016 with Susana Martinez as his running mate. Wouldn’t that give that regionalism a run for its money?

She went to New Jersey to campaign with him during the final days of his last gubernatorial race and helped bump up his Hispanic support, for instance, from 32% in 2009 to 51%.

SteveR said...

No problem, damage is done, success.

The Godfather said...

Christie is not my choice for the Republican presidential nomination, and he wasn't my choice before the bridge fiasco.

That said, it is sickening to see the way the press jumps on anything at all -- or perhaps nothing at all -- to beat him up with. Here's this Wildstein guy who may himself be a perp, who has every incentive to change the focus of attention to someone else, and whose lawyer says that "evidence exists" -- not that I have evidence -- that -- no, not that Christie ordered the lane closures, but only that Christie knew there were lane closures before he said that he knew there were lane closures. The press was full of speculation this morning that this was the end of Christie's presidential hopes and he'd be lucky to keep his job as governor.

This is the same press that doesn't hold Hillary Clinton responsible for failure to protect our Benghazi consulate (happened on her watch), doesn't hold Obama responsible for on-going political harassment of political opponents by the IRS (happened on his watch), doesn't hold Eric Holder responsible for providing guns to Mexican drug lords (happened on his watch), etc., etc.

Fen said...

Yup. Doesn't matter what correction is printed, the Low Information Voters will forever associate Christie with it.

That was the goal.

We really should investigate the media for violating campaign finance rules. They're not a newspaper, they're a perpetual Democrat campaign.

Tarrou said...

Evidence exists that the NY Times editorial staff was caught in a compromising situation with two Thai ladyboys and five different species of livestock. I've just written it! News at 11.

tim maguire said...

From a national standpoint, attacking the New York Times is the smartest political move Christie has made in a long time.

cubanbob said...

If it comes down to Hillary vs Christie the lesser of the two evils-Christie -is a no brainer. Other than a house organ like the NYT who would equate lane closures with letting people die?

Douglas said...

At first, I was alarmed and upset about the claim that Christie was punishing his political enemies with no regard for collateral damage among the peasants. But the more I see how the Obama administration has used the tools of state to punish the president's political enemies, the more I think it's high time for the GOP to play payback, and Christie might be just the guy to do that.

bbkingfish said...

Christie's high school buddy is taking the Fifth. The high school buddy who Christie appointed to a $150K plum political job...as the governor's "eyes and ears" on the Port Authority.

Christie's campaign manager also is taking the Fifth.

His deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, has not yet begun taking the Fifth, but she has not yet been called as a witness. When she is called as a witness, the odds are that she, too, will take the Fifth.

This is what an actual political scandal looks like: High ranking officials and long-time close associates of the top guy taking the Fifth Amendment when placed under oath, pursuant to pleas or immunity in exchange for testimony.

It's going to be a long spring for Christie, following up on a genuinely lousy winter. And, yes, you can count on that pesky librul media not to ignore any of it.