Taking A Flyer, Or Not.

Premature.

That could be a baby or a sexual act, but in this case it is  S1881,  an attempt of some United States Senators to kill the baby in the crib.

Section 301 of the Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act of 2013, sponsored by Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, clearly is aimed at sabotaging P5+1 negotiators in their effort to stem Iran's uranium enrichment program.  Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic and Bloomberg News, who describes himself as "someone with hawkish views about the Iranian nuclear program," believes the "impetus" behind the legislation is "Additional sanctions might soon prove to be necessary during these negotiations, if the Iranians resist the demands of Western interlocutors to dismantle important components of their nuclear program."

Goldberg maintains, further, "there is a high likelihood that the negotiations that will soon commence in Geneva will not succeed."  He notes "Iranian leaders say they will quit talks if additional sanctions are enacted. I don't quite believe that- the regime has agreed to negotiations not because it wants to give up its nuclear ambitions, but because it needs sanctions relief in order to revive its economy. It will be difficult for Iran to quit these negotiations entirely."  Still

at least in the short term, negotiations remain the best way to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. And U.S. President Barack Obama cannot be hamstrung in discussions by a group of senators who will pay no price for causing the collapse of negotiations between Iran and the P5 + 1, the five permanent members of the security council, plus Germany. “You have a large group of senators who are completely discounting the views of the administration, the actual negotiators, the rest of the P5 + 1, the intelligence community and almost every Iran analyst on earth,” said Colin Kahl, who, as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East during Obama’s first term, was responsible for preparing all of the options that the President says are still on the table.

And that isn't all.  Goldberg explains

precipitous Senate action will embolden Tehran’s hardliners, buttressing their “Great Satan” narrative. Kahl said that Iran's President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif would find themselves in a corner: “Even if the talks don’t collapse, Rouhani and Zarif will have to bargain and negotiate with even more toughness because they will have to defend themselves against hardliners who will argue that they got suckered.”

It seems like just yesterday that foreign policy analysts, pundits, and politicians, were raising the specter of a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran largely because of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   The name of Ahmadinejad, who advocated the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state, became nearly synonymous with his most wish that the Jewish state be "wiped off the map."

But Iranian presidents are term-limited and three candidates stood for election to the position. Shortly before the vote, the Guardian (from which the photograph below is taken) described the eventual- and unexpected- 65 year old winner Hassan Rouhani as

the only cleric among the eight candidates, but (who) is seen as a pro-reform moderate figure expected to win the support of the country's reformers. He is a former chief Iranian nuclear negotiator who served as the secretary of Iran's supreme national security council for 16 years. Under the former president Mohammad Khatami's presidency, Rouhani was responsible for negotiating with the west over Tehran's nuclear dossier. Under Rouhani, Iran halted its enrichment of uranium and showed more cooperation with the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Organisation. He is keen to transform Iran's damaged relations with the west. 

Rouhani, whose campaign slogan had been "moderation and wisdom," promptly set as a priority a deal on Iran's nuclear program.   And The Nation reported that this month

in close coordination with the P5+1 and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran will begin concrete implementation of the November 24 accord. That is when Tehran will freeze its stockpiles of low-enriched, fuel-grade uranium, halt the installation of new centrifuges and refrain from using any of its already installed advanced units, begin to neutralize its medium-enriched uranium by converting it into a form unsuitable for further refinement, freeze development on its heavy-water reactor in the town of Arak, and accept stepped-up, more intrusive daily inspections of its entire program.

As Goldberg posits, no lasting, viable agreement is probable.  But the bill pushed by the Senate extemists would make a settlement less, and war more, likely.



Share |

That Much Is True: There Is No Guarantee He's Telling The Truth

On the blog of Roll Call, Stuart Rothenberg so generously concedes "a complete investigation of the (George Washington) bridge fiasco is well-warranted."  But he maintains also

given the governor’s immediate reaction to the personal crisis that has engulfed him, it isn’t too soon to wonder when the accusations and media frenzy crossed the line from inquiry and investigation to political lynching.

I said I initially assumed that Christie had some knowledge of the plan to tie up traffic in Fort Lee that has caused so much outrage. But after the governor’s news conference, in which he was so definitive in his denials — and so dismissive of the charges when they aired initially, even mocking them by saying that he was the person who put the cones out on the road — I changed my mind.

Rothenberg admits "There is no guarantee that Christie is telling the truth."

But the governor’s performance was persuasive. There was no hemming and hawing, no uncomfortable pauses, no sense that he was parsing his words to make sure that he was answering a question without actually answering it.

There is no guarantee that Christie is telling the truth. But the governor's performance was persuasive. Rothenberg was played by Christie, who claimed "I've worked for the last 12 years in public life developing a reputation for honesty and directness and blunt talk, one that I think is well-deserved."

Rothenberg argues "He has developed a reputation for directness and blunt talk."  That has been displayed numerous times, as when he called a law student and former Navy SEAL "idiot" (video below).






But directness and blunt talk are not substitutes for honesty, in which the Governor repeatedly has fallen short.   Nine months ago, The New York Times reported

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey exaggerated when he declared that unforeseen costs to the state were forcing him to cancel the new train tunnel planned to relieve congested routes across the Hudson River, according to a long-awaited report by independent Congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.

Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey’s share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.

It appears Christie lied- er, uh, "exaggerate" by about 56%.  And then there was the time when

Days after Governor Christie’s administration gave a Florida business a multi-million dollar contract to clean up after superstorm Sandy — a contract that bypassed normal competitive bidding procedures — the company contributed $50,000 to a Republican organization that played a crucial role in the governor’s 2009 run for office.

At least four other companies hired by New Jersey in the wake of Sandy have also opened their checkbooks to the Republican Governors Association, making donations totaling more than $110,000, according to disclosure forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

Christie was vice chairman of the association when almost all the companies, including AshBritt — the Florida disaster-recovery firm that’s now drawing scrutiny for its pricing policies and use of politically connected lobbyists — made their donations, the IRS records show.

So Christie was completely in character when during his Bridgegate news conference he claimed

I don't remember ever meeting Mayor Sokolich in that -- certainly I never did in that context. I don't ever -- I'm sure I met him at some point in an event in Bergen County, but I have to tell you, until I saw his picture last night on television, I wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a lineup.

Oops. The picture below- which ABC News found on the governor's own website- finds Christie about to pick Mayor Sokolich out of a lineup at an event pertaining to sick pay reform.

But Rothenberg is at his most noxious when equating scrutiny of Governor Christie to slavery. The New Jersey governor will be slaving away this January weekend- in Florida- at three events, two fundraisers and the other a meeting with major donors. After taking note of Christie's schedule, No More Mister Nice explains

If it doesn't involve conscience-shocking violence or the equivalent in brutality, it's not a lynching -- or a rape or slavery, for that matter. When the person perceived as a victim has power, status, high-powered lawyers, media defenders, and a future that involves due process, and has not suffered grievous physical harm or been summarily deprived of human rights, do not say the person is being raped or lynched or enslaved.

Hyperbole is gratifying, and sometimes entertaining.  But it would have been reasonable for the esteemed Mr. Rothenberg to wait, oh, at least a day into the investigations being launched by the NJ Assembly, the US Attorney's Office, and possibly the US Congress before chalking up to "partisan politics and pettiness"  disruption of transportation on a bridge leading into New York City on days including the anniversary of 9/11.

Share |

Schweitzer's Sin

Benjy Sarlin's profile of Brian Schweitzer (photo, below- but you knew that), who has strongly indicated he wants to run for the Democratic nomination for President, is intriguing on several levels.   Although some liberal/progressive Democrats- including at No More Mister Nice- are skeptical that he can (or should) be nominated. there is reason to like the former Montana governor.  One of them is

Schweitzer met Obama once. It didn’t go well.

In August 2009, the president traveled to Montana to deliver a speech touting health care reform. His efforts to transform the health care system were then under siege from the tea party movement, which warned of a European-style “government takeover” of health care and spread myths of federal “death panels” to execute the infirm. So Schweitzer raised a few eyebrows when he introduced Obama by declaring his unabashed love for Canada’s government-run health care program.

“Did you know that, just 300 miles north of here, did you know they offered universal health care 62 years ago?” he said. He praised Tommy Douglas, father of the country’s health program, who, he noted, was named in a TV poll the greatest Canadian in history – nine spots ahead of Wayne Gretzky.

Minutes later, the president used his own speech to declare, “I’m not in favor of a Canadian system, I’m not in favor of a British system, I’m not in favor of a French system. What we’ve said is, let’s find a uniquely American system.”

This wasn’t the only source of tension between the two men.

Schweitzer was concerned the emerging legislation would rely too heavily on expanding Medicaid, which he complained could prove too costly for states and give conservative governors room to undermine coverage. He wanted a strong public option, which Obama favored but the Senate would soon jettison to appease wavering Democrats. Schweitzer had campaigned on importing cheaper drugs from Canada (he personally bused seniors across the border to buy medicine) and wanted the government to negotiate lower prices, two policies that the White House rejected to secure alternative savings and pharmaceutical industry support.

After the speeches were over, Obama sat Schweitzer down for a private talk. According to Schweitzer, the president said his voice wasn’t helping the health care debate and asked him to step away. The White House, through a spokeswoman, disputed his account.

Schweitzer said he agreed to to tone down his attacks after their meeting. But he went on to engineer a series of confrontations with the Obama administration that highlighted his critique of the law.

His request for permission to sell drugs at Medicaid prices in Montana was rejected. He tried to get a waiver to turn Medicaid into a single payer system, modeled on Saskatchewan’s, for all Montanans. That idea was rejected, too. But he did build a small network of free clinics for state employees that pay doctors by the hour instead of by the procedure to lower expenses. So far, they’ve gone over pretty well.

It's not surprising that Brian Schweitzer doesn't get along well with Barack Obama; after all, his name isn't Chris Christie.  The President prefers governors who yell at teachers and block Medicaid expansion to those who want a single payer system which, presumably, would contrast extremely well with the Rube Goldberg contraption known as Obamacare.

Citing Schweitzer's traditional opposition to gun control and lukewarm approach to the environment, Sarlin suggests Schweitzer probably is targeting the vice-presidential, rather than presidential, nomination. He notes

On guns, Schweitzer now supports closing loopholes on background checks. But he still opposes an assault weapons ban. While Howard Dean managed to capture the progressive imagination with a matching “A” rating from the NRA, the issue is more emotionally raw in the post-Newtown era, and Schweitzer himself has expressed concern that it might disqualify him from national politics. 

Well, yes, it might disqualify him from national politics, though there are other reason(s) he's unlikely to gain the Democrats' nod in 2016 (more on that at a later date. Also, the last post.) And we might be reluctant to ascribe legitimacy to a Schweitzer run because he supports gun rights, though as a politician in Montana, any other stance likely would be disqualifying.

A President Schweitzer might be unwilling to limit the firearm carnage in America. The contrast would be startling, apparently, from a President who in his eulogy at the service for the victims of the massacre in Tucson, Arizona stated only this about the issue:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

"Mistakes were made," President Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) said after it was revealed he sent arms to the murderous thugs in Tehran. "Terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding," an admirer, Barack Obama, said while he ignored the need to stem violence on America's streets.  Brian Schweitzer of Montana does not understand the need for sensible gun control now, but he may "evolve," as Obama apparently has with same-sex marriage. And after five years after an Obama presidency, we have this list of  firearms safety measures enacted:

Share |

As Everyone Loses Perspective

The circus must be in town. Politico's Mike Allen and Amie Barnes in "Hillary's Hit List" write that Clinton aides Kris Balderston and Adrienne Elrod in June, 2008

recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress (in which) they carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines...

There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).

On  foxnews.com, Ellen Ratner (video below) was excited and compared Clinton's list of politicians with, as George Will put it Sunday,  the Christiecrats "use (of) the machinery -- the federal machinery of government - to screw our enemies." She stated the Clintons

actually had this list going, going to be using this list if she runs for President, as to who they're going to accommodate and who they're not. Well, the press is kind of leaving that alone. But they haven't left Governor Christie alone.  As you know, they call- what- Washington Bridgegate or Bridgegate. But they haven't left him alone. But this one- hmmm, we're not hearing too much from the press.

But Howard Kurtz explains

Do the Clintons have long memories? Of course. But I searched this excerpt in vain for one example of them retaliating against someone who screwed them.

“‘It wasn’t so much punishing as rewarding, and I really think that’s an important point,’ said one source familiar with Bill’s thinking. ‘It wasn’t so much, “We’re going to get you.” It was, “We’re going to help our friends.” I honestly think that’s an important subtlety in Bill Clinton, in his head. She’s not as calculated, but he is.’”

Sounds like a pretty good explanation of modern contemporary politics. The reason the Christie scandal has resonated is not that his aides—without his knowledge, he says—tried to hit back at Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for his non-endorsement of the governor. It’s that so many New Jersey and New York commuters were sideswiped in the process. 








Though neither Mrs. Clinton's critics nor her defenders are likely to say so, the evaluations made by the Clinton team generally were sound.

"Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)," Allen and Parnes write, "got the seat closest to the fire," in part because she remarked Clinton 42 "has been a great leader but I don’t want my daughter near him." (Apparently, a good sense of humor is no defense.)  The Clintons had vigorously campaigned for McCaskill when she ran for the Senate in 2006 but she became the first female Senator to endorse Obama. Also earning a "7" was Representative Tom Moran of Virginia, whose support Balderston had assiduously sought until it was actually promised in January, 2008. A few weeks later, Moran endorsed Senator Obama.

The motivation for endorsement of the first viable black presidential candidate by the Missourian and the Virginian was disturbingly similar. When McCaskill endorsed Obama in 2008, she contended

This is a man who has incredible intellectual heft … who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems … Only once in a generation does a leader come along that has that particular gift. … Barack Obama is, I believe, right for the country this time.

She evidently didn't make clear why he was "right for the country this time" and already has endorsed Clinton 2016.  Moran says he has made up with Balderston and is more explicit, recently stating

I plan on making it up to him in the 2016 campaign since I’ve always been in love with Hillary.  I simply thought that given the opportunity, it was too important that this country elect an inspiring black president.  (And yes, he did say "in love with Hillary," not "I love Hillary.")

Box checked for black President; block to be checked for female President in 2016.  If Clinton is in fact elected, a block can be checked in 2016 for someone born with another immutable characteristic- hispanic, LGBT, or whatever is then deemed to be the most important characteristic of arguably the most powerful individual in the world.  And at some point, perhaps we can turn our attention to minor issues such as this:

Share |

Leadership From The I Know Nothing Governor

Haley Barbour is not living on another planet.  He's a very slick politician, possibly ill-informed.  The online edition of New Jersey's most widely circulated newspaper, The Star-Ledger of Newark, reported the former Mississippi governor

defended Gov. Chris Christie in a lengthy interview for “taking the bull by the horns” after a week of explosive revelations that top Christie aides knew about plans to cause a massive traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge last year.

Barbour also went on the attack, scolding Christie’s Democratic critics and the “liberal media elite” for sensationalizing the traffic jam to imperil the New Jersey governor’s political future...

“First of all, he stepped up to the plate and took responsibility,” Barbour told The Star-Ledger on Friday night. “The American people are dying for that after five years of President Obama always saying it's someone else's fault.

“He stepped up to the plate and said what a great Democratic president once said: ‘The buck stops here. I take responsibility’ He didn't say, like Secretary Clinton, ‘what difference does it make?’”

Announcing that one is taking responsibility is not taking responsibility, unless Barbour wants to concede full responsibility for the deadly attack on the compound in Benghazi was assumed by Secretary Clinton, who testified before Congress "As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right."  Chris Christie said he took responsibility- and then assigned blame to the individuals he fired while claiming he knew nothing.

But the closure by the Republican regime in Trenton of access lanes to the George Washington Bridge for purely partisan political purposes did give the GOP yet another opportunity to blame the "liberal media," as it does upon any factual report of Republican wrongdoing.  “The liberal media elite," Barber imagined, "continues to treat this like the Lincoln assassination.”

The meanies in the liberal media have just been so unkind to Chris Christie.  That's why Barbara Walters named him one of the ten most fascinating people of the year.  In an adoring profile (video, below) from shortly before his re-election, Walters termed him "a bear of a man," who is "frank" and "fearless."  He was focused on his re-election, she stated, "and on New Jersey's recovery."

Not focused sufficiently, it appears.  He awarded a $150 million no-bid contract to a Florida-based company to assist in recovery from Hurricane Sandy, even though three other firms would have done the cleanup more cheaply.  A firm willing to produce an ad campaign touting the Jersey shore was bypassed in favor of an outfit charging $2 million more- but which included the governor's family in the "Stronger than the Storm" campaign commercial masquerading as a tourism spot. The bid evaluation process was led by a woman who resigned as an aide to the governor amid controversy over a $46,000 loan she received from Christie when he was U.S. Attorney.

And then there is the little matter of the $1.8 billion the Christie administration received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 60% of which the governor promised to apply to low and moderate income housing.  Nearly two-thirds of that money has gone missing, according to Chris Hayes.

Soon after the governor won re-election, Time magazine, no doubt part of that "liberal media,"  maintained Chris Christie

has run the Garden State with combustible passion, blunt talk and the kind of bipartisan dealmaking that no one seems to do anymore. He doesn't claim to be an ideas man or a visionary. He's a workhorse with a temper and a tongue, the guy who loves his mother and gets it done.

That's because, hey, all other politicians absolutely hate their mother.  And the "workhorse" (who) "gets it done" learned (as Josh Barro points out) 117 days after the story broke that one of his Deputy Chiefs of Staff (Bridget Kelly) had ordered closure of lanes to the most-heavily used bridge in the world. Quite a way to "take the bull by the horns," though both Barbour and Christie should know bull when they see it.








Share |

Trying To Wiggle Out


In his news conference of Thursday, Chris Christie deftly mixed truth, falsehoods, and the word "apology," all intended to assure his audience (GOP base, mainstream media, and Wall Street donors, in reverse order of importance) that he was truly sorry for an incident he didn't know about until getting off his treadmill the previous morning.

He also said that he had experienced sleeplessness the two previous nights- that, although he had learned of the nature of the George Washington Bridge fiasco only one day before.  The governor demonstrated an impressive adroitness in language as when, preceding the questions posed him, Christie's opening statement included

This morning I've terminated the employment of Bridget Kelly, effective immediately. I've terminated her employment because she lied to me. I brought my senior staff together I think about four weeks ago tomorrow. And I put to all of them one simple challenge: If there is any information that you know about the decision to close these lanes in Fort Lee, you have one hour to tell either my chief of staff, Kevin O'Dowd, or my chief counsel, Charlie McKenna.

And I told them that in an hour I was going to go out in a press conference. And if no one gave me other information to the contrary that I was going to say that no one on my staff was involved in this matter.

Over the course of the next hour, Kevin and Charlie interviewed each member of my senior staff, came back and reported to me that they all reported that there was no information other than what we already knew that had been testified to by Senator Baroni regarding this incident. I then questioned Kevin O'Dowd and Charlie McKenna directly, since they are the only two who report directly to me, and they assured me that they had no information that would change my ability to be able to say that no one, in response in Angie's (sp) question, on my staff was involved in this matter.

The New Jersey governor appears to confront his staff members. He states "I put to all of them one simple challenge: If there is any information that you know." "You," he reportedly told them, "have one hour."  He asserts additionally that he questioned two staff members "directly."  No passive verbs there- only the macho language which the media and conservatives have come to know and love.

But a closer examination reveals that Christie interviewed only two individuals.  He avoided talking to the three persons who now have been either fired or tendered their resignations, thereby maintaining an ability to express self-serving ignorance while testifying under oath in response to any future subpoena.

Christie's effort was enhanced by the instructions he contends he gave his senior personnel.   He apparently told them that if they kept quiet in the following 60 minutes,  "I was going to say that no one on my staff was involved in this matter."  If they stayed mum, he would tell the media what he- their boss- wanted to be able to report.    Alternatively, they could have told the Governor what he didn't want to know and, at best, decide whether they wanted to be fired before or after the leading GOP presidential aspirant embarrassed himself publicly.

So Chris Christie goes before the media and makes a joke about the lane closures. Four days later David Wildstein resigns, writing Bill Baroni "My plan was to leave the agency at some point next year, but the fort Lee issue has been a distraction, and I think it's better to move on earlier. I am grateful to you and Governor Christie for the opportunity to serve."   Josh Barro notes

The governor says Kelly lied to him and said she had no involvement in the bridge lane closures. But Kelly wasn't the only person who knew Kelly was involved. In August, she emailed David Wildstein, Port Authority Director of Interstate Capital Projects: "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Wouldn't Wildstein have told the governor, in the process of tendering his resignation, that Kelly had told him to do it? Bill Baroni, Christie's top appointee at the Port Authority, was also checking in with Wildstein about whether "Trenton" was happy with the handling of the closures. Why didn't Baroni tell the governor his staff had known?

Nor did it pique the Governor's interest when three days after Wildstein resigned, three Port Authority officials testified that there was no traffic study being conducted when the access lanes to the bridge were closed three months earlier. Nor was the Governor curious when the bridge officials testified also that they had been instructed by Wildstein not to tell Fort Lee officials or Executive Director Patrick Foye (a New York State appointee).   Nothing to see here- move on (video below, of Assemblyman Wisniewski, chairperson of Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee and of State Senator Loretta Weinberg, who represents Fort Lee).

But Christie has plenty of motive to delay and deny.  Steve Kornacki Thursday evening explained that the (Democratic) Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly

is there because of this coalition of pro-Chris Christie Democrats and Chris Christie. Until yesterday, he was not expected to renew the subpoena power of the state Assembly.  This all guess- me just spitballing here but a plausible scenario is he put two and two together, didn't want to ask questions and didn't ask questions and hoped we could get to next Tuesday, when the state session would expire and subpoena power would expire and almost got there. If this story had not come out yesterday and not been directly linked to the governor's office, we wouldn't be having the conversation we're having right now.

Once known as the "tough-as-nails Garden Stater," Christopher J. Christie, as he tries to run out the clock and claims he never really has been the hands-on manager he successfully portrayed himself as, is still the same old Chris Christie, devoted to nothing other than himself.






Share |

He Knows Nothing

It's the classic dodge.  In his news conference Thursday, Chris Christie used the word "responsibility" twelve times. It began with "And so, you know, I'm going to look into this personally. This is my responsibility, "

It moved on to

And so I understand why people would ask that question, and I understand your question completely. But what I also want to tell the people is that even with all that being said, it's still my responsibility. I didn't know about it, but it's my responsibility because I'm the governor. So I'm taking that responsibility and taking actions appropriate with executing the responsibility in accord with what the information is today.

The governor later remarked "And in this instance, my government fell short, and I take responsibility for that, and that's why I'm apologizing."    A few minutes later, he claimed

I think the people of New Jersey are looking to see, when mistakes are made, how their leader is going to react. And I believe that when they see me take the action I'm taking today, that they'll say, mistakes were made, the governor had nothing to do with that, but he's taking responsibility for it...

He went on to "sometimes there are going to be mistakes, and when there are, I have to own up to them and take responsibility and act, and that's what I've done today" and topped it off with

No, I don't think it's my credibility. I mean, I think, Kelli (sp), if I didn't stand up and take responsibility and apologize directly to the people of New Jersey, as I've done today, then I think that would be a risk, but I'm not that kind of person.

I understand the responsibility of this job. I've had it for four years now. And I think I said this at the press conference in December. There's plenty of times I get credit for things that I had little to do with, as governor, and sometimes I get blamed for things that I have little to do with. But it doesn't matter. I'm the governor, and the things that happen on my watch are my responsibility, both good and bad.

The word "responsibility" comes up a dozen times (and "responsible" eight times). By contrast, the word "sorry" was uttered three times. On the first occasion, reminded of a joke ("I worked the cones. Unbeknownst to anyone, I worked the cones”) he had made about closure of lanes to the busiest bridge in the world, he allowed "Well, I just did. I said I'm sorry for that, and I would have never made that joke if I knew the facts that have come forward to me today."

On a second occasion, it's difficult to determine from the transcript to what Christie was referring when he said he's sorry.  And on the third occasion, he actually commented "And I'm sorry to all the people of the state that they have to be, you know, occupied with this matter. It's embarrassing."

Apparently, the Governor regrets all the media coverage, not only for himself but for the residents of New Jersey.  But all the talk about responsibility evidently has fooled some experts.   And leave it to two sorry reporters from Politico, who wrote

Apologize. Take responsibility. Act decisively.

Crisis management experts say those are the necessary first steps in handling a scandal — and they gave New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie high marks for his news conference Thursday, in which he responded to email evidence that some of his top aides shut down traffic lanes to the George Washington Bridge for political reasons...

“I thought it was a textbook performance of how you approach these things: Lay it all out, be contrite,” said Jim Manley, a senior director at the D.C. public affairs firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates who was previously a longtime Democratic aide in the Senate. Manley added, however: “I don’t think he gave himself a lot of wiggle room. That’s the rub. He better know what he’s doing because he was so unequivocal.”

In the news conference, Christie apologized to the people affected by the September lane closures and announced that he had fired deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly and essentially dismissed political adviser Bill Stepien. He also insisted that he had “no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or execution.”

Later in the day Thursday, Christie traveled to Fort Lee, the town most affected by the lane closures, and personally apologized to its mayor, Mark Sokolich. Democrats allege the governor’s allies targeted Fort Lee to get back at Sokolich for not endorsing Christie as he was running for reelection last year.

His move to take full responsibility and to dismiss the implicated aides earned Christie an “A+” from Larry Smith, a senior consultant at the Institute for Crisis Management.

“Whether you’re the CEO of General Motors or the governor of a state or a senator or the president of the United States, you ultimately have people who answer to you and only to you and you have to be responsible,” Smith said. “I thought that he was very clear and didn’t mince words.”

Another reason the experts praised Christie was that while he was contrite and apologetic, he also reinforced the straight-talking, no-nonsense persona that he’s cultivated on the national level.

Mark Irion, president of the crisis communications and public relations firm Levick, said that, by maintaining his usual demeanor, Christie helped ensure that his brand wasn’t harmed.

“From a communications perspective, he reinforced what Chris Christie at his best is believed to be: strong, decisive, a chief executive who immediately gathered the facts and cleaned house,” he said.

Strong and decisive apparently entails "And I'll say one last thing, just so we're really clear. I had no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or it execution."  Immediately gathering the facts evidently means  learning at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 8 that his aides had (he insists) lied to him. But, as Josh Barro noted during the press conference

There were 117 days between when the Bridgegate story broke and when the governor learned that one of his Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Bridget Kelly, had called for the lane closures. One of his close confidants whom he just selected to run the New Jersey Republican Party, Bill Stepien, is also implicated. Despite the fact that increasing national attention was being paid to this story through the fall, Christie — who has a background as an aggressive prosecutor! — had no idea some of his closest allies were involved. 

Being contrite no doubt amounts to getting rid of everyone- except oneself- involved in a scandal.  Being "responsible" means never having to be accountable.  After repeatedly announcing himself responsible, the New Jersey governor was asked "Did you ever for even a brief moment entertain the idea that perhaps you should resign?" and answered

Oh, god, no. No. Brian, I mean, you know, listen. I know you're asking. You know, I am -- I -- you know, I am -- I heard -- (off mic). That's a crazy question, man. I mean, I'm telling you: I had nothing to do with this. And so, you know, no. I never gave any thought to doing that at all, nor would I. 

It was a joke when repeated on television. But this strong, decisive response management style demonstrated by Chris Christie (and, no, I'm not saying he's fat) comes down to this:









Share |