Christie at his marathon apology presser Thursday. (NJ Governor’s Office/Tim Larsen)
Speaking of subjects on which Nikki Haley is right, even laudable, while her political opponents have it wrong…
Until the Democrats put out a release today scoffing at her about it, I didn’t know she had stuck up for embattled NJ Gov. Chris Christie on Facebook yesterday. Here’s what she said:
I’ve watched my friend Gov. Christie work through a difficult situation today. He did the right thing in taking responsibility in a tough situation. That’s the kind of leadership that earned him the huge level of trust he has in New Jersey.
And here’s the rather petty response that came from SC Democrats:
Today, Nikki Haley took to her facebook page to praise Chris Christie and demonstrated that her failed understanding of accountability doesn’t only apply to her own massive scandals in South Carolina. The SCDP released this statement from Communications Director Kristin Sosanie:
“Nikki Haley defines leadership as cover-ups followed by excuses followed by blaming others in her own administration, and wouldn’t know real accountability if it stood right in front of her. Nikki Haley is the governor who hid a hacking at the Department of Revenue for two weeks after finding out millions had been exposed to identity theft under her watch. Nikki Haley is the governor who said her administration ‘did everything they were supposed to do’ after covering up a tuberculosis outbreak at a public school for two months and allowing children to be exposed while their parents were kept in the dark. It’s no surprise she spoke up for Chris Christie today, and it only shows that her failed understanding of leadership doesn’t only apply to the massive scandals she creates for the people of South Carolina. Given that her incompetence as Governor has soured voters on her, she’d be better served assuring constituents that he won’t come to South Carolina to campaign on her behalf.”
###
Personally, I’m encouraged that Nikki wanted to stick up for a guy who is not beloved by her base. If you doubt me, read the responses to her Facebook comment.
Nikki Haley speaking up for Sarah Palin? That would seem like business as usually. But speaking up for a guy who goes around giving props to Barack Obama? That’s more remarkable, and I’m pleased to see it.
As for Christie himself… There was an interesting piece in the NYT today about his grueling, 107-minute apology session yesterday. You know what it sort of reminds me of? The way national media marveled at how Mark Sanford went on, and on, and on about himself at his confessional presser in June 2009. They didn’t realize Sanford just talks that way.
But there the resemblances end. Chris Christie is a governor who actually believes in governing, and it would be a shame for this mess — and it is a mess — to damage his ability to do that.
Related Posts
it would be a shame for this mess — and it is a mess — to damage his ability to do that.
-Brad
This isn’t a “mess”. A mess is when someone makes a genuine mistake in the course of trying to do the right thing. If, for example, the lane closures had been needed for some type of repair but the date poorly chosen.
No, this is a bona-fide scandal. And it’s a scandal by a whole host of people hand-picked by Christie. Christie really didn’t actually take responsibility for the bridge closure. He merely mouthed the mandatory words then fired Ms. Kelly for lying to him, NOT for the bridge closure. He never showed any genuine remorse for the hardships suffered. He was just playing the victim card in a most disingenuous manner. Sorry Brad but Haley has it completely wrong here. Christie could have done more, much more to address the issue earlier. He ONLY expressed even the most obligatory expression of “taking responsibility” AFTER his staff was outed by the media. Christie should not get a pass here. But he may get a reprieve if nothing definitively shows he knew about the lane closures. But he’s clearly been sullied. The only question is how much.
“How much” is the question. My initial reaction was that this is a HUGE issue in NJ/NY because of the average driver’s experience dealing with the traffic up there, but that it wouldn’t hurt him nationally in 2016, because the rest of the nation just can’t feel the emotional center of the thing.
But as I thought further, this looked worse and worse for him. And I think this is bad news, because I think Christie is good for national politics. He’s a guy with what it takes to reset the conversation over on the GOP side, if he doesn’t get sidetracked…
If you thought you knew John Edwards…
I agree, bud. He has been sullied. He’s the last person I’d want to see in WH because Christie is a poor judge of character. All those around him have been fired or resigned for wrong-doing.
Dear Bud:
In reviewing your previous comments on the IRS targeting of Tea Party members and the Benghazi stonewalling with respect to President Obama; and then comparing them to your foregoing comment with respect to Gov. Christie, we are delighted to make you a Life Member in good standing.
Sincerely,
The National Association of Double Standards
He’s a coward and a crook.Maybe that’s why Haley can relate to him.This is a conservative republican country,as far as politics go,and it’s been that way since,Reagan was elected.
“He’s a coward and a crook.Maybe that’s why Haley can relate to him.” – Bill
First and foremost, Bill, he is a lawyer and a politician. Gov. Haley can relate only to the latter.
What says about Gov. Christie’s taking responsibility, however, sets a clear contrast with Hillary and Obama over Benghazi, Sen. Graham overs the IRS scandal, and what state senator Sheheen is at liberty to say about Democratich responsibility for the 9, “well-intended” job creation failures (i.e. Solyndra).
The new American Zeitgeist:self righteous condescension.It’s everywhere,but I’m not real sure what you’re talking about…
Hint: Gov. Christie, Obama, Sen. Graham and state senator Sheheen are elected lawyers, which Hillary Clinton, no doubt, has already attempted to be.
Your ” I’m not real sure what you’re talking about…” ruse sounded very familiar on Brad’s blog. Upon researching, I discovered Katherine Fenner ( an unelected lawyer ) had used the same refusal to debate tacctic on half a dozen occasions.
If you are not lawyer yourself, Bill, then no harm has been done; but, if you are…
shame on you, Sir!
Double standard? Hardly. I actually believed something was amiss in the IRS faux scandal when it first came to light. But when it came out that political groups from both liberal and conservative persuasions were audited then it became crystal clear there wasn’t anything going on but the IRS doing its job. Political groups should not get a pass on their taxes and that’s what the IRS was attempting to do.
As for Benghazi, yes there were mistakes made. I’ve acknowledged that the security issue was bungled. That would be akin to closing the lanes at the wrong time of day. Scandal? Pleez. The GOP just needed a witch hunt to replace their earlier failed witch hunts. Remember Fast and Furious? (Maybe Darryl Issa and company should watch the Wizard of Oz. Plenty of witches there).
As for Christie. There is ample evidence that he’s used petty bullying tactics in the past so this fits with an already established pattern. He just may not have had actual first hand knowledge of this grown up but dangerous fraternity hazing prank, but his staff absolutely knew of his bullying inclinations and acted in accordance with that history.
But I don’t want to make too much of this. I don’t fully buy into Brad’s take that Christie is some kind of new-age non-partisan. That’s utterly ridiculous. But in many ways he’s better than the Tea Party crazies that we’ve been cursed with now for the past 5 or so years. The question is do we want a bully or a lunatic. At the end of the day I’d prefer a pragmatist like Barack Obama any day.
This is from a May 17, 2013 article from Yahoo News. “Today marks the one-week anniversary of the Internal Revenue Service’s disclosure that it improperly scrutinized certain conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. As an inspector general report on the practice found, groups with phrases like “tea party,” “patriots” and “9/12 project” were targeted for the “Be On the Look Out” or “BOLO” list, and often ended up waiting two years for notice on their status.”……….bud, it matters not one iota that progressive groups did not receive better treatment, it is the factual admission by the IRS that they did DELIBERATELY selectively target certain groups as directed. Naturally in your world, as long as both sides had groups that were denied exemption or delayed, the IRS was simply “doing its job”.
Benghazi? Bull crap. The NYT is already trying to rewrite history to favor Hillary well ahead of the 2016 elections. They contradicted their own reporting when they ran the article trying once again to blame the attacks on an inconsequential video.
As for Christie, he and Obama are cut from the same cloth when it comes to taking responsibility for their actions and for the people who answer to them. Both will throw anyone under the bus if anything negative comes close to being attached to their “legacy”.
No damn wonder politics has such a low approval rating and how apparent it is that on both sides, we have mole blind sycophants who will buy into the party line at any cost.
This is from the Inspector General report after Democrats “noticed” some progressive groups were on the list of groups held for “review”. Of the 298, only 6 out of 20 were progressive groups. But, if the percentage rebuttal is applied, then 30% of the progressive applications were delayed or denied.
“Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a ‘Progressives’ entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’ in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’ in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words ‘progress’ or “progressive” in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.”
Leadership? You have not been following this,Nikki and Brad! First he mocked reporters for even asking, then he fired his assistant chief of staff. Either he knew or should have known this nutty, dangerous (people died because EMS could not get through) scheme was underway. We still don’t know why this was done exactly, since he said he did not bother to inquire.
“people died because EMS could not get through”
Not true. The family of the old woman who died said she was already dead when she was being transported and that the EMS just didn’t want to pronounce her.
So,it’s a feel-good story? Thanks.I feel so much better.
I find the silence from the right-wing posters pretty revealing. Only Bryan has weighed in with an attempt to brand yours truly as a member of the double standards club. Given the silence on this I can only assume most conservatives are ok with the way Christie has handled this.
Since you asked: The bridge closing is an abuse of power. Just like using the IRS to investigate your political opponents is an abuse of power, just like using the DOJ against reporters is an abuse of power, just like stonewalling an investigation into the deaths of foreign diplomats is an abuse of power.
It’s all an abuse of power, and it all comes from the person at the top, whether directly or indirectly. I condone none of it.
But each of these abuses of power are good examples of why we need smaller government. Do you think American politicians reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?
Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?
Corporations and Churches can also abuse power. Perhaps smaller is better for all things.
How small do you think you have to go? I mean the assistant chief of staff is not buried deep in a bureaucracy!
Who do you think the bureaucracy takes it’s orders from? The problem isn’t the Chief of Staff, it’s that he/she has so much influence over our daily lives.
I’m not against all government measures. I’m in favor of a government that protects us against foreign powers and against citizens from hurting each other. And that’s basically it.
Would it shock you that I’m in favor of legalization of marijuana for adults?
Nope.
And I continue to believe that talk about the size of government is nonsensical. There’s no such thing as government that is too big or too small.
Take this situation, for instance. Do you think that the government of New York is too big? How about the government of New Jersey?
Probably. And yet both were too small to govern the port authority that closed the lanes; it is a joint venture of both states.
You will say, “That’s silly. The port authority doesn’t exist because either of these state governments is too small; it’s a matter of needing an ad hoc arrangement for dealing with a cross-jurisdictional need.” And you’ll be right. Because talk about the size of government is indeed silly. There is simply what it needed or not needed to address a common public issue.
Here, by the way, is a piece in the NYT about the politics of the port authority.
However you want to say it. When I say government is “too big”, I mean that it does things that it shouldn’t do.
Interesting piece on the background of the NY Port Authority. It’s sad that the citizens of NY and NJ spend $7 billion YEARLY on NY Port Authority and they’re still at the whim of a politician.
I’d say it’s an argument for ending the Port Authority, because it doesn’t sound like the people are getting much value for their $7 Billion each year.
Excellent points, Bryan.
The most troubling part of this whole saga is the lack of interest Christie has in figuring out what happened. Beginning with mocking the reports and legislators for even bothering to look into it, he ended by firing the staff member who was responsible for the mess without so much as asking her, What the hell were you thinking? He owes the people of New Jersey some sort of explanation, and if he expects to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, he owes the country a full accounting.
His endearing quality of telling it like it is is starting to look more like calculated misdirection.
This thing seems to be a bit of a political Rorschach test. Republicans see two elephants dancing, and Democrats see… Never mind what Democrats see…
The response from the SC Democrats is unreadable. You want to talk about some delusional thinking, there it is. You can’t say failed about anything that Nikki Haley has done. She’s a political genius. Vincent Sheheen can’t possibly beat the thunder-stealing, wave-riding genius in the Governor’s mansion. It’s like Tommy Moore trying to take down Mark Sanford. Pathetic.
Actually, I was just making an undergraduate-level joke about Rorschach tests…
It was funny.
No matter who you are, or what you think about this, you’re likely wrong. This is why independent prosecutors exist, to dig out the truth of the matter.
As for me, I wonder how Christie could have remained so clueless about his own appointees. But he’s a smart lawyer, and there is a legal definition of “willful ignorance.”
If the little I caught of tonight’s news is right, there’s more coming out about the traffic snarl up; I’ll have to wait and see what’s discovered before I decide whether Christie is unfit for office.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that no political person can apologize in a way that will satisfy, or even hold at bay the most strident of the other party. Admittedly there’ve been a lot of weasel worded non-apologies going around (especially from our sleazier of out politicians), but there have also been some reasonable, honest sounding ones coming from both sides of the fence. Can we not let some investigation occur before we decide to demonize Gov. Christie (or Pres. Obama, for that matter)? Whats-his-face from NY or our own Mr. Sanford you can have.
I think there has been a lot of investigation. This happened in September!
Governot Haley is just trying to butter Christie’s buns in the hopes that he’ll pick her as his Vice President candidate. I am withholding my intentional misspelling of governor regarding Christie since I don’t follow New Jersey political news.
Christie’s buttered buns: cannot unsee! Gee, thanks!
Neither do I!
I was musing on how Hurricane Floyd’s traffic jam brought down Hodges, yet an intentional, man made traffic jam is okay?
I try to stay outa these things until many, many facts come out and the picture can become somewhat clarified. That’s not the way our public discourse goes these days. People seem to prematurely make charges and promote scenarios that support their biases. Sad. Sometimes we need to lower the noise in the interest of finding the truth. It’s no wonder so few will admit guilt – it’s so risky with heavily-armed, trigger-happy opposition an all sides.