|

How are right-wingers reacting to Christie scandal?

chris-christie-via-wsj

Here are some samplings from the conservative noise machine:

John Hayward of Human Events says this:

Conservative Republicans and Tea Party folks already annoyed with Christie, and deeply concerned about abuses of power in the Barack Obama age of vengeful banana republic government, are not going to forget this story any time soon.

John Hawkins of RightWing News says this:

Christie sounded about as good as he could have in the press conference, but this is far from over and he made a lot of specific statements. If it turns out he knew about this, it would probably be the end of his political career. It also plays into his tough, loud mouth image in a very negative way. Because with the way Christie behaves, it seems easy to imagine him being involved in something like this. Even if he had no involvement, this issue will continue to be brought up in New Jersey and it will come up again if he runs a national campaign.

Rush Limbaugh says this:

The point of the story is that Christie will do payback. If you don’t give him what he wants, he’ll pay you back…. So now that is a story, and whatever the truth of it, I don’t care. That’s not my point. The point is the media has just glommed onto that like bees in a honeycomb so that they don’t have to talk about the Gates book.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir says this:

One has to presume that Christie would have inoculated himself against what is analogous to a perjury trap, something with which a former prosecutor would be very familiar. And in part, that’s why the length of the press conference matters — to show that he has nothing to hide, and nothing to fear from questions. If that’s the case — still a big if — then he’s probably defused the worst part of this scandal, and the focus will shift to his underlings. If not, then nothing said in this press conference will help him anyway.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t exactly help Christie to have his former aide David Wildstein repeatedly take the Fifth Amendment in a legislative hearing, to which a court forced him to appear earlier in the day.

Javier Manjarres of Breitbart. com says this:

Of course Christie is a bully. According to some elected officials that have spent time with him, that is exactly what he is, a bully. Not only is he a bully, he acts like a petulant child, as many of you can remember his historic RNC keynote speech that was all about him, and failed to mention 2012 GOP Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review says this:

Christie was first elected governor based on the reputation he cultivated for himself as a hard-charging United States attorney — a tireless investigator who never hesitated to take on the tough cases, ask the hard questions, and keep digging until he got convincing answers. As governor, he has portrayed himself as very hands-on in the Giuliani mold, intimately aware of matters great and small in the Garden State and able wonkishly to roll details off the tip of his tongue.

The only thing in the state that Christie is directly in charge of, though, is his staff. Over two weeks ago, he said he’d previously had his staff dig into the bridge controversy and provide him with a “full briefing,” at which he was satisfied they’d told him “everything that we know.”

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that Christie’s top aides — the ones he knows best, and who know him best — could conceivably have acted without his knowledge. Let’s also imagine that, after years of working closely with him, they would conduct themselves in a manner inconsistent with the climate he has created in his office. The questions remain: What kind of briefing did Christie get before December 23? Who gave him the briefing, what questions did he ask, and what evidence was he shown? And if his own appointees were claiming that the lane closures were over a traffic study, why was he simultaneously saying that the scandal “makes no sense” but that he had no interest in seeing the purported traffic study that caused it? How could a former top investigator content himself with a “full briefing” that did not include the phantom “traffic study”?

 

 

 

Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>