Here today gone tomorrow

That’s something Christie should have thought about, say about 2 months ago when he seemed to be riding high after his second gubernatorial win in NJ.

Yep, that euphoria then probably feels like a distant memory to him now, on the heels of not one but two investigations cranking up in a midterm year. Even the optimistic Christie has to say “wait a minute, it was only a few short months… I’m just being sworn in to my 2nd term.” Yep, and that’s the way it works.

He pulled no punches in criticizing conservatives and Libertarians even in his election year bid. He went out of his way to cast stones. He claimed to have friends all over. Now he has two mounting investigations strapped to his back and no one is rushing to his defense. He might ask “how did all this happen?” And he might also ask “why me?”

If it were others like Ted Cruz or Paul under fire, I doubt the well-rounded Jersey boy would have time to run to their aid. But since it is him, “oh pity me.” At least he can count on GOP central who helped prop him up among the establishment. Those others can’t!

PS, update: Karl Rove thinks Christie’s crisis will build “street-cred” with Tea Party folks.

RightRing | Bullright

Christie in Crisis

Has Christie crossed the line?

There are a couple problems with the Christie story. For now I’ll accept it as he has told it.

Here was another article on it: http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/19915/a-few-thoughts-on-the-christie-scandal/ It’s good basic information.

When Christie says he didn’t know anything about it, I will accept that premise. But when I do that a few things happen: first it says he was unaware of a major undertaking of his team. That hurts because it could indicate incompetence. See to believe all the “know nothing” claims from Obama, in scandal after scandal, you would have to conclude that he is incompetent.

And if Christie knows nothing, then it actually makes the case that an executive in government can excuse the actions of his subordinates by claiming he/she did not know anything about it. See Hillary and Obama’s records on how that works. Try that in business. Fairness to Christie, he did claim he was still responsible.

So I do have a problem that he did not know what was going on. Remember even Axelrod came to Obama’s defense claiming government is so big and vast that he could not possibly know what was going on. Interestingly, David Axelrod was one of the first to claim Christie did the best he could in this situation. (was that a compliment or an insult…which is it?)

If we were out to make the case for “ignorance is an excuse” in office, Christie’s apology-presser goes a long way in doing that. If we are to buy it, then we also grant that Obama and Hillary could be ignorant to what was going on, say, in Benghazi. Or even in the IRS.

I now have a problem. Is it now a legitimate excuse to just say you didn’t know, even though you should have and you are being paid to know? I don’t think that is a good enough excuse. I don’t think it was for Obama, nor for Hillary, nor for Holder, nor should it be for Christie. Ignorance is not a good enough excuse. We know how politicians rely on plausible deniability (i.e. Being such that plausible disavowal or disclaimer is possible).

Just what we need, another excuse for Obama’s conduct and abuse of power. No thanks.

RightRing | Bullright