Saturday, January 18, 2014

Why is the media jumping all over the Christie story?

First, a proviso. Closing two lanes to the George Washington Bridge for political spite is a very nasty thing to do. People who did it should be fired, and probably should be criminally prosecuted. If Christie ordered it or knew about it, he should be strung up by his toes and his political career should be over. Dirty politics is ubiquitous, but such callous disregard for ordinary folks and their safety is reprehensible.

That said, a perplexing question arises. Why did the media jump all over this? Scumbag political tricks are a dime a dozen, happen all the time, are done by both parties (in my experience Republicans are just as capable of filthy local politics as Democrats, although they're not as effective at it).

Of course, you answer, the media jumped all over it because Christie is a Republican, and a major contender for the Republican Presidential nomination and the media's biased against Republicans, etc. All true, but there's a catch: by jumping on Christie now,  the media has helped Republicans, at least ostensibly, because they have vetted Christie early, before he gets the nomination. If the media-Democrat Party cabal really wanted to damage the Republicans over this, they'd wait until Christie had the nomination, then dump this into the press bigtime. A month before the 2016 presidential election, just like they dumped Bush 43's DUI just days before the 2000 election and tried to foist the Rathergate fake national guard documents just before the 2004 election.

So I wondered: why are media/Democrats (same thing) going after Christie now, when his downfall might even be helpful to Republicans, instead of waiting?

This is why:
The media/Democrat folks, who at this point are full-time public relations hacks for Hillary, knew that the Benghazi report was coming out, and would make Hillary look really bad. So they flood the press with Bridgegate and Christie-bashing 24-7 to bury the Hillary story.

Otherwise, they would have waited to release Bridgegate until (and if) Christie became the nominee. Rule of thumb: if the media appears to be doing something that might actually benefit Republicans, there's more to the story.

Kinda' sickening, but this is how they play the game. 


  1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 18, 2014 at 8:02 AM

    I can see the 2016 political ads now. There will be images of burning buildings, mutilated bodies, and coffins draped with American flags, followed by a cameo from Hillary:

    What difference at this point does it make?
    --- Hillary Clinton

    We shall see.

    1. Let's hope the Repubs strip the bark off this corrupt incompetent hack.

  2. Hillary -- the personification of evil -- knew when Benghazi broke that she was in trouble. Obama would not under any circumstances take the fall, so Hillary concocted the video story and sent out her underling, Susan Rice, to fall on her sword for Hillary. No one in the press asked why a United Nations Ambassador was speaking for the country instead of our President or our Secretary of State. Now we know why in spite of the network blackout. These people are pure evil.

  3. Also this scandal has a limited shelf life - the further you get from it the less damaging a lane closure appears. It happens all the time for any number of reasons. I agree with the first paragraph, the people who did it should face criminal consequences, but as a political scandal "remember when Christie closed those two lanes" is not in the same league as "remember when Hillary abandoned those Americans to die?"

  4. Yes, there is a political double standard here but I still think these kind of political games are reprehensible. Chris Christie is saying he didn't know about it, which I kind of doubt. I think he deserves the criticism he's getting.