An article (posted
on January 9) on Foxnews.com reports on
New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s response to the closing down of the
heavily traveled George Washington Bridge that connects New Jersey and New
York. These lane closures were said to be politically motivated as an act of
revenge towards Mayor Mark Sokolich’s refusal to support Christie for his
re-election as governor the previous November. Christie claims to have no
involvement in the lane closures, as well as saying that he had no knowledge of
his staff being involved in the closing down of the bridge. Christie’s chief of
staff, who reportedly sent an email to a member of the Port Authority (who shut
down the bridge) saying “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” has been
fired. Though Christie has repeatedly denied any involvement, and though no
evidence has materialized to show the contrary, this incident could hinder his
chances in the 2016 election.
This incident is
analogous to someone being wrongfully accused of a crime and tried in court. Though the person
might be completely innocent, along with him being acquitted in court, people who see him will associate him with being
accused of a murder, robbery, etc. leaving his reputation tainted. Christie
could very well have nothing to do with the closing down of this traffic
bridge, but it can, and has been used against him especially as a presidential
candidate for 2016. Incidents such as these (both private and public) have been
used as ammo towards a candidate throughout history. Grover Cleveland was
accused of having an extra-marital affair with a women and this was used
against him in the election of 1884 (though Cleveland still won anyways).
Though it is important to take into account a candidate’s actions and decisions
inside and outside of his work-life, the public should focus primarily on whether
the candidate is able to help the country in the best way possible. Despite
this, if Christie is in fact responsible, the political retaliation does give
the public a view as to how he might make decisions if he were in office. This
puts Christie in a very difficult spot and, naturally, any opposition towards
him will jump on this opportunity to use the bridge closures and his possible
involvement in them, against him.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/09/christie-faces-political-traffic-jam-as-confidant-set-to-testify-on-lane/
O.k. first I want to say you're great...Okay now although it is always a possibility that Chris Christie is innocent; there are extremely high chances that he had something to do with this. The appalling behavior he claimed had never apparent in his administration in the last four years shouldn't have been so appalling seeing as though once a mayor (i believe) was elected Christie was scheduling multiple meetings, but once he said he wasn't backing Christie in the upcoming election all of the meetings were simultaneously cancelled. There are other cases of this kind of behavior in his administration since the last election. Also in his press conference videos a human body language specialist explained multiple significant looks and statements that suggested he was being insincere. But everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDelete