Photo Chris Christie
Demeaning Cartoon of Chris Christie
For four days in last September, all but one lane closed in the George Washington Bridge from Fort Lee, New Jersey, bringing cars to a standstill. Why does this matter? Well, it has come to light that certain members of the New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's administration were involved in closing the traffic lanes to spite Democratic opposition. Currently, the extent to which Christie knew what was going on in the scandal that has now been dubbed Bridgegate is unclear, even after a two hour long press conference with Christie.
A recurring theme in our AP Gov't discussions is the structure of the state government, both in relationship to the nation as a whole and to the individual state itself; this scandal happens to be one that significantly affected both. My question is this: supposing Christie had no idea any of this disgraceful plotting was going on, is it still his job to take responsibility for the Bridegate scandal? As the chief elected executive of New Jersey, isn't his job to oversee all pressing issues that affect his state? What issues absolutely require his focus and oversight, and what issues can be delegated to lower aides and administrators? What do you think?
Articles:
"I have no idea what this post is referencing and need general information"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/nyregion/christie-aide-tied-to-bridge-lane-closings.html?hp
"I would like an update on what happened to the people involved in the traffic scandal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/nyregion/christie-controversy-bridge-lane-closings.html?hp&_r=0
"Why is Christie being so fishy?"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/09/chris-christie-took-his-sweet-time-to-find-the-truth-about-of-bridgegate.html
"I wish I knew eight things Christie said at his vague press conference."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/09/christie-bridge-scandal-press-conference-quotes/4391725/
3 comments:
In response to the latter questions that Alexa has posed, I believe that Christie, as the head of the executive branch of New Jersey's government, does share, even if indirectly, some of the responsibility for the Bridgegate scandal, as the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which closed the lanes on the bridge, falls under the executive branch. However, I do believe Christie is fine delegating the oversight of the bridge to lower level administrators in the first place. Chief executives cannot manage everything by themselves, so it makes sense for them to delegate responsibilities related to the everyday running of the state or country, responsibilities that may not require special attention or energy, to other administrators and agencies such as the Port Authority. It's in turn logical that the chief executive reserves his/her time and energies for issues that require more focus and effort, such as trying to convince lawmakers to pass a particular bill.
Supposing that Christie did not know about the bridge, which at this point is still possible, Bridgegate would still reflect badly on him regardless of whether or not he took responsibility for it, not only because he hired the aide responsible for ordering the lane closings but also because it's bad management, plain and simple. He can't even communicate properly with his own aides! And with traffic jams for four straight days, the mayor of Fort Lee calling, and his staff directing the lane closures nearby, he must have been awfully oblivious not to notice what was going on. If Bridgegate doesn't snag him directly, it sure will put a solid dent in Christie's credibility and presidential prospects.
I completely agree with Patrick on this. Regardless of Christie's involvement in this whole debacle, he looks bad. Assuming that he had a direct role in this, which I don't necessarily think he did, he looks like a complete scumbag who takes his frustrations out on innocent people when he doesn't get his way. In that case he has nothing to keep him from getting chewed up and spit out. On the other hand, and the more plausible one in my opinion, Christie may not have known what was going on with his own people, but that being the case, how bad does that look? Like patrick points out, if you can't communicate properly then what the hell are you doing in public office. Also, these aides are supposed to reflect, at least to a limited extent, Chris Christie; employees' actions can say a whole lot about the employer, and this reflects very poorly on Christie. And that seems to be the best case scenario.
Post a Comment