Wall Street Journal Article
In September 2013, the George Washington bridge connecting New Jersey and New York City had several lane closures, causing severe back-ups and incredible traffic. It came to light that these closures were engineered to punish the mayor of Fort Lee, NJ for not supporting Governor Chris Christie in his campaign for governorship. Fort Lee was severely effected by the closures.
Source: Washington Post
On Friday, three people were indicted for the closures. The governor, who is considering a run for the Republican Presidential nomination, was not. He maintains that he did not know about the political retribution, and fired those involved as soon as he found out. Critics claim that even if he did not know about the specific incident, it illustrates his managerial style. Governor Christie is also known for his aggressive tendencies and willingness to pick a fight. At the moment, the New Jersey Governor is not a leader in the polls for the nomination, and he has not official his candidacy.How do you think the incident will affect Christie's campaign? Do you think this is illustrative of how Christie would be as as president?
6 comments:
Presidential candidates with scandals generally do not win. We saw this with John Kerry.
Even though he did not do the deed himself, the fact that so many people were inconvenienced for political reasons (favoring Christie) colors him in a negative light that definitely won't fade in time for the elections. He does not have a good chance, and if he appoints mean, competitive people like this, then I think that is also illustrative of some potential problems if he were to serve as president.
I think this whole issue is really going to through a wrench into a possible presidential run by Christie. His firing of the people involved reminds me a bit of Nixon during Watergate, and we all know how that turned out. Given what we know about Christie's general temperament and his history, this could easily be indicative of how he may be as president, an image which may be conveyed to many leading up to the nomination. At this point, it would be just plain silly if he made his candidacy official.
Chris Christie can't be tied to anything of this manner if he actually wants to contend for the presidency. His reputation already isn't too stellar, which is exemplified by his lack of competitiveness in preliminary polls. As Murray said, scandals are a huge turn-off for voters, and this event will definitely have a negative effect on his campaign.
I believe this incident will be a hurdle in Christie's campaign but not totally derail it. He obviously wont announce his candidacy until this news dies down and their is a positive light on him in the news. However I do not believe this one incident can foreshadow how he would be as the President.
I don't disagree with Murray. Scandals have a fun way of sticking with you (shout-out to Anthony Wiener's latest campaign). The fact that this is a current scandal with an ongoing investigation throws the story over the top.
Christie should care enough about the party to stay out. This investigation WILL be prioritized over actual policy positions of the Republican party, and elevating Christie will only serve to elevate the controversy and weaken the party.
I think it will be problematic, but he won't be the nominee for other reasons. He has a mean leadership style that's gotten his approval rating down in nj. Also, the EITC wasn't expanded there, which I think was his fault. So I don't think he'll be nominated, but not due to bridgegate.
Post a Comment