My Photo

« A Non-Virtuous Cycle | Main | Obama Nobel: But what will the wingnuts think? »

October 08, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e20120a5d026ed970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does Chris Christie look fat in this? :

Comments

I gotta say, knowing how underhanded this commercials always are, I wouldn't be surprised if they did intend to draw attention to his weight. I work for the Corzine campaign [a lowly position], but i'm just being honest. I CAN see how there people could disagree, but that was a pretty fat shot of Christie that they used. I think it was in pretty poor taste, personally. But the campaign chugs on and on.

It's shocking that a political ad would use anything but the best, most flattering footage of an opponent. Why, it's unheard-of for such ads to use slow-motion, black-and-white, grainy images of an opponent with goofy expressions and half-closed eyes, accompanied by menacing music.

When I heard about the ad yesterday, I was upset with the "mocking the fat guy" spin, but now that I've seen it I do wonder a bit. The slow-motion sequence where Christie gets out of his car, looking ungainly and with his belly jiggling as he steps heavily down, really does play to the ugly fat guy image (and I say this as a distinctly overweight person myself). So maybe the intention really is to insinuate something about his weight; or maybe I'm just looking for the insinuation because I've heard the about the complaints and then saw the ad.

-

All that said, some of the issues on which the Corzine ad is skewering Christie are really, really weird. I can't imagine how it is that Christie comes this close to killing a guy, is clearly (indeed overwhelmingly) at fault in the accident, and doesn't even merit a ticket. He deserved anything he gets over that. Even fat jokes.

The loan is also a bit weird: maybe I just don't move in the right circles, but I can't imagine charging a friend interest on a loan. Now, I'd also never loan someone $46,000; indeed, I don't have $46,000 handy. And the loan really seems quite odd. From the linked story:

The controversy focuses on a loan Christie and his wife gave in October 2007 to Michele Brown, a senior prosecutor and counsel who worked for him when he was U.S. Attorney. The loan, a second mortgage on Brown's house -- located not far from Christie's own home in Mendham -- was a 10-year note at an interest rate of 5.5 percent, with monthly payments to Christie of $499.22.
Who does things like this? And how is it that the lady - someone who had a good job, even if her husband was newly unemployed, and had a home - couldn't get a mortgage on the open market in flipping 2007, i.e. before the banking balloon burst? If Christie wanted to help the Browns out, he should have co-signed for the loan or something to help them get a real mortgage. Acting like the First National Bank Of Chris Christie is just creepy. And the fact that he later engineered a raise for her is not appropriate, given that she was slowly paying back a loan made to tide her over until her family income improved.

Didn't Corzine have an accident while he was governor, traveling on the shoulder at a high rate of speed, and then had to miss two months of work because he was not wearing a seatbelt?

I realize that the beginning of my (not atypically) long comment was unclear; when I said

When I heard about the ad yesterday, I was upset with the "mocking the fat guy" spin,/blockquote>I meant that I knew about the scandals and thought that "throwing his weight around" was a perfectly normal use of a common phrase that accurately described his behavior, and that the whole controversy was being manufactured. And now that I've seen the ad I'm less sure of this position.

According to the New York Times: "Mr. Corzine was in the front passenger seat when his state police vehicle swerved to avoid an apparently out-of-control driver on the Garden State Parkway and hit a guardrail. He was flown by helicopter to Cooper University Hospital in Camden, where he received seven units of blood and a metal rod in his leg during a two-hour operation that ended about 11:30 p.m"

That description doesn't make it look like the accident was his fault. The lack of seatbelt wasn't mentioned either but I kind of remember that he didn't have one.


FWIW I don't like the Corizine ad. They could point out a pattern of Christie demandeing special treatment with out making an ad that is catty and mean.

I was primed by the New York Times article before I saw the ad, but it seemed plausible to me. The fact that the governor's camp has focus groups saying people's strongest reaction to Christie is that he's fat isn't exactly exculpatory.

It's a shame if it's true, because the factual criticisms in that ad are really strong.

A public servant didn't get a ticket? Then didn't pay taxes on $2000? On a personal loan to a friend?

Watergate it isn't, I am disappointed this trite political attack ad even gets this much attention, and I can hear the wail from the left if it was the other way around.

What happended to my comment? I found a quote from a Times article that descrbed Corizine's accident. (He wasn't the driver).

Didn't Corzine have an accident while he was governor, traveling on the shoulder at a high rate of speed, and then had to miss two months of work because he was not wearing a seatbelt?
My quick Google didn't find wonkie's New York Times article (at least, not as a prominent hit), but did return this article in the Daily Princetonian:
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was transported by helicopter to Cooper University Hospital in Camden after the SUV he was riding in swerved to avoid another car and hit a guardrail on the Garden State Parkway in Galloway Township.

...

Officials say the crash occurred when a pickup truck on the right shoulder swerved onto the highway and forced another pickup into the path of the governor's car. Corzine's driver, state trooper Robert Raksinski was also taken to the hospital along with Samantha Gordon, an assistant to the governor who was traveling in the vehicle.


My recollection is that they were speeding, and that Corzine wasn't wearing his seat belt. Both of those were dumb. But the accident was caused by another's fault, they were going with the flow of traffic rather than against it, and Corzine wasn't driving, a state trooper was. Fairly different situation.

Wonkie, did you post a comment that's not showing up? I don't see anything of yours in the spam filter.

Christie was a U.S. Attorney who was responsible for prosecuting people who fudged their taxes. The thing is, he loaned a subordinate $46,000 and didn't disclose the loan. Of course he didn't pay taxes on the interest because he didn't want to reveal that he'd secretly loaned to a female subordinate. That's quite likely illegal, not to mention hypocritical.

Ironically, the beneficiary was the very same subordinate who helped arouse suspicions that Christie had abused his office by flashing her badge at the traffic stop.

Well, I probably made a mistake while tgrying to post it. I hit the wrong buttonsw pretty regularly.

The Times article secribe tha accident as being caused by some other car that was being driven recklessly. Corizine shoulda had a seatbelt on but that's a long ways from being the equivalent of the sort of stuff the Christies seems to be involved in.

So, how does the Christie camp respond to the ad? By accusing Corzine of mocking his weight. Welcome to non sequitur hour in GOP-land.

They did mock his weight. Either that, or they're incompetent morons (imagine an anti-Obama commerial that ended on "Your choice is clear- it's black and white.").
And I, for one, don't like it. But I've seen much worse.

Didn't Corzine have an accident while he was governor, traveling on the shoulder at a high rate of speed, and then had to miss two months of work because he was not wearing a seatbelt?

Speaking of GOP non-sequitur-land... yes, these two incidents are similar, except for the actually important part. It's like defending Clinton's actions with Monica Lewinsky by pointing out that even George Washington (presumably) had sex.
But yes, both candidates have been in traffic accidents.

That description doesn't make it look like the accident was his fault

Let's say this a little bit more strongly, so as to correctly dismiss the BS implication of jkrudis (who oddly has details such as the length of convalescence but not who was driving)- Corizine was not driving, so absent something pretty bizarre (and a cover-up) the accident was not his fault.

A public servant didn't get a ticket?
Watergate it isn't

Nor is it the Holocaust. Yet, we can still pay attention. And abuse of authority to get out of tickets is not a good thing. Not sure if you're for it, don't care, or what- bc you're so busy burying the body...

The New Jersey State Police determined that Corzine's SUV, driven by a state trooper, was traveling in excess of 90 MPH (147 km/h) in a 65 MPH (105 km/h) zone with its emergency lights flashing when the collision occurred.[123] A pickup truck drifted onto the shoulder and swerved back onto the lane, and another pickup truck swerved to avoid the truck and hit the Governor's SUV, causing the SUV to hit the guardrail. The State Police reviewed roadside camera recordings and E-ZPass records to track down the driver of the truck; he was not charged with any violation.[124][125]

Speaking of GOP non-sequitur-land... yes, these two incidents are similar, except for the actually important part. It's like defending Clinton's actions with Monica Lewinsky by pointing out that even George Washington (presumably) had sex.
But yes, both candidates have been in traffic accidents.

The part that is similar is that it is an allegation of abuse of power: I am not interested in whether they are good drivers. Corzine was apparently abusing his authority, using emergency flashers and driving well above the speed limit to meet with Don Imus. I am reasonably sure you would agree that the Governor is responsible for his own motorcade, whether driving or not. Certainly as a front seat passenger, he was aware of the high rate of speed, and emergency flashers. The lack of a seat belt was simply an indicator of stupidity.

It's a NJ political ad. I'm just surprised that they were so subtle in referencing his weight.

[Not that I'm excusing it or anything, but after the Toricelli/Zimmer debacle of '96 it takes a fair amount of slime to warrant my attention.]

"Corzine's SUV, driven by a state trooper, was traveling in excess of 90 MPH (147 km/h) in a 65 MPH (105 km/h) zone"

Was the state trooper cited for speeding?

Corzine was apparently abusing his authority, using emergency flashers and driving well above the speed limit to meet with Don Imus.

Yeah, that's exactly like driving into a motorcycle and then telling the cop you're a USA to get out of the ticket.

He (or his driver) was speeding, and running his siren; nothing has even suggested that the accident was his driver's fault. Of course, your initial description managed to omit who was driving- unfortunately, your attempted deception didn't work. It did, however, reveal that even you know that there isn't any comparison- you have to lie by omission to pretend that there's a case.

Your desperation is showing. But, Im sure you can maintain that a mouse is approximately the same size as an elephant all day, and I have better things to do.

Was the state trooper cited for speeding?

A trooper, driving the governor, with his lights on. Why would he be cited for speeding?

He (or his driver) was speeding, and running his siren; nothing has even suggested that the accident was his driver's fault.

Right, because when you are driving at 150% of the speed limit and have an accident where the other driver is not charged, you probably did not get out of it because you were a governor being driven by a state trooper.

A trooper, driving the governor, with his lights on. Why would he be cited for speeding?

Are you saying that there are no rules regarding how fast a Governor can travel on highways?

Lindsay, Jrudkis makes admirably clear that the attack ad on Chris Christie is very successful - by relaying the Republican attack machine's response to the ad, which is to repeat, as loudly as possible, that the traffic accident that Jon Corzine's SUV was involved in was just as bad an abuse of power.

Obviously, the facts are clear: what Chris Christie did was actually criminal, and he got away with it. But the Republican noise machine will ignore that in favor of a distorted story about the Democratic opponent.

And people call the Democrats "fraidy-cats" when this kind of trashy response works - Jrudkis, shamelessly partisan, isn't interested in the criminal behavior of a Republican: why should he be? Republicans know that crimes committed by Republicans aren't really crimes: what matters is smearing a Democrat.

Jrudkis, as a Republican, why are you so indifferent to cleaning up the image of your own party? You've just added to the Republican stereotype of ignoring crimes committed by your own party - doesn't it bother you in the slightest that your party is known as corrupt/criminal, and you and others make clear you'll support your party from crimes like Chris Christie's to atrocities like George W. Bush's? Does any moral value matter to you but winning?

Jes,

If I was asked I would endorse Corzine. I think being CEO of Goldman Sachs is as good as it gets. It is especially gratifying that Goldman Sachs funds pays for his campaign.

The issue in the post is about a particular ad. I think the ad is ridiculous given Corzine's actions as governor, where he endangered the lives of everyone on the highway. Driving above 90 miles an hour on the highway is not a joke. Having an accident at that rate of speed with no consequences seems likely to be due to the influence he has as governor.

I don't think it is incongruous to support him as governor, while thinking this ad is not reasonable.

The issue in the post is about a particular ad.

Yet rather than discussing the ad, you preferred to smear Corzine.

If I was asked I would endorse Corzine.

Yet you join the Republican smear party pretending that crimes committed by a Republican ought to be ignored if there's any way to smear a Democrat.

I don't think it is incongruous to support him as governor, while thinking this ad is not reasonable.

Plainly the ad is reasonable and effective, if the Republican response to it is to smear Corzine.

So again, Jrudkis: why, as a Republican, are you so indifferent to crimes committed by Republicans? Do you feel that it's not a problem to have criminals running for office - and winning?

Jes,

I support Corzine for Governor. I hope anyone who can vote for him will do so.

I support Corzine for Governor. I hope anyone who can vote for him will do so.

Still not going to answer the key question: why, as a Republican, are you indifferent to crimes committed by Republicans, preferring instead to smear Democrats?

(Even when, you claim, you support the Democrat over the Republican? Is repeating Republican smears made in defense of Republican crimes that much of a reflex action for you?)

Jes,

You support neither Republicans or Democrats. Why do you care?

You support neither Republicans or Democrats. Why do you care?

Because it's bad for the world when a party run by criminals is in charge of the last superpower left standing. It's bad for the US, too, and there are a whole lot of Americans I care about as friends, who deserve better than to live in a country run, half the time, by a party so criminal its supporters deal with it by smearing the opposition.

So again, Jrudkis: why, as a Republican, are you indifferent to crimes committed by Republicans, preferring instead to smear Democrats?

Right, because when you are driving at 150% of the speed limit and have an accident where the other driver is not charged, you probably did not get out of it because you were a governor being driven by a state trooper.
Are you saying that there are no rules regarding how fast a Governor can travel on highways?

Im saying he was in a state vehicle running emergency lights, not an ordinary motorist going 90. The rules are different (and vary by state) as to how fast a vehicle running emergency lights can go in what circumstances.

Which you should know, if you're old enough to drive. Heck, even if you aren't you've surely noticed some ambulance or fire truck zoom by with its lights on.

I support Corzine for Governor. I hope anyone who can vote for him will do so.

Funny thing- Im a big Palin supporter, and that's why my criticism of her as being an idiot and a huckster are so trustworthy.

Jrudkis, I still want to know why your reaction - a very typical Republican reaction, which is why I'm asking - to public discovery of crimes committed by a Republican is to attack by shamelessly smearing the Democratic opponent?

Considering that the Republican party is irrelevant is all states north of Virginia, who cares what is doing on in an election. No matter what happens during the election, everyone knows that Corzine will win by double digits. Anyone who believes that the Republicans can be competative in a state that is less than 60% white is insane.

The real question is as the demographics of the U.S. looks more like the demographics of New Jersey, will politics work the same way. Will it be impossible for the Democratic Party establish to screw up enough to lose in the general election or even face an outsider candidate during the Democratic primary.

No offense, superdestroyer, but you might want to mix it up a little.

What a thread. FYI, "running hot", i.e. with lights and siren deployed is for emergency situations only--responding to certain crimes in progress, crime scenes and accidents scenes. Even then, the general rule is 10 miles over the speed limit. The real hypocrisy is getting one's panties in a knot because a car in the possession of known person with passengers on board isn't towed (peace officers use their discretion all the time: who hasn't gotten a warning rather than a ticket). Driving 90 mph in a 65 risks the lives of others, an unregistered vehicle safely driven does not. Driving 90 mph in a 65 zone is a real abuse of power, not the kind of mistake millions of people make, i.e. registration or inspection sticker out of date. Had the same state trooper been driving at that speed on his own personal errand and had a fatal collision, this site would be screaming for blood. With a Dem politician on board, not so much.

But, leaving all of this aside, why hasn't this site come down hard on Charlie Rangel? Or, like the ACORN issue and Dan Rather, is Rangel just another victim of the noise machine? Please.

mckinneytexas, perhaps you'll be brave enough/honest enough to answer the question JRudkis ducked and ran away from?

I still want to know why your reaction - a very typical Republican reaction, which is why I'm asking - to public discovery of crimes committed by a Republican is to attack by shamelessly smearing the Democratic opponent?

Anyone that carps about "driving 90" on NJ highways has very obviously never driven on those highways.

Drive 65 and you'll be run off the road by irate Joisians.

"I still want to know why your reaction - a very typical Republican reaction, which is why I'm asking - to public discovery of crimes committed by a Republican is to attack by shamelessly smearing the Democratic opponent?"

I will. The answer is that on this site and in other liberal noise machine places the hypocrisy is blatant. So, when something that is as obviously hypocritical as this comes up, the reaction of a reasonable human being is to spend little time on the actual event, which is trivial at best, and focus on the hypocrisy.

Clear enough?

Christie's welcome to make an ad about Corzine not wearing his seat belt. If Corzine's only response is to start screaming about how Christie's making fun of his beard, I'll laugh as hard at Corzine as I'm laughing at Christie.

Corzine admitted that he made a terrible mistake and even made a PSA about the importance of wearing seat belts, featuring himself on crutches.

Marty: The answer is that on this site and in other liberal noise machine places the hypocrisy is blatant.

Nice, Marty. Not a responsive answer, but on a vastly small scale the exact equivalent to the Swift Boat Liars: the Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of. Thanks for giving yet another example on this small thread of why the Republican Party can't clean up its well-deserved dirty reputation: the politicians and supporters are much more interested in throwing mud than setting about their own party with hot water and soap.

Clear as the mud with which your party's reputation is coated, forty years thick and stinking.


"Corzine admitted that he made a terrible mistake and even made a PSA about the importance of wearing seat belts, featuring himself on crutches."

The hypocrisy is now in full view. Corzine had his driver go 90 MPH in a 65 and use the lights and sirens in a situation that was(using Lindsay's verbage from above)"probably illegal", and she focuses on the fact he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

As a side note, I love the "I made a terrible mistake" defense, didn't seem to get Spitzer a lot of sympathy either, nor should it.


"Anyone that carps about "driving 90" on NJ highways has very obviously never driven on those highways.

Drive 65 and you'll be run off the road by irate Joisians."

Well that certainly makes it safe and legal, those pesky laws again.

Nice, Marty. Not a responsive answer, but on a vastly small scale the exact equivalent to the Swift Boat Liars: the Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of. Thanks for giving yet another example on this small thread of why the Republican Party can't clean up its well-deserved dirty reputation: the politicians and supporters are much more interested in throwing mud than setting about their own party with hot water and soap.

This is great. The subject of this post is the Republicans answer to a Democratic sleazy attack ad. So Jes wants to discuss forty years of the Rep dirty reputation. That hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Oh please. American speed limits may the single dumbest collection of laws I've ever personally experienced.

So again, Jrudkis: why, as a Republican, are you indifferent to crimes committed by Republicans

Jesurgislac, what is your problem? When did he ever say he was "indifferent to crimes committed by Republicans." He doesn't even support the Republican in question, so this is just ridiculous. You posted eight different comments demanding that he answer this stupid strawman question. You're basically just a leftwing troll.

It's a NJ political ad. I'm just surprised that they were so subtle in referencing his weight.

Exactly. When Corzine accuses Christie of shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die, we can talk about whether a line has been crossed.

"Oh please. American speed limits may the single dumbest collection of laws I've ever personally experienced."

Except THE CAR WRECKED?????

Hogan beat me to it.

And the Corzine incident is irrelevant and typical of the look the other way, nothing here.

And Marty talks about hypocrisy. This post is an excellent example of hypocrisy, the Republican kind. After the character assassination that the Republicans use on a regular basis (see 2008 election) they are up in arms about an ad the uses Christies girth to emphasize a point? That is real hypocrisy.

And IIRC, at the time of Corzine's accident, there was a lot of negativity coming from people on the left about his use/abuse of power in having the trooper drive that fast just to make an appointment with Imus. Have not heardf any criticism from the right about what Christie has done.

And mckinney, there has been a lot of discussion of ACORN, much of it pointing out the ridiculousness of the "sting" operation and how irrelevant and disconnected to reality it was. There were also many comments about Rather, both for and against, but mostly pointing out how a small part of a show was used by the right to distract from everything else in the show (again typical of the right, as is your entire comment).

If you really have been reading this blog on a regular basis, you will have found that there is little to no knee jerk defense of Dems who do wrong. If only the same had been true on right wing blogs regarding the Bush administration.

Commenter D decries alleged hypocrisy of Politician R.
In response, commenter R decries alleged hypocrisy of Politician D.
Commenter D accuses commenter R of getting off-topic and slinging mud rather than responding to original charge.
Commenter R accuses D of dodging mud.

This ObWi post is explicit about being a GOP and Chris Christie bashing post, right? I strongly agree that the GOP (and possibly CC, I am politically ignorant on the subject) deserve bashing, but I don't think we can get mad when their supporters fight fire with fire. Chris Christie sounds like he's done some pretty unethical things, but how are Marty et al. (sorry to make you the godhead Marty) supposed to respond? By excusing the loan/favors? They can't, so they go on the offensive.

It's funny to see a bunch of leftwing socialists defending the former head of Goldman Sachs. Talk about hypocrisy. I guess the (D) absolves all sins in your view.

Defending high level NJ politicians of either party is probably something not worth doing unless you like attaching yourself to incidental mud.

Marty et all have a another option for their response: they could right a commment which says that Christie has indeed done a series of unethical acts. They could also opine, if they wish, that attacking him for being fat is out of bounds.

Republicans do have the option of being honest about the behavior of other Republicans. It's OK to get mad when they use look the other way or other intellectually dishonest techniques to dodge what is uncomfortable to face.

I knew I should have made a longer post, Wonkie. Yes, I agree, we'd be mollified if Repubs conceded the points we want to make. However, "to dodge what is uncomfortable to face" stands out to me. Shouldn't we (Democrats, to loosely clump the antiChristie crowd here) be worried that we're uncomfortable facing facts about Corzine? Why do we get to avoid that subject? Is it because we made a thread about Christie's excesses, so any discussion of Corzine flaws is "off-topic" or "evasive?"

I think that, using what I learned from my high school forensic debate class, we should assume that they agree with us on the subject of Christie. As has been pointed up upthread (sort of), not one person on any side has disputed the charges against Christie in the initial post. So let's take them as a given. However, let's also stop harping on them and give up the moral high ground for a second. We won that debate, but they brought up points about Corzine. Does it profit us to say "Nu-uh, this convo is about Christie?" What is the big deal about having to answer them?

Wonkie,

I don't think the point is that Christie is innocent of ethical lapses. As Sebastian notes, no New Jersey politician is. The point is that solely focusing on Christie's lapses while ignoring Corzine's presents a distorted, biased view of the race. So Marty and Jrudkis aren't being dishonest, they're just restoring some balance.

"Leftwing socialists" (who are rather rare in the comments here, and completely insignificant in the US political environment) certainly don't view a "(D)" after a politicians' name as excusing anything.

Jrudkis:
There is an empirically derived rule of thumb that in at least half of all threads to which she contributes Jes will strenuously and often erroneously assert bad faith on the part of at least one of her interlocutors. On these occasions it's usually not worth discussing the matter with her, as even when she is manifestly and obviously in the wrong she is very unlikely to retract her assertions. On at least one memorable occasion it took about four hours and a dozen comments before she admitted that she had completely misread the original comment, had invented an incendiary statement that was never there, and had been responding furiously to that invented statement ever since - even though the passage had been blockquoted back to her at least twice, with explanations that she was simply incorrect, early in the ensuing debate.

There is an empirically derived rule of thumb that in at least half of all threads to which she contributes Jes will strenuously and often erroneously assert bad faith on the part of at least one of her interlocutors. On these occasions it's usually not worth discussing the matter with her, as even when she is manifestly and obviously in the wrong she is very unlikely to retract her assertions. On at least one memorable occasion it took about four hours and a dozen comments before she admitted that she had completely misread the original comment, had invented an incendiary statement that was never there, and had been responding furiously to that invented statement ever since - even though the passage had been blockquoted back to her at least twice, with explanations that she was simply incorrect, early in the ensuing debate.

In other words, she's a troll. Don't feed her.

There is an empirically derived rule of thumb that in at least half of all threads to which she contributes Jes will strenuously and often erroneously assert bad faith on the part of at least one of her interlocutors.

And, in the long run, I'm usually right.

In this instance, the "long run" of Republicans turning a discussion of crimes committed by a Republican into a discussion of something done by a Democrat, has already happened, many many times before, here and elsewhere. Jrudkis is just one more highly predictable Republican stepping up to the plate.

On at least one memorable occasion it took about four hours and a dozen comments before she admitted that she had completely misread the original comment, had invented an incendiary statement that was never there, and had been responding furiously to that invented statement ever since -

Yes: I still remember that highly embarrassing and extremely uncharacteristic misreading: I had literally seen one similar word and read another. And, of course, promptly acknowledged my error and apologized - as I always do, when I'm actually wrong.

90 on the GSP is fast, but normal. (I live in NJ and work less than a mile from the hospital they flew Corzine to.)

My guess is that Corzine didn't tell the trooper to go 90 because he needed to meet with Don Imus, but that's just a guess. He was probably on the phone, reading or writing something, and not paying much attention to the speedometer at all. The trooper was probably doing what is - right or wrong - customary, regardless of what governor, belonging to whichever party, was late for whatever kind of appointment he may have had. The unusual part was the pick-up truck.

It's not the kind of thing I can find a cite to support conclusively, but I'm pretty confident that I have a high probability of being reasonably accurate in what I wrote and doubt that many people would challenge me in good faith.

Assuming that I am right, how does Corzine's situation compare to driving the wrong way on a one-way street and striking a motorcyclist? (honest question, so honest answer, please)

*takes deep breath and ignores Pericles, who seems to become a troll when I'm around*

Though your dragging up a misreading I acknowledged and apologised for the same day was thoroughly annoying, as I take it you intended claiming to be "usually right" is asking for trouble: I take that back.

But honestly: the predictable habit of Republicans ignoring Republican crimes in favor of attacking Democrats is practically built in: it's a neat threadjack and it works. Instead of discussing Christie's crimes, or even whether the ad was fat-bashing, Jrudkis got everyone talking about a possible speeding offense committed by a state trooper while a Democratic politician was in the car. Good going, and practically textbook Republican tactics to deal with public exposure of a crime committed by a Republican.

"(sorry to make you the godhead Marty) supposed to respond? By excusing the loan/favors? They can't, so they go on the offensive."

First godhead for me, I agree that the facts are not ethical on either side. Some of my objection is to the cavalier acceptance of the sleazy ad becausee it is a D ad. It was just worth noting the nonobjection to sleazy politics if it is a D doing it.

I don't care about defending any politician (or any one else) who abuses authority but most cops however aren't going to write even the local DA a ticket.

http://www.car-accidents.com/2007-crash-pics/corzine-accident.gif

Carleton Wu deceptively reports that: "Im saying he was in a state vehicle running emergency lights, not an ordinary motorist going 90. The rules are different (and vary by state) as to how fast a vehicle running emergency lights can go in what circumstances."

Carleton, Carleton, Carleton, you're back in a dazed and confused mode again. They were driving in an unmarked SUV, without police siren or flashing bar lights, using only blinking emergency -- lights, the kind you're supposed to employ in an 'emergency' Carleton, not for racing to an interview at 90+ mph.

Here's a photo of the demolished SUV; does it look like an official vehicle to you? Do yourself a favor, and take a sabbatical from posting for a while. Maybe sit and contemplate your navel, and chant a 'clear thinking' mantra for a week -- hopefully that will help you out of the confused morass you're in.

"In 2002, he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and hit a motorcyclist."

This is not accurate, at least according the linked article: "Christie's vehicle came to a stop, and the motorcycle then "fell on its side and slid into his vehicle," according to the police report."

The motorcyclist hit the car. It doesn't excuse the car driver, but it is a misstatement to claim he hit the motorcyclist (at least without some reason to disbelieve the police report quote.)

I haven't found any evidence that the police report is online (not that I've looked terribly hard). I found two press reports:

TPM:

And I just got off the phone with Eric after he took an initial look at the police report.

The issue of driving on the wrong side of the road appears a little different than first described. It seems more like Christie made a turn on to the one way street and pretty quickly had a collision with the motorcyclist. That's not great. And it's still a mystery to us why he wasn't at least ticketed. But it doesn't seem like he was just cruising down the street going the wrong direction for a few blocks or something.

And what happened to the victim?

The police report doesn't give any details of the injuries. But the victim was able to answer the police officer's questions at the scene. So that would suggest he remained lucid enough to answer questions.


NJ.com:

Christie was driving a rented BMW sedan and apparently had lost his way when he attempted to turn right onto a street that was one-way in the other direction, according to the police report. A motorcyclist, Andre Mendonca of Elizabeth, was riding towards Christie, and both men saw one another and put on the brakes, police said. Christie's vehicle came to a stop, and the motorcycle then "fell on its side and slid into his vehicle," according to the police report.
Both descriptions of the police report seem to create a narrative in which Christie made an illegal and ill-advised turn and caused a (fortunately fairly minor) accident almost immediately.

Still not something anyone else would likely get out of without at ticket.

Instead of discussing Christie's crimes, or even whether the ad was fat-bashing, Jrudkis got everyone talking about a possible speeding offense committed by a state trooper while a Democratic politician was in the car.

If only we had more will, we could have ignored the initial mention of Corzine's accident and stayed on subject. But, alas...we fail. (Not only that, but I have personal knowledge of Jrudkis' speeding on New Jersey's highways. Then again, I have personl knowledge of my own speeding on New Jersey's highways. It's a damned Mobius Strip of hyporcricy and tu quoque we're dealing with here.)

Jesurgislac,

It's not personal. I just think it's hypocritical that you are so quick to call anyone on the right a troll, when so much of what you do is objectively trollish.

They were driving in an unmarked SUV, without police siren or flashing bar lights, using only blinking emergency -- lights, the kind you're supposed to employ in an 'emergency' Carleton, not for racing to an interview at 90+ mph.

JJ, try producing a cite as to what lights are to be used for what purposes; allow us the luxury of doubting your expertise on the subject.

Maybe sit and contemplate your navel, and chant a 'clear thinking' mantra for a week -- hopefully that will help you out of the confused morass you're in.

I love it when the trolls do this; after they get smacked repeatedly, they usually start with the pointless flames. JJ- if you want to flame someone, you need to make it topical or otherwise link it to the subject. Saying these sorts of general insults that could be cut-and-pasted from any of millions of usenet threads shows a total lack of style and substance.


What a thread. FYI, "running hot", i.e. with lights and siren deployed is for emergency situations only--responding to certain crimes in progress, crime scenes and accidents scenes. Even then, the general rule is 10 miles over the speed limit.

It depends on the state and the circumstances, there is no 'general rule.' In Colorado, I believe it's 15mph, but again completely dependent on circumstances.
And I have no idea what the rule is for escorting governors, presidents, etc. Im pretty sure you don't, either. But I am pretty sure that they can and do use sirens etc sometimes when doing so, so you are at least wrong on that point.

Driving 90 mph in a 65 zone is a real abuse of power, not the kind of mistake millions of people make

Has anyone here never driven 90mph? Just curious. Anyway, Im pretty sure millions have done that very thing.

Shouldn't we (Democrats, to loosely clump the antiChristie crowd here) be worried that we're uncomfortable facing facts about Corzine? Why do we get to avoid that subject? Is it because we made a thread about Christie's excesses, so any discussion of Corzine flaws is "off-topic" or "evasive?"

Actually, I think this is the opposite of the case. For example, Corizine apparently had similar problems with his taxes that he accuses Christie of. So I don't contest that point if anyone wants to bring it up. And, honestly, neither seem particularly important.
It's the desperate need to counteract all criticism that leads to ridiculous comparisons, and there I do object. It seems to be an article of faith among some mindless partisans that, if someone on their side has done something wrong, someone on the other side must've done something at least as bad.

The truly unforunate thing about the tu quoque bs is that we can not have a genuine discussion about where the boundaries should be. Genuinely bad behavior is made equivalent to anything that isn't perfect, and we lose the distinctions. And this goes both ways- someone wants to condemn William Jefferson, and there will always be a Dem who brings up some GOP scandal as if these things excused each other, rather than say "I wished that he'd resigned the day they found the cash in the freezer, and Im glad he was convicted."

Likewise, I think the original post was wrong in downplaying the obvious jab at Christie's weight. It was not appropriate. Not a terrible breach of ethics or anything, but it's too easy to pretend it wasn't there or to downplay it without ever getting around to saying that it wasn't right.

The point is that solely focusing on Christie's lapses while ignoring Corzine's presents a distorted, biased view of the race. So Marty and Jrudkis aren't being dishonest, they're just restoring some balance.

Pericles, in another thread (the one about Pelosi being an enemy of the Constitution) you merely stood up and said that you found the behavior objectionable. You did not strive for some example- real or exaggerated- with which to counter the situation.
And I commend you for it; when something is wrong, there is often no reason for a tit-for-tat.

I do understand why someone would bring up behavior from the "other side" if a counterexample actually exists. But here, as I said before, it's political desperation that invents a counterexample where none exists.

The funniest part to me is that none of this is a big deal. It's a successful political attack, but I dont care if they guy flashed his ID to get out of a traffic ticket, I care if he'd be a good governor. Yet, it's a successful political attack, and the partisans just cannot allow such a thing to exist.

Carleton Wu,

It seems to me that JJ's statement about lights shouldn't be controversial. I think he's just saying that the emergency blinkers that every civilian has on his or her car are not the same as the emergency lights on police cars and ambulances. It just seems obtuse to demand a cite for something like that.

(I have no idea what he means by the navel contemplation, and I have no dog in Christie v. Corzine fight. I do, however, freely admit to having drive 90mph and don't think it's some huge crime.)

Pericles, in another thread (the one about Pelosi being an enemy of the Constitution) you merely stood up and said that you found the behavior objectionable. You did not strive for some example- real or exaggerated- with which to counter the situation.
And I commend you for it; when something is wrong, there is often no reason for a tit-for-tat.

Thanks, Carleton. I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. It's easy to fall into that mentality though, so I think reasonable people on both sides need to be constantly on guard against it.

NJ Statute re: Police Speeding

§ 39:4-103. Exemptions from speed regulations


Motor vehicles belonging to the military establishment, while in use for official purposes in time of riot, insurrection or invasion; all police officers, while the officers are engaged in the apprehension of violators of the law, or of persons charged with, or suspected of, a violation, are exempt from the provisions of this chapter relating to speed.

Assuming that I am right, how does Corzine's situation compare to driving the wrong way on a one-way street and striking a motorcyclist? (honest question, so honest answer, please)

It compares because it is about abuse of power: Christie is at issue because he is accused of using his position to avoid punishment, Corzine uses his position as governor to have State Troopers violate the law.

I disagree that Corzine is not responsible for how fast has caravan is going: he is in charge. If you are hit by a speeding Fedex truck, do you sue just the driver, or Fedex too because the driver is an agent of Fedex? When one of the employees of my company is driving our truck, I explicitly tell them that they must obey the speed limit, and there are no circumstances that authorize them to exceed it. This is because my company will be held liable for violation. Certainly in the military, the senior member of a vehicle is held responsible for the actions of the driver: Corzine as CIC of the NJ National Guard holds his soldiers to this standard.

I also disagree that the pickup truck did anything wrong: how likely is it that the pickup truck driver put the governor and his aide in the hospital but was not charged with anything if he was at fault?

Not only that, but I have personal knowledge of Jrudkis' speeding on New Jersey's highways.

Sure, and I have been stopped for speeding in NJ 11 times, and never got a ticket either. But I was also not in a position of authority responsible for the application of those laws.

"90 on the GSP is fast, but normal. (I live in NJ and work less than a mile from the hospital they flew Corzine to.)

My guess is that Corzine didn't tell the trooper to go 90 because he needed to meet with Don Imus, but that's just a guess. He was probably on the phone, reading or writing something, and not paying much attention to the speedometer at all. The trooper was probably doing what is - right or wrong - customary, regardless of what governor, belonging to whichever party, was late for whatever kind of appointment he may have had. The unusual part was the pick-up truck.

It's not the kind of thing I can find a cite to support conclusively, but I'm pretty confident that I have a high probability of being reasonably accurate in what I wrote and doubt that many people would challenge me in good faith.

Assuming that I am right, how does Corzine's situation compare to driving the wrong way on a one-way street and striking a motorcyclist? (honest question, so honest answer, please)"

From these four paragraphs:

90 on the GSP is fast, but normal

My guess

He was probably

The trooper was probably

I'm pretty confident

being reasonably accurate

and doubt

Assuming that I am right

Who could possibly argue with this?

It compares because it is about abuse of power: Christie is at issue because he is accused of using his position to avoid punishment, Corzine uses his position as governor to have State Troopers violate the law.

Speeding. Violating the law by speeding, which virtually everyone who drives does.
Now, Corizine's driver may have avoided a citation because he was a cop, or because he was driving the governor- there's no way of knowing. And there's no way for Corizine to have prevented the investigators- either at the scene or afterwards- from being aware that the cop was driving the governor.
Whereas Christie informed the officer on the scene; he traded on his position to avoid punishment.
So there's no actual comparison- Corizine didn't trade on his position to avoid a punishment. A punishment for his driver, I might add, not for himself.

Corizine- perhaps asks his driver to exceed the speed limit
Christie- repeatedly tells cops that he's a USA to get out of traffic citations

I also disagree that the pickup truck did anything wrong: how likely is it that the pickup truck driver put the governor and his aide in the hospital but was not charged with anything if he was at fault?

If they really wanted to cover something up, they could've charged the truck driver, right? At which point, the desperate partisans would call the charges bogus and say they only existed to protect Corizine('s driver).
And, it is certainly possibly to be at fault for an accident but not get a ticket; it is even possible to be found at fault in court and not get a ticket. One case is criminal, the other civil.
So you are not only wrong, but desperately so.

As for the code you cited, 1)links, please and 2)that is one paragraph in the code, there can certainly be other exceptions carved out elsewhere. Im pretty sure that there must be, since the section you quoted does not provide an exception for ambulances or fire equipment.

"I haven't found any evidence that the police report is online (not that I've looked terribly hard)." Warren Terror.

Here's a TPM http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/more-details-emerge-from-christie-2002-car-accident.php>followup TPM first reported it as driver hitting motorcyclist, then reported more detail in a neutral manner, and apparently reverted to claiming driver hit motorcyclist. I'm not looking for a police report, it would hardly be definitive of what really happened. I just think when Lindsay claims to recite the facts, they should be accurate, and I don't see support for the claim that Christie hit the motorcyclist. Causing the accident perhaps, but not actively hitting the motorcyclist.
The ad doesn't even assert this.

Pericles,

I don't think Jesurgislac is a troll. A troll, by definition, acts consciously in bad faith. I don't think that definition applies to Jesurgislac, as she seems to be sincere. Admittedly, I have no idea why she persistently attacks Jrudkis when he made it clear that he supports Corzine, not Christie.

If you think it's hypocritical for her to call people trolls, then don't be a hypocrite yourself. Voicing an extreme or controversial opinion does not ipso facto make someone a troll. I don't think we should use accusations of "troll" as a way to enforce an overton window on the range of acceptable opinions.

Pericles,
I think you've been suckered:
It seems to me that JJ's statement about lights shouldn't be controversial. I think he's just saying that the emergency blinkers that every civilian has on his or her car are not the same as the emergency lights on police cars and ambulances. It just seems obtuse to demand a cite for something like that.

The only source for the idea that Corizine's vehicle was just running normal emergency lights is JJ and his crack observation skillz. Not exactly a reliable source- eg he apparently has never seen a police car lacking roof lights but with police lights in the grill and on the back.

The driver of the red pickup truck [now identified as 20-year old Kenneth Potts of Little Egg Harbor Township] mistook Governor Corzine’s SUV — its police lights flashing — for an emergency vehicle (emphasis added)
source is a blog quoting a news org, so it's secondhand- but it also fits with other things Ive read about the accident- the pickup driver trying to get out of the way and then swerving back onto the road- why would he do that for a car with it's emergency blinkers on?

Admittedly, I have no idea why she persistently attacks Jrudkis when he made it clear that he supports Corzine, not Christie.

Well, let's qualify that- he says that he does. There isn't any point in debating it, but an assertion such as that shouldn't be used as evidence of anything either.

It's the opposite of an ad hominem- claiming some personal position that immunizes one's position against criticism. True or not, it doesn't improve the argument.

As for the code you cited, 1)links, please and 2)that is one paragraph in the code, there can certainly be other exceptions carved out elsewhere. Im pretty sure that there must be, since the section you quoted does not provide an exception for ambulances or fire equipment.


It is from Lexis, which can't link. That is the full statute: Emergency vehicles and physicians have separate statutes.

For example: § 39:4-102. Speeding by physicians in emergencies


If a physician's motor vehicle is stopped for exceeding the speed limit while in the act of responding to an emergency call, the registration number of the vehicle and the driver's license number may be inspected and noted and the physician shall then be allowed to proceed in the vehicle to his destination. Such proceedings may be taken subsequently as would have been proper had the person not been a physician.

NJ does not actually seem to authorize emergency vehicles to speed (at least I can't find it): they are authorized to use lights to make traffic get out of their way (and talk on cell phones), but I don't see a right to violate the speed limit.

§ 39:4-92. Authorized emergency vehicles; clearance for; following or parking near


Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle giving audible signal, and equipped, as required by section 39:4-91 of this Title, and unless otherwise directed by a police or traffic officer,

(a) The driver of every vehicle shall immediately drive to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of an intersection of highways, and shall stop and remain in that position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed and

(b) The driver or person in control of a street car shall immediately stop the car clear of an intersection of highways and keep it stationary until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

No driver of any vehicle other than one on official business shall follow any authorized emergency vehicle, traveling in response to an emergency call, closer than 300 feet, or drive nearer to, or park the vehicle within 200 feet of, where any fire apparatus has stopped in answer to a fire alarm.

Speeding. Violating the law by speeding, which virtually everyone who drives does.

Speeding and causing an accident at 90 miles per hour, severe enough to hospitalize two people, which not virtually everyone does.

The only source for the idea that Corizine's vehicle was just running normal emergency lights is JJ and his crack observation skillz.

Maybe I did get suckered. I thought it had already been established that the car was only using normal emergency blinkers, and the sole issue was whether this was proper procedure.

It's the opposite of an ad hominem- claiming some personal position that immunizes one's position against criticism. True or not, it doesn't improve the argument.

I fully agree. I was mostly defending Jesurgislac. I was just trying to be fair to Pericles. I think he has a point when he says there was no need for her to make eight separate posts demanding that jrudkis explain why he was allegedly "indifferent to crimes committed by Republicans." Frankly, it struck me as an unhinged personal attack on her part.

Here's a TPM followup TPM first reported it as driver hitting motorcyclist, then reported more detail in a neutral manner, and apparently reverted to claiming driver hit motorcyclist. I'm not looking for a police report, it would hardly be definitive of what really happened. I just think when Lindsay claims to recite the facts, they should be accurate, and I don't see support for the claim that Christie hit the motorcyclist. Causing the accident perhaps, but not actively hitting the motorcyclist.
This is slicing your distinctions rather fine. I can say from personal experience (as a bicyclist, not a motorcyclist) that when a car illegally swerves in front of you from out of nowhere, the natural response is to slam on your brakes and try to avoid it. And if you are on a two-wheeled vehicle and you follow this natural impulse, there's a pretty good chance that you will hit the pavement, hard. If you're on a motorcycle, this may be quite hard indeed, and at quite a high speed, with possibly several hundred pounds of motorcycle on top of you; or you may even go flying. The fact that you're as likely as not never to touch the offending vehicle does not lessen their responsibility.

NJ does not actually seem to authorize emergency vehicles to speed (at least I can't find it)

Allow me to doubt your mad computar skillz; just because you can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there. And are you sure "physician's motor vehicle" means ambulance? I admit, laws can be stupid and arcane, but your reading suggests that cops should pull over speeding ambulances. Again, doubt. Skillz.

Speeding and causing an accident at 90 miles per hour, severe enough to hospitalize two people, which not virtually everyone does.

Now you're just altering the facts to suit your own purposes- aside from your faulty negative inference about the driver of the pickup not being charged with anything, there is not evidence that Corizine's car caused the accident. Every account of the incident has the pickup causing the accident.


Allow me to doubt your mad computar skillz; just because you can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there. And are you sure "physician's motor vehicle" means ambulance? I admit, laws can be stupid and arcane, but your reading suggests that cops should pull over speeding ambulances. Again, doubt. Skillz.


I think the physician exemption is for physicians driving a POV. I don't think it has anything to do with ambulances, and I don't think I said that it did. It was simply another exemption (though the physician does not get out of the ticket, it is just delayed).

But you are welcome to find another speed related exemption.

Now you're just altering the facts to suit your own purposes- aside from your faulty negative inference about the driver of the pickup not being charged with anything, there is not evidence that Corizine's car caused the accident. Every account of the incident has the pickup causing the accident.

I think it is generally assumed that when a vehicle is speeding and is in an accident, that the speed is partially responsible. I realize that the State Troopers did not say that in this case. I think that is highly unlikely. Corzine was not authorized to run with lights to make the pickup get out of his way in the first place.


Carleton Wu: "The only source for the idea that Corizine's vehicle was just running normal emergency lights is JJ and his crack observation skillz."

Carleton, be a man, admit when you're wrong, and stop the wiggling evasions.

This is from a synopsis of the official State Police accident investigation, my BOLDS:


"On April 12, 2007, at approximately 5:30 pm, the Governor's motorcade, made up of two 2005 Chevy Suburbans, departed Atlantic City en route to Drumthwacket via the Garden State Parkway. The Governor was traveling in the first vehicle, which was driven by Trooper Robert Rasinski. The vehicle's emergency lights were activated to clear traffic ahead. Governor Corzine was unrestrained in the right front seat and his aide, Samantha Gordon, was unrestrained in the left rear seat. Trooper Rasinski was wearing his seatbelt."

Get it? The vehicle's emergency lights. No sirens blasting. No POLICE lights flashing. Clear enough for you?

No? Here's another crash photo of the car, from the rear end -- you see any lights there, except for ordinary rear mounted lights?

I think the physician exemption is for physicians driving a POV. I don't think it has anything to do with ambulances, and I don't think I said that it did

So it was completely irrelevant. I apologizing for assuming that you were trying to make some kind of point.

I think it is generally assumed that when a vehicle is speeding and is in an accident, that the speed is partially responsible.

Generally assumed. That there's some tough argumentation. And it omits the whole emergency-signal part of the equation.

Corzine was not authorized to run with lights to make the pickup get out of his way in the first place.

Based on your failure to find a statute, but so far you've been unable to find a statute that allows emergency vehicles other than police to exceed the speed limit. And you've shown a willingness to misrepresent several facts- I'm not sure you'd accurately report such a statue if you *did* find it.

"I can say from personal experience (as a bicyclist, not a motorcyclist) that when a car illegally swerves in front of you from out of nowhere, the natural response is to slam on your brakes and try to avoid it. And if you are on a two-wheeled vehicle and you follow this natural impulse, there's a pretty good chance that you will hit the pavement, hard. If you're on a motorcycle, this may be quite hard indeed, and at quite a high speed, with possibly several hundred pounds of motorcycle on top of you; or you may even go flying. The fact that you're as likely as not never to touch the offending vehicle does not lessen their responsibility."

Exactly. I've seen lots of accidents where the offending car doesn't get hurt. I think we can safely assume (barring pretty strong evidence otherwise) that the car going the wrong way on the one way street caused the accident.

The vehicle's emergency lights were activated to clear traffic ahead.
Get it? The vehicle's emergency lights. No sirens blasting. No POLICE lights flashing. Clear enough for you?

It's clear that you're leaping to conclusions, that's all. You desperately want there to be no official lights on the car.

From your cite: As the Governor's detail approached the vehicles, both drivers moved to their right. Mr. Pott's vehicle was slightly ahead of Mr. Carrino's vehicle and moved to the right shoulder.

Why would cars be moving onto the shoulder for a civilian vehicle running hazard lights? This, and you, make no sense whatsoever.

Exactly. I've seen lots of accidents where the offending car doesn't get hurt. I think we can safely assume (barring pretty strong evidence otherwise) that the car going the wrong way on the one way street caused the accident.

Nevertheless, it seems to right to correct the original statement; "In 2002, he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and hit a motorcyclist" sounds a lot more reckless than turning, realizing your mistake, and immediately stopping.

Jay Jerome, regarding one point from your rather overwrought 4:40 PM:
Civilian vehicles don't normally have "emergency lights".

Now, I don't have any idea whether the officer writing the police report meant "hazard lights", which all cars have, or indeed was deliberately and accurately using the specialized term "emergency lights". But as you can see if you Google "vehicle emergency lights" the term is used to mean strobes, flashers, and police lights that can be added to a vehicle - it does not mean any lights that are part of a normal vehicle's standard equipment. And I have seen unmarked official vehicles which flashed strobe lights that when not flashing were not obvious to my eyes in the way that a police cruiser's roof-mounted bar of lights is.

MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 300 New Jersey residents on the recent anti Chris Christie ad that states Christie is “throwing his weight around.” The results showed that the majority of all political parties do not believe the “weight” reference in the ad was intended to reference Christie’s actual weight. Additionally, the majority of Democrats (59%) and Independents (62%) do not believe the reference to “weight” was inappropriate, while Republicans were split, with 44% of Republicans indicating that the reference was inappropriate and an equal amount (44%) reporting that it was appropriate.
More in depth results can be seen at:
http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J7588-AntiChristieAd/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben

"Nevertheless, it seems to right to correct the original statement; "In 2002, he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and hit a motorcyclist" sounds a lot more reckless than turning, realizing your mistake, and immediately stopping."

I don't really see what needs to be corrected.

He went the wrong way on a one way street.

This caused an accident in which a motorcycle rider and his car came into direct and forceful physical contact.

I suppose if you really want to you can split hairs over the fact that by instant of contact, the motorcycle (which had been legally travelling the correct direction) was still moving while the car (which had been illegally travelling in the wrong direction) had stopped while they were both trying not to collide.

But it certainly isn't as if "he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and hit a motorcyclist" is a misleading summary. It isn't misleading as to who caused the accident (it was the car not the motorcycle). It isn't misleading as to the result of the accident (the motorcycle and car collided). I think you could argue that "he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and a motorcyclist hit him" actually is more misleading on balance.

I think you could argue that "he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and a motorcyclist hit him" actually is more misleading on balance.

I agree, that would be worse. It's not a big deal, I just think the best description would have Christie at fault, but not driving out of control.
It's just too easy to make things sound worse than they were, intentionally or not: eg Lindsay's link doesn't support the rental car being totaled, just being towed. The cyclist was checked out at the hospital but the post neglects to mention that (iirc) he was fine. etc.

Pericles and Julian,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond--I went to work.

Maybe I was unclear or maybe I misunderstood the post I was responding to.

I thought that a commenter was asserting that we should have sympathy for the Republicans becazuse it is onloy natural gthat they would have to defend a badly behaved politician by changing the subject.

I disputed that because I think that one should try to be honest about politicians even if the pol is from one's preferred party.

AS for the Corizine/Chritie debate--I'mno expert on new Jersy politics so I don't know what additional dirty is about there about who, but assuming that the dirt under discussion here is the total then COrizine's speeding incident pales in comparison with the totality of bad deeds attributed to Christie which makes the attempt to turn the converstaion inot a discussion of Coraize a classic "Look over there."

Seems to me.

ANd the ad sucks. Out here in Washington an ad like that would backfire.

90 on the GSP is fast, but normal
My guess

He was probably

The trooper was probably

I'm pretty confident

being reasonably accurate

and doubt

Assuming that I am right

Who could possibly argue with this?

Anyone, Marty - perhaps you. Why not tell me why you don't think those things are likely? Not everything one might argue (notice I didn't use "assert") is a matter of documented fact. And I'm not suggesting that Corzine can't be found at fault or that it's not possible that he told the trooper to go 90 mph. I'm simply presenting what is a reasonably assumable scenario that is in line with my sense of things and my life's experience.

So just tell me what's unreasonable about my guesses so we can all conclude that you know what happened with enough certainty that we can all convict Corzine in our small court of public opinion based on your knowledge of the events.

Or, assuming I'm right (again), tell me why my version of events is irrelevant to Corzine's criminality, which he got out of by abusing his power.

I really don't knbow why we are collaborating with the look over there folks by discussing COrazine. Even if one concedes taht he should have told the trooper to slow down his one lapse of judgement doesn't put himn in the same league of sleaze as Christie's pattern of lapses.

It's Christie's pattern of lapses that some folks don't want to acknowledge, so they change the subject. And they have swucceeded in changing the subject, too.

To quote my earlier comment, wonkie:

If only we had more will, we could have ignored the initial mention of Corzine's accident and stayed on subject. But, alas...we fail.

Yep.

link
Generally assumed. That there's some tough argumentation. And it omits the whole emergency-signal part of the equation.

The results of the accident investigation contradict the original account the state police gave in the first 24 hours. Colonel Fuentes himself said Thursday night that ''speed was not a factor'' in the accident. When asked Tuesday whether he now believed that speed played a role in the accident, Colonel Fuentes replied: ''What do you think?''

''Speed is always a contributing factor in any accident,'' he added later. ''It goes to the heart of what damage you may have on the vehicle.''

The crash occurred at Mile Marker 43.4, about 75 miles from Drumthwacket, the governor's mansion, at 6:15 p.m. Aides to the governor said they did not know what time the meeting at the mansion was scheduled, but the Rutgers team arrived at 7:45, and Mr. Imus before that.

The police and other state officials also originally said the accident was caused by the erratic or out-of-control movements of a red pickup truck, whose driver, Kenneth Potts of Little Egg Harbor, N.J., was identified on Saturday but not charged.

It now seems clear that Mr. Corzine's own vehicle was responsible for the crash: the pickup trucks were pulling over to the right to make way for the speeding motorcade, and when Mr. Potts swerved left from the shoulder to avoid hitting a signpost, the white pickup swerved to avoid hitting him, but collided with the Suburban. On Tuesday, the police said that Mr. Potts and the driver of the white truck, John M. Carrino Jr. of Glenwood, N.J., had both acted appropriately.

link
Fuentes said the governor's executive protection unit is trained to move through traffic by increasing their speed and activating flashing lights when necessary.

The driver has discretion over the traveling speed and when to activate emergency lights, Fuentes said. He said the investigation showed that the governor did not ask Rasinski to speed up.

In non-emergencies, the governor's drivers should obey the traffic laws "in the interest of safety both to the occupants of their car and the public," Fuentes said.

Well I am one of the people who responded to the inntitial mention ...so mea culpa.

jrudkis,

Thank you. if accurate that totally exonerates Corzine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast