Previously enormous story gets bigger!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2013

Rachel continues bridge work: As of Monday, the story had become enormous. Or at least, so a little bird said:
MADDOW (12/16/13): The George Washington Bridge traffic jam story that started as the teeny, teeny, tiny, tiniest little political story in the entire world has just gotten enormous.
That was one of the teases on Monday’s Maddow show. Last night, we learned that the previously enormous story had somehow become even bigger:
MADDOW (12/17/13): All right. If New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was hoping that today was the day that people stopped talking about a certain traffic jam on the world`s busiest bridge, it turns out today is really, really not that day. The story took a big leap today and it has helped that story motor its way way beyond the tri-state area.

How this became a national story today is coming up.
A second tease followed. Around the analysts’ residence unit, the excitement took big leaps too:
MADDOW (12/17/13): All right. Still to come, the biggest little traffic jam in the whole wide world today made it all the way to Washington.

Please stay with us. That story is ahead.
“Please stay with us" was the key there. At any rate, one day after becoming enormous, the biggest little traffic jam had finally made it to Washington.

As she did last Thursday night, Maddow saved her rather slender, four-minute report for the very end of the program. After the teasin’, when the segment began, she engaged in a bit of embellishment:
MADDOW: Hey. So it’s been a big day for the New Jersey bridge story. It was in multiple pages of the Washington Post today, also in the New York Times. Politico.com finally picked it up. The national press and the Beltway press all now reporting how one of Governor Chris Christie’s appointees, one of his high school buddies, suddenly and without explanation ordered the shutdown of two of the entrance lanes onto the world’s busiest bridge.
If we’re going by facts, the story had appeared in one place in the hard-copy Washington Post—in this column by the always acute Richard Cohen.

(Christie “would not be so reckless as to clog up a bridge,” Cohen damningly wrote. He misstated the nature of the problem, which didn't clog up any bridge.)

In the Times, the story had been mentioned in passing as a small part of a local column. That was it.

As for Politico, it had first reported the story last Thursday. For some reason, Rachel pretended that this previous reporting hadn’t occurred.

(In this morning’s Washington Post, the paper finally did a news report on the hullabaloo. Headline: For Chris Christie, lane closures at N.J. bridge attract scrutiny if not scandal.)

Had the so-far non-story New Jersey story really taken a big leap? Not exactly, no. According to Rachel, New Jersey Democrats (described as “New Jersey lawmakers”) had “subpoenaed any and all communications between Governor Christie’s office and the agency that runs the bridge during the period when the shutdown happened.”

This was about as surprising as the fact that the George Washington still stood erect. Absent-mindedly, Rachel presented no evidence that any such communications had ever really occurred.

In a second revelation, Rachel provided the “national” angle. Down in Washington, “the [Democratic] chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in the United States Senate has now sent a letter to the agency that runs the bridge, stating his concerns about political appointees abusing their power,” an action that will almost surely lead to waves of arrests.

But wait, there was more:
MADDOW: But wait, there’s more! That same Senate committee and its chairman, Senator Jay Rockefeller, have also now asked for a federal investigation. They have asked the federal Department of Transportation to launch their own simultaneous federal agency investigation into what happened in New Jersey.
As Rachel understands, nothing is feared around the nation like a DOT probe.

Did anything happen in New Jersey that involved conduct by Governor Christie? So far, there is no evidence of that. But as she ended her program last night, Rachel Maddow, Our Own Rhodes Scholar, just kept treating us boys and girls like a big sack of squirrels, or rubes:
MADDOW: Whatever did happen still has not been explained. Governor Christie has gone so far as to say mistakes were made. He’s gone so far as to accept the resignations of his top two appointees at the agency, two long-time political allies of his.

But so far, he’s still trying to stick to the line that it was a traffic study.

That has never seemed credible and the executive director of the agency says it’s not true. With a federal inquiry now and a new round of subpoenas on the issue, it seems like we are likely to learn definitively whether or not the traffic study line is true. And if the traffic study line is proven to not be true, what happens to Chris Christie then?

That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow night.
Rachel engaged in free insinuation, trying to provide us with our nightly Christie hard-ons.

Luckily, we were able to answer her question. If the traffic study line is proven to not be true, Chris Christie will say that he didn’t know.

Presumably, his claim will be true. That’s what happens to Christie.

We had a different question after last evening’s latest silly con. What happens to the IQ of the liberal world with this very bad, very willful person behaving like an escapee from Fox News, to which she never personally applied for a job?

Maddow’s treatment of this story has marked a watershed for her program. She’s been playing us rubes every step of the way, turning her program into pure propaganda.

Every minute she has burned on this bullshit could have gone to a real news topic. For example, she could have tried to help the public know more about low-income schools.

She doesn’t care about low-income schools. Maddow is playing her viewers for fools.

How many viewers can’t see that?

A clear case of projection: Our analysts thought they spotted a bit of projection in Rachel’s earlier segments last night.

In her first segment, she went on and on, at great length, about the way Dan Burton behaved back in the 1990s. Burton “was involved in a lot of really embarrassing stuff involving witch hunting,” the perspiring cable star said.

In her second segment, she wasted a large amount of time on a tabloidy story about Frank Abagnale, who “was a con artist,” and about a second, more current con man.

There wasn’t much news value to this tale. Once again, the analysts said that Rachel was simply projecting.

“It’s her way of exploring her own disorders,” one of the analysts said.

98 comments:

  1. So how, exactly, are low income schools "news"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rachel could have covered Zimmerman getting off on another set of trumped up charges. THAT'S news!

      Delete
    2. You're right -- they aren't "news," they are a scandal.

      Delete
    3. Yes, and when M. Night Shyamalan tried to focus attention on low income schools Somerby treated him and anyone who came withing a ten foot pole of him like dirt.

      Delete
    4. Not because he mentioned disparate funding of low income schools -- because he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to education issues.

      He is using education (and the problems of low income kids) to further his career. If that were not true, he would have taken the time to find out something about education before writing a book that will sell because of a name in the movies, not because he has things of value to say about education.

      Delete
  2. So far two of Christie's PA appointees have resigned due to the Ft Lee/GW bridge fiasco. The appointees, close friends of Christie, had said the traffic was rerouted for a study, when asked for the study they produced nothing. Then resigned. This is odd, the press should be getting to the bottom of this or at least asking questions.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When there's political hay to be made, every wrongdoer is a close personal friend of the person you are trying to smear.

      The scandal for me was the photo of Christie shaking his finger in the face of that teacher trying to ask him a legitimate question.

      Delete
    2. Christie is a personal friend of David Wildenstein, since childhood. No hay there, only fact.

      Delete
  3. Bob in a previous post seemed to imply that the closures did not affect traffic on the bridge. he's wrong. Anyway, if you want to see a decent timeline with links on this story here's a good start. Bob is clueless

    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/timeline_of_the_port_authoritys_george_washington_bridge_lane_closure_controversy.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loser. Guess what? The volume of traffic on the bridge has nothing to do with this story. Traffic across the bridge was not affected, only access to the bridge from the town of Fort Lee.

      Delete
    2. Right.

      Fort-Lee-ans decided use helicopters to get across instead of competing with the general traffic.

      The blogger is no longer interesting - the padded cell awaits - but the Kool Aid drinkers are something else.

      Delete
    3. Is that what Bob's beef is, that traffic on the bridge wasn't affected and some reporters say it was? Who cares about that very minor point? I mean, if i'm caught in a traffic jam at a bridge access, you know what i'd say when i arrive late "sorry, huge traffic jam on the GW."

      How do i know i'd say that, cuz that's EXACTLY what i and everyone else said. And you know what, not even the asberger nerds i worked with were so anal as to say "Ha, it wasn't the bridge proper it was the access to the bridge!!"

      Bob's losing it i think.

      Delete
  4. Bob can't admit that Rachel is talking about a real scandal, which the bridge closure is now with the two resignations stemming from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It remains a minor scandal unless they can link it to Christie with real evidence. Until then, claiming it is an enormous story is just lying.

      Delete
    2. Is it the same kind of lying as calling a story informing us about low income schools "news"?

      Delete
    3. A PA big wig who happens to be a childhood friend of the Gov who appointed him, causes four days of massive traffic jams for some non existent study isn't a scandal? hmm. ok.

      Delete
    4. You need to learn the distinction between "lying" and "saying something I disagree with." I realize hyperbole is the language of the internets, but settle down.

      Delete
  5. Nixon bugging Watergate didn't matter either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob has forgotten: "its not the crime, its the cover-up."

      Delete
  6. madow says,

    "Every minute she has burned on this bullshit could have gone to a real news topic. For example, she could have tried to help the public know more about low-income schools.
    She doesn’t care about low-income schools. Maddow is playing her viewers for fools."

    >>> public schools are locally controlled and funded and the results of badly performing low income schools largely remain local and so their problems are not a natural story for a national show. they would need to focus on specific localities and that would be less than compelling to viewers outside of those areas. not that there couldnt be significant social good derived from such a story or stories but they are doing a tv show and have to be cognizant of their ratings likely falling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A story isn't local because it only affects people in a single locality. If that were true, Katrina wouldn't have been a national news story. Funding of local schools using property tax dollars, resulting in inequities across neighborhoods, happens in many places. It could be national if someone wanted to focus on it.

      Delete
    2. President Obama has been involved in education policy from the beginning.

      Delete
    3. this is a chronic and undramatic problem unlike katrina, but i can see the potential for an hour or longer documentary with perhaps, instead of maddow, one of the black hosts at the channel being the front person. the focus could be the system of local funding of public education as a kind of separate-but-equal type violation of rights.

      Delete
  7. The New York Times has found no sign that Governor Christie was in any way involved in the closing of bridge access or even knew about the closing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh, really, have they finished looking? Has the investigation ended?

      Delete
    2. This is the left's Benghazi. You can investigate until the cows come home but only evidence will make this a scandal worth real attention. Investigations produce a "where there's smoke there's fire" smear. These endless investigations are trumped up smear attempts and waste everyone's time.

      Delete
    3. I was fully in favor of investigating Benghazi. That was done. Nothing incriminating was found.

      As for this case, we have a political appointee (and friend) of the gov shutting down a NJ city. The mayor said it was retribution. The appointee said it was a study. When asked to produce any documentation about the study, the appointee resigned. The head of the PA said there was no study. So the appointee was lying about the reason he caused chaotic commutes. If it wasn't for a study, why did he order the lanes closed (and yes there's testimony that he gave the order)? Seems like a reasonable question.

      Of course this should be investigated...

      Delete
    4. Heh, he said Benghazi.

      Delete
  8. "the perspiring cable star"

    Body fluids of his obsession-target.

    Maddow's people might need to know about this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Isn't it a teeny bit absurd to pound Maddow for talking about this when pretty much every other cable news show and political publication is talking about it?

    I dislike Maddow intensely, but as usual, Bob is exercising his tribal animus at one of his favorite targets, whether it makes any kind of sense to do so or not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. " If the traffic study line is proven to not be true,....."

    If?

    What fucking traffic study bob?

    Let's see what would happen to traffic in Fort Lee if we cut off 2/3 of the access to the GWB??? And let's just not tell anybody about it and surprise them?

    They've had going on 4 months to produce this bullshit traffic study. The executive director of the Port Authority has already denied there was any such study.


    ************************
    But last Monday, PA officials, including Foye — who was picked by Gov. Cuomo — denied there was any such study. And Foye had the lanes re-opened as soon as he learned they’d been shut.
    *****************************

    I mean, WTF is the problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick Foye, the executive director of the PA has said there was no study. No PA staff have questioned have never heard about any study. Maybe it was a double secret study?

      The guy who said the lanes were closed for a study was also the guy who ordered the lanes closed. When called on it, rather than show evidence that there was a study, he resigned.

      I think it's safe to say there was no study.

      Delete
    2. Bob thinks there is a career in attacking liberal pundits. And it's not a crazy idea as a career move--plenty of people have nice jobs writing advocacy/opinion for any number of conservative outlets.

      But there isn't any sign so far that this is working for Bob. Still, if he perseveres, something might turn up. There's a need for "Fox News Democrats" that say, "I voted for Gore, but this latest attack from that air-headed N=Maddow, blah, blah , blah..." The Fox News demographic skews to Bob's age cohort, but, apparently, they prefer to view someone like Megyn Kelly. (a lawyer by training, not a comedian)

      Delete
    3. " If the traffic study line is proven to not be true,....."

      If?

      Bob is so terrible on this issue (and others) that I'm beginning to wonder if I should invest any confidence in his analysis of educational issues, which is my main reason for coming here. He's good at constructing straw men (straw women -- why the obsession with Rachel Maddow?). Is that what he's up to with education issues?

      Delete
    4. "Bob thinks there is a career in attacking liberal pundits."

      Haha, Bob thought there was a career in comedy, too. And hanging off ex-roomie Al Gore's dick for several decades.

      Oops.

      Delete
    5. Al Gore roomed with Tommy Lee Jones

      Delete
    6. Who also roomed with Somerby.

      And trollmes? Back when Bob used to get linked to by other bloggers besides Kevin Drum, there were a spate of "right wing" blogs who began to say "Even liberal blogger Bob Somerby said . . ." followed by a link, and it began right about the time Bob started defending the "Sixteen Words" in Bush's SOTU speech -- perhaps the biggest of the many lies Bush used to get us into Iraq.



      Delete
  11. The insinuation seems to be that Christie allegedly orchestrated a traffic jam in order to punish political opponents. Until there is any actual proof it remains mere wishful speculation at best. To Maddow's defenders, where is that proof?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we know that Christie's opponents were punished, that's not in question. And we know that it was orchestrated by Christie's appointees and long-time friends and supporters, that's not in question either. So the only thing missing is the communications among Christie and his appointees which has now been subpoenaed, but has not yet been produced by Christie.

      It seems likely that Christie will fight very hard not to produce anything of the sort for any investigative body that asks. Christie could end the speculation very quickly by disclosing all his communications with the parties involved--do you think that will happen? Christie is a public servant and must believe that his constituents are entitled to see what he does on their behalf, no?

      Delete
    2. She's repeatedly putting someone at the center of the story without offering actual proof of any connection. She's conducting herself more like an operative than a journalist.

      Delete
    3. Who is she putting in the center of the story without proof of connection? Do you mean Christie? Of course he's connected, he hired these men (his friends) for important governing positions.

      Even if he didn't know what these clowns were apparently up to (and i suspect he didn't, he's not a moron) he showed terrible judgement hiring these idiots in the first place, and he's responsible for getting to the bottom of what happened, not making smug jokes about it.

      Is that hard to understand?

      Delete
    4. "Christie could end the speculation very quickly by disclosing all his communications with the parties involved--do you think that will happen?"

      You cannot prove a negative. If there are no incriminating communications existent, do you think that will end the call for more investigation?

      Delete
    5. Well let's see if he releases his emails, shall we?

      Delete
    6. mm, forget the emails, just tell me why they shut down the access. Seriously, this was not an accident, Wildenstein said to shut the access how is that an accident? Was he sleeping directing? Did he mean to say "do not shut the access" but it came out wrong for 4 straight day?

      Delete
    7. Anon,

      I agree with you. That is the central question that people have been trying to get answered for some time now.

      But it isn't just that the access was shut down, it's how it was done, why PA workers were told not to announce it as required by the law. This isn't a fucking joke.

      Unfortunately, no explanation has been offered. It has now reached the point that the Governor's emails have been subpoenaed in the continuing effort to answer that question. Let's see if he releases them or claims executive privilege.

      Delete
  12. It's pretty clear that Maddow's fan club is unable to see that they're being played for fools. Just like Fox News watchers, they like to feel good about their own beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't watch Maddow or Fox, but i'm not exactly sure from reading Bob's posts how her fans are being played for fools in this case.

      Christie's political appointee and high school bud closed the access lanes to the bridge causing havoc in Ft Lee. The Mayor of Ft Lee said it was retribution, the appointee said it was for a study. The head of the PA said there was no study. The appointee rather than producing a study resigned. Christie has denied knowing about this but has not produced his correspondences with the appointee.

      Maddow is discussing it with a bit enthusiasm. so what, she's a pundit that's what they do, even Bob.

      Again, i don't understand how her fans are being played as fools.

      Delete
    2. Of course you don't understand. You want the scandal to lead to Christie so you're willing to accept anything that supports that preconceived conceived notion. Perhaps Maddow should wait until she has some actual evidence before spending so much time on this story.

      Delete
    3. 11:00, what on earth are you talking about? A political appointee of Christie shut down a major access to the GW Bridge for a "study" that we now know never existed. He must of done it for a reason, but rather than explaining he reasoned as did his supervisor.

      The only reason given was by Ft Lee's Mayor who said it was political retribution. Christie said that was nonsense but has not answered the simple question why the access was closed.

      I couldn't care less about Christie, frankly i kinda like the guy, but as someone who got swamped in that chaos i'd like to know why they did it.

      Jesus christ, reporters and pundits should ask freakin' questions and keep the stories in the public eye until we get an answer. What is wrong with you idiots?

      Delete
    4. 4th line: "resigned" instead of "reasoned."

      Delete
  13. And the worst part is that Maddow knows she is playing her fans for fools, and is probably laughing at them off camera. Meanwhile in the grand scheme of things, no one really gives a rat's ass what Rachel says about this "scandal" or anything else for that matter. She is just a partisan hack on a low-rated cable "news" program.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is she playing anyone for a fool with this story. I can't figure out what the hell Bob is going on about. Seriously.

      Delete
    2. The important thing about playing people for fools... They can't know that they're being played. Otherwise the scam doesn't work.

      Delete
    3. Ok, then anon 1103, please explain how people are being played by fools. I don't get it.

      Delete
    4. Exactly... You don't get it.

      Delete
    5. Right. It's only the Bobinistas, elightened by their all-knowing tribal leader who "get it."

      Delete
  14. Baaaaaabby.....Bobby wtf? Today you go after Maddow for behaving like Megyn Kelly, who yesterday you laughably praised. Huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Huh?"
      TDH would probably say, "Exactly!" Why can't you understand that there's no contradiction between scolding Maddow for acting the way Kelly usually does and acknowledging the times that Kelly acts better than she usually does? In other words a blanket condemnation of Kelly is a tribal response (a bad thing in TDH's estimation); a case-by-case examination of her work is better (and more in keeping with "liberal" tradition, again in TDH"s estimation).
      That said, I think the grounds for praising Kelly in this case is very narrow. Yes, the give-and-take was politely phrased, not often the case on Faux News. But Kelly was still pushing the absurd meme that "Obama lied," i.e., intentionally misled people.

      Delete
  15. Yeah folks, there is no story here - the blogger has said so.

    Josh Marshall – December 18, 2013, 11:16 PM EST656

    Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, the Christie cronies at the center of the growing bridge closure scandal, have been given two more days to comply with legislative subpoenas, after hiring criminal defense lawyers.

    My own take on this is that there's no evidence Christie knew about or ordered the bridge closure. I can't believe he'd be that stupid or that his pals would be that stupid to involve him directly. But it's looking pretty clear that Baroni and Wildstein did do this as payback to the Mayor of Fort Lee (immediately across the river from New York City) after he refused to endorse Christie, as many other New Jersey Democrats ending up doing. Their claims about some 'traffic study' no one had ever heard of and for which there is apparently zero documentation simply doesn't pass the laugh test. That's pretty amazing even for Jersey politics, which is notoriously sleazy and cartoonish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it should be mentioned Maddow herself has a personal pal she's always promoting who's risen to the top of that same slag heap of "sleazy" Jersey politics. The same guy who was quick to publicaly rush to the defense of the world's Gordon Geckos during this last Presidential campaign.

      Delete
    2. Sure, mention it. What does that have to do with the story?

      Delete
    3. Guild by association is bad for everyone, except people with no friends at all.

      Delete
    4. Look this isn't a friend of his who got caught scamming on Wall St or something, if it were i'd agree with you about the "guilt by association." Business.

      This is a guy Christie appointed to a powerful patronage position. The guy then used that power to cause chaos in Ft Lee. Christie is very much "associated" with this, even if he knew nothing about it (which again i assume is the case).

      Delete
    5. "Guild by association"? Redundant, no?

      Delete
  16. i f maddow dreamed up the whole thing, playing the whole world for fools, and it successfully ruins christie, i say good on maddow. bob has a tin ear for politics. that is what makes his analysis so good to read. his is the reaction of a rational thinker to a gumbo of public relations, lies and personality. no bob, it does not make sense - like slamming Al Gore for things he never said. it makes no sense whatsoever. it never has. forget it bob - it's chinatown.
    alan grayson lies about his opponents all the time. that is why i give him money. punch them in the gonads, alan. that is how the game is played.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you've illustrated the nature of things like this.

      What were back room political antics stealthily done due to the disapproval of the general populace, now are normalized to the point that this sort of war is justified not just against political players, but anyone with an inconvenient opinion.

      That's the nature of the "ends justifies means" mentality.

      Delete
    2. It bugs me when politicians slam another politician with total crap. However, in cases like the failure of the ACA computer system to work, or the NSA spying, or clogging up a small city for political retribution, i say let the poop fly.

      Delete
    3. Anon, that's not the same argument that Mick the Knife made, and Maddow isn't a politician.

      Delete
    4. Ceceila, no but Grayson is a politician.

      Delete
    5. I thought you had made a distinction between lying ("crap") and leadership failures or political malfeasance.

      Delete
    6. Ok, let me try to be more clear. mick said Grayson lies (i.e., spews total crap). It bugs me when politicians like Grayson do that.

      Delete
    7. just for the record mick the knife is not me. there are two tells which i wont mention. carry on.

      Delete
    8. Free-for-all treachery and self governance just don't jibe. The most craven win out.

      Delete
  17. You know, I think Bob is finally taking off the mask.

    "Jesus and Santa are white" has to rank among the Top 10 dumbest things ever spoken by a cable talk babblehead. Bob's reaction? Praise Megyn Kelly for a brilliant interview.

    Rachel Maddow pursues a story that is being pursued hard by by both national and East Coast media, and his reaction? She is playing her viewers for fools.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree, i still do not understand how she is playing anyone for a fool with this story. Bob and his minions keep saying that, but unless i'm missing something, haven't really explained what they mean.

      As for Bob's writing style, it's getting more and more abstruse. At times it is almost like really bad pose poetry. I wish he'd just say what he means. "Maddow played her fans for fools because she....."

      Delete
    2. It seems to me that the critique is about the way the issue is being promoed, hyped, and massaged, sans evidence that would support the aired charges.

      Some viewers and media watch-dogs might have the temerity to feel ill-used by that regardless of the story's potential.

      Delete
    3. Really? it's being hyped sans evidence? Seems there's plenty of evidence something fishy happened, if nothing Widlenstien lied about why he closed the lanes causing chaos for tens of thousands of commuters and residents in Ft Lee. As someone who had to deal with that needless nonsense, i think she's being pretty subdued!

      Delete
    4. "...evidence that would support the aired charges."

      There were no "aired charges". Get that straight. She is simply reporting the story as it is happening, and yes goddammit, it keeps getting bigger despite the blogger's protestations to the contrary.

      Delete
    5. That's the goal -- for the story to get bigger whether there is anything connecting Christie to these actions or not. Because people can be damaged by association, regardless of their own actions. Because people will believe there was a scandal even if there wasn't one (involving Christie) if there is enough noise made about it. After all, it almost worked with Benghazi. And if it almost works for the Republicans, why shouldn't Democrats try it too? What a brave new world!

      Delete
    6. None of Maddow's guests have made charges against Christie?

      The "getting bigger" argument reminds me of the way the media ask certain questions on the premise that they are questions that "won't go away".

      There's an innately opportunist sleight of hand game going on in these media formulations. I've appreciated this blogger for pointing out the way the entire media (from Fox to the NYT) can play the public as roundly as Madison Avenue.

      Delete
    7. Oh dear god. Look when two political appointees cannot answer a simple question "why did you order the lanes closed" it looks weird. When they lie about it "it was a study" it looks weirder. When they then resign it looks even weirder. The mayor claims it was political retribution, i'm more than willing to believe it was for some other, any other reason. Let's hear it, it's not differential calculus, it's a simple question.

      This is what we call a story getting bigger.

      Delete
    8. I'm more than willing to believe it was Christie malfeasance.

      I'm not willing to believe is that it's a big story based upon an argument that silence indicates complicity rather than an effort to gather the facts.

      That it's a big story because Christie grew up with the guy.

      That it's a big story because the documentation that Maddow now says exists about a traffic study, wasn't compelling enough for her to give specifics.

      Rather than reporting on the incident and having guests of varying opinions commenting...and reigning them in when they got too speculative, Maddow has massaged and hyped this like it's manna for famine victims.

      Don't you get sick of these hucksters treating you like you're the clown car for their ambition?

      Delete
    9. What on earth are you talking about? There is NO documentation that a study was done. None. The PA has said no study was done.

      It is NOT a big story simply because Christie grew up with the guy, it is a big story because the guy was a Christie appointee who appears to have used his patronage job for the most petty political retribution causing 10s of thousands of NJ residents a lot of needless hassle.

      What is the other opinion? So far we have no heard it from Christie save "mistakes were made." How is shutting down access roads a mistake? It was deliberate, the question is why it was done, which no one, save Ft Lee's Mayor has given a reason for.

      Delete
    10. "None of Maddow's guests have made charges against Christie?
      "

      Oh, now it's not Maddow, it'sabout her guests? Is that what TDH is going on about?

      You specifically claimed that there were "aired charges".
      You own it. Now back it up, what "aired charges" specifically?

      Delete
    11. Anon11:59, Maddow suggested that there is documentation for some study or something...

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53844386/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/#.UrMpCX-9KK0


      MADDOW: And there are assertions that this was part of a traffic
      study, and you ferreted out a lot of these details. First, it seemed very
      damning that the executive director of the agency said, I don`t know
      anything about new traffic study. We`ve seen evolution that they did
      something that look like a study, and that continues to be their political
      explanation to what they were doing.
      The study itself, such as it was, though, does seem completely unusual
      and completely unlike anything else the Port Authority has ever done."

      As for your other point, the guy has resigned. So far all the stories that have been massaged as big news are that the issue is being examined and could turn out to be big news.

      Oh, the joys of cable...

      Delete
    12. I read that, it sounds like she's saying they are claiming it's a study if that were true it was a strange way to do a study.
      here's some e-mails laying out how bizarre this shutdown was, even if a study DID exist

      http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NYBRIDGE1213.pdf

      She also points out he exec director said he didn't know anything about a study. No one does

      Look there is no study, no one is going with that anymore. What happened was insane and deliberate. Why did it happen? It's a very simple question, the only answer we've heard that has not been ruled out is the Mayor's. If the Mayor is wrong, then explain why Wildenstein made the decision. jesus.

      Delete
    13. mm, have Maddow's guests said that what's known about the incident argues for Christie malfeasance (the actual incident or a cover-up) or not?

      The statement that you objected to was mine saying that the show had aired charges without new evidence to support them.

      An investigation of the matter alone, is not tantamount to a suggestion of malfeasance or failed leadership, whether it's an investigation of Christie or Benghazi.

      Delete
    14. CeceliaMc:

      You claimed charges were aired. Just as I thought, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

      You're asking me to tell you what her guests said?!?!

      You're doing to Maddow precisely what you say you object to. Making baseless allegations of what she reported.

      Now tell us, what journalistic sin has she committed?

      How much has TDH written about the Logan hoax story aired on 60 minutes, the gold standard of journalism?

      Delete
    15. mm, if Maddow aired her guests making arguments for Christie malfeasance or incompetence then she has indeed "aired charges" as I said.

      If she hasn't done that I have no problem saying that I was dead wrong.

      Has she or not?

      Delete
    16. cecelia, i don't know if she has or hasn't? is that Bob's issue? He doesn't quote any guests. is that your issue? Can you quote the guests making those arguments specifically?

      I mean, you claim she's pouring oil on the story or whatever, can you give a freakin' example? Jesus

      Delete
  18. CeceliaMc:

    For Christ's sake, Christie's emails have been subpoenaed. This is the Governor, the man being touted as the next Republican Presidential nominee.

    Do you think Rachel Maddow just invented this stuff? Is everyone supposed to just pretend it isn't happening?

    It doesn't take 4 months to answer a simple question. The original explanation was a joke. These type of studies are designed by people involved in traffic engineering, also know as professional civil engineers. Some clown with a patronage position and with no training in this field just doesn't wake up one morning and decide to have a study and then order the workers not to tell anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think she invented it, I think she's slathered it in oil and retrussed it every night in order to get her viewers tuned-in till the next time she again promos it as though there's new info.

      I think the media can treat people like that because we're so polemical in our politics (some people proudly stating that all's fair in politics) that we'll tolerate any treatment by media members as long as they are telling us that things look bad for opponents.

      Trust me. As a Republican I know this keenly from the last election.

      Folks here are even ready and willing to confuse media criticism as being an argument that Christie could NEVER possibly be guilty, or that the will NEVER get bigger based upon real revelations.

      Delete
  19. Some people owe Maddow an apology, not that she's likely to get one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, Somerby....how does it feel to be so very wrong?

    ReplyDelete