THE PRESS CORPS [HEART] ACCUSERS: Kornacki’s latest imagined friend!


Part 1—He’s no George Washington: George Washington couldn’t tell a lie, as almost everyone knows.

Yesterday, in this news report, Steve Kornacki came pretty darn close.

Kornacki should be embarrassed. Yesterday, he invented the latest in the long line of imaginary figures who drive our “press corps’” novelized tales of scandal and high adventure.

To its credit, the New York Times has taken a pass on Kornacki’s exciting new invention. Elsewhere, the nation’s brain cells are under attack—in these exciting headlines, to cite just a few examples:
THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Gov. Chris Christie has new childhood pal to shove into Bridgegate traffic

NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Christie’s Other Childhood Friend Gave Tour of Fort Lee Traffic Jam

NBC NEWS: Report: Christie's Pal Monitored Bridge Lane Closures

MSNBC: Another Christie childhood friend witnessed traffic surge
That last headline is the most pathetic, since it tops Kornacki’s report. But all across the low-IQ press corps, extending to London’s Daily Mail, readers are being told today that “another childhood friend,” a “new childhood pal,” is involved in the Fort Lee matter.

Those formulations imply there was a first “childhood friend,” presumably David Wildstein. They directly state that a new “childhood friend” has surfaced as part of the stew.

Surely, Kornacki wouldn’t claim that Christie and Wildstein were “childhood friends.” Appearing on MSNBC, he has often said different.

But so what! That bogus claim is plainly implied in the headline appearing above his report. He should be embarrassed.

That implied claim is simply false. The new direct claim of another childhood friend seems to be highly embellished. By the standards of George Washington—the man, not the bridge—this claim is perhaps “untrue.”

Has a new “childhood friend” emerged as part of the Fort Lee story? Does that make two childhood friends who are involved in this tale? It depends on how far you’re willing to go in the anti-journalistic search for political thrills in the form of novelized tales.

You can read Kornacki’s report to see who this new “childhood friend” is said to be. You can learn about his highly tangential connection to the events in Fort Lee.

You can enjoy extremely tenuous speculation about the role he might imaginably have played in the unfolding events at Fort Lee. Imagination is powerful!

For ourselves, we’ll show you the language with which Kornacki created the impression that a new “childhood friend” has emerged.

The alleged new “childhood friend” is a man named Chip Michaels. According to Kornacki, he has been a Port Authority policeman since 1998.

Michaels seems to have been driving Wildstein around on the first day of the lane closings. This involves the large set of actions by Wildstein which have rarely been reported to MSNBC viewers, if they’ve ever been reported at all.

Question: Did Michaels report the Fort Lee lane closings back to Christie, his supposed “childhood friend?” That is the thrilling possibility being churned in this latest puddle of piddle.

Go ahead! Feel the thrill!

Below, you see the way Kornacki created the exciting impression that Michaels was a “childhood friend” of Christie’s. Kornacki ought to be embarrassed by well-crafted bullshit like this:
KORNACKI (2/16/14): In 2010, a Newark Star-Ledger article described the Christie-Michaels family friendship as one that has endured for decades.

“We break his chops a little bit, just saying, ‘You’re the Governor?,’ looking at him laughing,” Chip Michaels told the paper. “It’s crazy. He grew up like everyone else in New Jersey. So to see him as a celebrity, it’s just really odd. But he’s the same guy. He’s a grounded guy.” At the time the article was published, Michaels was coaching one of Christie’s sons in a youth hockey league. The article described a friendship dating back to their childhoods.

Multiple attempts to reach Chip Michaels directly and through the Port Authority were unsuccessful. The Port Authority Police Department has not returned calls for comment.
Out of that carefully crafted bullshit, headlines about “another childhood friend” have emerged.

Was Chip Michaels a “childhood friend?” Is that a reasonable description? Reading Kornacki’s report this morning, we were struck by a fact that didn’t bark. We were struck by Kornacki’s failure to cite Michaels’ age, the age of this new childhood friend.

How old is Christie's “childhood friend?” We wasted about a half an hour trying to find this basic fact. Finally, we found a citation in the Asbury Park Press:
SYMONS (2/16/14): Michaels, 44, who lives in Randolph, has worked at the Port Authority since 1998 and has been a youth hockey coach for the governor’s son, Patrick. He grew up in Livingston, as did Christie. Though Michaels is seven years younger than the governor, their families have been friendly for years.
Interesting! According to Symons, Chip Michaels is 44. Christie, his alleged childhood friend, is 51 as we speak. That would mean that Christie’s latest “childhood friend” was still in the fifth grade as Christie was finishing high school.

Wildstein wasn’t a “childhood friend,” as everyone actually knows. Given this new set of facts, would you want to build on that first misstatement by calling Michaels a childhood friend?

Question: Have many of your childhood friends were in the first grade when you were in eighth? For extra credit, discuss: If George Washington were here, would he be inclined to describe Chip Michaels as Christie’s “childhood friend?”

In recent decades, enormous chunks of our political discourse have been built around stretchers like these. We’ve been handed the 21-year-old intern, who wasn’t 21 or an intern. We’ve been handed the fancy hotel, which wasn’t fancy and contained (rather small) apartments.

We’ve been handed the dog which was strapped to the roof of the car, even though he sort of wasn’t. Starting on January 8, we were handed a childhood buddy, friend and pal who just plain actually wasn't.

These imaginary figures make preferred stories work better. Now, we seem to have yet another imaginary childhood friend.

Again and again, our discourse has been turned into a joke as “journalists” have played these cards, making their stories a little bit better. The Kornackis insult us when they do this—but then too, they give us cheap thrills.

These stretchers are an entertainment feature; they’re part of partisan entertainment. All week long, we plan to review the obvious problems with this familiar press culture.

Long ago, we repeatedly told you this: The press corps [HEART] accusers! That said, let's be more specific. In those days, the press corps was in love with anyone who accused Clinton, Clinton or Gore.

By definition, such accusations were known to be true. Accusers were allowed to embellish as much as they liked, even to invent.

By law, no one spoke up.

Today, the children who play on The One True Channel love accusers and accusations which are aimed at Christie. They are willing to gambol and play in service to pleasing tales.

Chris Matthews has been playing this game for a very long time, with disastrous results for the world. Tomorrow, we’ll remind you of the time he almost got one person killed.

Tomorrow—part 2: Helping a favorite accuser make a false accusation!

To refresh yourself, click here.


  1. The uncritical members of the Democatic Underground and the Daily Kos will pretend Kornacki wasn't exaggerating because they find the hypothetical "news" exciting. See example here:

    1. What do the critical members pretend?

    2. I think they've been pretending that Maddow and others don't occasionally say stupid stuff.

    3. ...and that pointing out their mendacity (excuse me, their "saying stupid stuff") is far, far worse than the mendacity (er, "stupid stuff") itself.

  2. "Question: Did Michaels report the Fort Lee lane closings back to Christie, his supposed “childhood friend?” "

    Answer: Who gives a shit.

    You now have to explain, not only what Bridget Ann Kelly had to do with a traffic study, but also what Chip Michaels involvement in a traffic study was.

    Lt. Thomas "Chip" Michaels, sent text messages during the closures to David Wildstein, the former Port Authority executive who orchestrated them. MSNBC also reported that Michaels grew up in Livingston, N.J. -- the same town where both Christie and Wildstein grew up -- and has coached Christie's son in little league hockey.

    Once again, it seems TDH is missing the fucking point.

    The Bergen Record reported on Sunday that Pat Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority, asked the agency's inspector general to investigate the actions of Port Authority police officers stationed at the bridge during the closures. The request followed a story in The Record, which took another look at a question that has been hanging over the scandal for months: why did Port Authority police tell commuters that the lane closures were Fort Lee, N.J. Mayor Mark Sokolich's fault?

  3. The question I'd like to see answered is this - Did Chip initiate this bs?

    In a letter to a Port Authority executive on Sept. 12, Fort Lee, N.J. Mayor Mark Sokolich complained that the agency's police officers were telling commuters that the George Washington Bridge lane closings were his fault.

    "[M]any members of the public have indicated to me that the Port Authority Police Officers are advising commuters in response to their complaints that this recent traffic debacle is the result of a decision that I, as the Mayor, recently made," Sokolich wrote to Bill Baroni, who was the deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey until he resigned last month.

  4. I see that three commenters have accepted the invitation to use their imaginations to invent new facts -- for example, that this person (who is reported to have driven Wildstein around on one day of the closures) was the person telling Ft. Lee citizens that the lanes were closed by Sokolich. There is no evidence he said anything of the kind, no basis for suggesting that he did this. But, now those words are being put into his mouth. Why? Because it makes the whole story better. It completes a "conspiracy" explanation of what happened more satisfyingly.

    Michaels sent texts to Wildstein -- perhaps things like, "I'll pick you up out front in 10 minutes" or "Look for me at the corner, there are no parking spaces by the door" or "What time do want me to get lunch?". No innocent reason he might have texted Wildstein, related to his actual job function of driving him around, huh?

    How do you get to the very serious accusation that this guy, who has no other crime than having grown up in the same neighborhood, was in any way part of any Christie/Wildstein plot. But reporters and internet commenters don't mind smearing him on that slim evidence.

    1. And I see that this entire post isn't the two minutes it took Somerby to think it up and the 10 minutes it took him to type it.

      But Bob Fans demand their daily dose of sweet hay.

    2. to clarify: It isn't WORTH the two minutes, even of Bob's endless time.

    3. Right, because who cares about some random guy who is now being accused of participating in a conspiracy to do something (what?) corrupt, whose greatest crime may be that he lived in a particular NJ neighborhood years ago and now drives a guy around in a car?

    4. It is, however, a very welcome distraction from Bob's endless meanderings about a real "traffic study."

      Glad to see him change the subject.

    5. "some random guy"


    6. "There is no evidence he said anything of the kind, no basis for suggesting that he did this."

      Once again, you're missing the point. There is no basis for of the PA police to be telling the citizens that the traffic jams were the result of the mayor's decision.

      The report about Chip states the following:

      Documents submitted to a New Jersey legislative committee by Wildstein also show that the officer, Lieutenant Thomas “Chip” Michaels, appears to have sent periodic text messages to Wildstein updating him on the effects of the lane closures and their crippling impact on the town of Fort Lee. In one message, on the first day of the lane closures, Michaels told Wildstein he might have an idea to “make this better.” It is not clear what he meant.
      Nothing about what time they're having lunch. He apparently has idea how to "make this better". Again, WTF is a PA police officer doing suggesting ideas to Wildstein and reporting on the effects of the lane closings. Since

      "Foye requested the agency’s inspector general investigate the reported actions of police officers who were at the bridge during the lane closures, according to a source close to the Police Department."

      I would say we might find out. And spare me your sympathy for Chip. He was a given a chance to comment and refused.

    7. Bob should be writing about the general public's ignorance of the ways in which random events are frequently interpreted as meaningful when they are just coincidental. That is math that has real application to life.

    8. If someone refuses to comment (often on advice of an attorney) does that make them fair game for whatever someone wants to say about them? How is that fair? Are you saying that these emails had Michaels name on them or are you attributing some of the redacted emails to him? The news report is about texts not emails.

      Is it fair to assume that when he said he had an idea to make this better, he meant worsen the situation, instead of actually make it better for commuters?

      A police officer reporting on traffic conditions makes a lot of sense to me. They do that as part of their job here in CA. Why wouldn't they have ideas about improving traffic flow by rearranging cones or something? Again, this is what police do -- crowd and traffic control. Why wouldn't this be a part of his job? You have to assume malfeasance to make this appear sinister.

    9. Nothing I write or say and nothing Kornacki or Maddow says is going to make any difference to how this investigation plays out. This could all be cleared up real fast if the Governor stopped putting his state through hell.

    10. mm, please clarify whether Michaels was identified in those emails you talked about.

    11. 1:32 PM,

      These are all good questions. Apparently, the PA Executive Director thinks something smells in Trenton.

      I didn't say anything about emails, you did. I'm just reporting what the news accounts say. And I don't see any evidence that traffic flow was improved until Foye shut the damn thing down.

    12. "How is that fair?"

      Boo hoo, life isn't fair.

      Doggone that First Amendment any way. Makes us think too much.

    13. 1:41 you appear to be confused. I never mentioned emails. He was specifically identified as having sent text messages.

    14. mm, the articles refer to texts. Were the texts they refer to the same as the ones you quoted about improving things or were those redacted transcripts that you are attributing to Michaels? I didn't see any transcripts of the texts in the articles Somerby cited above. So, are you making this connection to redacted texts or were the texts explicitly identified as coming from Michaels?

    15. mm shame on you! you have followed this better than to write, "He apparently has idea how to "make this better". Again, WTF is a PA police officer doing suggesting ideas to Wildstein and reporting on the effects of the lane closings."

      wtf indeed. if you believe baroni, this whole thing was the idea of a port authority police office (an union official) in a suggestion to wildstein last summer. That officer has been subpoenaed.

      Of course, if you believe somerby, wildstein had been thinking about ways to improve interstate 95 speeds through the bridge for almost half a decade or at least documents and testimony showing this should be covered in all discusiions of motives.

    16. It sounds like if we all wait and follow the testimony, we will get a clearer picture of what happened than if we rush to assume that coaching Christie's kid makes one a crony insider in the latest scandal.

    17. Meanwhile, let's not report any of this right now until "all the evidence is in." Otherwise, all those rubes less intelligent than we are will get the wrong idea.

      Doggone that First Amendment anyway.

    18. How about reporting it accurately, within the limits of what is known, instead of trying to stretch it to fit a preconceived story line? How would that fit the First Ammendment?

    19. Hey, try coming up with an original idea. One that Somerby hasn't planted in your head.

      This entire episode HAS been reported accurately, and well withing the limits of what is known.

      The only buffoon trying to stretch it into a preconceived notion is Somerby trying to fashion another club to beat Maddow with, and flailing and failing miserably.

      Does he even realize that he is a laughing stock? That even Kevin Drum is finally fed up?

    20. Funny, I got fed up with Kevin Drum a long time ago but am still here.

  5. And to our friend who thinks Bob brings up Gore only once a month or so:

    "Long ago, we repeatedly told you this: The press corps [HEART] accusers! That said, let's be more specific. In those days, the press corps was in love with anyone who accused Clinton, Clinton or Gore."

    1. Your last comment was that Gore is mentioned because Somerby plugs his companion site at the top of this blog. You have no credibility here any more.

    2. That wasn't my "Anonymous" comment, Anonymous.

      So there goes your precious credibility, whoever you are.

    3. Of course Somerby cares about Gore. So do I. So do many Democrats. Whoever made the remarks about Gore appearing often here, the fact is that the media participated wholeheartedly in trashing Gore and contributed to his loss of the presidency and indirectly the bad things that happened under Bush. That is worth talking about. It is also worth talking about the way the press helped elect Obama and wondering what might have happened had Hillary Clinton been president instead. It is worth talking about how the press treated Bill Clinton, abetting conservative attempts to tie his hands during his presidency. These are important topics for liberals. That you, or any similar troll, would like to imply that Somerby is obsessed with Gore seems to undercut the concerns of liberals and Somerby both, and I find myself wondering how you think anyone here will receive your constant chatter, other than as an attempt to derail Somerby's influence.

      I do not agree with those who think all trolls must be tolerated in the name of free speech. You and your brethren serve no useful purpose here.

    4. Dear boy, if you are under the illusion that this blog has anything to do with "liberals," no wonder you are such a good and loyal Bob Fan. He needs all the clicks and eyeballs he can get that are detached from functioning brains.

      Bob has been carrying water for the plutocrats at least since he started sliming Joe Wilson, and it has now reached the point where he defends not only their wet dream, Chris Christie, but Bob McDonnell as well.

      Although McDonnell seems to have disappeared from these parts lately. Wonder why.

    5. Please don't address someone as "Dear boy" when you have no knowledge of their age or gender.

      I am more likely to believe Somerby when he calls himself a liberal, than I am to believe some troll who clearly does not support anything but sliming Somerby.

    6. I call you "dear boy" in reference to your intellectual maturity level, not your age or gender.

      But allow me to go gender-free.

      Dear child, were you here in 2012? When he toted enough water for Mitt Romney to fill scores of Olympic swimming pools?

      How about when he lectures liberals on the proper respect, decorum and politeness with which to address Tea Partiers?

      Or how he dismisses out of hand any hint that racism might be driving at least a part of Obama Derangement Syndrome? (After all, he quickly reminds his sheep. People said mean things about Clinton and Gore as well, though neither had to produce their long-form birth certificate.)

      You can believe whatever Somerby tells you. No skin off my nose, and that is how snake oil salesmen make their livings.

      But forgive me, dear child, if I refuse to join you in swallowing the that he is anything close to even resembling a "liberal."

    7. Personally, I like dressage but I didn't consider his articles on Romney to be toting water for him. I thought Maddow's teabagger comments were gratuitous and unfunny, embarrassing to liberals. I have never heard him dismiss real racism -- I have heard him complain about playing the race card as a political ploy -- which trivializes the struggle for civil rights. There is plenty to criticize about Obama, from the left, without being racist.

      Your patronizing tone makes you appear silly.

    8. Anonymous @ 1:12, Whether you put the scare quotes around "real" or around "traffic study," TDH has never claimed there was a "real" "traffic" "study" (in the sense of something a traffic engineer would design and have approved through channels). In fact, TDH points out that whatever Wildstein was "s""t""u""d""y""i""n""g" might turn out to be a ruse or a hoax.

      But don't stop proving TDH's point about narrative for him.

    9. Anonymous @1:43P, I don't know whether your tone makes you seem "silly," as your brother @2:01P claims, but your insistence that TDH "toted water" for Romney makes you ignorant. It took 15 seconds on the google to find this about Willard:

      <quote src="TDH" date="8/17/12">
      D’oh! He’s supposed to say that his [Medicare] proposal imposes no cuts. He isn’t supposed to say that his plan "presents no savings!”

      Good God, this man is clumsy with policy! Everyone and his crazy uncle has correctly been saying, for decades, that we need to find “savings” in our health care programs. We want our presidents to find ways to save money in the administration of these programs.

      Romney boasted that his proposal "presents no savings.” Good God, that man is an oaf!

      Tote that water! Lift that pail!

    10. Take off your "Bob can write no wrong" blinders and go over them again.

      I had those very same blinders for quite some time and would defend him quite vigorously against those who noticed the hard-right turn he took long before I did. Those blinders did come off though.

      Check out how he downplayed Romney's infamous 47 percent comment:

      "For our money, professional liberals overdid the outrage on last evening’s TV shows. We're not sure how voters may react to the statements made by Romney. On the bright side, the fury and outrage made us liberals feel extremely good."

      Check out the post "What was Romney talking about!" of Sept. 14 concerning Romney rushing to the TV cameras while the Benghazi compound was burning to accuse the President of the United States of apologizing to terrorsts for tweets sent out from Cairo hours earlier. The timeline was all important to Bob. Since the tweet was hours earlier,
      Romney made no mistake to complain while the Benghazi compound was burning of a tweet sent before the Benghazi attack.

      Read how many times Somerby tried to deny that Romney was proposing a 20 percent across the board income tax cut, despite his many, many readers trying to call Somerby's attention to Romney's own Web site.

      As far as dismission racism? Check out his "rodeo clown" series. Check out the many posts about Confederate flags and racist signs showing up at Tea Party rallies. Check out his take on Professor Gates. And don't miss the long series on how Zimmerman couldn't possibly have "profiled" Martin because he was black. He could have shot a white cheerleader as well. It's possible. We don't know.

      In other words, TDH's only usefulness these days is a one-stop shop for reading right-wing spin.

      And he's doing such a marvelous job repeating Christie spin that he should, at long hast, be getting paid for it.

    11. dr, i could not agree with you more. for a blooger who gave gore every benefit of the doubt on the internet intiative fiasco, somerby should have at least given romney as much lattitude on medicare verbal misstep.

    12. By the way, deadrat, remember when Romney did his famous faceplant in Debate No. 2?

      Remember what Somerby's reaction was?

      In case you have (certainly and conveniently) forgotten, it was to slide Romney off the hook and blame the Washington Post for misrepresenting what Susan Rice said.

      How was the Republican candidate for president to know any better if it were so misreported in the Washington Post?

    13. If the game is to put people firmly on hooks, I guess Somerby is wrong. If the game is to explore the beliefs and policies of different candidates in order to make an informed choice, maybe he is not doing as badly when he urges us all to consider substance instead of gratifying bloopers or gaffes.

    14. If the game is toting water for Republicans while pretending to be a liberal, I hope Somerby is wearing a raincoat.

    15. Anonymous @2;39,

      You've apparently traded one set of blinders for another. Let's examine two of your claims:

      1. TDH downplayed Romney's "infamous 47% comment" and you give a quote from a 9/18/12 blog entry. In that entry, TDH calls the comment "unfortunate" and "foolish." So much for downplaying, eh? But, as usual, the entry is about how the press, particularly the liberal press, isn't prepared to take on this statement. And TDH explains how to limn Romney's foolishness: many of the people Romney is complaining about don't pay taxes because of George Bush's tax cuts! That these people don't pay taxes was once part of the Republican design, but "conservative" outrage has shifted.

      2. In his 9/14/12 blog entry, TDH wasn't hard enough on Romney for his "apology" accusation. I'm sorry that TDH is writing about topics you're not interested in. TDH is mostly interested in the press. Here's the timeline that TDH discusses:

      1. First tweet from US embassy in Cairo
      2. Attacks on US diplomatic missions
      3. Second tweet from US embassy in Cairo
      4. Romney's claim that the embassy's first response showed sympathy for attackers.

      The NYT said "first response" was to the anti-Muslim video, i.e., item 1, in which case Romney is not only a dick, he can't even get the basic facts correct. There were no attackers at the time of item 1. WashPo said that the "first response" was to the violence, i.e., to item 3, after the attack had begun. In which case Romney is still a dick, but at least he knew what was going on. Why can't the press get this stuff straight?

      I've got two questions for you. I understand that Romney's dickishness is the important thing for you, but it just isn't what TDH wants to write about. Your complaint is like turning up at a contract bridge tournament and complaining that there's no poker. So why are you here? Aren't there plenty of blogs that bash people like Romney?

      The second question: why is it when I correct ignoramuses like you, their first response is that I'm a "Bobfan" who thinks he can do no wrong? This isn't true, but this isn't about me; this is about your ignorance about the purpose of the blog.

      Correct it or make everyone happy (including yourself) and move on.

    16. Hey Anonymous 12:55. Don't go giving Anoymous 1:10 credit for my work.

      We know who you are.

      We remember who you hung out with in high school.

      We beleive we saw you at Nader HQ in New Hampshire back in 1998 phone banking gullible liberals about Al Gore and the internet.

      Watch this space.

    17. Tote that pail, deadrat. Your tribal leader needs all the help he can get.

    18. I think Obama has been toting water for Republicans while pretending to be a liberal. I don't think Somerby has been doing that. To me, being liberal means caring about justice in a fundamental way. I think you trolls care about winning and don't care how you do it. That permits you to cheer when the so-called liberal press attacks someone you dislike (an easy target slimed by a cheap shot) without regard to larger issues at stake, such as what evidence is needed to convict someone of wrongdoing. Somerby has liberal values and you do not, however much you might claim to support liberal candidates or policies.

    19. "To me, being liberal means caring about justice in a fundamental way."

      So THAT'S why Somerby is so obsessed with MSNBC!

      And of course, getting the nation's first national health insurance plan through was only Republican water-toting, considering how much the GOP absolutely loved that idea.

    20. Can you say single payer?

    21. Can you say "snowball's chance in hell of getting a single payer plan through Congress"?

    22. Can you say ineffectual?

  6. Didn't take long for our Howler to stop getting results. Maddow ends at 9 pm EST? Kornacki cranks up at 8am? Less than half a day.

    1. And the last we heard of Kornacki in these parts, he was "Gallant." And before that, the author of the brilliant "billion dollar development" theory.

      How quickly MSNBC hosts can fall!

    2. Because behavior is being assessed, not the person's eternal essence. Behavior changes.

    3. Oh, please, search the incomparable archives for "Maddow" and see how often her "eternal essence" has been "assessed."

    4. If you discount every example of praise offered for her behavior (as sarcastic or ironic) then you will think she is being judged as a person (who she is) instead of as a journalist (what she does).

    5. Not even a clever dodge. But typically Somerbyesque in its insistence that if he ever said one nice thing about Maddow, it negates the thousands of very personal names he has called her.

      But of course, name-calling is only wrong when a Somerby target does it, never when Somerby does it himself.

  7. It took a little while, but Bob's favorite clickbait seems to be working.

    1. The troll wants what it wants.

      Trolls (e.g. you, 2:57) take their own trolling as evidence that Somerby wants them to troll -- you couldn't make it up!

      When the troll are bored by a topic, and fail to troll it, they of course also take that lack of trolling comments as evidence that no one else cares about that topic.

      It is truly all about you, 2:57!

    2. "Trolls" vs. "Bob Fans".

      Nothing tribal about that, is there?

  8. I rarely disagree with TDH but must in this rarest of instances.

    Kornacki knows what he is talking about! Kornacki is especially well versed concerning the state of New Jersey, where he began his journalistic career. This has made him the press corps’ most valuable player concerning the Fort Lee fandango.

    1. Except that Kornacki seems to be succumbing to the temptations of being in that limelight.

    2. Really? Because Bob says so?

      Or is Bob suffering from a bad itch to put another MSNBC host on his "target" list?

    3. Because Kornacki seems to be grasping at tenuous connections in order to imply that another piece of scandal has fallen into place, ignoring that a 7-year age gap makes it unlikely Michaels and Christie were childhood friends. It seems to me these guys are putting themselves on the list through their behavior. Maybe Kornacki has less control over his material at MSNBC than he did in his other reporting.

    4. I am willing concede that a complete ass like Christie had no childhood friends at all.

      So you and Somerby can continue to obsess about who his friends weren't. It makes you look just as silly as the "media" types who obsess about who his friends were.

      And in the final analysis, it really doesn't mean shit to a tree.

      But hey, Bob's got another club, and TWO new targets -- the ex-Gallant MSNBC host and another elite-educated young female.

      That should keep him busy and irrelevant for years.

    5. Does this mean you'll be shutting up and going away?

    6. Nope. Some guys hunt, some guys fish, some guys play golf. My hobby is watching you whine.

    7. "...Somerby can continue to obsess about who Christie's friends weren't..."

      Valid wherever "obsession" = documenting a continuing and widening press obsession with pretending they know who Christie's friends were.

      Yes, the big sin isn't Kornacki's bullshittting in this instance, the big sin is pointing it out!!

      Why, in the past this blogger has *praised* Kornacki!

      And now he says Kornacki did something bad!??!

      I just can't wrap my idiot douchebag troll brain around it!

    8. Yes, how horrible that Kornacki can't tell the truth about Christie's childhood friends.

      And how lucky we are to have Somerby around to point this out, lest Western Civilization collapse.

      But it is still amazing to me how "good guys" and "bad guys" can switch roles in Bob's World faster than they can in professional wrestling.

      I guess even Bob gets as tired of beating up on Maddow and Dowd as much as his few readers get tired of reading it. So he's got to find new MSNBC hosts to beat up on, and new young Wellesley grads.

      Never mind that he says the same damned thing over and over again. To Bob Fans, this is all fresh and new.

  9. "The alleged new “childhood friend” is a man named Chip Michaels. According to Kornacki, he has been a Port Authority policeman since 1998." Bob Somerby

    The "alleged" childhood friend is on record as far back as 2010 talking about this "alleged" friendship.

    A 2010 article in the Newark Star-Ledger detailed what longtime buds the Guv and Michaels are:
    "We break his chops a little bit, just saying, ‘You’re the governor?,’ looking at him laughing," said Chip Michaels, who along with his brothers grew up with Christie. "It’s crazy. He grew up like everyone else in New Jersey. So to see him as a celebrity, it’s just really odd. But he’s the same guy. He’s a grounded guy."

    Yeah Bob, they probably hardly know each other.

    In a public television interview after that election, Jeffrey Michaels was asked how close he is to Christie. “I’ve known him for a long time,” he said. “We went to high school with – we – our families knew each other from Livingston, and just stayed in close contact with him over the years and was very pleased to help his campaign out with policy.”

    Jeffery Michaels, Chip's brother, worked on Christie's campaign.

    What is amazing to me is how Bob conveniently leaves out these details while HOWLING at the deisgraceful performance by Steve Kornacki .

    1. When he says "we" he is referring to his older brother Jeffrey who is a political operative and does know Christie. The younger brother knows him through that association and that is all he claims in the excerpts above. Note the use of the word "we" throughout. Somerby reported that. YOU are stretching this to mean that the younger brother, Chip, has a stronger connection than he does, just as Kornacki did.

      I have known my next door neighbor for years now. They are considerably younger and we have never been inside their house. But if someone asked me how long I had known them, I would use language closely similar to that in the paragraphs above. They don't have a campaign but we always buy from their family business because we like them and know them as neighbors. If my neighbor were elected governor, I guess I would laugh and say "you're the governor". So, what does that prove?

    2. When he says "we" he is referring to another person, in the singular? Is that what you are saying?

    3. No, I think when he says we he is referring to his whole family, including his brother and parents. This is being described as a family relationship. I do not take him as referring to a relationship he has personally with Christie. That, however, seems to be the way the press has been reading this.

    4. We. First person, plural. And he was coach of Christie's son. Yes, I have no doubt he was including his brother, etc. also.

      As I first said, the most interesting thing in this report is his actions with respect to the lane closings. Just opens up more questions.

    5. Last night, Rachel Maddow described the relationship as "family ties going back to their childhoods."

      You think Bob is going to praise her for such an accurate description? Or is he going to make up something like she called them best buds?

    6. So, you think that Rachel should get a gold star every time she does something that is actually journalism? The point of this blog is to point out the mistakes by journalists, not praise them for doing their jobs.

    7. 9:51 that's beautiful that you find that "accurate" and that you hope it should be praised.

      Someone who could actually think (that is, someone other than yourself) might instead believe it shows Rachel doing her best to stay true to what she'd like to imply, but without doing overt damage to the facts. In other words, hardly praiseworthy.