In this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer, Karen Heller (one of my favorite columnists) wrote an interesting opinion piece. (You can read it at http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/karen_heller/20140604_In_Pa___female_politicians_face_different_rules.html).
The thrust of her column is that women are not winning political races in Pennsylvania because of different rules for female candidates. Ms. Heller points out the fact that Pennsylvania is about to have an all-female congressional delegation because our one female representative in Congress, Allyson Schwartz, did not run for reelection so she could run for governor. In addition, in the Democratic race for the gubernatorial nomination, the two women candidates came in 2nd and 4th while the two males came in 1st and 3rd. She also points out that Pennsylvania has never elected a woman governor or senator.
Ms. Heller credits these statistics to the fact that there are different rules for women candidates. The main difference she cites is the likability quotient. Ms. Heller points out articles and comments which said that Representative Schwartz was not liked and that it was an issue when Hillary Clinton ran for president.
However, Pennsylvania has elected females to statewide office, the most recent being Attorney General Kathleen Kane in 2010. In the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary in 2008, Hillary Clinton easily beat Barack Obama. There are many municipal and county elected officials throughout the state who are female.
So, do Pennsylvania voters really care if female candidates are likable but not male candidates? Pennsylvania is a solid blue state when it comes to presidential elections since 1988. However, I remember comments in all of those campaigns about whether the Democratic or Republican nominee was more likable. Some phrased it as "who would you rather sit down and have a beer with". I would like to point out that all 14 of the candidates in those 7 presidential races were men. In 1988, George H. W. Bush was looked at as more likable than Michael Dukakis. In 1992 and 1996, many commented on how likable Bill Clinton was and how empathetic (usually a characteristic reserved for women) he was as he beat also likable candidates George H. W. Bush and Bob ("We've never had a president named Bob and I think it's time") Dole.
In 2000 and 2004, the likable George W. Bush beat aloof candidates Al Gore (although not in the popular vote) and John Kerry. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama was looked at as the more empathetic and likable candidate over John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Likability is an issue for all politicians and all races. One of the reasons that Rob McCord came in third instead of second in the gubernatorial primary is that voters perceived his "racist" attack on Tom Wolf to be nasty, i.e. not nice. Therefore, Rob McCord became less likable.
When making claims such as Pennsylvania never having elected a female governor or senator and attributing it to different rules for female candidates, I would like to see some numbers. The numbers I would like to see is how many men and how many women have run for governor of Pennsylvania in the Democratic and Republican primaries.
I would like to posit another theory, one that has been a sticking point for me (as I imagine the "different rules" argument has been for Ms. Heller). The media covers elections as if they are sports events. Who's ahead in the polls? Who's ahead in fundraising? I wish they would spend at least as much time discussing the issues and the candidates' stands on those issues. In fact, I would love to conduct an experiment, one that is not possible because we do have a free press who can report whatever they want.
I would like to see an election cycle go by in which the media reports the polls and fundraising in reverse order. That is, going into the Democratic gubernatorial primary, they would have reported that Katie McGinty had a big lead in polls and lots of money in her campaign account. They would have said that it looks like McCord would be a distant second with Schwartz right behind him, and that Wolf was badly trailing the others. What would the primary results have been? Would there have been any change? Would Tom Wolf have captured the nomination? I don't know the answer to that.
I would actually like to see the responsible media make a policy to not report fundraising or polling numbers but only to discuss the issues. If that happened, I think all candidates would have a more equal footing. I also think that Katie McGinty would have done much better than a poor 4th showing.
As far as the congressional race to replace Allyson Schwartz, I think it was more geography and name recognition than issues Polls were not reported except for one from 2013 that showed much of the district felt favorable to Margolies and had generally not heard of the others. And, as usual, the issues were generally not reported.
In the race for this district, which is mostly in Montgomery County but has a substantial Philadelphia portion, there were 3 candidates from Montgomery County and 1 from Philadelphia. Surprise, surprise, the candidate from Philadelphia won. I don't think it was a decision based on the sex of the candidates at all.
In the history of the Commonwealth, female candidates for Congress, Governor, and Senator are a relatively new phenomenon and I doubt that many Pennsylvania voters make their decisions based on the genitals of the candidates.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
10 Best Points about the 2014 State of the Union Speech
1. The president gave Congress credit for much of the successes of his administration.
Much has been said on cable news and written about on social media about the president showing a lack of respect to the Congress in his state of the union speech. We will get to that. However, what is often overlooked is the president’s sixth paragraph:
By doing this, the president made it clear that he would give credit to whoever helps him improve the economy and our national security. This was an olive branch by the president to Congress.
2. An emphasis on “opportunity” for all, not equal results.
Conservatives consistently accuse the president of being a socialist or a communist. (As social media has pointed out, with the stock market setting new records, CEOs and the wealthy doing better than they ever did before, and the middle class and poor suffering, President Obama must be the worst socialist ever.) Conservatives state that they want everyone to have an opportunity and decry the president for supposedly wanting equal results. That cannot be squared with this statement in the state of the union:
This is a description of the basic American Dream, although toned down from “you can get rich” to “you can get ahead.” I still believe in the president’s description and I believe most Americans do as well. We all want to have the opportunity to succeed, without success guaranteed. The disputes between ideologies seem to be what the government should be willing to do to provide that opportunity. The president provided us some of his vision:
3. The president’s emphasis that whether Congress agrees with him or not, he will use his executive authority to take steps to provide equal opportunity for all.
This is the part that has the Republicans in Congress, and Fox News, so upset. For five years they have been able to block most efforts by the president to improve the lives of average Americans. The notable exception being the first two years of his presidency when he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. However, many opportunities of those first two years were frittered away by the president bending over backwards to get the Republicans to agree with him. One example is the individual mandate in the ACA. This was a conservative, Cato Institute, idea to keep health care in the private sector instead of making the preferable single payer solution. The president was opposed to the individual mandate during the Democratic primaries, but backed down when he thought that was the only way to get Republican support for health care coverage opportunity for all. He was wrong. As soon as President Obama said he was for the individual mandate, the Republicans turned against it, calling it unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court wisely said was incorrect), and every Republican in the House and the Senate voted against it.
Now the president is willing to act, well, presidentially. He is willing to lead. The president would like Congress to help him, and he offers specific proposals in his speech as to how they can. But for the first time he states his willingness to go-it-alone to create a society that has more opportunity, is safer, and is more fair. In my opinion, this is at least three, and arguably five, years later than it should have happened. The people of the United States voted for the policies the president want in two presidential elections. Seldom does a president win two presidential elections with over 50% of the vote, but President Obama did so, running against the policies the Republicans in Congress want to force the president to follow. The president has had enough and is standing up for his principles without violating the Constitution.
4. The president did not allow any room for debate over the scientifically settled fact that global change is occurring.
For years, the climate-change-deniers in Congress have been trying to say that the 97% of scientists who say climate change is occurring are frauds. And so our government fiddles while the earth burns. The president is willing to take the lead, without Congress’ help if necessary, by working “with states, utilities, and others” to try to save human habitability on earth.
5. The president clearly pointed out that more immigration helps the United States financially. (as a history teacher and buff, I would like to point out it always has).
US history is riddled with various groups being considered the “other” and demonized with attempts to keep them out of this country. Benjamin Franklin spoke ill of German immigrants, spreading stereotypical lies about them, such as all of the boys must beat their mothers to be considered a man. However, given this historical bigotry, the first hundred years of our existence had no illegal immigrants. Why? Because all immigration was legal. Then in 1892 Congress passed the first anti-immigration bill called, The Chinese Exclusion Act. Now xenophobes are objecting to “illegal” immigrants, ignoring that our immigration law is based on both race and class, allowing more upper class white people in than lower class darker people. The president wants a path to citizenship for people who have proven themselves to be good citizens and is urging Congress to take action.
6. The president emphasized training of workers for the jobs that are available.
If successful, this will increase workers’ opportunity to succeed. It makes no sense kicking people off welfare (and, yes, thanks to the Republicans, unemployment), if we are not also training them to work at jobs that are available.
He even welcomes Congress’ help with this:
7. The president indicated he might be open to more effective measurements of students’ abilities than standardized tests.
The president’s education policies, which he has named “Race to the Top”, I have called “Race to the Bottom” because of its emphasis on standardized testing. My firm opinion is that standardized testing is a great way to get a country full of people willing to take orders, but not citizens with critical thinking and creativity skills. This emphasis needs to change (more projects, fewer tests) for us to really succeed in education.
8. 'I gave you a chance to provide high quality pre-K education. Now I’m going to do it.'
Another point to providing equal opportunity for all, is to provide quality early education for all. There is no reason to wait until the age of six when all research shows that so much can be learned easier at an earlier age. And wealthy families make sure that their children do learn in the first six years, prior to formal school. Should a child’s opportunity be limited because their parents are poor, or ignorant of how to best educate a child? That would be neither a fair nor a just society, but it is the one we live in today.
9. The president emphasized the importance of equality for women in the workforce.
The president hit this correctly - our policies involving women are an embarrassment. They do belong in a “Mad Men” episode more than in 21st century America. Let’s get with it. Fairness for all.
10. The president emphasized the importance of workers earning more money.
It is fair for full-time workers to not live in poverty. It is fair for business owners, who have been reaping record profits, to pay their workers more. But in addition, this will help the economy.
Our free market system is based on demand. If there is a demand for a good or service, someone will start a business to provide it and make a profit. If there is less demand, businesses will close or layoff workers. Demand is provided by people who need or want goods or services having the resources to buy those goods or services. This is why supply-side economics has failed for 30 years. If you give a rich business owner more money, supply-siders say, that money will trickle down to the workers in the form of more jobs or raises. But that shows a total ignorance of the way our economy works. If there is no demand for something, what business owner in their right mind would hire people to provide it just because they received money from the government? None. Economists have estimated that putting a dollar in the hands of a poor person helps the economy approximately $1.40, but giving a dollar to a wealthy person helps the economy less than a dollar’s worth. The reason is simple. Poor people need to spend everything they get for food, clothing, and shelter. The rich can just bank the money.
The president also talked about retirement savings, benefits to the military, and other issues. I would summarize this state of the union speech by saying:
Leadership, fairness, opportunity for all.
Much has been said on cable news and written about on social media about the president showing a lack of respect to the Congress in his state of the union speech. We will get to that. However, what is often overlooked is the president’s sixth paragraph:
“Here are the results of your efforts: The lowest unemployment rate in over five years. A rebounding housing market. A manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. More oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years. Our deficits – cut by more than half. And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is." (emphasis added)
By doing this, the president made it clear that he would give credit to whoever helps him improve the economy and our national security. This was an olive branch by the president to Congress.
2. An emphasis on “opportunity” for all, not equal results.
Conservatives consistently accuse the president of being a socialist or a communist. (As social media has pointed out, with the stock market setting new records, CEOs and the wealthy doing better than they ever did before, and the middle class and poor suffering, President Obama must be the worst socialist ever.) Conservatives state that they want everyone to have an opportunity and decry the president for supposedly wanting equal results. That cannot be squared with this statement in the state of the union:
“And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all – the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.”
This is a description of the basic American Dream, although toned down from “you can get rich” to “you can get ahead.” I still believe in the president’s description and I believe most Americans do as well. We all want to have the opportunity to succeed, without success guaranteed. The disputes between ideologies seem to be what the government should be willing to do to provide that opportunity. The president provided us some of his vision:
“ But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class.”
3. The president’s emphasis that whether Congress agrees with him or not, he will use his executive authority to take steps to provide equal opportunity for all.
“Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”
This is the part that has the Republicans in Congress, and Fox News, so upset. For five years they have been able to block most efforts by the president to improve the lives of average Americans. The notable exception being the first two years of his presidency when he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. However, many opportunities of those first two years were frittered away by the president bending over backwards to get the Republicans to agree with him. One example is the individual mandate in the ACA. This was a conservative, Cato Institute, idea to keep health care in the private sector instead of making the preferable single payer solution. The president was opposed to the individual mandate during the Democratic primaries, but backed down when he thought that was the only way to get Republican support for health care coverage opportunity for all. He was wrong. As soon as President Obama said he was for the individual mandate, the Republicans turned against it, calling it unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court wisely said was incorrect), and every Republican in the House and the Senate voted against it.
Now the president is willing to act, well, presidentially. He is willing to lead. The president would like Congress to help him, and he offers specific proposals in his speech as to how they can. But for the first time he states his willingness to go-it-alone to create a society that has more opportunity, is safer, and is more fair. In my opinion, this is at least three, and arguably five, years later than it should have happened. The people of the United States voted for the policies the president want in two presidential elections. Seldom does a president win two presidential elections with over 50% of the vote, but President Obama did so, running against the policies the Republicans in Congress want to force the president to follow. The president has had enough and is standing up for his principles without violating the Constitution.
4. The president did not allow any room for debate over the scientifically settled fact that global change is occurring.
“Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air. The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”
For years, the climate-change-deniers in Congress have been trying to say that the 97% of scientists who say climate change is occurring are frauds. And so our government fiddles while the earth burns. The president is willing to take the lead, without Congress’ help if necessary, by working “with states, utilities, and others” to try to save human habitability on earth.
5. The president clearly pointed out that more immigration helps the United States financially. (as a history teacher and buff, I would like to point out it always has).
“Finally, if we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement – and fix our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted. I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: when people come here to fulfill their dreams – to study, invent, and contribute to our culture – they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everyone. So let’s get immigration reform done this year.”
US history is riddled with various groups being considered the “other” and demonized with attempts to keep them out of this country. Benjamin Franklin spoke ill of German immigrants, spreading stereotypical lies about them, such as all of the boys must beat their mothers to be considered a man. However, given this historical bigotry, the first hundred years of our existence had no illegal immigrants. Why? Because all immigration was legal. Then in 1892 Congress passed the first anti-immigration bill called, The Chinese Exclusion Act. Now xenophobes are objecting to “illegal” immigrants, ignoring that our immigration law is based on both race and class, allowing more upper class white people in than lower class darker people. The president wants a path to citizenship for people who have proven themselves to be good citizens and is urging Congress to take action.
6. The president emphasized training of workers for the jobs that are available.
“I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead an across-the-board reform of America’s training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now. That means more on-the-job training, and more apprenticeships that set a young worker on an upward trajectory for life. It means connecting companies to community colleges that can help design training to fill their specific needs.”
If successful, this will increase workers’ opportunity to succeed. It makes no sense kicking people off welfare (and, yes, thanks to the Republicans, unemployment), if we are not also training them to work at jobs that are available.
He even welcomes Congress’ help with this:
“And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs.”
7. The president indicated he might be open to more effective measurements of students’ abilities than standardized tests.
“It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test.”
The president’s education policies, which he has named “Race to the Top”, I have called “Race to the Bottom” because of its emphasis on standardized testing. My firm opinion is that standardized testing is a great way to get a country full of people willing to take orders, but not citizens with critical thinking and creativity skills. This emphasis needs to change (more projects, fewer tests) for us to really succeed in education.
8. 'I gave you a chance to provide high quality pre-K education. Now I’m going to do it.'
“Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every four year-old. As a parent as well as a President, I repeat that request tonight. But in the meantime, thirty states have raised pre-k funding on their own. They know we can’t wait. So just as we worked with states to reform our schools, this year, we’ll invest in new partnerships with states and communities across the country in a race to the top for our youngest children. And as Congress decides what it’s going to do, I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.”
Another point to providing equal opportunity for all, is to provide quality early education for all. There is no reason to wait until the age of six when all research shows that so much can be learned easier at an earlier age. And wealthy families make sure that their children do learn in the first six years, prior to formal school. Should a child’s opportunity be limited because their parents are poor, or ignorant of how to best educate a child? That would be neither a fair nor a just society, but it is the one we live in today.
9. The president emphasized the importance of equality for women in the workforce.
“Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work. She deserves to have a baby without sacrificing her job. A mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship – and you know what, a father does, too. It’s time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a “Mad Men” episode. This year, let’s all come together – Congress, the White House, and businesses from Wall Street to Main Street – to give every woman the opportunity she deserves. Because I firmly believe when women succeed, America succeeds.”
The president hit this correctly - our policies involving women are an embarrassment. They do belong in a “Mad Men” episode more than in 21st century America. Let’s get with it. Fairness for all.
10. The president emphasized the importance of workers earning more money.
“Americans understand that some people will earn more than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.”
It is fair for full-time workers to not live in poverty. It is fair for business owners, who have been reaping record profits, to pay their workers more. But in addition, this will help the economy.
Our free market system is based on demand. If there is a demand for a good or service, someone will start a business to provide it and make a profit. If there is less demand, businesses will close or layoff workers. Demand is provided by people who need or want goods or services having the resources to buy those goods or services. This is why supply-side economics has failed for 30 years. If you give a rich business owner more money, supply-siders say, that money will trickle down to the workers in the form of more jobs or raises. But that shows a total ignorance of the way our economy works. If there is no demand for something, what business owner in their right mind would hire people to provide it just because they received money from the government? None. Economists have estimated that putting a dollar in the hands of a poor person helps the economy approximately $1.40, but giving a dollar to a wealthy person helps the economy less than a dollar’s worth. The reason is simple. Poor people need to spend everything they get for food, clothing, and shelter. The rich can just bank the money.
The president also talked about retirement savings, benefits to the military, and other issues. I would summarize this state of the union speech by saying:
Leadership, fairness, opportunity for all.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Governor Christie's Traffic Problem
Governor Christie has a problem.
Christie seems to have taken two lines of defense in the so-called "Bridgegate Scandal." 1) I didn't know about it. 2) This is not the way my administration works.
First, a description of the scandal. As you know, someone in the Christie Administration ordered traffic problems to occur in Fort Lee, New Jersey, as political retribution. The guessing on the reason for the retribution varies. One theory is that whoever ordered it was so upset at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse Republican Christie, that they ordered the retribution. Another is that whoever ordered it did it for retribution against the Democratic leader of the state senate, who represents Fort Lee. What did the Democratic leader do? She sits on the committee that considers Governor Christie's judicial appointments and has helped block the candidates he wants on the courts. On August 12th Governor Christie publicly referred to the Democrats who did this as "animals". On August 13th, the infamous email from the Deputy Chief of Staff went to a Christie appointee on the bridge authority stating, "it is time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Instead of questioning what she was talking about, the appointee replied, "got it."
For four days during the first week of school in September, two lanes from Fort Lee to the bridge were closed, causing severe traffic problems in New Jersey and possibly causing the death of one woman when EMTs were delayed reaching her.
Despite the uproar and the allegations of political vengeance, Governor Christie said that he did no investigation of the matter and first learned how serious it was on the morning the emails were published by the press, almost four months later. Although witty people have been commenting that Governor Christie not knowing what is going on qualifies him for a job in Washington, I don't think average voters will agree.
So the governor's first line of defense is that, like Sergeant Schultz, he knew nothing. (Sgt Schultz) Not really a good defense when you are seeking the nomination of the party who blames the president for not knowing that the website to sign people up for the Affordable Care Act would not work.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the governor did not know what his aides were up to, this brings up several other questions. After it happened, why didn't he find out why it happened? Why did it take a newspaper's investigative reporting to uncover what happened? Also, why would a Deputy Chief of Staff take it upon herself to violate state and federal laws to seek political retribution for something her boss may be upset about?
That latter question may be more of a problem for Governor Christie than the issue of whether he ordered the vengeance or not. I am assuming that whether he ordered it or not, there will not be any evidence uncovered that he did order it.
So if we are to believe this Deputy Chief of Staff took it upon herself to do this, why would she do such a thing? Governor Christie says that retribution is not "the tone" he has set with his administration. He says "I am not a bully."
Having observed Governor Christie for at least the last four years, does ANYONE within range of the media that covers New Jersey believe that? If you are not familiar with the governor's style, "tone", and ability to bully, watch the first two minutes of this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQAB4p20lc.
Either the governor knew about this retribution in advance, or the tone he set made his staff comfortable enough with political bullying to violate state and federal laws. Either way, the legitimate question is, is this the kind of person we want as our next president? If you don't think this will hurt his campaign, take a look at these political cartoons and reconsider: Christie bridge cartoons
Observing Governor Christie in office, my only surprise is that something like this did not leak earlier.
Christie seems to have taken two lines of defense in the so-called "Bridgegate Scandal." 1) I didn't know about it. 2) This is not the way my administration works.
First, a description of the scandal. As you know, someone in the Christie Administration ordered traffic problems to occur in Fort Lee, New Jersey, as political retribution. The guessing on the reason for the retribution varies. One theory is that whoever ordered it was so upset at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse Republican Christie, that they ordered the retribution. Another is that whoever ordered it did it for retribution against the Democratic leader of the state senate, who represents Fort Lee. What did the Democratic leader do? She sits on the committee that considers Governor Christie's judicial appointments and has helped block the candidates he wants on the courts. On August 12th Governor Christie publicly referred to the Democrats who did this as "animals". On August 13th, the infamous email from the Deputy Chief of Staff went to a Christie appointee on the bridge authority stating, "it is time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Instead of questioning what she was talking about, the appointee replied, "got it."
For four days during the first week of school in September, two lanes from Fort Lee to the bridge were closed, causing severe traffic problems in New Jersey and possibly causing the death of one woman when EMTs were delayed reaching her.
Despite the uproar and the allegations of political vengeance, Governor Christie said that he did no investigation of the matter and first learned how serious it was on the morning the emails were published by the press, almost four months later. Although witty people have been commenting that Governor Christie not knowing what is going on qualifies him for a job in Washington, I don't think average voters will agree.
So the governor's first line of defense is that, like Sergeant Schultz, he knew nothing. (Sgt Schultz) Not really a good defense when you are seeking the nomination of the party who blames the president for not knowing that the website to sign people up for the Affordable Care Act would not work.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the governor did not know what his aides were up to, this brings up several other questions. After it happened, why didn't he find out why it happened? Why did it take a newspaper's investigative reporting to uncover what happened? Also, why would a Deputy Chief of Staff take it upon herself to violate state and federal laws to seek political retribution for something her boss may be upset about?
That latter question may be more of a problem for Governor Christie than the issue of whether he ordered the vengeance or not. I am assuming that whether he ordered it or not, there will not be any evidence uncovered that he did order it.
So if we are to believe this Deputy Chief of Staff took it upon herself to do this, why would she do such a thing? Governor Christie says that retribution is not "the tone" he has set with his administration. He says "I am not a bully."
Having observed Governor Christie for at least the last four years, does ANYONE within range of the media that covers New Jersey believe that? If you are not familiar with the governor's style, "tone", and ability to bully, watch the first two minutes of this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQAB4p20lc.
Either the governor knew about this retribution in advance, or the tone he set made his staff comfortable enough with political bullying to violate state and federal laws. Either way, the legitimate question is, is this the kind of person we want as our next president? If you don't think this will hurt his campaign, take a look at these political cartoons and reconsider: Christie bridge cartoons
Observing Governor Christie in office, my only surprise is that something like this did not leak earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
