I happened to pass a newspaper stand this morning (there still are a few out there) and saw the front page of the print version of the New York Times. There was a huge headline across most of the top of the paper. The subject was the "scandal" concerning Chris Christie and traffic flow near the George Washington Bridge. It made me laugh.
Let me explain: I really don't like Chris Christie that much. Oh, he is a lot better than John Corzine, the Democrat governor who he replaced in New Jersey. He has done some good things, but I have yet to forgive him for embracing president Obama so strongly during the week prior to the 2012 election in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy. Despite my misgivings about Christie, it seems clear to me that the "scandal" swirling around the fat man is not much of a scandal at all. There actually was roadwork done on the streets in question that was necessary. The only issue was the timing of the lane closures. Anyone familiar with the George Washington Bridge area knows that there is no good time to close lanes anywhere near the bridge. (For those who are unfamiliar with the bridge, you should know that it carries more traffic daily than any other bridge in the world.) Let me put it this way: it's not exactly Watergate. Nor is it the equivalent of leaving our consulate in Benghazi unprotected despite repeated warnings of impending terrorist attacks. You get the picture.
For the New York Times, however, the story is the equivalent of Christmas morning for a six year old. For the first time in a long time, the Times has a negative story it can run about Christie, the supposed front runner for the GOP nomination in 2016 (although I personally think he has no chance of getting that nomination.) It is also something to write about that has no negative impact at all on president Obama or even Hillary Clinton. In short, it is the Times' version of heaven.
My guess is that we are going to see weeks if not months of coverage of what will inevitably be called "Trafficgate" or "Laneclosuregate" or, if the editors of the Times get their way, "Fatmangate".
All I can say is "yawn".
Let me explain: I really don't like Chris Christie that much. Oh, he is a lot better than John Corzine, the Democrat governor who he replaced in New Jersey. He has done some good things, but I have yet to forgive him for embracing president Obama so strongly during the week prior to the 2012 election in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy. Despite my misgivings about Christie, it seems clear to me that the "scandal" swirling around the fat man is not much of a scandal at all. There actually was roadwork done on the streets in question that was necessary. The only issue was the timing of the lane closures. Anyone familiar with the George Washington Bridge area knows that there is no good time to close lanes anywhere near the bridge. (For those who are unfamiliar with the bridge, you should know that it carries more traffic daily than any other bridge in the world.) Let me put it this way: it's not exactly Watergate. Nor is it the equivalent of leaving our consulate in Benghazi unprotected despite repeated warnings of impending terrorist attacks. You get the picture.
For the New York Times, however, the story is the equivalent of Christmas morning for a six year old. For the first time in a long time, the Times has a negative story it can run about Christie, the supposed front runner for the GOP nomination in 2016 (although I personally think he has no chance of getting that nomination.) It is also something to write about that has no negative impact at all on president Obama or even Hillary Clinton. In short, it is the Times' version of heaven.
My guess is that we are going to see weeks if not months of coverage of what will inevitably be called "Trafficgate" or "Laneclosuregate" or, if the editors of the Times get their way, "Fatmangate".
All I can say is "yawn".
No comments:
Post a Comment