The thing I don't believe about Christie's bridge scandal....

[TeamPooka]

Is the "why?"
Why would a GOP Gov expect, ask for or want the endorsement of a Democratic Mayor?
It's the thing I haven't believed from the start.
There's got to be another reason but I'll be damned if I know why.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Building an image as a bipartisan can doer.

[TeamPooka]

2. He was 30 points ahead in the polls. Why would he care?

[Journeyman]

3. 2016 . . .

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Yep ...

Christie read the polling and listened to the pundits calling for "Bi-partisan Guy", and getting Democratic endorsements was his ticket into 2016.

[Tx4obama]

4. Maddow is breaking a new theory about what it's really about.

Read all the comments on the DU thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024307835

[avebury]

6. It is not about the Mayor's endorsement.

Rachel Maddow talked about an alternative theory which makes more sense. It is about the war Christie started with the Democrats on State Supreme Court appointments. He blew up publicly about it a day or so right before the shutdown. Fort Lee happens to be in the district of the women who is the Democrat leader of the NJ Legislature. The timing of the judicial war works with the timing of the bridge shutdown. It makes me think that Christie might have had more knowledge about what happened then he is admitting to.

I plan on downloading Rachel Maddow video podcast on Itunes and listen to the show again tomorrow.

[TeamPooka]

8. I'm still at the office but dvr the show everynight and watch when i get home. Awesome

Thank you!

[Laxman]

11. Christie and Loretta Weinberg...

HATE each other. Sticking it to her is an absolutely plausible reason. However, a lot of mysterious things have happened to towns with leaders who did not fall into line with Christie's wishes. He wanted that "bi-partisan" mantle bad. Just look at his press conference today. He must have said bi-partisan 20 times.

[jeff47]

7. Rachel Maddow had a story on this tonight

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2014, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

NJ supreme court justices serve a 7 year term, then come up for re-nomination. After re-nomination, they serve a life term. Every governor in history has re-nominated the sitting justices, regardless of party....until Christie. He refused to re-nominate a Democratic justice.

This enraged the NJ Senate Democrats. So they refused to confirm the nomination of any justices for that seat - the Republican Christie nominated had to wait for another seat to come up.

The day before the bridge incident, a Republican justice came up for re-nomination. NJ Senate Democrats made it clear they were going to grill her hard during confirmation hearings. So Christie pulled her re-nomination. Btw, her husband is high up in the Christie administration.

The next day, the bridge incident happened. Why Ft. Lee? The leader of the NJ Senate Democrats, and chair of the NJ Senate Justice committee, represents Ft. Lee.

[TeamPooka]

9. ahhh. Much more understandable now as part of a true political war. Thank you

[catbyte]

10. Rachel Maddow's alternative theory makes MUCH more sense. Her theory is

that it is part of an on-going feud between NJ Dems in the legislature not approving Christie's NJ Supreme Court nominees & Christie. He threw a tantrum late in the day on August 12 & the order came down early in the morning of the 13th. Fort Lee is represented by Democrats. The endorsement BS is a smokescreen for the real reason. Can Maddow be nominated for a Pulitzer? She deserves one if this pans out.