PDA

View Full Version : Feds investigate Christie's use of Sandy relief funds



pwaldo
01-13-2014, 10:05 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/politics/christie-feds-investigating-sandy-ads/index.html


Just days after dismissing two top advisers for their roles in the George Washington Bridge scandal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie faced questions over the use of Superstorm Sandy relief funds.

CNN has learned that federal officials are investigating whether Christie improperly used some of that money to produce tourism ads that starred him and his family.

The news couldn't come at a worse time for the embattled Republican, who is facing two probes in New Jersey of whether his staff orchestrated traffic gridlock near the country's busiest bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who refused to endorse his re-election.

If the Sandy inquiry by a watchdog finds any wrongdoing, it could prove even more damaging to Christie's national ambitions. He's considered a possible presidential candidate in 2016.

His performance during and after the October 2012 storm just before the presidential election has been widely praised and is a fundamental illustration of his straight-shooting political brand.

In the new investigation, federal auditors will examine New Jersey's use of $25 million in Sandy relief funds for a marketing campaign to promote tourism at the Jersey Shore, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone told CNN

habsheaven
01-14-2014, 01:28 PM
If Christie and his family got paid for appearing in the ads, I have a problem. If they didn't, I don't see any problem with a marketing campaign being classified as "relief'. The quicker tourism returns to the area, the quicker actual relief begins.

centrehice
01-14-2014, 02:56 PM
If it's found out that Christie is:

1. The controller of the Bridge fiasco
2. Using his power, and spending 2 Million more on an advert to get his arse in front of the camera


The Republicans will be scrambling like ferrets to field some positive candidates, because as of right now, Hillary is going to mop the floor with any other of the dogmatic nonces that they choose to field. Christie was trending slightly higher than Clinton last week, and if this all blows over, he has a good chance.

If not? Meh for the GOP.

habsheaven
01-14-2014, 03:16 PM
If this all blows over Christie would have a chance against Hillary. The problem though, is that he will never win the nomination and get that chance.

centrehice
01-14-2014, 03:37 PM
If this all blows over Christie would have a chance against Hillary. The problem though, is that he will never win the nomination and get that chance.

You are probably right. Christie is too centrist for these moronic Republicans of today. I have enjoyed watching them drift like aimless fools, farther and farther to the right. They are turning their country into a ghetto.

pwaldo
01-14-2014, 10:09 PM
Even without these problems I didn't see Christie or any Republican having a shot to win in 2016. Nobody could come up with a path to victory in 2008 or 2012 and with Clinton basically being assured of winning Virgina and Florida now (new Virgina governor will give her a boost and a lot of New Yorkers have been moving to Florida) she's basically a lock to win. The media will play up a "close" race but unless the statewide polls made a major shift lately before this stuff happened Christie was still behind even with him leading Iowa and Colorado.

You need to get to 270 to win and Republicans need to win like 90% of the "toss up" states to be President. Barring a near perfect win you would need to win other states that haven't gone R in decades. People made it seem like Romney was close or was wining yet he never came close in state by state polls needed to get to 270. Basically the only way Clinton loses is if she falls ill during her run (a possibility) or if people get so sick of the current people in Washington and revolt against the establishment so that the only way somebody can win is if they are a fresh new face that plays the outsider role.

shrewsbury
01-15-2014, 08:59 AM
neither one of them would get my vote

ajbrinn
01-15-2014, 05:49 PM
Anyone who votes democrat or republican is ignorant to history and is well deserving of the continuing scandals and political ills they will have forced upon them. Sorry but its the sad truth and I know there are people who will whine and say "what other choices do we have?" to which I say study your political history and tell me why either party would be deserving of continuing the carnage they cause...

habsheaven
01-15-2014, 06:17 PM
Anyone who votes democrat or republican is ignorant to history and is well deserving of the continuing scandals and political ills they will have forced upon them. Sorry but its the sad truth and I know there are people who will whine and say "what other choices do we have?" to which I say study your political history and tell me why either party would be deserving of continuing the carnage they cause...

This view is ignorant to the reality of today. To not vote is unacceptable. To vote for an independent is to waste your time. Regardless of the "tag" attached to the candidate, whomever wins an election will be forced to act as all politicians act. The politicians are not the problem, nor are the parties. The problem is the very nature of governance which is next to impossible to alter.

GroundSupport
01-15-2014, 07:00 PM
If it's found out that Christie is:1. The controller of the Bridge fiasco2. Using his power, and spending 2 Million more on an advert to get his arse in front of the cameraThe Republicans will be scrambling like ferrets to field some positive candidates, because as of right now, Hillary is going to mop the floor with any other of the dogmatic nonces that they choose to field. Christie was trending slightly higher than Clinton last week, and if this all blows over, he has a good chance.If not? Meh for the GOP.Uh you're listening to the wrong people. Lol. Republicans don't want Christie.

Wickabee
01-15-2014, 07:26 PM
But to put up no real option is? Saying anyone who doesn't vote is lazy or stupid or doesn't care about their country ignores the many people who refuse to take part in a useless election that always...

centrehice
01-15-2014, 07:58 PM
it's called a "Texas-Gate"

pwaldo
01-15-2014, 10:03 PM
This view is ignorant to the reality of today. To not vote is unacceptable. To vote for an independent is to waste your time. Regardless of the "tag" attached to the candidate, whomever wins an election will be forced to act as all politicians act. The politicians are not the problem, nor are the parties. The problem is the very nature of governance which is next to impossible to alter.

So not voting is unacceptable and the "only two" options suck and we can't change what they do so then why waste time, money, and energy voting for them?

duane1969
01-16-2014, 02:44 PM
I think it is funny that you guys have already got Hilary in office when she won't even get the Dem nomination.

pwaldo
01-16-2014, 05:24 PM
I think it is funny that you guys have already got Hilary in office when she won't even get the Dem nomination.

The Democrats would be incredibly stupid to go with somebody other than Clinton especially since they have no other real options at this point. You would be going from a basic lock win in 2016 to a risk and maybe even a loss for nothing.

deansayso
01-16-2014, 06:05 PM
The Democrats would be incredibly stupid to go with somebody other than Clinton especially since they have no other real options at this point. You would be going from a basic lock win in 2016 to a risk and maybe even a loss for nothing.

I just think it's funny how we are so immersed in competition in this country. Not just any competition, but me versus you. My team versus your team. It's not me versus you versus them. On a side note - I wish we had science or math competitions like we have sports. I know we have them but we don't glorify them. Think how better off the world would be if we put that much money and time into those two things.

Back on subject...We should vote on issues and who is actually the best candidate, not party lines.

Wickabee
01-17-2014, 02:13 PM
So not voting is unacceptable and the "only two" options suck and we can't change what they do so then why waste time, money, and energy voting for them?

Because not doing so is "unacceptable"

At least, that's what the politicians who depend on our votes keep ramming down our throats. You want change, hold an election with a 5% voter turnout. Things will change after that.

duane1969
01-17-2014, 04:29 PM
The Democrats would be incredibly stupid to go with somebody other than Clinton especially since they have no other real options at this point. You would be going from a basic lock win in 2016 to a risk and maybe even a loss for nothing.

I don't have the time to find it right now, but in another thread I explained why she won't be the nominee. To put it plainly, Democrats are anti-elderly. They do not nominate or elect people over 60. If memory serves me correctly John Kerry is the only presidential nominee over 60 since the 1950s. Since Hilary will be pushing 70 by the time the elections occur I just don't see it happening.

Wickabee
01-17-2014, 04:34 PM
I don't have the time to find it right now, but in another thread I explained why she won't be the nominee. To put it plainly, Democrats are anti-elderly. They do not nominate or elect people over 60. If memory serves me correctly John Kerry is the only presidential nominee over 60 since the 1950s. Since Hilary will be pushing 70 by the time the elections occur I just don't see it happening.

Yeah but if the Dems also see an honest shot at putting the first woman in the White House immediately after the first not white person, do you really think they aren't going to take it?

pwaldo
01-17-2014, 06:08 PM
I don't have the time to find it right now, but in another thread I explained why she won't be the nominee. To put it plainly, Democrats are anti-elderly. They do not nominate or elect people over 60. If memory serves me correctly John Kerry is the only presidential nominee over 60 since the 1950s. Since Hilary will be pushing 70 by the time the elections occur I just don't see it happening.

I'm not going to disagree with you about the Democrats not electing elderly candidates but just because it didn't happen before doesn't mean it can't or won't happen in the future. I would think her being more to the right than most progressives would like and certainly being more to the right than any other contender in the Democratic primary would be a turn off too but neither that nor her age will stop her if she has a legit shot at winning (which she does at this point). They will paint it as a historic win for women to try and gather enough support for her to win.

As of right now Clinton is almost a certain win, Biden is almost a certain loss, and anybody else is a total unknown. Now maybe the Democrats would be willing to take a try with a different candidate if they knew who the Republicans were running. A dud nominee by the Republicans would greatly increase the chance that anybody but Biden could win. But they should have a longer primary than the Democrats to determine who they will field in 2016.

Whatever the case is she won't be embarrassed again by entering the race and then losing to another Democrat for the nominee. So she will either enter and be the nominee or see that she has a tough road ahead and bow out due to "health concerns".

Wickabee
01-17-2014, 06:13 PM
Are we whipping up Republican votes through fear already?

pwaldo
01-17-2014, 06:51 PM
Are we whipping up Republican votes through fear already?

In what way could anything I posted be construed as generating fear and why would I want or how would it whip up Republican votes?

Wickabee
01-17-2014, 08:13 PM
In what way could anything I posted be construed as generating fear and why would I want or how would it whip up Republican votes?

It's called motivating your lazy/too busy to vote, but already won by a party by generating fear that said party is probably going to lose the election so needs every vote it can get.

It's actually a time tested, successful political tactic that I have no problem with. Those are rare.

I'm just surprised it's coming out this early, though the last election should've prepared me for it. People were talking about this one then for crying out loud.