New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) announced the resignation Friday of an official tied to the growing scandal over a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge last summer.

Bill Baroni, an ally of Christie's who was the deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge, resigned effective immediately.

Son, we live in a world that has roads and bridges, and those roads and bridges have to be guarded by men with orange cones wearing bright yellow jackets. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for traffic jams, and you curse the Port Authority. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That this traffic jam, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that Governor's mansion, you need me in that Governor's mansion. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a slow down sign, and stand by an orange cone. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

jerseyhoya wrote:Outside of answering, mp's question a few days ago, I've posted in this thread once since before Thanksgiving, and it's been kinda lovely not talking about politics on the Internet.

The idea that the lane closings were politically motivated originally came from the mayor of Fort Lee, who has since withdrawn the charge. It seems more than a little farfetched that among the hundred or two hundred or whatever Democratic mayors in the state who didn't endorse him for reelection, Christie decided that the Democratic mayor of a small North Jersey town needed to be singled out for punishment, and his punishment would be the Port Authority randomly closing a few lanes on the George Washington Bridge. On top of that this retribution for not endorsing Christie would have to be implied from the action, since no one actually told the mayor or anyone else affected by the closings that that was what happened.

What we know so far is proper procedure was not followed in the lanes being closed, so people resigning over it is appropriate (imagine that, people responsible for fucking things up actually losing their jobs). The Assembly is treating this like Watergate, so we'll learn way more details than are necessary about how and why the decisions surrounding the lane closures were made over the next few weeks.

Werthless wrote:Easy to criticize Christie when you assume it's his fault, ain't it? That's hilarious.

MB, reread your own post, and consider how it reads to someone who actually is not jumping to conclusions. You might cringe.


On the issue itself, I thought someone resigned last week over this? How many people resigned?

On the ACA, how many people are going to lose their jobs when the number of insured Americans declines by millions? We'll see how accountable and transparent the administration is.

Werthless wrote:On the ACA, how many people are going to lose their jobs when the number of insured Americans declines by millions? We'll see how accountable and transparent the administration is.

reread your own post, and consider how it reads to someone who actually is not jumping to conclusions. You might cringe.

Monkeyboy wrote:wow, I thought it was obvious I was making fun of your party and the ridiculous way it jumps to conclusions. I'm doing parody, man.

Now you know what it's like to read the news and see what tea partiers from your party are saying. Welcome to the world of dems having to read nonsense from the right.

Werthless wrote:
....when the number of insured Americans declines by millions?

I think it's a good idea for the Democrats. Frist should have done it back in 2005. It seems like there's been an ever increasing willingness of the party outside the White House to use more extreme tactics to prevent the president's nominees from getting through. It's all a bit partisan depending on where you sit on who deserves more of the blame, but I'm writing so we'll start it at Bork, which seemed to really ignite the idea that voting someone down for ideological reasons was something the Senate ought to consider. Then it increases under Clinton, with Republicans using their majority on the Judiciary Committee to keep nominees they didn't like from ever seeing the floor. Then another ratchet up under Bush, with Democrats using the filibuster to target more than a few nominees, but usually for specific reasons (too conservative or worse yet, conservative AND appealing/Supreme Court material). Now under Obama another step up, with Republicans filibustering lots of people they seemingly don't even have specific objections to, they just don't want Obama to be able to appoint them.

The Nightman Cometh wrote: I wanted enough alternative explanations to get through a term paper and get my ass out with an A.