You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.
Posting a Diary Entry
Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as
is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.
When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.
If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.
ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.
One diary daily maximum.
Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries
that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For decades, the New Hampshire Union Leader has been a bastion of unyielding conservatism. But apparently the paper has some standards, as evidenced by a blistering editorial about the Bridgegate scandal that appeared in Friday's paper. Chris Matthews mentioned it on Friday night's edition of Hardball.
The opening paragraph is an apparent notice to conservatives who are pooh-poohing this affair--this is a BFD that has to be taken seriously.
The George Washington Bridge traffic jam scheme apparently hatched in New Jesey Gov. Chris Christie's executive offices is a legitimate political scandal of undetermined magnitude. Pundits who dismiss it as a non-issue seem to a) assume that nothing more will be discovered, b) discount how serious a violation of public trust the lane closures were, and c) not know how passionate New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary voters are about the misuse of state power.
That seems to be written specifically for wingers who object to the wall-to-wall coverage of this mess on MSNBC and, to a lesser extent, CNN. Unlike Benghazi, there actually is something to it.
The final paragraph reads almost like a post here--if Christie was in any way involved in either this scheme or the coverup, he's cooked.
If Christie was telling the truth when he spent two hours last Thursday denying any involvement in or knowledge of the scheme to close those lanes, he can weather this storm, though trusting staffers capable of such vindictiveness will be considered a mark against him. If he was not telling the truth, his political career should be finished. The American public must not tolerate any politician of any party who would callously turn the machinery of the state against the people for his own personal gain.
The Union Leader gets it half right. If Christie's narrative of this is true and he didn't know that his staffers were involved, it's a tacit admission that he has a rogue staff. Just as the American people cannot tolerate a politician who willfully puts his own constituents in harm's way, they cannot tolerate a politician who fosters an environment in which his staffers find pulling such a stunt even remotely acceptable. As I've said several times, this, to my mind, is why Christie must resign and resign now.
I have to wonder--is this editorial an attempt to atone for the Canuck letter? After all, the Union Leader is so right wing that I didn't expect it to issue such a strong condemnation of Christie.