Skip to main content


Why is it, when a man does it, he's just being "sensitive and caring" ...

and when a women does it, she is an "hysterical mess" ?


The "it" here:  the act of showing Emotion.


Christie Report Finds A Culprit:  A Scorned, 'Emotional' Woman

by Ashley Alman, huffingtonpost.com -- 03/27/2014

[...]
The word "emotional" was used five times in the report. Three times, the word described the Jan. 8, 2014, session in which Kelly was fired. Those instances highlight Christie's sensitivity, noting he was "welling up with tears." A fourth time, the word was used to describe the "heartfelt" manner in which Christie begged his staff to come forward with information on the lane closings.

The fifth time, "emotional" was ascribed to Kelly. Of the four individuals classified as "involved in the lane realignment" -- Wildstein, Stepien, Kelly and then-Port Authority official Bill Baroni -- Kelly was the only one described as "emotional."
[...]


The new Christie Clean-up Crew decided that this was the best play they had -- to use blatant "emotional" sexism as the root cause for Bridgegate -- while the old Christie mop-up crew was trying to dance around topic, trying to placate their pivotal player, not to directly scapegoat her. When they curtly dismissed her, without fanfare, a few months ago.

But slander-for-hire lawyers have no such qualms, about destroying someone's character, in order to mis-direct the public from the real motives and storyline behind a scandal.  Why look at those giving the {verbal} Orders, when they can simply 'trash the reputations' of those who carry them out, instead?


Irate Friends See Sexism in Report on Former Christie Aide

by Kate Zernie and David W. Chen, nytimes.com  -- March 27, 2014

[...]
Gov. Chris Christie, seeking to stanch the damage the scandal had caused to his political fortunes, fired her [Bridget Anne Kelly] as his deputy chief of staff after that, calling her “stupid.” But the report commissioned by Mr. Christie and released Thursday doubles down on a strategy of portraying Ms. Kelly as duplicitous, weeping frequently and dependent on men for approval and stability.

Though the lawyers who wrote the report did not interview her, they explain her conduct in unusually personal terms -- she is out of the office attending to a family member who had been hospitalized; a brief relationship “had cooled” at the “behest” of the man, Mr. Christie’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien.
[...]

The portrayal conflicts with ones offered by others: legislators who worked with Ms. Kelly in her role on Mr. Christie’s staff, who describe her as devoted to her job and assiduous to detail; friends who describe her as tough-minded through the challenges of a divorce and family health problems; her lawyer, who describes her as a 42-year-old single mother trying to make do even with cameras camped outside.
[...]


Kind of makes you wonder if they ever got around to talking to the 'principles' involved, the Four Christie Loyalists that they are now accusing of hatching this plot -- you know, actually "get the stories" of those with the incriminating electronic-footprints?

Apparently not.  Talking to them, just might wreck their glowing Christie storyline (that they were very well-paid to concoct).

And afterall it is much easier to simply say: "THAT unstable Woman's did it -- and we don't know why ..."

We haven't a clue in the world, why Christie's go-to Deputy Chief of Staff, would bother to carry out Christie's verbal, leave-no-trial, orders;

No matter how pre-planned they were.  No matter how much they "Got it" -- got the consequences for them, of not doing so.


They all must of just Gone Rouge -- because of that "emotional" woman, who led them astray. Yeah, that's the ticket!



Why is it,

it is SO 'easily dismissed as unneeded' -- for the women in power ...

and yet it is seen as 'essential and required' -- for all the men in power?


The "it" here:  the act of showing Respect.

By expressing basic "curiosity."  By simply allowing them to speak -- to give their side of the story?


Full transcript: N.J. Gov. Chris Christie’s Jan. 9 news conference on George Washington Bridge scandal

washingtonpost.com -- Jan 9, 2014

[...]

Q: I'm wondering what your staff said to you about why they lied to you. Why would they do that? What was their explanation? And what about Mr. Samson? What role did he play in this?

GOV. CHRISTIE: I have -- I have not had any conversation with Bridget Kelly since the email came out. And so she was not given the opportunity to explain to me why she lied because it was so obvious that she had. And I'm, quite frankly, not interested in the explanation at the moment.

[... GOV. CHRISTIE continues his answer:]


I think General Samson put out a statement yesterday that he had no knowledge of this. I interviewed him yesterday. He was one of my interviews. I am convinced that he had absolutely no knowledge of this, that this was executed at the operational level and never brought to the attention of the Board of Commissioners until Chairman Foye wrote his email -- or Executive Director Foye wrote his email to the Board of Commissioners.

And so I sat and met for two hours yesterday with Mr. Sampson -- General Sampson -- and again, I'm confident that he had no knowledge of this, based upon our conversations and his review of his information.


Christie won't talk to Kelly about her role -- but spends hours talking to Samson about his? Nothing odd, about that. Nothing at all -- except THIS inconvenient bit of paper.

One was the loyal operative taking orders; the other was the ruling "general" handing them out.


The man in command must be heard, given a chance to explain himself;

The woman simply following those orders, must be silenced, and thrown to the scandal-hungry mob ...


All simply by planting that seed of a doubt:

"It's THAT unstable Woman's fault ... She did it, she dreamt this up."
And their million-dollar fee-for-hire "lawyerly work" has been done.  Pay up, guv, you got your 'Cover Story' back.




EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site