From today’s Wall Street Journal explaining how Chris Christie is so much better than President Obama when it comes to showing contrition in the wake of misconduct by his underlings:
Not that this should make Mr. Christie or any other potential GOP candidate complacent. Republicans operate under a double media standard that holds them to a much lower scandal threshold. (emphasis my own) In that sense the pathetic New Jersey traffic-lane scandal may be, as Mr. Obama likes to say, a teachable moment.
Perhaps the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal hasn’t watched its sister outlet, Fox News, try and stir outrage over Benghazi 24/7 on a story that doesn’t exist. Perhaps it hasn’t watched the same channel on Fast and Furious. Perhaps it hasn’t watched the same channel on the IRS scandal.
Perhaps they consider reporting on Iran Contra or the no-bid contracts of the Iraq war not newsworthy and therefore any reporting on them is creating a double standard. Perhaps they consider petty political revenge because a politician from the other political party did not endorse their candidate for re-election. Perhaps they consider investigating whether that revenge broke federal law and whether it affected emergency response to be a non-story that is only reported because it is a Republican.
Need I go further and remind the Wall Street Journal that while the right wing ignored Sen. David Vitter’s visiting prostitutes and being in the D.C. Madam’s black book, they impeached Bill Clinton for not being forthright about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Basically, in their mind, investigating whether we were lied into war is holding Republicans to a lower scandal standard than impeaching the President of the United States because he couldn’t keep it in his pants.
This, of course, really comes back to partisan politics and the fact that Chris Christie is the apparent horse of the Republican mainstream (the one that wants to get rid of the Tea Party) in the 2016 election. They presumably believe that he is all that stands between Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or some other unelectable Tea Partier receiving the Republican nomination and proceeding to be crushed by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.
The Journal writes, to describe the difference between President Obama and Governor Christie:
We mention the IRS because Mr. Christie’s contrition contrasts so sharply with President Obama’s handling of the tax agency’s abuse of political opponents and his reluctance to fire anyone other than a military general for anything.
What contrition, exactly?
Was it that he tried to make himself out to be another innocent victim in the whole plot? Was it that he outright said he fired his aide for lying to him, rather than firing her for the fact that she carried out this plan of revenge? Was it that he sought to lay blame at every other person possible throughout his apology?
That’s not contrition. That’s trying to make political opportunity out of the desperate attempt to save his political career. The Wall Street Journal says that as long as Christie wasn’t involved, then his political ambitions should remain intact. They say he just needs new advisers. Given the advisers he’s selected to the present, why should we expect anything different going forward? Even in the most charitable light, Christie displays poor judgment in his selection of aides. It’s exactly the opposite of what’s needed in a president.
24 comments