Connect with us

Chris Christie: Brave, Bully, Or Bigot?

Published

on

Without genuine bravery, all of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s brashness amounts to nothing more than the predictable disrespect and petulant tantrum throwing of a standard issue bully.

Chris Christie has a reputation for being a tough guy. It’s kind of his shtick. The image he has spent cultivating throughout his career is one of unwavering fortitude, based on the notion that he is his own man, that he doesn’t take crap from anybody, and that while some politicians will kiss your ass and tell you how pretty you are, Chris Christie will keep things real, hurt feelings or not.

Keep in mind, this is no more reflective of reality than any other politician’s contrived image management. It reminds me of John McCain’s fictional “Straight Talk” persona, or Newt Gingrich’s professorial “scholar of the party” nonsense, or the cartoonishly absurd rootin’ tootin’ cowboy act George W. Bush cultivated over 8 years. In reality, John McCain proved himself every bit the flip flopper people used to accuse John Kerry of being, these brilliant “ideas” Newt cooks up tend to be of the “we should live on the moon” variety, and as you will note, the minute George W. Bush stopped being president he abandoned that ridiculous prop of a ranch in favor of a proper Dallas, Texas mansion. Perhaps it was the crippling brush problem at Prairie Chapel Ranch, which could somehow only be cleared in the presence of photographers.

Chris Christie has chosen to take the lemons of his generally unpleasant demeanor and turn them into tasty, “I’m a freewheeling tough guy” lemonade. Be sure not to mistake any of this tough guy posturing for reality. He is every bit the craven, wobbly politician everyone else is. He just phrases his conservative boilerplate in the form of an insult. For example, this statement he made regarding his abortion stance:

I am pro-life, I believe in exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. That’s my position, take it or leave it.

That is a completely non-controversial standard issue Conservative statement, but by tacking that “take it or leave it” thing on the end he comes across as an independent thinker who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. It’s like saying, “I don’t care what people say, sweatpants are comfortable.” Yeah. Not really breaking any new ground there.

How then, did this plain spoken bad ass respond to the New Jersey Legislature sending to his desk a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the state? With hard edged “I don’t take no crap from nobody nohow” gravitas? Hardly.

Back in 2009, when Governor-Elect Christie was asked about the issue, he made it clear that he wasn’t just inclined to veto a marriage equality bill, he was enthusiastic about the prospect.

“If a same-sex marriage bill comes to the desk of Governor Christie, it will be returned to the legislature with a big red veto across it. Because, one, I believe that and I made it very clear to people during the entire campaign that that was my position and so there will be no surprise for the 1.2 million people who voted for me that that was and that is my position.”

How brave of Christie, to take such a clear and controversial stance during a time when absolutely no one was actually asking him to do anything. It’s easy to look tough when no one is trying to fight you. I can say “If current UFC Middleweight Champion Anderson Silvia came in here right now and tried to start a fight with me, I would totally whip his ass.” This in no way prevents me from urinating on myself and crawling in to the fetal position should such a scenario actually occur. Regardless, Christie had taken a clear pro-hate stance on marriage equality and wasn’t afraid to be kind of a jerk about it.

Fast Forward three years, and with polls showing far more public support for marriage equality, Christie seems to be willing to consider his options. In early January 2012 he said this regarding a potential vote in the legislature:

“They have a right to set their agenda, I’ll set mine, we’ll see who gets there first,” he said today in Camden . “When forced to make a decision, if forced to make a decision on it, I’ll make a decision.”

No mention of the big red veto. In fact, he avoids making any definitive statement. When it became evident that Democrats weren’t going to back down, he tried to dodge it again, this time by attempting to talk New Jersey lawmakers out of passing the measure in favor of putting the question to a referendum.

“I think this is not an issue that should rest solely in my hands, or the hands of the Senate President or the Speaker or the other 118 members of the Legislature,” he said. “Let’s let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state.”

Aside from the fact that the people of New Jersey elected those 118 members of the Legislature to make exactly those sorts of decisions, as that is sort of the entire point of representative democracy, this was an attempt on the part of Christie to escape the corner he had painted himself into. This is the same corner the entire Republican Party currently resides in. On one hand, his base, those Christie warriors who love telling the Governor all about how tough he is, have made it clear that they are taking anti-gay bigotry to the grave. They will never be letting up about it, ever ever ever, and will expect nothing less than 100% compliance on the matter if their support is to continue. When he had made his comment about the big red veto, marriage equality enjoyed only lukewarm support. Three years later those same polls showed substantial public support for equality. Suddenly, cheerfully vetoing equality legislation ran the risk of alienating independent voters. Displaying some of that patented Christie Toughness, the Governer did everything he could to slink out of the fight. It almost sounds like he is about to cry in this quote.

If the majority of the people want [same-sex marriage] prove it. Put it on the ballot, let it be voted on….I’ve told every Republican in the state legislature to vote to put it on the ballot. They need three-fifths to put it on the ballot. The Republicans have two-fifths in the legislature. So that means the Democrats only need to come up with one-fifth of the legislature…this is the bargain of your life. I’m giving you two-fifths! And the polls they show me say that if it goes on the ballot, it will lose. How much more magnanimous can I be? What else do you want me to do? Go campaign for it too? Look, I’m doing the best I can here!

By which he means, “I am too cowardly to sign this bill. I am going to go cry now.”

In the end, real bravery and genuine toughness could only be found in the legislature, who despite knowing that the bill would face a sniveling, pandering veto from the office of Governor Christie, passed the measure anyway; both because it was the right thing to do, and because it was going to be hilarious to watch Mr. Tough Guy bitch and moan about having to veto it.

As promised, Christie promptly applied his veto, cementing his legacy as one of a thousand politicians too morally insolvent to buck their party’s short sighted and bigoted views and side with equality. Christie chose to be small minded and unremarkable. Rather than do what is right, Christie has successfully avoided the wrath of his base by choosing to do what is wrong. The true measure and depth of his cowardice can be shown in the statement put out by his office in the wake of the veto. Calling his move a “conditional veto” he said this:

Today, I am adhering to what I’ve said since this bill (S-1) was first introduced – an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,” Christie said. “I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.

I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples – as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,” the governor added. “Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied. To that end, I include in my conditional veto the creation of a strong Ombudsman for Civil Unions to carry on New Jersey’s strong tradition of tolerance and fairness.

Screw you, Governor Christie. You don’t get to have it both ways. You can’t intentionally deny civil rights to the LGBT citizens in your state, and still get lecture everyone about how important equality is to you. Actually doing these things at the exact same time is positively appalling. Trying to pander to everyone simultaneously is the work of Mitt Romney, not someone who is supposed to be the down to earth, straight talking hero of the Republican Party.

Christie has sided with bigotry, and no amount of pathetic equivocation is going to change that. Equality has no middle ground, and the quest to find one is a temptation only the weakest and most pigeonhearted among us fall prey to. Without genuine bravery, all of Christie’s brashness amounts to nothing more than the predictable disrespect and petulant tantrum throwing of a standard issue bully. At some point New Jersey will see equality, and it will be due to real strength and authentic moral fortitude. Then we will know what real backbone looks like.

Related: Law, Unwrapped: Gay Marriage – Why Chris Christie Is Wrong On All Counts

 

Image, top, by boris.rasin
Benjamin Phillips is a Humor Writer, Web Developer, Civics Nerd, and all around crank that spends entirely too much time shouting with deep exasperation at the television, especially whenever cable news is on. He lives in St. Louis, MO and spends most of his time staring at various LCD screens, occasionally taking walks in the park whenever his boyfriend becomes sufficiently convinced that Benjamin is becoming a reclusive hermit person. He is available for children’s parties, provided that those children are entertained by hearing a complete windbag talk for two hours about the importance of science education, or worse yet, poorly researched anecdotes PROVING that James Buchanan was totally gay. If civilization were to collapse due to zombie hoards or nuclear holocaust, Benjamin would be among the first to die as he has no useful skills of any kind. The post-apocalyptic hellscape has no real need for homosexual computer programmers who can name all the presidents in order, as well as the actors who have played all eleven incarnations of Doctor Who.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’

Published

3 days ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Republican Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a top potential Trump vice presidential running mate pick, revealed in a forthcoming book she “hated” her 14-month old puppy and shot it to death. Massive online outrage ensued, including accusations of “animal cruelty” and “cold-blooded murder,” but the pro-life former member of Congress is defending her actions and bragging she had the media “gasping.”

“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” Noem writes in her soon-to-be released book, according to The Guardian which reports “the dog, a female, had an ‘aggressive personality’ and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant.”

“By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going ‘out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life’.”

“Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, ‘grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another’.”

READ MORE: President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

“Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like ‘a trained assassin’.”

Except Cricket wasn’t trained. Online several people with experience training dogs have said Noem did everything wrong.

“I hated that dog,” Noem wrote, calling the young girl pup “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog.”

“At that moment,” Noem wrote, “I realized I had to put her down.”

“It was not a pleasant job,” she added, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

The Guardian reports Noem went on that day to slaughter a goat that “smelled ‘disgusting, musky, rancid’ and ‘loved to chase’ Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.”

She dragged both animals separately into a gravel pit and shot them one at a time. The puppy died after one shell, but the goat took two.

On social media Noem expressed no regret, no sadness, no empathy for the animals others say did not need to die, and certainly did not need to die so cruelly.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

But she did use the opportunity to promote her book.

Attorney and legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold says Governor Noem’s actions might have violated state law.

“You slaughtered a 14-month-old puppy because it wasn’t good at the ‘job’ you chose for it?” he asked. “SD § 40-1-2.3. ‘No person owning or responsible for the care of an animal may neglect, abandon, or mistreat the animal.'”

The Democratic National Committee released a statement saying, “Kristi Noem’s extreme record goes beyond bizarre rants about killing her pets – she also previously said a 10-year-old rape victim should be forced to carry out her pregnancy, does not support exceptions for rape or incest, and has threatened to throw pharmacists in jail for providing medication abortions.”

Former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Alyssa Farah Griffin, now a co-host on “The View” wrote, “There are countless organizations that re-home dogs from owners who are incapable of properly training and caring for them.”

The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson blasted the South Dakota governor.

“Kristi Noem is trash,” he began. “Decades with hunting- and bird-dogs, and the number I’ve killed because they were chicken-sharp or had too much prey drive is ZERO. Puppies need slow exposure to birds, and bird-scent.”

“She killed a puppy because she was lazy at training bird dogs, not because it was a bad dog,” he added. “Not every dog is for the field, but 99.9% of them are trainable or re-homeable. We have one now who was never going in the field, but I didn’t kill her. She’s sleeping on the couch. You down old dogs, hurt dogs, and sick dogs humanely, not by shooting them and tossing them in a gravel pit. Unsporting and deliberately cruel…but she wrote this to prove the cruelty is the point.”

Melissa Jo Peltier, a writer and producer of the “Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” series, also heaped strong criticism on Noem.

“After 10+ years working with Cesar Millan & other highly specialized trainers, I believe NO dog should be put down just because they can’t or won’t do what we decide WE want them to,” Peltier said in a lengthy statement. “Dogs MUST be who they are. Sadly, that’s often who WE teach them to be. And our species is a hot mess. I would have happily taken Kristi Noem’s puppy & rehomed it. What she did is animal cruelty & cold blooded murder in my book.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

3 days ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

3 days ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.