Chris Christie slides inconvenient facts down the memory hole

[bigtree]

from Greg Sargent at WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/chris-christie-lets-inconvenient-facts-slide-down-the-memory-hole/2011/11/29/gIQAfupt8N_blog.html


Blunt truth teller Chris Christie is getting a lot of media attention this morning for slamming Obama as a “bystander” to the supercommittee process. Here, for instance, is Politico’s channeling of Christie’s blunt truth telling: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69280.html)

"Calling Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office,” the outspoken New Jersey governor said the White House spent the weekend tossing out a whole lot of “spin” about the supercommittee’s inability to come to an agreement before the Nov. 23 deadline.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

Christie, of course, knows full well that in reality, if Obama had pushed harder for his desired outcome, it would have made compromise harder to attain, not easier.

How does Christie know this? Because Republicans themselves said so, early on in the process.

This fact has vanished down the memory hole, but it’s true nonetheless. Indeed, what makes this even more absurd is that Republicans said this when Obama released his own very lengthy plan for deficit reduction, something that has also been disappeared down the memory hole.

. . . Jeb Hensarling said this:

By issuing a veto threat as talks have begun in earnest, the president is again undermining the work of the Joint Select Committee. I sincerely hope he doesn’t succeed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/obamas-deficit-reduction-plan-reactions-from-capitol-hill/2011/09/19/gIQAv6XRfK_blog.html

What’s more, as Ruth Marcus recently recalled . . .:

“The message from both Republican and Democratic members of the group was that presidential involvement could only be counterproductive. The more a particular approach was associated with the president, they argued, the harder it would be for Republicans to embrace it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-blame-this-mess-on-obama/2011/11/22/gIQAPUSclN_story.html

Needless to say, few if any of the news accounts transcribing Christie’s remarks are also sharing these key facts and context with readers. These sorts of omissions, of course, might help explain why Christie has a reputation for being a blunt truth teller in the first place.


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/chris-christie-lets-inconvenient-facts-slide-down-the-memory-hole/2011/11/29/gIQAfupt8N_blog.html

[Blue Owl]

1. Note to Christie: they slide easier if you use a little Santorum

Carry on

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Well, thank goodness Obama never pushed hard for single payer

"it would have made compromise harder to attain, not easier."

When you're elected on a policy platform you're supposed to work towards that platform, not recoil just because the opposition says, "No!" -- which, after all, is the definition of oposition.

That's not to side with Christie, just the opposite. Being a GOPer I'm sure Christie would have rebuffed fair taxes and extending the social safety net. However, near as I can tell the President was in front of the American people talking about fair taxes and making sure those hurt by the recession aren't suddenly left in the lurch.

I'm taking umbrage with the WaPo writer's lame excuse-making, especially since excuse-making seems wholly unwarranted in this instance.

[bigtree]

3. entirely different process

It's easy to conflate these issues and political processes, but one was a committee (whose members explicitly asked the President not to polarize the deliberations or the outcome), and the other involved a full floor debate in both houses of Congress; that, after committee after committee debated and advanced what both sides would accept.

This committee didn't even come to an agreement. That's light years away from the legislative process that produced the Health Care Act.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Then that just underscores my point about WaPo's misdirection

I don't see Obama being to blame for the SC buffoonery. Christie has no case against the President but that being the case why was WaPo investing in such a lame excuse.

My beef is with WaPo, not the President.