Since the Jan. 8 revelation that that George Washington Bridge lane closures were not for a traffic study but for petty political revenge against the mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing Governor Chris Christie’s reelection campaign, not only has Christie’s narrative that he is a pragmatist willing to work across the aisle to get things done been called into question, but also his viability as a presidential candidate.
On Sept. 9, 2013, the first day of school in New Jersey, traffic cones were placed on the George Washington Bridge at the Fort Lee access point. What followed was traffic chaos: commute times quadrupled, school buses were stuck in what one motorist described as a parking lot and emergency responders were delayed up to an hour in getting to the scene of emergencies. This went on for three more days before Patrick Foye, executive director of the Port Authority, ordered the bridge lanes opened on Sept. 13, calling the lane closures “hasty and ill-advised.” The official New Jersey government position was that the lane closures were for a “traffic study.”
What has come out since then is an indictment of Christie’s inner circle. On Aug. 13, Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly wrote to David Wildstein, Christie’s appointee to the Port Authority, “time for traffic problems in Fort Lee.”
Wildstein’s response: “Got it.”
After a flurry of phone calls from Fort Lee Mayor Sokolich during the midst of the traffic chaos asking for help, Wildstein instructed the staff to maintain “radio silence.”
Texts between Wildstein and Christie’s staff are equally damning.
“Is it wrong that I’m smiling?” one staffer, whose name was redacted from released documents, asked Wildstein.
Wildstein: “No.”
Unknown staffer: “I feel badly about the kids. I guess.”
“They are the Children of Buono voters,” Wildstein responded, referring to Barbara Buono who was Christie’s opponent for governor.
Fort Lee Mayor Sokolich, a Democrat, said he was politically cut off shortly after deciding not to endorse Christie for re-election. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, also a Democrat, has also said he was similarly shut out by Christie staff.
On Sept. 17, Sokolich emailed Bill Baroni, another Christie appointee to the Port Authority, with questions about the lane closures: “Someone needs to tell me that the recent traffic debacle was not punitive in nature…perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the error of my ways.” It appears Sokolich’s instincts about the reasons behind the lane closure were justified.
The response from Christie’s supporters after all of this came to light is both predictable and spurious — comparisons to Benghazi and the IRS scandal have been flooding the airwaves, newspapers, blogs, and comment sections for days. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was in particular form on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, turning every question into a mention of the Obama administration’s various “scandals.”
First Giuliani used the gubernatorial campaign as an excuse: “He was in campaign mode at the time. During campaign mode you miss a lot of things, you’re not paying attention. We see that with Benghazi.”
True, traffic studies are not uncommon, but the problem with this comparison is that traffic studies are years in the making, local authorities, first responders and the Port Authority would have all been notified of the impending lane closures had this been a run-of-the-mill traffic study. None of these things happened. Being blind-sided by a so-called traffic study and the ensuing chaos it created on the busiest bridge in the world, Governor Christie should have been asking questions: why no one was notified? Why wasn’t I notified? What are we doing to ease traffic so first responders can do their jobs, so children can get to school on time?
Instead, his response to inquiries as to why the lanes were shut down: “The fact is I didn’t even know Fort Lee got three dedicated lanes until all of this stuff happened. And I think we should review that entire policy, because I don’t know why Fort Lee needs three dedicated lanes, to tell you the truth, and I’ve told Chairman [David] Samson this, that we should look at this policy. Because I don’t know why one town gets three lanes. One lane, maybe. Three lanes, for one town? I don’t quite get it.”
Perhaps he gets it now.
Giuliani invokes the IRS scandal in response to a question about fostering a culture of political payback: “I mean, people get wrong messages. It happens all the time. It happened—again I go back to the IRS scandal. The people in the IRS thought President Obama wanted them to do this.”
Deflection is never a viable defense. But these comparisons are false equivalencies.
Consider Benghazi. Benghazi was a tragedy. Four Americans died. An American diplomatic mission was torched and ransacked. But the failings of Benghazi are not due to small-minded administration staffers looking to exact revenge on the U.S. ambassador to Libya, rather they are the result of a series of missteps, miscalculations and bad luck. As The New York Times report has shown, the Benghazi incident is much more complex and nuanced than the black-and-white picture Republicans had been pushing.
The IRS scandal, while on the surface would seem to be a closer comparison, also fails to pass muster for two reasons. One, the IRS is mandated by law to look at the political activities of any group or organization applying for tax exempt 501(c)(3) status. And after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed unlimited contributions to so-called “Political Action Committees”, the IRS has been flooded with applications. The George Washington Bridge closures had nothing to do with the law. The Port Authority had no reason to limit Fort Lee’s access lanes other than for political vengeance. The smoke screen “traffic study” excuse is just that, an excuse.
Second, the cries that the IRS was targeting conservative groups exclusively, has turned out to be false. In a CNN report citing information released from IRS Inspector-General J. Russell George, the IRS also used liberal-themed keywords such as “progressive” and “tea party” in their queries, meaning both conservative and liberal groups looking for tax exempt status were being targeted by this program. Any comparison between the two falls apart during closer scrutiny.
These attempts to deflect from the issue are a disservice to both New Jersey residents, as well as Americans. The question should be, did Christie know what was going on? And if so, why didn’t he stop it sooner? If not, what kind of climate did Christie foster within his administration that allowed several of his top staff members to exact this kind of petty political vengeance on an entire city without him knowing about it?
These are important questions. Christie is currently the pre-emptive frontrunner for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016 if he chooses to run. If he can allow this kind of political payback on a city as governor of New Jersey, imagine what he could do as president if a state decides to go against him.
