I’m the candidate. I’m out here.

The Corzine campaign just released a new video, produced in-house, which underscores the point that Chris Christie’s had some trouble with the cascading evidence of questionable conduct he engaged in as United States Attorney for the District of NJ, and questionable ties he still maintains to that office. And would rather avoid chatting about it just now.

My own opinion: red meat for the cognoscenti, but might scare off undecideds. I think people need to hear – every way possible and from all angles – what he did. That’s the meat, the substance, the muck of the muckraking.

Harsh, unflattering video that underscores that he’s avoiding talking about it – which has some truth – may turn a lot of people off, and reinforce perception that the campaigns can’t tell the difference between muck and mud.

But that’s my 2 cents. What’s your opinion?

Comments (2)

  1. FormerBureaucrat

    is he ducking these questions.  Could the FIOA request be taking so long because the person handling that request owes him $50G’s?  And what kind of public employee gets a 50 thousand dollar loan from her boss?  That is corruption of the most venal sort.  

  2. danpreston

    I agree with Rosi. The video spends just 11 seconds out of 53 citing the questions that Christie refuses to answer. I’m less concerned about the style issues (when and how Christie responds) – he’ll come up with some kind of answer sooner or later. The real issue is the substance of these charges, and whether Christie acted illegally and/or unethically. Voters need solid info on those matters, not an attack on how long it takes Christie to concoct his excuses.

    Are voters going to oppose Christie because he doesn’t answer reporters’ questions right away – or will they turn away from him because of the substance of the allegations?


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *