More tarnish on Christie's Armor: "He should have known better"

by: Jason Springer

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:30:00 PM EDT

People are trying to figure out what the impact of the latest news of Chris Christie's $46,000 loan to a subordinate will mean in the context of the campaign. Charlie Stile thinks it's about more than the loan itself and looks first at Christie's explanation:

What I find most puzzling is that Christie's "oversight" is at odds with his experience as a corruption fighter. He should have known better.
Perhaps more than any other federal prosecutor who preceded him, Christie demonstrated how New Jersey's toothless disclosure laws foster corruption. It was a common theme in his indictments and convictions.

Follow me below the fold as Stile gives a sampling of the indictments that dealt with the failure to disclose and what this issue may mean in the larger context of the campaign going forward.

Jason Springer :: More tarnish on Christie's Armor: "He should have known better"

Former Paramus Democratic state Sen. Joseph Coniglio was convicted in June on charges that he was hired by Hackensack University Medical Center as a $5,000-a-month lobbyist and concealing his interest in a consulting company. State disclosure laws did not require him to disclose that he was working for the hospital.
It was Christie who prosecuted former state Sen. John Lynch, the longtime Middlesex County Democratic power broker for secretly taking tens of thousands of dollars from a contractor while lobbying to help him develop state parkland.
Dennis Oury, a Bergen County Democratic Party lawyer, was charged last year with failing to properly disclose his interest in a grant-writing firm that was receiving public funds. Oury is awaiting trial this fall.
If Christie was truly concerned about the pernicious dangers of poor disclosure, he should have set an example by reporting the loan two years ago instead of explaining himself amid a political firestorm.

Those cases are not pointed to for disputing guilt or innocence, but rather to clearly illustrate that Chris Christie, of all people, should have known better. And that is what Stile and Monmouth Pollster Patrick Murray believe has futher implications in the race:

"When you set yourself up as the hallmark of ethics, it's going to be much easier to shut you down with these small-change issues," said Patrick Murray, a Monmouth University political scientist.
If Democrats successfully shred his ethical standing, then Christie runs the risk of being perceived as just another generic Jersey politician - unless voters are persuaded that he is a viable alternative to the unpopular Corzine.
So far, Murray argues, Christie has offered little beyond a promise to cut taxes at some point and to maintain Homestead rebates.
"Their campaign is based on the premise that Chris Christie is a different politician," Murray said. But if voters "start absorbing the [Democrats'] message ... his brand is gone," Murray said.

Christie has tried to deflect and say that he's still proud of his record of what they've done, but Stile cuts through that too:

That record is not in question. It's the information he didn't include in disclosure and tax forms facing scrutiny. And the headache is not likely to subside anytime soon.

Many of these cracks in the Christie armor are from self inflicted wounds. The Democrats always wanted to puncture Christie's argument that he was a new kind of official, but the candidate himself has made that job much more palatable with some of the recent news.

I've said all along that if the campaign is about Jon Corzine and the economy, it's a tougher hill to climb and if the race is about Chris Christie and who he really is, Christie has problems. What do you think the impact of this and the other stories will be on the rest of the campaign?