That's a little problematic, now that you look at the chronology:- In January 2006, Chris Christie was on a list of US Attorney's who were being looked at for replacement.
- In September 2006, in the midst of a hard-fought US Senate campaign being dominated by accusations of corruption, Chris Christie authorizes a last minute subpoena that plays into Tom Kean Jr.'s political attacks against Bob Menendez.
- In November 2006, after the election is over, Chris Christie is taken off the list and allowed to keep his job.
The only defense Republican Christie can use for himself is that he was not told he was on the bubble, so he can say that he was never pressured by the Republican White House to implicate Democrat Menendez in a scandal in a way that assisted Republican Kean.
Of course, that defense means that the White House didn't pressure Christie, and he took this action on his own without any prodding. In other words, he did not need to be prodded by the White House to do this, and as a result the White House decided to remove his name from the list.
This reading of the situation, enhanced by the news that Christie was considered for termination, plays directly into the argument we've been making for the past few months on Blue Jersey.
Tom Moran and other columnists like to portray the argument this way: one side says Christie is a non-partisan crusader, and the other side says Christie is a partisan hack dedicated to bringing down Democrats.
But that's not what we are arguing. There is a middle ground, and one that is the only way we can see to read the facts.
Our position is not whether Christie is intentionally using his office to benefit Republicans and damage Democrats. His intent is ultimately not a question that really interests us, though it is usually the only one that the media covers.
Our issue is with the effect of his actions. We maintain that Christie is such an unthinking partisan that his style and work naturally lead him to situations and actions that have partisan outcomes. He wants to be seen as non-partisan -- and may even think he is being non-partisan -- to such an extent that he won't question whether swearing in Republicans and speaking about removing corrupt politicians at Republican-sponsored events will have a partisan effect.
He is blind to the fact that his speaking tour [2] at Republican sponsored events, repeated appearances on the Democrat-hating Jersey Guys radio show, swearing in of Republican officials, slanted investigation record over the past two years, selective commenting on cases, or his dropping what appears to be an unnecessary subpoena in last year's Senate race have the affect of helping Republicans and hurting Democrats.
He is choosing to run his US Attorney office in a way that is having a partisan effect on New Jersey, and at the end of the day he could have run it differently. That he chose not to is the important factor, whether he intends to have it that way or not.
Which is why the White House didn't feel the need to pressure him to use his office to help Republicans. He proved he could do that all on his own. |
