« Home | An Intolerant State of Mind » | Public Trust Busting » | Hanlon's Razor » | A Hate Crime Against a Straight Man » | Leftie Fairytales » | McGreevey Claims Estranged Wife has ‘Irrational Fe... » | The Shame of NJ Higher Education » | NJ Moonbat Bemoans the ‘Loss of Our Civil Liberties’ » | Looney Tunes » | Progressive Insults »

Ask Eliot Spitzer

Here’s what the Blue Jersey moonbats aren’t saying about US Attorney Chris Christie (cross-posted on moonbat central, Kos):

Regularly defenders of US Attorney Chris Christie point to his convictions, his conviction rate or that he has nailed Republicans to counter our argument that his office's actions have influenced elections. Those are fine arguments, but ultimately they are just straw men that doesn't (sic) apply to our real argument.

We are not saying that Christie is wrongly convicting anyone. We are not saying that Christie is cutting off investigations when he finds dirty Republicans. We are not saying that Christie should not be convicting the Wayne Bryants, Craig Calloways, John Lynch's or other Democrats he's nailed. Frankly, we kind of like that.
The moonbats are saying Christie is making Democrats look bad and Republicans good.

What we are saying is that the timing of subpoenas, the publicity for investigations and Christie's own statewide speaking tours are having a positive influence on future electoral prospects for himself and the Republican party, and a negative influence on the prospects for Democrats.
The moonbats think the "Christie affect" might cause voters to turn the bums out.

These exhortations to get people active in politics can also be seen as an effort to build an informal grassroots base, much as Al Gore is being accused of doing with his An Inconvenient Truth tour. By exhorting people to political action in his role as corruption buster, Christie appears to be on an influence building tour and setting himself up to run for future office.
The moonbats think Christie’s actions are unethical and against the law.

Clearly for someone covered by the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain federal employees from engaging in politics, this speaking tour is patently unethical and should be stopped immediately.

Often the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to generate an investigation of a public official by a prosecutor. Given how he got the job, how his investigation and conviction rates have changed, and his public speaking tour there is no way anyone can say that there is no appearance any longer.
Eliot Spitzer would probaly disagrre. Ask him

Labels: , ,