Christie apologists hit rock bottom: Why the right’s lame, new defense is doomed to fail

[DonViejo]

The right is predictably invoking Benghazi and the IRS to protect Chris Christie. Here's why it'll never work

BRIAN BEUTLER

The George Washington Bridge scandal disclosures contain so much evidence of malfeasance that, despite an incredible amount of uncertainty over motive and culpability, conservatives are left to defend Chris Christie by taking a meta-view of the whole affair. And we’re not talking about random right wingers on social media, but leading GOP message movers as well.

“You’ll notice we haven’t been hearing a lot from the Clinton camp about this,” Karl Rove said puzzlingly on Fox News Sunday. “The contrast with President Clinton and Secretary Clinton’s handling of Benghazi. So I think it’s going to be hard for Democrats to turn this into an issue…. the amount of attention paid to Chris Christie makes the coverage of Benghazi, at the same time, the coverage of the IRS, pale in significance.”

On ABC’s This Week, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a similar tack. “Things go wrong in an administration. And frankly, you know, [President Obama] was in campaign-mode at the time, during campaign-mode you miss a lot of things. You’re not paying as much attention. We see that with Benghazi,”

If the George Washington Bridge scandal were a phony scandal — or even if there were a narrow sense in which it could be interpreted as a phony scandal — conservatives would be calling it a phony scandal. By defending Christie with ad hominem attacks on President Obama and Hillary Clinton, conservatives are implicitly acceding that the scandal is real.

If that’s all they have then I expect that as new details emerge, we’ll hear much more of the same. Why didn’t the media treat Benghazi and the IRS “scandals” the same way they’re treating the bridge scandal? Why won’t Obama and Clinton be as forthcoming about Benghazi as Christie has been about this?

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/no_christies_scandal_is_not_like_benghazi_why_the_rights_defense_is_doomed/

[Beacool]

1. They all took a similar tack because those are the GOP talking points.

Deflection is the best defense. "My guy may have done X, but what about members of the opposing party? They did X, W & Z and weren't treated as harshly. Even if there's zero validity to that statement, they hope that by repeating it often enough it will register in people's minds. To be fair, both parties use a similar approach.

[global1]

2. My Question Back To Repug Talking Heads That Are Defending Crispy & Bringing Up Benghazi, IRS, etc..

So if you are saying that President Obama and Hillary did the same thing on these so-called scandals and you don't like that behavior - why are you defending Crisp Chrispy for doing the very same thing that you don't like. You should be calling him out on it too.

[Beacool]

3. It's a shell game, they hope that apathetic people at home don't figure it out.

They know that Obama spoke and answered questions about Benghazi, the NSA and the IRS. They also know that Hillary testified to both chambers of Congress before stepping down as SOS. They just hope that people at home don't remember it.

[global1]

4. I Realize That - But It's Still No Excuse For A News Show Host Not To Ask That Question Of Them.....

I would love to hear the response of a Repug - if after they brought up IRS, Benghazi, etc and said Obama/Hillary did the same thing - So if you don't condone that type of behavior in Obama/Hillary - why are you tolerant of that type of behavior in Crisp Crispy?

They really don't have a good response to that. It would point to their hypocrisy and expose them. That's how you make people remember it.

It seems that there are always some real obvious questions or comebacks that a news show host or interviewer can say or make - that never get asked or said. It seems like they always let the Repug talking heads off the hook when it comes to situations like this.