The Student News Site of Neshaminy High School

The Playwickian

The Student News Site of Neshaminy High School

The Playwickian

The Student News Site of Neshaminy High School

The Playwickian

Christie’s controversy in downward spiral

By Corey LaQuay
Photography and Graphics Editor

Governor Chris Christie made national headlines last fall after Hurricane Sandy devastated the Jersey shore, becoming a national celebrity and the face of New Jersey relief efforts. His actions were widely acknowledged by government officials, members of congress, and president Obama for effectively reviving New Jersey’s beaches and surrounding areas. However, in recent news, Christie has faced accusation from officials who are dampening the strength and resilience of the governor; creating a sour after taste for his “Stronger than the storm” campaigns. Controversies regarding Sandy funds, bridge closures, and an overall misuse of power have landed him on the chopping block.

Back in September, a message was received by the New Jersey Port Authority requesting that two lanes on the George Washington Bridge be shut down to conduct a “traffic study.” The bridge, which crosses the Hudson River from New Jersey to New York, was condensed into one lane of traffic. This stand-still traffic caused traffic to be pushed back for miles. Medical first responders could not get by, people were late to school and work, and it caused widespread frustration in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

After the incident, rumors began to circulate about the real reasoning for the September bridge closure. Investigation about who called this order into action led officials to Governor Christie and whether or not he had any involvement. He declined. The possibility for political retribution came into play as an innocent rumor, but additional pieces to the puzzle began to fall into place.

Story continues below advertisement

Port authority officials Bill Baroni and David Wildstein both had close ties to Christie, and were under suspicion about their motives for the closure. Both resigned shortly after the incident. Rumors began to develop about a possible means of retribution against the Fort Lee mayor, Mark Sokolich, who endorsed Christie’s opponent in his re-election. E-mails between members of the Christie administration mentioned the bridge closure, but did not directly include Christie himself as a recipient in the chain of messages.

The man in charge of the lane closures, Wildstein, has now pointed his finger directly at Christie, saying that it was Governor Christie who condensed traffic into one lane back in September. This contradicts a statement made by the New Jersey governor on Jan. 13 in which he claimed he had complete unawareness of the situation, and that his involvement was nonexistent.

“I had no knowledge of this — of the planning, the execution or anything about it… I first found out about it after it was over,” said Christie at the same press conference according to NJ.com.

Christie said that his administration was the reason for the lane closures, and that they coordinated the entire situation. This is partly true, as proven by the many e-mails back and forth between members of his administration. However, the accusations made by Wildstein could prove to be the final factor in Christie’s future.

Interestingly enough, Christie relieved a member of his administration of her duties because “There’s no justification for ever lying to a governor or a person in authority in this government. As a result, I’ve terminated Bridget’s employment,” said Christie during the same Jan. 13 press conference when asked about the termination of deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelley. Does this justification somehow not extend to himself?

During the summer of 2013, almost a year after Hurricane Sandy ravaged the east coast, a series of commercials was released making claims that the state of New Jersey was “stronger than the storm,” and that local businesses were back up and running in time for the season. Appearing in these commercials was the man himself, Governor Christie.

The content of these commercials seemed uplifting and very positive, but was met with sharp contrast when paired with cost of production, the original intended use of the funds, and the politically charged message behind these ads. The price tag on these commercials was a whopping 25 million dollars – money that could have been used to benefit those affected by Sandy.

A contract that was signed between administration and the production company included an up-front cost of about seven million dollars. This sizable cost could have been significantly reduced by almost 3 million dollars if Governor Christie had not appeared in the commercials. Instead, he chose to use these commercials as a form of propaganda – a method of self-promotion.

If these accusations turns out to be true, it’s inevitable that Christie will face impeachment, and if nothing else, such a strong lack of credibility that it will be nearly impossible to govern properly.

More to Discover
Activate Search
The Student News Site of Neshaminy High School
Christie’s controversy in downward spiral