An emotionally wacked-out woman

nannygoat_gwMarch 29, 2014

Liberal women all over are expressing their outrage over the incredibly sexist remarks about Bridget Kelly who was described by the Paid-For/ Bought-by-Christie Report as being an emotionally wacked-out woman who ordered the bridge closing due to being distraught over the breakup of her relationship with another Christie staffer.

Have any prominent Republican women had anything to say? I haven't seen any conservative reaction to these comments.

How can any thinking woman not be outraged over this?

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
duluthinbloomz4

I'm wondering what prominent Republican women think about a lot of things.

But the Daily Kos more often than not gets it right. "Scapegoat". Ya gotta have a scapegoat.

Here is a link that might be useful: What the Boys' Club cooks up

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 4:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"Liberal women all over are expressing their outrage over the incredibly sexist remarks about Bridget Kelly who was described by the Paid-For/ Bought-by-Christie Report as being an emotionally wacked-out woman..."

Where did you get that? I did search for "emotionally wacked-out woman" and all I got was your OP. I'd like to read about the quote, who said it, etc.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 4:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
momj47(7A)

Christie threw her under the bus, that's for sure. And he took great care with Samson, to make sure he could resign and take all his money with him.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 5:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Elvis, the lawyer did not use those exact words, nor did the previous posters mean that was a direct quote (no quote marks, you notice). That is their paraphrase of how the lawyer portrayed Kelly in the report he read on TV and before a group of reporters.

I watched it on TV, and yes, the lawyer portrayed Kelly as mentally unstable due to emotional problems she was having because she got dumped by her lover--all of which happened about the same time as bridgegate and, the strong implication was made but never directly stated,thus accounts for how the bridgegate problem happened to occur.

And no, I am not quoting the lawyer who read the report. That is my paraphrase of what he said.

And yes, a number of the TV talk shows today have been talking about how the lawyer reading the report was resorting to "slut-shaming" techniques in an attempt to make Kelly look guilty even though they had very little (or no) evidence that she was the prime or sole architect of Bridgegate.

Kate

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 5:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Thanks for the clarification, Kate. So the OP title was sensationalistic, in keeping with our current "press." Not great for credibility, but good for outrage.

I do appreciate that you took the time.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 5:36PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
epiphyticlvr

Here's just some of the sources of about 32,900,000 results (0.58 seconds) that I found reporting on this:
NYT,WaPo, HuffPo, Newark Star Ledger, UPI, Northjersey.com, CS Monitor, the New Yorker, local and national TV news stations and more.

You can go to any one of them or preferably several to get the story.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 5:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Pidge

nannygoat, If you think any Republican or conservative woman or man on this forum will call out ChristieâÂÂs lawyer for slut-shaming Bridge Kelly, you better be frigging patient. You already see elvis playing games about quotes rather than addressing the issue.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 6:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Pidge: "You already see elvis playing games about quotes rather than addressing the issue."

From the OP:

"...remarks about Bridget Kelly who was described by the Paid-For/ Bought-by-Christie Report as being an emotionally wacked-out woman who..."

"I haven't seen any conservative reaction to these comments."

The only comments presented in the OP are nannygoat's. My reaction to nannygoat's comments was to ask who said "emotionally wacked-out woman" in regard to Kelly. Kate advised that the phrase was the result of paraphrasing. I for one am not about to comment on someone's paraphrase.

Pidge, the OP did not present an issue.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 6:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
epiphyticlvr

More games to disrupt a discussion.

The op addressed an issue that is all over the media and is a 'hot topic". You don't have to comment on the paraphrase, although you already did, as well as the poster, but instead you could have commented on one of the many reports that are out there or you could have ignored the topic if you weren't interested.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 6:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rosie(Deep South, USA 7A/B)

Elvis, I'm a liberal woman who earlier expressed her outrage at this on another thread. Very real outrage, I didn't speak up here because Nannygoat was asking how conservatives felt about it.

Slut-shaming's the common term for the technique used of repeatedly bringing up her affair in the bridge closure investigation report, BTW.

Besides reaction against on Christie, the other good thing is that this particularly contemptible style of scapegoating Kelly probably provides a reason any future would-be employer can understand for her to break her loyal, dutiful silence. Not that she's innocent, of course. No matter who gave the orders, she owns her own behavior.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 6:59PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Pidge

elvis, the OP raised an issue concerning liberal women, outrage, and sexist comments about Bridget Kelly. .

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 7:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Pidge, I certainly see that kind of aspersion is insulting--to any person. That is to say, calling a professional person names that make them sound unstable could certainly damage that person's career prospects. Calling a person emotional or talking about the fact they had a recent break-up is something one could say about any person. What makes it sexist? Would those remarks be considered sexist if they were made in reference to a male person?

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 7:38PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Elvis, go listen to the lawyer deliver the comments. Every other statement is about what a "slut" Kelly is (I don't remember if that is the exact word he uses--but he makes the idea clear). He interrupts any point he is in the process of making to remind the listeners that Kelly is unstable due to being dropped by her lover. He just can't leave the Kelly info alone. I'm serious--he interrupts himself over and over and over again to imply Kelly is doing something wrong by having an affair with a co-worker; she is unstable--no wonder the co-worker drops her; she flips out when he drops her --the lawyer goes on and on and on and on--about Kelly. That is what the fuss is about. It is the strangest report you have ever heard since it has almost no information about Christie and the bridge but is obsessed with Kelly and her love affair.

I think on this forum we call it "detraction"--by obsessing and sensationalizing the Kelly material (none of which has anything to do with the bridge, but he makes it sound like it does), he takes the listeners attention off the fact that he couldn't find much to exonerate Christie in the whole matter--but don't worry about that, here is some sensational sex stories about Kelly's torrid affair and how she lost it, etc. Much more interesting.

Since you haven't heard the press conference the lawyer held, I don't think you should rush in and defend him--when you don't really know what happened--and are resisting our attempts to enlighten you.

Kate

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 8:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nannygoat_gw

The conversation I was hoping to elicit from my OP was why don't conservative women speak up when outrageous things are said by the GOP about women? The way Kelly has been been treated is so outrageous that liberal women who would otherwise perhaps have little in common with Kelly are speaking out.

This is a fellow human being. A mother of 4 children, all old enough to read the newspaper. She is apparently being made to appear unstable so that any testimony she may give in the future will be suspect. How anyone - especially any woman - can condone the attorney's statements is beyond me.

The response from liberal women has been immediate. Where is the response from conservative women? Please, someone post a link.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 8:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"Since you haven't heard the press conference the lawyer held, I don't think you should rush in and defend him--when you don't really know what happened--and are resisting our attempts to enlighten you."

Thanks for the heads-up; I have no intention of starting to defend him.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 8:57PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hostafrenzy

Of course "thinking women" should be outraged, nannygoat, you are correct.

There are many things we should be outraged about, including Elizabeth Warren's participation in and protection of Dow Chemical Company and its breast implant claims. Shameful.

Here is a link that might be useful: link...

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 9:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

Diversion or detraction - an attempt to completely change the subject.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2014 at 10:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

Hosta, why dont you start a new thread regarding that topic and provide the link there?

If it is something you feel needs discussing, then start a thread and get the discussion going.
But by coming into this thread but not responding to the very specific issue Nannygoat asked conservatives to offer opinions on, and instead you threw in that topic and link, it strikes me as an attempt to divert attention away from an unpleasant issue not complementary to conservatives.
Even if it was not your intention to do so, surely you can see that it certainly strikes most as a "yeah yeah, but look at what YOU did" kind of reaction.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:24AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

Correction:
Hosta actually did respond very specifically to Nannygoat's question aimed at conservatives.
I was flat wrong when I stated that she did not do so.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:31AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

The accusation from Christie's defense lawyer was that Bridget Kelly may have acted erratically because of a relationship she had with Sepien. Christie's lawyer further revealed that the relationship was ended by him. OK, so as they say, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
But how in tarnation would that have caused her to lie, to cooperate with lane closures and then to go along with a cover-up? And why would that cause her to lie about any potential involvement by Christie and others?
This was a cheap attempt to shame Kelly and to discredit anything she might testify about. Mastro issued what amounted to a public dare to Kelly to testify against Christie. This was very close to interfering with a pending Federal investigation. At minimum this amounted to unethical conduct by the Christie defense attorney.

And what about the way Christie had earlier dismissed Wildstein as someone he hardly knew, a high school nerd who was even dissed by a high school teacher? Don't we see a pattern here? Yes we do. Christie is a ruthless bully. I hope they put his behind in jail where it belongs.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 1:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pls8xx

Is this really a feminist issue? I see it as a simple case of character assassination, one where the target happens to be a woman. What else would be expected of a Republican caught dirty. Not that the Dems don't go there too, but the Repubs are a lot better at it.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 5:47AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rosie(Deep South, USA 7A/B)

Bringing a person's sex life into a picture it has nothing to do with is a standard technique used against women to degrade their image and credibility. Doesn't work so well with men. "Slut shaming" is a common term for a common practice. The Christie lawyer never used the word "slut," of course. People posturing above such behavior just throw that ball out for others to run.

The initial premise of this post that liberal women are all outraged, suggesting that more conservative women are not speaking out, is of course incorrect for everyone. It's all over the web, and many women are outraged -- period. To put it mildly, "liberals" don't have a lock on honesty and self respect.

The question asked of conservatives here, of course, turned up something very different. On a political forum, game playing and denial from water carriers for the Christie team was the expected reaction, and that is so far what we've seen.

But, please, only SOME conservatives insist on pushing aside important issues that impede political game playing and attacks on those to their left. To define their behavior as typical would be a victory for a noisy, aggressive minority most quieter conservatives say they disapprove of, mildly to very strongly, when asked. This is the reason the Grand Old Party has become the Incredible Shrinking Party. Other conservatives don't like its behavior or its goals.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 6:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hostafrenzy

No problem Mylab.

My intent was not one of diverting from the topic, as I think the tactics used against Kelly were inappropriate at best.

Instead, I feel as women, we are aware of all matters that undermine our standing in society and the politicians that contribute to that. I used Warren as an example because I found this particularly egregious, she being a woman and a supposed proponent for the regular person. Many people are fairly moderate and balanced in their political viewpoints and a wrong act is a wrong act, regardless of the political standing of the perpetrator. My opinion anyway (shrug).

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 10:16AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rosie(Deep South, USA 7A/B)

So agree.

BTW, I'm not at all outraged about Elizabeth Warren's involvement with Dow Chemical. That's because she's shown many times over where her heart and her principles are. And she's been alarming big business for some time now with her success at weakening the laws they depend on for huge profits.

Also because it's hard to find out what exactly she is supposed to have done wrong, other than involve herself on the business side of a lawsuit. That should be a recommendation for the right, who've elected many corporate attorneys to office. I also can't remember all the GOP wives I've noted who are or were corporate attorneys. But I've been noticing for years, and it's very common.

Also, I've been peripherally involved with a couple of large lawsuits that involved various companies and private parties, and literally many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of attorneys working for years, billing big bucks, many of the lower-level attorneys just providing a presence in interminable meetings that accomplish very little beyond generating revenue. Disgusting money mills, but that's business law, especially for the bigger players.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 11:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hostafrenzy

Her heart may be in the right place Rosie, but let's not fool ourselves; the Dow gig was extremely lucrative for her, so I question her principles and priorities. Would someone truly committed to women and their health issues done as she did?

In any event, Warren has thus far been a good Senator for us in MA - I have no complaints. That doesn't mean I don't take issue with her Dow involvement. There are some excellent points made if you read/scroll to the bottom of the link I provided.

Sorry to derail (not divert ;)

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 11:32AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

After the sexist and personal attacks meant to destroy Anita Hill and Sarah Palin on a national basis, any liberal protestations about women's rights ring extremely hollow and hypocritical.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 11:45

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 11:38AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

Uh, the attacks on Anita Hill came from the right.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dockside_gw

Any woman who was as emotionally "wackred-out" as described by Christie's attorney wouldn't spend hours and days, conspiring with Wildstein, to cause chaos for commuters, but would put poison in her ex-lover's latte (this is a metaphor for saying that she would make Stepian suffer, not anonymous commuters).

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:43PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dockside_gw

I don't know of any instance in which a man is ever publicly demeaned as being emotionally unstable at the end of a love affair. Just doesn't happen. If anyone can point me to such a case, please do so.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg(Z-7)

....and Palin has proven herself to be attack worthy and unfit for high office....or any office for that matter since she would quit an elected position for a buck. The same goes for either gender.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:48PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

Uh, you're right David.

Mea Culpa--grabbed the name right quick, didn't think--because I believed her. Now--as to how serious the allegations were and how much she acquiesced to them at the time, or how serious they were in context, I was never sure about that. I do believe that Clarence Thomas otherwise has a distinguished record and has served honorably as SC Justice.

If we're talking hairs on Coke cans, we can always go to stained blue dresses and submerged Oldsmobiles. They didn't seem to matter to some.

Yes, conservatives supporting Clarence Thomas attacked Anita Hill, personally, too.

We can face it--when people can't articulate an argument or have nothing to say--they make personal attacks.

Sarah Palin, Anita Hill, Michelle Bachmann, and apparently Christie's staffer.

Women are more vulnerable to these attacks than men--and I'm not referring to attacks for things they say or do, but unfair attacks because they are women, and for no other reason.

It is a diminishment of a person not based on their actions or words, but of their sex, and it is wrong.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 12:51

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

At least we have gotten beyond inquiring if it was "her time of the month."

Progress in baby steps?

Kate

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 12:57PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

â¢Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 12:00

"Uh, the attacks on Anita Hill came from the right."

Absolutely Right, David. ;-) But! According to some, Biden's handling of the Thomas confirmation hearings basically sabotaged Hill's testimony, and prevented the testimony of others who may have been able to lend credibility to Hill's allegations. Sounds like Biden choose PC in lieu of doing the right thing.

"Ms. Ross, who was one of the lawyers assisting Ms. Hill, asserts that Mr. Biden treated Mr. Thomas too even-handedly because of the racially charged nature of the hearings. (Remember Justice Thomasâ charge that he had been subjected to a âÂÂhigh-tech lynching.âÂÂ) Ms. Ross said that Mr. Biden âÂÂwas accused of being labeled racist, so the Republicans were blackmailing him and he pushed the levers to make the case look like there wasnâÂÂt a case when there was.âÂÂ

From not permitting other witnesses like Angela Wright to testify who would have been favorable to Ms. Hill, to not permitting affidavits from an expert on whether a pattern of behavior needed to be established to prove sexual harassment, Ms. Ross concluded: âÂÂHe did everything to make it be good for Thomas and to slant it against her.â (Mr. Biden and his staff at times indicated that Ms. Wright and others werenâÂÂt willing to testify, but the record and books written since appear contradictory, as these women were held waiting in the wings for days.)"

FWIW, this speaks volumes about Biden's integrity, IMO.

Not a diversion, as this speaks to the so-called "wacked-out woman" line of thinking.

Here is a link that might be useful: Thomas Wouldn't be There?

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 1:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Not one of Biden's better moments, to say the least.

He did, however, move beyond that transgression and go out of his way to support women's issues strongly and consistently--in fact, I think he has a 100% rating since that inglorious moment when he attacked Anita Hill.

Personally, I think he was bowled over by the strong and immediate backlash he received for that disgraceful performance--and I think he genuinely "repented." At least his sterling record on women's issues since then suggest even a politician can sometimes learn from his own mistakes--and Biden did.

Give credit where credit is due.

Kate

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 1:22PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Successful diversion!

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 4:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Pidge

i was thinking just that, patriciae. We are now into partisan politics--and the âÂÂthey do it, tooâ deflections--rather than paying attention to MastroâÂÂs misogyny. This is here and now.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 5:13PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Mea culpa....I am about to introduce a serious diversion....

Did you know that Judge Clarence Thomas had never asked ONE question at any of the Supreme Court hearings he has sat on in the last FIVE years.....not ONE single question of any of those presenting or defending a position

Not one question in all the important issues he has cast an opinion on.....the ACA, Citizens United, Gay marriage , the Arizona rulings...so many more..not one single question

I think that is beyond bizarre..

..and now I return you to the regularly scheduled programming.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 6:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
october17(5chgo)

Oh yea! The Anita Hill hearings. THAT is when I began to loathe Biden.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 7:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Pidge

Chase, I continue to be astonished at
ThomasâÂÂs refusal to ask any question, not one, at any of the hearings before the US Supreme Court, But then I think he is dumb as a post anyway.

The Thomas hearings when I realized that Arlen Specter (for whom I voted as a PA citizen) was just following the money.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2014 at 7:23PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Back to the OP

There are I think actually times when if the person in question uses their sexuality as a prop-and Palin comes to mind here-with the skin tight clothes, the pushup bra with plenty of cleavage, lots of make up and so forth-just like a half naked Putin on horseback-you do open yourself up to comments about your sexuality and how you use it.
Google being my friend I looked up images of Kelly to see if she fit that dynamic and I cant say that she did. Her appearance was professional but perhaps they just accidentally left out all the skanky ones. I think that excuse if it is one is busted.

    Bookmark   March 31, 2014 at 2:09PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"Google being my friend I looked up images of Kelly to see if she fit that dynamic and I cant say that she did."

Me neither. Kelly is nice-looking but not really made-up. Her blouse and skirt in the business photos I've seen are straining at the seams, but one sees a lot of that particular fashion faux pas.

    Bookmark   March 31, 2014 at 7:50PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rosie(Deep South, USA 7A/B)

I've been expecting to find that she's one of those who just follow the leader, principles and conscience bucked up to the leader to handle. She did her job competently and enthusiastically. We know loyally. Wonder if she's learned anything about personal responsibility or is just resentful that loyalty wasn't properly rewarded.

    Bookmark   March 31, 2014 at 8:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

" Wonder if she's learned anything about personal responsibility or is just resentful that loyalty wasn't properly rewarded."

Been there, done that. If she doesn't figure it out quickly, she'll lose.

    Bookmark   March 31, 2014 at 9:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hostafrenzy

Meanwhile, setting women's rights back another 40 years or so...what does Kelly's or Palin's for that matter, appearances or manner of dress, have to do with anything?

A push-up bra, are you kidding me?

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 5:39AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rosie(Deep South, USA 7A/B)

Elvis was just agreeing that she presented a professional appearance, Hosta. If he noted particular details, well, that's how we're wired. Some people more than others, no doubt, though even nuns have been noted to check out men's bulges just the same as other women. :)

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 7:03AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
tobr24u(z6 RI)

This is a Hot Topics lynching...

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 7:14AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

What about men? Are women the only ones to show emotion or go a little nuts in a public situation? Absolutely not.

Let Google be your guide.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 10:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Hosta-if you use your appearance as Sarah Palin did to gain political support(old conservative men liked her look and said so and the GOP provided the clothes that emphasized her physical assets) then you in my opinion open yourself up to comments on your appearance vs your abilities-as Putin did by having himself photographed half naked on a horse. Political people who don't want their appearance to be a focus don't dress(or not dress) to maximize that impact. I was addressing Demi's contentions about Palin. I believe she earned the derisive commentary she got by dressing and acting the way she did-this being outside her ignorance on world issues. Since no one has presented any evidence that Kelly spotlighted her relationship at work then we can assume she is being exposed to demagoguery to prop up Christie's claims of innocence and Why aren't conservatives up in arms about that?

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 3:36PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

â¢Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 10:18

"What about men? Are women the only ones to show emotion or go a little nuts in a public situation? Absolutely not."

Exactly my point upthread. The OP reads in pertinent part: "Liberal women all over are expressing their outrage over the incredibly sexist remarks about Bridget Kelly who was described by the Paid-For/ Bought-by-Christie Report as being an emotionally wacked-out woman..."

A description of a person as "emotionally wacked-out" (it has since come to light in subsequent posts that this particular phrase wasn't actually used as a descriptor, but we get the idea) isn't a sexist one, let alone "incredibly" so.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 9:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

" "emotionally wacked-out" (it has since come to light in subsequent posts that this particular phrase wasn't actually used as a descriptor, but we get the idea)"

I am pretty sure that you are the only one who did not get that the "wacked-out" phrase was paraphrased.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 9:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

That's nice, Frank.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 10:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

Thank you.

    Bookmark   April 1, 2014 at 11:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
october17(5chgo)

Wrong again frank.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 5:55AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Are we still stuck on the phrase "emotionally wacked-out woman"? For pete's sake, folks--if a word/phrase has no quotation marks around it, it probably is NOT a direct quotation and there is no reason any reader should assume it is.

Look for quotation marks--or some other indication that it is a quote--before concluding it is a quotation.

Kate

This post was edited by dublinbay on Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 13:23

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 10:36AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
frank_il

"Wrong again frank."

Hmm, I guess I thought too highly of the intellect around here.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 11:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Pretty clear to me that it was a paraphrase. There is absolutely no indication ,by punctuation or word, that this was intended to be a direct quote.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 12:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nannygoat_gw

It never occurred to me that anyone would not know that a direct quote would either have quotation marks around it or would be in italics.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 12:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
duluthinbloomz4

Quotation marks or italics notwithstanding - even in what is tantamount to a whitewash, a lawyer who graduated at the bottom of his class would know better than to toss in something like that. And if he did, it would certainly have to be a direct quote and would clearly be identified as such.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 12:59PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hayden2

The issue is not whether the OP paraphrased or not. The issue is the message in the Governor's report. The report was so biased in presentation that many people even within the governor's administration say it would have been more effective if it been less personally offensive to Kelly.

In various places, the report says she was emotionally overwrought, irrational, personally affected by the fact that Stepien broke off the relationship. They also documented that Stepien broke off the relationship a month before the lane closings (and no, they weren't "realignments" ).

No where in the report do they attempt to explain, in any way, 1) why Christie would have vested so much power in a person emotionally distraught 2) why having a relationship break up would have caused her to retaliate against the mayor of a town and against thousands of commuters and truckers or 3) why Wildstein would have blindly been complicit at the direction of someone emotionally overwrought, when all he had to do was call the governor's office to stop it.

In other words, she was emotional unbalanced and did the lane closures; but Wildstein wasn't and somehow he was instrumental to the plan.

Where the sexism comes in is the fact that the relationship between Kelly and Stepien is central to the report without the slightest evidence it had anything to do with the lane closures.

Elvis I encourage you to at least listen to the presentation. The lawyer says Christie had tears in his eyes when he realized people lied to him.

The tears in his eyes are evidence of his caring and sensitive nature. Tears in Kelly's eyes are evidence of her being emotionally unbalanced.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 1:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Yes, hayden--that is the key issue--which is why I was puzzled that some posters were obsessing on supposedly quoted words that clearly were not quoted.

Thank you for getting our attention back on the main issue.

Kate

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 1:28PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

It is easier to attack a short hand summation of the report than it is to explain why they aren't upset about what it says. It is a diversion. Hayden-nice summation of the real issues.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 1:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
rosie(Deep South, USA 7A/B)

"The tears in his eyes are evidence of his caring and sensitive nature. Tears in Kelly's eyes are evidence of her being emotionally unbalanced." Right on point. Thanks, Hayden.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 1:52PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

What a succinct summation, Hayden!

I do hope you will be an active participant in this forum.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 2:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Pidge

Thank you, Hayden, for your comments.

I recall the 1984 Vice-Presidential debate between Geraldine Ferraro and George H. W. Bush. During the debate, Ferraro stood almost stoic through the debate, and Bush actually cried. After the debate, Bush was described as empathetic, Ferrarp as hard-hearted. I thought at the time that if Ferraro had cried, sheâÂÂd have been thrown under not one but a hundred buses and if Bush had been stoic heâÂÂd have been praised as a strong âÂÂman.âÂÂ
So the trashing of Bridget Kelly comes as no surprise to this old âÂÂwomanâÂÂs rightsâ feminist.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 6:14PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
hayden2

Geez, thanks for all the kind words! Maybe I will hang around....

This is off topic, but rumor in the state is that the report dwelled on the breakup because the lawyers suspect Kelly'e testimony could be devastating to others, primarily Stepien. They wanted to establish a basis for saying that she and Stepien were not in fact speaking - even though she reported to him directly and worked very closely with him.

The rumors further say that Christie's reason for firing Stepien was not, as he claimed, because his tone was unacceptable. (Stepien called someone an idiot. Really? The only reason Christie would object to that is if he regarded it as competition.). Rumor says that Christie knew that if Kelly was on record as starting the lane closures, then it was directly approved by Stepien, her boss. If that ever were uncovered, Christie can say well, so what. I already fired the guy.

Anyway, that's the rumor that's going around.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 6:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Pidge

hayden, I think Christie is fried as a presidential candidate. His last press conference, following on the heels of the Mastro âÂÂreports,â was an effort to bring back the âÂÂoldâ Christie. It made evident that the âÂÂoldâ Christie was pretty much a blustering actor.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 7:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Christie always gave us the willies. I hope he doesn't waste everyone's time and money running for pres. It seems to me that self control should be a desirable attribute in a US president, and I fear he lacks same.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 8:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Hayden, it can get a bit tiresome around here but a strong argument based on facts mixed with opinion is always welcome....from any side.

Your thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

PS: my daughter wants to call her first born son Hayden.......for my part I would rather Michael ..... fat chance......; )

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 9:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
eibren(z6PA)

In a way, this whole topic is a compliment to women.

Apparently women's usual functioning levels are high enough that note is taken when they are not.

In the case of wacked out males like Limbaugh no one raises an eyebrow.

    Bookmark   April 2, 2014 at 9:40PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Opinions? Anyone?? Everyone???
Let me say how much I enjoyed the discussion on the...
ronalawn82
Spies & Tools
The Wall Street Journal says that US elected officials...
labrea_gw
Supremes Uphold Voter ID Law
The Supreme Court let stand a 7th Circuit Court ruling...
Christopher_H
Indiana has HIV epidemic
Pence orders short-term needle exchange to combat HIV...
momj47
N.H. fourth-graders’ hawk bill veers into abortion debate
From the Granite State. More proof that these Legislators...
enmc
Sponsored Products
Braided Area Rug: Monroe Silverleaf 5' x 8'
Home Depot
Pure Rugs | Normand Natural Cowhide
YLiving.com
Signature Doublewide Off White 100 x 96-Inch Blackout Curtain
$171.95 | Bellacor
Recycled Tube Light Table Lamp
Lightology
Charles Petite 4 Piece Sofa Set in Black Silver
$2,315.00 | LexMod
Crystals Living Room Pendant Lighting
ParrotUncle
Cerno | Onus LED Table Lamp
$405.00 | YLighting
Faux Silk Emerson Curtain Panel Pair
Overstock.com
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™