Using the word “lynching” as a noun is pretty dubious unless you are talking about an actual lynching. Stu Rothenberg should think about it for a while. It is offensive as a metaphor for, say, an extrajudicial proceeding unless that proceeding entails actual torture and death. What Rothenberg is attempting to say is that Chris Christie is being convicted in the court of public opinion before all the evidence is in, which is a fair point if you care to bend over backward to defend the governor. But the presumption of guilt in the public is not the same as the presumption of guilt on the jury. And the presumption of guilt by the jury is not the same as a mob taking you out of Drumthwacket and hacking you to pieces.
I’m sure Rothenberg doesn’t appreciate it when people make lazy comparisons to the Nazis and the Holocaust. How would this sentence look:
But given the governor’s immediate reaction to the personal crisis that has engulfed him, it isn’t too soon to wonder when the accusations and media frenzy crossed the line from inquiry and investigation to throwing him an oven….
That doesn’t go down so well, does it?
But think of the drippings!!!
You could feed all of the people in a county or two in Idaho their own potato’s, cooked in Christie fat!
Clarence Thomas used it in exactly the same way before the Senate Judiciary committee. Questions about allegations that he sexually harassed an employee were in words written by someone for him but spoken by him, “a high-tech lynching.”
Exactly. And the fact that a black guy said it makes it OK for everyone else, too, amirite?
It’s all red meat, all the time.
And “Kangaroo Court” is offensive to marsupials and Australians.
o/t sad news. Paddy over at Political Carnival has died. She had such a big heart, I already miss her.
For older white Republicans it’s exactly what they imagine a lynching was like.
You know, like high school: detention, detention for a month, suspension then LYNCHING!!!!!
When an immature white male teenager is deprived of a meaningful social life by a misunderstanding by the authorities and thereby mentally scarred for life.
And I don’t like you hiding behind anti-semitic semi-slurs to hurt this poor white man’s feelings. Unless you want it to be a double lynching.
I think Rothenberg should be more embarrassed that he found Christie’s press conference persuasive.
That’s a weird response.
I don’t think references to the Holocaust are slurs or semi-slurs unless they are directed at innocent present-day Germans.
The point is, Stu is using language that minimizes what lynching is and was. And I doubt he likes it when people do the same thing about the Holocaust. I know I don’t.
Sorry. I was being sarcastic.
I agree with you that he’s way over the top using the term lynching.
But that’s simply a case of poor taste.
That he found the press conference persuasive is professionally embarrassing for some one who wants to pass as politically astute.
Hmm. Let’s think for a second. Is it actually possible that a deputy chief of staff would take it upon herself to have all but one local access lane closed to the world’s busiest bridge, or is it possible (and in fact likely) that the this started at a higher level? Yes, all he evidence is not yet in but credibility has reached its limits with what is already known.
Au contraire mon aimi (ok my French sucks).
I think you’re being a wee bit culturally doctrinaire.
Lynching refers to extra judicial execution ( assumed guilt by an extremist mob).
I can’t think of anything more ‘mobish’ than the court ( sic that implies some legally sanctioned process) of public opinion.
The link with blacks being hung is a bit like the Jews claim on the word ‘holocaust’. In that case one could argue that proportionally more gypsies (origins believed to be the sub continent ?)were exterminated by the Nazis.
What is undeniable is that it was an attempt at ‘culturecide’ or mass murder on a horrendous scale what it wasn’t literally was genocide. But I digress.
One other point the legal system assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the jury assumes guilt before hearing the evidence and argument it is invalid.
Much as I personally dislike Christie on a number of grounds none of these are legally correct( in the truest sense of the word). If I was empanelled on a jury I would be bound to put my personal feelings aside and decide on the presented facts.
Conclusion the article in question is ‘florid, colorful, full of assumptions, hyperbole and opinion but does he need sensitivity training? not any more than other commenters here.
The New York Money Boys have put SO much into Christie and they have NO comparable backup ready (It takes years to build a believable fraud) that they are super depressed now. I’m a fan of the McLaughlin Group show and the sad expression on Mort Zuckerman’s face last week was priceless. Christie was somewhat of a longshot to get to be President before this, what with demographics, Hillary and all, but now? Fuggetaboutit!
Christie confessed publicly, when first confronted by the bridge closure:
“Yeah, I was out there in a hardhat and reflective vest, putting out the cones”
I think we should take him at his word, because Republican politicians never lie, amirite?
sarcasm