As IF Times

link Chris Christie Fires Top Aide, Apologizes for Bridge Scandal – ABC News.

To many pundits, Chris Christie was a virtual shoe-in as the GOP presidential contender in 2016.  For some reason, he was seen as possessing the requisite balance of brashness and moderation that would enable the right to capture votes from the left.  The recent events involving the bridge scandal proves otherwise.  He hasn’t really learned how to play the game.

When revelations came out that the cause of a traffic jam on a bridge connecting New Jersey with New York was a direct result of orders originating from his office as some measure of political tit for tat, he was immediately contrite.  He stood before reporters, took responsibility and offered profuse apologies and then dismissed those that were purportedly responsible.  THAT’S NOT HOW IT’S DONE!

The correct way is to deny, stonewall, transfer blame and misdirect.

The first thing that should have happened was to deny that either he, his office, his relatives or close friends had anything to do with the scandal.  In fact, Christie should have denied even knowing about a bridge at all.  “What? A bridge? When did they build that?”

He could have stonewalled by assigning a personally selected investigative team to look into the root causes of the obstruction which would take 6 to 8 months to complete, at which time the comprehensive results would be reported to the public.  “Make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this.” This report would conclude that statistically, traffic jams happened all the time and that global warming was the root cause of such incidents.  Only by increasing taxes would future obstructions be eliminated.

He should have transferred blame for the traffic jam by noting that the bridge had been built under a previous  administration and that he was only inheriting an existing mess.  Christie could point out that he was adamantly against traffic jams and had always voted against them.  He would of course soothe the concerns of the public by assuring them that despite the bottleneck, “if they like the bridge they can keep it.”  After the passage of a week’s time, if the press kept pushing for answers, he could invoke, “at this point, what difference does it make?”

Finally, he could have employed the classic political technique of deflection.  If the media persisted in questioning his involvement, he could play the fat card.  He could plant the notion that the only reason that he was being hounded on this issue was because of his weight.  This kind of persecution would not have happened if he weighed less than 400 pounds.  What does the press have against fat people? Sympathetic condemnations would come from obesity groups throughout the U.S. denouncing the persecution of the fat guy.  Even Michael Moore would come onside.  This demographic is not to be underestimated.  Forget the prized 18 to 54 age demo, think about the 18 to 54 pounds overweight demo.

If Christie has any presidential aspirations at all, he’d better learn to play the game properly.  Who’d have thought that he’d turn out to be a political lightweight?