How much slime is too much slime, politically speaking?

By Richard K. Barry

Even though the internal report commissioned by Gov. Christie’s office blamed the entire Bridgegate mess on two former aides, while absolving Christie, anyone paying even scant attention dismissed it as self-serving nonsense. Still, a lot of people don't even pay scant attention, so it might have done Christie some good. I can almost hear low-information voters parroting the results of the report without realizing its origins.

I would, however, like to believe former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell who recently said that “[n]ot only can Chris Christie not win, I think he may have trouble finishing out his term ... There’s absolutely no chance that he didn’t know this was going on if he didn’t order it or OK it. So I think he’s not a factor.”

The more general question is how low a politician has to go before he or she is unelectable. I should, by the way, mention that I live in Toronto (and that's all I'm going to say about that). In any case, I was somewhat heartened to see, as the New York Daily news reported, "Muriel Bowser win the District of Columbia’s Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday, defeating incumbent Vincent Gray in a race defined by a scandal involving Gray’s campaign four years ago."

Bowser tapped into an electorate that tired of the allegations surrounding Gray. Five people who worked on the mayor’s 2010 campaign have pleaded guilty to felonies, and Bowser said the city needed to move away from a mayor who faces potential criminal charges.

So, we know there might be a limit.

In Christie's case, it is not credible that he didn't know about the circumstances surrounding the bridge closure, which means that the only interesting question remaining is whether his actions will dissuade voters from supporting a Christie presidential candidacy.

I was taken by a poll conducted recently finding that "Americans say 75 percent of politicians are corrupted, 70 percent use political power to hurt enemies."

Having lived through the Watergate era, when it was fashionable for some to claim Nixon only got caught doing what they all do, I don't know what to believe. Gov. Rendell is a smart guy; maybe Christie is toxic. I'm not so sure. 

Rendell, Giuliani call for "early detection system" for mental illness and guns

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill:

Two high-profile politicians [yesterday] called for sweeping reforms to the nation's mental health system that would prevent individuals deemed ill from legally purchasing firearms.

Had numerous concerns about alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner’s mental status placed him on a list restricting his ability to buy a gun, his Jan. 8 rampage might have been prevented, said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, and Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a Democrat.

During a "Face the Nation" appearance, Rendell called for an "early detection system" designed to keep mentally unstable individuals from buying guns. 

Basically, if you've attended more than one Tea Party event (because you could have attended one just by accident) or if you're a Tea Party-backed candidate for the GOP, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Period.

I'm kidding... of course. (Ahem.)

Actually, in a country that refuses to do anything about guns and gun violence, this was an admirable display of bipartisan support for a rational response to the Arizona shooting. Giuliani, once something of a moderate but now a Republican hard-liner, even talked about the country's "inability to deal with mental illness."

I would just note that while there does need to be a "rational debate" on gun control, as Rendell said, as well as a serious effort to address mental illness, the Arizona shooting -- an assassination attempt on a politician -- wasn't just about some lone crazy guy getting hold of a semi-automatic pistol with a high-capacity ammunition clip. It was also about the right's culture of violence, both in rhetoric and in ideology, and about the extent to which that culture has come to shape American politics and define conservatism.

As I wrote last week, while it certainly appears to be the case that the (alleged) killer, Jared Lee Loughner, is "deranged" (to use a loaded and hardly clinical term), as well as that he was not a card-carrying member of the Tea Party or GOP, it is wrong, I think to treat him as a detached loner who acted in a vacuum of his own derangement. To do that is to ignore context, to ignore the bigger picture, the "national climate."

In other words, there may be no direct connection between conservatism and the shooting, but that does not necessarily mean that what Loughner did (or, rather, is charged with doing) may be detached entirely from the broader, right-wing political context that may very well have informed his thinking, or his derangement, to some degree.

Oh, for the love of the Clintons

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The media are still playing up the Obama-Clinton tensions, of course, but it is true, and rather troubling, that some of Hillary's fundraisers are still angry over Obama's victory, that Bill seemed to undermine Obama by implying the party made a mistake in selecting him as its nominee, that Hillary surrogate Ed Rendell likened Obama to two-time presidential loser Adlai Stevenson; and that Hillary herself neglected to mention Obama in a speech to her supporters earlier in the day.

I don't want to make too much of any of this. Suffice it to say that there is a reason, a good one, so many of us are suspicious of the Clintons and the Clintonistas.

It's pretty much always about them, after all.