Telegraph Compares Bridgegate Gov. and Tactless Redskins Owner to a Certain ex-MA Senator
It has been a great few days for adding to the annals of ludicrous public relations blunders. It’s always good for a chuckle when supposedly astute people do really dumb things.
First up is New Jersey’s Chris Christie. The incredibly shrinking Republican governor wants to be president, but things aren’t going so well of late. There was this whole bridge thing, where members of his administration closed down a lane of traffic leading to the George Washington Bridge into New York City for a couple of days in political retaliation against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J.
Although federal authorities and New Jersey legislators are conducting investigations to determine what the governor knew and when he knew it, Christie thought it would be a good idea to conduct his own investigation, which – surprise, surprise – exonerated him completely. Critics quickly and accurately labeled the governor’s “investigation” a sham, because Christie’s handpicked lawyers didn’t speak to several vital players in the scandal, possibly because those witnesses may yet be indicted.
What was Christie thinking? That his own probe would be taken more seriously than a federal investigation? That, if he got his message out first, he could begin to sway public opinion back in his direction? If either is the case, then he shouldn’t be asking taxpayers to pick up the $1 million price tag for his self-indulgence.
New Hampshire’s newest politician in residence, former Massachusetts U.S.Sen. Scott Brown, didn’t appear ready for prime time last week when he came off sounding more like a valley girl than a serious contender for U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s seat.
When asked by the Associated Press if he had the best credentials to run for the Senate, Brown now infamously replied, “Do I have the best credentials? Probably not. ’Cause, you know, whatever.”
Perhaps the best way to respond is in a way Brown would likely best understand: What’s up with that, dude? Are you even for realzies? That’s, like, so bogus.
We also count among the clueless Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who is still pitching the idea that the team’s nickname honors native Americans.
“It’s not enough to celebrate the values and heritage of Native Americans,” Snyder said in a letter to the team’s fans last week. “We must do more.”
That “more” is the creation of the “Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation” that will supposedly “provide meaningful and measurable resources that provide genuine opportunities” for Native Americans.
In other words, he apparently thinks that if he buys the naming rights to an ethnic slur, everything will be OK. Wrong. Does he think that if he set up a scholarship fund for African Americans he could use the n-word?
The fact that he used the offensive nickname in the title of his foundation proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Snyder doesn’t get it.
Amazingly, he believes “even more firmly” the name “captures the best of who we are and who we can be, by staying true to our history and honoring the deep and enduring values our name represents.”
More than a couple native Americans don’t share his vision.
“We’re glad that after a decade of owning the Washington team, Mr. Snyder is finally interested in Native American Heritage, and we are hopeful that when his team finally stands on the right side of history and changes its name, he will honor the commitments to Native Americans that he is making,” said Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter.
And that’s the point. If Synder truly cared about native Americans, he would establish the foundation and change the team’s nickname.
Instead, he just looks shallow and thick-headed.