This was taken from the comments section of the S-L. I'm not the author, but find this quite interesting.

The world according to the King. Let's spin
Chris Christie first ran for Freeholder and was sued for defamation, it wasn't his fault and he did nothing wrong.
When Chris Christie went from "not a candidate for US Attorney" to being appointed US Attorney after he was directly responsible for raising hundreds of thousands (and his brother donates hundreds of thousands) for Bush, the donations had nothing to do with it.
And when many top NJ lawyers pointed out that Christie didn't have any experience in criminal law and his appointment was directly connected to the above hundreds of thousands in donations for Bush, that was just a coincidence.
(but wait....there's more!)
Chris Christie has lost the benefit of the doubt
When Chris Christie suddenly got off the list of US Attorneys to be fired at the same time he issued bogus subpoenas to Senator Menendez weeks before the 2006 election, the timing was just a coincidence and Christie's word should be trusted.
When Chris Christie gave his top aide Michele Brown a $46,000 loan and didn't report it on his tax return or other disclosure documents, that was just an oversight and not a conflict of interest.

When it was discovered that criminal-turned-informant Solomon Dwek, the man who Christie turned from bank fraudster to briber-of-elected-Democrats, donated to Bush directly through Chris Christie, the two were in no way connected.
And when Michele Brown pushed to have the Dwek bribery arrests of elected Democrats announced at an opportune time during the campaign, there was nothing wrong with that. The same Michele Brown that had the $46,000 unreported loan from her boss Chris Christie.
When Chris Christie gave his former boss John Ashcroft a no bid deal worth at least $30 million, despite Ashcroft having no experience for this work, he demanded that he be given the benefit of the doubt.
When Christie's brother was not indicted, despite being found by the SEC to have made 1,600 illegal trades, bilking investors out of almost $1.5 million and netting himself $1.5 million, it was just a coincidence.
When the US Attorney from NY didn't prosecute his brother for securities fraud and then got a multi million no bid deal from Christie himself, it was just a coincidence.
And when it was discovered that Chris Christie violated the Hatch Act by discussing running for Governor while still a US Attorney, that was "an attempt to smear him".
When Chris Christie also gave a multi-million no bid deal to buddies Herb Stern and John Inglesino and then Inglesino raised tens of thousands for his campaign, there was no "quid pro quo".

When Assemblyman Richard Merkt said that same John Inglesino tried to bribe Merkt to drop out of the Governor's race with a "major position", it was denied, and Christie knew nothing about it anyway.
And when Chris Christie went the wrong way down a one way street, causing an accident, sending the biker he hit to a trauma center - then didn't get a ticket when he identified himself as US Attorney - he did nothing wrong.
And when Christie was caught in an apparent lie about being sued by that biker, that was just a misunderstanding and he had forgot.
And when Chris Christie was stopped for speeding in an unregistered and uninsured vehicle, only to pull rank and not get a ticket, his position as US Attorney had nothing to do with him being able to leave without his car being towed.
When Christie hijacked the Race to the Top application process, only to lose $400 million for the state's students and then get caught in at least two apparent lies, that wasn't his fault - it was Obama's and Bret Schundler's.
When a recent DOJ report identified Chris Christie as being the biggest offender of overbilling the Government for extravagant and unsubstantiated travel expenses of all the US Attorneys, it was because nothing other than 5 star hotels and limos were available.
When Chris Christie recently was caught inflating numbers about the ARC tunnel cost, that wasn't done on purpose for political reasons.

And now Chris Christie has decided that he's now a scientist and doubts global warming, he should be trusted to be skeptical?
Let's face it. The man has a carefully crafted false bravado persona that is in direct contrast to the layer upon layer of lie, conflict, hypocrisy, insider deals, abuse of authority, quick tempered emotional decisions and favoritism. And quite honestly, if he was a Democrat and not Republican, he'd be skewered, mocked and hated by the right - and rightfully so.
He consistently is defensive about anyone daring to ask about the long list of his actions and behavior - always saying that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. That he should be trusted. That he is right.

Very well put together, Mr. Truth. Don't forget Christie's "Open Letters" to teachers, firefighters, and police, where he claimed that any claim that he would reduce pensions is a lie.

Truth, you should never quote facts to the Christiebots. It only tends to confuse and frighten them.

Here's one of his campaign letters in case anyone is curious:

AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY
Law Enforcement for Christie

Recently, I learned that inaccurate information had been presented to you in an attempt to swing your vote to Governor Corzine. The false claim states that I would somehow eliminate or diminish your pension benefits.
Let me be clear – Nothing could be further from the truth. The claim that any harm would come to your pension when I’m elected Governor is absolutely untrue. It is a 100% lie. Your pension will be protected when I am elected Governor.
I spent the last seven years in Law Enforcement as the US Attorney for New Jersey. I worked day in and day out with the men and women on the front lines who dedicate themselves to keeping families and communities safe.
No one respects what you do more than I do. And no one will stand up for you more than I will. Do not believe the lies that have been spread about my proposals.

For seven years I worked with law enforcement officers to get illegal guns off the street, prosecute gang members, thwart terrorist plots at Newark Airport and Fort Dix and throw corrupt politicians in jail. I know how hard your work, and you deserve a governor who will stand with you.
While I have put forward proposals to cut taxes and cut spending so we can bring change to New Jersey to make it more affordable for families, I have repeated time and time again that the pension agreement made with members of our law enforcement community must be respected. It is a sacred trust. Nothing will change for the pensions of current officers, future officers, or retirees in a Christie Administration.
I respectfully ask for your vote this November 3rd. If you choose to vote for another candidate, I hope you will do so based on the facts and their vision for the future, not because of misinformation spread by my opponent.
Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for your service.
Chris

Well said. The only thing worse than our Fred Flintstone Gov. is Jersey Shore.

But they really hate it when politicians claim to change the system, and then lie about it.
Exhibit A:
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/14/11690662-gov-christies-pension-issue-nj-probe-looks-at-running-mate-double-dipping

I would love to know who you have spoken to. Christie has done nothing yet in 2 and a half years in New Jersey. He just talks so much about everyone else, he has you believing that he is doing something. Unemployment is higher that anywhere and he uses every excuse in the book to travel out of the state. There is no way he could be a VP pick. That is on heartbeat away from President, not that Romney has a chance, but no one would want Christie in any higher position than he now holds.

That's an insult to Fred Flintstone. Stop picking on Gov. Ralph Cramden, Mr. Norton.

ralph Dehner - Then by all means go ahead and cut an extra check to the State of NJ since you seem to think you're not paying "your fair share" in taxes. I, on the otherhand, happen to think I pay plenty for the privilege of living in this state. To heck with taxing the wealthy. Instead, if we confiscate ALL the money of the billionaires and millionaires, we'll be able to run our state government for all of two weeks. Making someone else poorer does not make you richer. As far as Washington, DC is concerned, we have a HUGE national problem when every cent spent at the federal level in 2010 was borrowed. Try running a household on that new Math.

My correction, that was 2011 not 2010.

donna...every cent spent at the federal level in 2010 (or 2011 as per your correction) was borrowed? that is not even remotely close to anything that can be considered truth

Ninja - Since 2007, the feds have added more than $4 trillion in debt pushing our total borrowing to a record $36.5 trillion according to the Federal Reserve. Even with interest rates low, we continue to borrow on existing debt obligations (understand that interest on our debt compounds no differently than credit card debt). On 8/3/12, it was announced that the US Treasury borrowed another $238 billion to raise our total debt to MORE THAN 100% of GDP. In addition, as of 12/2011, foreign investors held more than 56.9% of our public debt. Cause for concern?!? I think so. Our problem is not that we do not pay enough in taxes. Our problem is that we spend too much. You can tax everybody at 90% of their income. Without self-control in spending exhibited on the federal level, we are in a lot of trouble. I won't even begin to mention the fact that we are nearing that precipice of having less than 50% of Americans working to support the other half of the nation that is not. Dangerous times, my friend.

once again Donna...facts....August 3, 2012 hasn't even happened yet, so this is not even real...the national debt is also $15.85 trillion as of June 2012, hardly the $36.5 trillion you are (if this was real, the entire global economy would be non-functioning and we would be amid perpetual anarchic chaos) and also not yet equivalent to US GDP...furthermore, the majority holder of debt of the US federal government is the american public, not quite the 56.9% of foreign debt holders...the percentage of foreign debt holders is actually closer to 11%...and i don't even know what you mean by 50%, unemployment is at 8% and while roughly 50% don't pay taxes, many of these people are filthy rich or are living in extreme poverty.....are you sure the US government needs to be in the business of putting people in poverty? you should check you sources of information before throwing this propaganda, doomsday laced tirade about how our country is falling off a cliff, no one needs to wake up but politicians need to start working together for real solutions instead of political pandering and both parties are equally guilty of this

It would be better for the middle class and the state debt to increase aid to municipalities for property tax relief.

Agreed, I think we should follow Christie's lead and steal from the 50 thousandaires and give it to the millionaires, so they can put their kids through college. I for one am sick and tired of seeing all these teachers ride around in their fancy Hyundais, with their fancy air conditioning, and their fancy windshields.

Brad - I agree with you in a certain mathematical respect. However, how much money should one be able to earn in a "free market economy?" Should one who takes monetary risks with grand ideas only be rewarded to a certain decimal point? If we indeed are prepared to set earning limits (which is indirectly accomplished by the policies of our current administration), then we're not much different than any run-of-the-mill socialist nation. Perhaps a flat tax is the most equitable option for all wage earners. It would certainly alleviate the need for the bureaucratic nightmare known as the IRS. Class warfare may make for great bumper stickers, but it truly is terribly unproductive. Lastly, I've NEVER been hired for a job by a poor or unemployed person. Those trailblazers in the business world create an awful lot of real, sustainable jobs. I'd much prefer leaving our economy in the hands of thousands of entrepreneurs, growing their businesses and hiring individuals than to the current crop of political animals using my tax dollars to promote their re-elections by catering to self-serving special interest groups.

Donna...we are on the same page. What those "tax 'the rich'" people fail to realize is that this is not a discussion of economics. In fact, if Congress imposed a 100% tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year (Obama's definition of 'rich') besides destroying the economy, it would keep the government running for 141 days. So it's really about 'fairness' then. Why should he make more than I do? In other words, entitlement. When I was a kid, I 'd see the occasional man in the Rolls drive by and my dad (who was by no means rich) would say: "That's Mr. S0-and-so. I admire him. He started his company from scratch and made something of himself." But today it seems that the emotion that the Obama campaign is trying to tap into is "Why the hell should So-and-so get that sweet car and not me? Let's tax the hell out of him!" Again, if it comes down to paying, as the President suggests, our "fair share" then what exactly is that? What methodology is used to determine that X% is 'fair' (which should also mean then that <X% is too little and >X% is too much). When someone can tell me in concrete terms what is my 'fair share' other than the classic Justice Potter Stewart pornography definition of "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it" then I will take this argument as a matter of policy more seriously. Until then it is classic divide-and-conquer politics based on empty rhetoric whose aim is not to better the USA but to get Mr. Obama re-elected no matter what. IMHO

ok donna again...let's argue with truth not fiction...setting earning caps (which are most certainly not the goal of our current administration as per action and fact and truth, not some propaganda laced news report) have absolutely nothing to do with socialism and any concept therein...in fact, we have successfully incorporated socialist principles into nearly every aspect of our public and private sector, including multi-billion dollar industries as well as all levels of government for hundreds of years

Ninja - Please then tell me my incentive to earn $250,000/year as opposed to $249,999.99? "Fair" is everyone having skin in the game and everyone feeling the pain. Again, what do you think an individual in a free market economy should be allowed to make and how does taking legally earned income from someone else improve your life? Let's not forget that the top 1% of wage earners in the US pay nearly 70% of the federal tax burden. That doesn't fly with my definition of "fair."

Reagan: TRIPLED the national debt
Bush: DOUBLED the national debt
Obama: increased the debt by 0.5 in response to being on the precipice of global economic collapse. Where were you guys then? Why do we only talk about DEBT when a Republican is not President?

Actually, the Republican National Committee pays for Christie's trips. Much like the DNC pays for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's travels on behalf of Pres. Obama.

I hope Christie does campaign for Romney it will get him out of NJ for awhile. He could torpedo Romney's chances.

Republicans started this "class warfare" nonsense and used buzz word scare tactics like "socialism" to avoid a debate they could not win. Just return to the Eisenhower tax brackets and in the long run more money will be pumped into the economy or get some guts and follow the Simpson-Bowles recommendations.

Joe R, The typical USA milionaire has an average household net worth of $3.7 million. A mere 6% of them have a net worth of over $10 million...these people skew the average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) US millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million. -- A far cry from your DNC cartoon robber baron $50millionaire eh? With that made clear, other than cliche sarcasm what is your point? Is it that millionaires should be taxed even more? And to pay for what exactly? FYI, federal, state, local, property, sales, etc. all these taxes add up to ~50% of my income. If that is not enough, then what percentage of one's income do you think constitutes a 'fair share' and by what methodology did you arrive at that figure? While you are figuring this out for me, I would like to leave you with this quote from Milton Friedman which aptly sums up a concept so utterly lost on wealth re-distributionists who self-righteously--and quite falsely if history is our guide--believe themselves more socially conscious than those of us who actually pay a good chunk of our incomes into the system to support your collapsing ponzi schemes--I mean social safety nets, sorry: “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both...In point of fact, you get greater equality of actual results by a system under which people are free to achieve unequal results.”

Please, please, please pick him Mittens. Anything to get him out of Jersey works for me.

Who would have thought back in 1992 when we all had "florio free in '93" bumper stickers on our cars that every single governor after him would actually be worse!!!??? Christie is the icing on the cake.

My property taxes went up 10%. Not useful.

Stop it, Brad. If you continue to offer such compelling and logical arguments to support your point of view you can expect no conversation here. Most choose only to deal with falsehood and innuendo. Can't you just agree to play by the rules? Then we can all get along.

Or how about taking a percentage of income over $110,000 which it does not do? How about incerasing payroll deductions? DUH!

Actually, I believe Obama is blaming all private sector Americans now.

O Gee we'll just expect the economy that Bush crashed, worse recession in history to be fixed overnight!

Dont waste your time Joe. The dude is a friedman kool aid drinker, who does not understand that ss is a progressive benefit formula akin to the graduated tax rate system. Facts only confuse these kind of people because they can not collate them with their agenda. He will be singing a very different tune about safety net programs when his medicare is footing the bills.

Well that's a bit forward of you. I'm flattered but I'm taken.

I fail to see the the link between my personal demographics and my views on the issue. Your posts display quite the double standard. You can quote statistics, but JoeR can't. You can refer to me as brain washed, but I can not use the cliche pejorative (fyi only one r) "kool-aid". If you want to debate on the blogs it's a two way street, wear your big boy pants. If you want to opine and not be challenged, save it for your subordinates.

Annual salary for a soldier in Afghanistan - $20,000. Plus a whopping $225 or so each month for hazard pay. You are getting quite the bang for your buck. Maybe in your neighborhood people collecting ss spend it on golf and cruises but in neighborhoods you would never venture into, they spend it on food. SS is their portfolio. Raising the ss cap to 150K or so, may cost me more on a personal level but I recognize the value of that haircut. The long term capital gains rate? a topic for another time.

Westfield Taxpayers, there are perhaps 1-2 "local" jobs created by Solberg Airport, except for the weekend of the balloon festival. Don't talk about something of which you know nothing.

Nothing like STEALING someone's land so you can enrich some guberment friends, through the magic of eminent domain, eh? Just another airport; who needs them anyway. What New Jersey needs are more condos and strip malls.