Bob SparksJudging by the furor and hyperbole over two recent events, it is safe to conclude that the 2016 campaign for the White House is unofficially on.
As of this moment, polls indicate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are the front-runners for their respective parties. Guess who is the focus of attention for their respective opponents?
Almost anyone turning on a television knows the Christie story. Some within his administration thought it would be a good idea to create a monster traffic jam in Fort Lee, N.J. leading to the George Washington Bridge. They thought the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee should pay a price for not endorsing the Republican Christie for re-election in 2013.
Fewer know about the issue involving Clinton because the coverage of the entire Benghazi episode has been sporadic at best. Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report on the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other Americans.
The Committee, under Chair Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., stated that the attacks were preventable and the State Department provided inadequate security. The report represented a bi-partisan assessment of what really happened, although Clinton was not mentioned once.
The approaches taken by Clinton and Christie draw sharp contrasts. Christie originally hee-hawed the original reports about his administration’s responsibility for creating the gridlock. When emails led reporters directly to the Governor’s Office, he knew action was required.
On Jan. 9, Christie went before the media as a different man. Known for his, shall we say, confidence, Christie was humble and contrite. He apologized for what happened and either fired or demoted those found to be directly responsible.
The words “sad” and “brokenhearted” were part of Christie’s two-hour mea culpa. He was “embarrassed and humiliated.” He used the magic words: “the buck stops here.” He took full responsibility.
Clinton’s response to the Senate Intelligence report was radio silence. Team Clinton obviously felt there was nothing to gain.
There was no “mistakes were made,” nor “I am sorry,” nor — and this is the key — “while I was not informed of the gravity of the security situation, this happened on my watch and I take responsibility.”
In Christie’s case, people were fired. In Clinton’s case, those involved with security or public information either kept their jobs or were promoted (see “Nuland, Victoria”).
In Christie’s case, he took responsibility for his administration. Clinton’s silence left some of the spinners to blame Stevens for not accepting the offer from the Pentagon for extra security. The Department of State, not the Pentagon, is responsible for diplomatic security by the way.
History shows that taking responsibility is not only the right thing to do, it is politically smart. When the Bay of Pigs turned into a fiasco in 1961, President John F. Kennedy took the blame and re-arranged his staff. He was forgiven and also more prepared for the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
President Ronald Reagan had a similar moment with the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987. Faced with the facts that his administration was deeply involved in improper activity, he took the Christie approach. He took “full responsibility for my own actions and those of my administration… This happened on my watch.” He was forgiven and remains an icon along with Kennedy.
In 1993, federal agents stormed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, resulting in numerous casualties. Attorney General Janet Reno stepped forward to take responsibility, since President Bill Clinton did not.
A May 16, 1993 story in the Los Angeles Times concluded Reno “has emerged as a folk hero” with her stock soaring “as a result of her refreshing ‘buck stops here’ attitude.”
Let’s be real. Those in high elected or appointed office can take responsibility, but they want no personal consequences to fall upon them. The American public is generally forgiving or they move on, with the exception of political partisans.
This is why Christie will survive his “crisis” and remain a viable candidate unless, as many have said, new information surfaces that takes “Bridgegate” directly into his office. His “take charge” moment means fewer opportunities for political attack ads on this issue.
Clinton, on the other hand, will have to endure countless ads of her as a witness before the Senate. Dressed in the bright green suit, she will answer the question about how four Americans died in Benghazi on her watch by yelling “what difference does it make?”
Christie is still toxic judging by the lack of pictures seen with him and Gov. Rick Scott during Christie’s recent fund-raising swing through Florida. We will see if his approach gets him to the primary season.
