good question.
I swear, just about every news account has mentioned that he was on his way to the Don Imus-Rutgers meeting. Is it really that important where he was going? Is it just another attempt to make the public aware that as a good Democrat, the governor was rushing to weigh in on that important issue?
Is it really important that he had to make a political statement about Don Imus? Isn’t it more important that he was badly injured, but that he will apparently recover?
It IS important where he was going, because it was not an emergency, and thus there was no excuse for going 91 mph. It shows, perhaps unwittingly, how Corzine (and dems in general) think they are better than everyone else, and above the law.
I've always taken it to mean that he had his driver speed, putting his own life and the lives of everyone else on the road at risk, for a trivial piece of political grandstanding. Mentioning Imus is a smackdown for the governor, not an excuse.
Is the problem with the mainstream media really that it provides too much background? That it doesn't cut out enough context? And it is a mighty stretch to read a partisan motive into a one-sentence statement of fact.
Is it really important that he had to make a political statement about Don Imus? Isn’t it more important that he was badly injured, but that he will apparently recover?
His recover is more important than the fact that he was doind to meet with Imus. That's why Imus doesn't appear until the sixth paragraph out of seven.