Wednesday, November 02, 2005


Democrat Jon Corzine, the favorite to win the New Jersey gubernatorial election, is in a dog fight with Republican upstart, Doug Forrester.

Even though New Jersey voters are fed up with corrupt Democrats, the New York Times is riding to the rescue as Jon Corzine's propaganda machine in order to boost his troubled campaign. On Wednesday, the paper gushed in a fawning headline that Corzine brings "Bold Ambitions, Rough Edges". (And don't forget the accompanying Clinton-esque statesmanlike photo)

Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs exec, was expected to sail into Trenton as the next governor of New Jersey. But a string of corruption scandals involving various Democratic politicians, former governor Jim McGreevey and even Corzine himself has turned off many New Jersey voters. Even though the Garden State is one of the more reliably liberal states a Republican challenger, Doug Forrester, is proving to be a formidable opponent for Corzine. The New York Times, worried about Corzine's chances, resorted to publishing a "puff piece" on the gazillionaire in Wednesday's edition in order to boost him in the polls. With just six days until the election Corzine needs all the help he can get.

Forrester has presented himself as a serious businessman who is turned off by the shenanigans that are sinking the state into debt and are smothering residents with onerous property taxes. Forrester is the same man who was the victim of an electoral hijacking in 2002 when Democrats yanked a free-falling Senator Torricelli in favor of a former senator, Frank Lautenberg. Lautenberg had retired from the august body a few years earlier but since Democrats were aware of imminent defeat they turned they democratic process on its head. What was particularly shameful was that the horse trade came just a few weeks before this race, the senate election, was to end. Most aspiring public servants would be demoralized by such a duplicitous ruse but Forrester was undaunted. Now, Forrester is inspired by New Jersey residents who are sick and tired of politics-as-usual Democratic trickery, and the Republican candidate for governor has echoed voters concerns in this important election.

Enter Corzine. While Forrester is a millionaire, Corzine has a seemingly bottomless pit of money to utilize in order to leave the fancy restaurants of Washington for the corrupted hallways of the New Jersey state legislature. Corzine not only carries a big wallet than does Forrester but enjoys a wider base of support as Democrats far outnumber Republicans in New Jersey.

A quick roundup of what Corzine has done recently:
1) Entered into a romantic relationship with union head Carla Katz, president of Communications Workers of America Local 1034 (which represents state workers), and then gave her a $450,000 loan that he forgave in entirety.
2) Paid money to black ministers in order to garner support.
3) Has doled out millions of dollars to state democratic bosses who operate the machinery of New Jersey politics

The New York Times did not paint an entirely rosy picture of Corzine as evidenced by quotes from his first wife whom he left after becoming senator:

"All day, people around him were telling him to do whatever he wants to do to get ahead, things that the Jon I've known since we were in high school would have never been comfortable with," she said. "And I think it's made him lose sight of anything but success, getting to where he wanted to get."
"When I saw the campaign ad where Andrea Forrester said, 'Doug never let his family down and he won't let New Jersey down,' all I could think was that Jon did let his family down, and he'll probably let New Jersey down, too," Ms. Corzine said.

Corzine does lead Forrester in the polls but Forrester has been bolstered by newspaper endorsements by the Bergen Record and Newark Star Ledger. Hopefully, the voters of New Jersey will conclude that Forrester is the best agent of change and is the real answer to fixing their state's numerous problems.

Corzine's Mix: Bold Ambitions, Rough Edges - New York Times

The Bergen Record's endorsement of Doug Forrester for New Jersey governor

The Newark Star Ledger: Doug Forrester for governor



Remember when a 1990s White House trashed a special prosecutor on a daily basis? My, how times have changed for the liberals

After the Paula Jones-Monica Lewinsky sleazefest embarrassed America the person who came off looking the worst was not the president who repeated lied under oath, to the media and to constiuents but the special prosecutor tasked with uncovering all the lies, Ken Starr. Bill Clinton's henchmen carried out a scorched-earth tactic that slimed opponents, poisoned Washington and raised the art of "spinning" average Americans to unseen heights.

Now, liberals praise the "boy scoutish" Patrick Fitzgerald while the Bush administration stays mum and lets the legal process run its course. National Review's Rich Lowry does a good job of contrasting the way Starr and Fitzgerald were and have been treated, respectively.

Fitzgerald has a black-and-white view of the world. So did Clinton-era independent counsel Ken Starr. Fitzgerald is, by all counts, personally upright. So is Starr. He takes lying under oath seriously. So did Starr. He is willing to pursue perjury allegations even when there is not an underlying crime. So was Starr. The difference is that Starr was arrayed against a White House that declared war on him, his staff and his investigation.

Fitzgerald and Starr aren’t exact duplicates. Fitzgerald is an experienced prosecutor. Starr wasn’t. But this actually worked in the Clinton White House’s favor, since a hard-bitten prosecutor treating the president like any other suspect — a prosecutor like “Fitzy” in other words — might have been more effective and ruthless. Fitzgerald’s prosecution has also been leak-proof. Starr’s wasn’t, although many of the leaks attributed to his office came from Clinton spinners seeking both to get out bad news early and to discredit Starr for leaking.

In contrast to Fitzgerald, Starr’s uprightness was used against him, to prove that he was a hopeless stiff. That he tried to engage in standard prosecutorial methods — like flipping low-level witnesses against their superiors, a favored Fitzgerald tactic that liberals hope he is attempting in this case — was taken as evidence of his extremism. He was accused of being “obsessed with sex,” when he had no say in whether Clinton decided to have sex with an intern and lie about it (surely, he would have advised against it). This would be like accusing Fitzgerald of being perversely “obsessed with secrecy,” since he is investigating the mishandling of classified material.

Click here for the rest of the article... Rich Lowry on Patrick Fitzgerald on National Review Online: FitzCult, a prosecutor’s fame


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?