Subscribe via RSS Feed

New Jersey

[ 59 ] February 4, 2013 |

If you haven’t read this piece on how the New Jersey Democratic Party’s commitment to big money over popular support helped create the Chris Christie phenomenon that could have major implications for Democratic control over the state legislature in upcoming elections and allow all sorts of bad policies to pass, do so.

In other words, maybe nominating wealthy capitalists like Jon Corzine instead of politicians with actual connections to the New Jersey people might not be such a good idea.


Comments (59)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. GC says:

    Doesn’t this article leave out the fairly large black swan event of Corzine’s car accident?

    • Erik Loomis says:

      I don’t know that it matters much for the larger issue.

      • GC says:

        In terms of not promoting rich scumbags to higher office, sure, don’t do it. But Corzine’s governorship was totally destroyed by the accident and his long convalescence — leaving that event out skews the case against Corzine unfairly. If the accident had never happened he could have worked the Assembly, gotten stuff done, etc; he wouldn’t look nearly so terrible. Or so I’ve gathered from my family members still living in Jersey.

    • Colin Day says:

      It might have helped had Corzine deigned to wear a seat belt. Was he too high and mighty to use it?

  2. shah8 says:

    Have you forgotten Torricelli?

    New Jersey typically sends mostly creeps or gentry to office.

  3. Winchester says:

    wealthy capitalists like Jon Corzine

    Corzine is no capitalist; he’s a moral degenerate who’s basically a sociopath and a psychopath. Meaning he doesn’t feel any sympathy or empathy for other human being.

    Corzine went into MF Global after losing to Christie looking to rape that company for his own good. He has stolen in excess of a billion dollars. Why did he do it? Is he stupid? Well, of course he’s not stupid. Corzine is a former head of Goldman Sachs; he doesn’t have a low IQ. Why in the world would a man like Corzine wake up in the morning one day and say “you know what, I think I am going to steal all the customer segregated funds in this FCM/BD that I’m running.”

    MF Global was the biggest FCM in the USA.

    Why would a man like that even engage in an evil plot like this? Because he knew going into it he could get away with it. And the reason he could get away with it is he is in tight with the Obama regime. He is one of Obama’s highest fundraisers.

    Corzine does not give a crap about anyone or anything except himself, his own personal wealth and his own personal power.

    And he’s deeply tied into the Obama regime.

    The US is no longer a nation of laws; it’s now a nation of men.

    That’s why Corzine is still a free man today. He is a crony of the regime, not a capitalist.

    • DrDick says:

      The state hospital gave you back your internet privileges did they? Better behave better than this or they will put you back in the padded cell.

      • Johnny Sack says:

        I mean, it might sound a little hyperbolic and conspiratorial towards the end, but nothing he said about Corzine is wrong.

        • Djur says:

          Except for Corzine being no capitalist. He’s an exemplary capitalist, except that he made the crucial error of stealing from his fellow thieves.

          • wengler says:

            He used his capital to convince people to give their capital to him.

            Twas no error. He is a saint in the Church of Capitalism.

          • Winchester says:

            Corzine stole from ranchers hedging their cattle on the Futures markets, and farmers hedging their grains.

            • DrDick says:

              A successful capitalist is always a thief. Get a clue.

              • Winchester says:

                Wow. So you are a socialist indeed. Pfft.

                • DrDick says:

                  You, on the other hand, are a Chritofascist loon. Now go crawl back under your rock and put your hair shirt back on.

                • Cody says:

                  At least you’re honest.

                  You don’t say “capitalism isn’t about stealing from the poor”, you say “You’re a socialist!”

                  I’m glad you accept what our current economic system is. Now if you would just accept that this is a good reason not to worship the rich…

              • Winchester says:

                “For the poor you have always with you.”
                — Jesus Christ

                Does He mean, “Forget the poor! Live it up!” Nope. He is saying that in all free societies, wealth will always unfold within a SPECTRUM.

                A poor person in the USA has a standard of living that would be considered luxurious in India. The notions of “wealth” and “poverty” exist within a SPECTRUM.

                Jesus is saying that that spectrum will always exist.

                There’ll always be a top-end, and there’ll always be a bottom-end.

                In some nations, that spectrum is very, very broad and reaches very, very far down into poverty. There are billionaires in India, and there are people starving in the gutters in rags.

                In the U.S., we have a wealth spectrum, but the low-end is WAY HIGHER and the spectrum is much narrower.

                Someone is always going to have more money and assets than somebody else.

                It’s impossible to have a free society wherein every person has the same level of wealth. Someone has to be the business OWNER, and someone has to be the EMPLOYEE. Someone has to be the wage PAYER and someone has to be the wage EARNER. If everyone in a culture was economically equal at all times, there would be zero employment because no one would work for anyone except themselves.

                Free-market capitalist societies are the closest humanity has ever been to the ideal: a healthy wealth spectrum that’s moving higher through growth and technological advancements and innovations, and that’s open-ended on the top side, but has an intrinsic ethics such that the top-end of the wealth spectrum makes certain that the bottom end advances apace and that the spectrum maintains its proportional width — or even narrows a bit, via charity AND through a lawful society that allows for movement both up AND down the spectrum.

                Trapping people on the low-end is equally as evil as the patrician upper-classes who think themselves immune from morality, the rule of law or personal responsibility.

                • wengler says:

                  Charity is not now nor ever has been a path for people to gain prosperity. Much the opposite in fact, as it establishes patron-client relationships and aggrandizes a very narrow spectrum of society.

                  It’s impossible to have a free society wherein every person has the same level of wealth.

                  This is simply an untrue statement. Humans used to all exist in societies where everyone was on the same level of wealth. It was until agricultural societies developed that wealth started to be concentrated.

                  I’m unsure what your concept of ‘free’ is, but quite the opposite of what you said is true. It’s impossible to be a free society with concentrations of wealth for very obvious reasons.

                  You really need to start read something other than Glenn Beck.

                • Ramon A. Clef says:

                  You could not be more wrong about the meaning of that quotation. Jesus was not shrugging his shoulders and saying, “Poor people, what are ya gonna do?”

                • DrDick says:

                  Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef proclaimed that you must sell all you own and give it to the poor (all the poor, not just the “deserving” poor) to follow him. He also commanded all his followers to live modestly and hold all their possessions in common. You will be on the left hand of the Lord come Judgment Day (Matthew 41-46).

                • efgoldman says:

                  There aren’t enough pancakes on the East Coast.

            • Erik Loomis says:

              Note: you would be totally fine with this if it was a Republican.

              • Winchester says:

                No I would not. Unlike you, I’m not a partisan hack.

                • Erik Loomis says:

                  Outstanding. I look forward to your vigorous criticisms of how various Republican politicians make their money.

                • Winchester says:

                  When there’s no active markets on, I don’t follow electoral politics much.


                  Partisanship is a willful delusion; it’s the effect of a sophomoric dynamic that’s probably a direct byproduct of the sports culture.
                  Saying “I’m a Bruins fan” is the same thing mentally as saying “I’m a Republican”, “I’m a Democrat”.

                  Go Team !!

                  Rah-rah Obama !! Rah-rah Ryan !!

                  This is a twisted gang mentality, providing — I’m guessing — a substitute virility so that all of the low-IQ, castrated men have an outlet for what remaining vestiges of virility they harbor.


                  Thing is, partisans of both sides are blinded: the Republic is DEAD, or as Brian Massumi put it:

                  Exceptions to the rule are becoming integrated into the rules. Legal outs into extra-legal actions are being written into the law. Holes for arbitrarily decided preemptive action are being sewn into the fabric of our institutions. The exception to the rule is becoming the rule.

                • DrDick says:

                  True, a partisan hack would be a major upgrade. You are a far right Christian Dominionist moronic loon and a threat to civilization.

                • Hogan says:

                  Maybe you can point us to your jeremiads and philippics about Romney last year.

    • Djur says:

      “Corzine is no capitalist; he’s a moral degenerate who’s basically a sociopath and a psychopath.”

      First you say he’s no capitalist, and then you say he’s a capitalist. I’m confused.

    • Linnaeus says:

      You know, my cousin Angus said that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge…

    • Murc says:

      Corzine is no capitalist; he’s a moral degenerate who’s basically a sociopath and a psychopath. Meaning he doesn’t feel any sympathy or empathy for other human being.

      Being a sociopath isn’t a requirement to be a capitalist, but it sure does seem to help. And libertarians tell me that sympathy and empathy and altruism are the antithesis of capitalism and free markets.

      • wengler says:

        It’s against the law for our corporate citizens to not be sociopaths. Any contribution to society not designed to improve the bottom line would be a dereliction of duty to the shareholder.

    • socraticsilence says:

      “Obama Regime” – explain to me please how a democratically elected constitutionally bound government constitutes a regime in this case- I mean if you wanted to argue that Bush’s first term was a regime- I’d say you were going to far despite its excesses and its essentially appointed nature but at least you’d have a case, Obama is if anything too deferential to congress in many cases.

  4. TT says:

    I would think that most Democratic politicians in the NY/NJ area who are on the up and up face enormous pressure to cater to the whims of the financial services industry and the media complex (often one and the same) for purposes of fundraising, exposure, etc. But the problems of relying on plutocracy for money and political talent generally run a lot deeper than that; recall DSCC head Bob Kerrey’s brilliant idea to recruit hordes of millionaires which led to decisive Democratic gains in ’96. Oh, wait….

  5. DrDick says:

    In many ways this is just the story of the whole Democratic Party over the past 35-40 years, abandoning the people to chase the dollars.

  6. Western Dave says:

    A couple things that the article hinted at but undersold. One, the money-machine alliance. Corzine’s money backing the goo-goos as opposed to the machines = no Christie. The biggest problem facing NJ is deficits tied to pension funds corrupted by double and triple dippers (mostly party hacks, not teachers). Christie’s coup has been to target teachers publicly while cracking down on the multiple office holding corruption. If he can convince Repugs in NJ to do the same and stay off the social issues and not dip into the cookie jar too much, they’ll keep NJ for twenty years. Two, NJ dems simply don’t have a deep bench. The more I look at Cory Booker the less I like him. And there’s nobody outside of Codey who looks decent and Codey might be DOA unless he finds some white knight money somewhere. It’s the same in Philly. We got Nutter as mayor but he didn’t carry a reform council with him, so he’s done little and the folks in the wings are all kinds of suckage.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Booker is the ultimate self-promoting empty suit. I have no real love for Lautenberg, but Booker will beat him in 14 and then we can all look forward to a lot of centrist posturing from Booker in the Senate with the possible presidential run in 20 or 24.

      • JKTHs says:

        The concern trolling Dems shall rise again!

      • wengler says:

        I am skeptical about Booker, but it would be interesting to see on a larger stage. I can certainly think of better ways to pad a political resume than being mayor of Newark, despite the obvious glowing support of his friends in national media and politics.

      • Jordan says:

        I keep hearing this, but it seems quite wrong and pushed by people who aren’t from New Jersey and probably just get the random national headline. Booker is certainly self-promoting. But an empty suit? A centrist posturing type? Neither of those things seem remotely true. So, citation please.

        • Western Dave says:

          He’s done a lot of his reform in Newark by setting up foundations that get money from folks like Zuckerberg (see also: charter schools). It’s fine as a short term solution but I haven’t seen long term solution stuff, except in housing where his record is quite strong. Getting rid of background checks for city jobs was also nice but these are both first term stuff. What are the major second term accomplishments?

          • elm says:

            He increased the size of the city government and gave raises to all city workers except those making more than $100,000, both at a time when stimulus was needed but most state and local governments were downsizing, furloughing workers, cutting salary, etc.

            He’s certainly a grand-stander, he said some mealy-mouthed things on Meet the Press once, and he flirts with school reform more than one would like (though he hasn’t implemented any of the Rhee policies as far as know except to increase charter schools, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing), but I don’t quite get the certainty that Erik and others have that he’s some sort of Joe Lieberman or Andrew Cuomo waiting to happen.

    • mpowell says:

      This is one of the major downsides of having only one reasonable national party. It gives more free reign to the Democratic party to be ever more corrupt with little opportunity for voters to address the situation.

  7. curiouscliche says:

    Norcross and Adubato (and Sweeney) are everything that is wrong with everything.

  8. Ed K says:

    It’s essentially impossible to overstate how completely the power-players within the NJ Democratic party are in bed with any corporate entity that gives them a wink and a smile.

    Sweeney is…really…difficult to swallow as a Democrat, as anything, really, other than a complete pig. And I really have yet to hear about a state level Dem in NJ that doesn’t inspire a similar response.

    It’s a bad, bad scene.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.