|
|
|
The word on the street is that the gay marriage initiative in the New Jersey State House is in big trouble. Apparently, the Democrats can't get enough votes to pass it, even though outgoing Governor Jon Corzine is prepared to sign it. That's a shame, because tens of thousands of gay couples in New Jersey today continue to be treated as second class citizens.
For me, this is less a moral or religious issue and more one of practical legal rights. It's simple. There are so many rights that only married people have in New Jersey— and the vast majority of other states— that those who aren't married will never have. You can be married for five minutes and have each other's health care benefits— even if you don't like each other or know each other very well. Conversely, a same sex couple who has been together for 25 or 30 years will never get that right because you have to be married to have your spouse's health benefits.
In a hospital, certain rights having to do with end of life decisions and other tremendously sensitive and emotional decisions are only relegated to a spouse. The list goes on as to why gay marriage makes sense even if you're not a big fan of homosexuality. It doesn't really matter what you think about gays. What matters is that you believe in fairness and equal rights under the constitution.
Right now, were denying people their constitutional rights based solely on their sexual orientation. We're not talking about special rights, but rather legal rights. And, while we're at it, what is the impact legalizing gay marriage is supposed to have on traditional marriage? I mean, who really cares? If you're heterosexual, why should it be that important to you whether gay marriage is legalized or not? Gay marriage needs to be made law in New Jersey now because there is a narrow window of opportunity that won't exist in a couple of months.
Governor-elect Chris Christie is against gay marriage and is prepared to veto any legislation that could be passed in support of it. To Christie's credit, he has been consistent throughout this campaign. Jon Corzine supports gay marriage. This is it. This is the window. Wouldn't it be great to get this issue resolved in the so called "lame duck" session of the legislature? So, our new governor and the Democratic controlled legislature can focus on more pressing economic, fiscal, and employment related issues. The time is now. The rationale is clear. Gay marriage should be a no brainer. We'll see what happens.
Let me know what you think. Write to me at SAdubato@aol.com.
The nation's eyes were on New Jersey Tuesday night, and New Jersey didn't disappoint. In a shocking victory, former US Attorney Chris Christie beat the odds, as well as a $30 million plus campaign from Governor Jon Corzine, and a nonstop series of visits from President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, former President Bill Clinton and every other Democratic luminary under the sun.
Christie didn't run a picture perfect campaign, yet he stuck to his guns and simply made the case, as he said toward the end of the campaign, "I can't do any worse" than Jon Corzine. Most voters bought that argument. Governor Corzine had become extremely unpopular. It didn't matter how many times President Obama came in to rally the Democratic troops and get massive media attention to Governor Corzine. It didn't matter how much of Corzine's personal fortune he was willing to spend (a combined total of $125 million from one US Senate race and two gubernatorial races) on destroying Chris Christie's reputation. There was no way Jon Corzine was going to win this race.
It didn't even matter that the Democrats got embarrassed in the last few days of this race when they got caught sending so-called "robocalls" promoting the candidacy of Independent candidate Chris Daggett, who in effect was simply drawing votes away from Chris Christie. In the end, Daggett wasn't a factor at all. He only got six percent of the vote, nowhere near the 15 to 20 percent some pollsters were projecting.
Most people didn't want to waste their vote on a guy who couldn't win, and instead opted to vote for Christie because they just wanted to get rid of Corzine. Don't get me wrong, I've always thought of Corzine as a decent guy with a good heart, but he let his campaign run out of control. There was probably nothing he could have done to save his political hide and win this race, but he never should have allowed his campaign handlers to run that absurdly offensive ad about Chris Christie "throwing his weight around."
How lame is it when nearly 10 percent of the people in our state are unemployed, property taxes are the highest in the nation, and we have an $8 billion budget gap, that the governor's campaign decides the biggest issue they can hit Christie on is that he is overweight, and then not even own up to the fact that they did it? It was a disgrace and frankly beneath Jon Corzine.
Sure, Chris Christie is going to have to come up with more specifics in a hurry as to how he is going to close this massive budget deficit, increase the property tax rebate, cut the size of state government, etc. But, most New Jerseyans were willing to take a shot with him. They were willing to believe that his aggressive personality and style would be better for the state than Corzine's more laid back and hands-off approach. Simply put, Corzine being a nice guy was nice, but wasn't nearly enough to deal with the serious problems in our state.
As governor, Corzine needed to take a harder line. He needed to kick some butt in the state legislature when they wouldn't move on his top agenda items. In the campaign, he needed to be a more persuasive communicator. He needed to talk directly to people in simple clear language about just exactly how bad the situation was and what he was going to do about it. That was the only type of campaign that could have won. But instead, he opted—based on cynical so-called political conventional wisdom—that he had to destroy Christie and his reputation in order to win re-election. That was not to the governor's credit.
By saying Christie was corrupt, couldn't be trusted, was a clone of George Bush, gave away no bid contracts to friends and, of course, was overweight, it only pointed to how out of touch the governor was to what voters really wanted to hear; "What was Jon Corzine going to do in the next four years to improve the economic situation in our state?"
He refused to do it, and he paid dearly. As for Christie, like I said, he made mistakes in this campaign (first time candidates will do that), but I've know him for a long time and he is the kind of person who learns from those mistakes. He will be open to criticism and feedback. But most of all, Christie is a "Jersey guy" who is tough and rough and will hopefully be willing to engage New Jersey voters in a more direct and candid fashion. I enjoy interviewing Chris Christie because he gives as good as he takes. He enjoys a spirited and healthy debate.
As governor, hopefully he will tell us what our problems are and what he believes needs to be done to move forward. Sure, he needs to listen, but he also needs to set a clear course and stick to it. That's what he did in the campaign despite all the criticism he received. (Including at times from this commentator.) I'm hopeful that is the kind of governor Christie will be in these most difficult times in the Garden State.
Write to me at sadubato@aol.com with what you think is the number one issue or challenge Chris Christie should take on as governor and why.
New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie is a big guy. In fact, by his own admission, he has struggled with weight his entire life. The question is, should Chris Christie's weight matter in the largely contested race for governor in New Jersey? Let's face it; we all have biases, prejudices and issues with different people for different reasons. And when it comes to those who are overweight or bordering on obese, things get even more complex.
Voters will decide whether Christie being heavy is significant enough to influence their vote on November 3, particularly in a state where the unemployment rate is at nearly 10 percent; we have the highest property taxes in the nation; and the budget deficit stands at a whopping $8 billion.
Beyond all this, what really bothers me is that the Democrats aren't being up front about the fact that they are trying to use Christie's weight against him. A couple weeks ago the Corzine campaign came out with a spot talking about Chris Christie's driving record and the allegation that he got out of a ticket by "throwing his weight around" as New Jersey's US Attorney. Right after that language was used in the commercial, there was a shot of Christie getting out of a car. He looked big to say the least.
Governor Jon Corzine insists that the language and the Christie visual were just a coincidence and his campaign would in no way make reference to Chris Christie's weight. But get this. Just a few days ago, Democratic State Chairman Joe Cryan said at a Corzine rally; "What would it feel like if the next governor weighs 350 pounds?" Hmm. Not using Chris Christie's weight as an issue? Really? We are talking about the Democratic State Chairman at a Jon Corzine rally. Not a single Democrat chastised, questioned or took on Joe Cryan for his crude and totally inappropriate comments.
I say, if you are going to score cheap points by making reference to Chris Christie being overweight, then OWN it. Stand by it. Be accountable for it. Don't let surrogates take the cheap shots and you try to stay above the fray. The governor is better than that. I've always thought him to be a decent guy. That's why he should rebuke the Democratic state chairman immediately and make it crystal clear to everyone associated with him that any reference to Chris Christie's weight should be off limits in this campaign. Anything less demeans the governor, the state and this already pretty demeaning campaign.
New Jersey's problems are too serious for us to have another diversion, be it about weight, loans to ex-girlfriends or former employees, driving records or whatever else doesn't deal directly with the massive fiscal hole the Garden State finds itself in.
So the first gubernatorial debate in New Jersey is over and what have we learned from it? Most significantly, Democrat Jon Corzine is thrilled that Independent Chris Daggett is in the race. Daggett and Corzine look like they were in a WWE tag team handicap match against Republican Chris Christie.
Corzine and Daggett took turns letting everyone know that Christie has no plan to solve New Jersey's fiscal problems, which amount to an over $8 million budget deficit and counting. We also learned that Christie is not moving off the dime and insists that it makes no sense for him to offer specific proposals on the budget because he isn't governor yet. But what's ironic is that while all of us, including me, are frustrated by Christie's lack of specificity on the budget, he's actually right. Saying what you would do in detail as governor is easy but, in many ways, it's irresponsible.
Consider that four years ago Jon Corzine specifically promised to increase property tax rebates by 40%...How's that going? Further, Daggett talks about cutting property taxes by 25%. But how exactly would a governor do that since property taxes are established by local elected officials? I didn't hear Daggett say that he would mandate forced consolidation of services for local municipalities.
Daggett was clearly the funniest and most entertaining of the three, and the Governor was adequate enough. As for Christie, he was the most forceful and dominant, but not necessarily the most appealing. In person, Christie is engaging, an easy conversationalist, and quite funny. But in this debate, and on the campaign trail, that part of his personality hasn't shown.
Why does all this matter? Because in the end, beyond voting for someone who can get state government under control and at least stabilize our ever-increasing taxes, we want to feel comfortable watching this person, on television, as governor. Simply put, we have to like the guy. And while Christie is very likable in person, not a whole lot of that has come across to date, and that's a problem…Potentially a big problem.
New York Governor David Paterson has lost it. He must have decided that his political career is over and it really doesn't matter what he says anymore. After screwing up the Caroline Kennedy situation, naming a US Senator in Kirsten Gillibrand that came out of nowhere, giving big raises to his closest staff members during a hiring freeze in state government, and making countless bonehead mistakes, Paterson now says that he is just a victim of race. More specifically, Paterson went on Daily News columnist Errol Louis' WWRL radio show this past week to say that his problems pretty much stem from a racist media who is out to get him. Further, he said that President Barack Obama could be next as a target of the white-dominated media looking to make prominent black politicians look bad. What a joke.
David Paterson ought to be ashamed of himself. His 30 percent approval rating among voters has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the fact that he has been an abysmal leader in Albany. The audacity of Paterson to play the "race" card while Governors across this country are getting brutalized by both the media and voters shows how out of touch he really is.
It's really about race, Governor Paterson? Tell that to your colleague across the river, Jon Corzine, who has been getting blasted since the day he took office for everything, from New Jersey's high unemployment rate to his e-mails and big-time money paid out to his former girlfriend and labor leader Carla Katz.
Race, really Governor? Tell that to Arnold Schwarzenegger out in California, whose state is running out of money. The Terminator has had no defense against the onslaught of media criticism.
But the list goes on. When Eliot Spitzer imploded, was that about race, or about the fact that he is an idiot and a hypocrite?
Simply put, David Paterson's problems are about politics— plain and simple. Democrats don't want him, because in 2010 they are fearful of him leading the ticket while two Democratic US Senators are on the ballot and the entire state Senate is up for re-election. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the fact that the Dems don't want to take a beating next year.
Later on, Paterson tried to say that his comments had nothing to do with race. Baloney. It was too late then. He said what he was really feeling. He played the victim. He cried the blues. He blamed everyone else but himself. Far be it for me to quote the late Michael Jackson when it comes to political matters, but he got it right when he said you need to "start with the man in the mirror". That's what David Paterson should do, instead of blaming everyone else and playing the race card just because he had no cards left in the deck.
Let's just move on and hope that Paterson steps aside and the "accidental" Governor can allow others who are more serious and willing to be accountable for their actions to take the lead in Albany. I'm counting the days.
Aren't you?
There's a raging debate and controversy regarding a series of town meetings across the country dealing with the health care issue. Countless members of Congress, more specifically Democratic members of Congress, are having nightmares over dealing with angry tax payers and constituents doing everything they can to embarrass politicians who dare to consider supporting Barack Obama's health care reform efforts.
Some of these constituents are genuinely concerned about the government playing too strong a role in doling out health care. They are worried about rationing. They are worried about so-called "death panels" whom they think decides who lives and who dies (thank Sarah Palin for that gem). However, there's also no doubt that many protestors are active members of the Republican party who have no interest in debate or discussion over 40 million Americans who don't have healthcare. Apparently, they want the status quo to rule the day, even though everyone knows this is clearly not an option.
How can such a rich country have so many people without healthcare? Many of the people we're talking about work, but can't afford health insurance. It's unconsciousable that we have not dealt successfully with this problem. In fact, it's been getting worse decade after decade. Yet, none of the compelling arguments for reforming health care is going to quiet the angry crowds, largely because what many on the right really want is to blow this whole thing up. They don't want town hall meetings. What they really want is to end the discussion. They want Obama to go away. They want to act like he's really not the President, because many of them think he's not even an American citizen. These folks won't listen, they won't engage, and they definitely don't have an open mind.
However, they are there, and they must be dealt with. You can't simply say they are crazies who should just be ignored, because they aren't going away. My advice to Democratic members of Congress is to deal with it head on. Don't scream, don't yell, but don't take any crap. Elected officials are not punching bags to be abused by people who are looking to shoot them down or even potentially physically assault them. What Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter faced in Pennsylvania wasn't "democracy in action", it was an out-of-control mob that had no respect for Specter's position as a US Senator, and more importantly, no respect for reasoned discourse.
Democratic members in Congress need to make a clearer, more concise and compelling argument as to why they are doing this. They need to demand that everyone at these town hall meetings be respectful of each other. Right now, they are being embarrassed, mostly because they don't know how to handle hecklers and angry citizens. But never confuse what's going on at these town meetings, because as I said the status quo with having tens of millions without health insurance isn't even remotely acceptable.
What is especially galling about the New Jersey political corruption scandal is that the elected and appointed officials who got nabbed in this FBI sting— allegedly taking cash in envelopes in return for special treatment and favors— is that it was all so predictable.
It was predictable because former US Attorney Chris Christie, who is the Republican candidate for governor and New Jersey's leading crime fighter, told municipal officials just two years ago at an Atlantic City convention that if someone offered you money in an envelope, and it was not your mother, it was probably the FBI. Amazingly, many of the municipal officials who got snared allegedly taking the money on video and audiotape were in the audience when Christie delivered his unequivocal warning.
Are New Jersey politicians more corrupt than those in other states? I don't buy it; there's just a culture here that exudes corruption. It's called "home rule". We have 611 school districts, 566 municipalities, county government, water commissions, zoning boards, planning boards, not to mention a state bureaucracy. You are talking about tens of thousands of elected or appointed officials from every level of government, all of whom have the ability to grease the wheels of the process. Some get paid very little, while others don't get paid at all. They are "volunteers." What they DO have is the power and the ability to move the governmental process along for a "price."
According to sources in the US Attorney's office, it was easy. It was predictable. So what's the answer? Of course we have to attract better and more honest people into government. But the other thing we need to do is mandate and enforce smaller municipal governments to merge into larger ones. We need to cut the number of elected and appointed officials in the next year. There are just too many of them. Too many "opportunities" and not enough oversight. It just doesn't make sense to have so many governmental jurisdictions, and until New Jersey voters and those who make the laws in the state deal with this problem head on, New Jersey will continue to be ripe for corruption.
Getting rid of home rule won't solve the corruption problem, but no one thing will. Yet, taking this action will be a major step in restoring some sanity in how New Jersey governs itself.
What do you think? Write to me at SAdubato@aol.com.
Clearly, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is going to be confirmed for the US Supreme Court. Even the Republicans, who have serious reservations about her, are extremely reluctant to be overly aggressive in their challenging and questioning of her. Support in the Hispanic community for Sotomayor is rock solid given that she will likely become the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. We're talking about big-time ethnic pride here, which has the potential to translate into big-time Hispanic voter blocks in upcoming elections. Senators and House Members in states like Nevada, Arizona, and Florida are not anxious to get Hispanics upset by being too aggressive with Judge Sotomayor.
However, even though she's going to be approved, she should be pressed hard, particularly about her off-the-wall comments about a "wise" Latina making better decisions on the Supreme Court than a white male. Who says that kind of thing, especially in public? I still haven't heard a reasonable explanation for any of it, and she owes the Senate and the American public a lot more on this subject. Further, her decision to knock down a lawsuit brought by white firefighters in New Haven, CT after an absolutely legitimate and credible firefighter test was thrown out because no blacks and only a few Hispanics actually passed it needs to be seriously examined.
The US Supreme Court made it clear recently that they disagreed with Sotomayor's decision. There was no reason to throw out that test in this case. Firefighters should be hired based on one set of criteria, which includes uniform qualifications and how they perform on standardized tests. Barack Obama didn't become President by throwing out certain elections and skewing the results because he's an African American. He won on merit; he won on the numbers. The same thing should be true about firefighters in New Haven, in New York and in New Jersey.
I just don't understand why Sonia Sotomayor doesn't get that. Her decision had nothing to do with ethnic pride and everything to do with an outdated and seriously polarizing approach to affirmative action in racial and ethnic quotas.
Is she qualified to be in the US Senate? Probably. But that doesn't mean she can't answer direct questions about some very controversial and questionable things she has said and done as a judge. Isn't that what this confirmation process is supposed to be all about?
