Sunday, October 18, 2009

Constitution Party making push in the South…

Members of the Constitution Party are trying to get at least 85,000 signatures so their party can be recognized on North Carlolina’s ballot.

Rachel Gallaher writes on the Constitution Party wants to get on the ballot by 2012. Gallaher writes the Constitution Party’s efforts to get signatures is not focusing on new members just getting people that want to see a new organization.


Another Newspaper endorsement of Corzine with more negatives than positives…

Another Newspaper endorses Democratic Incumber Governor Jon Corzine with more negatives than positives as the Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board backs the Democrat.

The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board’s backing of Governor Corzine is weak, but it much better than the embarrassing endorsement made by the New York Times that The Thirds also wrote about.

The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board pines for what they would call a better candidate. The board writes, “neither [challenger] has made a convincing case that he would do a better job in Trenton… (with) the weak alternatives, The Inquirer endorses JON CORZINE.

The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board seems to be impressed with Chris Daggett’s bold property tax plan. They wrote, “(Daggett’s) idea is much closer to what’s needed on the issue than the failed rebate program his opponents have embraced.” After his tax plan The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board questions Daggett saying his platform is “sketchy”. They also question what Daggett will do in office writing, “(Daggett) relies heavily on his status as an independent who can ‘bring people together’ — which sounds good, but could mean almost anything.”

It was obvious The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board considered Daggett more than the Republican Chris Christie. They described Christie, “dodging fundamental policy questions, he asked to be exempted from the basic rules of seeking public office… Christie still relies too heavily on Corzine’s unpopularity while spouting vague promises to cut taxes and spending.”

But the endorsement of Democratic Incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was anything but full-throated. A long list of negatives listed by The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board include: “Corzine has sometimes seemed timid about shaking up the statehouse… (Corzine took a) principled stand for funding pension obligations, only to have to retreat from it… (Corzine) put forward but abandoned a controversial proposal to retire state debt… (Corzine) often seemed too cozy with labor… (Corzine) managed only to significantly slow the growth of property taxes, not reduce them.

The newspaper editorial board basically wrote with a state so corrupt and party-bosses being so powerful Corzine’s failures are not that bad. The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board wrote, “Some of Corzine’s imperfect victories are nevertheless remarkable for a New Jersey governor — and hard to imagine under the state’s usual government by insiders.” With a comment like that, is the need for an Independent Governor is more than ever? The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board apparently does not think so.


New York Times “endorses” Corzine for re-election, ignores Daggett…

The New York Times “endorses” Democratic Governor Jon Corzine for re-election. In an editorial that could only be described as less-than inspired the New York Times comes to a loose defense of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.

In the short six-paragraph endorsement The New York Times Editorial Board only mentioned Independent Gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett in one. The paragraph focusing on Daggett calls him “engaging” and saying his “contribution to this campaign has been his thought-provoking ideas about cutting property taxes”. Beyond that The New York Times editorial board could not come-up with a reason to vote for or against Daggett.

The paragraph The New York Times Editorial Board spent on the Republican candidate started strange, “Despite his support from President Obama, Governor Corzine faces two formidable opponents…”. It almost sounded as if The New York Times Editorial Board is shocked somebody could challenge an Obama supporter. The New York Times Editorial Board questioned Republican challenger Christopher Christie due to “concerns” and “reports”. Their only direct criticism of Christie was his tax plan being “far too vague”. At least they pointed to something. They did not come-up with a single concern about Daggett – yet choose to ignore him.

The other four paragraphs focused on Governor Corzine. The New York Times Editorial Board described Governor Corzine as “(struggling) through his first termhas lessons to learn about communication and leadership… Most New Jersey voters find him astonishingly inarticulate, and his credentials as a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs do not seem as impressive as they did before the financial meltdown… we would like to see him back away from the state’s unions.”

The New York Times Editorial Board did pay some compliments towards Governor Corzine, but wrapped-up the endorsement by calling the Governor, “a decent man with a laudable set of goals.”

Does being a “decent man” with “laudable goals” qualify a person for the Governor’s office? If so, there are millions of people in New Jersey as qualified as Governor Corzine. But then again, did anybody believe the New York Times would endorse a non-Democrat?


The battle over Joseph Lieberman’s party…

The battle over Joseph Lieberman’s party is heating-up, and he’s not even in the party. Shannan Butler on writes about the battle over the Connecticut for Lieberman party. In 2006 Independent Senator Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary but was re-elected with the backing of a third party named for him, “Connecticut for Lieberman”, even though he never joined the party.

Butler writes, “now [the Connecticut for Lieberman] party may be used to target the state’s other senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, who is already facing stiff competition from the Republicans for his 2010 re-election bid.” But there is a major problem with the party, who runs it? The article says, “Lieberman and his supporters failed to file what’s called ’party rules’ with the Connecticut secretary of state’s office, department spokesman Av Harris said, leaving the door open for someone else to do so. Fairfield University professor John Orman, who opposed Lieberman, was the first to file party rules, and soon after Lieberman’s suppporters followed suit.” So now there is battle over who really controls the party.

Butler later ads, “Meanwhile, neither side has taken the issue of who controls the party to court.”

And Senator Lieberman's office says, "No Comment".


Top Labels on The Thirds