Patterico's Pontifications


Partners in New Jersey

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 11:06 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

President Obama campaigned today for New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and described Corzine as one of his best partners:

“In a final campaign swing on behalf of the only governor seeking re-election this fall, President Barack Obama on Sunday pitched Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine’s bid as a key component for the White House to make good on its political promises.

He’s one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together,” Obama said. “We know our work is far from over.”

Corzine was an early Hillary supporter and the first Governor to endorse her candidacy. In addition, Corzine was one of the last Hillary supporters to switch — he only endorsed Obama after Hillary announced she was suspending her Presidential campaign.

It’s true for Democrats and Republicans, but politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn’t it?


UPDATE BY PATTERICO: From the same article we find:

A Corzine loss would be seen as a political embarrassment for the White House.

Chance of embarrassment: not bad. Not bad at all:

Chris Christie leads Jon Corzine 47-41 in PPP’s final poll of the New Jersey Governor’s race, with Chris Daggett at 11%.


Why is Newspaper Circulation Down?

Filed under: Media Bias — DRJ @ 7:14 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Last week, Patterico posted a chart that shows a significant decline in newspaper circulation over the past 20 years. A recent Rasmussen poll suggests a reason for some of the decline:

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 85% of U.S. voters trust their own judgment more than the average reporter when it comes to the important issues affecting the nation. Only four percent (4%) trust the average reporter more. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.”

One reason people don’t trust reporters is that, when it comes to elections, they believe reporters try to slant the news to fit their political goals:

“Two-out-of-three voters (67%) say most reporters when covering a political campaign try to help the candidate they want to win. Just 21% say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage. These findings are identical to those found throughout last fall’s presidential campaign.

Just before last November’s election, for example, 68% of voters said most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% believed they were trying to help Democrat Barack Obama. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help his Republican opponent, John McCain.”

However, 43% of Americans view journalists favorably. This result seems inconsistent but it reminds me of polls that show people don’t generally like lawyers or members of Congress, but they nevertheless like their lawyer or Congressman.


Chicago Property Taxes

Filed under: Government,Politics — DRJ @ 5:45 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

TaxProf Blog notices something fishy in Chicago — “property taxes in Chicago have increased an average of 9.6% this year” but not for some well-known politicians:

  • Barack Obama: 1.0% increase [Edit: But see JVW’s comment here.]
  • Alexi Giannoulias (Illinois Treasurer): 1.0%
  • Richard Daley (Chicago Mayor): 3.5%
  • Rahm Emanuel (President Obama’s Chief of Staff): 3.7%
  • Lisa Madigan (Illinois Attorney General): 4.4%
  • Dan Hynes (Illinois Comptroller): 4.9%
  • At least it’s easy to spot the Chicago pecking order.

    — DRJ

    “We’ll Never Forget You, Brent”

    Filed under: Sports — DRJ @ 5:39 pm

    [Guest post by DRJ]

    It’s not easy to be a Packer fan during this Favre-less season:

    “The Packers legend was roundly booed by fans in his first return to Lambeau Field since the acrimonious split he had with the team (and its fans) last year. While some in the crowd politely applauded [Brett] Favre when he came out for warm-ups, went to midfield for the coin toss and took his first snaps from under center, the vast majority of fans showered Favre with boos.
    Among the best anti-Favre items seen at the game were the Fedro-Favre sign [pictured at the link], a t-shirts with “True Legends Don’t Wear Purple” written in green, a poster that said “We’ll Never Forget You, Brent” and a banner flying behind a plane reading “Retire 4 Good.”

    And people think politics is harsh.

    — DRJ

    A Woman’s Nation

    Filed under: Dog Trainer,Political Correctness — DRJ @ 5:14 pm

    [Guest post by DRJ]

    California recently hosted an extravagant Women’s Conference that is all about women changing the world:

    “Under the direction of First Lady Maria Shriver, last week’s conference was a two-day extravaganza, a Technicolor version of the event of old. Much of the focus was “The Shriver Report,” a collaboration between Shriver and a Washington think-tank, which declared two weeks ago that we have become “a woman’s nation.”

    But the heart of the conference occurred at lunch on Day 2, when Shriver, her voice breaking, for the first time publicly reflected on her mother’s recent death. Her words brought thousands to tears in a silent arena.

    It was hard to imagine the same personal scene at a conference of men. But that was part of the point, for the theme of the conference might well have been: We still want to change the world. We just want to do it on our terms.
    In her report, Shriver declared the battle of the sexes to be over, replaced by negotiation. Translation: In all the difficult decisions of daily life, the things that get us from here to there, much still needs to be worked out.”

    Apart from the fact I wouldn’t waste my time attending a conference where the highlight is crying, this sounds like an excuse to whine about how hard women have it and that men don’t do enough to help them … with a dash of we’re so helpless or fragile thrown in.

    Is this the era of independent women or isn’t it? Independent women can handle things without whining or crying and, if a women’s conference that celebrates women is such a good idea, then let men have a men’s conference where they are allowed to celebrate being … men.

    There’s another double-standard highlighted here: At a conference where the theme is supporting women, why aren’t more California women supporting politicians like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina? The article suggests it’s because the pressure is off:

    “There are now enough women in high-ranking positions that it is harder to invoke the passions that led to firsts, like election nationwide of several women senators in 1992 or Hillary Clinton’s close second in last year’s presidential contest.”

    I think there’s a simpler answer that explains why some women are more equal than others. I’ll let Victor Davis Hanson explain it in a slightly different context (H/T Eric Blair):

    “What if you took everything Yale Law School Hillary has said abroad the last week [in Pakistan] and put it into the mouth of Idaho BA Sarah Palin?

    The press would have gone ballistic about her ignorance of the Middle East, her sermonizing, her scapegoating, her factual errors, etc. (What is it about Palin that drives the elite, especially elite women, crazy? Great looks? That Middle-America accent? The 5 kids and he-man husband? The lack of a powerful father or spouse who could jump-start her “feminist” career with money, contacts, and influence? That Idaho BA? The wink? The charisma and, indeed, sensuality so lacking in her angry critics?)”

    Of course, what does Victor Davis Hanson know? He’s just a man.

    — DRJ

    Unrelated News of the Day

    Filed under: Government — DRJ @ 3:28 pm

    [Guest post by DRJ]

    Karzai challenger Abdullah Abdullah refuses to participate in Afghan Presidential run-off election:

    “Abdullah Abdullah, speaking at a mid-morning gathering of several thousand supporters, stopped short of calling for an electoral boycott, but he did not make clear what he expects his partisans to do if the vote is held. At a news conference afterward, he repeatedly declined to predict or suggest what should happen now, stressing that his only decision was “not to participate” in the Nov. 7 runoff.
    … Abdullah’s unilateral withdrawal did little to resolve a political crisis that has been building since August, when the presidential poll was marred by massive fraud. The resulting victory for Karzai was later declared invalid, and U.S. and European officials pressed the president to accept a runoff, which Karzai was heavily favored to win.”

    Meanwhile, half a world away, small business lender CIT filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy Sunday in New York:

    “CIT said in a statement that its bondholders have overwhelmingly approved a prepackaged reorganization plan which will reduce total debt by $10 billion while allowing the company to continue to do business.
    CIT’s move will wipe out current holders of its common and preferred stock, likely meaning the U.S. government will lose the $2.3 billion it sunk into CIT last year to prop up the ailing company. The government could have lost billions more, however, had it not declined to hand over more aid to the company earlier this year.”

    Apparently CIT has a cash flow problem since it lists “$71 billion in finance and leasing assets against total debt of $64.9 billion.” IMO this is good because, in the long run, bankruptcy will help CIT and the small businesses to whom it lends more than government bailouts.

    — DRJ

    Reports Suggest Scozzafava Endorsing the Democrat; UPDATE: Confirmed

    Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:20 am’s The Hotline notices that the Watertown Daily Times has stated in an editorial:

    During the day Saturday, [Scozzafava] began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens.

    and that her husband, a local labor union official, has done so — not so quietly:

    “As a life-long labor activist, I know that Bill Owens understands the issues important to working people. On the other hand, Doug Hoffman has little regard for the interests of workers.”

    “Hoffman’s opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, coupled with his support for the failed policies of the Bush Administration make him a poor choice to serve the citizens of the 23rd Congressional District.”

    Memo to Newt Gingrich: you were supporting someone who, when driven out of the race, is apparently deciding to endorse the Democrat over the fiscal conservative.

    Does anything seem wrong to you about that picture?

    UPDATE: Confirmed:

    It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.

    It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh’s lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.

    In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.

    Please join me in voting for Bill Owens on Tuesday. To address the tough challenges ahead, we must rise above partisanship and politics and work together. There’s too much at stake in this election to do otherwise.


    The upshot of this, is that the Republican Party gave money to someone who ended up backing a Democrat — meaning the Republicans might as well have funded the Democrat.

    Powered by WordPress.

    Page loaded in: 0.0669 secs.