In The Lobby

SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISE

Feb. 3, 2012

Anybody else thinking that this year in Trenton is going to be more about confrontation than cooperation this year?

We all know that the Democrats laid down some markers early: setting up confrontations with Christie on gay marriage, and, in the legislative version of Groundhog Day, the millionaire's tax.

And then Christie countered by offering to accept the outcome of a public referendum on gay marriage.

But what we've been noticing is that the governor is getting much more, shall we say, colorful in his language of late.

This week, of course, he famously called Assemblyman Reed Gusciora "numbnuts." And then he went to a Town Hall meeting this week and dismissed the lame luck legislation that the Democrats sent him to sign as "a pile of crap."

Remember how Christie used to talk about how Democrats and Republicans meet in a spirit of cooperation to get things done?

Anyhow, Christie's characterization got Democrats sputtering.

"Governor Christie is, once again, resorting to indecorous and inflammatory language, this time to justify his veto actions in lieu of any serious discussion with legislators and voters about the bills he rejected,” said Assemblyman John Wisniewski, who is also state Democratic Comittee chair.

Well, it's not the first time Christie has used such "indecorous and inflammatory" language. There was the time in Gloucester Township, when he was talking about the fight to have teachers pay 1.5% of their salary for their benefits, and was relaying how it was being portrayed as an assault on education. "This is the crap I have to hear," Christie said then.

Or the time he was defending his appointing of a Muslim judge to the Superior Court, dismissing his critics who feared it might lead to Sharia law by saying, "This Sharia law business is crap."

Maybe we can judge how confrontational things become by counting how many times Christie employs the "C"word this year.

And by "C", we don't mean cooperation. Or compromise.

POLITCO RANKS CHRISTIE'S BEST QUIPS

Feb.3, 2012

You know that politics has merged with show buiness when Politico.com decides to do a top 10 list of Gov. Chris Christie's top 10 quotes.

We all know that the gov is quick with the quip -- but as this piece shows, the national media's fascination with Christie lingers. Of course, Christie calling Assemblyman Reed Gusciora "numbnuts" didn't hurt. (Although Politico wrongly asserts that Christie later apologized to Gusciora; he did not.)

Meanwhile, here's Politico's list. See if you agree.

1. “You have numb nuts like Reed Gusciora who put out a statement comparing me to George Wallace and Lester Maddox. Now, come on guys, at some point, you’ve got to able to call BS on those kind of press releases,” Jan. 30, 2012, on a pro-gay-marriage state assemblyman. (Christie later apologized.)

2. “First off it’s none of your business. I don’t ask you where you send your kids to school. Don’t bother me about where I send mine.” – June 17, 2011, on not wanting to discuss where he sends his kids to school.

3. “Get the hell off the beach in Asbury Park and get out. You’re done. It’s 4:30, you’ve maximized your tan. Get off the beach.” – Aug 26, 2011, encouraging people to leave as Hurricane Irene approached.

4. “They’re from New York. Snooki is from Poughkeepsie The Situation is from Staten Island. They parachuted these losers into New Jersey. And they want to make all of you believe that they’re in New Jersey. They’re not.” – Nov 16, 2011, sharing his feelings about the cast of MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

5. “You know something may go down tonight, but it ain’t gonna be jobs, sweetheart.” – Jan. 8, 2012, after he was interrupted by protesters chanting “Christie kills jobs.”

6. “Man up and say I’m fat.” – Oct. 29, 2009, on then-Gov. Jon Corzine’s campaign ad that hinted at Christie’s weight.

Read the rest of the list at Politico here.

MISSING MONEY FOUND AT MF GLOBAL?

Feb. 2, 2012

Here's some good news for our former governor as he packs up his Hoboken digs in an (apparent) effort to leave New Jersey behind him.

Investigators have located most of that $1.2 billion in customer funds that went missing from his former firm, MF Global.

Unfortunately, the Associated Press also reports that much of the missing money was used to pay off other customers, trading partners and banks in those final chaotic days -- and if true, that could lead to criminal penalties for anyone who authorized the transfers, the AP said.

From the Associated Press:

Most of the $1.2 billion reported missing from the failed brokerage MF Global run by former Gov. Jon Corzine has been traced to customer accounts and banks, people briefed on the matter told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Brokerages are supposed to keep customer money separate from company money. That way, customers are protected if the brokerage fails.

But three people briefed on the investigations into MF Global’s collapse said MF Global misused client money to repay other customers, business partners and banks who demanded cash as the firm teetered.

The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigations publicly.

They said details about where the money went are being kept under wraps because the publicity could hinder future prosecutions and efforts to return money to MF Global customers.
...

The promise of separate accounts is considered a fundamental protection for people who trade futures and options, the investments that MF Global specialized in. It’s the equivalent of federal deposit insurance for bank deposits.

Using client money to meet the company’s other financial needs could violate civil securities laws and lead to criminal charges for those who authorized the transactions. Federal criminal-justice authorities have said that they are looking into the case.

Now, no one is saying that Corzine authorized those transactions, and he himself told Congress that he "simply did not know" where the missing $1.2 billion was.

The good news is that it looks like those ranchers, farmers and others who invested their life savings in MF Global will recoup their funds.

Meanwhile, in case you're interested in what Corzine's $2.9 million penthouse looks like, here's a link to the real estate listing, complete with photos, and a video tour.

Seems like quite the place, especially when you read how the listing describes the 2,400-square-foot, 2 bedroom, 3.5 bath penthouse:

Step into the height of waterfront luxury with this one-of-a-kind home at Maxwell Place on the Hudson. This 2,400 square foot penthouse with full balcony boasts a custom layout with no expense spared.

This immaculate home is elegant and sophisticated, with dark-stained walnut hardwood floors throughout and 8-foot solid oak oversized doors with Emtek hardware. Floor to ceiling windows provide you with unparalleled direct eastern and southern views of the Hudson River and Manhattan skyline.

The living room, dining room, media room with built-in entertainment system and adjacent bar serving area make for an entertainer's dream, with enough space to host parties, events, and large family gatherings.

The high-end gourmet kitchen boasts Viking Professional appliances and hood, granite counter tops and espresso & glass cabinets.

In the master suite, you are greeted by a spacious family room/foyer that leads to the master bedroom and en suite bathroom. The master bath features a separate jacuzzi tub and a glass enclosed shower with majestic Barber Wilsons fixtures.

And on it goes.

But at least now we know there's no reason to look under the sofa cushions...

UNFORCED ERRORS

Feb. 1, 2012

Live by the quip, die by the quip.

Or else, wind up apologizing for it.

Gov. Chris Christie did just that Tuesday night, telling listeners to his monthly radio call-in show on NJ101.5 that he was sorry for comments he made linking his call for a referendum on gay marriage to the African-American struggle for civil rights.

“One of my jobs as governor is to clearly to communicate to people every time I open my mouth,’’ Christie said. “Obviously, when I was talking last week at the town hall meeting about the civil rights movement in the South, I wasn’t clear enough. I just wasn’t.’’

“By saying those things, I left them open to misinterpretation. Obviously, there’s some folks out there whose feelings I hurt or sensibilities I offended and I apologize for that.’’

Here’s what Christie said at a town hall meeting last week, about a gay marriage referendum that got him in hot water:

“People would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”

Ouch.

In the space of a week, Christie went from being lauded on the front page of the New York Times for his deft political handling of the gay marriage question to having to explain what he meant by what he said about civil rights.

Rule no. 1 in the politician’s handbook: If you spend more than one press conference explaining what you meant, you probably have something to apologize for.

Now, Christie – more than most politicians – isn’t one to apologize for what he says. He often uses colorful language and anecdotes to make his point – and rarely do they take him off message.

This one, however, did.

Christie’s call for the public – rather than the Legislature – to decide via a referendum whether gay marriage should be permitted in New Jersey had taken much of the steam that had been building in Trenton for the gay marriage bill. Democrats had been hoping to use the bill to hurt Christie politically.

But the governor outmaneuvered them, nominating a gay Republican to the Supreme Court on Monday, and then calling for a referendum on Tuesday.

But then Christie’s comments about the fight for African-American civil rights re-energized Democrats – and gave them another avenue to frame the gay marriage debate as one about civil rights, too.

For a usually sure-footed politician, it was not one of Christie’s best moments.

The governor has since explained that he was trying to say that gay marriage supporters face a much more supportive public than African-Americans did in the 1960s, and therefore, they should welcome a referendum on the question.

A referendum was not a realistic option in the 1960s, Christie said, “because public sentiment wasn’t where it would have been a realistic option for them. “That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant.”

But that’s not how it sounded.

And Democrats pounced. Even Georgia Rep. John Lewis, one of the original Freedom Riders who suffered beatings as a protest leader, came to Trenton to denounce Christie.

“Apparently the governor of this state has not read his recent history books,” Lewis said.

And so Christie apologized Tuesday night, and that should largely end the controversy over his remarks, as will Christie's personal outreach. You can expect Christie to contact many African-American leaders around the state, and talk to them privately.

And you can also expect Christie to continue his push to improve urban education – something he had planned to do anyway, but which may have been given greater urgency by this latest flap. Despite speculation by some, education reform supporters are not going to let this controversy stop efforts to overhaul urban education, allow school vouchers and increase the number of charter schools.

Christie’s rhetoric won’t stand in the way of real reform.

Meanwhile, on a related topic – there certainly has been a lot of hyperventilating around the Statehouse lately over the fact that Christie called openly gay Assemblyman Reed Gusciora “numbnuts” after Gusciora likened Christie to segregationists George Wallace and Lester Maddox because of his opposition to gay marriage.

On his radio show, Christie wouldn’t apologize for that, saying that his mother used to say it all the time, and that Gusciora used had likened him to two “pretty vile” people. For his part, Gusciora said the governor “constantly reverts to name-calling.”

For those who don’t know, “numbnuts”, according to Dictionary.com, is a slang word for idiot.

The Wall Street Journal, by the way, in describing the kerfuffle with Gusciora, said that Christie used a “vulgarity” to attack Gusciora’s comments. Vulgarity, according to Dictionary.com, is the state of being vulgar; vulgar is defined as “indecent; obscene; lewd; or crude; coarse; unrefined.”

Wonder what they thought numbnuts meant.

CUTTING HIS TIES TO JERSEY?

Jan. 31, 2012

It looks like our former governor, Jon Corzine, may have had enough of us.

The New York Post is reporting that Corzine has put his Hoboken condominium up for sale, at a bargain price, just $2.9 million -- $400,000 less than he paid for it just three years ago.

Apparently, Corzine has been living in Manhattan at his wife's apartment.

Here's more from the Post:

Corzine’s digs in luxury tower Maxwell Place boasts expansive views of the Manhattan skyline, the Hudson and New York Harbor.

It comes with an indoor, deeded parking space, one of the perks from its monthly $1,700 maintenance. Taxes are $38,000 annually.

The 2,400-square-foot apartment has 3.5 baths, two bedrooms, a library, media room and dining-party area with a bar. The master bedroom has a separate parlor, with a luxury bath and Jacuzzi spa.

The place is listed by multiple brokers, a sign that Corzine needs additional help to find buyers.

Truth be told, we're not really surprised that the man who represented us in the U.S. Senate, and then became our governor, is cutting ties with the Garden State. Our guess is that he still hasn't gotten over his 2009 re-election loss. Or the fact that many state Democrats, whom Corzine had given millions of dollars to in his political career, didn't help him with donations when he came calling in 2009 -- or sat on their hands rather than ramping up the GOTV efforts on Election Day.

Besides, Corzine always chose the Hamptons over the Jersey Shore in the summer -- which always told us that his ties to the Garden State were, at best, a marriage of convenience.

Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard is reporting that Corzine is one of Obama's top campaign bundlers: the embattled former MF Global chief has helped raise more than $500,000 for President Barack Obama's re-election effort. Obama gave back Corzine and his wife's individual donations; wonder if they feel the same about the bundled donations as well?

R U SERIOUS?

Jan. 30, 2012

So now that Greg Schiano and his $2.3 millon salary have headed for the sunny shores of Tampa, we ask: Can Rutgers possibly remember that the taxpayers are helping to pay the salaries of the coach and the football program?

Yes we know. But we can ask.

Putting aside the absurdity of the fact that Rutgers, a public university, was paying its football coach -- the one who never brought a championship to Rutgers -- $2.3 million, not to mention that they helped pay the mortgage on his house ...

Actually, we can't put aside that fact. Rutgers and our tax dollars were paying a football coach who never won a championship $2.3 million and helped pay the mortgage on his house.

Seriously, that scarlet R shouldn't stand for Rutgers. It really should stand for Reckless --as in, reckless with our tax dollars.

At $2.3 million, Schiano was apparently the highest paid coach in the Big East -- and did we mention he never won anything?

The two top prospects to replace Schiano -- Temple coach Steve Addazio and Florida International University's Mario Cristobal -- earn a lot less. According to the Star Ledger, Addazio earns a reported $675,000. and Cristobal's published salary is $475,000. So Rutgers could give either of them a $1 million raise and they'd still be making less than Schiano.

Of course, there's also that pesky business about how Schiano njow owes Rutgers $800,000 -- $500,000 in the next 30 days for leaving early, and "the remaining $300,000 on an $800,000 interest-free mortgage that was one of the perks of a deal that paid him approximately $2.3 million and ran through 2016. Rutgers forgave $100,000 of that mortgage for every year he stayed as head coach," according to the Ledger.

Heck, who wouldn't want to coach at Rutgers under terms like that?

We can only hope that now that Gov. Chris Christie has announced his plan to revamp higher education, he might take a look at what Rutgers is paying its coaches, and insist that they tighten the belt. At a time when students are being asked to pay more in tuition, and state aid is tight, and taxpayers are having a hard time making ends meet, paying a football coach an exorbitant sum makes little sense. In fact, it's just wrong.

The least Rutgers can do is wait until the coach actually wins something.

ON THE PASSING OF CHARLIE MARCIANTE

Jan. 27, 2012

By JIM BENTON
President, NJ SEED

It is with a deep sense of sadness that NJ SEED notes the death of Charlie Marciante. For 36 years as President of the New Jersey AFL/CIO, Charlie was the voice of labor in the halls of the State House in Trenton.

As a founding Trustee of NJ SEED in 1973 and as a long-term Vice President of our Labor/Business coalition, Charlie brought the prestige of his office and the support of the labor community as NJ SEED sought to bring balance between the interests of employment, economic growth and environmental protection. At the heart of his outreach that led to the creation of the NJ SEED was his true enjoyment of his friendship with his fellow professional colleagues in Trenton.

In 1973 when passion for environmental protection was having a crippling effect on the New Jersey jobs and economy, Charlie led the effort, along with his NJ SEED colleagues, to reform passage of a comprehensive "overkill" legislative package and adopt significant compromises by the Legislature on measures such as the CAFRA Act and the Citizens Right to Sue Bill.

In 1974, he spearheaded NJSEED's organization of the "March for Jobs" that put over 60,000 union construction workers on the streets of Trenton for a rally in front of the State House to protest staggering unemployment in the building trades and the erosion of the state's economy. To this date the size of that impressive and peaceful demonstration has never been matched on State Street.

During his tenure as AFL/CIO State President, Charlie's effective influence in the legislature was evident. Whenever he entered the room during a committee hearing he was given special deference by committee members. When rules were adopted to restrict lobbyists from being on the floor of the Senate and Assembly during sessions, Charlie could often be seen in the rear of the chambers actively persuading a member of the Legislature to see things his way.

(For more of Jim Benton's tribute to Charlie Marciante, read his guest column here.)

A PROXY FIGHT FOR U.S. SENATE?

Jan. 26, 2012

After months of percolating under the political radar, the U.S. Senate race in New Jersey has finally begun to take shape.

The announcement by state Sen. Joe Kyrillos that he planned to challenge Sen. Robert Menendez in November doesn’t come as that much of a surprise. Kyrillos had formed an exploratory committee last year, and he had been taking steps to increase his profile.

Plus, we all knew that Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t about to let this Senate contest against Menendez – with whom he’s engaged in a long-running feud – to go forward without a fight.

And since Kyrillos is one of Christie’s confidants – you can bet that Kyrillos is Christie’s choice to challenge Menendez this November.

Forget all that talk about Tea Partier Anna Little posing a serious challenge to Kyrillos. Little burned some bridges in her last campaign, and she doesn’t have a base of support to challenge Kyrillos.

State Sen. Michael Doherty has also been touted as a possible challenger, but that seems more unlikely with each day.

Menendez certainly thinks that Kyrillos is his likely opponent. On the same day Kyrillos made his announcement, Menendez took the unusual step of issuing a statement of his own, criticizing Kyrillos.

“New Jersey’s voters will have a very clear choice if Senator Kyrillos becomes the Republican nominee: Senator Bob Menendez who fights every day for middle class New Jersey families or long-time Trenton insider Joe Kyrillos, who sides with corporations and special interests over working families and seniors and panders to the most extreme elements of the Washington Republicans," Menendez said.

Kyrillos, meanwhile, is already framing the debate in terms of the national presidential campaign: “Voters have a clear contrast – Bob Menendez will offer more of the same: more debt, more spending and more joblessness. I will offer real solutions to renew America's promise."

In other words, all indications are that this will be a fiercely contested campaign; in some ways, a proxy fight between Christie and Menendez; and Christie and Obama.

The Christie-Menendez feud extends back to 2006, when Christie was U.S. attorney and Menendez was running for Senate. As the New York Times explains, “Mr. Christie’s office started an investigation that touched on Mr. Menendez’s dealings with a community group. Mr. Menendez charged that the inquiry was politically motivated — nothing came of it — and people close to the senator say he still resents it.”

In other words, you can expect Christie to be fully involved in this race.

At first blush, Menendez appears vulnerable. His poll numbers are anemic; in the low to mid 40s. In the most recent Quinnipiac Poll, he got a 42%-39% approval rating, with 45%-38% saying he deserved re-election. He beats an unnamed GOP challenger by 46% to 35%.

But the reality is, the Senate contest will mirror the presidential outcome in New Jersey. President Barack Obama’s approval rate is 49%-48% in New Jersey in the latest Quinnipiac Poll -- not great, but he still beats any Republican challenger.

Bottom line, it’s likely the Senate outcome will mirror the presidential outcome in New Jersey. It’s hard to see how either Senate candidate would buck the presidential trend.

Which is where the proxy fight between Christie and Obama comes in. It’s no secret that Christie has been one of Obama’s most effective critics on the trail. And if Christie’s candidate, Mitt Romney, does win the GOP nomination, it’s hard to see how Christie won’t do everything in his power to try and deliver his state to Romney.

Given that it’s almost impossible to construct a map where Obama can lose New Jersey and still win the presidency, you can expect the White House and national Democrats to try and dim Christie’s appeal here in New Jersey. We’re not convinced that doesn’t explain some of what we’ve already seen in Trenton, with Democrats looking to challenge Christie on taxes, gay marriage and education reform.

Either way, expect Christie to engage fully on behalf of Kyrillos, bringing both his formidable fundraising skills, and the force of his personality, on behalf of his friend’s Senate candidacy. And if Christie can help the GOP reclaim the White House while he does it, then you can expect him to do that to.

And you can expect Democrats to work just as hard to keep New Jersey's electoral votes -- and its Senate seat -- in the blue column.

After all, this isn't just about 2012. Both parties are also looking at 2013; and some, maybe, even 2016.

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

Jan. 25, 2012

So now, it appears, we are to believe that the Legislature has more wisdom, more fairness, than the people of the state of New Jersey.

That only the state’s senators and assemblymembers can be trusted to make the right decisions, and that their collective decisions should outweigh those of the people.

Please.

On the same day Democrats began their push to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey; Gov. Chris Christie upended their plan, calling instead for the public to vote on the issue this November. And then Christie, who also said he would veto any gay marriage bill that came before him, also promised he would abide by the public’s decision.

“I think that this is not an issue that should rest solely in my hands, in the hands of the Senate President, or in the hands of the Speaker or the other 118 members of the Legislature,” Christie said. “Let’s let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state. Let’s put the question of same-sex marriage on the ballot this fall, in the hands of the people, at the time where the most people will be voting, in the presidential election year”.

Democrats went ballistic.

"To say that a matter of civil rights should be subject to a political campaign is not only a cowardly abdication of leadership, but a slap in the face to those whose rights are being trampled," said Sweeney. "It's an embarrassing display of political greed. It is shameful for the governor to use his office to bully members of his party into abandoning their consciences in the name of his own political ambition."

Political hyperbole aside, our guess is that what Democrats are most upset about is that Christie gave Republicans, or wavering Democrats, reason not to support the legislation.

“Today, Governor Christie took away the vote, quite frankly, of the Republican legislators,” Sen. Ray Lesniak, D-Union, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the Bergen Record.

Like we said, Christie is a smart political player.

Now, there’s a lot of talk about how no civil rights legislation should be left up to the public.
Our guess is that if supporters were confident it would pass, they would be thrilled with Christie’s announcement.

Instead, Democrats vow that they will never support putting the vote to a public referendum.

And so we ask, where does that leave supporters of gay marriage?

Christie has already promised to veto the legislation. While sponsors might have enough votes to pass one or both houses of the Legislature, they don’t have enough to sustain a veto override.

So instead, there will be another campaign at the Statehouse, more passionate testimony, more demonstrations pro and con – and in the end, nothing will change.

Where, if the vote was put to the public, it could well result in a change. Current polls show a majority of New Jerseyans – 53% -- support gay marriage. The public may vote in favor of gay marriage – yet Christie is willing to accept the wisdom of the people, even if it goes against his personal beliefs. Why aren’t Democrats?

Are Democrats trying to tell us that they, and only they, can be counted on to do the right thing for the people of New Jersey?

The same people, by the way, who just voted them into office? Who kept them in the majority for another two years?

Are Democrats trying to say that they’ll accept our votes when we put them into office, but don’t think we can make the right decision on an issue such as gay marriage?

Are they saying they don’t trust us?

And if that’s the case, what does that say about what they really think about the people who voted them in, in the first place?

PALIN: CHRISTIE GOT HIS 'PANTIES IN A WAD' OVER ROMNEY LOSS

Jan. 23, 2012

Now this would be one interesting feud to watch. Heck, given the high profile of each, it could be one of the most entertaining sideshows in this political year.

For who expected former Alaska Gov. Sarah Pallin to unload on Gov. Chris Christie Monday night, taking Christie to task for calling former Speaker Newt Gingrich an "embarassment," and countering that by saying that Christie embarasses the Republican Party too.

Not to mention saying that Christie got his "panties in a wad" over the fact that Mitt Romney lost the South Carolina primary to Gingrich.

From the Ledger:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called out Gov. Chris Christie today saying he made a "rookie mistake" when criticizing Republican presidential candidate New Gingrich over the weekend.
"You know, sometimes if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when (Mitt )Romney lost to Newt the other night, and of course, Romney is Chris Christie’s guy," Palin said in an interview on Fox Business News.

"Well, you kind of get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later. And I think that that’s what Chris Christie did," she said.

Christie, who has been out on the campaign trail for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, called Gingrich an "embarrassment for the party" while on "Meet the Press" on NBC over the weekend.

...

Palin, a recent Gingrich supporter, responded in an interview that aired last night on Fox Business Network, saying Christie made a "rookie mistake" and "played right into the media’s hands."

"Here’s a host that asked Chris does Newt embarrass the party," Palin said in an advance transcript. "I think he asked him twice, and there Chris played right into it and, you know, spewed that about, yeah, Newt embarrassing the party."

Palin went on to criticize Christie’s use of a State Police helicopter last year to shuttle between his son’s baseball game and a meeting with Iowa fund-raisers.

"I think if Chris were asked about some of his, you know, past actions, taking a state helicopter to his kid’s baseball game, some people may say, well, that sort of embarrassed your party, Chris," Palin said. "And he would then be on the receiving end of a comment that maybe he wished that somebody kept as an inside thought."

"He’s been in office a year or two, is all, and might think that he — he’ll learn that the media — they goad you," she said. "They want you to say things like that in order to boost ratings and make it more of a reality show-type scenario."

Now, we should note that of course, Christie is a Romney supporter. And while Palin hasn't officially endorsed anyone publicly, her husband Todd did endorse Gingrich. So maybe this is all about the presidential race in 2012. Or maybe, just maybe, this is about two potential rivals for 2016.

Either way, we can't wait to see who says what next.