Reform Begins At Home

it never ends (3.00 / 1)

Another round of volleys in the Bergen County Dem game.  Those keeping score have to be wondering a few things.

One - why is this effort coming right now and focused only on Ferriero?  I am a fan of the proposals, but the way and time it is being presented turn me off.  It seems less like an honest attempt to reform the system than a trap designed to hurt a select few people.

Two - why did more legislators not join Weinberg and Company?  Ellen Karcher, Joe Doria, Linda Greenstein, Barbara Buono, Reed Gusciora, Joan Voss, and Lou Manzo all co-sponsored bills with Weinberg, Huttle, and Johnson, but unless I am mistaken, they were not at the Clean Up New Jersey press conference.  I can understand why Voss would have stayed away, but what about the others?  Were they not invited?  Or did they stay away?

Three - isn't the hypocrisy of Johnson as a proud dual office holder and Huttle as a recipient of her husband's largesse is a lot to swallow, even for supporters?  I always have a great deal of respect for those who push for reforms that will impact them and their families as much as everyone else.  But it is hard to ignore Boss Joe's complaints about the obvious double standard.  Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Four - how is it Weinberg's fault if Sen Cardinale picks up her talking points?  Thats like saying that Ferriero has "teamed up" with the Republican candidates in the 37th because he is putting out opposition research on Weinberg.  There are many different interests here and while electing Democrats aligned with BCDO does not seem to be one of Weinberg's goals, neither does electing Republicans.

Five - who cares about Johnson's wife?  How is someone's spouse's position relevant if it isn't a no show job?  The Republicans are always making this same case and I think Weinberg supporters have made it about BCDO allies' spouses as well.  Enough is enough.

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 23:14:35 PM UTC

Cardinale's talking points (0.00 / 0)

not the other way around.  Appreciate the fairmindedness though.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 23:26:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: Cardinale's talking points (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps I am just confused, but how is Cardinale's quote, "I have the same concerns that Loretta Weinberg has," a matter of Weinberg adopting Cardinale's talking points?  Did she say something else that you did not include in your blog?

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 03:28:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

not the quote (0.00 / 0)

but in general they are on the same message

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 14:21:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cardinale and Weinberg: The "Same" ROTFLMAO (0.00 / 0)

When you say they are on the "same message" it's just one more indication imho of how (at best) out of touch you are with reality.

Yes, of course, on the most superficial of levels you could make the case that Cardinale is jumping on her bandwagon in that he too is mouthing some of her critiques; so, again, yes there is an area of superficial congruence in the most simplistic sense of the word.

Cardinale's "message" is that Democrats are corrupt in general so you should vote for Republicans to clean up the corruption.  (That's pure self serving BS; but it's his message.)

Weinberg's message (especially clear as carolh documents in her diary here  http://www.bluejerse...)
...is that NJ suffers from the condition of systematic institutionalized corruption.  Her message is essentially not partisan, Cardinale's is purely partisan.

Loretta Weinberg & Company actually care more about the interests of democracy in NJ than the narrow interests of a particular stripe of the NJ Democratic establishment. 

Clearly, in certain circles, that makes Loretta a persona non grata who must be discredited; but I dare say she wears their calumny as a badge of honor.

You may not like Weinberg's message, you may even choose to believe that it's false; but you may not distort it in order to avoid addressing it.  That won't wash.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 15:28:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ludicrous (4.00 / 2)

You are involved with the BCDO.  That is both clear and fine.  You have an overwhelmingly negative opinion of Loretta Weinberg.  Also clear.  Also fine.  But you are not entitled, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, to your own facts.

Your claim that Loretta Weinberg and Gerald Cardinale "in general... are on the same message" proves that you are little more than a ridiculous hack.

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 15:49:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're 100% Right: You Don't Get It... (0.00 / 0)

>>>Her decision to join forces with Senator Cardinale 4 weeks before Election Day has got me puzzled.  Is right now really the time to attack other Democrats?  Does she want to have Democratic colleagues in the 39th District or is she comfortable with Bushies like Cardinale?  I don't get it. <<<

From my perspective, and I dare say from Loretta Weinberg & Company's, the matter of corruption (de facto and de jure) in and around public office is not a partisan issue.

Raising it now prior to an election is a good time to air the issue out and, at least, get some folks on record as to where they may stand.

If you read carolh's diary here http://www.bluejerse...
it's clear that the press conference was just a general pointing in the direction of where real investigations (official and journalistic) should follow.

  Further, it's clear that the problems go way beyond one man in one county in one party. 

The whole system is inherently prone to corruption/sweetheart deals etc.  Every square inch of it needs to be made 100% transparent in real time (via web) to the public.  (Obviously there may be some bits that require privacy for various reasons; but those are a small per centage).

I hate to break it to you; but the people of the state aren't stupid, or ignorant or deluded; they "get it".  The poll numbers that tell us what the citizenry thinks of the ethics of public officials are based on reality.

Most folks know someone who knows someone who works in a local, county, or state function; they hear the stories of the internal shenanigans that routinely plague the system, waste money and result in inferior governance that has really bad consequences on real human beings.

It may be hard to prove in a law court; but in the court of public opinion/perception; the people are disgusted with the corruption that is routine business as usual.

As for the "great defense" that creatures of the status quo put out: namely that Loretta & Company aren't themselves perfect.  I say, so what?  If perfection was the standard to be met before anyone could dare to criticize; then we would all fail to meet it and the corruption would just get more entrenched, pervasive and brazen.

The alleged flaws and foibles you and others have enumerated re Loretta et al pale in comparison to the case the Weinberg team makes. 

It's like Darth Vader complaining that Yoda was once seen actually picking his nose; or, here's one from the real world....like J. Edgar Hoover complaining that Martin Luther King was having an affair!

And when a ban on dual office holding comes up for a vote I'll bet you a thousand dollars to your hundred that Gordon Johnson votes to outlaw it.

All we, the people of the state of New Jersey are demanding  is 100% clean honest transparent governance. 

We shouldn't have to settle for modest cosmetic incremental "reforms" (that are often riddled with loopholes anyway).

Why would any honest decent person throw up any objections to such a clearly righteous desire?

Would the state collapse into the ocean if this was all cleaned up in one legislative session?  I think not.

As for the 39th district.  Cardinale is no better than anyone in the BCDO; I would love to see him lose.  The people of the 39th LD deserve a Senator that doesn't think it's OK to teach "intelligent design" along side with Darwin in the public schools. 

Establishment Republicans pull the same kinds of pay to play crap where they hold majorities; their style/methods may be a bit slicker in many instances; but the same foul stench permeates the Republican "air" too.

Corruption isn't about red vs blue; it's about good vs evil.

Anyway, I hope this clear "it" up a wee bit for you.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 23:17:33 PM UTC

Good Vs. Evil??? Kool-Aid Alert (0.00 / 0)

I have posted this comment before but it needs to be said again:  Ideological purity is harmful to the cause.  I am sorry that some folks like to disect law makers and party leaders based on their "boutique" issues.  (I am not saying your concerns are not important, just that you are missing out on the big picture by focusing on pet issues) If we elect as many democrats as possible who will vote properly 9 times out of 10, obviously, more good will be done than if those seats were occupied by republicans.  I hate that I have to spell this out.  The goal in politics is accomplishing our agenda.  The big picture in the long run should be the prize we keep our eyes on.  Divisions within the party, whether they are based on leadership or ideology are fine during primary season but at the end of the day we want more Democrats in government.  For instance, I support Barack Obama for president.  I really do not have much love for Senator Clinton.  I will do whatever I can to keep her from being the nominee but if she is the nominee, I will do whatever I can to elect her.  Why?  Because she is a Democrat and will do a better job than a republican.  Bottom line.

Senator Weinberg has chosen a peculiar time to attack select Democrats on issues she is not so rosy on in practice.  I take a utilitarian view here.  We need to elect more Democrats. 

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 00:07:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes I'm A Democrat: But I'm a democrat First..... (0.00 / 0)

.....those who blindly follow/enable the foibles of Ferriero are the real Kool Aid  drinkers.

Loyalty to the principles od democracy must take precedence to loyalty to the chair of the BCDO.

Corruption whether legal or illegal is indeed an evil.  Do you really doubt the veracity of that assertion?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 14:47:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's all a matter of timing all right (0.00 / 0)

It's obvious that the Ferrierocrats leaked information to poor Ms. naive Nibot that the LD37 team was investigating these government bodies right before an election, thinking it would derail the LD37 teams chances of winning the election. 

That's where the timing comes in, but they failed to consider that in tipping the legislators hand, they forced the very press conference that they are now having nightmares and hissy fits over.  Loretta and Valeri and Gordon had to explain and pronto exactly what they were doing with their investigations - working on ethics reform - a noble cause. 

Now you are trying to turn timing into the issue.  What really cracks me up, is how you go on and on and say how pay to play is a good thing, and then try to attach those same words to the Senator's name while uttering it as an epithet.  Well which is it?  Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder, of just plain old garden variety self-loathing?

I just wonder how much more our legislators could have found out before the Ferrierocrats blew the story out of the water, only to have it come crashing down on their house of cards. 

Keep it up, Bluebergen, you're doing just great.  Loretta 6, Joe 0

By the way, Ariyan has come down squarely on the side of Pay To Play.  So, it is a choice between the R machine or the D machine.  Pick your poison, folks.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:38:01 PM UTC

Picking my poison (0.00 / 0)

As far as I'm concerned, my preference is D reformers first, D machine second, and R machine coming in a distant thirtieth.  It's not really even a contest. To equate any Democrat with the crass and hateful ideology of the Cardinales and Garretts of the world because of their position on ethics reform (which I'm not even sure is accurate) really isn't very fair.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 15:57:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nobody wants Garrett or Cardinale (0.00 / 0)

out more than I do, but some poisons are worse than others.  It's simply a matter of the degree of toxicity you are willing to tolerate. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 16:43:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correction: (0.00 / 0)

To respond to the assertion above.

"Joe Ariyan looks forward to going to Trenton to work with all his fellow Senators (including Senators Weinberg and Codey, whose financial support he greatly appreciates) to uphold and expand current laws to ensure the influence of special interest in our political system is curbed."

---

by: 39thDemocrats @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 16:27:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Say again, please? (0.00 / 0)

So in English - does that mean that Ariyan is FOR Pay To Play, or AGAINST it?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 16:41:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

support (0.00 / 0)

Actually it sounds like it is saying that Weinberg and Codey have contributed to Ariyan's campaign.

---

by: Bergendem @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 18:23:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Repeat (0.00 / 0)

So is Ariyan FOR Pay to Play or AGAINST it??

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 18:40:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

cricket, cricket........... n/t (0.00 / 0)

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 23:36:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The numbers the Weinberg team (0.00 / 0)

showed folks on Tuesday included many more people than just Joe Ferriero.  But be clear here - the Weinberg team gave the numbers raked in by Joe Ferriero PERSONALLY and Dennis Oury PERSONALLY.

The guilt by association numbers you throw out include a firm that doesn't even have Huttle's name in it.  Tell me he controls every aspect of that firm and gets all the $$$ the firm earns.  I don't think you can draw the same comparison, although you're trying really really hard.

Look up Scarinci and Hollenbeck while you're at it and see where else those associates of Ferriero pop up. 

It's amazing what comes scurrying out when you turn over a rock in Bergen County. 

Here's the main difference.  Ferriero draws a taxpayer funded SALARY of $45,000 PLUS PENSION AND BENEFITS in addition to his law firm income PLUS the money he earns AS A CONSULTANT from the same company HE WORKS FOR.  Now who out there is a "consultant" for a place at the same time they are an official employee of that company?  Beuller?  Beuller?

AND who has the authority to throw 4 million dollars of BCDO money down on a race for the seat of the County Executive who has influence over who gets appointed to RUN the company you are a consultant and employee of (at the same time)?

Most folks have the decency to wait until they no longer work for that firm as an employee to then become a "consultant" for that company.  Joe has no shame and no patience.  And apparently no ethical compass. 

So while you are trying to tar and feather a Senator for even MENTIONING ethics reform, tell Joe F to take that beam out of his eye, it's affecting his vision. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 18:18:00 PM UTC

Correction (0.00 / 0)

Ferriero makes $53,000 with taxpayer paid pension and benefits.  My original number of $45,000 was low.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 13:47:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And another thing (0.00 / 0)

For Joe Ferriero to attack Gordon Johnson for being a $5,000 a year councilman, after earning a pension for years as a police officer, and now being a State Assemblyman, is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Gordon Johnson may temporarily be a dual office holder - but he sure ain't doin it for the money.

The only reason Joe Ferriero (who RAKES in  $45,000 with benefits PLUS $3/4 MILLION ANNUALLY in consulting fees from the Passiac Valley Sewerage Commission) wants Gordon Johnson to give up his Assembly seat is so that Joe can give it to Ken Zisa like he promised. 

Talk about Chutzpah, talk about transference, talk about gall - the unmitigated kind.  I would say, talk about pots and kettles and all, but Gordon Johnson has absolutely nothing in common with Joe Ferriero.  Joe Ferriero is for pay to play corruption, and Gordon Johnson is in the Assembly to help clean up corruption, and he is an Englewood Councilman as an act of public service. As a Council person, believe me, Council is the toughest, low paying job you'll ever have.  Gordon Johnson makes the equivalent of $19.23 a day as a councilman.  That's lower than minimum wage.  Framing this like Gordon Johson is lining his pockets is absolutely ridiculous to anyone who knows what a councilman actually makes.

Gordon should give up his Council gig when Joe Ferriero gives up his "Consulting" gig or otherwise proves that what HE has isn't a taxpayer-draining, benefit receiving, no-show job.  Are there enough hours in the day to work full time for a commission, run your own law firm, be Chairman of the Bergen County Democratic Committee, and still earn $3/4 MILLION a year acting as a consultant all AT THE SAME TIME?  It strains credulity. Especially when you consider Joe F must always be seen at Sanzari's or the Stony Hill Inn in Hackensack holding court with the likes of BlueBergen, while never, ever missing a single $1,000-a-plate fundraising dinner, golf outing or moonlight cruise for the BCDO.

He must have learned how to bend time.  I wonder what other tricks Joe knows........

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:02:27 AM UTC

Cricket, cricket. (0.00 / 0)

The LD39 Dems are FOR Pay to Play, aren't they..........

Your silence on this speaks VOLUMES. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 13:45:16 PM UTC