Deep Thoughts: Jon Corzine and E-mails

Honestly... (0.00 / 0)

I have to assume that there is no 'bombshell' in those emails, otherwise the 2 person ethical panel that previously reviewed them would have raised a red flag. (at least I hope so)
With that assumption, he would have done well to follow Creed's earlier advice and get out in front of this and released them after that review.
Now with all the legal wrangling, anything in those emails is greatly amplified.
This is another example of the gov.'s 'tin ear' as Thurman put it.


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 14:06:26 PM UTC

A Mess (0.00 / 0)

The Governor's claim has been that they are private, not personal.  His claim of privacy is based on the idea that he should be able to get advice from people who don't have to worry about their advice becoming public.

Katz managed her usual attention grab by claiming that the emails were in fact part of the negotiation process.  Ironically, this has led to her being ousted from the union presidency because she was supposed to stay out of the negotiations since she had a rather blatant conflict.

Bad cases make bad law.  It would still be smarter to release the emails (especially during the Olympics when no one is paying attention) and go on from there.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 14:38:46 PM UTC

He has claimed both (0.00 / 0)

at different times and some combination of them at other times.

He also said at one point that he wouldn't take it to the Supreme Court.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 17:19:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's why it is a mess. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 22:04:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Protecting a Friend (0.00 / 0)

The e-mail correspondence between Katz and Corzine was definitely about the ongoing contract negotiations at that time.

That is a fact that I know.

Katz was trying to win arguments with Corzine that she was not winning with her fellow CWA Presidents and certainly not with the State negotiators. CWA was ready , willing and able to give in to Corzines demands for health care and pension fund givebacks. Katz was trying to pull a rabbit out of her hat and knew she was vioalting a agreement made with the CWA leadership regarding " back door " negotiations. She felt very strongly about those issues and was willing to take a chance.      

Corzine went against the direct advice of his negotiating team led by the Genova law firm and corresponded with Katz. He corresponded with her , he did not negotiate with her.

At the end of the day Katz and her side lost.

When it was publicly found out that Katz and Corzine had e-mailed each  other it was beneficail to both Corzine and Katz to keep those e-mails from becoming public.

Katz did not want the " smoking gun" to be seen by the CWA leadership who were gunning for her because of her opposition to the contract.  Corzine did not want to be embarrassed and he did not want his " friend" to get in troble with her CWA leadership. After all , if he crossed Katz , Katz might very well get talkative about matters that were best kept private. It benefits both Corzine and Katz to keep those e-mails private.

The e-mails themselves are almost harmless and if they had been  released immediatley would have been ignored within days.

Corzine created his own mess here and now it has taken on a life of its own.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 20:26:03 PM UTC

And how would you know? (0.00 / 0)

He corresponded with her but didn't "negotiate" with her???

Katz "took a chance" for what???  Why would Corzine agree to anything if the rest of the locals were just going to roll over and play dead?  What was the point of her freelancing?

You try to speak from a position of knowledge yet continue to say that you aren't a player.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 22:04:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please Understand (0.00 / 0)

Corzine never agreed to anything. His " big mistake" was corresponding with Katz  during the negotiations. He was told not to do that by the Genova people. Once he opened the e-mails he was in a no win situation.

Katz on the other hand saw that she was losing her argument at the negotiation table and was making an attempt to salvage something from Corzine directly.

The other CWA Presidents saw her corresponding with him. They never said anything because they were getting what they wanted from the negotiations.

The e-mails are nothing more than a Katz attempt to do an " end around" with the negotiations. Katz herself stated that those e-mails were confidential because their contents dealt with collective bargaining.

Katz did what she felt she must do to protect her membership from getting a contract that contained pension and health care givebacks.

Corzine made the mistake of being nice to her and listening to her complaints . He should have used a cell phone. He should have never opened those e-mails.  The e-mails make him look foolish since he was violating the collective bargaining process by talking to an individual instead of a group.  

Once he decided to keep them private the whole issue took on a life of its own. He hoped it would go away. It has not.

Not a "player" here either. Just a close observer.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 02:37:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Give it a rest already! (4.00 / 2)

You are a player.  If you weren't, you would have finally come out into the light.

But, for giggles, let's go back to YOUR "logic" from Katz' perspective:  the other locals are willing to take a dive and are "giving" Corzine everything he wants, but somehow by talking to him directly she is going to convince Corzine to only take a few slices of bread rather than the whole loaf that is being "offered" to him???

I doubt it.

I hope that she didn't offer the health care "concession" to him with the "wellness programs" loophole, but I am afraid that is really what everyone is trying to hide.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:08:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One Last time (0.00 / 0)

Katz firmly believed that she could get a concession out of Corzine that she could not get from the Genova negotiation team. Right or wrong that is what she thought.

She took a shot. She sent the e-mails. The contract was not " up" for 4 more months. She wanted to drag Corzine into the negotiations.

No big deal. The problem occured when Corzine , who knew negotiations were going on , opened the e-mails. Because he is a " nice guy"  he conversed with Katz. He did not negotiate he simply voiced his opinion.

His second big mistake was not revealing those e-mail conversations. I , and some others believe he did not reveal those e-mails immediately because he knew that Katz was in trouble if he did. The CWA leadership was gunning for her and they would consider those e-mails as " proof" that she  was negotaiating away from the table. Again, his being a " nice guy" got him in hot water.

Now it is too late. The e-mail issue has taken a life of its own. They will however have to be released if he wants to run for reelection. So if he wants to cut his losses he should release them  today, take some heat, and then everyone will see that there is nothing to the whole issue. Of Course he will not do that.  

I am not sure what a " player" is but I am sure I am not one. Just an observer.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 13:17:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A "Player" is.... (0.00 / 0)

.....someone with a direct personal vested interest beyond that of any one who resides in NJ and is affected by what government does in all manner of direct and indirect ways.

A player is someone who stands to gain financially or professionally or in terms of "chits" good for future favors for themselves, families or friends.  

A player is someone who is "carrying water" for interests in such a way that they feel the need to hide their full agenda from those they are trying to influence.

Players tend to have hidden agendas.

A player is someone who is involved in the practice of "pay for PLAY".

I suppose I could go on and try to think of a few dozen more instances of "what a player is" but I would challenge everyone reading this to come up with some more examples/definitions.

In my own case, my agendas and positions (as wacky as they may seem to some of y'all ;-) are all on the table and my identity is not hidden....I consider my own "playerhood" to be generally positive (with some exceptions when I may have let myself be baited into negativity, I ain't perfect).

Firstamnd07, given your robust all out defense and evident devotion to George Norcross; I wonder if you are "playing" us on his behalf?  

Are you, or anyone in your close circle, deriving personal or professional gain from some association with/loyalty to the Norcross machine.  

If the answer is yes, then by your own "standards" you shouldn't be ashamed to share that truth with us since you proclaim that machine to be "good".  If you're supporting that which is good; you should be proud to come out and show your face.

If the answer is no; and you're just an ordinary shlub like the rest of us who isn't a "player" then I invite you to let go of the anonymity as it would lend so much more credibility to your message.

It's conceivable that you hold the views you espouse here out of purely ideological/intellectual motives and that there are no personal conflicts of interest at all.    Frankly, it's difficult to believe that; but it is certainly conceivable.

From where  I sit; your often articulate assertions of progressive values radically conflict with your virtually unconditional embrace of Norcross and the bossism he embodies.   Kind of like Terry Malloy who is a progressive Democrat but has a "thing" for Chris Christie.

It just "doesn't compute".

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 14:38:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No fit (0.00 / 0)

I certainly don't fit into any of your "player" definitions.

I am a firm believer in keeping , in the tradition of Franklin and many of the Founding Fathers, my " second name" when I write.

If there is such a thing as a " reality based progressive"  then " fit" me there. If not, then I just made up a new category for others like me who have an inner  compass but also want to see results.

The motto for Reality Based Progressives is , "Moral victories don't help people in need."  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 15:09:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For an observer, you "know" a lot. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 15:10:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I will take that as as compliment.

You can learn a lot just by listening to people , especially people who have an agenda and don't mind speaking to someone who does not.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 17:11:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rule #1 (0.00 / 0)

Everyone has an agenda.

Rule #2: If someone says they don't have an agenda, either they know nothing or are lying.

Rule #3: If any confusion arises, see rules 1 and 2.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter what transpired between them or for what reasons.  If he exerts executive privilege, then he is saying that she was speaking as the head of the CWA.  That makes the communications suspect, and possibly illegal.  If they were purely personal, then they may be embarassing, but nothing more.

The big problem is that he has never seemed to get his story straight.  Of course, that's his problem on a lot of issues.  He has zero credibility.  For that, he only needs to look in the mirror.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 22:11:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know you didn't miss my point, (4.00 / 1)

you just want to ignore it.

If you aren't involved, you cannot say that you "know" the things you claim to "know."

Thurman's three rules apply here.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 05:40:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is silly (0.00 / 0)

Involved means that you are a part of the decision making process or will benefit from the decision.

I am in neither category.

I am just an observer of the scene. The media, in all of its forms, provides a lot of information.

Some people are so intent on putting out their views that they forget to listen to the views of others. The only way to get things done is to know your friends and to understand your enemies. You do that by listening, reading , and watching.

People who make up their own " rules" and impose them on others sometimes start to  believe that they are the " rulemakers" . They are the people who must be watched out for.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you really must be running out of arguments, (0.00 / 0)

after some of your rather nasty posts, now YOU are the oppressed one???

YOU were the one who claimed to "know."  I can figure out stuff pretty well myself, but I can't claim to "know" it without direct observation.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:23:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nasty? (0.00 / 0)

When were things nasty? My opinion might be different than your opinion but that does not make them nasty.

I hope you do not get offended with peopel who might disagree a little. Nothing here is personal except our beliefs.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:57:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thurman And Creed.... (0.00 / 0)

...are, imho, extremely smart/astute/informed observers of the NJ political scene.

As I read what they've said here it only reinforces my own doubts and suspicions about you and your agenda.

First you told us that "Norcross is Good".

Then you strongly defended that facially simplistic and flawed assertion in a way that, to me, comes off as a performance that was as slippery/slick as what any well paid attorney or hired flack would provide.  

Now you're telling us that you "have no dog in this hunt", i.e. that you have no personal/professional agenda to drive and that you have no knowledge of these matters other than what is in the public domain.  Sorry, that's just not credible.  

I have very mixed feelings about Jon Corzine; but if the alternative to Corzine would be a Democratic governor wholly owned by the Norcross/Ferierro axis of "legitimized" corruption; I would prefer to stick with the semi competent halfway decent Corzine.  

If, for some reason, Corzine bows out.....or becomes weak enough to be seriously challenged in a primary; he must be replaced with a genuinely progressive reformer who will offer the people of NJ some fundamental reforms.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:33:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who? (0.00 / 0)

Would you back a candidate who had a strong labor Union background and fought successfully for a raise in the minimum wage?

Would you back a candidate who made an honest attempt, despite it not being very popular, to begin the huge task of saving the pension fund for the average state worker?

Would you back a candidate who stood up to a full court press by the business community and pushed for over three years the idea of Paid Family Leave and WON!

Oh NO! That is right,this candidate might also be backed by the Evil One, George Norcross so I assume you will never back him.

If you have any " genuine progressive reformers" who have done as much as Steve Sweeney , please give me his name.

I use Sweeney and his accomplishments as an example that everything does not come in nice neat packages.

If , and it is a big if, Corzine does not run would you support Codey, Andrews , or Sweeney? Or would you sit it out and let Chrisite win?  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:56:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Questions....false choices.... (0.00 / 0)

So long as you frame it as,  "it's either compromised machine endorsed candidates or "Christie"; then I would still be forced to choose the lesser of the two evils and support "Codey, Andrews , or Sweeney".

Shit, I would vote for Joe Ferierro for president over John McCain too but that doesn't mean that I don't think they're both sleazebags .

What you can't seem to accept/understand/countenance is the possibility that there just MIGHT be a candidate out there who can win a general election AND  still be a solid uncompromised progressive who can rally the people of this state to take it back from the corrupt  "pay to play" interests that are currently running it.

There have to be hundreds of brilliant, competent and HONEST people in NJ who have the talents and skills to be a truly great governor.   Most of them are probably "off the radar screen" right now.

What's needed is a grass roots movement to make it possible for a real change in NJ.  Such a movement would find these people and encourage them to run and support them with money and people power.

The way things are now, most decent folk want nothing to do with (heavy involvement in) electoral politics because they see it as a dirty and dangerous enterprise that is irredeemably "fixed".

The way you want to go, I see zero real change, just some cosmetic/incremental improvements on the status quo at one end while the machine continues to pick our pockets at the other end.

No long term profound systemic good can come from Norcross and his ilk.   Whatever "good" he does is window dressing to maintain and expand his own power.  

I would rather have a smart, competent honest reformer running the show than the folks with the "experience" you tout.

Corzine's appeal was that he came off as being a smart, honest reformer; but he was either conning us or he allowed himself to be intimidated/emasculated by the corrupt establishment; either way he's a major disappointment.  

Yet, with all his flaws...I would still have to vote for Corzine over any Republican on the current horizon.

So, yes, I understand realpolitik; but I also understand that it's necessary to struggle at the grass roots levels to generate the kind of "people power" required to effectuate serious progressive change.  

And I also understand that you are consistently saying things that would tend to tamp down any spark  that might ignite such a movement.

You are either an ideologically driven individual who just happens to have beliefs that coincide 100% with the interests of George Norcross or you're, in effect, a player who is being deceptive about your true nature/agenda.

I suspect you're the latter.  You claim to be the former.

If you're really not a player then you have nothing to lose by going public and sharing your true identity with the rest of us out in the sunlight.    

In fact you should be proud of what you have to say here....and we could continue to have constructive arguments on these points.

If, on the other hand, you're lying to us and are "playing" some kind of manipulative head game; then you are a (fill this blank in with some choice curses...the more foul the "better" ;-).

I would be very happy to admit my error and to apologize to you for daring to question your integrity if you come out and show a clean face.

I made this same challenge to "Terry Malloy" months ago and he's deigned to remain anonymous.

Hell for all I know you and "Terry" are the same smartass PR flak working on different "accounts" under different pseudonyms!  LOL

The world, sadly, is full of brilliant people who sell their souls for a few bucks.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:12:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Founding Fathers (0.00 / 0)

IN the tradition of our Founding Fathers I will " stay cloaked". Who I am is secondary to what I have to say.

Enjoy the following:

Publication:The Jacksonville Daily News;  Date:Sep 17, 2006;  Section:Opinion;  Page Number:2D  

Founding Fathers were bloggers

John Hood

   RALEIGH - The Founding Fathers were bloggers.

While I knew that the Founding Fathers were fond of cloaking their political commentary with pseudonyms, "Infamous Scribblers" filled in the detail by providing their bewildering variety. Hamilton like to employ a nom de plume that revealed what he regarded as his philosophical roots in classical Rome: Publius, Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus, for example. Newspaper publisher Benjamin Franklin displayed a mastery of evocative names such as Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman and the delightful Busy Body. The champion in terms of sheer numbers appears to be John Adams, whose 25 or so pen names included Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty and the vaguely Wrestlemaniacal "Vindex the Avenger".

   Instapundit, Atrios and Daily Kos - eat your heart out.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 20:56:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Founding Fathers Were Saving Their Lives... (0.00 / 0)

...They had good reason to keep their identities secret; they could be hanged for "treason" if the truth were known.

You have no such problem, hell I suspect you may have the mirror image of that problem.

Thurman's three rules (see above) apply here.

Your agenda is clear.  I think it's more likely that you're a pro than that you're a sincere ideologue....either way; you're lending aid and comfort to Norcross/Ferierro & the entities they work for.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 13:24:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's really... (0.00 / 0)

What it comes down to, isn't it?

I hope that she didn't offer the health care "concession" to him with the "wellness programs" loophole, but I am afraid that is really what everyone is trying to hide.

That's the whole ball of wax right there. If Katz suggested 'wellness' in the guise of a concession in those emails and that's what actually happened, Corzine needs to resign, and the ethical panel that claimed, "emails did not appear to influence negotiations..." needs to be resigned/blackballed/etc as well.

To me, that would be pretty widespread conspiring to hoodwink the public you are suppose to represent and protect to score political points and clearly deserving of resignation.


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 13:54:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]