18 Comments

1. POSTED BY NNN9495  |  October 13, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

   I wholeheartedly endorse Chris Daggett – will be the first time ever voting for an Independent candidate!
2. POSTED BY walleroo  |  October 13, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

   All I know about Daggett is that he’s neither Corzine nor Christie. He’s got my vote!
3. POSTED BY Kit Schackner  |  October 13, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

   I thought it was bone-headed of the Ledger, even though Dagget’s responses seemed to be the best of the three in their recent articles. It was premature, like the Nobel Prize. They should have waited till the week before the election, after all the debates.
4. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  October 13, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

   Mulshine’s op ed in the Star Ledger was very good today. But then again, he almost always turns in good writing.
   I’ll be watching Chris Daggett.
   That should work as long as Chris Christie isn’t standing directly in front of him.
5. POSTED BY walleroo  |  October 13, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

   Screw the debate panel. I think the Ledger showed cojones here. Its endorsement has made this whole election suddenly interesting. It threw an uppercut like only an old-fashioned newspaper can. (Imagine, by contrast, the deafening silence that would greet, say, Baristanet’s endorsement of Daggett.) That’s the spirit, Ledger! Keep punching til they put you in a pine box!
6. POSTED BY Walter Mitty  |  October 13, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

   “a state regulation that prohibits debate sponsors from endorsing candidates”
   Maybe it means that those who have endorsed can’t sponsor debates.
   That is slightly less repugnant, though I can’t see how either way doesn’t violate the First Amendment.
7. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  October 13, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

   A vote for Daggett is a waste, even if he got in he’ll be ignored by the Dems/ R’s. Hold my nose and vote for Christie, what the hay, the country already voted for one guy that didn’t have a plan , having one as Gov. can’t be as bad as what we have now. We know Corizine doesn’t have one.
8. POSTED BY State Street Pete  |  October 13, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

   I’m still considering Daggett, but I’d certainly give him my vote if we had a run-off system. That would help make a vote of a third party candidate meaningful and not a throw away. As it is now I am concerned a vote for Daggett would end up being a vote for Christie, and he’s certainly not up for the job.
9. POSTED BY cathar  |  October 13, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

   With its endorsement of Daggett, the Star-Ledger of course receded further into the irrelevance in which it has dwelled for the last few years. In a kind of cave built out of its own arrogance and market shortsightedness.
   A vote for Daggett, which will not come from any of the normally Democratic truly faithful (who understand where both their bread and their butter come from, after all), is of course another way of re-electing Corzine. And while some above may then feel self-righteous that they will vote this way, really, if ousting Corzine is a genuine priority then you’ll just be making a very big mistake. But if a quixotic vote for someone who is sort of the equivalent of Norman Thomas here makes political sense for you, then by all means vote for Daggett.
   Walleroo, you sound like the very sort of reader at whom the Star-Ledger’s repetitive coverage of Springsteen, wearisome semi-academic musings on “Mad Men” and even that lengthy, bafflingly placed story Sunday on a missing woman pilot from WWII is aimed. Meaning someone who no longer wishes for actual news from his daily newspaper. You go, marsupial!
   And Paul Mulshine is but an ill-lettered surfer and occasional would-be bully forever posing as a “real” conservative.
10. POSTED BY Pork Roll  |  October 13, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

    All Daggett needs to do is pull the most votes in a three-way race. If all the people who say “I might vote for Daggett but…” actually voted for him, it could very well put him over the top.
    Cathar’s dismissive, ad-hominem put-downs notwithstanding, I think both Chris Daggett and the Star-Ledger have injected into this race a level of relevance regarding the issues that affect the New Jersey taxpayer that was sorely absent prior to the first gubernatorial debate.
11. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  October 13, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

    I don’t always agree with Mulshine, cathar, but he supports smaller more efficient governance. Sounds like a conservative to me.
12. POSTED BY johnnycashstrapped  |  October 13, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

    Getting an endorsement from the Star-Ledger is like finding out your long lost great aunt willed her presidential plate collection to you.
    It’s a nice gesture from a faded entity that has little value in the long run.
13. POSTED BY cathar  |  October 13, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

    Spiro T., I personally doubt Paul Mulshine is at all a “conservative.” He is, rather, a blowhard with a convenient pulpit for his musings and just one basic, severely limited way of going on about things. (Warmed-over Jimmy Breslin is all the Star-Ledger dares offer here, yet it remains just warmed-over Jimmy Breslin.) But he is in no way to be construed as the sort of nuanced, traditional-leaning “Conservative” that Dr. Russell Kirk, or even Edmund Burke or Samuel Johnson, has written about.
    Pork Roll, perhaps I just took an entirely different sort of Latin class than you did (4 years in Papist h.s., one in college); that said, no, my remarks above do hot at all constitute an “ad hominem” attack. Nor has the Star-Ledger injected “a level of relevance” into the race with its endorsement. Rather, it was probably more likely the dying swan dive of a a retiring editor (who is conveniently retiring to oversee a seminar at the institution of higher learning most removed from all of Jersey’s petty-seeming political concerns), a desire to “say something” at the end of his tenure however futile the burbling.
    And if all the people who said “I’d like to vote for Daggett but…” actually did vote for Daggett on Election Day, I’m also willing to bet that he’d still not come near the votes necessary to actually win the gubernatorial election. This is not something New Jersey’s prevailing political system of patronage and hackdom would ever allow for. Again, far too many folks get both their bread and their butter by virtue of being Democratic voters in this state, and it’s not going to change over the course of one election. There isn’t a public school teacher or civil servant out there, for example, who’d dare vote for Daggett, I’m guessing.
14. POSTED BY njelection.wordpress.com  |  October 14, 2009 @ 12:05 am

    Corzine complaining about Christie Being fat. Christie complaining about photo-ops and emails. Both candidates can do little more than to sidetrack voter’s from the fact they both duck the issues and offer no real plan.
    Why not write about the issue that matter, like the plaque of corruption and scandal that has been brought on our state or how you plan on dealing with the exodus of business, residents and income from our state? No let’s complain about photo-ops, emails and people being fat.
    However, as echoed by the Star Ledger endorsement of Chris Daggett, we finally have chance to change all of this.NJ voter’s are the only ones that have the power to change our government
    I am working hard to spread that message and so can you.
    Click Here For Web 2.0 Buttons and HTML Code

    Click here to volunteer for daggett
    
15. POSTED BY Whatsupwiththat  |  October 14, 2009 @ 1:56 am

    Daggett’s going to pull a Perot and we’ll have Clizine.
16. POSTED BY 13% Annual Tax Increas  |  October 14, 2009 @ 9:42 am

    Daggett needs some facial hair to compete with Corzine.
17. POSTED BY RealHawker  |  October 14, 2009 @ 10:30 am

    In a perfect world, I love to be able to actually vote for who you like than worrying about who else my vote actually lets win.
    I like showing that either party can’t take a particular demographic for granted.
    but….
    Isn’t this how Clinton won – Perot stole Bush votes?
18. POSTED BY aprilpenny  |  October 14, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    To compete with Corzine or Christie…Daggett would have to look like Burl Ives.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.