The Philadelphia Inquirer sings the praises of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine:
The former Goldman Sachs chief’s unusual background might have suggested he would bring real and needed upheaval to Trenton, but the past four years have not seen that. For a man who rose to the top of Wall Street from humble beginnings on an Illinois farm, Corzine has sometimes seemed timid about shaking up the statehouse . . .
. . . his administration’s victories have been qualified, its progress halting. On finances, the governor took a principled stand for funding pension obligations, only to have to retreat from it amid the downturn. He budgeted cautiously, but then made exceptions under political and economic pressure. He put forward but abandoned a controversial proposal to retire state debt. He won important concessions from state-employee unions, but often seemed too cozy with labor.
. . . The governor has also pushed for the nation’s strongest campaign-finance laws. But he has been stymied by an unrepentant Legislature and tarnished by his own generous underwriting of party bosses.
All of this comes in the Inquirer’s endorsement of Corzine for another four years.
Yesterday I wrote that the Washington Post’s easily predictable endorsements of Democratic candidates would be more palatable if they began,“We are, by and large, liberals, and thus are inclined to prefer the more liberal option in almost every election.”
It would be at least be honest, and a great deal that follows could be excused for
ideological consistency. It’s the only way to explain the Inquirer’s backing of Corzine,
when the lack of progress is so obvious they have to spend several paragraphs addressing the disappointments and unmet expectations of the past four years.