Christie in New Jersey

I can’t believe it: a Republican won a state-wide race in New Jersey, probably the most left-wing, corrupt, one-party state in the Union. But the Democrats have become so disgusting, so corrupt, and for so many years, particularly in the person of the dead-faced, Bolshevik-looking Jon Corzine, that finally even the endemically liberal electorate of that state turned against them.

Christopher J. Christie, whose victory speech I’m watching now, seems like a good, decent man. What a change from Corzine.

Also, I feel a personal connection with Christie, since he says that when he was a small child his family lived in an apartment on South Orange Avenue in Newark, before they moved to Livingston for the better schools. When I was in high school, my family lived just off of South Orange Avenue in South Orange, between Newark and Livingston, where we had moved from Union Township for the better schools.

- end of initial entry -

Jonathan W. writes:

In addition, the Republican Rob Astorino defeated Andrew Spano for County Executive in Westchester, and the vote wasn’t even close. At current count, Astorino has 58 percent of the vote to Spano’s 42 percent which is pretty remarkable given that Spano has held the position since 1997. A big issue during the campaigns was the housing debacle (previously discussed on VFR) for which Spano was almost single-handedly responsible. I guess even many liberal New York Democrats don’t want blacks and Hispanics being given free housing in their upscale neighborhoods.

James N. writes:

Jonathan W. said,

“I guess even many liberal New York Democrats don’t want blacks and Hispanics being given free housing in their upscale neighborhoods.”

Oh, Jonathan, you just don’t know them like I do. It’s not “many”, it’s “all”. They want YOU to live with the blacks. Themselves? Not so much.

LA writes:

When I initially wrote the entry, I identified the victorious Republican candidate in New Jersey as “Chris Christie,” because that was the only way I’ve seen his name spelled, but with a feeling of regret that here was yet another politician who uses his nickname as his official name, a habit that degrades our society. Then I looked up the New York Times story on the election, and saw to my relief that his name is Christopher J. Christie. How much more dignified and substantial this is for the name of a state governor than the euphonious but immature sounding “Chris Christie.”

November 4

Carol Iannone writes:

I liked your description of Corzine and the change to Christie, but your point about the nickname is off; didn’t people say Al Smith, Teddy Roosevelt. It’s the way of politics in US.

LA replies:

Al was Smith’s nickname. He used the name Alfred E. Smith. Roosevelt used the name Theodore Roosevelt, and never referred to himself as Teddy. I didn’t say people shouldn’t have nicknames. I said that nicknames shouldn’t replace one’s real name. For example, it sounds as though “Doug” Hoffman and “Bill” Owens are the names they use in place of their real names, since I’ve never seen them referred to as Douglas or William.

At his website, he’s referred to only as “Doug,” except in one place, where he signs his concession statement as Douglas L. Hoffman. The result is that the media have referred to him exclusively as Doug Hoffman, as though that were his name, rather than Douglas Hoffman. That’s no good. He’s a candidate for Congress, in which position he would be voting on the nation’s laws. A county can’t be serious abuot itself if it’s referring to its leaders exclusively by their nicknames.

And Bill Owens, an Air Force veteran (with relatives who fought in the Civil War and both World Wars) and managing partner of a law firm, is a solid citizen. But he exclusively uses “Bill” at his website. I’m sure he uses William in his law practice, but as far as his candidacy for Congress is concerned, it’s as though his name William didn’t exist. This is no good.

Also, I have to say that it’s very depressing to see a middle American man like Owens as part of a party seeking homosexual “marriage,” the government takeover of healthcare and much of the economy, surrender to Islam, and the Hispanicization of the U.S. via open borders. He himself doesn’t mention any of those issues, except for health care reform: he’s for it. In fact he discusses only five issues at his site and is silent on social issues and immigration. But since he’s a Democrat we’d have to assume that he supports the general Democratic positions on those other issues, but maybe he doesn’t.

Carol Iannone replies:

They were referred to all the time by nickname. It was not so different from now.

LA replies:

Of course they were referred to by nickname. But in a formal reference, newspapers would have said, “Gov. Alfred E. Smith delivered his state of the state address today,” not “Gov. Al Smith.” So you’re not taking in my point. There’s a place for nicknames. What is bad is when nicknames replace the formal name.

For example, the name of the editor of National Review is Richard Lowry, but he never uses it; he signs all his articles, “by Rich Lowry,” thus making his nickname his formal name. By contrast, while everyone refers to Patrick Buchanan as Pat Buchanan, he himself in his writings always uses the by-line “Patrick Buchanan” or “Patrick J. Buchanan.” He’s not replacing his formal name by his nickname, as “Rich” Lowry does. The latter, editor of America’s leading conservative magazine, presents himself as an eternal adolescent, uncomfortable with his grown-up name.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2009 11:16 PM | Send