I hate to burst your misinformation bubble, however, the U.S. District Attorney is absolutely a prosecutorial position. By your logic, Eric holder has an "administrative" position. It's one thing to be partisan, it's another entirely to be illogical.

Moreover, i could rattle of the names of a dozen judges in New Jersey, none of which ever had actual prosecutorial experience, would that make them any less effective as Judges?

Dan you got that right for sure. Living in NJ i can tell you, its worse here than it was 4 years ago. Taxes are in the top 3 in the country, yes unemployment is through the roof, and major companies are leaving faster than the man with more Chin's than a Chinese phone book can swallow a donut. Yet He continues to leave the state. This man uses the word "I" more than anyone in politics. The only jobs he has created in the state are at the local bakery's in Trenton, where they just cannot keep up with the demand to satisfy the man's appetite. We in NJ think the man with more rolls than the bakery should just get up and leave, but as we know for him to get up is all not that easy..

Wow eyes, go for the high brow argument. If someone insulted the President like that, they would be labeled as racist. Just as an aside, companies weren't leaving the state when McGreevey and Corzine were in office. My, you have a convenient memory.

Eyes wide shut also conveniently ignores the fact that Corzine wanted to raise taxes and increase spending and ran on that platform. How convenient of him to ignore how taxes would be worse had Corzine won.

Jack than tell the Republicans to start being honest. It won't happen but you can try. We had a President that didn't pay attention and started wars in the wrong places, gave tax cuts in war time, called Mission Accomplished Long before 6000 of our bravest had died and 10 years later we haven't yet accomplished the objective he set. This President has been the subject of more hate and venom then any President I can remember unless you count shooting Kennedy. You spin talking points, nothing real.

Wasn't it Bush who took the most vacation time of any president? Do you have any backing for your allegations, and any comparisons to, say, Bush, Reagan, or Other Bush?

@David Zatz-- It was GW Bush who suspended playing golf with a war going on. Obama has played over 100 rounds but doesn't have the time to visit with world leaders one-on-one like Netanyahu.

@Keith -- I see you are forgetting about George W. Bush refusing to give up his photo-opp when the terrorists attacked on 9/11. Had he actually taken leadership at that point, if only to delegate power to a general, it's possible the terrorists would have been shot out of the air, limiting their destruction to the passengers on-board, who died anyway. I would like to see a reference for your claims, too. Bush started the Iraq war fairly early in his presidency, and still took more vacation time.

Yes, I'm sure its a mass media conspiracy against Fox News. I bet they killed Andrew Breitbart too.

Jack, Harry Reid tried to draw Romney out of hiding but was unsuccessful and there has to be a reason for Romney's telling America it is non of their business. It is even hard at this point to tell what Romney believes. He ran to the left of Kennedy and believed in all the progressive causes not he is to right of Attilla the Hun until he gets to the debate and then denies what he has compaigned on for two years. Like any supersales man which he is, he will say what ever the crowd in front of him want to here. BTW Bush was the cause of all our present problems along with a Congress that is constantly standing in the way of job creation.

Dan, I'm sure as knowledgeable as you are that you know the Congress was controlled by the Dems from 2007-2010. So if you want to cry obstruction, you had 2 full years under Obama and you wasted it on Obamacare. I guess we can agree on obstruction the last two years of Bush. After all, fair is fair. While I agree that Romney should have given his tax records, there is no legal requirement. Now you have a president that did nothing for his base the last four years, but now he is using executive orders to shore up their support. Since Bush was the cause as you say, does he get the credit for Bin Laden, since it was all his ground work that lead up to it?

Jacl if you were honest you would also say that although the Democrats had a majority the Republicans abused the filibuster rules more times in the last 3 years than in the entire history of the Republic so Democrats were not in "Control" This has been the most decietful group of polititians since the Civil War and we know how that ended.

Like locking Republicans out of meetings on healthcare... I love the hypocracy! You rationalize Harry Reid's lies, and admit, they were lies, but you call Republicans liars. And Lord Liar Harry and Queen Nancy of We Need to Pass It so We Know what's It worked with Bush, right? Give it up Dan? Your ship is sinking.

Yeah Jack your guys hit the iceberg and we aren't bailing fast enough for you. The "Bush Doctrine", remember that? Hannity used to say it all the time. It buried this country for a decade or more. The Damage a President does doesn't stop when he goes home and ofter the good is not seen for years.

I would applaud it if this administration were bailing us out but all they are doing is making a bigger hole. The economy is on a verge of a double dip, inflation is hitting (media isn't reporting that one either), failed foreign policy. Where do you see improvement? Not holding Bush as a steward of the economy, but you fail to hold this administration accountable for anything. And this is why we sit where we sit, at an impasse.

"Lord Liar Harry and Queen Nancy of We Need to Pass It so We Know" -- name calling is the last resort of those who have lost their argument.

And what happened 2 years ago to make the economy stall? The sweeping elections of Republicans into office that obstructed every chance of recovery.

And lets just be clear, it is the Republicans holding 98% of the people hostage in order to keep a 3% tax cut for the wealthy. The President has said if we agree that 98% of the people should keep that tax cut, send him the bill and he will sign it immediately. Then debate the other 2%.

Dodd-Franks was signed into law on July 21, 2010 by President Obama. So explain how this Wall Street Reform Act passed 2 years after the collapse is responsible for the 2008 recession!!!!

The republican/tea-bagger Obama-hater population is certifiable!

Dodd-Franks recession is named for the efforts of Rep Barney Franks as head of House Banking Committee and Sen Chris Dodd as head of the Senate Banking Committee to force banks to loosen credit requirements leading to the financial crisis/recession when the housing bubble burst. Dodd-Franks bill passed in 2010 was just their attempt to close the barn door after the horse had left.
Note that Chris Dood and Barney Franks recieved the largest contributions given by the banking lobby.

It was the undoing of the Glass-Steagall act.during the 1990's that is responsible for the financial industry fiasco during the last decade. While President Clinton did sign this overturn, which was spearheaded by Phil Gramm and the republican controlled Congress, President Clinton has acknowledged that this was perhaps his worst mistake as President. And now the right-wing nuts can insert all their Lewinsky comments here.

Nice Try Belleville Sentinel, but bringing up Phil Gramm is barking up the wrong tree.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 had overwhelming support of Democrats (155 Dems voted for) in the House and passed 90-8 (including Joe Biden) in the Senate.
In your eyes they were probably all decieved by those lying republicans. Many economists feel that changes made in the Act actually helped prevent further damage during the Dodd-Franks recession. If you don't believe me, which you probably don't, just look at this from FactCheck.org. I know you will probably resort to calling them just a bunch of republican/tea-bagger Obama-haters but I think most will agree that they are pretty non-partisan.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

Sounds exactly like our first term Governor. Christie ( who this article was about) served as a Freeholder for 1 month before saying he had Accomplished all he wanted too then filed for the Assembly and failed at that then lost his re-election effort. He was appointed as a US Attorney with now prosecutorial experience because of his fund raising efforts and then was elected as Governor. He is Republican Rock Star only because who else are the going to put out there. Todd Aiken? Sen. Vitter the hooker Star.

Dan, Sounds a little like Obama too. How long was he in the Senate? How many votes did he miss? Rock Star?

I don't know Dan, Anthony Weiner is available, Kerry Gauthier, Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer. Apparently, you've run out of legit arguments and resort to insults, much like your associate Stew.

Well remember, the other side wanted to raise your taxes higher. They also wanted to sell off the turnpike which would have resulted in you paying far higher tolls. And let's not forget my favorite, making us pay 100% of the overage on building that multibillion dollar tunnel to NYC so NJ residents could work in NYC, contribute to the economy of NYC, drive economic growth in NYC and where NYC who would get most of the benefit of the tunnel would be responsible for none of the cost overruns that always occur when major projects like this are built.

I am Spartacus, the people may have earned their money in NYC but they would have taken that train back home to NJ and spend it all here.

I think a lot of people spend the NYC money in NYC. They buy lunches and dinners anyway.

XJS, yes they might buy lunch or an occasional dinner, but the come back to NJ and buy houses, go grocery shopping, raise families and spend their money at local businesses either through themselves or their families. That would boost not only local economies but also property values. Do you think all those towns along train lines would be as prosperous and popular as they are if they didn't have easy access to NYC?

Bellair- Absolutely. That's why Hoboken and Jersey City are so expensive by comparison. Those people are mostly single and spending a lot of their money in NYC. The families farther out into Jersey are doing as you suggest. No doubt.

All of them are paying NYS taxes. :(

Nobody is disputing that much of that money would be spent in NJ. NYC and NJ would jointly benefit from a rail tunnel. The problem w/ the tunnel is NJ was responsible for ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE COST OVERRUNS! DUH

Ojo Rojo, in fact yes, I am Spartacus said NYC would get most of the benefit. There have been construction projects that finished in record time ( take the rt4 rt 17 corridor and rt 80 for example). We had 1/3 of the money from federal funding in place ( remember how Conservatives want to get rid of Menendez because he doesn't bring any money home?) Christie gave it all up for political reasons. Now we have nothing. Way to go Gov

XJS those people won't stay single forever. Do you realize that if you work for a major corporation in NJ when you see that state income tax taken out of your paycheck that the corporation gets to keep it? That money doesn't go to New Jersey either. That program was started in 1996 by Christie Whitman.

So if you agree that NYC would get most of the benefit, why would you be stupid enough to want NJ to get most of the bill? That just makes no effing sense at all.

Ojo Rojo, please re read the thread and see who " I am Spatacus" is. I will try and not call you stupid when you realize you misunderstood what you read.

The guy is right, NYC gets most of the benefit, we get most of the bill and only an idiot would support having the NJ taxpayers on the hook all to help out NYC's economy. Then again perhaps the problem is you just don't pay much in taxes and don't care how many billions over budget that tunnel would end up being. I have yet to meet someone who didn't pay much in taxes who didn't just love trying to stick the other guy w/ a tax hike so they could "get what's theirs".

Ojo Rojo I won't call you stupid or an idiot for not being able to understand it all. Those workers would be bringing money out of NYC and into New Jersey, just like millions of people are doing already. Millions of jobs have been created in NJ that takes advantage of that money coming in. But please, try and explain how NY gets all the advantage.

For starters, the businesses those people work at all pay taxes in NYC. Then you got the jobs all those people who work in NYC create when they spend money there. On top of that, those workers all use services in their daily jobs that are provided by other businesses and workers who also generate taxes and economic activity in NYC. You are just focused on how much income those people are making and you are completely blind to all the other economic activity associated w/ those workers, those jobs, those businesses employing NJ residents. Personally I blame your blindness to all this economic activity to you being a blind partisan ideologue. You are just too stubborn to admit that under no circumstances should NJ have been the only one to bear the complete burden of any overruns on that tunnel when NYC got so much of the benefit.

Finally someone realizes that it will not matter who is elected as president. We need a complete overhaul of the system. Get big business out of government and get government out of the charity business. When will we realize that government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.

Suggest the Governor stay out there, we would get more done here in NJ. His days, as Governor, are numbered and he will be voted out at the next election.

Who you going to replace him with? The guy who blew up MF Global and lost hundreds of millions of client money?

The core tunnel was a bad idea due to the cost and number of people that it would help. Many billions of dollars to benefit hundreds of people twice a day. Not sure that its worth it, but extending a subway line into NJ would benefit many more people.

The tunnel was a good idea and what is lost here is the the Federal part would have come from the other 49 state. It isn't about NY or NJ it is about commerce and jobs. It is also about NJ getting a fairshare of the Taxes we send to Washington to be given to all those Red State losers that live off of States like NJ and yet hate us. Look at the Crap those states send to Washington to vote on what is good for the nation. Christie also lost the Race to the Top money. Do you think $400 million would have done our schools any good? You bet it would have.

Sure I will drink the kool aid. You keep getting trickled on and think it's water. They are peeing on you pal and you keep thinking they are doing you a favor. David Stockman, Reagan budget director yesterday pointed out that in 1985 the top 5 percent had $4 Trillion of the wealth of the Nation and now the same 5 percent have $40 Trillion and you want to give them more? You think your fate is in their hands? No your money is.

youre right, let me do it in bulk blocks instead then, heres yours:
1.Romney: ‘We Don’t Have People Who Die Because They Don’t Have Insurance’
2.Billionaire CEO Threatens To Fire Employees If Obama Wins
3.Arkansas State Rep: ‘If Slavery Were So God-Awful, Why Didn’t Jesus Or Paul Condemn It?’
4.Tea Party Voter Suppression Group Under Investigation For Possible ‘Criminal Conspiracy’
5.Wisconsin Lawmaker Claims ‘Some Girls Rape Easy’

Mr Resmer has made no claim that he loves or hates any candidate nor has expressed any of the views you claim him to have. He has stated facts. I will agree with you that it will have no effect on you but if you feel those facts to be finding the faults ( the definition of criticism) of Mr Romney and Ryan, maybe you should begin to question why you would vote for them.

A person doesn't have to claim to hate or love a candidate for you to know who they support. What a person says, how they say it and what they conveniently enough leave out of their comments on a topic is good enough to indicate whom they support.

BellairBerdan, are you kidding me? If you can't tell Stewart Resmer leans further left than Bill Ayers, than you are asleep.

So what you're saying, then, is that people who have chosen to believe talking points, whether they are true or not, will not change their views based on factual information if that factual information proves their talking points wrong, but will instead cling to things that aren't true. This means that their minds are either not capable of processing additional information, or they choose to be willfully ignorant. So....which is it?

Or they choose to ignore people who regurgiate points that they do not think up or understand. Some bloggers merely parrot someone who shares their political view.
The people who ignore them are capable of having thoughts and ideas. They choose to ignore these non-thinking people who made up their minds 4 years ago about who they will vote for inthe 2012. Nothing Obama did or didn't do would change the minds of people who blog in this manner, they would just put a positive spin on it. Nothing Romney or Ryan said or didn't say would change their minds. They would not evaluate it or consider it, they would just put a negative spin on it.

I am not sure if you are in that category, but it is obvious that some others who post in this blog are.

The restaurant you ate at last time you went out to eat does at well. So does the farm that grew the produce you eat, the processing plant that processed your chicken, the gas station you fill your car up at & tens of thousands of other companies in our country. Do you honestly expect people to check the green cards of the employees of businesses they patronize? Get real.

Big difference b/w losing a couple million of seed money to help start up a business and investing a half billion dollars in a company that you already know is going to go bankrupt and all the financial experts told you to run fast and far away from. Bush officials had nixed the Solyndra loan b/c the company was unsound. Obama knew that. Here is a quote from a report on the Congressional report on the matter "The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra. Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011. There was also concern about the high-risk nature of the project. Internally, the Office of Management and Budget wrote that "the risk rating for the project sponsor [Solyndra] … seems high." Outside analysts had warned for months that the company might not be a sound investment."

Oh, and I noticed you never mentioned that at least 1 of the companies that went bust in MA paid back the state the money it borrowed before it went bust. Solyndra can't say the same thing.

to me it's not a question of legal but it shows a persons chacter, and character is something very important to me for president of the united states. its not illegal for a man to call a women an offensive name, however i will not have respect for that man.
taking advantage of the tax system is not illegal and some will say it makes you a good businessman. however i also think it shows greed and does not help america. if a ceo ships jobs over seas so he can make $16 million that year instead of $12 million and keep hundreds of jobs in america to me that is greedy and unpatriotic. however if asked id have to say he is a good businessman because he made the most money he could. id rather my president have character and do whats best for america and not just whats best for his personal wealh.

Conversely- The CEO ultimately answers to the shareholders in the company. If the CEO of the company I invest in squanders the opportunity to make money and increase my stock value, I will sell the stock and buy elsewhere. Many people feel likewise. If they all sell, the company's ability to raise money goes away. Without the ability to raise money, they have to take loans and that costs money (interest). Then the company is sick. And it fails. And no one has a job.

so you saying everyone should be ok with shipping jobs to sweat shops over seas since it makes the most profit?
even if romney lowers tax rates for "job creators" we will still not be able to get labor as cheap as places like china, so companies looking for the most profit will still send there jobs over sea.

GJ there's no clear answer. But I would try to find ways to make having a business here more attractive.

Regardless, in the case of romney - I don't think paying more than you owe in taxes is smart. And I'd never vote for a dumb guy. And when it comes to moving his company overseas, if that saves money, again, I don't have a problem.

Call upon your legislator to close tax loop holes and bring the jobs home.

There can be no doubt that Obama is going to win in November. But the idea of voting for either of these two partisan hacks is revolting. Gary Johnson all the way!

Romney has self respect. He doesn't need to appear that liberal freak show to describe himself as "eye candy" like this idiot we have in office. When that jackass leaves the white house, he will probably have a reality show. What a disgrace Obama is to the United States.

Did he have no self respect when he booked his appearance? Is this another etcha sketch moment with his evolving views?
If Obama gets a reality show I hopes it's a fancy once where he beats fish to death with sticks, like Sarah Palin had!

He Punked their asses

Gotta respect a man that goes back on his word....or do you?