June 30, 2008

The Enemy of Matt's Enemy

Justin Katz

I don't have much to say on the topic, but it's really quite a spectacle to see Matt Jerzyk — he of the don't-cut-social-service-spending or union benefits brigade — attack Governor Carcieri for vetoing an expensive courthouse construction project:

Does Gov. Don Carcieri know how to sow division among the branches of government or what?!?

First, he vetoes one of the General Assembly's top legislative priorities - renewable energy.

Now, he has vetoed the judiciary's priority - a new courthouse in the Blackstone Valley:

I suppose one could argue that the construction jobs would likely have been union jobs, but it's difficult to come away from his post thinking that Jerzyk is guided by anything more profoundly than a political drive against the governor.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

A courthouse is a boon to the Union long after it is built. They will have cops earning tons of overtime writing tickets to support the damn thing. It's a vicious circle.

Posted by: George Elbow at June 30, 2008 9:51 PM

Gov. Carcieri doesn't feel the need to payoff the judiciary with taxpayers money for favors given to the legislative branch, and we're supposed to feel outrage about it? Puh-leeze.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just more background noise. Intellectual consistency has never been one of their strong points over at RIF, mainly because few of their arguments are made intellectually. Most appear to be based on little more than emotion and pure ideology. Much of what's gone on there within the past few weeks has only served to reinforce that observation.

Somewhat like their chronic case of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), they also seem to have the related malady of Carcieri Derangement Syndrome (CDS). In other words, they are so blinded by their ideologically driven hatred of certain individuals, they are unable to argue rationally or consistently, even when they are plainly in error. They seem unable to admit when a Republican is right and they are wrong about any issue.

PS I've also really been enjoying the intellectual gymnastics being used over there to justify Obama's support for the FISA compromise legislation, while at the same time they criticize most of the Rhode Island federal delegation. Applying the same set of standards to different individuals appears to be a problem for them. I'm absolutely positive that it hasn't occurred to them at all that President Bush is actually right about it.

Posted by: Will at June 30, 2008 10:16 PM

A courthouse in Lincoln is the last thing we need.It's not easily accesible to the people who need to get there most often-lower income people who often don't have cars and can least afford the gas.Expanding the current courthouse,suggested by Lou Pulner,makes much more sense.
Sometimes it seems Matt feels his day isn't complete without an obligatory swipe at the Governor or some other person he views as "right wing".Maybe now that he will be earning big bucks as a lawyer,he wants his "progressive"stature to remain intact.
Matt-it's a bad idea,this Lincoln courthouse,all politics aside.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 30, 2008 10:48 PM

Meanwhile, back here on planet earth, the following article from the WSJ implies that Jerzyk et al will find it even more difficult to achieve their goals in the months ahead:

"Gambling Slowdown Puts Squeeze
On Debt-Laden Casinos in Vegas
July 1, 2008

The gambling slowdown that began early this year is taking a serious toll on Las Vegas, with banks, investors and private-equity funds growing as tightfisted as the consumers who are gambling less in the slumping economy.

Once believed to be recession-proof, casinos are proving to be highly vulnerable to the economic downturn, which is striking the industry at a bad time. Las Vegas is entering its lethargic summer season, and a boom-time frenzy of grand expansion plans and private-equity buyouts has left casinos laden with debt."

Ah, yes... The Rhode Island End Game. Place your bets and hold your noses...

Posted by: John at June 30, 2008 10:48 PM

"attack Governor Carcieri for vetoing an expensive courthouse construction project"

You're kidding, right?

Posted by: Monique at June 30, 2008 11:21 PM

I'm surprised that you all are so quick to characterize my blog post as "attacking Carcieri" and/or "defending the Court house."

Do you disagree that the practical implication of Carcieri's veto is different than how I characterized it: one of sowing division among the separate branches of government?

If not, then you (all) are politically naive; further evidence why the GOP is on the steep decline into irrelevance.

Posted by: Matt Jerzyk at July 1, 2008 12:11 AM

I agree with Matt Jerkzyk.

Yes, if you define doing his job and good government as sowing division, yes, Governor is sowing division.

Carcieri's is the one branch of RI government that works as it should. The RI legislature and RI judiciary are notoriously corrupt.

So, yes, technically speaking, Carcieri is sowing division by refusing to be corrupt. By the legendary Rhode Island standards of corruption, Don Carcieri is sowing division by refusing to play the game.

Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 1, 2008 2:11 AM

"Do you disagree that the practical implication of Carcieri's veto is different than how I characterized it: one of sowing division among the separate branches of government?"

Honestly, who cares? "Sowing division" ... is that the best you can do? Save the psychobabble for Dr. Phil.

If you really cared about Rhode Island's future, you'd be a lot more worried about the culture of systemic corruption that the state legislature has been sowing for decades, of which we're now reaping the negative results.

The governor is trying to save us a lot of money ... because we don't have it to waste on schemes, ego trips or payoffs, especially on something that will not create one necessary permanent job. The proposed courthouse is an unnecessary luxury we cannot afford, now or in the immediate future. We don't need it. We can't afford it. Keep repeating.

I am sure to a metaphysical certitude that the Gov doesn't give a rat's right rump what's being "sown," other than a whole heck of a lot of savings to taxpayers. Period.

Posted by: Will at July 1, 2008 3:08 AM

Bah. What's far more newsworthy about RIFuture is Duck Boy's MULTIPLE daily posts during the work day. Clearly blogging is now part of his job description. Most of his blogs consist of his usual "LOOK HOW GREAT I AM!" proclamations so I guess it's too bad for him that his fact-free posts go either completely ignored or are completely refuted by those he would otherwise call tovarich.

Posted by: Greg at July 1, 2008 7:36 AM

"A courthouse in Lincoln is the last thing we need.It's not easily accesible to the people who need to get there most often-lower income people who often don't have cars and can least afford the gas"

Great point, JoeB. Providence is the hub of the state's public transit system; Lincoln is not.

Posted by: Monique at July 1, 2008 7:48 AM

As skilled at sowing division is Carcieri is, I actually agree with him here. That $88 mil is much better spent fixing or replacing the Pawtucket and Tiverton bridges - we need to start paying attention to infrastructure, and those bridges are ahead of the coyrthouse on my list.
Sometimes, budget debates make strange bedfellows.

Posted by: rhody at July 1, 2008 11:38 AM

So most of the $100m deficit which Steve Alves has just ... er, uncovered is due to an unnecessary court house.

And if it turns out the Senate Finance Chair was just being pessimistic and no deficit emerges, I would agree with Rhody: there are higher priorities for that $88m.

By the way, how is the General Assembly going to feel if they go forward with the courthouse and there is a tragic accident involving a poorly maintained bridge or highway infrastructure?

Posted by: Monique at July 1, 2008 8:35 PM

Matt Jerkzyk,

You wrote: "Do you disagree that the practical implication of Carcieri's veto is different than how I characterized it: one of sowing division among the separate branches of government?"

With all due respect, your comment demonstrates perfectly the go-along-to get-along Union mentality that is destroying our state, our public schools, our gov't, our economy.

There is a name for what you describe ...Mindless SHEEP.

It seems your ilk has no concept of limited resources, nor the concept or appreciation for one of the key underpinnings of our democracy, which is "checks and balances".

God forbid had you been a Founding Father, as you would have had ONE Branch of Government, so as to avoid "divisions".

I imagine you would counsel a parent to "go along" with a whining child at the checkout-line demanding candy and treats, so as to not sow division amongst the family?

Posted by: George Elbow at July 1, 2008 9:57 PM

When I wind up agreeing with Rhody,you know Matt made the wrong call.This time around,he misjudged the attitude in the leftist continuum,which is something he is usually in tune with.Must be studying too hard for the bar exam:)

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 2, 2008 10:47 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.