Wow! Where do I begin here? First off, Jon Corzine will NEVER call for a ban on dual office holding. The is due in large part to the fact that Jon Corzine is a tool of the machine politicians who hold dual offices! If you ever bother to read the comments to your posts(which you obviously don't) I hit on this after your last post.

Quite frankly Mr. Adubato you should know better than this. Just because Jon Corzine is the Governor doesn't mean he's the most powerful politician in the state.

It is dual office holders like Joe Doria and Sharpe James along with others like Nick Sacco, Brian Stack and Albio Sires in the Northern region of the state who are responsible for Corzine being Governor.

They were the ones who got the same machine vote that elects them to both of their offices out FOR Jon Corzine last November. They gave Corzine his power and they can take it away. I can assure you that none of these men would take very kindly to Corzine taking an extra salary away from them.

What REALLY makes no sense here is that you want the Governor along with the media to call for a ban on dual office holding. Yeah, right!! Like the media who loves the the fact that democrats have been running the state for the last five years is going to all of a sudden jump up and bite the hand that feeds them! Give me a break!

The only way you are going to end dual office holding is if and when we finally elect a Governor with a track record of reforming government like Bret Schundler or Steve Lonegan who isn't a tool of the system and just licking their chops waiting for the opportunity to take these stooges head on.

Until somebody who provides a stark contrast to business as usual motivates voters to get out to the polls to outnumber the Machine Democrat vote, banning multiple office holding will never become a reality.

I don't know if Lonegan or Schundler are real reformers, I mean how much can you do in Bogota...But I do know that they are both right wing whack jobs...which being one yourself Dino, it might seem ok...but to the rest of this fine state it isn't...both R's and D's have both had the chance to ban dual office holding and haven't...they are equally culpable...

You know, if it's one thing I love doing, it's hitting a nerve which is what I have clearly done here.

You are obviously in somebody's back pocket and therefore simply going to mock what I have to say so I will aim this more at people who are enlightened enough to take what I have to say to heart.

Machine politicians that hold dual offices like Sacco, James, Stack and Sires have as much power as they do because they get the payroll that they are responsible for hiring out to vote, whereas the majority of voters have been beaten down and abused by the system so many times that they don't bother to go out and vote anymore.

They get tons of money from big labor unions and big businesses who donate to their campaigns.

Big contractors, who do our highways are funneling money into their campaigns through political action committees and membership organizations who in return get all of the big money contracts on municipal, state and federal levels.

Successful conservative mayors like Bret Schundler and Steve Lonegan were successful because they completely reformed the overall tax structures in their respective municipalites.

Unlike liberals, I base everything I say on facts. If you don't believe me ask all of the Jersey City voters who elected Mayor Schundler and re-elected him twice where Democrats outnumber Republicans 8 to 1. Ask the voters of Bogota who vote the Democratic line at the top and cross over to keep Mayor Lonegan and his administration in power why they have done so for twelve straight years.

In order to reform New Jersey we need to elect politicians who are PROVEN reformers who win because they get results. Not because they control their respective payrolls.

Regarding Dino's rant about the media wanting dual office holding (or something like that), in the week since our report came out the Philadelphia Inquirer and Times of Trenton wrote strong editorials favoring a ban on D.O.H. Instead of blaming one side or t'other for this bipartisanly bad practice, let's put a stop to it.

Jon, are you kidding me? For starters, the overwheling majority of dual office holders are in the north as I had previously stated in both of my posts. Seeing as though you are in dire need of a crash course in New Jersey Geography here's a quick lesson for you. Northeastern New Jersey is nowhere near Trenton or Philadelphia. Nobody from Hudson, Essex, Bergen or Passiac Counties reads South Jersey or Philadelphia Newspapers.

Furthermore, South Jersey has always been more conservative than the North even if you compare the Democrats.

As far as these editorials go, I'm willing to bet that come November, all of the newspapers up here in the North along with The Times and The Inquierer will be endorsing every dual office holder up for re-election this year as they do every year.

Who's kidding who Jon?

DINO: Man, I'm just trying to pierce your conspiritorial nature. The Star Ledger was all over dual office holding a few months ago. Yes, dual office holders (of both parties) get newspaper endorsements. Doesn't mean the papers are out to protect the process. And most dual office holders are in safe districts so getting rid of the process doesn't necessarily mean Ds will replace Rs or vice versa. It means more people will be in office, and that's good. Let's work to make this happen instead of prematurely placing blame for why it won't.