What the state Democratic Party is betting on

Some of us could become Republicans! (0.00 / 0)

I've been thinking for a weeks since the election that perhaps the best thing for New Jersey were if the Republican party would be stronger.  Currently, the Democratic party takes the progressive wing for granted.  They are happy to have our support but they then support the status quo.   Like with marriage equality, or Gov. Corzine's attempts to rein in state spending and restore fiscal sanity to NJ.  

I voted for Gov. Corzine and Sen. Weinberg (who I wish more Democratic legislators were like), but I don't think that Gov.-Elect Christie is wrong on all the issues.  And on many issues, it is time for the status quo to be shook up.  Personally, I wish it were in a progressive direction, but the current Democratic majorities don't seem inclined to do that.  So I've been thinking of actively starting to work with the Christie administration on some issues in my area of expertise where the status quo needs to be changed.  

The silly stunts that Speaker Roberts and Sen. Sarlo have pulled with respect to marriage equality since the election have made me more convinced that this is the correct path.   I haven't wanted to antagonize anyone here by posting these thoughts, but since Steven posted his diary, I thought I would share them.

---

by: princetonblue @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 18:01:05 PM UTC

PB (0.00 / 0)

This is not a snark.

What issues do you believe Christie is correct on?

What is your area of expertise?

We would all like to have NJ become a better place, but how we do that is in dispute.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 20:11:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two areas (4.00 / 2)

Hi Smarty,

I work in public higher education and have experience in state government as a whole.  

My personal belief is that Christie is more serious about improving education as a whole than Gov. Corzine ever was.  Gov. Corzine sent a lot of money to the school districts but never really tackled the question of how best to improve the education that students were receiving.  The current approach to public education in NJ is broken in terms of its results and the amount of money it costs.  I don't think Christie has a complete solution here, or even a really worked out plan, but he has said more so far about tackling the root problems in the system than Gov. Corzine ever did.  I am very disappointed with what Corzine chose not to do in this area.

Second, state government is significantly bloated in terms of the number of employees.  I am in complete agreement with Christie's apparent intent to downsize the government by 25%.   Where I am concerned is how the choices will be made of which areas to eliminate and how.  I was a huge supporter of Gov. Corzine when he was first elected as I thought he was going to do the hard work to make state government more efficient.  I don't know where the problem was that prevented this from happening (was it the Governor or the legislative leaders), but it was an opportunity to downsize the government in a responsible, progressive fashion.  Taxes are too high in NJ and not enough was done over the past 4/8 years on this issue.

So Education and the size of State Government are two areas where I think Christie's general approach are correct.  I will probably disagree with many of the specific details once the plans come out (which is why I wish Corzine/Weinberg were making up the plan) but NJ needs this change IMHO.  I certainly don't think the current Democratic leaders will provide this change.  And given that I think the Democratic leadership has given up the moral highground with their games on the marriage equality issue, I'm inclined to give Christie the benefit of the doubt on these two issues.    

---

by: princetonblue @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:36:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

for your reply.

I hope you and I, and other members of the community, can continue to discuss these issues.

I have some others that I'd like to address, as well.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:44:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christie Is Certainly Dead Wrong If He Thinks Preschool Is Just "Babysitting" n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 06:05:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The NJ Democratic Party needs to rebuild from within (0.00 / 0)

there are plenty of progressive groups/organizations in NJ that are wonderful and already in existence. The state and county level parties need to be run more like them.

There was a thread awhile back that's in Rosi's signature about where the party should go.  If I were given the opportunity, I'd take Monmouth county's Dem party into my own hands in a heartbeat (first thing I would do is move the HQ from Freehold to Asbury Park or Long Branch where there are more Dems)

Maybe I should do a diary about rebuilding the Democratic party.  We need to go all Howard Dean after the national party's debacle.  And it needs to be bottom up instead of top down.

Caroline
http://outspokenliberal.blogsp...

http://outspokenliberal.blogsp...

---

by: tabbycat31 @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 18:21:09 PM UTC

New Jersey Hates Wimps (0.00 / 0)

This nonsensical strategy ( if that is what you allege) will just turn the base, as well as common sense moderates, away from the Democratic Party and into ambivalence! The old base from Roosevelt  and Kennedy has been turned away and mostly is long gone).

I understand in chess it is sometimes wise to sacrifice a pawn in order to gain a stronger piece or a positional advantage, but this is not a game with control, this is reality, and this reality bites very hard!

We need to get into the infrastructure and eventually get control! This is a long term strategy, but it must start now!

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 19:22:24 PM UTC

Absolutely correct! (0.00 / 0)

We can't sit anything out.  The best way to show displeasure with the Dem status Quo here is to actually run for office ourselves.

I wish I could have done more before I had to step down, but I get very upset when I hear folks say "The Dems aren't doing what we want, therefore, we should do nothing."  

The only option most folks who are victims of learned helplessness come up with is the "do nothing" strategy.  It is sad to see that, when the most empowering thing to do, and what we did in LD37 was to jump in to the process with both feet, fears be damned!

Too many folks think that the powers that be are too powerful, yet they forget that the government is US.  You and Me, WE the people.

And so, Babs, once again you have hit the nail directly on the head.  The BEST option is for more progressives to run for office.  THAT is how we move toward progress, one primary at a time.  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 23:08:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Party Democracy Act (4.00 / 9)

maybe we should try to get more rank and file democrats into the County Committee positions?  

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 19:37:32 PM UTC

absolutely right, Jay. (4.00 / 1)

"The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties." Ted Kennedy

---

by: bluestatejoe @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 21:25:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's hard on a few different levels. (0.00 / 0)

Institutional inertia;
It's tough to explain what a County Committee member does;
General apathy.

But a great idea.  I myself proudly represent Wanaque's 3rd District for the Passaic County Democratic Organization.  

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 21:53:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (4.00 / 2)

this should happen regardless of what happens with Marriage Equality. The only way to make change is to get some of the power to do it ourselves.

---

by: Jason Springer @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 21:53:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bingo!!!!!! Jay's Absolutely Right... (0.00 / 0)

Every CC position that isn't occupied by a real progressive needs to be challenged.

That means building up a statewide progressive Democratic organization.

Picking up our marbles and walking away in disgust is what the machines WANT us to do.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 06:08:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Someday // Time to pick a fight (4.00 / 4)

I really do believe that someday even guys like Gov. Christie will change their minds about marriage equality.

I also believe that his change of heart will come shortly after -- very shortly after -- some Democratic legislative leaders.

Though some might think that Steven Goldstein has (or had in the past) crossed a line, I believe that he's shown great restraint. There are straight legislators who make a mockery out of the institution of marriage. That they carry on the way they do while opposing marriage equality continues to amaze me.

I believe it is time to pick a fight. In the press. In the precincts. Wherever.

For a long time, I've been disgusted with the way our state Democratic Party operates. It's blind eye toward corruption is more like a winking eye. (Hey, if nobody knows....) And then these kinds of stunts on LIFE AND DEATH issues because of politics, really. It makes me sick.

I would like to see an organized reform wing of the Democratic Party, marrying our progressive principles with a credo of clean and transparent government. Too often these reform movements are victims of their own purity, but if it can gain steam, I believe other prominent politicians will abandon the sinking ship of corruption and adopt our ideals.

---

by: JRB @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 20:27:23 PM UTC

Restraint and double standards (4.00 / 6)

JRB, thank you.  Let me say a bit more about the concept of restraint.

In every recent general election, Garden State Equality and the entire LGBT community, including New Jersey Stonewall Democrats and other fine organizations, raised gobs of money and volunteers for Democratic candidates.

Garden State Equality instituted model programs for the party:  Phone banking, canvassing, lit drops, election day GOTV, you name it.  If you've been on Garden State Equality's mailing list over the past few years, you were barraged with news of our campaign programs come election times.

All you see today that we do for marriage equality?  We did it for the party in every recent election, and the party never had to ask us.  We were nuts-and-bolts action.  Blood, sweat and tears for the party - way beyond talk, stunts and sound bites in the press.  

I would respectfully submit that no demographic constituency - except for labor, which is in its own league - has surpassed the LGBT community in giving back to the state party in recent years.

And during all those elections when we delivered far beyond the state party's expections, did the party ever tell us, oh, you've crossed a line, you've gone too far, your fervor is too much, please show some restraint?

Of course not.  It's a double standard which all minorities who act boldly in the interests of self-empowerment face.  

We're damned if we do - playing by the rules that New Jersey politicians have established, delivering for the party big-time - and damned if we don't.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 22:04:52 PM UTC

LGBTs at election time (4.00 / 1)

When i headed up the suburban field opps in Burlington county for Corzine's campaign, the most reliable source of sweat equity came from my brothers and sisters and Garden State Equality.  Whatever was nneeded -- phone, office, data, signage, et al -- GSE's response was the same:  what time and how many people.  Everytime, all the time.  And not for nothing, all these recruites come seasoned from prior work on civil rights.

As for $$ donations, I don't "do" figures... but I'd be curious to find out.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:36:37 AM UTC

It would be shameful... (4.00 / 2)

if our Democratic legislators don't even have the stones to post marriage equality for a vote in both the Senate and the Assembly.  Win, lose, or draw, we have a right to know who votes for it and who votes against it.

Equality is not the hot-button issue so many legislators think it is.  The abolition of the death penalty didn't cost the Democrats any seats--the folks who voted against them would have done so anyway.  This issue is similar in that respect.  Democrats make a mistake when they cater to the right wing extremists--do I need to mention health care reform at the federal level?  And I think they make a mistake when they take progressives for granted.  

They know where the progressive and the LGBT community stand on this issue--it's time we knew where each of them stands!  


"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:37:29 AM UTC

not necessary to sit out an election other than 2010 (4.00 / 1)

In order to scare the Democratic establishment in NJ to do the right thing, we do not need to throw any election and it is unlikely that we could even if we wanted to.  Over the past decade, Democrats have both won and lost general elections with consistent progressive support and we would be hard pressed to pick one or more that was won or lost based on the support or lack thereof from the progressive community.

However, this doesn't mean that progressives have not nor cannot make a difference. There has been a lot of idle chatter over the last month about primary challenges, but as the deadline for action during this lame duck session grows closer, there has yet to be a single credible threat of a primary challenge directed at the Democrats in Trenton who are standing in the way of marriage equality.

Has Bonnie Watson Coleman or Reed Gusciora threatened to challenge Shirley Turner if she does not vote for marriage equality?  No.

Has Ron Rice Jr. threatened to challenge his father, Ron Rice Sr., if he does not vote for marriage equality?  No.

Has Frank Vespa-Papaleo threatened to move back into Paul Sarlo's district and challenge him if he does not vote for marriage equality?  No.

Has Jeff Gardner threatened to challenge John Girgenti if he does not vote for marriage equality?  No.

I don't know what LD Jay Lassiter lives in, but since it appears as if the entire South Jersey legislative bloc in the State Senate is opposed to marriage equality, I am still waiting to hear who he will be challenging in 2011.

I guess that it is easy for me to talk tough since all of the Democrats in Trenton from my district (Scutari, Stender, and Green) are on the record as supporting marriage equality, but there is nothing that I can do about that as moving to another district is not an option for me at this time.

Credible threats of primary challenges are the only things that will move the Democrats in Trenton to do the right thing.  Unfortunately, if there are no votes held, then it becomes more difficult to know who to target.  Difficult, but not impossible.

If you are reading this, Steven, I hope that it is not too late for you and the others who will be lobbying the Democrats in Trenton tomorrow to draft a letter to Senator Codey and Assemblyman Roberts, asking them to bring marriage equality legislation to a vote before the end of the lame duck session, and have it signed by every Democratic legislator who supports this legislation.

It seems logical to me that any legislator who would agree to sign such a letter should be considered a friend and any legislator who would not should be considered a foe who will be targeted for a primary challenge in 2011.

If there is an election cycle that progressives could and should sit out, 2010 is it.  This is not because Frank Pallone, Rush Holt, and other Democratic Congressman or any of the challengers to Republican incumbents do not deserve our support, but simply because the time, money, and other resources that might otherwise be dedicated to their races can and should be dedicated towards preparing for the 2011 primary elections.

With the possible exception of John Adler, whose votes against healthcare reform has dug his own grave with progressives, there is not a single Democratic incumbent in danger of losing in 2010 and it is unlikely that there will be a single Democratic challenger to a Republican incumbent with a chance in hell of winning either, so let's focus our resources where they can make a difference.

And in Republican districts, where it is unlikely that a contested Democratic primary is likely to take place, we should be encouraging registered Democrats and unaffiliateds to register as Republicans and run primary challenges against Republicans who oppose marriage equality, which at the moment appears to be all of them with the obvious exception of Bill Baroni.

Aside from primary challenges, progressives should be working to organize a Progressive Democratic Party in NJ that will operate both within the existing Democratic Party as well as outside of it, reaching out to Greens, Socialists, and other left-leaning 3rd parties to convince them that they can have a greater impact on policymaking by being a part of the Democratic Party than by working outside of it.

Also, the LGBT community needs to show the rest of the state that they want equality as much as their leaders claim that they do.  If there are 875,000 LGBTers in the state, then there should be at least 8,750 of them in Trenton later today demanding equality. 1,000-2,000 with as much as a third being straight supporters is not enough to send a message to the hard-headed and hard-hearted Democrats in Trenton that their political careers are in jeopardy.

Finally, as the lame duck session draws to a close and the window of opportunity that we have at our disposal begins to shut, I think that Steven et al should be willing to consider compromises that would enable the LGBT community to take another step towards equality.

One possible compromise that I think some opponents of marriage equality who are hiding behind the rhetoric of fixing civil unions might support is an amendment to the current civil unions legislation that recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as marriages instead of devaluing them to the status of civil unions.

In addition to enabling same-sex couples to go to CT and MA to get married and have full recognition, this compromise would force those who talk about fixing civil unions to put up or shut up.  Also, by enabling these couples to get married out-of-state and be married in NJ, hard data could be compiled over the next four years that exhibits both the lost revenue to the state as well as the reality that life as we know it will not cease to be if same-sex couples are given the freedom to marry.  This data should provide both Democrats and Republicans with enough information to pass marriage equality legislation the next time that there is a Democratic Governor, which will hopefully be in January 2014.

The other compromise that Steven et al should consider is a winner-takes-all referendum. While there can be no doubt that the argument made time and time again that civil rights should not be subject to majority rule is correct, I don't think that it is sufficient to justify opposing a referendum if there is any chance that marriage equality could be achieved by winning one.

Clearly, arguments of right and wrong do not carry much weight with Democrats in Trenton, so if a compromise with Republicans is necessary to put a winner-takes-all referendum on the ballot in 2010 or 2011, I see no reason other than its philosophical wrongness to not roll the dice and take a chance with a referendum.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 06:54:28 AM UTC

Let's take this out of politicians' hands (0.00 / 0)

Rachael'sdad, I think you make a lot of sense.

We clearly can't count on politicians to come through for us on this issue... but I don't trust the GOP with a winner-take-all compromise deal.

I would most like to bypass the Legislature altogether and get a marriage equality question on the ballot, but I don't think NJ has initiative and refendum..

Is that right?

Maybe we should build a movement to get initiative and referendum first, and then we can control when we vote for equality.

---

by: JohnBlueNewark @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:30:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

questionable premise (4.00 / 1)

But for the longer run, to remake the state's Democratic Party - to make it as progressive as rank-and-file Democrats all across New Jersey - we're going to have to take a stand, and it's going to have to have some surprises that shock the establishment and make it clear we progressives will never be taken for granted again.  

Is it possible that the Democratic Party is as progressive as its rank-and-file members?  By asking this question, I am not wondering if most Democrats are as opposed to marriage equality legislation as electeds like John Girgenti, Ron Rice Sr., Paul Sarlo, Shirley Turner, and the South Jersey Senators are as much as I am wondering if they are as supportive of marriage equality as advocates like myself and others who identify themselves as progressive.

Before we even start trying to get into the head of your average registered Democrat, we should look at the "activists" who were featured a few weeks ago in a letter to the Democrats in Trenton that got a lot of press, but had little to no impact on electeds.  At least half, if not more of the names on that list belong to longstanding political professionals who hold prominent positions in government offices or are highly-paid outside consultants.

As great a person and as smart of a professional as Brendan Gill, who I worked for in 2000 when I was Bill Pascrell's deputy campaign manager, might be, there is no way that he is going to leave his position as Frank Lautenberg's State Director to help progressives run primary challenges in 2011.

Nor will guys like Brad Lawrence and Steve DiMicco stop cashing checks written by the NJDSC et al and start working pro bono for primary challengers, and I wouldn't expect to see Julie Roginsky on NJN or NJ12 saying anything bad about the Democratic establishment anytime soon.

As great as it was that people like these lent their names to this letter, it was hardly meant as a shot over the Democratic establishment's bow, which is exactly what was needed to truly send the kind of message that might have had a chance to scare some electeds into changing their positions, and as unlikely as it is that the professional class of the Democrtic Party will be willing to bite the hand that feeds it for the sake of the LGBT community, it is even more unlikely that Democratic base voters are going to be much more helpful.

While progressives are part of the Democratic base, we are just one part of it, and we are the only part of it that consistently and constantly stands up for the issues of concern of all base voters.  The same cannot be said about organized labor and people of color, some of whom, generally the better educated within these groups, self-identify as liberal or progressive and care about more than just the issues of concern of their own community.  But as a whole, the focus of the at-large memberships of these communities has been limited to their own issues of concern and on issues of concern to the LGBT community, they have tended to listen more to their clergy than their more progressive leaders.

What all of this means is that we have an uphill climb ahead of us if we are going to take on the Democratic establishment.  This doesn't mean that the climb shouldn't be made.  It just means that it shouldn't be made with any assumptions of automatic constituencies other than LGBTs and progressives.

That said, within many of the aforementioned groups of Democratic base voters there are schisms that can be expoited and alliances that can be built.  Within organized labor, there are schisms between building and construction trades, industrial trades, service employees, and public employees, the latter two and possibly three of which could be sources of support.  Younger (under 50) people of color tend to be better educated and more progressive than their elders.  The same is true for their leaders and in many urban centers throughout the state, these generational schisms are playing themselves out as the elders are becoming more and more resistant to passing the torch to the next generation.

If progressives want to present the Democratic establishment in NJ with a serious challenge in the weeks, months, and years to come, we will have to construct a comprehensive policy agenda that will speak to the issues of concern of all Democratic base voters as well as independents and unaffiliateds.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 15:59:38 PM UTC

Yes and No on Preschool (0.00 / 0)

Hi Nick,

I was thinking solely of K-12 and higher education in my original post.

Regarding preschool, Christie made a stupid statement.  But it's not clear that he's dead wrong here.   There's a limited number of qualified day-care providers out there and some preschools really are just doing babysitting.  I'd really like to know about the results at the new public preschools that have been created over the past few years.  This is an expensive program and one should ask about the benefits.  

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 16:21:03 PM UTC

I've already left the Democratic Party (4.00 / 3)

I'm a gay man and a resident of NJ.  I've been a life-long Democrat. I've voted in every single election since I was old enough to vote. I've campaigned for Democrats, handing out out campaign literature on street corners and phone banking. I've given money to the DNC and to Democratic candidates at the federal, state and local levels.

I'm done. To say I'm disappointed in the party would be an understatement: I'm pissed off. Disgusted. And absolutely done supporting the Democratic Party or any candidate who does not actively support my full and complete equality under the law. (Notice I wrote "actively" support -- I'm tired of seeing Democratic leaders like Joe Roberts referred to as "supporters of marriage equality" when they have the opportunity to act yet fail to do so.)

So, I'm now an "unaffiliated voter." I don't vote the party line anymore. I HAPPILY cast my vote in November for Jon Corzine, but I also voted for Irene Kim Asbury for Assembly -- yes, a Republican. I could not even get a response from the two Democrats in my Assembly district on the issue of gay marriage, but I did hear from Irene and she explained why she would vote for the gay marriage bill.

In the future, I will not vote for, campaign for, or donate money to any candidate that does not actively support gay marriage. If no candidate does, I'll stay home. And I'll donate the money I used to give to the DNC and to Democratic candidates who "support gay rights but not gay marriage" (e.g., Obama) to groups like Garden State Equality and the ACLU of New Jersey instead. I want to support an organization that also supports me, not a party that only does so when it's politically expedient.

---

by: sjrJC @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 17:35:44 PM UTC

Obviously (4.00 / 2)

I have a lot to say on this.  Most of it will not make many people happy.

The Democratic Party in New Jersey is worthless.  I've supported Democrats in New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and Virginia and I have never seen a group more willing to say one thing and do another.  I've never seen a group more willing to tolerate - even promote - actual criminal behavior just to maintain their grip on power.

To repeat an often untrue statement, I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me.  They left me by being the party of the chickenshit, lilly-livered criminal.  They left me by being the party that comes around with their hat in their hand on any number of issues, but then refuses to do a God-damned thing when they have an iron-clad lock on power.

Fuck Dick Codey.  Fuck Joe Roberts.  Fuck Paul Sarlo, who shook my hand at the GSE Gala.  I hope Paul Sarlo has another fucking heart attack and they refuse to let his family into the fucking hospital.  As he lays dying I hope his priest comes by and tells him he is going to hell because he loved the wrong person.  And fuck anyone else who is too chickenshit to have their vote counted on issues that matter.  

And, by the way, this is WAY restrained compared to what I want to say.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 22:57:39 PM UTC

don't restrain yourself - say what you want to say (4.00 / 1)

I agree with the spirit of what you have to say, but I still don't understand how becoming a Republican is the answer.

Using Paul Sarlo as an example, I think that it is much more likely to be able to recruit and support a progressive candidate who can beat him in a Democratic primary and then win in the general election than it is to try to run a progressive in a Republican primary and then against Sarlo in a general election.

Also, as bad as the Democratic Party in NJ might be as a whole, there are still more Democrats in Trenton that are better than Girgenti, Rice Jr., Sarlo, Turner, and the South Jersey Senators than there are Democrats who are as bad or worse.

In my opinion, the solution to this problem is to build a Progressive Democratic Party within the existing Democratic Party and challenge every bad Democrat in primary elections everywhere we can.  I think that as tough as this path will be, it still represents one of far less resistance than any effort to make the Republican Party more moderate, much less progressive.

That said, I do think that there is some merit to the idea of running progressive primary challengers against conservative Republican incumbents in Republican-leaning districts where contested Democratic primaries are unlikely  and encourage Democrats and independents/unaffiliateds to register as Republicans so that they can vote in primary elections.

What makes me most unhappy about what you have written above is that Paul Sarlo was admitted into the GSE Gala and you shook his hand.  Obviously, you and Steven Goldstein are not familiar with the story about the old woman and the snake.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 00:18:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rachel's dad, re Sarlo at our Legends Dinner (0.00 / 0)

That dinner, where he heard our stories, got him from passionately anti- to undecided and at some point this year some thought he leaned a smidge our way.  We don't comp pols to our dinner as a perk but to get them to hear our stories - to us, it's an investment in our cause.  Sarlo was among those for whom the November election results made a big difference.    

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 00:53:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

it's always good to invite people to hear...but I don't think Sarlo was ever anything but anti-equality.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:52:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

he was clearly a very bad investment (0.00 / 0)

Considering his relationship with Joe Ferriero and the Democratic establishment in Bergen County, I think that it was a reach that you would ever get him on your side.  I guess that you could make the argument that getting him to bring the issue before the Judiciary Committee was a victory in and of itself.

The problem that I see is that GSE is very good at serving up the carrots, particularly to people who are very unlikely supporters, but to date, I have yet to see you beat the crap out of anybody who crosses you with a stick.

Someone who has been involved in NJ politics as long as you have should know that the stick usually is more effective than the carrot.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 16:46:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, But I Can't Be Charitable To Sarlo... (0.00 / 0)

...now that the vote is cast, and clearly Sarlo knew that the bill would fail so he could not vote and maybe think he was going to "get away" with being "neutral".    To me that's just plain sleazy.......the only thing WORSE than a Cardinale is someone who in their heart of hearts is FOR the right thing but does the OPPOSITE (or passively allows it to be done) because he believes it's the most politcially expedient thing to do because he wants to cozy up to Christie.......giev me a break.   Sarlo is a sleaze and deserves to be primaried and defeated for this non-vote and in general for his failure to be for the full spectrum of good government progressive agenda items.

Being nice with these folks didn't work and it never will, they will just use you and then screw you when someone else offers a better deal or more power.

We need to elect people who actually BELIEVE in progressive values........sucking up to and buying off those that don't won't work in the long run.....the opposition plays that game better than we can.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 22:29:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sarlo was not for the right thing (0.00 / 0)

He is an opponent of marriage equality, pure and simple.  He is no better or worse than Cardinale.  The only difference between the two is that Sarlo pretends to be conflicted about the issue.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 05:56:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wake up and smell the manure (0.00 / 0)

In 2003, Sarlo raised $1.7 million for his campaign.  This does not include county and/or Leadership contributions.  Sarlo won by about 3K votes in the general.  In 2007, he won by about 3.5K in the general.  In each year, he took about 2.4K votes in his unchallenged primary. In 2007, Sarlo had enough money that he gave nearly $300K to other Democrats and pretty much everyone understands that he's building a warchest to run for Governor.

Yeah...that's a real target.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:49:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you missed my point (0.00 / 0)

I am not saying that beating Paul Sarlo or any incumbent in a Democratic primary and then following that up with a general election victory would be easy.  I am only saying that it would be easier than trying to run a progressive candidate in a Republican primary and then trying to beat Paul Sarlo in a general election.

In some districts, like Ron Rice Sr.'s or Shirley Turner's, you might be able to run a progressive as a Republican simply because there is often no or very inadequate Republican opposition in their district, but you would be very hard pressed to beat them in a general election as the urban machines has voters so thoroughly trained to vote for Democrats that many, if not most, of them do not even pay attention to the issues being debated.  This is especially true with Hudson County.  In these situations, the only chance that we would have to unseat them is in a Democratic primary.

As I have said a number of times, I can appreciate the level of frustration that you must be feeling to reach the conclusion that you have.  I just don't see how it could possibly yield any results.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:04:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Title (0.00 / 0)

I think it will have just the same results as remaining within the Hudson Dems will.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 00:48:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, How Can Thurman and Bertin BOTH Be Right? (4.00 / 2)

I share Thurman's disgust with the Democratic party establishment....and I can understand any Democrat in Hudson County switching teams.    

Anyone who's read my views here knows that I believe that what passes for politics and governance in NJ is tantamount to legalized organized crime....at best.    And that if all the dots/patterns would be connected that the networks of favors and sweetheart deals would qualify under the RICO statutes as de jure organized crime.

Having said that, I don't believe that the Republicans, especially the Christie Republicans offer a viable alternative.  Christie is himself a corrupt machine pol who will have no problem cutting deals with the good old boys in Trenton.

Bertin is right in that what is needed is a real and renewed statewide progressive coalition.    I proposed something along these lines at the recent DFA Holiday meeting in Morristown (which I'll talk more about in a separate diary).

Obviously, this fight isn't over yet.  I hope Steven and GSE can pull some rabbits out of the hat and at least get the assembly to have hearing and a vote.   That would be a passing vote and it would put serious pressure on the Senate to follow through.

And even if we succeed here and a bill is passed, it will only be the beginning of a larger struggle.   The opposition to ME will not stop just because Corzine signs a bill, they will try to force laws for referendums and they will aggressively use the issue at all levels.

A truly unfied active progressive movement does not exist yet in NJ.    The operative word there is YET!    

When it does, it will become the spine, heart, soul and brain of the Democratic party....and the face of New Jersey governance and politics will chance for the better.  

Campaign finance reform, clean government, marriage equality, a clean environment, insurance and banking law reforms, health care reforms etc all of those issues strengthen/reinforce each other......and truly DO reflect the needs and views of most of the PEOPLE of NJ.

Whatever happens with ME this session, if it passes or not, folks shouldn't walk away in triumph or disgust!   Either way, our deeper/broader work will be cut out for us.   Better to carry on with that from a position of winning this particular battle!  

Thanks to the brilliance and hard work of the Steven Goldstein and all of the folks at GSE there is a fair chance to succeed......so let's all do whatever we can to win this one now!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:47:01 AM UTC

I'll sum it up.... (0.00 / 0)

Their strategy can best be summed up in one word: "Bbbaaahhhhhhhh".  As in sheep.  

As in they know if you put a "D" by a Ham Sandwich on the ballot there are enough "safe" districts that it will get elected.

I agree the Democratic Party left many on this site and throughout the state.  As long as we are sheep they will continue to shear us for as much wool as they can.  

Want change?  Stop being sheep and believing the scare tactics of Democratic stratigists who link every Republican with Bush.  Vote in new people.  Or better yet, organize for a real PRIMARY fight between the forces of sanity and the forces of the status quo.

Loretta might have lost the election, but she could teach a lot of us about fighting (and actually winning) against the "network".

Listen to the anger of "teabaggers" and those who are against spending and borrowing.  Take ownership of it.  Turn that anger to a positive force of change.

---

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 16:14:02 PM UTC

Focus on 2011, not 2010 (4.00 / 2)

It would be foolish to punish Congressional Democrats in 2010 for the spineless behavior of NJ State Democratic legislators on this issue.  Think of what could happen if the Republicans gained a Congressional majority in 2010--it's bad enough already, with "Democrats" like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman (ugh) in the Senate, but it could be a lot worse.  

We should focus on the state Democratic party and the 2011 legislative elections.  And yes, look to the NJ Supreme Court for relief.  GSE and Lambda Legal are wise to go back to the court on this--the record is clear that civil unions do not create equality under the law; even Republican State Senators admitted that yesterday.

I live in the 22nd LD, where all three of our state legislators are on our side. But I want to see the roll call of which Democratic State Senators voted against equality--those are the ones who shouldn't get a penny from any progressive, and we should certainly consider primary challenges for at least some of them.

Joe Roberts was quoted as saying the bill wouldn't have passed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee--I'd like to see the breakdown there, too.  We need to know who our friends are--and who they aren't.

Becoming a Republican or simply disaffiliating isn't the answer--the result is giving up any influence one might have on the Democrats, and the Republicans will vote against us anyway.  Either we are in this for the long haul or we are a bunch of wimps.  As for incoming majority leader Sweeney--great leadership, Senator (snark).  As Winston Churchill said of someone, "he has all the backbone of a chocolate eclair."  20 to 15 would have been a bit better than 20 to 14, even though we would have lost--and if this is the kind of "cooperation" with Christie that Sweeney is going to show, we're all in trouble.

Max Weber, the pioneering German sociologist, said "Politics is the slow boring of hard boards."  Someone else said "Politics ain't beanbag."  We need to be in this for the long haul.              
 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 16:03:36 PM UTC

Voting against (0.00 / 0)

Madden
Girgenti
Sacco
Rice
Turner
Van Drew

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 06:51:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]