*Someone* Progressive Has To Run Against Garrett!!!

heh....on this: (4.00 / 3)

Don't get me wrong, I'll still show up and vote the party line in November

I'm not sure I will agree.  It all depends on what happens with the BCDO and the Congressional line.  If someone is running and gets endorsements in Sussex and Warren and is still shut out in Bergen, then "the republicans are worse" is not going to cut it for me.

Because quite frankly, Democrats who think it is ok to disenfranchise their own party with someone as morally repugnant as Garrett to further their own personal political careers aren't any better in my book.

They have to earn my vote.  And right now, they have done nothing to do so.

This should be a lesson and wake up call for them.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 20:59:10 PM UTC

Point Well Taken.... (4.00 / 1)

....what I meant was that I wasn't about to simply write off the BCDO candidates and vote Republican. I do feel a sense of loyalty to the party.    

Even somewhat less competent or ethically challenged Democrats tend to be better for the poor and working class people than hard core Republicans.

Now if the Republicans actually come up with moderate candidates that are relatively progressive and carry no taint......they will probably do well in November (with or without my vote).

Of course you're right in that progressive Democrats should not allow the establishmentarians to assume they'll get our votes because we have no place else to go.

Realistically what will happen if the BCDO candidates fail to excite the base (i.e. "earn your vote") is that our people just won't turn out.

Clearly the Republicans will run against these freeholder candidates as if they were running against Joe Ferriero....and, I'm sad to say that that is likely to be effective.

In my opinion what's needed is a DEMOCRATIC  reform initiative that severely restricts pay to play as far as it can be constitutionally restricted, that stiffens the criminal penalties for breaching the public trust and that provides electoral reforms...starting with voter verifiable paper ballots.   And there also need to be environmental and energy efficiency elements added to the current mix that aren't there.  And of course, the freeholder candidates should sit down with the Front Page bloggers here and take questions and listen to suggestions at length.....maybe in a public setting where all interested Democrats can show up and listen and ask questions etc.

The Dems in the legislature also would need to be involved........and the Christie would be hard pressed to veto such reforms....or let them die unsigned.

In fact, I wonder if it's not too late to revisit the failure to still put a bold progressive  Democrat at the top of the Bergen County ticket.......or at least to go along with the bold progressive that the other 5th CD counties come up with?    It still stings that they made the dumb choice to let Garrett run unopposed in Bergen!

Again, there is a parallel here with the national situation.    Democrats across the  board have to grow spines and start doing what's best for the PEOPLE and not just for the cash laden "contributors" and cronies.  (See video in diary above!)

So, thanks Adam for prodding me to clarify/modify my statement of general loyalty to the Democratic party, it is certainly NOT unconditional.    As you rightly said....

"Because quite frankly, Democrats who think it is ok to disenfranchise their own party with someone as morally repugnant as Garrett to further their own personal political careers aren't any better in my book.

They have to earn my vote.  And right now, they have done nothing to do so.

This should be a lesson and wake up call for them."

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 23:55:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there is no such thing as being shut out (2.00 / 1)

If a registered Democrat wants to run against Garrett, all he/she has to do is file the petitions with the requisite number of signatures in each county.  There is nothing that the BCDO or any other county organization can do to keep him/her off of the ballot.

Do either of you live in the district?  If so, then you should run instead of demanding that the BCDO go out and find you the candidate of your dreams.  There is no doubt that they are wrong for the strategy that they have chosen, but you're no better if you're not willing to do what they won't do.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:28:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

excuse me (0.00 / 0)

yes I live in the District and while I would like to run in a fantasyworld, I don't have the time or the money or the ability to run now.  I've lived here for less than 4 years.  However, I have been part of a group that has been dedicated to talking to potential candidates, crafting literature and doing research on Garrett in terms of how to go after him, his votes and his actions.

The fact is that the BCDO long decided that it didn't want to out up a candidate but was not vocal about it - thereby letting the February 5 deadline go by without anyone.  Similarly, it was working behind the scenes to discourage those from other counties - I have heard this from people high up in the Warren and Sussex Parties, and the one person from another county who is seriously trying to mount a run was ignored and had his calls unretruned from Kasparian and others in the BCDO.

To make a serious run is way more than just "getting the signatures" - and with there being the way the BCDO has wielded its power in prior years to push people into not running or to discourage anyone from outside Bergen (let alone the lack of any support for either Paul or Dennis in years past), it is way less simple than you make it out to be.

They still are saying that the one candidate who is serious "doesn't respect the 'Party structure'" and despite all of this - we saw how they strongarmed the Freeholder race anyway.

I'm not asking for the "candidate of my dreams", I am asking that they not punt on this and then make it extremely difficult for the one person who I know is seriously considering running to get so much as a returned phone call.  If that person made the decision to run after the new year, then there would be no way for them to get the requisite signatures in that short a period of time.

If BCDO didn't want to have an empty spot on their line, then they would have done the minimum to help someone who was serious out.

Your last paragraph is nothing more than a cheap shot - especially given that you have no clue about the amount of hours I have spent since the last election dedicated to this upcoming election.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:25:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a name on the ballot is better than no name at all (1.00 / 1)

I have already conceded to you that the BCDO is wrong in everything that they are doing.

However, that doesn't change the fact that there is still an empty spot on the ballot.  You can continue to complain about what the BCDO is doing or you can file petitions and do the best you can.

What is the difference between doing everything that you are doing with Retire Garrett and doing everything that you are doing with your name on the ballot.

Would you be as serious a candidate as Paul Aronsohn or Dennis Schulman or Anne Wolfe or even Camille Abate?  Probably not.  However, you would still be a candidate.

I am not asking you to spend anymore time than you are already spending on Retire Garrett.  All I am asking you to do is to spend that same amount of time with your name on the ballot.

Or if there is some reason that you cannot do that, then do what Michael Moore did against Rodney Frelinghuysen and run a ficus plant against Garrett.  He was able to make the same argument that you were making against the BCDO while fighting against the Republican opposition as well.

Or if you want, file petitions with my name on them.  Being from Middlesex County, I would probably be a less serious candidate than a ficus plant, but if nothing else, you would have a name on the ballot.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 14:22:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you miss the point on a number of levels (0.00 / 0)

over the past year+ the Retire Garrett folks have met with close to a dozen people who were anywhere from semiserious to serious about running.  Many of them held or hold elected positions in the District or ran in the past.

For me to just put my name on the ballot in a nonserious manner would be shortsighted and non-credible for me if I were either to run in the future or work on someone's campaign in the future.  It would undermine the others who were serious or contemplating running only to later decide not to - not to mention undermine what Retire Garrett is and has been doing.  And most importantly, it would be a disservice to run a half ass campaign and make a mockery of it (and again, my future) to not do it right - who would donate time or money to someone "just because they wanted a name on the ballot".

The Michael Moore analogy is ridiculous as it still makes a mockery of the election for those who had or have shown that they are considering running and he has a bit more time, exposure and money than anyone I know here in the district.

Lastly, there IS someone who has been seriously considering running and didn't decide in time to get all of the requisite signatures to be on the Bergen ballot.  And I (along with other Retire Garrett people) had been talking to him for months - so why would I undermine this?  The issue is that this person has been railroaded by the BCDO even after reaching out for the past month to them.

What you are asking is not serious at all, is unfair to me and doesn't consider the reality that has been playing out in this District since January 2009.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 18:17:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand - the BCDO sucks - get over it and yourself (2.00 / 1)

Did the person who is seriously consider running miss the deadline for the BCDO convention or did he miss the filing deadline for the June primary?

If he missed the deadline for the BCDO convention, se la vie.  If he is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, the convention and the BCDO's endorsement is irrelevant.

My understanding is that the filing deadline for the June primary is in April, so there should be nothing stopping him from running other than the fact that he is not going to get any support from the BCDO.

Whatever the BCDO has done to discourage him or anybody else from running or railroad him should not matter if he is committed to the ideal that someone should stand up to Scott Garrett.

You can throw out all of the rationalizations that you want to, including the one that you haven't given us, which is that you are unwilling to stand up to the BCDO yourself and defy them and their ridiculous strategy, because you want to have some kind of political viability in the future and don't want to completely burn your bridges with them.

If I am right about that, which I seriously doubt that you'll admit, then this whole conversation is pointless.  Garrett will either have an opponent or he won't, and if he doesn't, you can blame the BCDO as much as you want, but in the end, the only people that can truly be blamed are the people who considered running and chose to not run for whatever reason they chose to justify their decision.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 18:59:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

how sactimonious and condescending of you (0.00 / 0)

where did I mention the BCDO in my last comment before in passing at the end?  Either you just want to get the last word in, are willfully misrepresenting my points are are just thick (or pig) headed is anyone's guess.

My points, as noted in my diary(ies) are about the BCDO's position.  Nick's are about running a progressive, in which instance you started pointing figures with a "holier than thou" attitude.

This is not about me "not standing up for myself against the BCDO", since I have been doing quite a bit of that - but I didn't realize that I had to inform you of all of it, lest you pass judgment on whether my actions are worthy of your approval.

This is about 2 things - one that was an issue for me and I've written about it, and one about Nick's post, which I have addressed more than once.

If you should choose to keep ignoring most of what I am saying and twist the rest out of context, then be my guest.  

You'll just be doing it on your own as I've been crystal clear about all of my views and points, and if this is going to turn into you lecturing me about why nothing short of me getting myself on the ballot is acceptable in your mind, then have that conversation with yourself.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 20:26:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WWMMD? (1.00 / 1)

What would Michael Moore do?

Run a ficus plant against Garrett.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:07:04 AM UTC

Michael Moore is irrelevant to this discussion (0.00 / 0)

he has hundreds of millions of dollars and time.  If I had that, I'd run.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 18:09:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bertin (0.00 / 0)

It's almost not worth my responding to you on this blog because every time I do I get a laundry list from you about all the things you think I should be doing, in whatever roles I have. I've been hearing it for years.

But it's difficult to read a thread like this one without suggesting to you, again, that your time and talents would be so much better used in doing more yourself, and perhaps cutting back a bit on what you tell other people they're doing wrong.

You really have no idea how instrumental Adam and some of his colleagues are in their work in the 5th. Stopping what they're doing now, so they can do what you think they should, would be a side step at best.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 19:21:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never told anyone to stop doing anything. (1.00 / 1)

All I have said is that there is no point in bitching and moaning about the BCDO's ridiculous strategy.

The only thing that they can do is get someone's name on the ballot before the filing deadline and do the best that they can, doing what they are already doing.  I never said that what they were doing was wrong.

And if they can't get an actual person to put their name on the ballot, they can do what Michael Moore did and run a ficus or some other kind of plant against Garrett.  Maybe they can even enlist Moore's help in this effort.

Tell me what Retire Garrett can do otherwise if there is nobody running against him.  Complaining about how lame the BCDO is doesn't solve the problem.  It has been well-documented here for many years how awful they are.

However, unless Adam et al can get enough of the right people to run for County Committee in Bergen County and overthrow the whole organizational infrastructure, which isn't likely, complaining about how bad they are doesn't solve any problems.  It is just ranting.

As far as my time and talents are concerned, I have been trying for some time now to get people talking and thinking about the redistricting process so that it isn't just one more thing that people complain about after it has been done, but there has been little, if any response to these efforts.

Tomorrow, I will be posting a diary here about something that I have been working on over the last couple of weeks.  Hopefully, it will attract some interest from the Blue Jersey community.

I don't have much time or any other resources to contribute to much these days other than parenting and seeking employment, but I feel that I have enough experience with the political process in this state to share my opinions with people and whether I am commending or criticizing something that somebody is doing, I believe that I am supporting them.

You choose to frame what I am doing another way and that is your choice. There is nothing that I can do to stop you.  I support Adam's efforts to retire Scott Garrett and I do that in the only way that I can, which is to tell him to forget about the BCDO and focus on getting a candidate on the ballot or by creating some other means by which to draw attention to how awful Garrett truly is (i.e. running a ficus against him).

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 20:10:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Time and Talents (0.00 / 0)

I for one, look forward to your post and the effort you have obviously already put into it.  I thank you for the time and talents you have invested in the future of your children as well as my own.

The committee old guard is at it weakest right now; desperate for new members; flailing for the latest friend or family member to fill a vacancy.  There IS a core of current members strung accross the entire county who are despondnet and want CHANGE.

The frustration is palpable. We have got to figure out a way to channel that frustration into POWERFUL action.

What's the saying? Stop talking about Obama and start being like Obama!

---

by: Got Kids @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 20:45:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

which I am doing (0.00 / 0)

(1) by getting the individual in front of the people necessary to get on the ballot (as I've said); and

(2) to get myself on the county committee, which I guess I also needed to get your approval for as well.

Interesting how you talk about what your time and resource constraints are, but when it comes to mine (being parenting for a 2 year old and a full time job for both me and my wife that takes up the rest of my time), that isn't good enough for you.

Getting someone on the ballot and calling bullshit on the BCDO aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 21:18:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Desperately Seeking Democracy (4.00 / 2)

Thanks Nick for the outstanding video. How soon we as a nation forgot the charge that came with changing a nation. It is a charge on our time, our treasure and our talent. And all the blog posts in the world ARE NOT going to change that.

People who were approached about running against Garrett were quoted a $3 MM price tag to any hope of a successful campaign. Campaign money DOES NOT grow on trees and when you balance that against the very real possibility that redistrciting may make the seat obsolete you have a witches brew of uncertainty for a potential challenger.

The MOST IMPORTANT election the grassroots can focus on now is at the County Committee level. It is corrupted at it's core and in my humble opinion is the center of the cancer plauging our electoral process.

---

by: Got Kids @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 17:58:06 PM UTC

i liked (0.00 / 0)

that attorney that ran in the primary the last 2 cycles but didn't get the party backing...She seemed very principled, i can't remember her name but did anyone reach out to her?

---

by: vingopal @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 23:03:54 PM UTC

Camille Abate (0.00 / 0)

It would be great if Adam et al could get her to run again.  Anne Wolfe was also a very good candidate.

This is going to be a very tough year to recruit good candidates to run in impossible districts like the 5th, because most prospective candidates are smart enough to know that even if a miracle were to occur and they won, the state is going to lose a Congressman in redistricting and they would be the first in line to have their head chopped off.

That said, as important as what Adam et al are doing, I think that they should be more focused on redistricting and lobbying for a map that creates more competitive districts.

When I did my workup, I found that a very competitive district could be created by combining Passaic (minus North Haledon and Ringwood), Sussex, and Passaic Counties, putting Congressmen Garrett and Pascrell into a head-to-head.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 23:55:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Camille is out (0.00 / 0)

we met with her and spoke with her a few times.  She doesn't want to run another primary (understandibly so) and is busy with other things (work, etc.) and can't focus on anything until June, at best.


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 13:21:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Too Bad.... (3.00 / 1)

...though I can certainly understand her position.

Camile Abate was/is the kind of firebrand it will take to actually win against a Garrett.

A truly aggressive progressive has the ability to rewrite the "conventional wisdom".  

My sense is that the BCDO never wanted a real fight in the congressional race because such a fight would have resulted in the registration of many thousands more progressive voters and in the involvement of many hundreds/thousands of new progressive activists which would have meant the end of the existing machine status quo.....and THAT'S what they wanted to protect at any cost.  That was surely true under the foot of boss Joe, and...sadly, it seems that things haven't changed enough.

(As additional proof of that look at the way they failed to $upport Paul Aronsohn, a wonderful and decent man who deserved better.)

Win or lose, mounting a balls out campaign against Garrett could only be good for real/rank and file "unconnected"  Democrats.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 13:39:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul definitely deserved better (0.00 / 0)

we still keep in touch (semi) regularly and he is as stand-up a guy as I know.

Glad he is one of my Town Councilmen too.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 13:44:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul Arohnson got what he deserved (0.00 / 0)

Paul Aronsohn, former McGreevey administration spokesperson and current Viagra pusher, ran as a pro-business, pro-defense, conservative Democrat and was in bed with the BCDO at the same time that it was trying to retire Loretta Weinberg.

We can forgive and forget and have as selective a memory as we want, but don't ask me to shed a tear for someone whose biggest selling point was how much money he could raise from all of his cronies in the Democratic establishment and then complains that he didn't get enough money from that same Democratic establishment.

Congressional and Senatorial elections are not a high priority to most, if any, of the county Democratic organizations in New Jersey.  They are all about bread and circases and while the federal and state offices are the ones that provide the circases that draw the voters to the polls, it is the county and municipal elections that provide the establishment, Democratic or Republican depending upon what county you are in, with its daily bread of contracts and no-show, patronage jobs.

Paul Aronsohn knew the score when he ran, forced Anne Wolfe out of the race, and was thoroughly dismissive of his primary election opponent, Camille Abate, who stood for all of the things that Democrats are supposed to stand for instead of just opposing the worst things that Scott Garrett stood for.  He knew from personal experience how the Democratic establishment in Bergen County and every other Democratic county operates and should not have been surprised when his campaign did not receive the support that he expected and promised his supporters.

Maybe this was a learning experience for him and hopefully, he is a better man for it.  Only time will tell.  But one way that he could prove to me (not that what I think really matters) that he is a better man and candidate would be if he ran again this year, if only to give the Democrats in the district a face and a voice to rally behind as well as being someone of substance who stands up to the BCDO and its ridiculous strategy.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 18:41:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not knowing Paul until I moved here in 2006 (0.00 / 0)

but knowing him well now, I can say that your post is bullshit and you're quite the asshole for the bullshit personal attack on someone who I bet you have never met, let alone spoken to.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 19:18:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually did meet Paul and did speak to him... (0.00 / 0)

...at the NJDSC Convention in 2005.  I thought that he was a pompous ass back then.  Obviously, you have gotten to know him better now, and I am more than willing to concede that he might be a better person now than he was back then.

It is very possible that his experiences during his campaign against Garrett humbled him and taught him more than a few lessons about how completely useless the BCDO can be.  

However, during the time that he was running for Congress, he was kissing the ring as well as the ass of Joe Ferriero, the person who was doing everything in his power at the time to retire Loretta Weinberg.

You can cry bullshit if you want, but the fact of the matter is that there was a civil war taking place in Bergen County at the time and your buddy, Paul Aronsohn was on the wrong side.

It's also not bullshit that he muscled a great, progressive woman, Anne Wolfe, who ran a tough campaign of her own in 2004 and would have run again in 2006 if she thought that she could get the BCDO's endorsement, which Aronsohn had all but locked up almost as soon as he began his run, aside in the process.

Time and time again, progressives at Blue Jersey have complained about the lack of electoral opportunities for women in the New Jersey Democratic Party in general as well as the fact that our state has never elected a female Democrat to federal office.

What Paul Aronsohn and the BCDO did to Anne Wolfe prior to the 2006 election season could be used as a case study for the structural inequity that exists in the New Jersey Democratic Party, and while it is very possible that he has matured since then and might even feel some remorse for his actions at the time, what happened happened, and you calling it bullshit and calling me an asshole for talking about it doesn't make it so.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 20:46:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the term is purity troll (0.00 / 0)

somehow, you always know it all and nobody who doesn't buy 100% into your view on whatever it is that particular day you are pontificating about is a sellout or on the receiving end of an insult or derisive rant.

I just saw it yesterday, despite you knowing nothing about me, my efforts or what I am doing or working with or for here in my district.  And even after you see, it still isn't good enough for you because I am not putting my own name on the ballot, and even still....it isn't as important as your redistricting "initiative".

Simply amazing.

And regardless of what you say or think, Paul had the smallest margin of votes against Garrett (both percentage and total votes) - and is STILL regarded very highly by anyone in the district who talks about the kind of candidate that can beat Garrett - and not just in Bergen County either.

So not passing your purity test or your set of criteria that you choose to impose on other districts quite frankly means very little.

And whether you want to hear it or not, your attitude and insistence in every comment that you know better or the other person isn't doing enough or isn't doing something you deem worthy or important is old and tired.

If you want to have constructive comments and discussion, that's fine.  But I don't need purity troll tests and armchair quarterbacking from someone whose frame of reference is a 5 year old meeting with a candidate in a different district - a candidate who is not only well respected in this, MY district, but is a valued community member here at Blue Jersey.

And I CERTAINLY don't need someone like you telling me what I should be doing with my time or how I should be spending it - even moreso when you know jack shit about me, my district or what is going on here.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 00:59:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

pot calling the kettle black (0.00 / 1)

You are the one saying that you are not going to vote Democratic on downticket races if the BCDO doesn't do what you want them to do.

As distasteful as I found Paul Aronsohn's campaign, I never told anyone to vote for Garrett instead of him, because he wasn't progressive enough.  The only statement I have made about Aronsohn is that he deserved to be screwed over by the BCDO, because he and the BCDO screwed over Anne Wolfe.

I have already conceded the possibility that he is a better and more humble person now than he was in 2005/2006.  In fact, I am willing to go so far as to assume that your opinion of who he is right now is the truth.  That doesn't change the past, though, but it doesn't have to.  These are just my opinions and like anybody else here, I am entitled to have one and to express it without being called names like asshole and purity troll.

As far as redistricting is concerned, it is also my opinion that aside from a Duke Cunningham scenario, the only way that Democrats have any chance of retiring Scott Garrett is to lobby for the redistricting of a more competitive district.  

Although I am guessing that with the juxtaposition of current district borders and the expectation that New Jersey is going to lose a Congressman, you are simply counting on the likelihood that your town of Ridgewood will become part of Steve Rothman's district starting in 2013.  If I am right about this, will you still be as committed to retiring Garrett or will you leave that task to the poor souls who are stuck in the most conservative parts of the northern and western parts of the state?

The fact of the matter is that like the poor souls in Flemington who had Rush Holt as their Congressman one day and Mike Ferguson as their Congressman the next, 5th District progressives got royally screwed over by both Democratic and Republican Congressmen who drew up a district map that is so convoluted and incumbent friendly that it would be virtually impossible for any incumbent on either side of the aisle to be seriously challenged.  Obviously, Linda Stender in 2006 was the exception to that rule, but as Republican-leaning as the 7th might be, it is purple compared to the 5th.

In some respects, 5th District progressives were even more screwed over than the Flemington progressives who were abandoned by Rush Holt. Your district used to be relatively purple with a moderate Republican, Marge Roukema, representing it. However, after redistricting, Roukema chose to retire rather than try to win a primary election that was obviously skewed to benefit a more extreme right-wing conservative Republican like Scott Garrett.

I know that if I was a progressive, living in the 5th District, I would be pissed as hell by this.  What I don't understand is why aren't you?  You are angry enough at the BCDO for having their ridiculous strategy that you might not vote Democratic in November. However, as wrong as their strategy is, it is a one-year blunder that will not have a dramatically negative impact on anything other than their own local and candidates.  

But for some reason, you are willing to give people like Rush Holt, Bill Pascrell, Jr. and Steve Rothman a pass for not being more willing to represent more competitive districts so that their neighboring Republican districts could be more competitive.  The big difference between what these guys did during the last redistricting and what the BCDO is doing right now is that the BCDO can make up for their blunder two years from now.  What the other guys did punished progressives in Ferguson's and Garrett's districts for a decade.

And you can be as dismissive of my redistricting initiative as much as you want to, but what you cannot dismiss is the fact that whatever redistricting is done by the powers that be over the next year will impact politics in our state for the next 10 years.  You can either try to have an impact on that process now or you can complain about it after it has been done.  My guess is that you and others will resign yourselves to pointlessly complain about it after it has been done.  Or maybe you won't, since you will most likely be in Rothman's district when all is said and done.

As far as your Retire Garrett effort is concerned, I have not said anything negative about what you are doing.  I looked at your website and it is quite clear that you and others are working quite hard to defeat him.  The only thing that I have had to say about it otherwise is that you need to get a name (ANY NAME) on the ballot.  If you don't, everything that you are doing will be for naught.

Of course that name doesn't have to be yours.  You have provided many reasons why you can't run right now and they are all quite reasonable. There are probably plenty of others that you haven't given that would also be quite reasonable.  However, it seems like you are limiting the scope of your candidate search to "serious" candidates, and that is where we truly disagree.

I am going to argue and you are probably going to disagree that considering how the district is currently constructed, there is not a significant difference between a "serious" candidate and anybody you can get to put their name on the ballot.  I am not entirely sure, but past events would make me think that it is even conceivable that you could get someone to agree to put their name on the ballot as a placeholder, which would give you more time to find a more "serious" candidate, who would then replace your placeholder candidate.

That said, if you haven't done so already, I would recommend that you talk to former Glen Rock councilman, Byron Arnao, who along with former Tenafly councilwoman, Carol Hoernlein, I had the pleasure of driving up to New Hampshire and Vermont with back in 2003 in support of Howard Dean's Presidential campaign.  I don't know what your definition of "serious" is, but in my opinion, he is as serious a guy as they come and I think that he would be as good a challenger to Garrett as you could find.

Whatever you wind up doing and regardless of what you think of me and my opinions personally, I wish you and every other progressive in the 5th the best this year as you are facing the steepest of uphill climbs as you have in the last decade, made even steeper by the BCDO and their ridiculous strategy.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 16:40:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

apparently (0.00 / 0)

it is option 1.

I'm done with you.  In fact, don't bother peddling your crap to me either, you're not worth replying to anymore since you don't care what anyone else says, you've always got a (very long) answer and you're always 100% right.


Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 17:52:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

once again - pot calling the kettle black (0.00 / 1)

I had an opinion about the BCDO's strategy.  You made a counter-argument, which convinced me that you were right.

I had an opinion about Paul Aronsohn.  You made a counter-argument, which convinced me that he might have changed since 2005/2006.

You are the one who continues to misrepresent everything that I am saying as a personal attack against you and Retire Garrett, when I am just trying to offer you some thoughts that might help you achieve your goals.

I have never claimed to be 100% right about anything.  I have a certain amount of experience and knowledge about NJ politics that informs my opinions, which I share with you and others in an effort to help, not harm.

Instead of taking or leaving them, you characterize them as slights and call me names.  Maybe I should give up too, but I don't because I care too much about the progressive cause.

Hopefully, this was not too long for you to read.  Good luck.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:44:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

one last time (0.00 / 0)

conceding that I either have or may have convinced you I was right gets lost when it is buried in a comment about how "even though I may concede on this, you are wrong on X, Y and Z".

Does every comment or even agreement have to be couched with pointing out all of the many ways you are either more right, or the other (me in this case) is wrong on something else.

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:08:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It isn't about being right or wrong (0.00 / 0)

I am scrolling through this entire conversation and I cannot find a place where I have said that you are wrong or that I am more right about anything.

Other than express my opinion about Paul Aronsohn and his 2006 Congressional run, which resulted in you calling me an asshole, I have only shared my ideas about things that you and others could be doing in addition to, not instead of, what you are already doing and why I thought that these ideas could support your ongoing efforts.

You have chosen to view these thoughts with hostility and have responded in kind.  I have only responded with clarififications and explanations of my positions, which have been responded to with more derisive name calling and personal attacks, none of which will contribute in any way to retiring Scott Garrett.

That said, I would like to apologize for the following:

Do either of you live in the district?  If so, then you should run instead of demanding that the BCDO go out and find you the candidate of your dreams.  There is no doubt that they are wrong for the strategy that they have chosen, but you're no better if you're not willing to do what they won't do.

In hindsight, I realize that this comment definitely crossed the line and probably laid the groundwork for all of the negativity that followed and for that, I am sorry.  Once again, good luck with whatever you decide to do and if you have not approached Byron Arnao yet, I strongly encourage you to do so.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 22:52:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

apology accepted (0.00 / 0)

see you round....

Scott Garrett - on the wrong side of, well, everything.

---

by: Adam L @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 00:44:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

1125 words (4.00 / 1)

that no one sane will read. time to end the tread.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 17:17:07 PM UTC

better than name calling (0.00 / 1)

This isn't Twitter.  If people don't want to read what I write, because it is too long, that is their choice.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 17:49:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually.... (0.00 / 0)

we do have rules at Blue Jersey, and I think most people would agree with me that you are breaking Rule #1:

Don't be an ass. This should be enough for most people, but if you need clarification, keep reading.

You're being an ass from what I've read (and I'll agree with Dennis, I only glossed over most of the whining novels you masquerade as comments).  Which shouldn't surprise anyone, because usually when you comment that is the case.  

Grow up, you shouldn't need a 24 year old to tell you that.  

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:41:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Rules (0.00 / 1)

Rules

Blue Jersey is a community and, as in any community, there will be people with whom you agree and people with whom you disagree.  As with any other community, we can all manage to get along reasonably well if we just observe some simple, common sense rules for our interactions. Blue Jersey has no objection to heated discussion or disagreement and we welcome impassioned discussion, but there are lines that your common sense should be enough to keep you from crossing. These are our rules:

Don't be an ass. This should be enough for most people, but if you need clarification, keep reading.

Racism, bigotry, threats of violence and other hate-filled language is strictly prohibited.

No personal attacks or revealing of private information is tolerated. This is grounds for immediate banning.

No comment spam. Advertising an unrelated site by posting a comment or diary is not tolerated. If it's not relevant to the blog, don't link it.

Stay on topic. When responding to a diary or comment, don't hijack the diary with random issues. Respond to the topic being discussed, or write your own diary.

Troll ratings are for trolls, not people you disagree with. They play an important role in the community self-moderating itself, so use the ratings appropriately.
Rule #1 is the most important, basically covers everything and is obviously up for interpretation (ours). If you're here just to pick a fight or start trouble, it's pretty easy to tell, but for most people, these rules are common sense and shouldn't be any problem.

Obviously, as a front-page blogger, your interpretation of who an ass is or isn't rules, so I am not even going to bother to debate it.  But I would think that calling someone an asshole qualifies as "hate-filled" language, but once again, since I am not in your front-page clique, I guess that I am in no position to debate such things either.

Being the child that I am, I was so naive to think that as progressives, we would all have the same basic sense of decency and fairness. You're right.  I probably should grow up and realize that whether people are progressive or conservative, they have a very narrow sense of good and evil, insider and outsider, with us or against us, and that one can only be one or the other.  Thanks for the lesson, O wise one who is mature beyond his years.  I'll never forget it.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 23:19:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're welcome. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 00:01:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and if you keep presenting as an obessive fool (4.00 / 1)

that's between you and your therapist, but the usefulness of your input was lost several comments ago.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:45:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Thread Is An Example Of...... (0.00 / 0)

....what happens when there is a failure of leadership from people/institutions that are supposed to be "at the top".

If the BCDO had simply run the best, most talented and enthusiastic candidate available then the bickering and infighting and backbiting over silliness wouldn't manifest in this way.

Adam Lambert and Bertin Lefcovic are BOTH smart and good progressives.

I confess that there are times when Bertin has irritated me; but I never, not for one second, doubted his sincerity, good intentions or the fact that he's generally on my side.   Bertin is indeed an occasional royal pain in the ass but he's not the enemy here.    

Imagine if all of the time , energy, and creative intelligence consumed in this thread were repackaged and focused AGAINST Scott Garrett and FOR his opponent!!!

Again, the situation in Bergen County, Nj and the nation as a whole vis a vis the establishment of the Democratic party is strikingly similar...though the scale is different.

Our putative "leadership" needs to stop being concerned about saving a few grams of petty patronage and temporary personal power and become genuinely hungry to stand up on principle and actually FIGHT for the ideas and values and PEOPLE that comprise the beating heart of the Democratic party.

The BCDO needs to get with the progressive/reform program or it has to be put to bed.   The current patronage/pay to play self serving nature of BOTH the establishmentarian NJ Republicans and Democrats is simply not sustainable and is precisely why we are in the financial mess that we're in.

As for Scott Garrett, he's a toxic maleficent influence on all of our lives.   The man does not belong in our congress.   The fact that he can come off as a decent fellow to  people that don't know him is just one more tribute to the veracity Arendt's formulation "the banality of evil".

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:30:08 PM UTC