The 5th District primary is getting some attention

Re (0.00 / 0)

That same article "credits" Abate with making Aronsohn spend money in the primary that should have been saved for the general.

Thanks, Camille.  Ernie appreciates the gift of four more years.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 20:21:53 PM UTC

Money (4.00 / 1)

Considering the institutional advantages that come with having the party line, if Paul Aronsohn was truly a credible challenger to Garrett, he wouldn't need to spend any money to win this primary.  I don't believe than Anne Wolfe had to spend much, if any, money when she beat Frank Fracasso in the Democratic primary two years ago.

The fact of the matter is that the 5th District is simply unwinnable with its current demographics, no matter how unpopular Republican policies are at the moment.

The only way to beat a candidate like Scott Garrett in a district like the 5th is to have a candidate who is willing to commit to a six-year plan and run in 2006, 2008, and 2010, establishing himself/herself as THE opposition, shrinking the demographics gap, and giving the Democratic establishment a reason to redistrict the state in a way that makes districts like the 5th more competitive.

This is true for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 11th districts as well.  Unfortunately, after a candidate like Paul Aronsohn gets beat by Garrett by 20 or more points in November, he probably won't bother to run again and his high-dollar connections won't mean squat.  Then again, maybe that won't be so unfortunate.

At the same time, had Paul Aronsohn not shoved Anne Wolfe out of the race this year, my guess is that this long-term strategy is exactly the approach that she would have employed.  Hopefully, she will run again in 2008 and if she doesn't, I hope that this experience hasn't discouraged Camille Abate from future runs.

New Jersey needs more strong women candidates like Anne Wolfe and Camille Abate, as well as Assemblywoman Linda Stender, who is the best hope that the Democrats have had to win the 7th district in my lifetime (35 years).

I also believe that candidates like these will have a much better chance of closing the gap against Republican incumbents than candidates like Paul Aronsohn, because they excite the Democratic base, inspire people who have not voted in the past to vote, and attract moderate Republican and Independent women voters.

---

by: bertinlefkovic @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 20:49:36 PM UTC

Re (0.00 / 0)

Blah blah blah.  What a pile of crap.  You talk out of so many different sides of your mouth it's a miracle you don't tie your tongue into knots.

I hope it has discouraged Camille from practicing her brand of divisiveness.  Unfortunately, there are too many people without a sufficient number of brain cells chasing each other that mistake big-mouthed bloviating for leadership.  I can't imagine why anyone would mention her in the same breath as Stender, other than they are sincerely trying to misrepresent the truth of the matter.

Stender: Years of experience as a successful public official and a history of working to build her party.

Camille: No experience whatsoever as an elected official and a short, but desperate, history of destroying her party to make a point.

Tell me, how big of a train engine do you need to pull that load of crap?

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 23:29:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wrong (0.00 / 0)

"At the same time, had Paul Aronsohn not shoved Anne Wolfe out of the race this year..."

This is the biggest load of garbage. Anne has said that she's not running again because the DCCC and EMLIY's list won't take the district seriously:

I was praised for my performance in 2004, but the priorities of the DCCC and other groups like EMILY's List for 2006 do not include New Jersey's Fifth District.
....
Because of these financial and strategic considerations, and because of other pressing issues in the district that need immediate attention, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration as a Democratic candidate for the United States Congress in the Fifth District of New Jersey in 2006.

Those are her words.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 00:03:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

So you are saying Camille is committed to run again in the next two campaigns?  Or is this more irrelevant crap from the crap-train?

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 15:23:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A word of advice... (0.00 / 0)

Somply calling things "crap" doesn't make it so.

XT  I know you are capable of reasoned, intelligent, fact based argument.  The language of ad hominem is beneath you...and (worse yet for you) it actually discredits whatever real validity there might be in what you are trying to say.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:11:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think lectures are crap. (3.00 / 1)

And condescension is crap, too.

Simply calling things "not crap" doesn't make them not so.

---

by: Kire @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:24:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmmmm? (0.00 / 0)

Putting aside your judgement of my intentions/motivation ("condescension")....My comment was quite short.  I wonder, specifically, what part of its actual substance you disagreed with? 

Though, I must say, you are certainly right in saying that "Simply calling things "not crap" doesn't make them not so."

In any event, I look forward to working with you to get NJ politics cleaned up and to make the Democratic Party of this great State the most effective, clean, and progressively potent State Party in the nation.

If you, or anyone out there, can make it to our Bergen Grass Roots meet up  tonight I promise you it'll be an interesting and eventful evening.
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 05:37:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hello, two years later (0.00 / 0)

I would just like to apologize for calling you names, back then. I do think getting "NJ politics cleaned up and to make the Democratic Party of this great State the most effective, clean, and progressively potent State Party in the nation," is a great idea. I would like to do my part.

---

by: Kire @ Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:23:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Well Reasoned Intelligent Argument... (0.00 / 0)

...substantively Supported by the factual/historical record.  Thank you Bertin.

I don't agree with all of it; I still believe the right kind of candidate/campaign can take it away from Garrett in November.  More on that later.

As of this hour it looks like the numbers are at around 33% for Camille.  If that holds up it will have been way more than  the "smart money" was betting...and, had Paul not spent, he might have lost.

I see no profit, at this point, in rehashing the Primary race issues.  The bottom line is a question: what will Paul do now?

I am hoping, for the sake of our State and our Nation that I was utterly wrong in my evaluation of Aronsohn.  I'd rather be wrong than have a political creature like Garrett representing any part of my State.

I'll have more to say on this after some more of the dust settles.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:04:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

words (0.00 / 0)

XT... When you talk about divisiveness and building the Democratic Party, you sound like the Hudson County politicians you rail against so often.  It is possible to talk about Camille, Linda, and Anne in the same thread, because they are or have been quality women Congressional candidates.

The major difference between Camille and Linda is experience and while Linda has built her political career over time, first as Mayor of Fanwood, then as Union County Freeholder, now as State Assemblywoman, and hopefully in January 2007 as Congresswoman, I don't think that she would tell any woman or any person for that matter that hers is the only path to political success.

What you and others have missed or choose to ignore about Camille's campaign is that considering how late it was started, it has become far more credible than anybody would have imagined.  What you call divisiveness is giving voters a choice between a candidate who has convictions and values and another who has spent most of his political career, learning what to say to make enough people happy to get elected from the masters of that shell game.

Juan... if you want to take the words of a politician, even one as great and progressive as Anne Wolfe at face value, that is your choice.  All politicians spin.  To say otherwise, would be naive.

Anyone who follows politics the way that we junkies do, knows how Paul Aronsohn played the insider game last year.  Anne Wolfe is a smart enough politician to know how much money she was going to be able to raise in 2005 and 2006, how much a primary election campaign against Aronsohn would cost, how much a general election campaign against Garrett would cost, and how the numbers simply didn't add up.

Anne Wolfe is also a smart enough politician to know that in 2008, the 5th District is going to have much more upticket strength with Frank Lautenberg (or his heir if he chooses to retire again) and the Democratic Presidential candidate at the top and after Paul Aronsohn embarrasses himself by losing to Scott Garrett in November by 20 points or more, he will run back to the corporate world where it is safe and where courage and convictions aren't necessary for success (I guess that it isn't necessary for success in politics either, and it can even be detrimental, but we are all entitled to our dreams).

Mind you, if Paul wins the primary tomorrow, I hope that he finds a way to pull off a miracle in November.  Hacks like him and Jim McGreevey are always preferable to wingnuts like Garrett and Bret Schundler.  It is a sad state of affairs in Jersey politics that more often than not, our choices are between hacks and wingnuts.  It makes me appreciate someone like Linda Stender that much more.

But then again, why would someone with courage and convictions like Camille run for office in a state like New Jersey when even those who complain about how bad the system is take the first chance they get to cut an honest candidate off at the knees?

---

by: bertinlefkovic @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:03:39 PM UTC

Experience is highly overrated (0.00 / 0)

Given how corrupt NJ and Washington politics have become, it's surprising that anyone says that previous political experience is a qualification.  Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy had no political experience either.  Carolyn McCarthy wasn't even particularly active politically, until her family's tragedy motivated her to enter the political sphere.

Given how the Clintons did NOTHING to build a party apparatus during their years in power (as witnessed by the utter chaos we see now), and given what a disaster McGreevey was as governor, and given Pfizer's recent embarrassments, it's hard for me to look at experience in those three areas, combined with lots of photos of hand-shaking with politicians, as by definition making someone qualified and giving me confidence that the individual in question is going to fight for the district, as opposed to his own political career.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:43:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Wow, nice totally irrelevant twist.  Just what I've come to expect from you.

The experience was related to Stender's record, so unless you are saying that Stender was or is corrupt, you're just spouting things out of your butt.  You really don't care who you slime, do you?

Are you suggesting that Paul Aronsohn actually made all, or any, decisions for McGreevey? for Clinton?  Come on.  Be realistic for five seconds.

I suppose you have your own locomotive to haul your crap-train - or do you borrow bert's?

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 15:23:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And you guys are saying WE'RE disrespectful? (0.00 / 0)

I had vowed not to post here anymore.  Now I remember why.  I don't recall ever saying that your opinions were "crap", XT, and yet you've been nothing but rude.

You needn't bother to reply; I'm going back to my original instincts. 

Have a ball here, guys.  I don't know what the deal is, but I think I want no part of it.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 15:35:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bye Bye (0.00 / 0)

So long. 

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 21:33:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hang in there Brilliant! (0.00 / 0)

I have to laugh when I read some of this stuff. 

The fact is that whenever the best someone can come up with to counter a reasonable, well thought out, articulate argument is to call it "crap"; YOU have won!!!  It's all there in black and white for the world to see.  :-)

I dare say there are probably hundreds of people who read Blue Jersey who feel a bit intimidated by this kind of foolishness...and they shouldn't be.  Quite the contrary; come on in...the water's fine!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:22:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is an interesting statement (0.00 / 0)

Bertie, you wrote:

What you and others have missed or choose to ignore about Camille's campaign is that considering how late it was started, it has become far more credible than anybody would have imagined.

I'm curious what the basis for that statement is.  What exactly makes it not merely more credible, but "far more credible than anyone would have imagined"?  Do you have some recent poll results?  If, in fact, Ms Abate has built that strong a campaign, I would like to hear about it.  I did not personally find her a credible candidate, but I don't mind being wrong.  If her performance has been that powerful, then it might be a good idea to support her, since that could lead to a defeat for Garrett in the fall.  But your words alone are not enough to say, "Oh, yes, she is far more credible than I ever thought possible."

Again, have you got some information that supports that contention?  Everything I have read about the race indicates that she has really very little support.  That support may be very strident and committed, but there is nothing to indicate that it is more committed than Aronsohn's, so I need something more than the words of one of her supporters regarding the credibility of her candidacy.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 13:11:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

It is possible to talk about Camille, Linda, and Anne in the same thread, because they are or have been quality women Congressional candidates.

Yeah, right.  Define "quality" before you take a single step beyond that.

it has become far more credible than anybody would have imagined.

From what I can tell, the only credibility is from idiots who are just dying for a chance to pull the temple down on their heads.

What you call divisiveness

  Is diviseness. 

When your entire campaign is "A vote for this other Democrat is a vote for a Republican" that is not giving a choice at all.  It's trying to destroy a viable candidate for the sake of destroying someone.

if you want to take the words of a politician

 

It must be difficult going through life without believing someone.  You don't believe Paul, you don't believe Anne - oh yeah, you believe Camille.  Why?  Because she spews divisive crap that sounds good to you.  If you back her you can once again play the part of the losing faithful. 

Oh yeah, there's an important difference between this race and the Vas/Sires race.  Namely, that seat is going to be held by a Democrat no matter what.  This race is already held by a Republican.  If anyone had a chance to knock of Garrett, it sure as hell wasn't Camille.  Instead of working for a party victory, you decided you'd just destroy any chance of that happening.  Republicans love people like that.  It keeps them in power.

We political junkies know things like that because they are so obvious a retarded eighth grader would understand it.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 15:18:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, don't do that, XT (0.00 / 0)

I was asking a serious question.  I could have sked a lot of other questions similar to that one, but I thought that one went to the heart of a number of elements of my own view of Ms Abate's candidacy.  Don't muddy my waters with your roiling.

So, Bertie, my original question remains.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 22:18:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

I'll give you a dollar if he answers even one.  Hopefully, it will be yours.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 00:24:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I don't get that dollar (0.00 / 0)

Bertie has had more to say since this diary, but he didn't answer my question, so I guess you keep your dollar.  This is the second time (though I haven't the time to go back and look through all the diaries to find the specific circumstance) that I asked Bertie a reasonable question about his fanciful rhetoric and received silence in return.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 14:40:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

XT: (0.00 / 0)

I think you are having just a little too much fun, sounding on fellow Dems, ya' know?


The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 22:48:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

No fun to it.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 00:25:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

money (0.00 / 0)

The fact that Aronsohn is concerned enough about the outcome that he is actually spending money on primary robocalls tells me that he must view her candidacy as credible.  As I said before, I don't believe that Anne Wolfe spent much, if anything, on her primary in 2004 and I seriously doubt that Scott Garrett has spent much, if anything, defending himself against Michael Cino.

Paul has been working the district and raising money since early 2005 and has the party line in every county.  Camille has been in the race for about three months and is running off the line.  Unlike Michael Cino on the Republican side and Paul Aronsohn on the Democratic side, Camille has been traveling the district and talking about issues.  The only thing that Paul has said is that he is moderate enough to compete with Scott Garrett in the conservative 5th District.

It will be interesting to see whether being moderate enough will get Paul Aronsohn 40% of the vote in November if he wins tomorrow.  In fact, I think that it is entirely possible that Camille will get a larger percentage of votes against Paul tomorrow than Paul will get against Scott in November.

XT... someone who feels the need to use the word "crap" as much as you do must be full of it himself.  Will Texas be taking you back anytime soon?

---

by: bertinlefkovic @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:55:11 AM UTC

Re: (0.00 / 0)

No such luck, bert.  I'll be calling you on your crap for a long time to come.  I call it like I see it, and from I see, you're so full of crap you can't help but say stupid things.  Like this:

Unlike Michael Cino on the Republican side and Paul Aronsohn on the Democratic side, Camille has been traveling the district and talking about issues.

Or like this. 

The only thing that Paul has said is that he is moderate enough to compete with Scott Garrett in the conservative 5th District.

I haven't paid the race more than a passing glance and I can smell your crap from here.  I don't really care which one wins the primary, what bothers me is that Camille's entire race is built on lie after lie after piece-of-steaming-crap lie.  It would be fun if she did manage to win the primary - maybe if Paul Aronsohn dropped over dead (which wouldn't be fun at all) - just to see Garrett make a fool of her.

Other stupid things you said:

It will be interesting to see whether being moderate enough will get Paul Aronsohn 40% of the vote in November if he wins tomorrow.

Nice way to dismiss him while showing you believe he'll win.  Do you know what percentage of the vote Anne Wolf in 2004 got?  41%.  In 2002, Ann Sumers got 39%.  So what you're saying is that he'll do about as well as any other Democrat.

You also manage to claim that Camille has a credible challenge because Paul has spent money talking about how he can beat Garrett.  Hmmmm.  Does that mean I was a credible threat to George Bush because he spent millions talking about John Kerry?

Wow.  You really can't help but say dumb things.

I predict Camille will get about the same percentage of votes any other primary loser has received - 0%.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:24:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

now who's talking out of both sides of his mouth? (0.00 / 0)

Your first post in this thread seems to indict Camille for causing Paul to spend money, but now that this concept is being used as a barometer of her candidacy's credibility, you say that Paul is spending money to talk about how he can beat Garrett.  Make up your mind.

And when I said "It will be interesting to see whether being moderate enough will get Paul Aronsohn 40% of the vote in November if he wins tomorrow", I am not necessarily assuming that he will get 39% like Anne Sumers or 41% like Anne Wolfe.  I think that even with the anti-Republican mood that seems to be wafting throughout the country, he might not even crack 35%, simply because he has nothing to say to the voters of the 5th Congressional District on their issues of convern, except to say that he is better and more moderate than Scott Garrett.

XT... despite our back and forth and your nasty demeanor, I can confidently say that you are better and more moderate than Scott Garrett.  And based on the positions that you take when you talk about topics other than the 5th Congressional District, I can confidently say that I would probably vote for you over Paul Aronsohn if given the choice.

As far as me believing that Paul will win goes, I would be naive if I didn't think that having the party line in every county was enough for almost any candidate to win a Congressional primary election in NJ.

The last time that someone won a Congressional primary, running off the line, was in 2000 when Maryanne Connolly beat Mike LaPolla, but even then, she had the benefit of being part of a slate of candidates that former Governor, Jim Florio was running with in his Senatorial primary election battle against Jon Corzine.

And if someone had the guts to challenge Bob Menendez this year and Camille was running against Paul Aronsohn as part of that slate, I think that she would have had a great chance to beat Paul.  But to win on your own, running off the line, a candidate has to run a perfect campaign that is well-funded.

And as much as I like Camille and think that she has done a tremendous job, considering her late entry and all of the other institutional obstacles that she has been forced to deal with over the last three months, even I wouldn't say that she has run a perfect campaign and her FEC reports clearly show that her campaign has not been well-funded.

No, I do not think that she will win.  But it would be nice if we lived in a country/state with a political system that made it possible for an insurgent underdog like Camille Abate, who talks about ideas and issues, instead of party talking points and platitudes, to have a chance to win.

I know that Juan has said something in the past about not tolerating personal attacks on this website.  I guess calling people "stupid" or "full of crap" falls underneath that threshhold, which is odd since I lost my front-page blogger status because I criticized a candidate (fairly or unfairly) for using photos to misrepresent his campaign and being unwilling to comply with Juan's tyrannical standards of style.

I guess that on Blue Jersey, style is more important than substance.

---

by: bertinlefkovic @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 23:27:56 PM UTC

I agree! (0.00 / 0)

I too would vote for XT over Garrett!

Seriously guys; unless something really shocking emerges (evidence of vote fraud or the like) the Primary is pretty much over.

Let's get our act together, put our petty egoic pride aside, and do what we can to make the Democratic Party as clean and as powerful a force for GOOD as it can be. 

Now if the term "crap" has a legitimate place in this discussion; I say it is what we have to clean up in New Jersey politics. 

Call me a naive radical if you like; but I still believe in the principle of, "Power to the People"!  :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:37:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, Juan is the problem, Bertie, not you (0.00 / 0)

That's the reason.  Juan is a tyrant.  Bad Juan. Bad bad Juan.

One of the reasons people get the support of the party is that they are good candidates who have worked for the party and can show credibility for the autumn race.  Other candidates have done it, but Ms Abate did not.  In your mind, that seems to make the candidate on the party line somehow bad or evil, like that is something wrong.  That, quite frankly, is not what I consider "well-reasoned" argumentation.  I understand where you are coming from, Bertie, believe me.  Sometimes a person falls in love with a candidate and disassociates himself from reality, his support being more cultish than reasoned.  So you wander around, muttering about "party machines" and the unfairness of it all.

Here's the truth, Bertie.  Your candidate lost because she wasn't the one who represented the voters of the district the best.  They voted for the one they thought would best represent them and would have the best chance in November against Garrett; that wasn't your guy.  It's called an "election".  Primary voters are much better informed than general election voters and voting in the primary is a sign of being a motivated voter, so the argument about being on the party line is less convincing than it might be in a general election.  Now, your guy did better than I would have expected, but she lost and that's how it goes.  You can now throw up your hands and refuse to support Aronsohn against Garrett or not.  That's your decision.  XT's original and main point remains uncontested and unrefuted.  When you and others declare, as I expect will happen soon since some of Abate's supporters already said this, that they won't vote at all in November because your guy lost, it will prove XT's point irrefutably.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 14:56:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]