Rothman Will Challenge Pascrell

Rothman made the right decision (0.00 / 0)

I think that it will be better if Steve Rothman runs in CD9 and Assemblywoman Connie Wagner runs in CD5.  Yes, Rothman could beat Garrett next year, but he has a much better chance of winning in the district that contains most of the constituents that he has had for the last decade.

He graduated from Tenafly High School and was mayor of Englewood before he was elected to Congress and only recently moved to Fair Lawn.  
I don't know the reason for this move.  I know that I would prefer to live in Englewood than Fair Lawn, but he chose to move for whatever reason, but at the same time, he should not feel compelled to stay there if it is not in his best interest.

I believe that if Rothman didn't announce that he is moving back to Englewood and running in CD9 soon, someone else from Bergen County would announce that he/she is running against Bill Pascrell in the Democratic primary in 2012.  The district is a Bergencentric district and even if Lou Stellato wanted to give Pascrell the line, he is not Joe Ferriero and will face tremendous pressure to support a Bergen-based candidate.

With all due respect to my former employer, Pascrell is nearing the end of his political career and is not even on the best of terms with his own County Chair, John Currie, who could have seen this as an opportunity to cut the puppeteer's strings once and for all.  The only reason that he isn't doing this is if he believes that Pascrell will drive downticket turnout in the three most important Democratic towns in Passaic County better than Rothman.

Even if that is enough to retain Currie's support, the makeup of the district still makes Pascrell vulnerable to a primary challenger, whether the challenger's name is Rothman or not.  So based on my belief that Pascrell will be challenged by somebody, I would prefer that somebody to be named Rothman.

I also like the idea of Wagner taking on Scott Garrett, because the amount of her legislative district, LD38, that is in CD5 is no less significant than the amount of Rothman's former district that is now in CD5.  While Rothman starts with more of a war chest than Wagner, I think that the DCCC would be just as engaged in her candidacy as Rothman's and she could bridge the financial gap with money from organizations like Emily's List.

The last two Congresswomen from NJ have been Republicans.  I believe that Wagner could give us the Democratic Congresswoman for whom we have been waiting far too long and I believe that without another competitive congressional race in the entire state, she more than Rothman could inspire people throughout the state who share my desire to elect a Democratic Congresswoman to engage this race with both their dollars and their shoe leather.

If for some reason she decides that she does not want to run, my second choice to take on Garrett would be Assemblyman-elect Tim Eustace.  Yes, there are undoubtably some risks involved in running someone for Congress who has just been elected to their first term in the Assembly, but with great risks come great rewards.  First and foremost amongst these rewards is the opportunity to provide the House of Representatives with an openly gay Congressman at the same time that its first openly gay Congressman, Barney Frank, is retiring, which would provide this race with not only statewide attention, but also national attention, particularly because he will be facing one of the most, if not the most far-right-wing batshitcrazy teabagging wingnut Congressman in the country.  With all due respect to Ed Potosnak, the new CD7 is simply not winnable and as bad as Leonard Lance has been, I think that we can all agree that he is not as bad as Garrett and never will be as bad as Garrett.

A Garrett-Rothman race would undoubtably have been a hard-fought campaign, but it would not have been significantly more noteworthy than any other matchup pitting two white, male incumbents who have been redistricted into the same district.  A Garrett-Wagner or Garrett-Eustace race will be an epic battle between icons of good and evil, light and dark, and yesterday and tomorrow.

When push comes to shove, I believe that the numbers of dollars and the numbers of volunteer hours that will be contributed to a Wagner for Congress or Eustace for Congress campaign will far eclipse anything that comes into the district for a Rothman for Congress campaign.

Finally, one additional benefit of a Wagner or Eustace victory over Garrett, aside from vanquishing the most hated Republican in our state, is that when one of them goes to Washington, their Assembly seat would have to be filled in a special election and while there would be no guarantee that Blue Jersey's favorite LD38 resident, Hawthorne Municipal Chairman Jeff Gardner, would be selected as the replacement, he would have as good a shot at the seat as anybody.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 04:49:51 AM UTC

I like Eustace (0.00 / 0)

It will compel national attention, and lots of money from gay supporters all across the country, especially since he'd be going up against one of the most homophobic members of Congress. Although Garrett has tons of money, his ability to raise out of state will be limited due to competing demands for teabagger resources, while Eustace can access gay-friendly communities nationwide.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:47:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dream on (0.00 / 0)

Wagner would have a decent chance with an open seat.  But she doesn't have the money or name recognition to beat an incumbent like Garrett the way Rothman does.  She could hold him to 55%.  But the last 5% will be tough to get.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 13:27:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pascrell (0.00 / 0)

Anyone who has seen Pascrell campaign knows all too well how effective he is. His ability on the streets is amazing and with his uncanny ability of delivering resources is unmatchable. I would give the edge to Pascrell in this matchup.  

---

by: MSUTeenDem @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 04:53:39 AM UTC

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

The makeup of the district is against him and he has never had to win a Democratic primary election in his career.  It will be a low turnout election and I believe that Bergen County will have a stronger GOTV operation than Passaic County.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:00:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The (0.00 / 0)

Race I think would be close and with both candidate's personality so different I think Pascrell will have the edge. Rothman is quiet and bookish while Pascrell is loud fierce and can turn his opponents upside down in a debate. Pascrell's base of minority support in Passaic I think will help him extend it to lower Bergen.  

---

by: MSUTeenDem @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 05:08:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (4.00 / 2)

I think Pascrell will win because of a better street operation and a stronger presence in the House.  And there will be voters who will be soured on Rothman because of his wimp out.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 13:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

will age be a factor? (0.00 / 0)

Rothman is 59 and Pascrell is 74. They both have equal seniority so that won't be an issue. However, Rothman's relative youth means he'll likely be able to serve the district alot longer than Pascrell, and accumulate greater seniority and influence in Congress. My guess is this will become a significant issue in the campaign, since there is little else to distinguish them from each other.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:45:27 AM UTC

Thank you Stevie (0.00 / 0)

For guaranteeing the loss of a Democratic seat.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 13:13:28 PM UTC

I don't think we can win (0.00 / 0)

in the 5th with a candidate that does not appeal to the conservative rural voter.  That district was Marge Roukema's for a long time so these voters are OK with moderate Republican women. But we most recently had a rabbi running against Garrett and now I hear talk of running Tim Eustace.  I don't think this district is ready for an openly gay candidate or a religious one. This isn't like the rest of the state or even the rest of Bergen county.  It includes the 39th district - the whitest most Republicanest legislative district of the state. We need to find a new DEMOCRATIC Marge Roukema (male or female) who is centrist and wholesome.  Wagner has Joe Ferriero baggage since she was a Freeholder during his reign.  We need someone other than the folks suggested here.  We have to think this one through not just pick who we - the most progressive folks in the state - would pick.  We need to pick somebody to actually represent the voters in the district.  You know - someone who could actually win.  So THINK folks. We have very little time.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 14:24:59 PM UTC

Any suggestions? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 14:34:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Carol (0.00 / 0)

I'm not as knowledgable about district/constituencey makeup as any of you here.  But I do know my township and something about northwest jersey.

Carol is correct about choosing our candidate carefully, even though we don't have much time.

Although my township had to be brought into the 21st century kicking and screaming, and has a few Democratic bright lights, all the stuff is local.  The township is overwhelming Republican.

Compared to Sussex, my township is moderate.  Cross the county line and you are with pickup truck drivin', rifle totin' rugged "individualists."

I guess there's some wealth there, but most people hew more to the Tea Party line of limited spending, small government.  Often they vote against their own economic self interest.

They are a force to be reckoned with.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 15:02:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still remember not too long ago (0.00 / 0)

living in Sussex county.  It was the opposite of diverse. It took me a few days of living there to realize why it seemed so eerie.  Everyone looked exactly the same. I often remember the awkward scary times as recently as the 90's when we would fear a barfight when the patrons would see our African American band mate walk in and start setting up for a gig. A little too late we would notice the Confederate flag draped over the pool table and adorning the teeshirts of barflies. Northwestern NJ is still the wildwest when it comes to progressive ideals of equality and harmony.  It ain't like the 37th LD there.  At all.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 16:04:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be fair (0.00 / 0)

There are lots of good folks in iboth my township and in Sussex, Democrats and Republicans, who want the same things.

Sense of community, good schools, decent social services, lower property taxes (Gah!), etc., etc.

They differ on how to achieve these goals. And, of course, I differ with the R's on how to get there.

My sense, Carol, is that the Confederates of which you speak do not vote, but who knows?

BTW, no one out by me has ever heard of Wagner or Eustace.  Bertin, do you have a plan for funding and the D/GOTV?

---

by: SmartyJones @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 19:05:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How many... (0.00 / 0)

...out by you have heard of Rothman?  Probably more, but not much more.  The plan is what the plan always is, which is hard work.

By virtue of their current offices, either Wagner or Eustace will have the capacity to do the base fundraising needed to get the support of national organizations like the DCCC and Emily's List/HRC, which will help either of them get to the next level, which will enable them to compete with Garrett in the general election.

It is the same plan that enabled Linda Stender to get as close as she did to Michael Ferguson in 2006, but CD5 is a more competitive district than the old CD7 and as onerous as Ferguson was, he was not anywhere close to being as onerous as Garrett.

Aside from this, the plan should be as it always should be, but never is, which is that everyone outside of CD5 ignores their own district, whose outcome is fixed and focuses solely on CD5.  If we can do this, instead of allowing ourselves to get bogged down in other races, we can win CD5.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 19:35:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Often (0.00 / 0)

these guys are gun owners and the NRA makes them very motivated voters.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:04:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

huge mistake (0.00 / 0)

You don't win elections in districts like CD5 by going after Garrett's voters.  You win by going after Democratic voters, independents and moderate Bergen County and Passaic County Republicans.  The BCRO and PCRO will help somewhat with the last two groups insofar as there are undoubtably ambitious Republicans in both counties who would like to have the opportunity to run in this district.  Unfortunately, the Republican map was not quite Bergencentric enough to support a direct overthrow of Garrett in a Republican primary.  That said, I do not foresee these organizations working hard for Garrett this fall.  They will work hard for their county candidates and for the Republican Presidential candidate, but I would be very surprised if any mention is made of Garrett in any lit drops or phone calls.

Thus, the best Democratic candidate is one who excites Democrats and independents.  If that candidate is a woman like Connie Wagner or an openly gay man like Tim Eustace, so be it.  I could even imagine a scenario where someone who was previously unexciting, like Paul Aronsohn, could have learned from his mistakes and become a more compelling candidate.  I still think that Wagner and Eustace have the most potential to attract national attention to this race.  Another good argument for either of them to run in CD5 is they have experience campaigning in tough election districts and doing the hard work necessary to win.  It is also not a hard sell for them to give up an Assembly seat that will be hard to retain every two years for a Congressional seat that will be hard to retain every two years.  I think that they are our best hopes in this district and have the potential to be stronger candidates than Rothman.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 16:38:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem is, even the BERGEN portions (0.00 / 0)

of LD5 are predominantly white and Republican.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 18:05:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

...there is a difference between white, Republican, educated, and wealthy and white, Republican, batshitcrazy, and poor.

You can come up with all of the reasons why Steve Rothman was the only person who could beat Garrett and as a result is the only person who should run against him or you can accept the situation as it is, be happy that you are going to be represented by either Bill Pascrell or Steve Rothman, instead of possibly being represented by someone like Gary Schaer or Michael Wildes, focus on the potential opportunities that Rothman's decision has created by his decision, and make the most of them.  I think that the choice is a very easy one.

If the Democrats provide the voters in CD5 with a real choice, I believe that someone like Connie Wagner or Tim Eustace could attract enough Democratic, independent, and moderate Republican voters to have a chance to beat Garrett.  I really do.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 18:25:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bertin it all comes down to money (0.00 / 0)

Rothman already has it.  Any new candidate has to start from scratch.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:54:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have faith... (0.00 / 0)

...that Connie Wagner can raise enough money to defeat Scott Garrett if she chooses to run, because I saw how close Linda Stender came to doing it against Mike Ferguson in 2006 in a district that was much tougher than the new CD5 against a Republican who was onerous in his own right, but not anywhere nearly as vile as Garrett.

I also think that it is possible that if Ron Paul does not win the Republican Presidential nomination and runs for President as a Libertarian, the Libertarian congressional candidate in CD5 could pull more votes from Garrett than he would normally, giving her an even better chance at winning.

You and Jay can choose to be angry at Rothman if you want, but it is neither constructive nor fair.  Please take a step back, see this decision as the complicated and personal one that it is, and look at the bigger picture.  If Rothman did not run in CD9, Michael Wildes would have and could have beaten Pascrell.  If that happened and Rothman lost to Garrett, we would have all been really screwed.

I don't know when Rothman agreed to sponsor the DOMA repeal legislation, but it was well before Menendez wrote his recent op-ed and before Jay and others had to place pressure on Pascrell to be the last member of NJ's Democratic congressional delegation.  Also, Rothman also had the guts to be one of the few electeds in the state to buck the Democratic establishment and support President Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.  Rothman is a lot of things, positive and negative, but he is most certainly not a coward.

As a former Councilperson, you are an important person in your community and your endorsement has value.  I hope that you consider what people like myself, Loretta Weinberg, Steven Goldstein, and Rosi Efthim have written here and make your decision thoughtfully and not based on anger at someone who does not deserve it.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is VERY upsetting! (0.00 / 0)

Congressman Rothman has been my Congressman for a long time, and I'm very upset that he's jumping ship and running against Pascrell, now that I have been redistricted.  I would have gotten behind him and campaigned very hard.  I can't think of anyone who can beat Garrett - and we have GOT to get rid of him.  I intend to do all I can for whoever runs against him.  If anyone is doing anything - you can count on my help!  I do NOT want Garrett as my Congressman - he will NEVER vote how I want him to.

---

by: CyberKat @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 14:39:13 PM UTC

Sorry for the double post (0.00 / 0)

I only hit the button once!

---

by: CyberKat @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 14:39:59 PM UTC

CyberKat (0.00 / 0)

No problem. Fixed. Sometimes the gremlins have their way with the blog :) (I've double-posted, myself, too).

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 @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 19:33:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disappointed (4.00 / 3)

I live in Bergen County in Rothman's current district.  I like him, but I also like Pascrell.  I'm not sure who I'm voting for, but I don't think one of the incumbents deserves my support simply because I live in his district now.

I really wanted Rothman to run against Garrett.  Rothman has by far the best name recognition, he has a ton of money, and because he's already in Congress, he's a lot harder to demonize with scare stories.  I think even in that district, Rothman would have the advantage, because Garrett has such a reputation as an extremist.

In fact, I think Rothman's odds in 2012 against Garrett might have been better than against Pascrell.

So why did Rothman make this choice?  Because if he beats Pascrell, Rothman's got a safe seat for at least 10 years, and maybe for life.  He won't have to struggle every two years.  If Rothman beat Garrett, he'd still be in a district with a slight Republican lean.  He could probably hold onto it for a while, but it would be a tough fight every two years.  Eventually Republicans would nominate a moderate-seeming candidate, who would be a good politician, and they'd do this in a strong Republican year (like 2010).  When that happened, Rothman would lose, and the newly-elected Republican would probably be safe for a long time.

So Rothman chose the easier path.  He'll have a tough fight this spring, but whether he wins or loses, it'll be his last tough fight (unless he wants to run for Senate).

But it's not the best thing for the party or the country.  If he had run against Garrett in 2012, Rothman would have had the a great chance of winning.  Maybe Rothman would have only been in Congress for one or two or three more terms, but having one more Democrat in Congress for those terms, and no Garrett, would have been a lot better for everyone than simply replacing one good Democrat (Pascrell) with another (Rothman).

It was a selfish move.

Like I said, I'm still undecided.  I don't really believe Pascrell would have done anything differently had he been in Rothman's position, and there's no way for me to know for sure.  I don't expect my elected officials to be perfect unselfish angels.  But Steve Rothman would have made me very proud had he decided to run against Garrett, and I would have done everything I could to help him win.  Now I'm just disappointed.

---

by: mf2012 @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 15:39:57 PM UTC

Stope Me if I'm Wrong (4.00 / 2)

But I don't see how Rothman's decision benefits the Democratic Party at all.  Rothman's chances against Pascrell are 50/50 at best and I tend to think they are slightly worse than that.  In fact, I think this is an incredibly cowardly move by Rothman.

While Wagner/Eustace would be nice stories, neither really has much of a chance against Garrett.  Recall that in 2008--arguably the biggest year for Democrats in history--Garrett still secured 57% of the vote.  The only way Garrett will be unseated is by facing a candidate with a great reputation and great name recognition.  Rothman would be the ideal candidate.  Instead Rothman has decided to play the part of the hypocrite.

If everyone recalls correctly, Rothman repeatedly roasted Rob Andrews at the stake for daring to challenge Frank Laughtenberg in a primary.  Now, four years later, Rothman is doing the same.  Challenging an older incumbent for the sole purpose of keeping a seat in the house.

The idea that Rothman is doing the right thing by switching districts to challenge an INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT is ludicrous.  In all honesty, can anyone say Rothman would be a major upgrade over Pascrell at the cost of losing another Democrat?

Bottom line is this looks like a foolish and cowardly move by Rothman.  He would have by far the best shot at ousting Garrett.  Even if he were to lose to Garrett, it isn't like Rothman's political career would be necessarily over.  Instead of working to help both the state and national party, Rothman is electing to roll over and let the Republicans automatically gain a seat in the house.

---

by: Erik Preuss @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 20:41:01 PM UTC

Erik (2.00 / 1)

Not to take away from the rest of the points you make, but just as a clarification, what was so infuriating to many Dems (and to the rest of the NJ congressional Dems, particularly) in 2008 was that they all - including Andrews - had just together and individually pledged not to challenge Lautenberg. Andrews, depending on which verb you might use, lied (yes, I think he lied, or at the very least makes pledges he doesn't particularly keep). New York Times has a pretty good account.

It was the first time I personally heard two people curse I never thought I'd hear; one a candidate for Congress, another a seated member of the House. Bygones are bygones, but some people were pissed.

Given the vagarities of congressional redistricting, and the way it potentially throws everybody's situation into shift, I doubt the same kind of promises were made to any incumbent this year.  

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 @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 21:27:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rosi (0.00 / 0)

I really do understand what you are trying to say, and perhaps hypocrite was the wrong word.  I think in many ways Rothman's decision is 1,000 times worse for New Jersey and National Democrats than Andrews decision to run for senate in 08'.  Rothman may have been pissed that Andrew's lied, but he campaigned for Lautenberg and painted Andrews as a horrible choice for New Jersey Democrats.  I simply believe this decision is much worse.  Yes it is true Andrews did lie and Rothman didn't.  But I find it hard to believe that what Andrews did in 2008 was any worse than what Rothman is doing now.  in 2008, the Andrews/Lautenberg primary would not have adversely effected New Jersey's or the Country's congressional delegations at all. If Andrews had beaten Lautenberg, someone would have stepped up in his district and preserved his seat for a Democrat.

While its true that Rothman didn't break any promises, the ramifications of him running against Pascrell are much graver for the Democratic Party than the ramifications of Andrews running against Lautenberg. I believe Rothman's decision is much worse, because while Andrews lied, there would only be marginal differences in terms of ideology between Andrews and Lautenberg.   Rothman is essentially ceding a seat to the Republicans.  He is choosing self-preservation instead of trying to make the country and our government a better place. And Scott Garrett is perhaps the most extreme Republican north of the Mason-Dixon.

When you couple Rothman's decision with the fact that we are in hard economic times, its tough to be anything but infuriated with him.  Scott Garrett is basically a New Jersey TEA party candidate, keeping him in office in the middle of a recession means keeping another poison voice on the economy in Congress.

Perhaps hypocrite is the wrong word.  But I think coward is perfectly appropriate.  

---

by: Erik Preuss @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 21:49:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a hypocrite but a me first politician (4.00 / 1)

The good of the party, and the country for that matter, be damned.  It's all about what's good for me, and the perks of holding office.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 22:19:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't forget about Rothman's staff (0.00 / 0)

It is possible that the people who work for him will find jobs elsewhere, but it is also possible that they won't.  Knowing what I know about Rothman and his relationship with the people who work for him from people who used to work for him, there is no doubt in my mind that they were a major factor in his decision-making process.

Conversely, having worked for Pascrell's re-election campaign in 2000, I know that the same is not necessarily true with regards to his relationship with his staff.  Personally, I think that everyone involved would be better served if Pascrell negotiated a deal with Rothman whereby Pascrell retired and Rothman absorbed as much of Pascrell's staff as possible, possibly at the expense of some of his more marketable staffers.  Otherwise, the primary election campaign will be a winner-take-all affair with one side keeping their jobs and the other side getting pink slips.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:56:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hear you, Erik - (2.00 / 1)

Yes, it's an unfortunate & will piss off a lot of Dems (particularly in North Jersey) and inconvenience the hell out of the DCCC.  I'm just not surprised. I'm not feeling as worked up about it (though I understand and respect those who are). For me, some of the same qualities that allow men and women to rise to positions where they represent large numbers of people are matched in electeds with a sense of electoral survival instinct. It's hard-wired in them like the really good stuff they're also wired to be able to do. Doesn't make it right. Or good. Just the cost of doing business.

I don't want to split hairs, or diminish what you're saying. But the difference for me between Lautenberg/Andrews & Rothman/Pascrell is that in the 2008 Senate primary, the situation changed simply because Rob Andrews decided to change it. Decided it was worth faking out a colleague and throwing the delegation & party into division simply to service his own ambitions. That it was worth portraying Lautenberg as some doddering old idiot (not to mention that Lautenberg could kick his ass in 100 ways ... and did).

Situation here is not one of ambition but self-preservation. All congressmen, to a degree, see themselves as imperative IMO. Not because they're egomaniacs (most of them) but because that's what it takes to wind themselves up every day and raise googobs of money, and talk to people every waking moment. Good or bad, they drive toward re-election. And in this situation, the agent of change that drove this matchup wasn't plain ambition. The agent of change was the literal ground shifting under everybody's feet.


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 @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 23:29:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

your view of this situation is too narrow (0.00 / 0)

Pascrell was going to get a primary challenger regardless of what Rothman decided and if he lost to Gary Schaer or Michael Wildes, CD9 would have a much more conservative Democrat representing it than it would with either Pascrell or Rothman.  Rothman's decision keeps both of them at bay.  And if Rothman lost to Garrett, you would still have him representing CD5.  This would be the ultimate nightmare scenario and it was not implausible by any stretch of the imagination.

Whether people want to agree with me or not is their business, but I believe with every ounce of my being that Connie Wagner has the same potential to beat Garrett that Linda Stender had to beat Mike Ferguson in 2006, a better district in which to do it, and an even more extreme right-wing opponent.  Because of the potential that she would have to make this a national race, I believe that she could be an even stronger candidate against Garrett than Rothman.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:23:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As we have found out recently (0.00 / 0)

There are way too many Democrats in this state
who do things that are not in the best interest of the party.  

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 21:30:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can Eustace raise money? (0.00 / 0)

I still think if Eustace raises enough money he can make this a competitive race. He can tap into gay-friendly financial resources and conceivably could raise enough to outspend Garrett. Though Garrett is a tea party favorite, their resources will be stretched thin supporting teabagger candidates in other states. The bottom line is it all hinges on money and GOTV. I think Eustace is in a position to take advantage of both.

http://christiegonewild.blogsp...

---

by: ken bank @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 23:00:37 PM UTC

Would (4.00 / 1)

The rural parts of the district really tolerate having one of them gays as a congressman? I think Connie would be the stronger candidate since she has more election experience and can win the bellwether town of Paramus which would be a must win for team Blue to win this district.  

---

by: MSUTeenDem @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:45:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plus (4.00 / 1)

He was just elected for a first term a month ago, running for another office already would be seen as a career politicians choice  

---

by: MSUTeenDem @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:48:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about drafting Senator Robert Gordon? (0.00 / 0)

No one has mentioned State Senator Robert M. Gordon (D-Fair Lawn) as a Democratic contender against Scott Garrett in the new 5th District.  Thoughts?  

---

by: zi985 @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 00:12:17 AM UTC

not a good idea, IMHO (0.00 / 0)

Because of the power that comes with senatorial courtesy and other aspects of the position, State Senator is seen by most people in NJ politics as a more important and powerful position that Congressperson.  When State Senators look upwards, they generally look at statewide (gubernatorial and senatorial opportunities).  

For this reason and others, including biut not limited to how well Bob Gordon did as the top guy on the LD38/Bergen line last year, I don't think that he would be interested in running against Garrett and I would hate to lose him as a State Senator if he won.  Considering the fact that he used to be a Republican, Gordon has proved himself to be a very progressive legislator.

I am not entirely sure why John Adler decided to run for Congress in 2008, aside from the fact that when it was believed that he was being considered for the position of Attorney General in Jon Corzine's administration, Corzine dismissed the idea rather nastily, as if that jerk was any real judge of character.  Adler was 1000 times the person that Corzine was, his disappointing congressional votes notwithstanding.

Considering the fact that 11 congressional seats are now locked up for the next decade or so, I believe that CD5 represents NJ's only opportunity to elect a woman to Congress anytime soon, which would give Connie Wagner a very good chance of getting both statewide and nationwide support for her candidacy.  This is why I believe that she has the potential to be a stronger candidate against Garrett than Rothman.  It would be a much higher profile and hotter matchup.  Whatever negligible name recognition difference that she might have between herself and Rothman would disappear very quickly.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:13:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

but how about those other members who served in the NJ Senate? (0.00 / 0)

You briefly mentioned John Adler but how come Bob Menendez, Leonard Lance, and Frank Pallone all served in the NJ State Senate as they were running for Congress if State Senators supposedly look more seriously at running for Governor or the U.S. Senate?  I think you're not taking into full account the prestige of being a Member of Congress and the power that goes along with it.

---

by: zi985 @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:19:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

obvious exceptions (0.00 / 0)

I do not know why Menendez and Pallone chose to go from the State Senate to the House when they did, but I do know that when Lance ran for the House in 2008, his Senate career was on the decline.  If he had not already been ousted as Senate Minority Leader in favor of Tom Kean Jr. by then, there was a lot of talk at the time that it was going to happen sooner rather than later.  There was also a lot of talk at the time about Michael Doherty challenging him in a primary election, so for Lance, the congressional run was as much an escape route than anything.

That said, if Bob Gordon takes on Scott Garrett, I think that he would be a very strong candidate, but for the reasons I have already expressed at length here, I think that Connie Wagner has the potential to be the strongest opponent that the Democrats could run against Garrett.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:44:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with Rosi 100 percent (0.00 / 0)

ANY decision Steve Rothman would have made here would have been understandable given that he had the world shift under his feet through no making of his own - well put, Rosi.   Folks, most of you are asking Rothman to be a martyr and take on the harder fight in a geographically terrible new CD-5, though more comforting fight for us who like both him and Pascrell, for the good of the Democratic party.  But if I'm Steve Rothman, why?  The party didn't exactly protect him in the redistricting process.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:50:36 AM UTC

AMEN!!! (0.00 / 0)

It should also be noted that a contested primary against Pascrell is not necessarily the easier path.  Yes, if he wins the primary election, it should be clear sailing the rest of the way, but beating Pascrell is going to be just as difficult if not moreso than beating Garrett.

I also believe that Rothman's decision helps to ensure that CD9 is represented by a progressive Democrat.  Pascrell was going to face a primary challenge one way or another in 2012, but if Rothman was running in CD5, Pascrell would have most likely been challenged by Gary Schaer or Michael Wildes, both of whom are far more conservative than either Pascrell and Rothman and neither of whom would have hesitated to use Pascrell's recent decision to sponsor the DOMA repeal legislation as a wedge issue with the district's African-American, Catholic, Hispanic-American, and Orthodox Jewish populations.  If either were successful at beating Pascrell in the primary election, not only would we be stuck with Garrett in CD5, but also with a conservative Democrat in CD9.  Rothman's decision keeps them on the sidelines in 2012.

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call the demographics of CD5 terrible.  They have improved dramatically over the district's previous makeup.  I believe that if she decides to run against Garrett, Connie Wagner could be a very exciting candidate and possibly even stronger than Rothman given her potential to attract national attention and dollars.

What do you think about her, Steven?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:45:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pascrell would have been in no danger from anyone else (0.00 / 0)

They wouldn't have had the money or the congressional name recognition that Rothman has.  I think the argument is a red herring.  

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:53:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're wrong (0.00 / 0)

You just prefer to be angry at someone when things don't happen the way that you want instead of looking at the bigger picture.  Primary elections are low turnout affairs and either Schaer or Wildes would have had a huge bloc of Orthodox Jewish votes between Englewood, Passaic, and the small part of Teaneck that is in CD9.  They would have also gone to every Catholic church in South Bergen and talked about Pascrell's support for marriage equality.  

I am not saying that they definitely would have won, but they would have given Pascrell, who has never had to run in a serious primaryelection race, an extremely tough race.  Wildes in particular is a ruthless campaigner who has won on and off of the party line.  He probably would have obtained the Bergen line through sheer force of will and a credible threat to run with his own county candidates, which Stellato would have had no choice but to avoid.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:01:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speculation is all well and good (0.00 / 0)

But there's nothing to indicate that either was planning to run.  Or that anything would shake his strong support in the Catholic community.  

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:29:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know for a fact... (0.00 / 0)

...that Wildes was planning to run.  I know someone who is a member of his synagogue and he was soliciting pledges even before the final map was announced.  If the hearsay was accurate, he already had 250K in pledges as of Sunday night and was on track to have a million.  

Supposedly, the only pushback that he was getting after the map was announced was from people who said that he should not make an announcement until Rothman made his decision.  His original plan was to announce before Rothman with the hope that it would make Rothman less likely to move.  If what I heard was correct, he was going to announce in early January whether Rothman had announced or not.  I am sure that Rothman was hearing the same thing, which forced him to make a decision sooner rather than later.

As far as his strong support in the communities that I named is concerned, when people like John Kerry are not allowed to receive communion, because they are pro-choice, there is no doubt in my mind that an anti-marriage equality whisper campaign could be effective.  It was supposedly the reason that Paul Sarlo voted against marriage equality as he was just as afraid of losing a primary election to Gary Schaer as he was losing a general election.  It doesn't make it right, but it does make it the nature of the district in question.

When you look at the district town by town, I would argue that the most gay-friendly town in the district is Jeff Gardner's Hawthorne, which does not have nearly as many Democratic primary voters as all of the less gay-friendly towns in the district.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:52:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Way Above My Pay Grade (0.00 / 0)

Why should Rothman?  I'll take a stab at that.  1. Because he has not lifted a finger to help any previous Dem candidate in the 5th despite his seniority and $. At least not Aronsohn and certainly not Theise.
2. His campaign staff were caught taking down EVERYONE'S yard signs in the 5th last cycle and replacing them with Rothman signs and 3. Its exactly this kind of wimp out that perpetuates the myth that Democrats are soft...like cotton.

Rothman and/or Decheine saw the writing on the wall for this a long time ago and I think if the lines were drawn a little more favorably (or equitably depending on how you look at things) were positioning for a run in Northern NJ.  But b/c it's not going to be a walk in the park opted to... Which to be honest, other than standing up for Obama is kind of par for the course for Steve. But like I said.....this is way above my pay grade.

---

by: Got Kids @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:53:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We were asking him to rise to the occasion (0.00 / 0)

Would doing so result in "martyrdom"? I don't think so. Even if he lost a well-fought campaign, it would give him street-fighting creds and a year to prepare to take on Christie or two years to run for Lautenberg's seat.

But to concede the race before it even began is unconscionably defeatist. In a Presidential year where there could be significant anti-rightwing backlash, even among Bergen's moderate Republicans, a well-financed, high-profile candidate like Rothman definitely had a chance. Whoever runs now will be the real "martyr" -- a doomed sacrificial lamb, taking the preordained hit for his or her party.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the party didn't protect Rothman. One district had to go from north Jersey, and the solution the Dems proposed was arguably the best they could hope for. In any event, Rothman would not be the first public figure who had to respond to a drastic challenge that affects more than just his own private world.

It's the response, I guess, that separates a politician from a statesman.  

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 17:56:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If... (0.00 / 0)

...Rothman chose to run against Garrett and lost, he would no longer be in a position to run for Governor in 2013 or Senate in 2014.  The same is true if he loses to Pascrell.  Either path has risk.  Rothman chose the path that included more of his current contituents.

If the Democratic nominee in CD5 would be a sacrificial lamb, why are Passaic County Freeholder, Terry Duffy, and former Bergen County Executive, Dennis McInerny, exploring runs in the district.  While I believe that Assemblywoman Connie Wagner would be the strongest candidate against Scott Garrett, possibly stronger than even Steve Rothman, I think that whomever runs against him will win or lose a very close race.

While it is unlikely, I think that Garrett could face a Republican primary challenge from a BCRO-backed candidate.  If that candidate wins and Ron Paul runs for President as a Libertarian, I think that there could be a stronger than usual Libertarian Senate candidate and a stronger than usual Libertarian Congressional candidate, creating even more of a possibility for Democratic victory.

Instead of using this as yet another opportunity to vent against Senate Majority Leader Weinberg or assume the worst about Democratic chances in CD5, please focus your energies on helping whomever the Democratic nominee in the district might be.  That is what separates an activist from a gadfly.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:56:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BOO ON ROTHMAN (4.00 / 1)

If he's too chicken-shit to take on the most rightwing goofball in the state, then he's a wimp.  a total douchy wimp.  And I'll do my best to frame him accordingly from now until November.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 13:14:05 PM UTC

BOO ON YOU, JAY!!! (0.00 / 0)

You are the last person who can call another candidate "chickenshit".  When you agree to take on James Beach, who abstained on the marriage equality vote, you will have the credibility to insult the decisions that any other candidate for elected office makes.

Rothman grew up in Tenafly and was Mayor of Englewood before he was elected to Congress.  He moved to Fair Lawn a few years ago.  Why does that lock him into a district that has far fewer of his former district's towns?

I didn't read your criticism of Reed Gusciora earlier this year when he chose to leave Princeton, where he has been a fixture far longer than Rothman has been in Fair Lawn, because he was unwilling to put his political career on the line against Kip Bateman, one of the Republican State Senators who betrayed the LGBT community on marriage equality.

If you are unwilling to do your part to take on a regressive Democrat on "your side of the street" or criticize the man who soon will no longer be the only openly gay member of the State Assembly when he was unwilling to stand up for the LGBT community, then you have no right to demonize someone who chose to run for re-election in the district that contains more of his constituents.

Would you be saying this right now if Rothman had never moved to Fair Lawn a few years ago?  Had he and Pascrell been redistricted into the same district, which is what the Republican map essentially did without actually doing it, would you be saying that Rothman should move to Fair Lawn just so he can take on Garrett?  I don't think so.

Instead of Pascrell-Rothman, would you prefer Pascrell-Wildes and the ensuing whisper campaign launched against Pascrell within the district's African-American, Catholic, Hispanic-American, and Orthodox Jewish communities, targeting his decision to sponsor the DOMA repeal legislation?  Rothman's decision keeps that kind of campaign out of the district.  If we are successful at drafting Connie Wagner to run against Garrett, she has the potential to be an even stronger candidate in CD5 than Rothman, because she can attract national attention and dollars.

I understand that you're angry, but you're not the only person here who is angry.  The only difference is that your own decisions disqualify you from expressing your anger and framng Rothman accordingly.  Go "work your own side of the street"!  I am sure that Rob Andrews needs someone to kiss his butt while he coasts to yet another re-election victory and now you get to vote for him.  Hooray!  Maybe you should challenge him in the primary election if you're not too chickenshit.

DRAFT JAY LASSITER FOR CONGRESS!!!!!

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:31:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was pretty mean, Bert (0.00 / 0)

I am madder than Jay at Rothman.  Nobody has more of a right to criticize a politician than somebody else - and nobody gets to dictate who gets to be indignant.  This is politics.  Jay is right - what Rothman did was cowardly.  I wholeheartedly agree with him.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:01:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was not cowardly, Carol (0.00 / 0)

Rothman is going to have a tough race either way and he is not necessarily the strongest candidate to take on Garrett for the reasons that I have already explained.  You are free to agree with him if you want, but it doesn't make either of you right.  You are just choosing to allow your emotions to dictate your thinking.  This is a far more complicated and personal decision than you are allowing it to be and ignoring years of exceptional public service that Rothman has provided to his constituents as a result.

I am not dictating Jay's right to be indignant, but calling him out for his own cowardice, hypocrisy, and inconsistency with regards to his silence when Reed Gusciora made a similar, but far worse decision earlier this year.  Jay is the one who tells us to "work our own side of the street" when it suits him.  Now it suits me to use his words against him.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:21:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Totally agree (0.00 / 0)

But be aware that you'll be working at cross-purposes with Blue Jersey's most blindly adored politician, the "Backroom Operator"* from north Jersey who in today's Record has already endorsed Rothman over Pascrell.

* PolitickerNJ's 2011 Power List and Year in Review, p. 33

---

by: JeffO Teaneck @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:01:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Passaic County Freeholder Terry Duffy for NJ5 (0.00 / 0)

Probably one of the only moderate Democrats in the new NJ5 that could beat Garrett.  

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:21:03 PM UTC

Bertin (4.00 / 3)

First of all you just said yourself that Rothman running against Pascrell might be harder than running against Garrett.  Well if thats the case, than why not run against Garrett?  

Secondly, based on what do you believe Pascrell might have lost a primary to someone other than Rothman?  Pascrell would in all likelihood obliterate any primary challenger other than Rothman.  In these types of races, money and name recognition are everything.  I would be shocked if anyone other than Rothman could break 20% against Pascrell in a primary.

I get it, you are happy about Rothman's decision.  Thats fine, I respect your opinion.  I also respect Rothman's right--although I strongly disagree with it--to run against Pascrell.  But lets call a spade a spade, Rothman isn't doing anyone but himself any favors by running against an incumbent Democrat in a primary.

---

by: Erik Preuss @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 15:25:43 PM UTC

Why not? (0.00 / 0)

I think that Rothman's decision is the right decision for Rothman and I believe that he is entitled to make it, but neither path is going to be an easy one unless Rothman is able to negotiate a deal with Pascrell that would lead to Pascrell's retirement, which is highly unlikely.  I also believe that Connie Wagner has the potential to be a stronger candidate in CD5 than Rothman, because of her capacity to attract national attention and dollars.

I do not know if Pascrell would have lost to Michael Wildes, but knowing how ruthless Wildes is, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have given Pascrell a very tough fight.  Primary election campaigns are low-turnout affairs and because Obama is not going to be challenged, the Presidential election cycle is not going to ramp up turnout much.  Pascrell has never had a serious primary election challenger.  I am not even sure if he had a tough primary election when he was first elected in 1996.  

Wildes would have started his campaign with a large bloc of Orthodox Jewish votes from Englewood, Passaic, and the small part of Teaneck and would have added anyone in the district who is opposed to marriage equality.  I also believe that Wildes would have been able to bully his way into getting the line in Bergen by threatening to run with his own county candidates.  Add to this endorsements from Paul Sarlo, Gary Schaer, and others in the LD36 part of CD9 and you have more than enough to give Pascrell a tough fight and possible victory.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:11:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sheer fantasy (0.00 / 0)

A low turnout affair would have benefited Pascrell.  His organization would have been able to turn out voters.

And you act as if the district now includes
Jerusalem, or even Lakewood.  You totally overstate the impact of the orthodox vote in the district.

There's a reason Pascrell hasn't faced a tough primary fight.  And it's the same reason no other Democratic incumbent has faced one.  Certain defeat.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 17:23:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wrong (0.00 / 0)

The reason is that the political machines in the state discourage contested primaries as much as they can.

There are more Orthodox Jewish voters in Englewood, Passaic, and the CD9 portion of Teaneck than in Lakewood and they are much more politically active and much wealthier.  Wildes would have had no problem raising $2MM for a primary election campaign against Pascrell and he would have threatened the Bergen County Democratic establishment that he could have raised another $2MM for his county candidates if he was not given the Bergen County line.  I have a lot of respect for the job that Lou Stellato has done since becoming County Chair, but there is no way that he could have resisted that kind of pressure and would have had no choice but to relent and give Wildes the party line.

$2MM, the Bergen county line, and the support of the Orthodox community in Passaic would have been enough to give Wildes a very good chance at beating Pascrell.  Pascrell probably would have still been the favorite, but maybe with 7-5 or 8-5 odds at best.

The McCain numbers that you are looking at are general election numbers.  Just because they vote Republican doesn't mean that they are registered Republicans.  When was the last time Passaic was involved in a seriously contested Republican primary for any office that would have required anyone to register as a Republican.

As someone who has worked in the organized Jewish community as a whole and knows firsthand how tightly-knit the Orthodox community is, I can confidently declare that an effort to get the entire Orthodox community to register as Democrats so that they could vote for Wildes in a primary would have been very successful.  You can call my theories fantasy if you want, but you would be wrong.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:16:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Possibly but... (0.00 / 0)

Have you ever worked on a Congressional campaign before?  Especially one with a contested primary?  I have.  It is not nearly as easy to raise money as you think.  $2 million would be nearly impossible to raise for the primary alone.  Keep in mind the maximum donation is $2,300.  That would mean that Wildes, would need a couple HUNDRED Orthodox Jewish people to donate the maximum.  While they might want to see him win, its extremely unlikely that there would be that many willing to make a maximum donation to a candidate running against an incumbent.  

I don't have the numbers in front of me,  but I would guess that raising $2 million for a contested primary would probably set a record.  

---

by: Erik Preuss @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 14:14:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I trust my sources (0.00 / 0)

The people who I know in Englewood told me on the night of the 25th that Wildes already had pledges of between $250-$300K and that he was already talking up Pascrell's relationships in Paterson's Arab-American community.

And yes, I have worked on congressional campaigns before.  I worked on J. Brooke Hern's short-lived primary election campaign in 2000 in CD7.  When that ended, I went to work on Jim Florio's Senatorial primary election campaign, which was closely related to Maryanne Connelly's successful primary election campaign in CD7.  After that, I worked on Pascrell's general election campaign.

Trust me when I say that I know what I am talking about and that I know the dynamics of these districts and the communities within them.  I am not saying what I am saying just for the sake of having something to say, but because I know that what I am saying is true.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 17:58:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The (0.00 / 0)

Orthodox Jewish vote that Wildes/Schaer would have counted on in a Democratic primary wouldn't be able to vote in the primary. Most of the Orthodox, especially in Passaic are Republican registered voters. If you look at the Passaic election results, Passaic Park (where most of the Orthodox live in Passaic) voted for McCain by 80% and has one of the largest registered Republican numbers of the lower half of the county.  

---

by: MSUTeenDem @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 18:03:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Calm down, everybody. (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty sure we can all be clear without name-calling, without harsh descriptions of one another, or assumptions about people's motives.

And definitely without all-caps. You're hurting my eyes, people.  

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 @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:10:15 PM UTC

Who is most enjoying this thread... (4.00 / 1)

...now that it has gotten so mean and personal?   Our right-wing opponents.  Imagine what it's like for them to lurk here and see a bunch of progressives go at it like this - my God, with such names yet.  

These are two excellent members of Congress who over the years have fought tirelessly for us.  Neither is a coward, a hack, a wimp, what have you.  Save those words, if you feel you must use them, for people who actually oppose our values.

It's time for a time out.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 16:52:03 PM UTC

Maybe we shouldn't be name calling but... (4.00 / 1)

Can you guess what Republicans are enjoying more than reading our bickering on this thread?  Two incumbent congressmen running against each other in a primary.

Frankly I think any avid Democrat--or Republican for that matter--has the right to call any congressmen or other public figure, any name they please.  Congressmen are public figures and therefore should know that any decision they make is subject to public criticism--especially when that decision is detrimental to their own party.

I was hopeful about Garrett losing for the first time since 2008.  Now my hope is completely extinguished.  I think its safe to say that the vast majority of us who reside in CD9 and CD5 are collectively banging our heads against the wall.

---

by: Erik Preuss @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 18:44:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]