Voter Intimidation in Englewood

Where's the evidence? (0.00 / 0)

What you're accusing Wildes of is pretty serious, yet the only recent press coverage of the matter I've found is this exact post in the Huffington Post.  An opposition campaign is hardly the most unbiased source for information, and I'm a little disappointed in Juan for calling Wildes "slimy" without any real sourcing here.

This article invokes the DLC and Fox News boogeyman, but take a moment to consider the sources individually.  Wildes appears on O'Reilly not as the mayor of Englewood, but as a "former federal prosecutor."

He raised money for Lieberman's PAC (note the difference), but who else was a featured guest at this event?  Frank Lautenberg, indicating it was before the primary.

Wildes has announced his intention to run for Congress; hence, it's unsurprising he's raised quite a bit of money, and that he ranks up there with (but still fairly below) other Congressional candidates in terms of money raised.

The DLC does indeed list him as one of "100 Candidates to Watch".  Let's peruse and see who else makes the cut.  Phil Angelides, netroots darling Ben Chandler, Barack Obama, and Eliot Spitzer.  All, I'm sure, the obvious DLC boogeymen Mr. Stern hopes to invoke.

Mr. Stern's website, as evidence of this voter suppression offers no independent investigative journalism, but rather an opinion piece.  And that opinion piece was authored by Mr. Stern's son.

Where's the evidence here?  Why isn't The Record--always itching for its fix of political misbehavior--all over these accusations?  Why is the only evidence provided coming only from within Mr. Stern's camp?  And why is Juan so eager to buy into what really are, at face value, specious accusations from a party that is certainly not disinterested?  It's not the promotion of the diary that bothers me here, but Juan's attack on Mayor Wilde's within that promotion.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 22:11:02 PM UTC

Re (0.00 / 0)

Why isn't The Record--always itching for its fix of political misbehavior--all over these accusations?

Maybe you should follow the links:

#1:

"The verbal demands of Gordon Johnson's supporters were if I did not support Gordon Johnson for City Council, then they would support an independent candidate for mayor against me," Wildes said. "I don't respond to terrorist threats from politicians."

That's from the Record.

Also, I think it's unusual that a mayor is the only person on the list of top ten out-of-state donors who isn't holding federal office - and that means that he ranks above several people who DO hold federal office.

I think the difference in raising money for Lieberman himself and Lieberman's PAC is fairly slight - except that Lieberman's PAC can make contributions to Republicans while giving the Senator (for now) a level of anonymity while doing so.  That's on the level of people donating to Tom DeLay's trust fund but not to his campaign - look who you are giving money to!

Of course, Wilde has a chance to answer all of these allegations - and I hope he does so.  We have plenty of space.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 23:37:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Record quote doesn't exactly support the crux of the allegation. (0.00 / 0)

The allegation isn't that it's a nasty campaign, it's that Wildes's campaign is engaged in voter suppression.  Wildes's poor phrasing isn't the issue here, it's the unsubstantiated claims of a particularly hideous form of politics.

(For what it's worth, the substance of Wildes's "terroristic threat" quote is fair, it's the phrasing that's problematic.  The opposition threatened him politically, and while I think his phrasing was stupid, I don't think merits painting him as something he's not.)

Also, I think it's unusual that a mayor is the only person on the list of top ten out-of-state donors who isn't holding federal office - and that means that he ranks above several people who DO hold federal office.

He's a frontrunner to replace Rothman if Rothman retires, and he's aggressively fundraising.  It's not as unusual as you make it seem, particularly considering the relative wealth concentrated within the district and the (mistaken) belief that Rothman will be moving up to the Senate in two years.  (Also, don't forget that Rothman's name has been mentioned for higher office in the last few election cycles, and as long as that continues, Wildes will be able to aggressively fundraise for a Congressional run.)  So I maintain that it's unsurprising that Wildes ranks well within the federal ranks in terms of fundraising.

I think the difference in raising money for Lieberman himself and Lieberman's PAC is fairly slight - except that Lieberman's PAC can make contributions to Republicans while giving the Senator (for now) a level of anonymity while doing so.  That's on the level of people donating to Tom DeLay's trust fund but not to his campaign - look who you are giving money to!

When he held the fundraiser, Lieberman was still a Democratic Senator promising to disseminate those funds to Democratic candidates.  Lautenberg was there, for Pete's sake!  The picture linked is undated, but considering Lautenberg's support for Lamont in the general, I think it's fair to infer that this was before Lieberman passed the point of no return and many rank and file Dems believed he could be talked off the ledge.

As I've said, the problem I have with this diary isn't the substance, which is fair game.  It's Juan's unwarranted editorializing in its promotion, considering the specious nature of the voter suppression claims.  Those are what I want sourced in a manner that they're not entirely coming from his opponent's campaign.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 23:58:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

If your asking for the Record to come out and say "Wildes is a crook" then you're going to have to show where they've actually said that elsewhere.  That just isn't the way newspapers report things.  Look at the exchanges from Menendez and Kean going back and forth - the newspapers report what the campaigns say.  Investigations take months and sometimes years.

I stand by my comment that Wildes out-of-state fundraising is suspicious.  So what if he wants to replace Rothman (who, if he goes anywhere, will likely go for Lt. Gov - but more likely will serve another 10 terms where he is)?  He's a mayor in a fairly small city who is raising money from out of state.  That's suspicious no matter what anyone says.  To me, it's an indication that he simply wants his career to be independent of what he does in Englewood and is making sure his funding can take care of that goal.  Perhaps it's unfair, but I'm willing to bet that a LOT of people would see it that way.

Same thing with the Lieberman fundraising.  Why is the mayor of a town in NJ raising money for a candidate (or PAC) in Ct?  If he wants to help progressive politics here in NJ, there are a lot of good ways to do so - Blue 7th comes to mind and let's not forget that Paul Aronsohn is trying to oust Garrett in the northern part of Bergen County. 

At best, he's getting ahead of himself.  At worst, he's another example of all the worst parts of NJ politics.  As I said, the ball is in his court and he should respond.  I think it is a good thing that the petition was accepted and the voters get to decide who to believe. 

Your beef with Juan is between you and him.  I really don't have anything to say about that. 

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 00:26:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to clarify. (4.00 / 1)

I don't have a beef with Juan.  I simply think it's unfair, and only mentioned it because I respect the site and think it reflects unfairly on the level of discourse here.

I just think it's odd that the allegations of voter intimidation haven't yet been deemed worthy of reporting by The Record.  Maybe that'll change in coming weeks, but at this juncture, I think it's telling.  I understand how reporting works, but the editorial alleging intimidation is nearly three weeks old.  By my estimation, something should have broken wider than The Suburbanite editorial page if those allegations are credible.

It should also be noted that Wildes's firm is located in New York City, and a lot of his out-of-state donations come from New York City.  Once again, I think it's reasonable to suggest the out-of-state contributions to a federal candidate aren't as insidious as Mr. Stern suggests.  Your point about fundraising for Aronsohn and Stender, who Wildes will hopefully be serving beside when Rothman retires, is well taken.  It would be appreciated to see Wildes hold some events for New Jersey House candidates, but I think it's once again unfair to attack an immigration attorney located in NYC for holding a fundraiser for a sitting US Senator who has an actual say in foreign affairs instead of holding one for two candidates who may or may not one day have a say in them.

Again, for what it's worth, I agree that Rothman isn't leaving the House in the near future, but I understand why Wildes is raising money for Congress already.  He'd be crazy not to when too many political people in New Jersey are talking about Rothman as a serious contender for higher office.  Until Lautenberg's Senate seat is filled and Corzine picks his LG candidate, that chatter won't stop, and Wildes will continue to fundraise to discourage challenges from similarly well-positioned candidates like Paul Sarlo.  Wildes for Congress puts the cart before the horse, but that's not really uncommon amongst politicians of all stripes.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:00:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

How do you know what the Record is investigating as we sit here tonight?  Whatever they are working on, they aren't going to print anything until they have someone on the record (punny, I know) saying so.  Until then, they will report what each person says - and stay on the right side of legal probelms.

You can talk all you want about how Wilde is everything except the Mayor, but he's still the mayor.  If he wants to play politics, then he should be doing it where he lives.  The fact is that he is NOT a federal candidate for anything.  The fact that he chooses to pursue political favoritism and funding outside of the state may not be an indictment of anything, but it sure stinks of not caring about the people in your district. 

I've learned to watch what people do more than what they say.  The money rolling into Wilde, like all money, doesn't come without strings.  Seems to me he should have been minding the store rather than running for an opening that isn't open yet.

Ask Joe Vas how well that ended for him.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:45:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republican apology (0.00 / 0)

My comments are my opinions alone and are not endorsed by or representative of the other Blue Jersey authors. They probably think I'm crazy, anyway. As George Allen would say, "I do apologize if he's offended by that" (but I don't actually apologize for what I said). Welcome to New Jersey, sucaca! Welcome to America!

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 02:14:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Response to "sucopsucoh" (0.00 / 0)

Responding to: “Where's the evidence here?  Why isn't The Record--always itching for its fix of political misbehavior--all over these accusations?”

I do not know why the Bergen Record did not follow up on the quote they themselves printed from Gordon Johnson ("some of the tactics used by Mr. Wildes were actually despicable.")

I do not know why the Record did not report that during sworn testimony one voter subpoenaed by Wildes told the Judge that "I was totally intimidated."  I don't know why the Record didn't report on the signed affidavit of an elderly grandmother who reported that Wildes’ campaign operatives threatened "if I did not sign [their] paper to 'clear my name', I would have to go to court."

I cannot speak for the Bergen Record.  I can only attest to the Englewood voters who came to me with the same stories. I can only attest to the grilling of the frail and elderly African-American voters subpoenaed by Wildes.

As for the other points, I'll leave the readers to judge for themselves.  I happen to believe that it is odd that a Mayor with a $5000/year gig should be a Top Ten recipient of out-of-state contributions.  I also happen to believe that a Mayor should never approach a private citizen on behalf of a condo speculator who contributed $8000 to the Mayor's campaign fund.  I happen to believe that Big Money is corrupting local politics in NJ and I intend to fight it.

I am a retired dentist who has never run for office.  I don't need this job.  I am not interested in higher office and I am not looking to impress the gatekeepers of political advancement.  I have lived in Englewood for over 25 years.  I am not some “terrorist threat” or a “revenge candidate.”  I am a concerned citizen who wants to do right for the town in which he raised his family. 

I am not looking to manipulate or spin.  I'm just telling you what I've experienced.  I hope that you will join me in making Englewood's government reflect the progressive values of our community.

---

by: Robert Stern For Englewood @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:23:27 AM UTC