Tom Moran's take on opening salvo of the Weinberg/Huttle/Johnson campaign

But what is interesting to note is that despite the fact that there are so many safe Democratic districts in the state, very few of the Democratic State Senators and State Assemblypersons who represent these districts have a record of progressive action that comes remotely close to Loretta Weinberg's.

It is for this reason that I found it particularly pathetic when Dick Codey said that he didn't have the votes to pass marriage equality.  Of the 22 districts that are currently represented by Democratic State Senators, only three could be considered contestable by the Republicans.  None of the other 19 districts would have come even close to turning Republican if marriage equality had been passed.

The problem is that very few of those 19 State Senators could by any definition of the word be considered liberal or progressive.  They are represented by people like Wayne Bryant, Joe Doria, Ron Rice Sr., Paul Sarlo, Sharpe James, Joe Coniglio, Ray Lesniak, and Dick Codey.

When you look at the demographics of the 37th District, there is no doubt that it is a very Democratic district, but (no disrespect intended) if you look at the list of towns in the district (Bergenfield Borough, Bogota Borough, Englewood City, Englewood Cliffs Borough, Hackensack City, Leonia Borough, Maywood Borough, Palisades Park Borough, Ridgefield Park, Rochelle Park Township, Teaneck Township, Tenafly Borough), there is not a single town in the bunch that jumps out at me as a hotbed of progressivism.

Heck, one of the towns in the district is Bogota, the home of Steve Lonegan.  Imagine the horror show of a general election if Ken Zisa were to somehow defeat Loretta Weinberg for the State Senate and his opponent was Steve Lonegan?  Talk about being the lesser of two evils.

I would hope that as a failsafe, progressives in the 37th make sure that they file a slate of independent candidates on or before the primary election day that could run in the general election so that if the unthinkable happens and the BCDO machine candidates win the primary, voters will still have a progressive third option.

Conversely, Dick Codey represents the 27th District, which contains progressive bastions like Maplewood, Livingston, South Orange, and West Orange and he is somehow able to be as conservative as he wants to be.  Assemblyman John McKeon is very progressive, but would never challenge Codey to a primary as he is Codey's protege and close friend.

What makes the 37th District unique is that against all odds, someone as ethical and liberal as Loretta Weinberg was able to work her way through the grime and muck that is Bergen County politics and win the battles that she has won to date.  The fight that she will have this June is probably going to be her toughest to date.

That said, Loretta has never shied away from a fight and for that reason alone, there is not a doubt in my mind that Loretta would be just as liberal as she is if she was representing competitive districts like the 12th or 14th instead of the 37th.

As far as her throwing Doria under the bus goes, I don't have much sympathy for him after the way he didn't vote on the civil unions bill and agreed to co-sponsor Cardinale's offensive alternative bill.  Loretta is a smart politician and she does what she has to do to serve her constituents as well as she does and advocate for her progressive values as fantastically as she does.

How could it be otherwise? This is a matter of blind faith.

Granted, everybody was getting pressure from McGreevey to dump Doria and make Sires the Speaker. This article from the March 2002 edition of State Legislatures magazine describes how Boss McGreevey engineered this, and it appears that Loretta was pretty easy:

"Two Doria supporters, Loretta Weinberg from suburban Bergen County and Donald Tucker from Newark, were also promised leadership positions, cutting Doria's support further."

It would be one thing, maybe, to say that Loretta went along with dumping Doria to bring in a progressive. But Sires had only been an Assemblyman for two years -- and before that he was a REPUBLICAN. That Doria didn't vote for the Civil Unions bill in December 2006 hardly explains Loretta's actions back in December 2001. She didn't have a crystal ball and didn't base her decision on what Doria was going to do five years in the future.

Loretta was Doria's supposed supporter and ally. It may be understandable that she acquiesced to the inevitable (in return for a leadership position), but need I remind you how this whole little argument started?

It was put forward that Loretta would certainly stick with her allies and heroically stand up to pressures (and inducements) of a political boss. And I still say there is nothing in the record to support that.

It was put forward that Loretta would certainly stick with her allies and heroically stand up to pressures (and inducements) of a political boss.

It's mightly telling that he will go on and on but won't reveal himself.

"No way would Loretta deal...This is high principle; and I don't see Loretta Weinberg as the kind of person who would ever sell out anyone, let alone her friends and allies.

As to what you said...Can I assume the following is yours?

"...when he saw that he COULDN'T replace Loretta, he tried to get her to turn on her friends. This "compromise" includes Loretta Weinberg kicking her running mates to the curb and agreeing to support Ken Zisa instead, in exchance for Ferriero's support. Senator Weinberg rejected it."

When I specifically asked you if you were referring to something that had happened months ago (and was reported by PoliticsNJ), you replied that you "don't know for sure which compromise Moran was talking about since he didn't specify." But I wasn't asking about what Moran was talking about, I was asking about what YOU were talking about. When did Ferriero offer this compromise and how do you know Senator Weinberg rejected it?

I have already given my take on the episode as reported by PoliticsNJ in September, and I have already stated why I think you cannot automatically assume that Senator Weinberg rejected the deal before it was prematurely reported. But if you have proof (rather than faith) that she told Joe "nothing doing" before that PoliticsNJ report came out, please share it.

You may think I put words in your mouth, but with all due respect, I think you've been obfuscating.

But please knock off the inane theatrics, speak like a human, and cut to the chase.

PS - If you choose to respond to this comment, please, for the love of God do not refer to me as "Mr. Shields."  The name is Scott.  Thanks.

Until you can come up with a documented instance in which she has actually done something horribly wrong; I stand in strong support of her and do not retreat at all from what I said above.

Clearly, no one here is able to convince you to to change your opinion of her...and, you don't seem to have made much of a dent on anyone in this thread.

You claim to be for pay to play reforms, and that's a good thing...and you claim that you would prefer to see Ferriero lose in this particular conflict...and that's a good thing.  It seems that we do agree on some matters of substance...and that's a good thing too.

Let's agree to cordially disagree on Loretta and see how events play out in time.  Ciao fer now.

Let's also remember that Dick Codey and his running mates had to fight the Essex County machine in 2001.

Of course, part of that can be attributed to the Democratic trend in Millburn, but I think that it also shows that whatever Republican strength exists in that part of the county is very weak.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Codey had chosen to be an advocate of marriage equality instead of an obstacle, he would not have faced any resistance within his district.  The only resistance comes from within Codey himself.

The difference in numbers for Corzine probably have more to do with turnout than anything else and there are good reasons for that.  Also, after Corzine stuck his neck out for Loretta in her battle with the Ken Zisa and the BCDO, the Weinberg/Huttle/Johnson team was probably more motivated to get out the vote for Corzine than the Codey/McKeon/Hackett team that probably still had some lingering bitterness about the way that Codey was denied his opportunity to run for re-election.

Whether a district is progressive cannot simply be defined by Democratic performance since many, if not most, Democrats in New Jersey are not necessarily progressive.  To some degree, it is like pornography.  You know it when you see it.

If you spend some time in a community, you can get a sense of how progressive or not it is by what you experience either from meeting people, reading the local newspapers, absorbing its culture, and participating in civic life.  There are many Democratic towns in the state, but only some of them can truly be defined as progressive.

Steven Goldstein would probably defend his home turf on this question, but I have never found Englewood, Hackensack, or Teaneck to be exceedingly progressive, at least not as much as towns like Montclair, Maplewood, South Orange, West Orange, and Livingston.  They just happen to be blessed with progressive representation.

Speaking of Steve Goldstein, that someone suggests New Jersey is the most progressive state in the country says more about his neighbors than the political reality in this state.  Did you see the stem cell research vote?  We had as many "No" votes from our Delegation as PA and NY had.  How many states don't have a ACU poster-boy in their delegation?  Because we have one.

I'm a bit fed up with the Dick Codey bashing on the issue of marriage equality.  Sure he backslid at first, but as of now we have him down as a yes, which is more than we can say for half of the Democrats in the legislature.  If Codey isn't progressive on this issue, then what the hell is a progressive anyway, other than a tag we attach to politicians we like an deny to those we don't?  Is the Governor not a progressive, either?  Where do we set the bar?  How can New Jersey be the most progressive state in the nation if the two most powerful politicians in the state are not progressive?

As for not having the votes, you know that Joe Doria is sponsoring the Cardinale bill and tht Paul Sarlo's opposes marriage equality.  That means Codey would have to successfully whip Sweeney, Madden, Karcher, Bryant, Lesniak, James and everyone else on the vote.  What do you expect him to do?  Make threats and engage in Tom DeLay-style arm-twisting?  Bring it up for a vote and then lose?

This conversation began because the argument was made that Loretta Weinberg is as liberal as she is because she represents a safe Democratic district.  My point is that there is no correlation between the Democratic performance of a district and how liberal its representation is.

There are 19 (20 based on the premise that Sweeney has made the 3rd into a safe Democratic district and 21 if you believe that Mayer and Moria) safe Democratic districts in the state.  But only a handful of the 57-63 State Senators and State Assemblypersons who represent these districts could qualify as liberals by any fair standard of liberalism established by any three of the regular contributors to this site.

Any Democratic State Senator other than Karcher and Madden who opposes marriage equality, does so because of a personal opposition to the issue, not because they think that supporting it would put their seat at risk.

Your choice of example-Dick Codey on marriage equality-in making your argument is questionable at best.  Fact Check: Who were the co-prime-sponsors in the Senate for the Civil Union bill?  Answer: Loretta Weinberg and Dick Codey.  Where does Dick Codey stand on marriage equality?  Answer: he supports it.  Did Loretta Weinberg think the votes were there for marriage equality?  Answer: No.  I wonder why you didn't use, say, Joe Doria for your example.  Dick Codey takes enough flack around here (and often deservedly so) that we don't need to drag him around as a poster child for what's not progressive or liberal in Trenton.

As if we stipulate that a "fair standard of liberalism" doesn't include that you like that person, there are quite a few liberals in the legislature.  Let me also suggest that a "fair standard of liberalism" should not include that someone is ethical, honest, or has integrity.  "Liberal" and "progressive" aren't yet the sole domain of the grassroots and you still have a lot of Luntzing to do before they are.

IMO, the most interesting thing about the 37th is it is a sub-20% African American district that has elected an African American Assemblyman, who every time he wins an election makes Walter Fields look like a fool, confirms Larry Bartels hunch that you don't need to pack Black voters to ensure representation, and weakens any future VRA challenge from the Republicans should the tiebreaker choose the Democratic map (Legislative or Congressional) in 2011.

How do you define support for marriage equality?  Saying that it will be a reality in six or seven years?  That doesn't work for me.  I define support based on the capacity of the supporter.

For a member of the State Senate or State Assembly, voting is sufficient.  For Codey or Roberts, getting the bill passed is the bottom line.  As far as I am concerned, higher standards is the price that leaders pay for their leadership ambitions.

And as far as a fair standard of liberalism goes, yes, I do believe that ethics, honesty, and integrity are prerequisites before issues even come into the conversation.

As a Tenafly Democrat I don't easily forget that this was the home of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  We don't take kindly to folks who would have our vote NOT count, whether it is for State Senator or Assembly, or even County Committee.  We have a right to choose who represents us.  In NJ, we don't vote for the Governor of NY, and likewise, we don't want folks from outside District 37 choosing the state senator to represent district 37.  We picked a State Senator who won 75% of the popular vote in a general election.  I think we did the people's bidding.  We represented our Democrats well. Loretta Weinberg has made us all proud.

It wasn't easy to elect Senator Weinberg to the NJ state senate even though she is so popular.  Consider what occurred in the past year and a half:

1. Someone actually forged signatures to deny County Committee men and women from Bergenfield the right to vote for Loretta Weinberg after they openly supported her. 

2. Challengers at the Bergen County Democratic Organization tried to deny five of our Tenafly Committee men and women from voting for Loretta Weinberg after we openly supported her before the special election.  It took a court case to get our votes counted.

3. Even AFTER the court battle, challengers tried to deny nearly ALL the Tenafly and Teaneck County Committee men and women the right to vote at the special election for Valerie Huttle after we brazenly supported Valerie Huttle for Assembly against Michael Wildes.  I watched personally at that election when the press was not allowed access - as nearly every African American member of the county committee as well as almost all my Tenafly county committee men and women were challenged to vote (The Black Caucus as well as Tenafly openly endorsed Loretta Weinberg).  I know this because they challenged ME until I started to argue too much.  It also explains why there are some Democrats who did NOT support Mr. Wildes last year.  They still remember the undemocratic way that special election was carried out in Hackensack in his name to punish Valerie Huttle for her support of Senator Weinberg. 

4. As retribution for trying to do the will of the voters, in the Primary election this past June, the Chairman personally threw ANY open supporter of Loretta Weinberg off of the County line - the Democratic ticket - EVEN if they were an incumbent.  I know this because I was one of them.  The primary was held only ONE week before Mr. Ferriero's re-election vote.  He moved even County Committee Chairs to column 4 on the ballot and found his own loyal picks to place in column 2.  Only a few of his plants got elected that way.  Nearly all of us who supported Senator Weinberg retained our seats. 

5. Only one week after the attempt was made to eliminate us from the County Committee by placing us in Column 4 of the ballot, Mr. Ferriero was re-elected.  After all I had seen as a newly elected Democratic County Committeewoman, I had to stand up and nominate an opponent at Mr. Ferriero's re-election in June, even though I knew it was a protest vote.  I wanted to send a message.  That we are vigilant and we will do everything in our power to make sure our Party Chairman answers to the Democrats of Bergen County.  Not the other way around.  I stood and watched democracy here die, as Ferriero supporters shouted down Mr. Robert Gulack, the opponent, during his speech.  Before the mayhem began, Mr. Ferriero's staff was so busy placing placards with his name on them all over the gym, that they forgot to place our nation's flag in the front of the room.  How fitting, for when we went to pledge allegiance, the only thing we had in the front of the gym to pledge allegiance to was a smiling Joe Ferriero. 

6.  And now Chairman Ferriero and attorney Dennis Ourey, Esq., wish to change the bylaws of the Bergen County Democratic Organization so that the election to choose our district 37 State Senator - Loretta Weinberg - is done on a county-wide basis instead of just District wide.  So his friends in other districts can choose our State Senate candidate for us. I pray this undemocratic tactic too will fail. 

At the risk of airing our party's dirty laundry, I must let Democrats in Bergen County know that there are those of us fighting and fighting hard to make sure their voices are heard even though the Chairman is trying to take democracy AWAY from us.  NJ doesn't vote for NY's governor, why should someone OUTSIDE my legislative district be allowed to vote for MY state senator? 

What is at stake here?  Everything we hold dear.  The ONLY way to get the politics out of government and the money out of politics is to give control of the Bergen County Committee back to the people of Bergen County.  It is the only way we can retain control of our own elected officials so that we can appoint our own professionals based on merit and service to the community - not party loyalty.  It is nothing less than government BY THE PEOPLE that we are trying to preserve.

Democratic voters in each town are supposed to tell their Democratic County Committeemen and women what they want.  The County Committee members then based on that, choose the Democratic candidates for their own towns and convene at the district level to choose Democratic candidates for their legislative district and at the county level to choose the Democratic candidates for the county and state.

That is how Democracy is supposed to work.  I don't know what Mr. Ferriero has in mind but I don't think Democracy has anything to do with it. I promise I will fight tooth and nail to make sure those bylaws changes he initiated to strengthen his hold on power do not pass.  And I will do everything in my power to spread the word far and wide to every county committee rep everywhere that you MUST vote NO to the proposed change in the bylaws.  We saw what a disaster a unitary US presidency is.  A powerful unitary Party Boss is no better.

Carol A. Hoernlein, P.E.
Bergen County Committee - Tenafly District 7

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

You have supplied chapter and verse...and I suspect that all you've seen is the tip of the "turdberg".

Given that there are no indictments pending (that I've heard about)...what is truly outrageous is that the kinds of machinations you describe (aside from the allegedly fraudulent signatures) are evidently LEGAL!!!

In my book the kind of political bossism you so eloquently outline needs to be legislated against...we need laws to criminalize this kind of crap!

As it stands now; it looks like the citizens/voters of Bergen County will have to clean up this mess.

PS  Is there a way to get some outside legal scrutiny applied to the voting machines and the counting process?  At this point it would seem a prudent thing to push for given that there have been credible allegations of forgery.