Remaining Active in the 5th District

Thanks for your commitment to the 5th (0.00 / 0)

and the Constitution, Camille.

And a nice diary, except for this part:

I was shocked to hear about the "pre-endorsements" by Corzine and Cryan, and I'm glad to see that they are not true.  Because to take the choice away from the voters so early, would be really disrespectful to the will of the people.

That, at best, is a little sloppy. (You are an attorney, right?) I haven't seen anything to suggest that Aronsohn's release was untrue or not approved by Corzine and Cryan. And who called it a "pre-endorsement"? I don't think you would feel the same way if Corzine and Cryan approved that release with your name instead of Aronsohn's.

Like you, I "hope and believe that quality and substance will be two of the most important factors that influence the choice in the 5th district." I also hope that everyone pledges their full support to the ultimate Democratic candidate, whoever it is. I know I will.

---

by: Sidd Finch @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 17:11:12 PM UTC

"Pre-endorsement" vs "Early Support" (0.00 / 0)

"Corzine & Cryan Announce Early Support of Aronsohn"

http://www.bluejerse...

We all understand what happened yesterday.

We have some really serious stuff to deal with here, let's not quibble/argue over how this teapot tempest is framed.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 18:24:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're always the voice of reason. (4.00 / 1)

Well, almost always.

Doesn't matter, though. My 5th period Physics teacher told me I'm going to hell, anyway.

---

by: Sidd Finch @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 18:49:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Virtual Debate (4.00 / 2)

I for one am excited that Blue Jersey is the place where everyone can meet and talk and yes, even debate these things.  I think it would be helpful to have the issues really dicussed here.  We have both candidates who are willing to blog with us - that is truly progress.  I would love to see issues brought up and a real honest, and civil debate among all the candidates with civility and respect.  The goal here is to replace a Congressman - Scott Garrett - who is not representing us as we wish to be represented.  I jokingly refer to him as the Social Darwinist against Evolution, but that is not really a joke.  His votes against aid for Katrina Victims, and his votes for offshore drilling, and against aid to small business owners, and his votes not to support the troops by bringing them home, and his wish to homeschool children rather than publicly educate them about science and technology, all show he does NOT represent the 5th District in NJ. 

I want to have the losers of the Primary get behind the winner so we can actually BEAT GARRETT this time. So, please don't rip each other apart. Make your case for YOU.

This is a job interview, not a boxing match.  Lives are at stake here.  We are counting on you.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 20:04:30 PM UTC

there are things more important than winning (0.00 / 0)

As much as I like Camille and dislike Paul, based on the current demographics of the 5th Congressional District, I do not believe that it is a district that can be won no matter how bad Garrett is or how less bad Paul is or how good Camille is.  There are just too many conservative Republicans in this district who agree with Garrett on the issues and regularly vote for electoral victory to be possible.

For this reason, I believe that Democrats should nominate a candidate that represents Democratic values as they should be, not as they currently are.  I believe that a candidate like this will inspire more activism at the local level and help to build progressive Democratic organizations in parts of the districts that to date have been nonexistent.

At best, a candidate like Aronsohn will bring Democrats and independents who are truly offended by Garrett to the polls, but he will not inspire them to become active and organized.  Many others, who have accepted Garrett's representation as a fait accomplit and are uninspired by the alternative that Aronsohn represents as preferable to Garrett as it might be, will not even bother to vote.

However, even in a losing battle, candidates like Anne Wolfe and Camille Abate will provide enough inspiration to these disaffected and uninspired Democrats and independents to build and strengthen Democratic organizations over time and by 2012, be in a position to take advantage of (hopefully) friendlier demographics.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 20:33:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Carol, I'm afraid you could not be more wrong! (0.00 / 0)

This district voted for George Bush with 57% of the vote in 2004 and only 55% in 2000. Garrett has dropped in support in each of his three elections, going from 61% in 2002 to 55% in 2006 and this is hardly a conservative Republican district. Polling in the district consistently shows that 70% is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-civil unions, and believes in the separation of church and state, all positions that Scott Garrett is way out on the conservative fringe. This district simply doesn't like taxes, despises regulation of small business, and hates trial lawyers and lawsuits. But it is a pretty moderate district, it disapproves of the President's job strongly, it supports Democratic policies on health care, education, the environment, energy policy, and Iraq, most importantly. A strong candidate who can convince the district of Scott garrett's extremism should easily win. Democrats won in much more Republican districts this past year and there are 61 Democrats in "bush" districts. Cook has this district ranked as an R+4 district, far less than the South Dakota at-large seat where Stephanie Herseth won by over 30 points last year where Cook has it at R+10. A Democrat can win here.

http://retiregarrett.blogspot.com http://democrats.georgetown.edu/blog

---

by: ahf8 @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 15:52:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

5th is in transition (0.00 / 0)

There is no doubt Garrett is slipping in the Bergen portion of the district where Democrats continue to make gains at the local, legislative and county levels. These gains are due to the aggressive fundraising and campaigning of Joseph Ferriero.

Like him or hate him, Ferriero is the reason Democrats are now competitive in the 39th & 40th while looking better and better in the 5th CD.

To win however, an emphasis must be at the bottom of the ballot and not the top. Winning at the municipal level is the key to building a real Democratic organization. The fact McNerney won 56 of the 70 Bergen towns speaks volumes to the success of the Ferriero led Democrats.

Wolfe, Arohnson, et al are not winners.

The person who will pose the greatest threat to Garrett will be an elected municipal leader who rises through the ranks and makes a true grass roots challenge from the center, not the hysterical left or from progressives afraid to call themselves liberals.

The district is moderate, not LIBERAL.

No LIBERAL will ever beat Garrett in the non-Bergen portions of the district.

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 00:29:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have GOT to be kidding! (4.00 / 1)

Haven't you read anything I have written here?  Anything at all?  Ferriero did not lift a finger for the 5th races for the past few years - he did NADA ZIP ZERO for any of the 5th Challengers.  How you can smugly call Aronsohn, and Wolfe losers and commend Ferriero for helping win for McNerney when Ferriero spent 3 million on McNerney and 0 - (read - NOTHING - to you numbers challenged folks) - on the race in the 5th is just absolutely mindboggling. 

You are truly a Pay-to-play fan aren't you?  Ferriero right-or-wrong.  Loyal till the end.  Democrats competive in the 39th and 40th?  You mean where they don't have candidates, just an ATM machine for Ferriero's parties at the Borgata?  Tell me - were you at the Borgata filling up on shrimp cocktail at the expense of Dems in the 39th and 40th that nite in November?  I'd absolutely love to know where you were that night. 

Ferriero "won" for McNerney? Ferriero didn't win the county executive seat for McNerny - he won it for himself.  The County Executive position HAS to remain in Ferriero's hands for Ferriero to twist arms of the county committee - who work under McNerney.  Ferriero had to win that seat because he sure as heck could not survive if he had lost it.

Do you think Aronsohn or Anne Wolfe were some kind of Ralph Nader, vegan, Peta protesters (no offense to vegan animal lovers)? They did a fantastic job considering they had NO SUPPORT from the BCDO.  They did get support from the DNC since Paul worked in the Clinton Administration - on foreign policy, no less, with Madeleine Albright even.  Paul and Anne also had the support of the grassroots - Paul's staff was filled with extremely wonderful and idealistic young folks I got to know personally.  They worked tirelessly, but they got no help from the BCDO.  It is because of Anne Wolfe's and Paul Aronsohn's staff that people now realize Garrett is no Marge Roukema and also that George Bush is a weapon of mass destruction to the whole planet and anyone who votes the way Bush wants them to 90% of the time is not a good choice for Congress.

You applaud Ferriero for Dems in general making gains in the 5th when he did NOTHING to help us win the 5th in a year when the Dems made gains everywhere but HERE.  Ferriero did not help ME win my race.  I walked door to door here.  I handed out flyers for our race, paid for by us and for the 5th race - paid for by the way - by the Aronsohn campaign - not Ferriero.  WE won without the help of Ferriero.  And so did dems in a lot of other towns.  How you can give Ferriero the complete credit for all the wins in Bergen County is just beyond belief.  We ousted 2 incumbent Republicans WITHOUT help from Ferriero. 

Try giving credit where it is actually due.  And refrain from handing it out where it is not earned.  Your claim that Ferriero won for us is - to quote Al Gore - "like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise." 

Talk about an alternate reality.  Whatever helps you cope.  Just hope you at least got a T-Shirt from the Borgata.  'Cause that money from the 39, and 40 didn't go to candidates, that is for darn sure. 

Just curious, are you setting the stage for some local Ferriero patsy with a huge war chest (and an ego to match) that Joe can raid like he is doing in Englewood?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:37:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To answer your 1st and last questions, (0.00 / 0)

Yes. They've got to be kidding AND they must be setting the stage. Love this line:

The person who will pose the greatest threat to Garrett will be an elected municipal leader who rises through the ranks and makes a true grass roots challenge from the center, not the hysterical left or from progressives afraid to call themselves liberals.

Hmmmm. An elected municipal leader. Hmmmm.

From what I've seen, Ferriero could care less about the district.

By the way, what exactly makes someone a member of the hysterical left? Seriously. Pro-environment? Pro-choice? Against tax cuts for Paris Hilton? Pro-education? Anti-discrimination? I'd love to see the definition, because I'd bet that a huge percentage of NJans would fit it. I know I do.

---

by: Sidd Finch @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:14:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Without addressing whether or not he was calling Paul "hysterical"... (0.00 / 0)

...which, considering that Paul has been accused of being "nothing more than a pro-choice version of Scott Garrett," I have trouble taking seriously, I'd say this view of the 5th is generally a fair one.  It's extremely rare for someone to win a federal election without having any sort of base; Paul, for all his virtues, doesn't have any elected experience.  The kinds of challengers that generally defeat incumbents are those that rise through the ranks of local, then county, then state-level politics, accruing an ever-increasing base as they do so.

Looking at areas where Democrats upset incumbents, they were either Dem-leaning, ie: Loebsack and Porter-Shea (and thus prone the to wave, which the 5th was not) or where incumbents had neglected their district, ie: Boyda (say what you will about Garrett, he knows how to rally his base), or where we were running a strong candidate for the second time, ie: Boyda again and McNerney (CA-11, not CE, obviously).  And, save McNerney, all these candidates won on the same sort of shoestring budget you're saying Paul was forced to operate on.  Garrett didn't win just by being conservative in the primary; he won by being an Assemblyman representing an important section of the district.  Eventually, the party building that allowed McNerney (the CE, not the CA-11 candidate) is going to allow candidates to win elections and gain a large enough base in the heart of the 5th to take it for the Democrats.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:22:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Working in both Washington AND Trenton Doesn't Count?? (0.00 / 0)

Paul actually spent YEARS in both Washington and Trenton.  Saying he has no elected experience is a little disingenous, no?  He knows his way around Washington and has more high level experience already than most of us here do.  If he won, we'd be sending him to WASHINGTON to Represent us.  I'd rather have a guy who knows his way around Capitol Hill than a guy like Garrett who is as scarce as Punxatawny Phil most of the year because he is afraid of people.

Don't forget, the RNC was TERRIFIED of losing that seat.  You think they didn't pitch in and help Garrett?  Paul had to fight Ferreiro's apathy AND Karl Rove's attention at the same time.  Don't pull the he didn't rise up through the ranks stuff.  He started at the top.  That has to be worth SOMETHING.

Don't make me have to post again tonite - I gotta get some sleep...........Nite all.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:49:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those weren't, to my knowledge, elected positions. (0.00 / 0)

I didn't say Paul didn't have any governmental experience.  Governmental experience doesn't translate into a base; getting elected, which gets your name out there and gets people used to pulling the lever for you, does.  I'd rather have an experienced governmental employee than someone like Garrett, who reflexively hates government.  But a resume doesn't automatically translate into a victory; if it did, Bill Richardson would be the frontrunner in the Democratic primary.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 15:00:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh boyee. (0.00 / 0)

Joe Ferriero was nowhere to be found in the last 2 campaign cycles, now he's gonna be the saviour because he's gonna put one of his handpicked people in as a candidate?

Ain't gonna wash where I come from, hoss. That dog don't hunt out here.

We don't want any of his taint out our way. Word.

The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:41:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what were the numbers in the 39th and 40th in 2005? (0.00 / 0)

As big a fan as I am of Jan Bidwell Gaunt/Jane Bidwell, I do not remember the Assembly races in either of these districts being remotely competitive and that was with the benefit of a statewide candidate at the top of the ticket., something that she and others in these districts did not have when they ran in 2003 and experienced similar results.

The BCDO has very large campaign accounts for both the 39th and 40th districts, but most, if not, all of the money in these accounts are used to throw lavish parties in Atlantic City and as slush funds that Bossman Ferriero can use to wheel funds as needed where needed.  I have yet to hear or read about a dime of that money being spent on candidates in these districts.

Ferriero's stooges in the 39th and 40th recently tried to pass a rule change that would give them a vote at the county convention on candidates representing the other legislative districts in the county, claiming that they are not represented by the Republican incumbents in their district.  I would argue that if they spent their money on their legislative candidates and not on Hooters girls, they might have a chance to be more competitive in these districts and eventually elect better representatives in Trenton.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:26:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jan was at the Bylaws vote (0.00 / 0)

She surprised a few folks that nite as she angrily told the protesters to get out of her way.  Just a guess but I think she voted yes.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:09:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's a shame (0.00 / 0)

I haven't talked to her since Barack Obama came to Hackensack to speak at a Corzine rally in 2005, but she was an early Dean supporter and Dean for America/Democracy for America members were the backbone of her 2003 and 2005 Assembly runs.  I would be deeply disappointed to hear that she had forgotten her roots and aligned herself with Ferriero.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 02:05:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think "competitive" is a relative term in these districts. (0.00 / 0)

>>As big a fan as I am of Jan Bidwell Gaunt/Jane Bidwell, I do not remember the Assembly races in either of these districts being remotely competitive and that was with the benefit of a statewide candidate at the top of the ticket., something that she and others in these districts did not have when they ran in 2003 and experienced similar results.<<

These districts weren't competitive, but there was enormous growth in our vote.  There were certainly Corzine coattails, but Democratic power in those districts is also growing.

In 2003, the Democratic candidates lost the 39th and the Bergen portion of the 40th by a margin of almost 2-1.  In 2005, with new candidates in the 39th and the same candidates in the 40th, those margins had been slashed to about 55-45.  It's encouraging growth, but also shows that we have some growing of the party still to do up-county.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 15:13:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Bert, not Carol (4.00 / 1)

Scott Garrett is so blatantly extreme that it should not be the responsibility of the Democratic candidate to sell this idea to the voters.  In fact, half of the problem is that his opposition tends to spend more time talking about how bad he is than how good they are.  As much as I liked Anne Sumers and Anne Wolfe a lot more than Paul Aronsohn, I believe that they fell into this trap, although not to the same degree as Paul Aronsohn did.

I don't know anything about the nuances of Stephanie Herseth's district, but I have enough of an understanding of the 5th to know that the reason that Garrett was able to win by 11 points in 2006 is the same reason that with the exception of George Allen and Rick Santorum, moderate Republicans were more vulnerable than conservative Republicans.

Scott Garrett goes into every election with a 40-20 advantage.  His 40 are the hardcore right-wingers who vote in every election, including fire district, school board, and nonpartisan municipal elections.  His opponents 20 are the active Democrats and whether they are liberal or moderate, they despise Scott Garrett and are reliable votes against him every two years.

There are another 10-15 points worth of registered Democrats who are largely inactive and cannot necessarily be counted on to vote Democrat if they vote at all.  This group is made up of liberals, moderates, and conservatives who either don't pay attention enough to despise Garrett, find him to be a likeable person despite his horrific voting record, or are so completely discouraged with the necrotic state of the Democratic Party in their part of the state that they have given up on partisan politics completely.

Then there are another 25-30 points worth of independents that also represent the entire political spectrum from liberal to conservative and vote accordingly if they bother to vote at all.

Thus, for Scott Garrett to get to 51 percentage points, he only needs to get 11 out of a universe of 40, which is much easier than getting 31 out of 40.  My guess is that he got as many as 5 points from the registered Democrats and and 10 points from the independents, all of whom are people who don't pay a lot of attention to a candidate's voting record no matter how much people like us scream about it, but what they do is go to church and actively participate in civic organizations like the Knights of Columbus and the Lions Club and they see Scott Garrett around the district through these venues and others and because there is no reason in their heads to approach him in a hostile manner, he comes across as an amiable, folksy, and mild-mannered country gent, not the evil, rabid conservative that we all know him to be.

Because of this, I don't believe that it matters how much money an opponent can raise, because even if Paul Aronsohn had been able to raise the $2 million that he claimed he could raise, he probably would have spent most of that money talking about how bad Scott Garrett is, not how good he is, simply because Paul doesn't have much to say about himself.

The fact that he worked for the Clinton administration is impressive enough to me, but not to independent voters and the kinds of Democrats who fail to see how truly awful Scott Garrett is, but Paul's biography goes downhill from there, because his next job was with Jim McGreevey and his job after that was with Pfizer.  If Paul was one of the Clinton administration's best and brightest, his career path would have been far more impressive than it actually has been.

2006 was a perfect storm in many ways for Democrats and there are many reasons why Linda Stender came much closer to defeating Mike Ferguson than Paul Aronsohn did against Scott Garrett.  That said, because both sides in both races are most likely going to be working with a significantly larger voter universe and Presidential candidates that are going to be positioned to do well in NJ, I don't believe that there is going to be a significant amount of room for the 2006 numbers to move.  The difference in these cases is that a 1 or 2 point bump in 2008 would be enough for Linda Stender to win.  Unfortunately, it wouldn't come close to being enough to win in the 5th.

In my opinion, the only way that a Democratic candidate can bridge the gap and win in the 5th in 2008 or 2010 is to significantly increase the voter universe to a magnitude that the district has never experienced in its history.  Because Democrats in the 5th have neither the money or the manpower for the kind of voter registration, voter identification, and GOTV effort that would be required to do this, an inspirational candidate who is able to transcend partisan politics and transform the manner in which candidates engage voters and voters engage candidates is the only way.

To be honest as well as fair to XT, I don't know if either Anne Wolfe or Camille Abate are inspirational enough to completely and dramatically alter the political calculus in the 5th district.  They probably aren't.  There is only one Howard Dean and only one Barack Obama.  Sadly, the one Ann Richards that we had is gone.  Even someone with similar attributes as John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, who both have the capacity to inspire, albeit in a more superficial manner, would fit the bill.  But what I do know is that Paul Aronsohn isn't that kind of candidate and I don't think that he ever will be.

I don't doubt all of the polling data that you cite, but there are two things that I know to be true.  First, is that  polling data on issues rarely if ever equal votes, especially in a district like the 5th that has been Republican for as long as it has been.  Second, Garrett is far more popular in the 5th than Dubya.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2 point bump that Bush got in the 5th between 2000 and 2004 could be directly attributed to Garrett and other downticket candidates who are all far more popular than this President was in 2004 and are still today.

Harping on Garrett's dreadful voting record and the terrible actions of his municipal-level and county-level peers is never going to be enough to win in this district.  Too many people either like them and what they do or simply don't care.  Democrats in this district need to present the voters (and more importantly, current nonvoters)  with a positive image that represents a significantly better alternative and inspires them to want to engage and be engaged by the political process.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:10:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

That was a very excellent and candid explanation of your position.  I agree with a lot of it, but don't think we should give up.  I think a lot of people were happy with Marge Roukema and they don't undertand Garrett's positions on the environment and education. The real shame was that we were not given a real - televised debate of any kind, and so most voters were left with PR when what they needed was to see were the candidates side by side engaged in a conversation with us.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:04:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

not saying to give up (0.00 / 0)

Beating Garrett requires a long-term plan that focuses on grassroots organizing and building a political infrastructure from the ground up.  I also believe that it requires an inspirational and transformative candidate.

Hate for Scott Garrett and everything that he represents will never be enough to beat him.  Whomever opposes him needs to be in it for the long haul and needs to offer a clear vision that can engage the voters.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:15:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree with you 100% that trashing Garrett is not enough... (0.00 / 0)

...and also agree that the candidate has to be clear and unafraid to articulate a vision, which will inspire and motivate the huge multitude of generally unengaged voters (independents and undeclareds).

My experience in the last election was that being clear and straight with people (and liking/respecting them enough to engage with them even if we disagreed) won over far more people than it turned off.  In fact, I can't remember that it turned anybody off.  And the non-dems that I met and talked to frequently said, "I can't vote for you now, but I'll vote for you in the general."

So I think you're right.

Common Sense for the Common Good

---

by: Camille @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 14:48:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Positively Brilliant (0.00 / 0)

I generally agree with all you've said.

I don't think that 40% figure is accurate...I suspect it's lower, precisely how much would take some scientific polling to determine.

People who appear to be "hard core" are not monolithic "Borg" like creatures.

It may be that the right candidate to unseat Garrett in 08 hasn't even emerged yet; though I tend to agree with you re Paul...who, as I have said, I find to be quite a likeable fellow on a one to one basis. Paul like any one else; has the freedom to choose new directions and to evolve; frankly, I would love to see Paul reinvent himself from the guts on out!  (Cosmetic makeovers don't count.)

Obviously, I believe Camille has the potential to play a winning hand in 08; but it's a matter of growing/maturing into the role for her too.

If a truly positive fair dynamic competitive adequately long  exciting primary could be somehow arranged...(one in which the candidates actually helped to polish, inform, motivate and inspire each other so that unprecedentedly large numbers of registered Democrats would be turned on and then actually turned out to vote in the primary) then the candidate that emerged from such a process would have an excellent chance of winning in 08!

That last sentence starts with an "if" and it's an extremely  large thought/idea...but it's one I believe can be made manifest; one way or another.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 00:04:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's Missing? (4.00 / 2)

No call for unity, no statement that you'll support the duly elected primary winner, no statement that our real enemy is Scott Garrett, nothing except, "Look at me!  Look at what I'm doing!"

We can't afford a cult of personality.  It doesn't matter who the actual candidate is who emerges, but it has to be about more than "I'm an impressive person with impressive credentials."

The anti-rationality of some of Camille's supporters do her no favors.  The desire to scapegoat Paul for: 1) chasing Wolfe out when she says he didn't, and 2) running a losing campaign with no evidence anyone on earth could have done better, doesn't make Camille look like a better candidate.  They make her look like she has an army of lunatics marching behind her.

Every good thing she says - and there is a lot of it - gets lost when the self-feeding, self-serving, self- aggrandizing calls for alienating one bloc or another rise to the fore.  You know who loves this more than anyone?  Ol' Ernie Garrett.

For what it's worth, Paul looks like he's trying to mend fences and learn from the mistakes he made running his first campaign.  I wonder if Camille and her supporters have the same humility.

I fear the answer.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 20:25:36 PM UTC

Paul Was Right: Let's Keep Those "Hatchets" Buried XT :-) n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 20:34:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (4.00 / 1)

Nick, you know very well that I'm not using any hatchet at all. 

Camille is here - and very welcomed to be here - but let's not have a dual standard where commenters bash the hell out of Paul but are somehow compelled to handle Camille with kid-gloves.  I raised very simple points about party unity and argued against divisiveness - something that is badly needed no matter who is going to win the primary.

But some will view any discussion as an attack - which is what led to some very big problems last year.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:51:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uhhhh...Bubba? (0.00 / 0)

I do believe that Mr. Aronsohn was correctly criticized, since the accuracy of his press release regarding statements by Messrs. Corzine and Cryan was a bit questionable.

To be charitable.

I don't see Camille making any claims that rise to any level of controversy that is within parsecs of that.

Apples and oranges, I am afraid.

The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:37:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When you quote - be accurate (4.00 / 1)

Officials expressing the simple opinion that Paul would make a good candidate is what we are talking about here.  Period. They did not ENDORSE anyone because Paul hasn't officially entered the race yet.  So calm down people.  Mentioning that someone supports your effort to run is not an official ENDORSEMENT.  And Paul never said it was. 

This is getting as silly as the Nancy Pelosi plane non-story.  Try making a mountain out of some other molehill.  Really.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:53:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you even bother reading the release that Paul put out? (4.00 / 1)

This is the full text of the release:

ARONSOHN GETS KEY BACKING FOR POSSIBLE CONGRESSIONAL RUN
Governor Corzine, Chairman Cryan Announce Support

Ridgewood - Following the announcement earlier this week by 2006 Democratic Congressional Candidate Paul Aronsohn that he will make a decision soon regarding another congressional campaign, the State's two top Democrats threw their support behind him:

"Paul has the experience, the passion and the energy to be a great candidate and a great Congressman," Governor Jon Corzine said. "Needless to say, if he runs, he will have my strong support."

"Paul Aronsohn ran an outstanding campaign last year, and I am glad that he may be running again," New Jersey State Democratic Chairman Joe Cryan said. "He has what it takes to run and win, and I will work with him to make that happen."

Aronsohn was the 2006 Democratic nominee in New Jersey's 5th District and received a larger percentage of the vote than any Democratic challenger in recent decades.

From what I understand, both quotes were signed off on by Corzine and Cryan or their top staff.  And as I read them, they seem to be very supportive of Paul.

The only person who has said that Corzine and Cryan are "endorsing" Paul at this point is Wally Edge, and given his massive hard on for Paul, you really have to take anything he says about Paul with a rather large grain of salt.  Wally has pretty noticeable biases and very little of what's on PoliticsNJ should be taken at face value.

---

by: PocketAces @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:38:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely Put n/t (0.00 / 0)

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:34:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

None of which applies to my comment whatsoever.

If it's a mixed comparison, it's because people want to read things into the statement that isn't there.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 22:02:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

impressive people with impressive credentials (0.00 / 0)

Considering the fact that so few candidates for elected office in either party are impressive people with impressive credentials, one would think that this would be a pretty good standard for a candidate.  Having principles and values and standing for them would be good too.

What you describe as Camille's appeal for people to look at her and what she is doing is actually an effort to build an organization that is focused more on promoting democratic priniciples and values than winning elections for the sake of winning, and by doing this will move us much closer to victory against Garrett much more quickly.

Political junkies are a small percentage of the voting population in any Congressional district and are the only people who comprehend how truly evil Scott Garrett is and are motivated by this.  The rest of the voting universe either doesn't know or doesn't care or worse, wholeheartedly agrees with him.  The only way to excite, inspire, and motivate the majority of don't knows and don't cares is to present them with a candidate who is exciting, inspirational, and capable of motivating them.

If being an impressive person with impressive credentials isn't enough, just being better than Scott Garrett isn't even going to come close.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 22:47:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

Eh, if there was some substance to your comment, I'd reply.  As it is, it's nothing more than hot air blowing from a balloon.  It's a lot like hearing Charles Manson talk about the sanctity of human life.

When I see a candidate that is "exciting, inspirational, and capable of motivating them", I'll let you know.  You're welcome to go hog-wild if you want, but it's really beneath you to throw stones at anyone's values or credentials simply because they don't agree with you.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:55:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

peace (4.00 / 1)

Since I don't have any connection to the 5th district, let me just say that I think the Charles Manson comment is a bit much -- especially since we have a year to go!  Let's keep to 'hot air' criticisms.

 

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 14:47:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I really wish... (0.00 / 0)

...that my opposition to Paul Aronsohn was just about a disagreement on the issues.  The fact of the matter is that on the issues alone, I probably agree with Paul more than I agree with someone like Chuck Hagel, but I have far more respect for  Hagel than I do Paul.

The fact is that I find Paul to be an all-around unimpressive candidate whose candidacy is based on little more than personal ambition.  I can't throw stones at his values, because I honestly don't know what they are.

I have never heard or read anything about him that expressed in any way, shape or form who he is or what his core values are other than that he is a pro-business and pro-defense moderate, who is better than Scott Garrett.

As far as his credentials go, I think that I have said more than enough about what I think of them elsewhere in this thread.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:47:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Camille! It's Been Too Long Between "Visits"... (0.00 / 0)

...I hope you'll have more time henceforth to share your reasoned and passionate perspectives here more often.

While I'm hoping; please consider participating in this event

The Constitutionally abusive "teacher" in the LaClaire case and Scott Garrett are "two birds of a feather".  The 5th CD and this Kearny HS classroom are, in great measure, part of the same battle/struggle.

It would be splendid/significant, if your schedule permits, to bring the aforementioned reason/passion AND your Constitutional perspective to this case in a live setting.

They'll actually give you 5 minutes to speak without interruptions (that's if you don't count the booing and jeering from the opposition).

I have a bunch to say about the potential for a primary in the 5th CD but I'll save that for another place/time. 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 20:30:11 PM UTC