BCDO Gay-Bashing

You're right. There oughta be a law. (0.00 / 0)

Let's ask Weinberg to issue test regulating push polling in her next push poll! ;)

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 17:03:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you're OK with.. (0.00 / 0)

Using gay issues to divide the Democratic Party in Bergen.  And you did not give examples of the alleged Weinberg Push-polling.  How convenient.  How can we compare anything when not given the facts. 

How about a simple poll.  Could that be what was done?  Until you give information on exactly what was said in the Weinberg polling, I'm gonna take what you say on this one with a grain of salt, since you side with the forgery, election-fraud, pay-to-play, kickbacks, folks. 

No offense.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 17:18:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Using gay issues to divide"? (0.00 / 0)

Weinberg was on the wrong side of one of the most important issues of our day.  I understand her rationale, but let's not pretend that her position isn't a disappointment.  It's entirely consistent with her previous views, but I expected a bit more from someone who, rightly or wrongly, has never been one to accept the possible if there's a better solution out there.

Weinberg's push polling was very similar.  Testing issues, negatives, etc.  If the responder said they were supporting Wildes's ticket, they were asked "Would you still support Wildes if you knew..." questions, generally based on the ticket being supported by the BCDO, and running through a list of "corruption" charges.  Whether or not you agree with the list of corruption charges (I'd take a guess and say you do, Carol), that's push-polling.

No offense taken.  It's a fair question, which I hope I've answered sufficiently.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 17:34:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weinberg on the wrong side??? (0.00 / 0)

Please explain what that statement means!

Babs

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 18:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Civil unions aren't marriage. (4.00 / 1)

Weinberg had the chance to take a stand for equality here, but instead supported Corzine and Codey's compromise legislation.  I understand why she did it, but that's not leadership.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 18:37:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're right and wrong (4.00 / 1)

And you would have a fair argument here if there was a chance in hell that Michael Wildes was going to make his support for full marriage equality one of the key issues that he chose to run on in this campaign.  However, until he comes out and makes a public statement to this effect, you're grasping at straws.

What the push-polling is trying to do is use civil unions/marriage equality as a wedge issue to peel away the support of the Orthodox Jewish communities in Englewood, Teaneck, Tenafly, and anywhere else that they might exist, knowing that despite Loretta's liberal streak, this mostly conservative group of voters traditionally supported her during both primary and general elections.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 20:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not concerned with Wildes's position at this juncture. (4.00 / 1)

If he did come out in support of civil marriage for gay couples, I'd be thrilled, but at the moment, unless he comes out against civil unions, I'm stuck with a choice between two candidates who have the same position on one of my most important issues.

It should be noted that I don't fault Loretta for taking the position she did in 2005 (as undecided on whether marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman), nor for being prime sponsor for the civil union bill.  I'm just disappointed that her support gave Corzine's position legitimacy and, IMO, took some of the wind out of the marriage sails in the Senate.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 21:20:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree that it would have been better for Weinberg to come out in favor of (0.00 / 0)

civil marriage rights for gays & lesbians in an unequivocal fashion, but I don't know how on earth you think to use that as some way to justify push polling that employs this kind of thing -- "...and what if I told you that Loretta Weinberg favored civil unions between men and box turtles...?" Anyone with half a brain realizes that that is an offensive, homophobic, inflammatory comment, and if you claim to want to criticize Weinberg for not coming out more strongly for equal rights, you do your own credibility no favors with your obfuscation;  you should come out as clearly against this push polling as you want Weinberg to come out in favor of equal marriage rights.

And don't even give me that regulation crap.  It's not about whether or not such push polling is regulated by simple 'rules' or the rule of law, but that such push polling should be unanimously decried by everyone who posts on this site, and certainly by someone who has the audacity to (in your own words) take the wind out of the sails of efforts by the diarist and commenters who to rightly repudiate this push poll, and then to hypocritically criticize Weinberg for having a stance that is not desirable enough.

I don't know who you are, but you really ought to either identify yourself or come out more clearly with a more consistent position that is not meant to try to make people forget about your original comments about the polling, which almost border on a defense of it.  Your efforts haven't succeeded with me.  Sorry.  Try a bit harder next time.

---

by: progressivemuslimnj @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:36:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, that's not how the question in the poll was phrased. (0.00 / 0)

The question in the poll was a generic "how do you feel about civil unions".  The box-turtle comment was a Weinberg supporter mocking the poll questions.  I'm at a bit of a loss as to how people are accepting those comments at face value and completely uncritically, when the initial commentor clearly intended them to be mocking and clearly labelled them as a "paraphrase".

I've never, and will never, defend the box turtle question, which is fairly convenient for my position, as that question was not a real question and was not asked.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:57:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

phrasing (0.00 / 0)

Paraphrasing and "box turtles" aside, the person who received one of these calls and did the transcription noted that a series of questions were asked in the context of their opinion of Loretta Weinberg and that a similar line of questioning commenced for Valerie Huttle. Even if box turtles were never mentioned, this person made the context of the questions clear and stressed it by noting that four questions were asked in the same manner. What leads you to believe the question was asked as a stand-alone generic question?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:21:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A co-worker got the call. (0.00 / 0)

I asked him how the topic was introduced and it was phrased, and he said it was a generically phrased, stand-alone question.  Maybe he's misremembering, but I trust his assessment of the situation.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 19:21:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2005 (0.00 / 0)

Was she undecided back then?  I don't think so.  As long as I have known her, she has always been a staunch advocate for marriage equality.

My guess is that Wildes would be willing to tolerate civil unions, but would be firmly opposed to full marriage equality.  Voting for him for State Senate would essentially be voting to replace a Reed Gusciora-like Democrat with a Gary Schaer-like Democrat in the State Senate.

The fact is that we need more advocates for full marriage equality in the State Senate, not less.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 14:15:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to her Vote Smart survey, she was. (0.00 / 0)

http://votesmart.org...

From the Campaign Finance and Government Reform Issues section:

Position  Question

Undecided m) Should New Jersey restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?

(I hope the formatting came out okay).

Loretta's position is totally understandable; the contours of the debate weren't fully defined at the time, so I don't fault her for not having a specific and detailed policy platform in regards to it.

It's also possible Vote Smart was wrong, but the rest of the policy positions seem correct.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 19:49:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not concerned? (1.00 / 1)

Why are you posting so much on this if you are not concerned about Wildes position?  What county job did Ferriero give YOU?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 15:01:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe I was unclear. (0.00 / 0)

My point was that Wildes's position, so long as it's pro-civil unions (and that's the sense I've gotten of where he stands), is indistinguishable from Weinberg's actions.  I don't see a significant difference on this issue, so it'll be irrelevant in my decision about who to vote for.  If Wildes was anti-CU, or pro-marriage, that would influence my vote.  Weinberg promised marriage and then co-sponsored civil unions.  One of the things I always respected about her, even when I disagree with her, is that she was never inclined to settle for the possible when there was a better way, so I was disappointed when her actions didn't match her words.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 19:37:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everyone has to walk (0.00 / 0)

before they can run.  These things take time.  Loretta is ready for marriage equality, but the state legisature may be a few years away still.  Senator Weinberg cannot singlehandedly pass legislation by herself.  She needs to build the consensus first.  Once the fear mongering dies away and skittish lawmakers and fearful voters anxious to "save" marriage realize the world didn't come to an end after Civil Unions passed and everyone's wife didn't run off with their lesbian lovers, the frightened conservative types will be more receptive to the idea of full marriage equality.
Don't give up so soon on Loretta.  I'm sure she hasn't given up on the idea of full equality, she is just doing as much as is possible at this moment.  Next year, the environment may be right for full equality, but don't disregard a positive step in the right direction. 
In the statehouse women haven't seen full equality yet.  That civil unions passed in NJ is a very, very, good sign. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 21:23:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Marriage had no chance in the Senate- they didn't have the votes (0.00 / 0)

I don't know whose votes you were counting, but there was nowhere near a majority in the Senate! If anything there was a better chance in the Assembly, but it wasn't there either.

That being said, if you are really concerned about marriage equality for LGBTI people, this is the time to do something about it. This election cycle is "Key"!

If you look at Weinberg and Wildes and see exactly the same thing .... well, just say we're an ocean apart in perspective.

In all seriousness, yes we were disappointed that things appeared to be rushed, yes the Supreme court punted and the legislature took the easy way out, but the reality is that the Court punted and what happened, happened as a direct result.

Now getting the inevitable result sooner rather than later is a plus, because it give us more good publicity and exposes the right wing nut jobs. Time is on our side, we have to put it to good use!

Babs Casbar

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:37:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weinberg came out for marriage (0.00 / 0)

She supported the civil unions bill because there were not enough votes for civil marriage. She did support making our civil unions bill the strongest in the country.

I even quoted her statement when I spoke at the public signing, "politics is the art of the possible". At that time it was deemed that a strong civil unions bill was what could be achieved. We've now done that and are working towards full marriage equality in the next two years and I believe that Loretta is with us!

If we elect progressive legislators it WILL happen. This past week I was encouraged in speaking to 2 legislators who voted for civil unions and have have not spoken out on supporting marriage, who told me that in the next couple of years if a marriage bill comes up, they will support it. For them it's a big step. Even in the last session there were a number of legislators who would have voted if push came to shove, but not enough.

Educating and supporting and identifying fair minded legislators is what one of the things we do at NJ Stonewall Democrats and at Garden State Equality.

So, lets get to work an elect fair minded folks like Loretta, Valerie and folks like them!

Lets move forward and let us not have the insistence of perfection impede the pace of real progress. Leadership is recognizing reality and making the most of it. Leadership is not quitting, but sometimes taking a step back and changing course to reflect the elements and currents.

Babs Casbar


"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:26:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I respect and understand you and your organization's position. (0.00 / 0)

However, I view Weinberg's co-sponsorship of CU as legitimizing Corzine and the leadership's punting of the issue and lack of fortitude in doing the right thing, particularly in light of her general positions on LGBT issues.  If Loretta had voted for CU after introducing a marriage bill, I could understand.  But she was prime sponsor of civil unions and, strong or not, that's not what I expected from her on this issue.  It provided Corzine cover when he should have been pressured to do the right thing.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 19:43:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I saw those actions first hand, my friend. (0.00 / 0)

There is not an air of corruption involved here. There is actual corruption and voter fraid that went on at an election at which Michael Wildes supporters tried to disenfranchise ME from exercising my RIGHT to cast a vote for the Assembly seat.  You can dance around the facts, but the facts remain.  Michael Wildes ran a fraudulent race helped by the BCDO.  I don't just suspect that - I know that to be TRUE.  I saw it with my own eyes.  I was THERE.  For ALL of it.  There was also forgery involved with the race for Ken Zisa as well.  With the forgeries done by supporters of Ken Zisa.  Are you telling me that this does not matter? 
All they and you can do is IMPLY wrongdoing on the part of the Weinberg team.  That is because when it comes to actual wrongdoing, the BCDO Chairman and his flunkies and supporters and Michael Wildes and Ken Zisa are GUILTY.  Guilty as sin.  If they didn't actually personally challenge me, and my fellow democrats from Tenafly, Teaneck, and the black Caucus, they certainly condoned it while it was happening - they were right there in the room too.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 19:28:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Define Our Terms... (0.00 / 0)

Push polling isn't about simply "testing negatives" (which is actually a legitimate activity if the negatives are the truth) it's about "pushing" the recipient of the call away from an opposing candidate by associating that candidate with something deemed as negative (regardless of truth) to the recipient of the call.  These "polls" are not about gathering information but about influencing what people believe.

It's possible that the BCDO action here is/was just a pilot program and I'm happy that it has been uncovered before it could grow into a wholesale attack. 

What concerns me is that with an overabundance of money and a losing position on the actual issues the BCDO machine candidates will spend quarter million bucks and push poll everyone on the list multiple times in the last 24 to 36 hours of the campaign.

If Ferriero somehow manages to "have his way" with the 37th; it will only be because he was "successful" in smearing the Weinberg team with lies and in keeping the truth about themselves covered up.  The Rovian "Swiftboat" tactics worked well for Bush.

As for new legislation, yes I do believe that it's possible to draft legally enforceable rules against push polling.  Especially when it's done on a large scale just before election day.

In my book, screwing with the electoral process is the functional equivalent of terrorism.  It is a direct attack on our liberties and a threat to our democracy and to our national security. 

People convicted of orchestrating/engaging in such attacks should be put away for a minimum of 10 to 25 years without parole.

Further, legislation needs to be passed restricting the outsourcing of our domestic political process...there is no shortage of American companies to do this work.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 22:01:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Loretta and civil unions (0.00 / 0)

Let's not forget that it was Loretta Weinberg who introduced the "Family Equity Act" several years ago.  It became the Domestic Partnership Law, which gave rise to the Civil Union Law, which is going to result in full marriage equality--some day soon, I hope. 

It is wrong, absolutely wrong, to suggest that since Senator Weinberg voted for civil unions, she has somehow "sold out."  If it weren't for her, this issue would never have been on the table at all.

BTW, Joe and I will celebrate 43 years of marriage on Wednesday.  Everyone should have the opportunity to do that--if they want to, that is...!

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 23:08:01 PM UTC

With due respect to all ... (0.00 / 0)

The seven litigant couples and Lambda Legal gave rise to the Civil Unions law, which the Legislature was forced to enact so as to meet the terms of the settlement required by the NJ Supreme Court. There is no plot line that connects the miserably lame Domestic Partnership law (which was better than nothing, but damn close nevertheless) to the Civil Union law. (And let me state clearly that its lameness was dictated by our fearless legislature, not by that law's many hardworking proponents).

The two efforts started at different times and ran on separate (though sometimes parallel) tracks. The Lambda Legal-sponsored town meetings that Steven Goldstein first ran on LL's behalf (pre-GSE) starting in 2003 included domestic partnership support and information because it was both the obvious right thing to do AND it was unavoidable, as the questions would arise regardless.

Stephen personally put a lot of hard work into lobbying for domestic partnership and contributed greatly to its success; he is a superior lobbyist as we have all seen. But he did not do this because it advanced the cause of civil marriage (my opinion), but because it was both the right thing to do for the community at large AND it was expedient to get DPs off the drawing board and into circulation so that his and others efforts could be concentrated on the battle for CUs/CMs.

From Lambda Legal's standpoint (IMMHO), it was damned inconvenient to have to conflate the lawsuit for marriage equality with the legislation for domestic partnership, (and again IMMHO), having Lambda Legal launch the lawsuit when it did was damned inconvenient to those who had worked on DP for many years prior as it diluted what was already a fairly thin layer of support.

A case could be made that the proponents of DP made ready the ground into which LL sowed the seeds of CUs, but this would be an unintended consequence, not a deliberate strategy.

A case could also be made that the existence of the DP law made incremental progress the de facto standard, giving the legislature the inertia they needed not to move all the way to civil marriage in one step, but again this would be an unintended consequence.

I believe the LL lawsuit probably did push DPs over the top, as our fearless legislature probably thought enacting DPs might head off the CU/CM day of reckoning; but the LL lawsuit would have advanced with or without the existence of the DP bill.

In the end, my point is merely this: NJ Domestic Partnerships did NOT lead to NJ Civil Unions. The existence of both efforts at around the same time could be attributed to an opportune climate in NJ (hell, we DID have a gay governor, even if he was on the down low), but they were not linked at the hips. They were independent efforts that shared some synergy.

I want to make this point only to help keep the historical record accurate; it's stuff like the simpering idiot legislator who said, "Oh, we would have voted in civil unions even if we didn't have to," that truly infuriate me -- dope, you DID have to!

And here's to hoping we see civil marriage before the rump session of 2010 ...

 

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:57:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please forgive me (0.00 / 0)

if I didn't mention the Lambda Legal lawsuit and the brave couples who pursued it--there's only so much one can squeeze into a brief comment.  Of course DP was next to/better than nothing, but the mounting evidence of its shortcomings was instrumental in persuading legislators that it just didn't make the grade.  The State Supreme Court decision put them on the spot.

It's not unusual for efforts in pursuit of justice and progress to take place on several fronts simultaneously.  Look at the current campaign against the war on Iraq, which is going on both in Congress and in the streets--and in many other venues as well (including the Plainfield City Council this evening).

The context of my comment, of course, was Loretta Weinberg's re-election campaign.  There's no doubt that her role in raising the issue of family equity in the legislature was critical from day one, and she deserves our thanks and our support for going out on a limb when it was neither fashionable nor legally mandated.

Every effort gets us closer, to paraphrase the old civil rights song.  There is no limit to what can be accomplished as long as it doesn't matter who gets the credit. 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 16:25:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grow up and act like adults. (0.00 / 0)

These ridiculous assertions that the BCDO is somehow anti-Gay because of questions polled in a survey that will reflect district-wide opinions is outrageous and completely out-of-bounds.

Have we gotten to a point where asking voters what they think about these issues is somehow anti-Gay? Does the collective opinions of voters even matter to these people or do they simply have this "lock step" agenda that if not followed, you will be tarred and feathered as some extremist?

The district is quite diverse. Does the opinion of a retired teacher in Bergenfield matter? How about a retired union worker in Palisades Park? How about a life-long Hackensack widow?

Didn't Bill Clinton oppose Gay marriages?

Is he anti-Gay too?

Please stop with the political nonsense that only makes the race that much meaner and deeper in the gutter.

It's only March and already we have people turning the BCDO into some extension of the KKK!

Calm the accusations. Temper the comments.

I thought we were all Democrats!

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:05:19 AM UTC

We do all call ourselves Democrats. (0.00 / 0)

But some of us are more "Democratic" than others.  Like those of us who believe in fair elections, choices on the ballot, and a Democratic Party that answers to the voters.  I am embarassed that Joe Ferriero is from the same Party as me, let alone the same state and County.  Ferriero tries to make back room deals to get his boys into Trenton when HE DID NOT ASK US NICELY for our votes or even our opinion.  You call that democratic?

The voters have an actual choice in the primary thanks to over 50 BCDO County Committee members (including me) who actually asked the Weinberg team to skip the sham convention on the 22nd.

The polling, push-polling, question asking, negatives testing, whatever you want to call it isn't going well, is it?  You're getting that panicky tone again.  Just let the voters decide in the Primary. 

Don't worry so much - yet. Michael's got lots of money to get his message out, (mostly his picture, but hey, you have to run with what you have).  I see from his website - he's got lots of pictures taken already that he can use.  That'll save money for the GOTV effort.  Money really comes in handy when you don't have an army of enthusiastic volunteers or an incredible legislative record or the overwhelming popularity and name recognition of someone like Senator Weinberg. 

As for the "political nonsense" and acting like children .....

Joe did it first!

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 03:18:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hatred is a terrible thing. (0.00 / 0)

Turning elections into personal, nasty vendettas never work.

The last time I checked Joe Ferriero wasn't running and Loretta TURNED DOWN the opportunity to run on the organization's ticket while also choosing to skip the party convention.

Like him or not, Joe Ferriero is the most successful chairman in the history of the Democratic Party here in Bergen County.

Never in the history of the freeholder board have Democrats controlled all seven seats. Never in the history of the party have we held this many municipal offices or controlled this many towns.

Never in the history of the party have we had this many legislators.

By any standard, Joe has done an outstanding job in every facet of fundraising, party building, recruitment, technology and GOTV.

This demonization of Ferriero is just bad politics. The people of the district will make a choice and the winner of the primary will become the new legislators. Are you saying if Weinberg loses you won't support Mayor Wildes?

How far are you willing to take this hatred of Ferriero? Will you be happy with a full scale county primary fight?

What exactly has Joe done other THAN WIN ELECTIONS is so terrible?

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:03:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Not A Personal Hatred..... (0.00 / 0)

......Joe Ferriero is a trope.  Sure he's been "effective", if the ends justify the means and all you care about is seeing a D instead of an R.  He's an extension of the Tammany Hall era....and the fact that "the Republicans were no better" is not a valid defense/excuse.

I strongly believe that the existing political establishment of BOTH parties is corrupt; legally so! 

I'm not even talking conventional bribes or off shore bank accounts or cash kickbacks to cronies or things that are currently overtly illegal (if anyone were dumb enough to actually get caught doing them).

I'm saying that the whole system of campaign finance is LEGALIZED corruption.

For pennies on the dollar monied interests own the lawmakers and policymakers in government....and it's bipartisan.

If you and your associates make bundled contributions of, say,  100K and then someone/some company you're associated with gets the rights to develop land that was taken on the grounds of eminent domain and now you can put up 300 condo units and a dozen stores....well, guess what?  That 100k came back to you a hundred times over, eh?

That same principle applies to virtually all expenditures....it's called pay to play....i.e. legalized bribery. 

That's what good, honest, decent citizens <>i>should "hate", eh?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:37:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This isn't hatred (4.00 / 1)

It is electing responsible leadership.  It is trying to free the employees of our county government from political machinations that prevent the mere existence of a true opposition party that will keep things in balance.  It is about re-electing excellent progressive legislators to the NJ Legislature.  It is about elections where the voters are not disenfranchised illegally.  It is about allowing towns to govern themselves instead of having no-bid contracts forced upon them and the taxes of the citizens raised to fund the BCDO.  It is about representing ALL the people, not just your friends.  It is about good government. We have all seen what lengths Karl Rove and Tom Delay went to to "win" for their team.  Should we lavish undying gratitude on them for winning elections or should we call them to account for what they have wrought?

If Ferriero is so good at winning elections, let him win this one - fair and square for Michael Wildes.  In a Primary instead of a rigged farce.  The only reason we keep winning is because right now the general public can't stand Republicans in general on the national scene.  The fact that there is no opposition party in Bergen doesn't figure in your rosy assessment of Ferriero either, I suppose.

Tell me this - what is so noble about "winning"  when you have cheated the whole game? 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 13:30:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There was an opposition party. (0.00 / 0)

When Ferriero was elected chair in 1998, the Bergen Republicans were one of the strongest, most feared Republican machines in all of New Jersey.  Despite that, Bergen Democrats elected two Democratic freeholders during a mid-term election with only Congress at the top of the ticket.  The collapse of the Bergen Republican party can be traced back to Ferriero's election, so I'm not entirely sure your assessment, at least in regards to the initial years of his chairmanship, is correct.  Perhaps victories now are less notable as a consequence of the absolute implosion of the Republican party in Bergen, but there certainly was a formidable opposition party for much of his tenure's infancy.  The national environment for Republicans only became toxic recently, as well, and toxic in New Jersey as a whole after 2002; Bob Franks won Bergen in 2000, even as Gore crushed Bush.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 19:22:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You didn't answer my question. (0.00 / 0)

How noble is it to "win" when you have cheated through the whole game?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 20:07:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I either disagree with your premise or misunderstand you. (0.00 / 0)

I'm honestly not sure, because while I understand your criticism in the context of now, I disagree with your criticism in the context of then, which to me is part of "the whole game."  I'm not entirely sure how Ferriero could have cheated in 1998, when the Republicans controlled nearly every level and mechanism of county government and the Democratic Party was powerless, but the fact remains that, somehow, under his leadership we still began winning elections.

We've hashed out that I disagree with your assessment of Ferriero and the BCDO as a whole, but I particularly disagree with the assessment that he's never been able to lead Democrats to victory under "fair" circumstances, either.  The party he took control of in 1998 was in shambles.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 21:28:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you think it is OK or democratic (0.00 / 0)

that Ferriero has his staff challenge duly elected committee members at BCDO elections when he knows they will not vote his way? 

Do not argue with the premise here or weasel out of answering.  The facts are the facts. I was THERE. It happened.  So, do you think that is acceptable?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 23:20:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, I agree. (4.00 / 1)

It's petty for anyone to challenge votes that they know won't go their way.  It doesn't matter who's doing it.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 02:00:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]