LD 37 Gordon Johnson: It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid

Come On, Admit It (2.50 / 2)

You would actually rather see one of the Republicans take the seat than have Johnson win, eh?

Your patently absurd vacuous "critique"/attack is welcome and telling coming from one who is clearly a loyalist of the monied machine.  Or should I say, the money machine?

Don't you see, Blue,  you're transparent/busted.

The voters of the 37th LD have been immunized against the particular virus you represent. 

The vaccine is in production and may well be distributed statewide in time for the 2008 elections.

You want to spend millions of dollars trying to take out a fellow Democrat?  Go ahead, waste your money.  It'll only backfire.

Posting such patent silliness to a site read by informed/smart/savvy readers doesn't hurt Johnson so much as it exposes you.

http://kingjbible.co...

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:26:34 AM UTC

50 gallon drum full of kool aid (0.00 / 0)

the way a blind eye is turned is amusing to me.  I never ever vote for a Republican over a Democrat.  Like I said it's the hypocrisy. 

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 16:14:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

take a deep breath Nick (4.00 / 1)

and get to the larger point being made here about dualoffice holding being inherently unseemly.

no one BUT NO ONE is gonna accuse the Blue Jersey communuty of being less that a durable ally to Gordon Johnson.  That said, I wish he would choose his favorite gig and give up the rest.  That would be a real reform minded move that would go beyond symbolism.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:03:53 PM UTC

Agreed. (4.00 / 1)

It has nothing to do with wanting the seat to go to a Republican, but don't lecture us about reform than not do what you say.

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 13:26:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wheat and Chaff (4.00 / 1)

If we continue to expand the definition of "double-dippers" and "dual office-holders," we are going to create a situation where everyone is somehow "tainted" and therefore everyone is equal so all should be forgiven and ignored.  There is a fundamental difference between having two high-paying elected positions like Sharpe James did and someone who put in their time and now has a pension, but has been elected.  There is also a difference between a mayor's seat which pays over $100,000 a year and a council seat that pays $5,000.

I do believe that you should not collect more than one public elected salary.  That is something that can be done in the lame duck for the remaining 18 not covered by the original reform.

The letter from the INTERIM City Manager seems like a complete cheap shot.  I like how he is "concerned" about publicity, but obviously didn't waste much time having the letter available for public distribution.  It would have been dumb of Johnson to solicit contributions, but if someone walks up to you and says they are coming to your fundraiser is he supposed to say "Away with you, Satan!"???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 16:23:17 PM UTC

excuses (0.00 / 0)

you are making excuses.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 16:59:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bingo!!! Creed's Apostle is Spot On!!! (0.00 / 0)

I suggest y'all re-read what Creed Pogue has so eloquently and brilliantly said above, and that you actually spend a few minutes thinking/contemplating the meaning behind the words.

http://www.bluejerse...

If I may quote myself, 

The closest thing to a blow was the accusation that Gordon Johnson was a "dual office holder" which, while technically true, didn't amount to a hill of beans in Johnson's case given the facts and his particular circumstances.  Though I'm sure he won't be running for city councilman at large again when this term expires and am equally certain that he'll vote for any tightening of the ban on dual office holding even if it meant he would have to resign one of his positions.

Sometimes we have to get behind the spirit of a law in addition to the letter of the law.  And, in this particular case Gordon Johnson is in 100% honorable/righteous compliance with both the spirit and the letter of existing law.  (I read the letter that was linked, and it's not credible.....look at local Englewood politics and it becomes clear what's going on there.)

The purpose of banning dual office holding is to prevent conflicts of interest that are self serving.

There is no credible evidence that Johnson has, in any way, abused either of his positions.

If Johnson were to resign his councilman at large position, at this point, he would be making a great political and even moral error. 

The existing BCDO power structure would harp on it as an excuse to declare a kind of "moral equivalency" (that doesn't exist).....and the Republicans would simply harp on it.

Folks, there is an underlying dynamic here which is toxic for the Democratic party in New Jersey.  At some point each of us will have to do a "gut check" and decide what we want to support. 

There's a good reason for all the people who were involved, informed  and savvy eough to actually show up for Mondays 37th Debate are laughing in the following video excerpt.

Let us not allow the slick spinmeisters of the Money Machine succeed in driving a wedge into the progressive community.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 17:23:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sunny Lyricism (0.00 / 0)

Sunny lyricism and empty rhetoric will not bring about change.  In my belief, a Democratic controlled government is the best vehicle for change and eating our own will not aid us in our efforts to achieve the many goals which we share.  The hypocrisy must be pointed out because the truth is that LD 37 is such a safe Democratic area that the politicians within will not be affected by Democratic losses outside of it.  There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.  Gordon Johnson's self serving political posturing in spite of his double standard is the wrong way.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 17:34:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are your standards? (0.00 / 0)

What are your standards for how elected officials should behave?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:01:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Show me a politician (0.00 / 0)

And I will show you how they have acted unethically.  Not to be taken literally, but I truly believe in the Democratic party and I believe that a utilitarian view is better than an ideologically pure view.  That being said I think someone like Assemblyman Bob Gordon is a good standard bearer.  Senator Codey is great and I have nothing but admiration and pride for Senator Menendez.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:05:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right And Wrong Indeed (0.00 / 0)

>>>Sunny lyricism and empty rhetoric will not bring about change.<<<

Agreed, so what was that last sentence all about?

  >>>In my belief, a Democratic controlled government is the best vehicle for change<<<

Agreed; the question becomes, what does it mean to be a Democrat?  I prefer the values of Jimmy Carter and FDR and JFK to those of Joseph Ferierro.

  >>>and eating our own will not aid us in our efforts to achieve the many goals which we share.<<<

Agreed, so why do you go out of your way to diminish/destroy Gordon Johnson?  Who/what is served by that. 

  >>> The hypocrisy must be pointed out<<<

Johnson's dual office holding is consistent with both the spirit and the letter of existing law.  Look at the details of his circumstances.  Gordon has nothing to be ashamed of or to hide. 

Emerson had it right when he said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".  Think.

>>>because the truth is that LD 37 is such a safe Democratic area that the politicians within will not be affected by Democratic losses outside of it.<<<

False implication.  The reform/transformative efforts, agendas and values of the Weinberg/Huttle/Johnson team are, in fact the bright and shining future of the Democratic Party throughout the County, State and Nation.  They are the cure; not as you seem to be implying, the disease.

  >>>There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.<<<

Agreed, so why do you persist in acting as if you were on the PR payroll of Joseph Ferierro?

>>>Gordon Johnson's self serving political posturing<<<

What are you referring to?  Be specific.

  >>>>in spite of his double standard is the wrong way.<<<

Well, here we do have a fundamental disagreement.

I believe it is the business model of the BCDO under it's current ownership that is, in reality, "the wrong way".

You evidently disagree with me, and that's fine; I look forward to more and more and more bright light being shed into every nook and cranny of this discussion over the next few years.  Thank you for the opportunity to do so today!  :-)

Sunshine truly is the best disinfectant.  Wouldn't you agree?

PS

Would you care to explain why everyone was laughing and applauding in the following video?

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:04:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seriously? (0.00 / 0)

"The reform/transformative efforts, agendas and values of the Weinberg/Huttle/Johnson team are, in fact the bright and shining future of the Democratic Party throughout the County, State and Nation.  They are the cure; not as you seem to be implying, the disease."

Please please can you say this type of thing more often?  I love it. 

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:08:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seriously, In Deed.... (0.00 / 0)

At last, you've seen the light!

Though I am a bit reluctant to accept your conversion as sincere.

Would you please tell us what it is you "love" about the reform agenda/values of Loretta Weinberg?

All snarkasm aside; it would seem that you actually hate that agenda and her values. 

Why? 

Now please be specific; and take up as much time and space as you need to make your case.  Tell us what you really believe in.

Thank you.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:24:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

false (0.00 / 0)

I don't "hate" the agenda or the values but I doubt the sincerity. 

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:31:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what DO you think? (4.00 / 1)

Even if you simply "doubt the sincerity" of the legislators' proposals, does that truly matter?  They are putting forward a plan for reform, it will be voted on, and if passed, they will be expected to live by it.

You and the rest of the organization have put yourself firmly in opposition to the plan.  Why?  And what is your counter-offer to the voters of Bergen County and the state at large?  Those are questions that have been lost in your obvious attempt to muddy the waters of this issue.

You want to talk about hypocrisy and double standards to deflect criticism from Boss Joe.  That much is clear.  But instead of constantly telling us who you are against and trying to shoot the messenger (who, in Johnson's case has painted a huge target on his own back), how about telling us here at Blue Jersey what you ARE for?

How can we be expected to believe that you do not hate the agenda when you have spent so much time trying to tear it down and discredit those who have presented it?

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:43:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I am against dual office holding, and a full time legislature.  I am against hypocrisy.  I am against illegal tactics in politics.  I am against hypocisy.  I am for Democrats and against Republicans.  I do think however that there are practical steps towards succeeding and enacting progressive policies.  what is doable in the 37th district is far from doable in many places outside of it.  How do we elect more Democrats who will be for working people and children and seniors, for minorities, for affordable healthcare?  How do we do this if so many of us are focused on boutique issues such as campaign finance reform (which is important but takes a back seat in mind to the things I have mentioned above) ?  How do we elect Democrats who will support same-sex marriage if we are hellbent on ideological purity?  And then how do we govern if we don't get elected?

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:54:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Good Enough... (0.00 / 0)

OK, you don't see yourself (or at least won't cop to) "hating" the Weinberg agenda/values.

We're making progress.

It sure seems you don't like it; and even that you have a strong animus towards it. Go up and read your own words here.

Now you can backpeddle and dodge all you like; but it won't wash; not in this forum.

Come out and stand up for what you really believe. 

Tell us what you think/believe is wrong with the reform agenda and values that Loretta Weinberg puts forth.

Again, this is your diary.  You chose to attack Johnson and the whole Weinberg team in the 37th; now please back up that attack with some details/substance and tell us what values and agendas you would put forth that are better than theirs.

Thank You.

---

better now?

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 19:52:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would even go so far as to say that... (4.00 / 1)

...not all dual-officeholding is bad.

I think that John McKeon is probably the poster child for someone who is capable of being an honest, ethical, and effective elected at both the state and local levels.  This is probably true for Gordon Johnson as well.

That said, because there are so many more examples of bad dual-officeholders than good ones, it is probably best to ban the practice, but I would prefer a system that analyzed dual-officeholders on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is or is not a clear conflict of interest.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 18:00:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My problem is not... (3.50 / 2)

the money necessarily. (and I don't know enough about Bergen to form an opinion either way here)
While confilicts of interest arising from the dual office holding are sickening, what bothers me even more is the law that says elected officials can take off from their other public jobs without loss of pay or other reprocusions to be legislators.
My feeling is that if you are superintendent of schools in Jersey City, (Epps is one who makes me the most ill) That has GOT to be a full time job. No one can tell me the schools in Jersey City are doing well enough where Mr. Epps can take off a significant amount of time to be a legislator.
This may go back to the full time legislature concept, but I'll guarantee higher performance from these people in their jobs if they only have one job to think about.
Susan Bass Levin comes to mind too, regardless of the health benefits argument, I look at 250K job as director of the port authority and I say for 250K I would appreciate it if my director would concentrate solely on the port authority and not have to worry with the local finance board.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 12:45:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Take You At Your Word... (0.00 / 0)

.....though you don't address why you aggressively challenged the sincerity of the Weinberg agenda/values.

Let's shed some light on what you've finally given us.

I am against dual office holding,

Agreed.

and a full time legislature.

I disagree, full time is the way to go.

 

I am against hypocrisy.

Agreed

I am against illegal tactics in politics.

Who isn't?  The question is what's legal and why.  Also, there's a matter of ethical tactics that may not be covered by the letter of the law.

I am against hypocisy.

You said that already, and we agree.

I am for Democrats and against Republicans.

In general, I agree; there may be exceptions in particular cases.  See the Emerson quote above,

I do think however that there are practical steps towards succeeding and enacting progressive policies.

Agreed.

What do you believe those steps are?

And what are the progressive policies that you wish to see enacted?

 

...what is doable in the 37th district is far from doable in many places outside of it.

What are you talking about here?  Too vague.

How do we elect more Democrats who will be for working people and children and seniors, for minorities, for affordable healthcare?

Good question.  What is your answer?  Share it with us.

How do we do this if so many of us are focused on boutique issues such as campaign finance reform (which is important but takes a back seat in mind to the things I have mentioned above) ?

I suggest to you that there are direct connections between a status which we all seem to agree needs reforming and the money that influence (controls?) who gets elected and what they do once they are elected.  Here we have a good clear disagreement that should be debated in detail.  Campaign finance reform of the influence of money in politics is not a "boutique issue" it is at the core of just about all that is wrong in our nation.

How do we elect Democrats who will support same-sex marriage if we are hellbent on ideological purity?

Huh?  That's a non sequitor.  Please explain.

And then how do we govern if we don't get elected?

You assume a priori that a substantial strong reform agenda means losing elections.  Have you read the polls indicating that the people of New Jersey are starving for the ability to have real trust and confidence in the honesty and integrity of the people we/they elect.

Either you are a sincerely well meaning, but very mistaken extreme party loyalist or you are something else.

For your sake I hope it's the former.

Either way, I wish you well and thank you for this splendid opportunity to shed some more light on these issues/questions!

:-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 20:24:21 PM UTC

A quote that should sum it up (0.00 / 0)

"As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be.  That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be.  That means working in the system." -Saul Alinsky, from "Rule for Radicals: a Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals"


"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:12:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Old Enough To Remember Saul Alinsky..... (0.00 / 0)

....I remember listening to Saul Alinsky's voice on WBAI radio in the 60's.......Saul Alinsky was a great Amercan;  BlueBergen....let me assure you, you are no Saul Alinsky. 

The historical context of that quote was one in which certain kinds of "radicalism" consisted of stupid physical violence against "the system".

So yes, Alinsky was 100% right.  But I'd be willing to bet that Alinsky would see your BCDO as a pathological vipers nest of corruption and that he would see Loretta Weinberg's approach as one element of the cure.

So don't hide behind that quote.  It only highlights a ridiculous hypocrisy.

Look, even you have to admit the point that we still have a democracy.  We'll see which of our approaches gets more votes from rank and file human beings in the years to come.

Surely you do concede that we still have the right to vote against your people?  Don't you?

It seems that you believe that a world in which goodness and common human decency predominate is some kind of idealistic fantasy that only exists in the imaginations of dreamers; I say you are 100% wrong.

I stand behind what I said earlier.  Real reformation/transformation in the direction of real fairness and real decency and real justice is the future of the Democratic Party throughout every precinct in every state of the union.

Given that you insist on anonymity we may know if you are a "true believer" or a jaded/cynical paid hack.  Either way your position is a loser.

Corruption never wins; even when it seems to "win" it loses. 

Consider the "victory" of a malignant cancer cell.  What does it take for that malignancy to "win"?

So enjoy your "growth" and "prosperity" and "power" while it lasts. 

If there is a human race extant a thousand years from now it will be (in great measure) because  we will have evolved beyond the dog eat dog ugliness that organizations like Tammany Hall, the Bush White House and the current BCDO exemplify.

Peace be with you.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 17:10:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

losing sight (0.00 / 0)

If we lose sight of the big picture in order to harp on boutique issues the Democratic party will go down in flames.  If tomorrow we tried to run a Loretta Weinberg, Valerie Huttle or Gordon Johnson for seats in towns and districts that are more conservative than the 37th (which means almost every place in America) we will be a permanent minority party.  Progress is not fast.  It takes time.  First we have to create an enduring majority then we can talk about enacting more progressive policies.  First we must create more district 37's or at least making places like district 40 a little more blue. 

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 01:04:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Silence is Deafening.... (0.00 / 0)

.....while we await any kind of substantive response from our opposition here's some video that will shed even more light on the questions/issues raised in this diary.

.......Gordon Johnson speaking on the subject of values in politics and in life....

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 21:44:16 PM UTC

substantive response? (1.00 / 1)

I can't even begin to parse the drama student rhetoric you just threw up on your keyboard.  It would be a waste of my time and yours.  Thank you for the healthy discourse, but I find it difficult to follow your logic without wearing some sort of dream helmet contraption.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 01:45:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I apologize (4.00 / 1)

if the above comment came off as too offensive, was trying to be funny and not hurtful.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:13:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Eating your own"? BlueBergen is busted. (4.00 / 2)

BlueBergen (aka Ferriero junkie) writes, "eating our own will not aid us in our efforts to achieve the many goals which we share".

Agreed. But what about when it was Weinberg v. Zisa and the Bergenfield forgeries were used to try to steal the election from Loretta? BCDO ate their own.

What about when it was Huttle v. Wildes and the BCDO tried to ban almost the entire Teaneck and Tenafly county committee members from voting? They made them stand up against a wall and told them they could not vote because of fallacious challenges. BCDO ate their own.

What about the press conference last spring that Boss Ferriero held inside BCDO where he endorsed Weinberg in the primary and simultaneously endorsed Zisa for Assembly? BCDO ate their own.

And I heard one of the biggest "eat your own" stories very recently in LD37. During the Clean Elections donation gathering process, our 3 Clean Democrats solicited $10 contributions from some friends who happen to be BCDO regulars. The response? "NO". Why? They were afraid because they said their $10 contributions would be met with retaliation against them by the Boss.

Talk about "eating their own".

BlueBergen, you are BUSTED.

---

by: TerryMalloy-OnTheWaterfront @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:23:36 AM UTC

Busted? I most certainly am not! (0.00 / 0)

All of what you have just written is laced with conjecture and propaganda.  No facts in your comment.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 14:16:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No "Facts"..... (0.00 / 0)

I count four fact based charges that Terry made.

In case you missed them, here they are again:

But what about when it was Weinberg v. Zisa and the Bergenfield forgeries were used to try to steal the election from Loretta? BCDO ate their own.

What about when it was Huttle v. Wildes and the BCDO tried to ban almost the entire Teaneck and Tenafly county committee members from voting? They made them stand up against a wall and told them they could not vote because of fallacious challenges. BCDO ate their own.

What about the press conference last spring that Boss Ferriero held inside BCDO where he endorsed Weinberg in the primary and simultaneously endorsed Zisa for Assembly? BCDO ate their own.

And I heard one of the biggest "eat your own" stories very recently in LD37. During the Clean Elections donation gathering process, our 3 Clean Democrats solicited $10 contributions from some friends who happen to be BCDO regulars. The response? "NO".

Now BB, I'm sure you have a world view in which the above charges are baseless and false.  Right?

Or do you agree with Terry?  No, that can't be true since you just said that there was nothing "factual" in his post.

OK, so if you believe the charges (charges are existential facts, I assure you) are false; then what is your defense/explanation.

You seem to be an intelligent woman/man (I can't say which since you're anonymous)...so here's your chance to actually defend the organization that you seem to be thinking is carying on the great work of Saul Alinsky.

Go for it!  :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 17:22:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

Conjecture?  Propaganda?  I was THERE.  I saw it with my OWN EYES. I LIVED it.

You are trying to rewrite history, Blue Bergen. 

Here are the FACTS:

Three of the "Tenafly 5" were SITTING DEMOCRATIC COUNCILMEN.  One was our very own TMDC TREASURER.  Tell me they were fly by night folks just off the street and NOT part of our Committee.  Please.  It took a whole month and lots of court time and several lawyers to get their BCDO votes counted.

AFTER the court upheld their ability to cast votes in a District 37 election, at the Huttle vs Wildes election, I was challenged and then watched every Teaneck, Tenafly and African American Committee Member get challenged while Rothman was tied up in the conference room.  (Because we were made to report by town at the front tables - they knew who was from Tenafly and who was from Teaneck.)  Are you telling me it was just a mass hallucination?  Because the Teaneck and Tenafly and Black Caucus Commitee members all had the same bad dream.

Tenafly Councilman - Pat Rouse - one of the Original Tenafly 5 - was challenged AGAIN to vote for Valerie Huttle. 

This isn't hearsay. This isn't gossip.  This happened.  To me and my committee members.  Stop the lying.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 18:35:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just an observation (4.00 / 2)

These Bergen threads are almost always the most interesting to read.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 01:08:02 AM UTC

Thanks, It's Good To Have Support From The.... (0.00 / 0)

......anti-Pay to Play community.

When the people of New Jersey really get together on this issue it will unite the whole state in a manner that's never been seen.

The "professionals" in the political-industrial complex would have us believe that campaign finance reform is a "boutique" issue.

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

If there's one issue that can unite rank and file Republicans AND Democrats alike it's the fact that every level of governance in New Jersey is corrupted by the repercussions of legalized bribery and self serving sweetheart deals that may be technically legal; but that are patently corrupt on their face. 

It's not just a "Bergen County" issue; this situation is systemic; the difference that makes Bergen so dramatic is that we actually have three members of the state legislature who are willing to buck a local machine which happens to be of the same party. 

I would love to see analagous situations arise in counties dominated by Republican machines!  I suspect that will be happening sooner than we might imagine.

Thanks again for the positive feedback!  Please feel free to chime in with more of your own views.

Politics is not a spectator sport.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 03:34:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Boutique issues"? (0.00 / 0)

Try bipartisan issues.  Money corrupts politicians.  Both parties.  That is why the LD37 team is working on ethics reform with their colleagues across the aisle. 
You think a $10 contribution or a $5,000 a year councilman position will corrupt Gordon Johnson to do special favors while you want us to believe $4.5 million in addition to a full time $53,000 a year with full benefits and access to borough professionals while acting as a land use attorney WON'T corrupt Joe Ferriero?  What do you take us for?  What about the definition of "double standard" escapes you?

While we are on the subject, why is it horrific for me to call Ariyan out in the 39th for being a Pay To Play guy while you attack Gordon Johnson for being a dual office holder?  Don't you WANT a Democrat to win the 37th Assembly seat, or do you WANT to lose it to a Republican?

BTW, it took you quite a few days to get those talking points from the BCDO boys, didn't it?  I'm disappointed, they're usually quicker on the uptake. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 18:16:39 PM UTC

Would you deny (0.00 / 0)

a retired Police officer his earned pension, then?  That is how Gordon Johnson earned it.

Try telling your corrupt keepers who let you out to blog now and again that if they would only loosen their talons around Englewood, then Gordon Johnson could easily step down from Englewood Council and would breathe a sigh of relief as he did so. 

The fact that he is there keeping an eye on your buddies is what makes you all go ballistic at the same time your friends hold more than 2 positions. 

Hypocrisy, indeed!

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Oct 21, 2007 at 20:02:09 PM UTC

spinmeister carol (0.00 / 0)

I think you might be the flack.  You are skilled at taking Johnson's misdeeds and defending them as the actions of a saint.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 16:39:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How DARE you speak of hypocrisy (0.00 / 0)

when not a peep will you make about your beloved BCDO Freeholders running for election in two weeks who also have TWO elected positions or the Legislative candidates also running who have as many as 5 or 6 positions.

Why the focus on Johnson and ONLY on Johnson?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 23:31:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

have they (0.00 / 0)

have they called for a ban?  How dare you, so there.  Be more cordial.  Just a suggestion.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 00:09:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Thread/Diary's Significance (0.00 / 0)

As of a few seconds ago this thread/diary is at the bottom of the front page's listing of what is "recent"...and so would normally fall off into a kind of cyber oblivion.

I was tempted to "recommend" it as a way to keep the discussion visible for a bit longer; but there's really no need to do so.

It's not especially daring to say that the thesis put forth by the anonymous author of this "diary" has been thoroughly discredited and fairly/deservingly "trashed" by the facts and arguments and testimonies of the various responders herein.

Please note that no one, not one, other poster enthusiastically came to the "defense" of this thesis.

Pretty cool ,eh?
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 16:27:48 PM UTC

not the point (0.00 / 0)

In fact look at Jay Lassiter's comment at the top.  Everyone thinks that Gordon Johnson is being hypocritical.  If the point is that he must retain his council seat to "protect" the people of englewood from the "big bad machine" then why can't he back a candidate to replace him?  Why stand up and call for a dual office holding ban while refusing to stop being a dual office holder?  Why call for a plan to "Clean up New Jersey" and then solicit campaign contributions in that manner?  You can defend Johnson all you like but it doesn't change the perception of hypocrisy.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 16:36:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is That The Best You Can Do? LOL (0.00 / 0)

Jay was talking about the possible appearance of impropriety and was not in any way shape or form calling Johnson a hypocrite as you clearly do. 

I understand the valid  point Jay was making; but Gordon resigning as Councilman ay Large would only feed the negative appearance not quash it.

Look, Blue (or whatever your real name is) every time you open your cybermouth here you dig yourself into a deeper hole.

No one has come forward on this thread in any strong way to support you.  There's a good reason for that.

Feel free to keep on squirming and scrounging for some flimsy thread of a rationale to defend your thesis; there is none.

Johnson has done nothing that isn't legal or that is unethical

Everytime you introduce ugly accusations you only "succeed" in casting more light onto the clearly corrupt organization that you so "ably" represent.  Thanks!

Please keep up the "good" work!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 20:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]