A childish start to a campaign

A Faux Pas Indeed (0.00 / 0)

The clip makes Lautenberg look scared and petulent.

Clearly FL knows he has a big lead and lot's more credibility/gravitas so he wants to avoid giving Andrews any opportunity to "share the stage" as if they were equal.   Also, he doesn't want to give Andrews a chance to make so challenging wisecrack that forces an exchange in an uncontrolled/undefined venue.

I don't think the "sitting on your lead til June" strategy will work in this case as it just looks bad.

I think one or two structured debates would be in order and FL has to be prepared to demonstrate that he's not senile.  It's a shame; but that's the way it is.....that's really all that Andrews is running on; that poll that says folks are concerned about FL's age.   That poll is the ONLY political "rationale" for his campaign.    Lautenberg has to confront it head on.

Andrews has a right to run.   He has a right to be an ambitious aggressive opportunist.      

I sense that Lautenberg is quite angry, upset and disgusted that Andrews (and the people behind him) are trying to pull off this coup.

Lautenberg needs to recover his balance, regroup, chill out and kick some "whippersnapper" ass.

There are some serious differences between them.  On balance Lautenberg should win on the merits of the issues alone.   When you add to that the clumsy/unseemly way the Andrews candidacy was "launched", he's quite likely to take a drubbing.

On the other hand, if Lautenberg is perceived as running scared, or as a cranky old fart; he's history.

So, Frank, again....chill out and kick ass!!!

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 16:24:30 PM UTC

not the best start (4.00 / 3)

And Chris Christie appearing as the adult in the middle just made it really special.


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 16:43:29 PM UTC

OMG (4.00 / 1)

worth a cringe or two:
http://www.njn.net/television/...

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:12:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Relationships (0.00 / 0)

I heard that FL and Torricelli had one of the most spiteful relationships for a delegation in many, many years.... So is this just par for the course with him?

What about Andrews? How do colleagues like him? I'm sure he's not popular with the Menendez crowd, with the so-called overheard cell phone conversation (on a train platform?) saying he was being tapped to take his place in '06.... But other than that, what's his relationship?

---

by: JRB @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 19:55:40 PM UTC

Relationship (0.00 / 0)

None of his colleagues in the New Jersey delegation have supported him.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 22:40:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lautenberg & Torch (0.00 / 0)

Torricelli to Lautenberg back in 2001:

You're a fucking piece of shit, and I'm going to cut your balls off

So I wouldn't pin that one entirely on Lautenberg.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 23:10:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds familiar (0.00 / 0)

George Norcross to Herb Conaway:

Norcross said he kept Conaway on a tight leash. He said that one day he "sat him down" to warn him he'd better not "make nice" with then-Assembly Minority Leader Joseph Doria, who led an opposing Democratic faction.

"I'll tell you, if you ever do that and I catch you one more time doing it, you're gonna get your (expletive) cut off," Norcross said he told Conaway. "He got the message."

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 00:09:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

too funny (1.00 / 1)

I loved Andrews' McGreeveyesque pandering about how he would "NEVER let the work of good law enforcement people interfere with his politics."  yeah right.  and just before he sashayed down the hall to the reporters.  worth watching again.  

---

by: FlamingModerate @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 22:13:33 PM UTC

Babyish (0.00 / 0)

The only thing babyish is making a big deal out of this,

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 22:41:07 PM UTC

Childish question (4.00 / 1)

Designed to be provocative--and Lautenberg didn't bite.  I thought his dismissal of the question (and the reporter) was appropriate.  Just listen to his tone of voice--that says it all.

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

---

by: DottieG @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:25:56 AM UTC

Lautenberg wouldn't let Andrews be in the same room (0.00 / 0)

That is completely childish and petty and the press was right to ask him about it.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:33:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Andrews Childish after McGreevey Victory (0.00 / 0)

This may not have come off pretty, but it's an example of Senator Lautenberg flexing his considerable muscles and playing hardball. Rob Andrews better get used to it. I am sure there's plenty more where that came from.

You may recall, as I do, when Congressman Andrews behaved like a spoiled child after the 1997 Gubernatorial primary, when he lost to candidate Jim McGreevey.

When McGreevey wrapped up that nomination, Andrews disappeared in a huff and went into hiding for the rest of that campaign. He did not campaign for McGreevey and was largely absent during the fall contest against Whitman. This was noted by many political observers at the time.

Andrews found himself in the political doghouse because of that behavior.

---

by: TerryMalloy-OnTheWaterfront @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:03:08 AM UTC

I remember that too (0.00 / 0)

Andrews was sullen and sulky throughout--after he lost the primary he did NOTHING during the fall campaign.  I guess he thought he was safe forever in his congressional seat.  Talk about childish!!  

It's telling that none of his colleagues in the House are supporting him--and that the powers-that-be in South Jersey are already filling his Congressional seat.  Maybe they see this as an opportunity to get rid of him?  He may plan to run for Governor again...after he loses this primary and isn't in the House any more.

Politics ain't beanbag.  

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

---

by: DottieG @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 14:31:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Take a step back (4.00 / 2)

I don't remember enough of the '97 race to recall Andrews' behavior after his loss. But, frankly, he probably was safe forever in his Congressional district. The fact that he's making a primary challenge and giving up that otherwise-safe seat is a point in his favor, I think.

As I've said before, it's not telling - at least in my mind - that his colleagues in the House are not supporting Andrews. Pallone and Rothman also want a Senate seat -- with Andrews there, it will be tougher for them to get it in 2012 than with Lautenberg. His House colleagues have considerable bias against his run -- they have much to gain if Lautenberg can hold on. Why does that bias not get mentioned or considered?

"It's telling...the powers-that-be in South Jersey are already filling his Congressional seat."
Um...well...what would you have them do? Leave it to Dr. Mahdi Ibn-Ziyad??? Frankly, if South Jersey Dem leaders wouldn't be filling that seat...they'd be derelict in their duty to the state Party. Like it or not, there's going to be an election for an open seat in NJ-1 in June, and we need a legitimate candidate. How on Earth you read the fact that Dem leaders are trying to find someone to run for an open Congressional seat as "telling" is beyond me.

Maybe Andrews is doing this all as a run for Governor. Maybe not. But, the fact remains: he's giving up a safe House seat and no longer "waiting his turn" to challenge an incumbent senator; Democrats in NJ will decide the rest.

Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open.

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 15:37:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Entirely the Case in Recent Years (4.00 / 1)

For the past few years, Rob Andrews has been a real team player.  Playing important roles in the 2005 Governor's Race and 2006 U.S. Senate Race.

Regardless of what happened following the 1997 race - a campaign that was well over a decade ago - Rob Andrews really has stepped up and I've always been impressed by him personally.

---

by: Joshua Henne @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 14:59:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Twice now for Lautenberg (0.00 / 0)

Yesterday, at a senior citizen's forum in BurlCo, Lautenberg also refused to share the floor with Andrews -- much less fulfill his commitment even to show up.

Politickernj.com is reporting that

the 84-year old incumbent passed on an old commitment to campaign at a retired persons' complex with state Sen. John Adler, who's running for U.S. Congress in the 3rd Congressional District.
That's because Andrews was in attendance, and he was campaigning too.

Andrews faces the crowd and presents his platform, while Lautenberg runs and hides. Will this be indicative of Lautenberg and his probable refusal to engage in any televised debates?

---

by: Martin @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 13:22:29 PM UTC

What do you expect? (0.00 / 0)

John Adler is supporting Rob Andrews -  So, why should Frank Lautenberg campaign with him in the 3rd District right now?

---

by: Joshua Henne @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 15:01:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A to Z Stupidity (1.00 / 1)

Also in the childish department, didn't RA threaten to switch parties after he couldn't beat McGreevey?  But more outrageous was he 1994 "Repubocrat sponsorship of the "A to Z Spending Plan," which the New York Times described as "Foolishness, From A to Z."  In a follow up article the NYTs noted, "The A to Z sponsors did not propose a single amendment [on their own] to reduce the amount of money for spending" in the budget (the very aim of his bill). (NYT 7/19/94).  Not to mention, RA also voted against Bill Clinton's Deficit Reduction plan (which actually set us on the road to recovery).  Bottom Line:  NJ should not vote for any DINOs (Democrats in Name Only), that's what the South is for.

---

by: FlamingModerate @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 15:23:41 PM UTC

Source (0.00 / 0)

Where did Andrews threaten to switch parties after his 97 loss to McGreevey? As I said, I wasn't paying too much attention then...is there an article about this somewhere that I could read?

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 15:41:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As someone who was paying attention in '97 (0.00 / 0)

Andrews did act in a self-interested way after losing the primary.  Granted, McGreevey was horrible, but Whitman was even worse.  I can't believe any Democrat can be supporting someone like Andrews who only seems interested in himself and not the larger Democratic pary.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 17:43:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (4.00 / 1)

Rob Andrews gave $100,000 to NJDSC in 2006.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 17:52:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Donations are good, but ... (0.00 / 0)

For the record, I supported Andrews in the primary in '97, but was taken aback by his behavior after he lost.

If Andrews had been an active campaigner for McGreevey, we probably had a chance to take Trenton in 97.   I remember Democratic friends who weren't going to vote for McGreevey because Andrews seemed to be not supporting the ticket after his primary loss.  

Cynically, one has to wonder if the '96 donation was in order to win the primary in '97.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 23:34:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]