Lautenberg campaign: "This doesn't pass the smell test"

What about the 2002 Switcheroo? (0.00 / 0)

Um, there is a glass house analogy here isn't there?

Isn't this similar to the argument the Republicans made against switchin Lautenberg for Torricelli in 2002?

I don't get why the Lautenberg campaign is leading with their chin on this quote.  This campaing trust has been around the blog.  That's just a sloppy quote and doesnt pass my smell test

---

by: Fielding Mellish @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 21:38:41 PM UTC

Ummmm, no ... (0.00 / 0)

When Toricelli dropped out he was really dropping out.  When Lautenberg agreed to put his name on the ballot, he was really running for that seat.

But Camile Andrews admits that she is not committed to running through the general election.  She is no more than a placeholder, allowing her husband to run for another position and Norcross to hold the spot open until he finds someone better.

The two situations are really not similar at all, except that they both reek.

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 21:44:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The part I'm talking about is this: (0.00 / 0)

The part of the quote Im talking about is this:

"...this latest maneuver demonstrates the old school politics that the voters of New Jersey are sick and tired of."

That's the EXACT same point Doug Forrester and the Republicans were making after the switcheroo in 2002.

Its not the placeholder part I am quibbling with. I agree that doesnt sit well.  I'm making the point that the Lautenberg campaign shouldn't make that argument due to Lautenberg's 2002 switecheroo that was held up as a paradigm example of "unfairness" at the ballot with a backroom decision that didnt have the voters involved.

I hate statewide primaries.  

---

by: Fielding Mellish @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 22:06:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wasn't backroom, though (0.00 / 0)

The state supreme court blessed it, though I disagree with their decision and agree with you that it doesn't pass the smell test.

:-)  That's only a small quibble, and I take your point!

---

by: huntsu @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 22:08:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, the irony of it is... (4.00 / 1)

...no matter how many politicians try and make that point, it should be clear to them all by now that New Jersey voters apparently aren't actually sick of "old school politics," no matter how much they complain otherwise.

---

by: dennisl @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 22:15:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yippee. (4.00 / 3)

So... this going to be the kind of primary where the two sides alternate punching each other in the nose and asking voters, 'Who's uglier now?'

---

by: JRB @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 21:59:30 PM UTC

Pennachio, Goya and Sabrin (4.00 / 3)

To answer the question - I still think the Republicans are uglier.

---

by: Fielding Mellish @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 22:07:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Doesn't Have to Be That Way (0.00 / 0)

Lautenberg and Andrews do have some significant foreign and domestic policy disagreements.  

I would like to see at least one fairly structured/moderated debate..........though, with the polls being what they are, I can understand Lautenberg not wanting to give his relatively unknown opponent a platform.

I positively LOVE the fact that Brendan Gill is making public statements about how the actions of a "local political boss" namely, George Norcross, don't "..pass the smell test -- at all."  

The very existence of political bosses is a toxic noxious stench that needs to be extirpated from the lungs of our body politic.

Given a choice between voting for Frank Lautenberg or supporting local bosses most Democrats will gladly pull for Frank.

Ferriero's "support" for Frank, evidently, only came at the point of a political gun wielded by Steve Rothman...who's showing some spunk!   Bergen County Democratic voters would have gone 70% + for Lautenberg with or without the nod from Boss Joe.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 23:21:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Andrews Response (4.00 / 1)

is pathetic.

Rob couldn't have run for Senate had his wife not taken the line, because no one else -- apparently -- was willing to.

That makes Camille Andrews' position on the ballot part of the Senate race.  Any other reading or assertion is simply disingenuous.  

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 00:20:09 AM UTC

Umm.. (0.00 / 0)

Do you find it odd that Andrew's used his STAFF to make the point that Lautenberg was  attacking through his staff?

Weak.  

---

by: JerseyDem08 @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 00:51:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Lautenberg's staff (Mr. Gill) released a statement on the candidacies of Rob and Camille Andrews.

In response, Andrews' staff (Mr. Caruso) released a statement, too.

I do not find it odd that staff responded to staff in this debate. It would be odd for either candidate to respond directly to something like this and it would be inappropriate for a candidate to respond to a staff member.

Of all the crazy things going on in this development, Caruso responding to Gill is the only thing making sense.

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:02:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Unless Camille is planning to run a substantive, serious campaign, introducing herself to the District, and pledging to stay in through November, this is shady.

Hell, even if she does do all those things, something about this seems pretty shady.

I guess we'll all find out in the next few days what will happen. Given the rumors from PoliticsNJ ( http://politickernj.com/wallye... ), is it possible that yet another switch-a-roo could take place?

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:58:31 AM UTC

Also... (0.00 / 0)

I read in the Star Ledger's "Auditor" section this past Sunday that Torricelli was working hard behind the scenes to gather support for Andrews to run.  The article reminded us that Torricelli has been angry at (it said "hated) Lautenberg since he replaced him 6 years ago.  That's also not too great IMO.

---

by: tracey @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:29:37 AM UTC