"The commercial everyone will be talking about"

Amazing (4.00 / 1)

The ad criticizes Lautenberg for using coded language back in 1992, calling it a low point in NJ history, but the Andrews campaign has been doing exactly that in 2008.  Heck, saying it's an "age-old question" is doing it in code.  It's dog whistle time, I guess.

At least they're willing to talk about one of the issues that made Andrews run.  

The next ad should be about how South Jersey needs a Senator of its own.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 14:37:33 PM UTC

More hidden messages (4.00 / 4)

If you take the "91" towards the end of the commercial and reverse the numbers, you get "19" - which is Andrews' level of support.  Andrews is so committed to his not-so-stealth campaign attacking Frank's age that he's manipulating his poll numbers to get that message into people's minds.

---

by: PocketAces @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 14:45:00 PM UTC

What Goes Around Comes Around (0.00 / 0)

Fair is fair.

---

by: DSWright @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 14:51:46 PM UTC

Pot Calling Kettle Black (4.00 / 3)

With this ad Andrews is definitely calling Lautenberg too old to be Senator.  The ad pretends that this is about attacking women and hypocrisy, but the 91 and age-old question stuff is dog whistle for "LAUTENBERG IS OLD, OLD, OLD!"

Well, I Googled the column that Andrews says calls for a change (BTW, it is an opinion piece that did not speak for the paper, no matter what the ad says in the voice over) and it quotes Andrews saying he won't run ads like this:

"When Senator Lautenberg first ran for office in 1982, he based his whole campaign on age. He ran against then-Congresswoman [Millicent] Fenwick, who was 72, and the argument was that she was too old to serve. I won't do that to him," said Andrews.

That was published on April 24th.  On  May 21st Andrews went back on that commitment.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:03:36 PM UTC

And if only the ad were accurate. (4.00 / 1)

He'll actually only be 90. That's a big boo-boo.

---

by: JRB @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:12:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hee hee (0.00 / 0)

---

by: huntsu @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:30:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BS (4.00 / 2)

It's one thing to attack Lautenberg for hypocrisy.  That's fair game.  It's another thing to imply that he's sexist.  That's just a bunch of crap.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:09:01 PM UTC

Pathetic Desperation Loser Tactic.... (0.00 / 0)

Andrews is being less than gracious.

In Chess, there's a point at which one can't "mathematically" win, and amongst the better players, the one with the losing position resigns.   Some players who can't handle losing engage in what are called "spite checks"; this is what Andrews is doing now.   And it's truly p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.

He messed up and is going to be the recipient of a political ass whuppin.   These kinds of blatantly negative ads only compound his erroneous foolishness.  

With a proper response.  This will back fire and increase Lautenbergs lead.

If I were Lautenberg I would come back with something truthful like, "Yes, I was indeed wrong to imply that Femwick was too old to serve.  That was a mistake, and I'm sorry my campaign indulged in such a tactic back then.  I was young and foolish at the time.

However for another young and foolish man, Rob Andrews to employ the same tactic against me; doesn't make it any more acceptible now than it was then.  Two wrongs do not make a right"

Rob Andrews has denied all along that his campaign was based on ageism; now that the polls show he has no chance in hell of winning, he gets childishly desperate and goes low....what does that tell you about his character and credibility?

Sheesh, I wish Farnk would go nuclear; but then again that would shed too much light on the inner "workings" of certain machines, eh?

Who knows?  Maybe these ads will get traction and people are more gullible than I give them credit for.    Then Andrews will close the gap and political Armageddon breaks loose as Lautenberg is forced to pull the thermonuclear trigger!

Nahhhhhh, not too likely.  ;-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:13:08 PM UTC

Eight comments in under an hour (4.00 / 3)

I guess Andrews' ad people were right about the 'everyone will be talking' aspect.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:21:19 PM UTC

But not why (0.00 / 0)

Though at this point Andrews is just desperate for any face time he can get.  The "all publicity is good publicity" is more true than ever when it comes to this quixotic campaign.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:31:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This One's For Rob Andrews.... (4.00 / 1)

......enjoy!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:51:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"One of the low points in NJ political history." (4.00 / 1)

Haha.

It might be a "low point," but it's nowhere near the bottom. You might as well say, "Typical New Jersey politics for Wednesday."

I am rather entertained by this, actually, because there's nothing subtle, subliminal or semi-ironic here. This is basically an admission than Andrews will go as low as humanly possible. You know this primary can only get worse from here.

---

by: dennisl @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:39:08 PM UTC

Less than two weeks (4.00 / 1)

it'll all be over soon

---

by: huntsu @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:48:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ya Gotta Laugh.... (4.00 / 1)

Need I say more?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:55:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the kind of crap (4.00 / 1)

that a campaign comes out with when they have nothing else.

Actually the Andrew campaign is claiming a victory because Lautenberg is 'only' leading by 30%, 49 - 19.

This 'change for the sake of change' idea seems to be unfortunate fallout from the Obama campaign. Why in the world would we want to change away from Lautenberg? Because he's old?

Heck - I'm 54 and I don't think I have half the energy of the 84 year old Lautenberg.

---

by: NJ Liberal @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 16:37:06 PM UTC

leave Obama out of it (0.00 / 0)

Virtually the identical campaign was run in 2006 when Case challenged Akaka in Hawaii.


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 18:16:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well there is this... (0.00 / 0)

Not telling the truth about your record...

---

by: DSWright @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 18:59:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh (4.00 / 2)

I saw this ad on cable last night.  They're right that it's very memorable, but I think most people will have a "two wrongs don't make a right" reaction.

I'm a newcomer to NJ, so maybe I shouldn't talk, but I admit that I chuckled when this was characterized as one of the lowest points in NJ political history.  I was like, "Wow, I guess NJ politics isn't nearly as dirty as I thought."

---

by: Steve M @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 21:00:45 PM UTC

Welcome to NJ Steve!!! (4.00 / 1)

And please, don't hesitate to "tawk" (that's talk in NJ vernacular).

This forum needs to hear from many many new voices.  (Come out you lurkers, get yer feet wet and follow Steve's example!  :-)

btw You're right, NJ politics gets a lot lower than this. I think someone was being snarky and your chuckle was the appropriate response.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 23:15:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Attacks (4.00 / 1)

If anyone should be complaining about attack ads it should be Rob Andrews.  Lautenberg, who himself supported the war in 2003 (and there is a video to prove it) is basically trying to hold Andrews responsible for the war.  It is easy for Frank to say he didn't support the war when he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote.  Frank is just better at attack ads than Rob.  There are worse things to be said about a candidate.

---

by: Joy @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 23:00:07 PM UTC

You Mean Andrews is Not "Responsible for the war"? (4.00 / 1)

Didn't he help to write and co-sponsor the Bush resolution to authorize the invasion/occupation/war?

Didn't Andrews do all he could to "sell" the war to his colleagues and to the American people?

Is Rob Andrews soley responsible?  No way; but he (and we) must accept the fact that, among the Democrats, he was one of the most ardent pushers of this insane and stupid and destructive/costly blunder.

Yes, Lautenberg (like Hillary Clinton and many other decent Democrats) was, early on, a victim of the con job that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their surrogates (like Rob Andrews) laid on all of us.  

I, and millions of other Americans, didn't buy it.  We were protesting the "run up to war" way back in 2002....it was that obvious.

We still can't measure how much damage this disaster in Iraq will cost us because it's still ongoing.

Joy, I realize you like Andrews, but I have to tell ya; I can't forgive him his strong active full throated official political support of Bush's war in Iraq.

Andrews still doesn't admit to having made a serious mistake by taking on the cause to actively promoting Bush's war and of helping to author the authorizing resolution/legislation.

Aside from some kind of regional boosterism or personal attraction to Andrews as a personality; I see absolutely no reason to support this man......especially now that he's come out with this over the top/silly ad.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 23:33:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lautenberg Warmonger (0.00 / 0)

Has Lautenberg said it was a mistake? No. He just attacks others for a war he was cheerleader for as well. This whole thing is a distinction without a difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The proof is there my friend.

---

by: DSWright @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 23:37:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I mean Andrews is not responsible for the war (0.00 / 0)

I didn't support the war either, but most of America did. To say that Andrews "sold" the war to the American people is an outright lie. A lot of very respectable democrats voted for authorization.  Those who didn't lost their seats in Congress.  Remember Max Cleland?  Frank Lautenberg was among those who supported the war.  Frank just wasn't in the Senate in 2002 to vote for authorization. He had already retired at that point.

---

by: Joy @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 00:22:55 AM UTC

You would think he'd have learned (4.00 / 2)

that he cannot win a statewide election.  How many times has he failed before? He could have kept his seat but he has too much ambition.  This challenge of Lautenberg, who has been nothing but good for NJ was a stupid move and should finally finish Andrews off.

---

by: lhg39 @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:15:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Find It Sad That Someone Who Had The.... (4.00 / 1)

insight and the moral conscience to be against this war from the start, like you, could so easily let Amdrews off the hook for being an avid, enthusiastic cheerleader for the Bush administration's war "authorization".

Surely you don't deny that andrews cosponsored the war resolution?

Surely you don't deny that Andrews was at the White House Signing Ceremony within a few feet of Bush celebrating their "success" in passing the war authorizing legislation.

Surely you don't deny that Andrews only came around to opposing the war when it became clear that Corzine was leaving the Senate and he wanted a shot at the appointment that Menendez got.

http://politickernj.com/paganm...

Here's some more data:

http://www.northjersey.com/new...

Oct. 10, 2002

Andrews is the only New Jersey Democrat among 136 co-sponsors of Iraq war resolution, which is approved 296-133. In his floor speech two days before the vote

Let's fast forward to just last month...

May 24, 2007  

Andrews is the only New Jersey Democrat to vote for $70 million in Iraq funding, declaring:

* "I know that many people object to this legislation because they believe it will prolong our involvement in Iraq. I have reached a different conclusion."

Note that, once again, Andrews is the ONLY NJ congressperson voting for this war; and that's just last month.

What ended up happening is that this legislation was then mixed in with all manner
of other critical funding, like the minimum wage increase and health care....so then Lautenberg also went along.

So, is Frank Lautenberg a Dennis Kucinich?  No way.  :-)   But neither is he a Rob Andrews; neither of these two is perfect on the Iraq war; but they are certainly not the same/equal....and to imply that is intellectually dishonest, at best.

Here's a vote by Lautenberg that I would think you should be proud of...

June 22, 2006

Lautenberg is one of only 13 senators to support an amendment to an Iraq funding bill requiring redeployment of troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The amendment fails, and the final bill is approved unanimously.

So yes, Joy, it's not absolutely black and white; but between the two of these candidates,  if the war is an issue for you, Lautenberg is far more of a progressive.

Now if you still wish to support Andrews, that's fine, but don't kid yourself that he's somehow "just like Lautenberg" on the issue of Iraq.    

I'd bet that, if George Bush could vote in our primary, he would vote for Andrews as (from his perspective) the lessor of the two evils.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:33:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]