Liar

Blunt (0.00 / 0)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

---

by: huntsu @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:36 AM UTC

IT TAKES A LIE TO CALL ABATE A LIAR (1.00 / 1)

It is certainly a lie to claim that Camille Abate had any idea that "Dennis Shulman was also against the war".  If Shulman wanted anyone to know his position on Iraq all he would have had to do was post it on the issues page of his website.  Far from revealing early opposition to the Iraq war, Dennis Shulman's issues page actually doesn't even call for immediate withdrawal of troops.  Instead Shulman calls for "phased redeployment of our armed forces".  This language sets no timeline and fails to specify where troops will be redeployed.

Dennis Shulman's support of "A Responsible Plan to End the War" further reveals his refusal to specify a timeline.  The Washington Post points out that this plan "Does not set a specific deadline for when all combat troops must be out of Iraq".  Running away from immediate withdrawal is actually a consistent theme from the Shulman campaign.  Only two days ago the New Jersey Herald, covering the recent debate between Abate and Shulman, commented that "one of the most significant disagreements of the evening was the war in Iraq".  Camille Abate is quoted "End it now.  Bring the troops home now".  However, Dennis Shulman is quoted saying "I want there to be time to repair as much damage as we can".  For proof of this comment just watch the following clip:

I believe our troops have endured far too much bloodshed in the name of a war that never should have been started and will fail no matter how long George Bush, John McCain, Scott Garrett and Dennis Shulman try to keep them there.  I agree with Camille Abate...END IT NOW!

---

by: jonas @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:35:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

when you get in a hole... (0.00 / 0)

Stop digging. You made some points in your mailer that you can't substantiate. If it's not a deliberate lie, it's ignorance. Either way the voters deserve better.

You didn't know that Shulman opposed the war from the start? Don't make stuff up and send out a mailer claiming something you know nothing about.

You disagree about how to get out of Iraq? Say so. Don't lie about the differences.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:35:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

All Abate had to do was ASK Shulman his position.  Instead she ASSIGNED him one that she doesn't like.

Regardless of whether she knew the position, simply giving Shulman a position she didn't know he held is intentionally spreading false information.

That is lying.  

---

by: huntsu @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That can only mean one thing (4.00 / 1)

If Abate doesn't even have the resources to be able to do some basic research on her opponent's positions, how could anyone ever expect her to have the resources to take on a three-term incumbent in November?

---

by: MReilly @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 16:20:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

how ignorant are u ppl? (4.00 / 1)

in case u didn't READ a responsible plan it does not give any timetable for an exit out of IRAQ...nothing shocking for a website that has openly endorsed shulman tho....the washington post posted an article talking about these very facts

in addition to that the DCCC told their members to stay away from a responsible plan for that exact reason....u ppl honestly make me laugh u call this fair politics its ridiculous, every single post that has been up here about abate all year has gotten a negative response from you, its honestly comic

ALL dennis shulman does is attack scott garret including at the sussex debate which i can provide the tape to if noone believes me(and i mean THE ENTIRE DEBATE) in fact i didn't see anyone on here other then jeff gardner(who is one of the few non biased ppl on this site) call shulman a liar when he announced the endorsement of the passaic county committee despite the fact that there was never any vote and Jon Curry is to afraid of Joe Ferriero to do nething else other then endorse shulman...u guys r a joke and btw could you do me an HONEST favor Juan and show me something that proves that Shulman has been against  the war since 2002...because camille abate has an op ed piece from then proving she is...it figures you wud say that though you would probably wouldve been one of those ppl in congress who signed on to the patriot act just based on its title without never really reading it....so i SUGGEST(not like thats ever had an impact before) you read "A Responsible Plan" START TO FINISH before you go off an to quote your own words against me several months ago "demonizing good ppl"

---

by: Lincoln7 @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:07:16 AM UTC

Throw it up on Youtube (0.00 / 0)

I'd love to see the debate.  So if that's not an option, make a copy and get in touch with me.

---

by: rmfretz @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:37:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: how ignorant are u ppl? (0.00 / 0)

Dennis Shulman spoke against the war at the Brandeis Alumni House in New York City on March 12, 2003. The event was a roundtable on Iraq led by Reuben Kimmelman. Shulman was the only one to speak out against it saying the war was optional, not necessary, and therefore against the Talmud. He also argued that it would strengthen Iran and hurt America and Israel. The invasion began March 19, 2003 -- a week later.

I've read the entire Responsible Plan. I'm aware that it doesn't specify every detail of how the troops are to get out. I'm fine with our civilian leaders setting a policy of withdrawal and letting the military leaders decide the safest way to achieve that goal.

This website hasn't endorsed Dennis Shulman. I'm pretty sure we haven't endorsed anyone, for any race...ever.

I'm going to ignore everything else you said.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:51:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's spelled "people" (2.00 / 1)

If you're going to throw out baseless accusations and ridiculous lies, at least use somewhat proper English to do it.  Otherwise you are just reinforcing the stereotype of Abate supporters as shrill, self-important middle schoolers.

It's time for you to all just go away and stop wasting our time.

---

by: PocketAces @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:15:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

interesting... (0.00 / 0)

this is an interesting argument taking place but it seems like its over nothing on both sides...so what we know is that Abate wants the troops out of iraq now and that shulman wanted the same since 2003..."Liar" seems like a very aggressive title to the article tho, how do u know the abate campaign knew about this speech in 2003...the fact that Abate is attacked in another article postedafter this seems a little ridiculous i think you made enough of your case in this one, but either way noone should be pointing any fingers from either side it doesn't make any sense that the Abate campaign and Blue Jersey r in a rivalry with each other....I don't think that the opinion of Blue jersey really means that much in the long and short of the campaign its a website with under 2500 members most of whom don't even live in the fifth, and the Abate campaign need not post a response because it obviously isn't going to have an impact on BJ regardless of how logical or illogical it is they should stick to worrying about the shulman campaign and the june 3rd primary

---

by: MikeGordon @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:06:14 AM UTC

You know, I like green beans (0.00 / 0)

but I don't go out to the green bean farmer and talk to him about them.  You know why?  Because I don't care about his opinion.  

The point is, if Blue Jersey is so far beneath your notice, why are you here commenting?  Oh yeah, you don't care.  

As far as posting two things on the Abate campaign - this one is on a mailer and the other one is on a statement made by the campaign.  See - you do two things, you get mentioned twice.

This isn't rocket science.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:25:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rivalry? (4.00 / 1)

Hilarious.

---

by: huntsu @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another post ... (4.00 / 1)

I'm thinking you are not a regular Blue Jersey reader, but having two posts about something that interests a writer is not that unusual.

For instance, on the front page right now are two diaries about the Berger corruption scandal.  

It's just not that unusual, but if it fits into the Abate "CAMILE AGAINST THE WORLD" oeurve you'll use it.

---

by: huntsu @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:06:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tempest in a Teapot (0.00 / 0)

This all centers around how you define the word, "start".
If you think the war "started" on March 19th, then let's give Shulman credit for speaking out against it one week before it "started".

If you think that it was possible to interpret "speaking out against the war from the start" as meaning that one had the foresight and wisdom to speak out in 2002; then Abate's statement is 100% true.

Now, to hang to politically radioactive term "LIAR" out there as the headline on NJ's premier progressive blog in the last days of a Democratic congressional primary is a big deal.

To lie is to knowingly and intentionally deceive.  I see zero evidence of that, from either candidate, at this point.

What I do see is an eagerness (from some) bordering on absurdity to find fault with this good woman.

As for the other "lie".   The question of whether or not Shulman's way of "ending the war" would in fact end the war is one that is clearly and obviously and profoundly open to debate.

From my perspective, there is NO way that staying in Iraq as a military occupying force is consistent with "repairing the damage".

We need to get the hell out of there as quickly as is compatible with maintaining the safety of our troops.  PERIOD!!!  

I don't hear Shulman saying that.   I hear weasel words that could keep us there for a generation or three under the guise of "repairing the damage".    What, precisely, does Shulman mean by that phraseology?

Every day we are there as a military occupying force results in more damage.

So, the two points of contention here that seem to be the basis of the abuse of the term "LIAR" have no basis in reason or fact.

I would, however, love to see/hear a debate between these two fine admirable people, for whom I have the greatest respect, engage in a debate on the single topic of Iraq.   (Neither of whom, by the way, have called each other a "liar".)

Let them talk about when and how and why they first spoke out against it, what they said...and how their views may have evolved since then.   And let them talk about, in some detail, how and why and when they would each have us put an end to this failed enterprise that Scott Garrett and George Bush so unconditionally approved/approve of.

Meanwhile, let's dispense with the histrionics.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 14:55:15 PM UTC

"liar" (4.00 / 2)

I'm waiting for the Abate campaign to offer up evidence to substantiate what is said in the mailer.

They need to provide evidence that Shulman did not oppose the war from the start. They also need to provide evidence that Shulman doesn't "have the courage to end the war".

And note: the mailer didn't say that they disagree on policy specifics, so don't try to change the topic. The mailer made some very specific claims that I don't think they can substantiate.

If they can do that, I will retract what I said. Otherwise I stand by it.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 17:42:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually The "Evidence" Is Already At Hand (0.00 / 0)

Unless there's some other documentation, Shulman first publicly came out against war in March of 2003 (to his credit, just a week before the invasion)

Abate came out against the war in 2002.  

The "start" of the war was not simply the actual invasion; but the build up and the lies that were told in the process of that build up to war.    Camille Abate had the foresight to see that it was wrong and to take a public stance before Shulman.

So to say that she was the "only" candidate to have the courage to oppose the war from the "start" is, arguably, quite true.  

Why not let the candidates themselves have that argument in a public debate?

Now if you can come up with any public, on the record, documented  statements from Shulman that predate Abate's; then you would be right and Abate's mailer would be mistaken/false....and she should then retract it and apologize; but until/unless you (who are the one calling Camille Abate an outright "liar") can prove your claim...then it is you who should retract and apologize.

If that's the only basis you have to hang your accusation of "lying" on; I'd say it's thin.

By the way, did you contact the Abate campaign and ask them what the basis was for the verbiage on the mailer?

If yes, what did they have to say?  If not; why not?

In any event, you are just giving us your opinion, and you are entitled to believe as you wish.    

I wonder if the Dennis Shulman himself would agree with your use of the term "liar"?

If yes; then he should show some courage and debate/confront Abate on all these questions.    

If no, he should have the courage to disagree with you in public....and not to stand back passively profiting from the false accusations of others.

Frankly, I'd love to see/hear Camille Abate and Dennis Shulman having all this out amongst themselves, one on one, in a public debate.  

Wouldn't you agree?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:51:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shulman has more important things on his mind (0.00 / 0)

I imagine that right now, Dennis Shulman is more concerned with steamrolling through the primary and setting his sights on Garrett, than with getting involved with our debates.

I dunno, maybe it's just me.

---

by: MReilly @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:09:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds To Me Like Maybe You're a Little... (0.00 / 0)

...afraid to allow Dennis Shulman to speak for himself.

That doesn't say much about your confidence in your candidate.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:27:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

predictable (4.00 / 1)

Abate's mailer is false. Nobody has been able to back it up yet. All I keep seeing is obfuscation.

Yes, I asked the Abate campaign for an explanation. Still waiting to hear back.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:30:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're The One Calling He A Liar.... (0.00 / 0)

.....if you think my defense of the verbiage is "obfuscation" feel free to try to tear it apart.

Be my guest.   If you're logic is better than mine; I'll humbly acknowledge that fact....as it would be obvious.

As you know, I'm not making the case that Camille is perfect; just that she's not lying.

If you check back, you'll see that my preferred strategy for BOTH of these candidates was that they BOTH spend all their "firepower" attacking and exposing Scott Garrett...and then the voters could pick between them on the sole basis of who did the better job of politically eviscerating Garrett.

This seems to be playing out as a repeat of 06.  And that's a shame.

If Dennis Shulman really believes your accusation; i.e. that Camille Abate has lied about him in this mailer; then he needs to confront her directly and to be willing to debate her on all these questions in re their differences on specifically when and how they opposed the war....and how and when they would get us out of Iraq moving forward.

What does it tell you when Shulman backs out of three debates?

Maybe he really doesn't have much courage?

If he "wins" the primary; why should Garrett give him any debates?  After all, he's ducking Camille Abate?  What moral standing would he have to demand that Garrett "come out of hiding"?  

I was really looking forward to an honest contest between these two candidates......it seems that's not going to happen unless Dennis Shulman stops listening to the professional "consultants" and starts following his gut instincts to do what is right!

I am FAR MORE concerned with discerning the strongest candidate, and having that person get out and kick Garrett's ass in November; than I am with who wins.

I know and respect Camille; but if I saw that Shulman was a tough smart aggressive candidate who could do a better job of fighting Garrett; I would back him in a heart beat.

If Shulman "wins" this primary by just sitting tight and running scared; on the assumption that the "party line" and the establishment's support will get him through to the finish line....I would call that a hollow and cowardly victory.

If Shulman wants my respect, he'll have to earn it by actually showing that he's a stronger/smarter/more knowledgeable/more aggressive candidate than is Camille Abate.

He does that by having the ethical and moral courage to come out of hiding and to follow through with the debates that have already been planned/scheduled (one of which was to be on TV).

All this nonsense about Camille being a "liar"
is a silly distraction from what's really going on in this race.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't Shulman and Abate debate a week or two ago? (0.00 / 0)

You keep saying that Shulman has refused to debate Abate. Didn't they debate in Sussex last week?

Now, not only is Abate a liar, but at least one of her supporters is too.

---

by: MReilly @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now You're Calling Me A Liar.... (0.00 / 0)

.....LOL

It seems that whenever you disagree with someone they must be lying.

How sad for you.  When you throw that term around so loosely it tells us something about you.

I never said that there wasn't a debate. Don't use that absurdity as a straw man; it only makes you look less than intelligent.

I said that Shulman is refusing debates that were already scheduled and arranged.

Do you deny that Shulman is backing off from scheduled debates?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 15:18:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes I do (0.00 / 0)

It is a waste of time for a candidate who has gotten attention from the national Democratic Party leadership to waste his time with Camille Abate.

---

by: MReilly @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 15:21:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes You Do What? (0.00 / 0)

On the one hand you seem to be trying to deny that there were scheduled debates (and debate invitations) that Shulman is refusing to honor with his participation.   (Which, of course he has a perfect right to do).

Then in the next breath you say that it's a "waste of time" for Shulman to debate his opponent.

Be careful what you say here; people actually read this stuff.

When you say point blank that Shulman is NOT backing off from debates, are you giving us your own subjective opinion as an individual kibbitzer, or are you speaking on some authority from Shulman himself?

If it's the latter, please confirm your source, so that they may be held accountable to open questioning by the press and the public.  Sunshine is a good thing.

It's not a good thing for democracy when campaigns present us with anonymous "sock puppets".

If it's the former, then you're just rendering an opinion based on your own supposition.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 15:42:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One other thing (4.00 / 1)

You keep saying that "We call Abate a liar, we need to prove it," and you're wrong.

Abate made the original claim that she was the only one to oppose the war from the beginning. The onus of proof is on her to prove her claim.

---

by: MReilly @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:53:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Total BS On It's Face... (0.00 / 0)

...and here's why.

When someone makes a claim that you question or doubt; the decent thing to do is to politely request that they back up that claim with facts, arguments and reasons for it's veracity.

If you want the request to be forceful and pressing; you can even make that a PUBLIC request.   Then if the request is ignored you can call into question the veracity of the claim.....and take it from there.

You are saying, point blank, that Camille Abate is a liar.

Yet you are not being specific, really specific, about precisely what the alleged lie is...and you are refusing to offer any supporting proof/arguments/rationales for drawing that hard conclusion.

It's one thing to raise questions, even questions about credibility and competence....this is politics after all.

But, if you're going to go around calling people outright liars you had better be able to prove it.  

This is still America.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 15:28:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honestly (4.00 / 1)

your about the last person to talk about histrionics.  In the last month you've done more to further THAT cause than anyone I've met in a long time.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 22:13:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're Free To Call Me... (0.00 / 0)

.....on any "histrionics".   Just give us quotes in context and I'll be happy to defend my words.....or to acknowledge whatever may be "over the top".   I make no pretense to perfection.

I don't know how you define "lying"; but to me it means to intentionally/consciously deceive.

So far, I see no evidence that the assertion that Abate was the only candidate in this race with the "courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start" isn't true.

Now you can quibble with how one defines the "start" of the war; but that quibble is not a basis upon which to call a serious candidate for US Congress a liar.

I find it interesting that no one from Shulman's campaign has chimed in to repeat or to confirm/reinforce this accusation of "lying".    Don't you think they would have responded themselves by now if they thought it was valid?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:07:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]