Did you know? George Bush = Dennis Shulman & Rob Andrews = Republican

Abate can't say she isn't used to it (4.00 / 1)

She campaigned against Paul Aronsohn last year with the same type of viscious attacks.  It isn't that she is unused to primaries, it's that she prefers to run her campaign in this manner.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:20:27 AM UTC

"Vicious" is in the Eye of the Beholder... (0.00 / 0)

I want someone running against Garrett who has the capacity to fight him and to bring him down off his "untouchable" perch of incumbency.    A mild mannered scholarly approach isn't likely to get the job done.

The fact is that both Shulman's and Andrews' positions on Iraq (vis a vis how and when to get out) have been closer to Bush's than to Abate's or Lautenberg's.

Are they "equal" to Bush as in "the same as"?

Hello no!!!

But no one has claimed that except for the folks who are trying to portray Lautenberg and Abate as being less than honest.

Let's not forget who our real opponents are.   We are Democrats running against Bush/Garrett and Bush/(whoever the R's run for Senate).

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:12:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If our REAL opponents (4.00 / 1)

are Bush (who is leaving) and Garrett (who should) then why is she so bent on destroying every Democrat in her path?

Abate is viscious and destructive.  It doesn't prove she's a fighter.  It proves she has no idea who is on her own side.  It's repugnant.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 16:01:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please Document and Explain... (0.00 / 0)

"Abate is viscious and destructive."

Thanks

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:48:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If she can't win, no one can. (0.00 / 0)

A candidate in the Democratic primary for the 5th Congressional District sued her rival on Monday for libel after his campaign issued a news release claiming she never had been a registered Democrat.

Glen Rock lawyer Camille Abate wasn't a registered Democrat from 1990 until this month, according to election records, but said she was one when she lived years ago in New York.

From a Bergen Record article on 5/23/06. Sounds pretty viscious to me, and as the 2006 election showed, tying up the nominee in petty legal squabbles, turned out to be pretty destructive.

By the way, I don't think that I should be the only one who's a little uncomfortable that a woman who only registered as a democrat two years ago is running for Congress.

---

by: MReilly @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:20:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

is that ALL you got???!??? (0.00 / 0)

The press release was false.  She aggressively defended herself.

Do you really have a problem with that???

BTW

Seeing as how you just signed up here yesterday I welcome you to Blue Jersey!  :-)

I look forward to reading your views on all manner of progressive issues long after this primary is over and for years to come.
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 15:05:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was not defense of herself (0.00 / 0)

I have a problem with the fact that she tied up our legal system with unwarranted legal challenges that were ultimately thrown out of court because they had not basis. I have a problem with the fact that people are too blind to see what Abate really is: a liar and a fraud whose only interest is in gaining the title of "Representative," and not actually getting a Democrat elected in the Fifth District.

It was a calculated attack against her opponent with a baseless allegation.

She had never been a registered Democrat in New Jersey. She had never been active in the Democratic Party in New Jersey.

If the press release was inaccurate, it's message was at least true: Abate is not a Democrat, Abate is not a New Jerseyan, she is nothing more than a power-hungry woman who will actively try to hurt the party and the district for her own self-interest.

---

by: MReilly @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 15:18:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inconsistencies and Ad Hominems (0.00 / 0)

The legal system has a way of dealing with truly baseless or completely frivolous abuses; the fact that no sanctions along those lines were implemented against Camille indicate that your assertion that, "...she tied up our legal system with unwarranted legal challenges..." are just your opinion...and nothing more than that.

Then you go on to say some even more silly things...

If the press release was inaccurate,

so you conditionally concede it's inaccuracy...

it's message was at least true:

...what does that mean?  Duhhhhh?

Abate is not a Democrat

I see, that's why she's been a candidate on the ballot in the last two DEMOCRATIC primaries.   LOL

Abate is not a New Jerseyan

I hate to bust your delusional bubble; but she and her family have been living in NJ most of her whole life.   I've seen her house, I've met her family.   Take my word for it.  She's a New Jerseyan.  :-)

, she is nothing more than a power-hungry woman who will actively try to hurt the party and the district for her own self-interest.

That's pure ugly invective and ad hominum bullshit; and if you truly believe that about Camille; then I pity you your delusional and ignorant state of mind.

Dennis Shulman is a good and decent man.  I like him.  I respect him.  If Shulman wins this primary I will support him and contribute to his campaign as best I can.

Dennis Shulman doesn't need foolish amateur hatchet creatures like you making inane and ugly attacks on his opponent.

You're not doing Shulman any favors with this kind of divisive garbage.  

I have to wonder if you're not a Garrett plane trying to divide the real Democrats whose aim is to be rid of Garrett?
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 15:11:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS That's "Garrett PlanT" as in Troll... n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 15:13:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Camille (4.00 / 1)

did reach out to Paul Aronsohn last year after he won the primary.  They have the emails back and forth to prove it.  The rumor that she did not want Aronsohn to win the General is not true.  

If she was a registered Democrat and her rival said she was not, did she have a case?

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You asked (0.00 / 0)

(pardon the misspelling) vicious  - definition 4a "dangerously aggressive"

destructive - definition 2 "designed or tending to hurt or destroy"

her own diary where she calls out Paul Aronsohn for saying he is "pro-defense, pro-business, and moderate".  

Labeling yourself pro-defense is code for being willing to give the Pentagon and the huge defense industry a blank check. The United States spends more on armaments than all of the rest of the world combined. We don’t spend it for defense, we spend it for offense. We spend it because we want to have the ever present capacity to engage in wars like the one that’s going so badly in Iraq, and also because the military industrial complex wants to transfer wealth from the working class and the middle class to them.

If  you can somehow explain how this does not provide excellent examples of the words I defined, then please do so.  If not; then I would expect to see you comment that I am, indeed, correct in my assertion.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 00:20:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Saw Abate Debate Aronsohn... (0.00 / 0)

I've spoken to Paul.   I've spoken to Camille.

I've never heard Camille adopt a "vicious" or ugly tone at any level, written or otherwise...and I've never heard Paul say that she has.  They had different views, clearly.

If Paul ever thought that she was being "vicious" he would have let us all know it.

They fought a tough campaign.   He won.  Then he lost.   It's over.  

If you really think that pointing out that one person is more outspoken (in substance and in style) against the corruption of the military industrial complex is being "vicious" then that's fine with me.   You're, obviously, free to interpret that term as you see fit in each instance.

I agree with the substance of the quote you provided.   The term "pro-defense" has indeed become code for precisely what Camille said.

When a Democrat or a Republican says they're "pro-defense" they need to spell out precisely what they mean by that.

Camille and I belong to the "wing" of the Democratic party that believes that the MI Complex is bloated and corrupt and needs radical reforming.  Paul didn't.   Making that distinction is not only not "vicious" it was correct and necessary.  

Labeling yourself pro-defense is code for being willing to give the Pentagon and the huge defense industry a blank check. The United States spends more on armaments than all of the rest of the world combined. We don’t spend it for defense, we spend it for offense. We spend it because we want to have the ever present capacity to engage in wars like the one that’s going so badly in Iraq, and also because the military industrial complex wants to transfer wealth from the working class and the middle class to them.

Again, wouldn't it be great for the progressive community (at least) if Shulman and Abate could have at least one more debate focused on just these subjects!?

As it is, Shulman has ducked out on the one TV debate invitation they had...and the scheduled (May 22nd) debate in Teaneck.

Eisenhower knew what he was talking about.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 15:36:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is Dennis's position (0.00 / 0)

on the war in Iraq?  That may be what she is getting at.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

I like both Democratic candidates in the Fifth, but Abate has hit a low with this. I had the pleasure of meeting Dennis Shulman and spoke to him about many issues, including the war. He has been against this war from the beginning.

Rabbi Shulman was one of the religious leaders who camped out at Camp Casey in Crawford, TX with Cindy Sheehan. From a 2005 post by Cindy Sheehan on the Huffington Post:

The clergy who were there with their love and support: Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Rabbi Dennis Shulman; Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Bob Edgars, Rev. Jesse Jackson (who prayed bed time prayers with me), Rita Brock, etc.

So by Abate's logic we can deduce that Rev Sharpton and Rev Jackson = George Bush.

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer

---

by: evdebs @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 13:16:53 PM UTC

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have a different position (I dare say) on when and how we should be leaving Iraq than Shulman.

I give Dennis Shulman credit for being against Bush's war to the extent that he would support Cindy!

Unfortunately, Shulman's position that we have to stay in Iraq to somehow, "repair the damage" is a trap....it's a con job that he's, unfortunately, bought into.

We have to get out of there NOW!   That means as soon as is compatible with maintaining the safety of our troops (and obviously of some of our equipment, etc).

Our military occupation of Iraq is TOXIC and destructive on all levels.

Iraq has no shortage of oil with which to pay the financial costs of repairing the physical damage.   They don't need our money to repair the damage.  They need for us to get out of there so they can work this out amongst themselves and do so with the REAL assistance of the UN and the rest of the international community.

Our invasion and occupation has killed at least half a million innocents there and made refugees of another 2 million (at least).   We have terrorized and brutalized an entire nation in service to the interests of the military industrial complex and other "perverse interests".  BUSH'S war has created the damage, does anyone really believe that Bush's policy of staying there indefinitely as an occupying power will "repair" it?

Again, saying that Shulman and Andrews are  closer to Bush's position that Abate and Lautenberg isn't equating Andrews/Shulman with Bush....it's making a serious and VALID distinction between two "wings" of the Democratic party.

Think.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:31:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right, there is a distinction (4.00 / 1)

Abate and Shulman are both anti-war, but Abate is so volatile and her positions so radical that she would never be able to get any of them passed. It's easy for her to jump up and down and stomp her feet, saying that we need to pull all of our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, when she knows that it could never gain enough support in Congress, but that it's able to score some cheap political points with some democrats, even if it costs her the ability to win moderate votes in the general.

It's exactly what Scott Garrett's done for the past 5 years: play a lot of lip service to your base, knowing that you'll never be able to give what you promise them.

I want someone in Congress who will actually be able to get something done. It hasn't been Scott Garrett, and it certainly won't be Camille Abate.

---

by: MReilly @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 16:14:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're Not Addressing The Point.... (0.00 / 0)

It's actually Obama's position to leave Iraq as quickly as possible in conformity with the safety of our troops.  He makes no mention of staying there until we've "repaired"  the damage.  Obama speaks of  a "date certain" unlike Shulman,

That's an open ended commitment that could go on for decades; especially given that our very presence as an occupier make us a target for the old and newly radicalized Iraqis.

It's not "radical" to want to get out of Iraq asap;  it's counterproductive  to want to stay any longer than we have to.

Think.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:54:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell me, Nick (0.00 / 0)

with your vast knowledge of troop movement - exactly how long will it take to get our troops out, if we started right now.  

Once you've answered that, perhaps you can explain how the United States can possibly withdraw from the Gulf region and leave somewhere upwards of sixty percent of world oil shipments to be somehow safeguarded against Arabic and Persian rivalries that date back a few thousand years or so.

I'll agree that it isn't radical to want out of Iraq asap.  Unfortunately, there are far too many people running around who seem to think that means that we can be gone in a few weeks and never have to worry about the region again.  That isn't radical, but it is naive.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 00:34:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Listen (4.00 / 1)

I'm not saying I agree with Shulman's position. I dedicate a lot of my time working towards getting the troops out of Iraq - NOW!. However, I find it a cheap shot to try to compare Shulman with Bush or Garrett (referring to quote by Abate's campaign manager).

Like I said, I've spoken to Shulman on a lot of issues. He is more progressive than most Democrats in NJ (who in my opinion are moderate Republicans posing as Dems).

I completely agree with your statements on Iraq and we have to leave NOW!! But, again, my issue is with trying to lump Shulman with Bush and Garrett. By your logic, Hillary Clinton should be lumped in with Bush and Garrett. She is calling for a phased redeployment the same way Shulman is.

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer

---

by: evdebs @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 19:38:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree WIth You That The "Lumping" Is Overly Simplistic (0.00 / 0)

But if you read the quote, he's not saying they're all the same; just that our troops will be there longer than they would otherwise if Bush, Garrett and Shulman prevail.

Obviously, if Shulman wants to stay there until we repair the damage (whatever that means) it could be indefinite since we've been trying to "repair damage" for years and it's been a big waste of money and lives.

So, the quote may be a bit inept and even clumsy; but it's essentially true.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:02:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow.... (0.00 / 0)

...a real Hillary moment.  

I'm just speechless.  I wonder if she knows how this sounds.  Unless she has something in writing that documents Shulman support for the war, it sounds like the subtext here is "All Jews support the Iraq War."  That's the only assumption I can make for this kind of leap of logic -- unless there's something documented that we haven't seen.

There's been a lot of assumption over the last seven years that all Jews support the neocon agenda of American empire in the Middle East under the assumption that it's somehow "good for Israel."  It doesn't help either when we read articles like the one in the New York Times the other day about elderly Jews in Florida believing all the crap about Barack Obama.  But NOT all Jews are mindless, knee-jerk Zionists, and we AREN'T all neocons, and that seems to be the broad brush with which she's painting Jewish voters here.

I hope that she's a better person than Hillary Clinton was in the latter's "clarification" of her remarks about assassination yesterday and explains how she makes the assumption that Shulman would leave troops in Iraq -- or shows us the statement where he says this.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 14:00:38 PM UTC

Shulman's Words (0.00 / 0)

NJ Herald quoted Shulman:
"I want there to be time to repair as much damage as we can"

How much time?

---

by: jonas @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 14:29:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whos "Subtext" Are You Quoting? Think. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:33:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Issues (3.50 / 2)

I think this kind of attack comes from not having much to say or many original ideas.  It seems to me like these people are running for office and they don't know why.  I agree with Juan that laziness plays a big part in this.

---

by: jerseymatt @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 14:47:05 PM UTC

Truer Than You Think.... (1.00 / 2)

.....there's intellectual laziness on all sides here.   And that's being charitable.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 15:35:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

but doesn't (0.00 / 0)

Barack Obama do that when talking about Hillary Clinton ....."George Bush, John McCain and Hillary Clinton all" etc.  

---

by: vingopal @ Sat May 24, 2008 at 19:01:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Not Sure Obama Does It, Can You Provide... (0.00 / 0)

....a quote?   Not that it would surprise me too much.

It's true to say, for example, that 1 and 49 are both on the "wrong side of 50.   But it's not true to say that 1 and 49 are equal.  Get it?

Ideally, vingopal, Camille Abate and Dennis Shulman should be hashing all these points out in a series of lengthy debates, not through surrogates slinging meatcleavers on this site.

They are both highly intelligent highly skilled professional communicators; let's see "what they got" on a one on one basis.

As far as I know, none of these harsh accusations that have been raised here have been raised by Shulman or his campaign; I would love to hear whether they agree with all of this.   And if they do; will they have the courage to actually confront Camille in person, face to face, with this kind of stuff?

I wonder?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:13:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not addressing the point (0.00 / 0)

Camille's tone is "dangerously aggressive" and "designed to hurt or destroy".

It was then, it is now.  The tiger hasn't traded in her stripes.

"Pro-defense" has become a code word because people like Camille refuse to allow a redefinition to a more common sensical usage.  It is self-defeating.  The idea that Democrats can win by not being "Pro-defense" is hogwash and twaddle.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 26, 2008 at 17:19:11 PM UTC