Abate: Vicious and Deceptive

Tip jar n/t (3.57 / 7)

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:00:11 AM UTC

Show Your Support for Dennis (2.50 / 2)

Netroots giant Howie Klein is sponsoring a contest for you to pick your favorite Blue America candidate.  To vote for Dennis, go to the Blue America Act Blue page, and scroll down and contribute $1.01 (or any dollar amount plus one cent) next to Dennis's name.

Democrats from all over are keeping an eye on NJ-5, and together, we can beat Scott Garrett in November.

I proudly work for Dennis Shulman.  

---

by: TJ Helm @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:42:43 AM UTC

stunning (3.25 / 4)

"Sending therapist Dennis Shulman to Congress means spending two more years just talking about the war in Iraq with no real action."

Only this campaign could turn the fact that he's a psychologist into a cheap attack line.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:21 AM UTC

Enough With This Hyperbolic Nonsense (2.33 / 6)

Abate's position is, like Barak Obama's, to set a "date certain" by which our troops will be withdrawn.   This let's the Iraqi's know that we're really leaving.

Shulman said,

"I want there to be time to repair as much damage as we can do"

That sure sounds like an open ended commitment.

I haven't heard anything about Shulman's retracting of that statement or "clarifying" it.

How much "time"?

What "damage" does he want to repair?

We've been there as an occupying force for over 5 years.    How many more years of occupation will it take to convince people that our very presence there is what causes destabilization and violence?

We've sent, literally, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in CASH on pallets to Iraq to be spread around in hopes that it would repair their economy.  That turned out to be a stupid and naive waste of our money.

American "contractors" have had a license to steal.  They've pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars "repairing" Iraq in all manner of scammy, wasteful rip offs.

The Iraqis are not an incompetent uneducated people.   They have access to trillions of bucks worth of oil revenues.   They can, and will, start to repair their own country once we remove our military occupation force.

We can, and should, contribute to some kind of international/UN presence that would  truly help to get things back on track there....but we can NOT "build nations" at the point of a gun.   People resent it.   You would resent it.  We all would resent it.   Who the hell wants to be occupied by foreign troops?

I hate to break this to anyone, but the Bush agenda in Iraq had/has nothing to do with the best interests of the Iraqi people.

Our presence as an occupying force is like the presence of a foreign object full of pathogens in someone's body.   No matter how many antibiotics you give; they can't work until the "invader" is removed.

As for your label of "vicious"; you have yet to show us anything that remotely qualifies  as such.

You, as one individual, obviously have a strong personal dislike of Abate; and I'm still not clear on where that comes from.

Just because Abate holds a seriously differing view from your own and/or that of her opponent; that doesn't mean she's "vicious"  

And as for Rabbi Shulman being "evil"; where did that come from but your own keyboard?

I like, respect and admire Dennis Shulman.   If he wins the nomination I look forward to helping him get elected.   I believe that Camille Abate probably feels the same way.

Most of the time you're a reasonable, measured and intelligent fellow....but when it comes to this candidate you seem driven by forces beyond reason.

In any event; her campaign materials are arguably accurate.   Dennis Shulman still has time to engage Camille Abate in a debate on all of these questions vis a vis Iraq if he chooses to.   I'm sure she would oblige.

You should consider the very real possibility that Abate just might surprise y'all and win this primary.  If/When that happens, all good Democrats need to come together to support the defeat of Scott Garrett.

Whatever your differences are with Abate, they pale in comparison with the one's you have with Garrett.

Camille Abate is an energetic feisty competitor and that's what it's going to take to generate enough heat and light to get the voters of the 5th CD to take a long hard look at the dirty details of what Scott Garrett has stood for.   When they see Garrett for what and who he is; the feisty Democrat wins.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:59:53 AM UTC

If Abate wins (2.50 / 2)

then Democrats lose.  Period.  A whole generation of people in the fifth will be turned off to Democrats by her inability to deal with reality.

It's very simple, Nick - Schulman has said he wants a "rapid and responsible" withdrawal.  How much clarification does that need?  Would you prefer an irresponsible withdrawal?

Her campaign materials are not "arguably accurate".  They are pure slime and pure lies.  She knows nothing about withdrawing troops and is casting stones at those that do.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:11:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW, it's Shulman, not Schulman. (4.00 / 2)

I hate it when people misspell my last name (it's Convente but pronounced "Con-ven-ti") and I think Dennis would too!  =)

"Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

---

by: mconvente @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:14:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apologies all around. n/t (4.00 / 3)

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:19:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Spelling Error is the Least Of...... (0.00 / 0)

....your problems here.  No apologies needed for that.....I'm "good" for a mess of typos myself.  This is a blog after all.

Please address the video of Shulman.

What do you think he meant by those words?

Further, why wouldn't he be willing to debate Camille Abate directly, one on one, if he thought she was spinning that meaning in a way that did not represent his views?

At the very least, his campaign should... offer a detailed/extensive rebuttal  to this video that "clarifies" the meaning what was clearly said by Shulman.

I don't even hear John McCain telling us we have to stay in Iraq to "repair the damage".  His new line is that we won't "surrender".

Contrary to what Garrett/Bush/McCain may believe; we are not "succeeding" in Iraq.  

Neither are we "repairing the damage" by staying there as a military occupation force that is taking sides in what has become civil conflict.   I don't accept any rationales that keep us in Iraq and longer than is required to arrange a safe and prudent withdrawal.    

Such a withdrawal would be neither retreat nor surrender but just plain good sense.  We had no business invading the country in the first place and our presence only serves to compound the error of that action and to increase the "damage" to Iraq and to our own best interests.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:09:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice tap dancing (0.00 / 0)

The point of this post isn't about Dennis Schulman at all.  It's about Camille Abate lying through her teeth for the express purpose of simply destroying someone who dares stand in her way.

If you want to discuss Schulman's statement, write a diary about it.  I'm sure lots of people will enjoy it.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:34:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Can't Pretend That There Isn't An Election... (0.00 / 0)

....on Tuesday.  Your attack on Abate needs to be addressed in full recognition of that context.  

I'm not "tap dancing".  I'm just not letting you get away with a simplistic accusation without any sense of the larger frame within which we are operating.

The bombshell of "lying"/"vicious"  were yours to throw; but no one from the Shulman campaign seems to be in sufficient agreement with you to follow your lead.

The fact is that that video of Shulman saying what he said is direct evidence that Abate's take on Shulman's Iraq position has (at the very/absolute least) a foundation in fact.    

Let them/their campaigns argue it out from there.

As for "The Responsible Plan".   Unless there's a date certain clause in there; I ain't buying it.  And neither have  Obama or Clinton for that matter.

Obviously, you don't believe what she's saying is true; but your belief doesn't make her a liar.  

Lying means a conscious/knowing intent to deceive.   I see no evidence of that here.  

If I believed what you're saying was true, Thurman, I would agree with your condemnations of Abate and join in with them.

So while I don't believe that what you're saying is true; that doesn't mean that I believe that you're lying.  

I've known you and spoken to you for quite a while now (as I have Abate) and I don't believe either of you are liars.  

We need to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.

I'm perfectly content to let the record stand as it is in re you're accusations that Abate is consciously saying something that she knows to be false.  

I find it sad that you won't join with me in committing to support either of these two (in comparison to Garrett) fine candidate in the general.   But that's your call; and though I agree with you on most things, we'll have to part ways on this one.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 21:18:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're being ridiculous, Nick (0.00 / 0)

No one from the Kerry campaign ever came on Blue Jersey to back me up, either.  You know why?  I didn't work for their campaign.

Same thing here.  Schulman's campaign has had no contact with me or vice versa. Who cares?  It doesn't impact the truth of the post.  Not in the least.

If Camille Abate doesn't know her opponent's position, then she's too stupid to run for office.  Since she doesn't appear to be stupid - and, in fact, references them, I have to take it that she does know her opponent's position, but is content to lie through her teeth about them.  

Let the campaigns argue it out?   About what I've said?  Sure, let's just close up Blue Jersey entirely, Nick, because we've exposed your preferred candidate as undesirable.

This isn't about me learning not to be disagreeable.  This is me calling it as it lies - as I always do.  As is typical for you, you've wound yourself so much in your prefered candidate that you can't see anything else.

I won't join you in supporting "either" "fine" candidate because one of them is pure garbage.  I can't support that.  I still need to look myself in the mirror when I shave.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 21:33:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kerry Lost In Great Measure Because.... (0.00 / 0)

....he didn't have the sense to override his advisors and to take on the swiftboater's lies.   Yes those were lies.   We can agree on that much.

Here we have one candidate saying things that you, and a handful of individuals here, say are "lies" and/or "vicious".

There is no one in the press or in the Shulman campaign who agrees with you (at least who is willing to do so in public).

Why?

When I said to let the campaigns have it out if anyone thinks she's really lying, I meant that it would be in the electorate's interest to witness THEM having this discussion face to face...or at least in dueling press releases.

It's not that I don't think our discussion here is useful and even edifying; but that I don't think it's relevant if no one beyond a few bloggers feels strongly that your accusations are correct.

If Abate and Shulman even right now were to consent to something as simple to arrange as a conference call to hash this out; I would be pleased.

And if Shulman were to give us reasons/facts/arguments that overwhelmed Abate's assertions (which you label as "lies") then I would change my mind and support Shulman.  

I could be wrong.   I admit/confess to that possibility.   I am not perfect/

The other side of that coin is that the possibility exists that Abate just might wind up giving us reasons/facts/arguments that overwhelmed Shulman's assertions (assuming he were to agree with you Thurmon) that she's a liar.  

Would you then be prepared to let go of your fixed beliefs and support Abate?

Surely there is the possibility that you are wrong?  Surely you don't pretend to omniscience or perfection? Eh?

Again, we're whisting in the dark because the only people who REALLY know what the candidate's positions/history is in re the issues you've raised are the candidates themselves.    

That's why, even at this late date, they should be willing to spend a couple of hours debating.

I'm sure we could arrange a conference call with, say, Jeff Gardner,  acting as moderator.  The call could be recorded and available to the web within minutes of the last words.

This, if it were done for tomorrow night; iwould even have time to impact the election on Tuesday.    

Such an impromptu event over these kinds of inflammatory and extreme remarks would be a great story for the Sunday papers.

Whether or not Shulman buys your accusations of "lying" such a discussion on the part of the candidates themselves just talking about the specifics of their differences vis a vis Iraq policies would be helpful.

If you think my take on this is so off base as to worthy of ridicule; then I have to question why you're using so much firepower to try to counter it?

No, what we have here is a fundamental disagreement as to the character of Camille Abate.   And I know that I know her better than you do.

Camille Abate doesn't want or need this job anywhere nearly enough to sell out her soul to get it.   If she was willing to sell her soul by kissing Ferriero's ring on her knees; she may well have qualified for the frame you're trying to put her into.

Right or wrong, win or lose, Camille Abate will emerge from this race with her integrity intact.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 23:53:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arguing with pigs (0.00 / 0)

just stirs up the pigs and wastes a lot of time.

From time to time I begin to think that it's worthwhile to engage a few particular individuals - of which you are one.  I keep on being disappointed.

I don't need Jeff Gardner to tell me what can be seen with the naked eye.  This is perhaps the most desperate I've ever seen anyone on this site.  You're talking about so much extraneous BS that it's impossible to keep it all straight.

There are some who disagree with the policies of George W. Bush and some who disagree with both the policies and the methods of George W. Bush.  I'm in the latter group.  Camille Abate - and apparentlly you - are in the former.  

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 00:18:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So Now I'm A "Pig" Who Agrees With "Bush's Methods"? (0.00 / 0)

If that's really what you've been reduced to arguing/implying; then I'm quite content to "rest my case".

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 00:27:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You said it (0.00 / 0)

As always, I call it like I see it.  Want someone to blame?  Look in the mirror.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 00:48:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Was Merely Quoting You..... (0.00 / 0)

...as a way of pointing to the silliness of your position.  Not making any admission.  Leave it to you to misinterpret my meaning, lol.

I'm actually quite proud of how I've comported myself in this thread.  

You're the guy who started throwing around the comparison to pigs and George Bush.

I believe that you really believe that Abate is a "vicious liar".   You've convinced me of that much.

I also believe that you're dead wrong and that your accusation against her is false.

But that doesn't make you a liar.  It just makes you wrong and very stubborn.

Actually, the pigs thing didn't bother me; but implying that I'm anything like George Bush just may qualify as "vicious" ad hominem.  LOL  

In any event, you're forgiven.  I can understand why you're upset.

You and a few other people are willing to call Camille Abate a "vicious" "liar" and you're virtually all alone in that place.  

If Dennis Shulman came out in public and agreed with you; it would matter.

You clearly have some kind of personal problem with Abate, and that's a shame.

I know that you're a fundamentally good and honest person; and I know the same is true about her.  She is no more perfect than you.  

Ultimately, who is right and who is wrong in matters of fundamental Values is something that will be Judged by a Higher Authority than anyone on this site.  

Perhaps we can agree on that much and leave it to Him.

Now, if you truly insist on taking a gentlemanly "parting shot"; go ahead.   Be my guest.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should look up "ad hominem" (0.00 / 0)

I didn't call you a pig.  I can't help it if you take everything as a personal statement.

But you've made it clear - in your comments on this race and in others - that the only thing you see wrong with Bush is that he went the wrong way with his policies.  You have no problem destroying people if they don't happen to be on your side.

Even now, you can't stick to the points of the argument.  It isn't about her being a good person or not.  It's about the methods she is using to pursue her goals.  I find them reprehensible. That is the limit of my personal problem with her.  

If you think I'm the only one with that view, then you are simply willfully blind and ignorant - those are hardly things to be proud of.  You need go no further than the comments in this thread to realize that.

By your standard, Camille Abate should come out and defy my statements.  She hasn't.  Apparently, that means she agrees with them.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:49:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abate's Campaign Manager Posted In Opposition... (0.00 / 0)

...to your assertions.  He speaks directly for her.   The Abate camp did the right thing and stood up to your claims and labels....they clearly met the "standard" you refer to.  (It seems he's now been banned from the site, (for giving four #1/"unproductive" ratings???) so it seems he can't speak for her here any more.)

We're still awaiting someone officially connected with the Shulman campaign to chime in with you.  

Calling people "liars" and "vicious" is precisely an attack on the person; not just some abstract critique on "methods".    

When invited to admit that you acknowledge even the possibility that you may be mistaken (after I did just that) you chose to ignore that opportunity.  Is it possible Thurman that your own pride is coloring your judgment on this one?

There's a difference between someone being wrong/misleading/mistaken and lying.   Lying is a value judgment....and a damning one at that.  It denotes a conscious/intentional deception.

As I see it Thurman, you've failed to meet the burden of proof required to call out Camille Abate as a liar or as being "vicious" for that matter.   She's a public person so it's would be virtually impossibly for her to take you to court over your cruel and hurtful remarks.    

Calling Camille Abate a "liar" and "vicious" is a direct assault on Camille Abate's character, honor and humanity.  

I can forgive you, for I know you truly believe what you're saying; I hope she can.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:28:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dennis Shulman is going to win the nomination (0.00 / 0)

He has the endorsements from Democratic leadership across the state and across the country.

Camille has the Passaic County Sheriff.

Why would he waste his time debating Camille for the upteenth time, when he is the only serious candidate in this race?

---

by: MReilly @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 00:31:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wheres Anne Wolfe when ya need her (1.00 / 1)

- sigh -

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:02:25 AM UTC

Where's Anne Wolfe? (3.50 / 6)

On our endorsement list, that's where.

I proudly work for Dennis Shulman.

---

by: TJ Helm @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that settles it then. (3.40 / 5)

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:56:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Camille Abate, your candidacy just jumped the shark (3.57 / 7)

Your mailer is digusting.  

First, Dennis Shulman opposed the war from the start exactly as Barack Obama did.  

Second, how dare you end your mail with the wacko cheap shot referring to "therapist Dennis Shulman."  

Blue Jersey, in a contest where both candidates are equally progressive - quite frankly, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them on the issues - a desperate move like this that shows one candidate's lack of character should be the deciding factor.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:49 AM UTC

I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for yet. (3.00 / 2)

I find this primary for NJ-5 very difficult to pinpoint who I will vote for.

The candidates are very similar in their overall positions.  The differences they have are largely based on their method of action and personality.  Camille is quite noticeably a feisty, reactionary person while Dennis seems more thoughtful and reserved.

To be honest, I really don't have much of a problem with Abate's mailer on Shulman's Iraq position, and I disagree with Thurman's sentiment that since she's criticizing the Responsible Plan that she needs to be an expert on military strategy and provide specifics.  I doubt that most members of Congress are military experts, and while some military experts have advised and supported the Responsible Plan, there are Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans who support withdrawing immediately as well.

However, Abate's mailer attacking Shulman for being a licensed psychologist is a low blow and really cost me a good deal of respect for her.

I was leaning towards Abate but Shulman's endorsement by Bergen Sheriff Leo McGuire and the negativity of Abate's recent mailers is definitely giving me second thoughts.

"Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

---

by: mconvente @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:13:06 AM UTC

It isn't my position (2.50 / 2)

Anyone can oppose anything for any reason.  I'm sort of ambivalent about it myself.  

However, Abate is opposed to the Responsible Plan because - in her own words - "Leaders must say how we should extricate ourselves from this war, not just why."

So I'm just asking her to live up to her rhetoric.  It isn't enough to dig your heels in and call every other effort insufficient.  Let us hear the Abate plan for redeployment.

Or she should shut up.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:23:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shulman Had a Chance to Directly Confront... (4.00 / 1)

...Abate in a scheduled debate (last Thursday the 22nd) in Teaneck; as I understand it Shulman chose to back out.   That doesn't speak well for his ability to deal with an opponent.  And if he wins; it gives Garrett ammunition for ducking debates with him.

Sherriff McGuire has a jovial affable personality, but he's is a creature of the BCDO/Ferierro machine.   If I were running for office I wouldn't want his endorsement.

Abate didn't criticize Shulman for being a "therapist" she used that fact as a way of illustrating her point that his approach to leaving Iraq involves more talking and is open ended....like therapy.    One can argue the aptness of the metaphor but it's certainly not an attack on his profession.

Hell, she's a lawyer; I can only imagine the "attacks" Garrett will try to level against her if/when she wins!

I've been lucky enough to have a brief chat with Shulman right here on BJ Blogtalk radio.  It went well.  I've read his stuff on the web.  I like the guy.  He's a "mensch".  

You should all listen to this great interview with him.

http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram...

I happen to think Abate can be more aggressive/effective when it comes to defeating Garrett.   That's my priority.   If I believed Shulman stood a better chance, as much as I know and respect Camille; I would be for him.  

My "loyalty" isn't to the person, but to the aim of seeing Scott Garrett get his ugly Bush Republican ass kicked out of congress.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:56:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Insincerity at its finest (3.00 / 3)

She didn't criticize him, she just used his profession as a means of attacking him.  Nice defense.  You know who else is full of talk?  Lawyers.  

How many unaffiliated and republican votes is Abate going to get?

I have no idea why Schulman didn't attend the debate.  If I were running for office, I wouldn't give Abate the time of day, much less an hour or more to spew venom.

You can repudiate the policies of George W. Bush while still endorsing the practices of George W. Bush.  From where I sit, that describes Camille Abate perfectly.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:56:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If You Were Running Against Abate... (4.00 / 1)

.....I have no doubt you would seize every opportunity to debate her.  

Why?   Because you have the intelligence and the self confidence and the rhetorical skills and the courage to think you would win.

We have these primaries not to determine "the time of day" but to see who the best candidate will be to defeat Garrett.  Someone who backs out of a debate commitment doesn't strike me as a gutsy candidate (or a decisive one...if he didn't want to debate he should have said so from the beginning and not led people to believe otherwise.)

As for lawyers being as full of talk as therapists ; I'll grant you that....but Camille Abate also knows more about the US Constitution and the practical applications of civil rights/liberties law than her opponent....in today's proto-fascistic climate that counts for a lot.

In any event, this will be over on Tuesday.  We'll have a winner and a loser; either one of whom will tower over the real villain in this piece; Scott Garrett.

Let's all agree to unreservedly support the winner and let go of all this nonsense.

I commit to supporting Shulman if he wins; will you commit to supporting Abate if she wins?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:23:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, I wouldn't (0.00 / 0)

I'd send out a press release denouncing her as a sincere but dangerous clown who can't do anything but destroy everything around her.  Then I'd refer everyone back to the press release everytime they said anything.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, good therapy is NOT open-ended (3.33 / 3)

Yes, there are many people who spend years and years in therapy, never really getting to the point where they feel able to stop, and it becomes a highly dependent relationship.

A good therapist sets goals and a timetable to achieve them.  At the time that I decided I was ready to stop seeing mine, it was right after a long-drawn out illness of a family member that resulted in his death.  She said that if I hadn't decided I was ready at that time, SHE would have.

Yes, there are plenty of charlatans who just want to keep raking in your hundred bucks and hour in perpetuity.  But a good therapist, especially a behavioral-cognitive one, knows when it's time to cut the apron strings.

Just wanted to toss that in.  :)

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Am Confident That Shulman is A Good Therapist! (4.00 / 1)

.....from all I've heard and read about him, I choose to believe that he's an inherently good and decent fellow; not the kind of "charlatan" you were rightly disparaging.

I just don't believe he's the strongest of these two candidates in an arena where simply being a "nice guy" isn't good enough.    

To beat Garrett we need someone who is indeed genuinely nice; but who can also be tough as nails when that's required.

If Shulman wins this; he's going to have to connect with whatever toughness is in him and be prepared to tear Garrett apart.   Nothing less will unseat this entrenched incumbent.

Meanwhile; I raise my glass and drink to Shulman's continuing to be a great therapist, author and spiritual leader...and to Camille Abate's becoming a great Congresswoman!!!   :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:34:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shulman debated Abate three times (0.00 / 0)

Shulman never agreed to any debate in Teaneck (which, mind you, is not even in NJ-5).

Three debates is as much as in any presidential election, and would be a great number for us against Garrett.

Nick -- I reiterate, Shulman didn't back out of any scheduled debate.  

---

by: jeffhauser @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:58:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abate Would Be Useless In Congress (2.50 / 2)

As you can see in this mailer and in the history of Abate's campaigns, she is an absolutist who has no inclination or ability to compromise.  She is disinterested in making any concessions to other people regarding any issue.

That kind of person would be absolutely useless as a legislator, though it might be very helpful in a trial attorney.  Being absolutely supportive of her clients' needs she is best able to defend them in the courts.

But as a legislator it would create animosity and make it harder for other people in her party to work out solutions that are possible as opposed to solutions that are perfect.

---

by: huntsu @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 13:18:16 PM UTC

Runnng For Office Requires Clarity and Forcefullness (2.50 / 2)

Writing and voting on legislation is another skill set, that I grant you.  

But the people who can't stand up tall and fight for what they believe in don't get bills passed and have nothing to compromise with when the "sausage is made".

You may find Abate's sharp aggressive style offensive;  but remember that a good lawyer also knows when and how to cut deals.  

This is an election campaign; a time to proudly stand up for what you believe...for your ideals; not a time for weasel words or positions that already start out as compromised.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 16:42:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is not a time (4.00 / 2)

to lie about fellow Democrats.  Unfortunately, Camille Abate cannot see that.  I'm really disappointed that you can't either.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:08:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To Quote a Wise Man... (0.00 / 0)

..."spin and hyperbole" are common in political campaigns.

You've yet to demonstrate an outright lie or anything remotely vicious.

Obviously, you're pulling for Shulman so you're sensitive; but that's a reason to argue the points not to ad hoministically (is that a word;-) call the opponents vicious liars.

You want to go hunting for REALLY vicious lying?   Try looking in the direction of what Scott Garrett will be saying if Camille or Dennis start getting close to him in future tracking polls.  

Chill.  The REAL fight begins on Wednesday June 4th.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:23:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (4.00 / 2)

You've yet to demonstrate an outright lie or anything remotely vicious.

This has been demonstrated repeatedly now. It's a lie to say Shulman was not against the war from the start when in fact he was.

You making up a rationalization for it every time someone points this out doesn't make it not be a lie any more. It just suggests you're not a very objective judge when it comes to people you support.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:34:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends on How You Define "The Beginning".... (4.00 / 1)

.....and "Against the war".

Words have meanings.

This is what debate is all about.

Camille Abate stood tall and proud prepared to confront Dennis Shulman in debate an all these various "spins".  

Dennis Shulmam chose to withdraw from a scheduled debate in Teaneck that was on for last week.  WHY?

Juan, the only two people who really know exacly when and how they came out agains this asinine invasion/occupation/war are the two candidates themselves.

You have no legitimate standing to call Camille Abate a "liar" or "vicious" shame on you.

If she wins this primary and goes on to win the general against the REAL enemy here; you'll see how well she does in congress.

Meanwhile, I request a commitment from you, to match mine.  

Will you commit to sipporting whichever of these two fine candidates win on Tuesday?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:40:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Abate has a responsibility to prove that her mailer is accurate. So why the silence? Because she can't prove it. And neither can you. Put up already.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:48:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nick, you have to pull your head out (0.00 / 0)

The truthfulness of Abate's claims have nothing to do with the debate.   Please shut up about it.  All it does is make you look stupid.

I have standing to call Abate a liar because she is lying.  Her mailer says that the Responsible Plan is "ensuring our troops will be stuck in Iraq for years to come."  Of course, it does nothing of the sort.  Saying it does is untrue - therefore, it is a lie.  That isn't open for interpretation, Nick.

She says "Sending therapist Dennis Schulman to Congress means spending two more years just talking about the war in Iraq."  That is complete fabrication.  Schulman has made it very clear that he wants our troops home as soon as possible.  Again, Abate is not telling the truth.  Ergo, she is telling a lie.

Abate opposes the Responsible Plan because it lacks a concrete time table.  That's fine.  But she goes on to say that leaders must explain how we will get out - where's her plan, Nick?  Where's her plan?

She has nothing to offer but her inability to get along with anyone who disagrees with her in the least.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:06:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By That Definition... (0.00 / 0)

....any time someone disagrees with you; they must be lying.

The "Responsible Plan" you seem to be touting hasn't been signed on to by Barack Obama.....or by Hillary Clinton for that matter.

Why?

The best place for this discussion would have been at the scheduled debate between the two candidates last Thursday.   It's a shame Shulman ducked out of it.

Abate, believes, like Obama in setting a "date certain"  Shulman seems to think we need to stay until we've "repaired the damage" (whatever that means) they have a legitimate difference of opinion.  

They should be the ones hashing it out; not us.   Frankly, Thurman, what either of us says in re Iraq policy is of relatively little import.

We aren't running for congress.  They are.

Dennis Shulman has an account here.  I've seen his account active here just this very morning.   Let him respond here, in writing, under his own name if he agrees with anything you're saying about Abate.

Then Abate can/should do the same.

Meanwhile, Shulman's own words are in that video....and that's all we have to go on for now.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:27:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not "touting" anything (0.00 / 0)

I'm simply pointing out that Camille Abate said she read it and disagreed with it and now is misrepresenting it so she can attack a good Democrat.  

Anyone can respond any way they want.  It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I'm not advocating one thing or another about Iraq policy, Nick.  I'm saying that Camille Abate is lying through her teeth to attack the integrity and character of Dennis Schulman.  

The idea that anything I've said about this equates disagreeing with me and lying is just argumentative and purely without any foundation.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:41:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The same rhetoric (0.00 / 0)

This is the same kind of rhetoric the Bush administration has used to allow their use of torture. In the same way that they have allowed the use of waterboarding by redefining "torture," you can only defend Abate's use of libelous, divisive attacks by redefining when the war started and what it means to be against the war.

I don't doubt for a second that both candidates want to work to remove our troops from harm's way as quickly and effectively as possible, but these mailers have shown one stark difference.

From everything that I've seen, Shulman has run an incredibly positive campaign, winning over voters by showing how he has the will and the foresight to combat problems. Abate has resorted to libelous attacks as a last ditch effort because she sees the writing on the wall that Shulman is going to win this primary, because he has shown himself to be the candidate to beat Garrett in November.

---

by: MReilly @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:09:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll Agree With You That We All Have To Unite... (0.00 / 0)

to beat both Garrett and whoever the Republicans put up against Lautenberg.

Let us not forget who our REAL opponents are.

I believe Abate has a stronger shot at beating Garrett than Shulman; but Shulman could do it too if he has the stomach for a knock down drag out fight.    

I wouldn't have run the campaign in the same way Camiile has; it's not my style.  But the fact remains that her aggressive approach is based on drawing real distinctions between herself and her opponent.

Much as it is unpleasant for Shulman supporters; those distinctions are real.

If Abate was actually blatantly "lying" as you seem to be  claiming; I would be with you......but more importantly, Dennis Shulman would be with you.

If Shulman believed that she was "lying" would he not have have gladly shown up to last weeks scheduled debate?  

Would he not have have rightly administered Abate a rhetorical public thrashing.....IF he believed she was a "liar"?

The fact that Shulman has chosen to stay home and back off on the debates means that, either he knows there are (at least)  germs of truth in Abate's arguments or that he's not confident in his own abilities to go toe to toe with an opponent.

(Of course , there's a third possibility and that's that Shulman believes his internal polling that shows him so far ahead that he can afford to ignore his opponent all together and duck debates.   As I recall, that's not a strategy that you approve of for  Senator Lautenberg....who will, by the way, be debating Andrews despite the polls showing that he has a wide lead.)

If Shulman wins this; he's going to have to become much tougher and much sharper to beat Garrett......and I pray he can pull that off (if he wins this primary).

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:49:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't speak for Shulman (0.00 / 0)

but it seems that he DOES have his eyes focused on our real opponent, Scott Garrett, and he, unlike his opponent, is not going to hurt the party and our chances in November by trying to trying to drag this race down into the mud.

I applaud Shulman for ignoring Abate's petty, cheap shots, trying to discredit his position on the war and dividing our party. After he wins the primary, he will have a far better chance of uniting the party to make a strong and concerted attack on Scott Garrett. Camille Abate, with these attacks, has so terribly alienated Shulman supporters, that it will be nearly impossible for Democratic support, both in NJ5 and across the country, to coalesce around her and her cheap tactics.

As much as I hate Garrett, after these attacks, I would be equally ashamed to have Camille as my Congresswoman.

---

by: MReilly @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 21:00:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Spin and hyperbole" (0.00 / 0)

are not the same as outright lying.

It is pure fabrication to say that I'm "pulling for Schulman".  I don't have a dog in this fight whatsoever.  In fact, I say that right there in the post.

No wonder you like Abate.  Birds of a feather.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:12:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Dog in This Fight? (0.00 / 0)

So, will you join me in committing to support whichever of these two fine candidates wins on Tuesday?

(As for who you're "pulling" for; pushing Abate  under the bus with ad hominem nonsense that even her opponent doesn't ascribe to her is the functional equivalent of helping her opponent.

I care much less about what you say than what you do.)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:46:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I won't support Abate (0.00 / 0)

for anything.  She has shown herself to be undeserving of it.  

Please explain how it is "pushing someone under the bus" to ask them to live up to their own rhetoric?

The only "nonsense" here is coming from you.  And you're spewing a lot of it lately.  You are also misusing the term "ad hominem".  My post deals with the very substance of Camille Abate's statements.  Please have a little dignity.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:52:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's standing up ... (0.00 / 0)

and there's jumping up and down on and digging your heels into the flesh of anyone who disagrees with your orthodoxy.

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, Abate is the latter type.

---

by: huntsu @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 21:50:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

dear jonas (4.00 / 1)

at Blue Jersey we don't troll rate because we don't like someone's opinion.  

---

by: huntsu @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 20:31:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jonas: banned (3.25 / 4)

For indiscriminate comment rating. So long.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:38:19 PM UTC

and again (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:13:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

was there a vote on this? (0.00 / 0)

or is that just BCDO democracy?

---

by: MikeGordon @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:20:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a vote? (0.00 / 0)

See the comment below. This has been a community guideline for almost 3 years. It's not new.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:22:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a refresher course for anyone new (4.00 / 1)

This is a community, so we try to follow some community guidelines.

From the howto:

Ratings are intended to help elevate those posters that consistently make clear, good arguments and points, regardless of content, and to prevent trolls from invading the message board. Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.

So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them!

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:20:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Juan is 110% Right on This!!! n/t (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:48:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Finally (4.00 / 2)

Something you and I can agree on ;)

---

by: MReilly @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 19:52:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Sure That, After These Primaries.... (0.00 / 0)

...have passed that we'll be "on the same side" of lots of issues/candidacies.

We all need to let go of the politics of personality and to embrace the politics of purpose.

Our priorities should center around agenda items/objectives that result in cleaning up this state, nation and planet above and beyond any personal, relatively subjective, personality preferences.

Politicians are like underwear; they should be cleaned and changed regularly.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 00:16:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Meta Suggestion... (0.00 / 0)

Maybe we should adjust the software to allow for just two categories of "rating".   A "4" which is a positive feedback for excellence in style/or substance.....and a 0 which is indeed a troll rating for real trolls.  I seem to recall seeing another site that uses this same software having that kind of arrangement....so, if my memory is accurate there, then it could be done.

Trolls are people who aren't sincerely arguing a point but rather intentionally just screwing us around with destructive irredeemably negative nonsense.  They need to be corrected...but even with them; banning should be the result of multiple offenses/warnings.

Restricting someone elses speech is a big deal; and should never be entered into lightly....or in a state of pique.

Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.

I'm sorry to say that that's been going on here for a long time and in many instances.

It's a pity that the first time I see someone being banned from the site it turns out to be the campaign manager of a two time congressional candidate who has come to a thread which calls his boss a "vicious" "liar".

He was indeed foolish and wrong to have used to ratings system in that way; but did you really have to ban him?    I suspect that he would have gotten the message with a direct contact.  You have his email address and his phone number.

Juan, banning Jonas make it look like you just didn't like the fact that he's defending Abate from the labels you and Thurman have applied to Camille Abate.

What's next" Will you now ban me for questioning this action?

And on that note, I'm really really really through with this thread.  :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:48:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Meta (0.00 / 0)

A new comment system is coming soon. It will simply be thumbs up/thumbs down.

The idea that someone is banned for disagreeing with me is beyond farcical. I would have banned you and half the rest of the commenters years ago if that were the case. I enjoy it when people disagree with me.

I'll also point out that there's a difference between downrating someone for disagreeing with them and downrating them as a form of moderation because they're having an adverse effect on the community. Since part of the purpose of comments is for the community to self-regulate itself, the latter is appropriate.

This is not the first time someone has been banned for doing this.

Jonas has already been offered to have his account reinstated if he reads and agrees to abide by the rules.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:32:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]