Why Lautenberg Should Win.

Where to begin? (4.00 / 1)

Normally I wouldn't post a comment here but, ...it's 5am so why not?

1) War Resolution
Lautenberg was for the war at the beginning, too. He was for the war after he got to the Senate. He was for the war after the invasion. He was for the war. If you're going to make a decision on U.S. Senator on the basis of whether or not Andrews was one of a 100+ cosponsors (not "co-author" as Lautenberg's campaign says), you have that right...but it's not a slam dunk case for me or for many others. And the fact is that both want to get out of Iraq now...there is no difference in their positions, it's only a question of timing.

2a) Seniority
Lautenberg lost all his seniority when he retired in 2000. So he has the equivilent of a Senator with 6 years experience. As you admit, whether you like it or not, seniority plays a role in how effective you are/can be and Lautenberg has no real ability to gain seniority for New Jersey. At the very least, Andrews has more potential to gain seniority, accd to the best statistics available.

2b) Committees
Lautenberg's a high-ranking member, you say? Of Appropriations in particular? No, he's not. He's the 14th-ranking Democrat on Approps - and there are only 15 Democratic Senators on the Committee!  Lautenberg is 9th of 12 Democrats on the budget committee (behind his junior Senator, Mr. Menendez); 8th of 12 Democrats on Commerce; 6th of 10 Democrats on the Environment Committee. Lautenberg isn't even close to the top 50% of seniority for ANY committee on which he serves. High ranking? Not even a little bit.

2c) Money to NJ
When Lautenberg first ran for the Senate in 1982, the year I was born, NJ was 45th in the amount of money we got back from the federal government. After 24 years of Lautenberg in the Senate, NJ is now 50th. Dead last. Awesome job there, Senator.

You said you could go on...feel free. I do wonder what you mean by "lack of funding, lack of campaign resources." If you respond to the arguments I raised above, I'll be happy to respond further, too.

Let me be clear...I respect your right to vote for whomever you wish and, if that person is Sen. Lautenberg, then more power to you. I just didn't want to let incorrect facts go unchallenged.

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:01 AM UTC

It's just that your facts are selective (0.00 / 0)

Of those 136 cosponsors,   only 23 were Democrats.   That's about 16%.   So with most Democrats not cosponsoring the resolution and Andrews being one of the few Democratic cosponsors,  it's pretty significant  the choice he made.

So it's not the case that this issue is a wash.   To his credit, Andrews took a strong position on the war.   But it was a disastrous one.  Lautenberg might have supported the war when he didn't have all the intelligence briefings, but he wasn't a cosponsor.

Personally, I would like to see a more effective Senator than Lautenberg.   It's just that I consider Andrews to be a change in the wrong (read "conservative") direction (flag burning amendment, anyone?).

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 13:27:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Readily admit (0.00 / 0)

I tend to think their Iraq positions are more of a wash, but I will readily admit that Andrews was one of few Democratic co-sponsors and that is a significant demerit for some. He came around to the idea that the war was a disaster later than most...but I don't think that's going to be enough of a reason for me to vote no.

Lautenberg "might have supported the war?" Here's where the Lautenberg campaign gets me. Lautenberg did support the war. No "might" about it. The revisionist attempt to shade his original position is infuriating. He supported it in 2002 when it looked  like he needed to against Forrester. Lautenberg had access to classified intelligence briefings beginning 3 January 2003. He supported the war in January; in February; in March, he was "on the President's train"; in April, "he approved of the President's action." I don't know if Lautenberg would have been a co-sponsor of the resolution, but according to his words, he would have voted for it. Lautenberg gets --1 point for saying "No, I wouldn't have supported it." As for his explanation on NJ 101.5, "those were just words; you're [Andrews] better with words, I'm better with deeds." I was dying for Andrews to say, "They're your words, Senator. I'm just repeating them to you." Lautenberg's camp has a legit argument that Andrews was a Democratic co-sponsor of the war; they lose their credibility when they try and say Lautenberg was against it from the start.

In the imperfect choice between Andrews and Lautenberg, I can see why many people end up voting for either candidate. That's their right and I'm fine with that. But there are facts (i.e. high-ranking Senator) that I wanted to contest as inaccurate.

I'll admit that Andrews' flag burning position is probably the one reason why I haven't yet filled out my absentee ballot for him. It is very distressing.

---

by: JasonCNJ @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 16:22:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not read the way it was intended (0.00 / 0)

My original statement was correct as written.  I didn't use "might" to suggest Lautenberg didn't support the war, but as rhetorical device to point out the difference between an uninformed citizen and one who had intelligence information.  

I'm disappointed by the fact Lautenberg did support the war as much as he did.   But I think he changed his mind as quick as was politically possible.  It would have been unpatriotic to change his mind and oppose the war right at the same time as we invaded Iraq

-pb

 

---

by: princetonblue @ Sat May 31, 2008 at 18:22:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

It would have been unpatriotic to change his mind and oppose the war right at the same time as we invaded Iraq

No, it wouldn't have been unpatriotic at all. That's boilerplate language used to suppress dissent. However it is unpatriotic to suggest that only certain political positions/timing are acceptable during times of war.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 17:56:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]