Why Rep. Andrews Has My Vote for US Senate

Well done (4.00 / 3)

Thanks for writing this!  It's good to see a positive note for a candidate instead of the stuff we've been getting from the campaigns.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM CDT

Credit should be given to both candidates when deserved and criticized when deserved (4.00 / 1)

Rob Andrews should be commended for HR 808 - I have been really impressed with his commitment to the promotion of that legislation.  


help mobilize the progressive vote - Visit www.pdamerica.org

---

by: vingopal @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 13:48:28 PM CDT

Ugh (0.00 / 0)

HR-808 to create a federal cabinet level Department of Peace and Nonviolence

Just lost my vote.  For anything.

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 14:17:03 PM CDT

why? (0.00 / 0)

I guess you'd never vote for Holt, Payne or Rothman, either?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 14:34:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

First of all (0.00 / 0)

there is no better way than to play to every single right-wing talking point than to run around with our hair on fire talking about a "Department of Peace".  

Second of all, the EPA director is not even a cabinet level post.  Even if it weren't stupid to create this department, it would be stupid to make it cabinet level.

Third, everything this department would do is already being accomplished.  What is needed is full funding and institutional support - something that is missing only because Republicans have cut the funding for it.  What would keep them from eliminating this department?  What would keep them from zero-budgeting it as soon as they could.  Nothing.  So it changes nothing.  

Oh wait - it gives the Right something else to make fun of the left for doing.  What results do we have?  Oh, we created a stupid department at the cabinet level to do things that were already being accomplished.  Good job.

Finally, the comparison with Holt, Rothman, and Payne is simply not valid.  For one thing, I only live in a single district.  For another, when I go to vote for Rothman (or not) he'll be facing Vince Micco of the GOP.  Here the choice is to vote for Rob Andrews, who is wanting to waste resources to create a stupid department that will be useless, or Frank Lautenberg, who has - to this point - resisted the stupidity.

Thanks, Dennis Kucinich - you're doing more to destroy the Democratic Party that George W. Bush and Karl Rove ever dreamed of.

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 17:34:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

amen (2.00 / 1)

It is amazing that otherwise intelligent people like Anne don't realize that they are being pandered to (or are so desperate to get co-sponsors for their pet legislation that they don't care about giving progressive credibility to one of the most conservative members of NJ's Congressional delegation).

It is even more amazing to see yet another South Jersey progressive fail to recognize the role that Andrews plays in one of the most insidious political machines in the state.

They should be standing up and fighting against Andrews, Norcross, and their ilk like our friends in Bergen County, not standing beside them as they try to take down one of the few independent politicians left in the state.  

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 00:42:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

HR 808 (0.00 / 0)

HR 808 focuses on a Cabinet Level Department of Peace to focus on conflict issues during childhood before children get older, such Domestic Violence, Rape Crisis, Violence against Gays, Violence against Women etc.

The problem with our country now is we look at these issues after the problem has already happened, not before - HR 808 is a fantastic piece of legislation that forces society to take a serious look at conflict resolution before the conflict takes place.


help mobilize the progressive vote - Visit www.pdamerica.org

---

by: vingopal @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 14:53:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blah blah blah (0.00 / 0)

This is the same argument that the right made for creating the Homeland Security Secretary position.  From where I sit, it's not only uncompelling, but it's pretty good evidence that those who would spout off about it simply don't know what they are talking about.

I can't possibly heap enough scorn upon this idea.

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 17:35:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ideals, Idealogy, Pragmatism and Pandering... (4.00 / 2)

HR808 isn't going to pass any time soon.

If/when we ever got to a point where it could be passed, overcome a filibuster and be signed into law; it would mean what it was no longer needed because we would by then have a State Department that would be seriously/substantively engaged in the pursuit of global peace and we would (obviously) have a president to match.   Such an enlightened congress would have passed all manner of social/economic justice legislation.

On the other hand, Kucinich's ideology/intent is quite admirable in principle.   I dare say Jesus would have approved.

As for Andrews' coming on board?  I'm suspicious of his motivations; but even if he was pandering, it was for a good cause.

Bottom line, I'm still supporting Lautenberg as this one co-sponsorship of an idealistic bill doesn't come close to counter balancing all the other aspects of Andrews' which render him undesirable.

None the less, thanks to Anne Creter for her activism and for sharing this.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 18:41:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

that Jesus would approve of it.  He'd see the institutional structure as being part-and-parcel of the way that, even when we try to do something good, we still take our cut.

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 19:19:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In That Limited Sense; You Are Right... (0.00 / 0)

.....I don't believe Jesus was about starting a "religion" either per say.  

Objective good can't be "canned" in any institutional/bureaucratic structure.   It requires the presence of human beings willing and able to act on the basis of Conscience.  (I'm using that word in a sense far beyond the conventional sense..........btw I just saw a nifty flick today which I recommend: "Red Belt".  It speaks, a bit, to how a person might act in accord with Conscience.)

On the other hand, imperfect as it is, there is a role for government as the outer world framework within which the body politic can manifest it's highest ideals.   So, yes, Christ was much more than a politician.

In any event, I pray that JC comes back soon to clarify this and lots of other points for us!  :-)  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 22:40:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you even read the legislation? (4.00 / 2)

Because by going on your theory, why don't we give up on marriage equality, abolishing the death penalty, and getting guns off city streets?

And without taking any offense, people like Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Conyers and other progressives have done more for the Democratic Party than anyone else will ever have

To say Dennis Kucinich has destroyed the Democratic Party by going to every presidential debate and talking about single-payer healthcare and marriage equality and all these issues, even in 2004 when he was talking about universal healthcare when noone else was, is destroying the Democratic Party as much as Karl Rove is.....doesn't even deserve a response.

But lets go by what your saying and stop any attempts to attain marriage equality in this country because it will give the right wing a good talking point


help mobilize the progressive vote - Visit www.pdamerica.org

---

by: vingopal @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 22:05:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*nods* (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 22:17:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More confusion (0.00 / 1)

a sure sign of a losing argument.

To say Dennis Kucinich has destroyed the Democratic Party by going to every presidential debate and talking about single-payer healthcare and marriage equality and all these issues, even in 2004 when he was talking about universal healthcare when noone else was, is destroying the Democratic Party as much as Karl Rove is.....doesn't even deserve a response.

But yet you feel compelled to respond.  

Nor did I say any of that did I?  I specifically talked about this idea.  Try to stay focused.  Otherwise, you're apt to lose many arguments and many campaigns.

Because by going on your theory, why don't we give up on marriage equality, abolishing the death penalty, and getting guns off city streets?

First, no one is suggesting any of those get a cabinet level position - are they?  Didn't think so.  

Second, what other part of the government is already handling those issues?  Oh yeah - none.

It appears your argument has fallen to tiny little pieces.

And without taking any offense, people like Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Conyers and other progressives have done more for the Democratic Party than anyone else will ever have

I said Dennis Kucinich.  No one else.  Please keep up.

But lets go by what your saying and stop any attempts to attain marriage equality in this country because it will give the right wing a good talking point

 As soon as you show me what department of the government is already working for that.  Can't do it, can you?  Because you are so blinded by a bad idea that you can't even take ten seconds to digest a criticism of it.

THAT is why Dennis Kucinich is so dangerous.  Thank you for providing a better example than I could ever have dug out of the recesses of my mind.


Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again - have you read the legislation? (0.00 / 0)

Oh wait - it gives the Right something else to make fun of the left for doing.  

I do agree with you though, damn Kucinich organizing those 126 bipartisan WPA he cosponsored with several Republican members in of congress in 2004 to rebuild America's infrastructure to produce green jobs - Thank God Hillary and Obama aren't talking about that now.

but you're just talking about this specific idea? its seems like thats what your saying?

Thanks, Dennis Kucinich - you're doing more to destroy the Democratic Party that George W. Bush and Karl Rove ever dreamed of.

Actually your right, I'm not actually entirely sure a cabinet level department of peace is the best idea - but i like the psychology it would put on future generations in this country and refocus our country on self-defense and peace instead of always being on the offensive but I know thats not reason to call Kucinich as bad as Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

I'll stop responding after this because it is probably not going to be productive to keep this thread going but here is the link below to the legislation - if you get a chance, you should read it, you'll probably still oppose it after that, but at least you would have read it so it isn't a direct offense to the dozens of people who worked hundreds of hours writing it and the staffs of 65 house members who contributed to it:

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...


help mobilize the progressive vote - Visit www.pdamerica.org

---

by: vingopal @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 15:50:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oops (0.00 / 0)

I do agree with you though, damn Kucinich organizing those 126 members of congress to vote against the war in Iraq or his bipartisan WPA he cosponsored with several Republican members in of congress in 2004 to rebuild America's infrastructure to produce green jobs - Thank God Hillary and Obama aren't talking about that now.


help mobilize the progressive vote - Visit www.pdamerica.org

---

by: vingopal @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 15:53:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, Damn Kucinich (0.00 / 0)

that's the first thing you've said that makes sense.  He doesn't need any other issue, he can apparently derail common sense with this issue alone.

Again - good attempt at detracting from the issue of stupid legislation that does nothing but play to the strengths of the right.

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 18:32:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Duh...Did you read my reply (1.00 / 2)

It does nothing new.  For example:

(c) Mission- The Department shall--

(1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society;

(2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights;

(3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;

(4) promote the development of human potential;

(5) work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution;

(6) take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;

(7) address matters both domestic and international in scope; and

(8) encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations.

Let me summarize:
1) We will pretend the entire rest of the government is an intention to impose military will upon the people of the United States and the rest of the world;
2) We will function as a department of justice;
3) We will function as a department of state;
4) We will function as a department of education;
5) We will function as a department of state;
6) We will function as USAID and the WorldBank;
7) We will function as both a department of state and department of the interior;
8) We will rename George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives non-sense.

You say yourself that a cabinet level office might not be best - but that is the entire purpose of the legislation!  So you continue to fight for legislation that you admit you do not believe in!  Wow, no wonder you don't want to continue responding.

I want to thank you for sparing the feelings of all the people who work on Capitol Hill.  My God, can you be any more pompous and overbearing for something you admit is faulty?

Will commit political science for food.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 18:31:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

worst progressive advocate ever (0.00 / 0)

Single-payer universal healthcare and marriage equality are two of the most important progressive issues and every time that Dennis Kucinich runs for President and advocates for these issues, he pushes them further and further away from the mainstream, because he is generally perceived as someone who is far removed from the mainstream.

While running for President in 2004, Carol Mosely-Braun was also an advocate for single payer universal health insurance, but while her Presidential campaign was not much more or less effective than Kucinich's, she was a far better advocate for this issue than Kucinich.

Instead of employing Kucinich's frenetic anti-establishment rhetoric, Mosely-Braun presented a very clear and unemotional argument that single-payer was the only feasible approach to achieving universal healthcare, because by taking the for-profit insurance companies out of the equation, it would actually cost the American taxpayer much less than approaches that continued to work within the current for-profit system.

Marriage equality will never come to be as a result of Kucinich's legislative advocacy.  It will come to be when it becomes law in a state (like NJ) and the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed through the courts.  The only thing that Kucinich's advocacy serves to do is promote the myth of Kucinich as a progressive leader, who should be taken seriously, while simultaneously promoting the perception that the concept of marriage equality is as extreme as he is.

Howard Dean might have won the Democratic nomination and the Presidency of the United States in 2004 if Dennis Kucinich did not run his own self-serving campaign that divided progressives.

Despite receiving half as many votes as Dean did in an early MoveOn.org survey, Kucinich's 22% was enough to prevent Dean from getting an early endorsement from the organization, which would have provided additional fuel for Dean's skyrocketing campaign.

And in Iowa, when Dean needed to unite progressives against the Democratic establishment that was manipulating the caucus process in favor of John Kerry, Kucinich encouraged his supporters to caucus for John Edwards, years before Edwards would go on his mea culpa tour, instead of Dean, who like Kucinich, visibly and vocally opposed the Iraq War and as Governor, signed the nation's first civil union legislation into law.

Dennis Kucinich has done nothing for progressives or the Democratic Party.  He has only served to make an otherwise insignificant rabble-rouser into a nationally identifiable crackpot and poster child for anti-progressive propaganda.

Maybe if you were able to split the difference between Andrews and Kucinich, you might actually have a progressive politician who could be an effective advocate, but such an act is still only an option in the realm of science fiction.  But maybe since Kucinich has friends on Mars, it might be more possible than I think.

Either way, it is still better to simply re-elect Frank Lautenberg.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:59:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

please try (0.00 / 0)

Don't quit while you are on a roll.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 00:43:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Violence violence, rape (0.00 / 0)

We don't need a new bureaucracy, we DO NEED an Attorney General who is not a right wing nut job who is neither a misogynist nor a trans/homophobe!

We must get rid of the neocons and the radical wing nuts.

Put in good leadership and people to follow, you can probably even streamline the existing bureaucracy, and make a positive impact

Babs


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 23:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh brother. (4.00 / 2)

great to support someone who merely cosponsors a pandering piece of legislation -- and with little if any action done on it.  I'm not supporting Andrews because of his co-sponsorship of the Iraq War Resolution --- the one he did help get PASSED through the House.  Earth to Annecrets:  bet he doesn't exert the same kind of energy for DOP as he did the Iraq War Resolution.  just a hunch.  

---

by: FlamingModerate @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 14:44:13 PM CDT

Age!Age!Age! (0.00 / 0)

Lautenberg was right when he attacked Fenwick and Andrews is right now.

I don't need a reason to vote for Andrews , I am voting against Lautenberg.

He is just too old .

November is going to bring a great opportunity for vibrant change in this country and I want a Senator who will be able to participate in that vibrant change.

There is no future with Lautenberg , he is ok today but what will he be in 3 years? I don't want a Strom Thurmond representing me.      

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 15:57:20 PM CDT

Wrong Wrong Wrong (4.00 / 1)

To simply judge someone based on age and nothing else is just as wrong as it would be to say your not going to vote for someone because they are obese, or chinese, or black, gay or white, or female or because they are "too young".

I know you're an intelligent person because I've read lots of good sensible words coming from you.

I suggest you rethink your position.  I know you can do it!  :-)

Now, if after the debates have been held it becomes clear that Lautenberg is actually incompetent to hold office; then I'm sure Governor Corzine is quite able to find a good Democrat with which to replace him.

Then that Democrat could take Frank Lautenberg's place on the ballot after his name wins the primary.

But thank you for being honest about the only real "rationale" Andrews has for running.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 18:49:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow (4.00 / 2)

Your words:

Now, if after the debates have been held it becomes clear that Lautenberg is actually incompetent to hold office; then I'm sure Governor Corzine is quite able to find a good Democrat with which to replace him.

Then that Democrat could take Frank Lautenberg's place on the ballot after his name wins the primary.

It's truly staggering to me how quickly you shift from being the scourge of anything back-room and being one of the biggest open-government, open-electoral process voices around to endorsing those very back-room processes, and saying eh, what the heck, the back room is great as long as we get our result! Progressivism is about open processes, unequivocally, and as the rule we strive for, without exception.

Lautenberg's to the left of Andrews, undeniably, but it's disturbing that you'd compromise your core values just because Lautenberg is supposedly vastly more progressive (an assessment which is far from unimpeachable). That's called sycophancy, and it doesn't serve our movement, the progressive movement, well.

---

by: Mr. Steakhouse @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 19:14:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the contrary... (0.00 / 0)

...from my perspective it was Andrews that did the dirtyest of back room deals and undemocratic manipulations with the way he chose to run.

If, heaven forbid, Lautenberg became disabled at any point; Andrews shouldn't be on the list of potential replacements to be appointed.  

I won't bother repeating all the specifics in this thread; but if you really wish to take issue with my low opinion of Andrews legitimacy please feel free to do so here. http://www.bluejersey.net/show...

That diary was up for a long time here and no one who is an avid supporter of Andrews chose to take issue with it.   Feel free to be the first.

I honestly see Andrews as an unethical player in this drama; if you can show me where I'm wrong, I'd be happy to listen.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 22:27:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Undemocratic Manipulations" (0.00 / 0)

Please elaborate. There's nothing undemocratic about using the democratic process to become a candidate for office. There's nothing undemocratic with telling someone you're not running, and then changing your mind and deciding to run.

---

by: Mr. Steakhouse @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 23:05:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've Given You Access To A Lengthy.... (0.00 / 0)

diary on exactly why I believe that Andrews was/is an unethical candidate who indeed engaged in manipulations that violated the spirit of democracy, if not the letter of the law.

I have already "elaborated" at great length.  Have you read what I wrote there?   If yes, and you wish to take issue, feel free to do so here.  http://www.bluejersey.net/show...

I have no wish to "hijack" this thread on the topic of Andrews "support" for Kucinich's bill by cutting and pasting over a thousand words from an other diary into the comments section here. :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 23:18:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've read it. (3.00 / 1)

I still don't see what's undemocratic about it.

What I do see is the following: Lautenberg convened a "back room" (by your definition, not mine) meeting of Congressmen, essentially to lock up support for an uncontested easy renomination. Later, Rob Andrews decided maybe that wasn't something he agreed with, changed his mind and decided to challenge.

So what? That's not undemocratic. In fact, what he did, whether you like it or not, was to take a so-called back room deal and say (in different words) "screw that, let's have the people decide."  And yet that's undemocratic? I fail to see how having more contested elections is less democratic. This is where your real sycophancy starts to show.

If you think he made an unethical decision by changing his mind about a sentiment he allegedly voiced at a private back room meeting, that's fine. Make that argument. I still don't agree with it, but at least make the argument that, theoretically, has legs instead of sounding off about "undemocratic manipulations." It's just silly, silly stuff.

---

by: Mr. Steakhouse @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 17:48:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's A Non-Response (1.00 / 1)

Try answering, or try getting Andrews to answer the specific questions I posed.

He won't; because he can't.

If he tells the truth he's screwed; and if he lies he's worse off because he'd be contradicting all of his colleagues.

You can try to spin away that agreement as a "back room" deal; but the truth is that it was an above board and sensible meeting of the whole Democratic Congressionjal Delegation that served a rationale and good purpose.  Rob Andrews betrayed that purpose in a crass low class purely self serving manner.  

The real "back room" deals were the dirty conniving scheming arrangements that Rob Andrews made with the states top three Democratic bosses to get their support for his  Pearl Harbor style attack on democracy evidenced by his last minute filing.

I have zero respect for Andrews at this point.

The fact that he's smart, and affable and has said and done some good things in the past only makes his  decent into political Hades all the more tragic.

Unless you or someone can provide legitimate/factual answers to the specific question I raises in that diary....my position prevails.

So far not one person has been able or willing to directly take on/address those questions on the ground of that diary.  

Why not???

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 18:28:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Get a clue (1.00 / 1)

Rob Andrews's "Pearl Harbor style attack on democracy?"

That's a pretty disgusting trivialization of an event where Americans died, and in my opinion, it's absolutely beneath reproach. I won't extend arguments with those who aren't willing to argue rationally.

---

by: Mr. Steakhouse @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice Try.... (0.00 / 0)

What Andrews' did was indeed tantamount to a sneak  attack on our democratic process.

You can spin away from dealing with the legitimate and specific questions all you like but the fact remains that those questions are quite "rational" and quite cogent.

The real reason you, and Robert Andrews, need to run away from answering those question is you can't.  

Truthful answers would expose Andrews sneak attack for what it was; a perversion of the democratic process. (Albeit technically 100% legal.)

Your man Andrews is the guy who co-operated with Bush and Cheney in the conflation of Iraq and the 9-11 attacks in order to get us sucked into Bush's dirty war.

Robert Andrews ACTIVELY CO-OPERATED with George Bush in selling us and the US Congress on the idea of invading Iraq.  

THOUSANDS of Americans are DEAD because of your man Robert Andrews helping George Bush and Dick Cheney to CO-SPONSOR their war resolution.

It's YOUR candidate Robert Andrews who is guilty of a "disgusting trivialization" of the lives of American servicemen/women; not me.  

People are DEAD because of Robert Andrews "contribution" to the "success" of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's scamming us into this insanely stupid and utterly counterproductive war in Iraq.

You're the guy who shows up here on this forum a few days after Andrews declares to sing his praises and to defend him.

Please "Mr Steakhouse" feel free to pass along my 24 questions to Rob Andrews and ask him to come here and to answer them; if he can.   I suspect that you may be on good speaking terms with him.

Or don't you think the Democratic primary voters have a right to know precisely how and why he became a candidate and how and why he timed it as he did?   And if not; why not?

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:17:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice Try.... (0.00 / 0)

What Andrews' did was indeed tantamount to a sneak  attack on our democratic process.

You can spin away from dealing with the legitimate and specific questions all you like but the fact remains that those questions are quite "rational" and quite cogent.

The real reason you, and Robert Andrews, need to run away from answering those question is you can't.  

Truthful answers would expose Andrews sneak attack for what it was; a perversion of the democratic process. (Albeit technically 100% legal.)

Your man Andrews is the guy who co-operated with Bush and Cheney in the conflation of Iraq and the 9-11 attacks in order to get us sucked into Bush's dirty war.

Robert Andrews ACTIVELY CO-OPERATED with George Bush in selling us and the US Congress on the idea of invading Iraq.  

THOUSANDS of Americans are DEAD because of your man Robert Andrews helping George Bush and Dick Cheney to CO-SPONSOR their war resolution.

It's YOUR candidate Robert Andrews who is guilty of a "disgusting trivialization" of the lives of American servicemen/women; not me.  

People are DEAD because of Robert Andrews "contribution" to the "success" of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's scamming us into this insanely stupid and utterly counterproductive war in Iraq.

You're the guy who shows up here on this forum a few days after Andrews declares to sing his praises and to defend him.

Please "Mr Steakhouse" feel free to pass along my 24 questions to Rob Andrews and ask him to come here and to answer them; if he can.   I suspect that you may be on good speaking terms with him.

Or don't you think the Democratic primary voters have a right to know precisely how and why he became a candidate and how and why he timed it as he did?   And if not; why not?

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:17:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

6 year term/90/ Too Old (0.00 / 0)

When there are two almost equal candidates and one is going to be 90 at the end of his term, age is a very valid factor for choosing a candidate.

He thought Fenwick was too old at 74!

Age is the main factor in this race and he is just too old to represent me when I have another very good option, and Andrews is a very good option.

Lautenberg himself would have told us to vote against an 84 year old person. Like I said he thought 74 was too old.    

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 19:58:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bottom Lines.. (0.00 / 0)

It's about competency and quality of character.

If Lautenberg, at any point, were to become incompetent he could be quickly replaced.

Forgive me, but I truly find it hard to believe that you could be so shallow as to not grasp the meaning of the above paragraph.   Is that really the only "issue"/factor for you?

I'll cheerfully grant you that Lautenberg was wrong to have questioned Fenwick on that basis.   You're right there!!!

But for you to then go ahead and repeat Lautenberg's error is downright illogical.

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Eh?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun May 11, 2008 at 22:52:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lautenberg is still a politician (0.00 / 0)

What makes Lautenberg such an exceptional " character guy"?

Was it OK for him to go and attack an older woman and claim she was "losing it" back when he was younger? Is that " character"?

Now all of a sudden we can't talk about age because he is old.

Lautenberg is a politician. Don't make him out to be this nice old guy who is getting picked on. He will do anything and twist any event to put himself in a position to be elected.

Andrews is smarter, more energetic, and much , much, much younger. Plus he lives in New Jersey ALL of the time.

It is time to send Lautenberg back to Park Avenue with his wife.
 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:07:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Voting on youth? (4.00 / 1)

"Andrews is smarter, more energetic, and much , much, much younger. Plus he lives in New Jersey ALL of the time."

This is your criteria for choosing a candidate??

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:43:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lautenberg isn't perfect..... (0.00 / 0)

......no one ever said he was.  His ageist aspersions on Fenwick were indeed wrong.  

That doesn't justify you being ageist toward him today.    Two wrongs don't make a right.

What you fail to see is that Andrews is a fatally flawed candidate.

He's a sneak thief.   He's untrustworthy.   He's demonstrably unethical.

If Andrews somehow were to win the nomination and the Republicans actually ran a decent opponent; Andrews just might lose...that's how bad he is.

If you disagree, go back and look at my 24 questions, and don't tell me that "Andrews is allowed to change his mind and that his run is legal".....that's not good enough.

Andrews is a guy who threw THE WHOLE NEW JERSEY CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION under the bus just so he'd have a shot at becoming a Senator....AND he COSPONSORED Bush's war.

AND he thinks we should have an amendment to the US Constitution to protect the flag from being insulted.....now, Mr First Amendment, what part of Andrews record do you like?

Or is it that being young and slick and glib trumps everything???

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:10:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They aren't almost equal candidates (4.00 / 1)

I'll take a completely senile Lautenberg over Andrews any day.  The key is that they aren't "almost equal candidates."  What's the point of BlueJersey if we're going to regard the progressive Lautenberg and the Bush-like Andrews as "almost equals"?

These days I think Norcross must have everyone in South Jersey on his payroll for all the uncritical support Andrews is gettting there.

Just my 2 cents.
-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:06:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Second Your Emotion, But... (0.00 / 0)

...if it emerges that Lautenberg were in fact mentally unqualified; then he should be replaced post haste by Corzine with a candidate who has some integrity and solid progressive credentials.....then that person would get to take his place on the ballot in November since Andrews will surely lose in this primary.

So, even if Andrews' "ultimate fantasy" were to be fulfilled and Lautenberg lost his marbles or became otherwise unable to run....he (Andrews) will still emerge as the loser he so richly deserves to be.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:18:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't vote for Andrews (4.00 / 3)

I would love to be able to vote for him. He's my rep and has always been very accessible and responsive and I think, overall, he's done a good job as a representative.

But he lacks either the intellectual abilities or moral fiber to be a senator, a position that demands independence and critical thinking.

In the lead up to the Iraq war resolution, I, as well as many people here, communicated with him pleading that he not support the resolution. I wrote him a rather long letter going through the intelligence and motivation for this war. I showed him, in detail, that the intelligence did not at all support President Bush's contentions for the need for a preemptive war. Additionally, even if minor accumulations of so-called weapons of mass destruction existed, these were crude chemical weapons of WW1 style that could not possibly pose a threat to the USA or even our allies in the region. Saddam had finally given full access to the UN inspection team, they were almost finished and would issue their report soon. There was no hurry in pursuing this.

And any true connection between Bin Laden and Saddam were ludicrous.

I agreed that, militarily, we could easily defeat Saddam's armies but then what? The country was a mass of groups that would not cooperate with each other and democracy would not easily work there. The elder Bush had recognized this and decided not to overthrow Saddam in the first Gulf War.

I further pointed out that Saddam acted as a brake against Shia Iran and his removal would embolden Iran.

I also strongly argued that this unnecessary venture would severely distract us from our search for Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists and that Bush's motivations for pursuing this war while we were fully engaged in Afganistan were odd and inexplicable.

I believed any critically thinking person who had any reasonable knowledge of the history and geopolitical issues of the region could easily see and agree with me on these concerns. No special or secret knowledge was needed to know that Bush was pushing something that went against the interest of the USA in protecting ourselves against terrorism and preserving our interests in the Middle East.

Andrews responded in detail basically saying he had information I wasn't privy to and he had carefully analyzed the information and concluded that Saddam was a dire threat to the USA and he fully supported the war resolution.

Knowing now what information Andrews had access to, I know there is no way a critically thinking person could have concluded what he did. Not only did Andrews support the Iraq resolution, he was a leader in the effort to recruit other House members to vote for it. He was so instrumental that he stands directly behind Bush during the signing.

He continued his strong support for the Iraq war until it became obvious it was not going to go well.

Andrews either is incapable of critical thinking or he was swept up in war fever or he was worried about his political career so pretended support.  One of these is the true reason and any one of them disqualifies him for such a high and important position.

I'm happy he supported the DOP, but, in my opinion, this is just him jumping on the anti-Iraq bandwagon.

---

by: peteathome @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:31:29 AM CDT

Low IQ Is Not Andrews' Problem... (4.00 / 1)

He's damned by his own toxic ambition, his willingness to pander and an "ends justify the means" approach to politics.

It's a shame because he's clearly a talented and dedicated fellow who had done some good things; but I don't want to see him in the Senate and certainly not in the Governor's office.

Andrews picked what he thought would be the "winning" side with Bush/Cheney on Iraq....and he picked what he thought would be the "winning" side with Adubato/Norcross/Ferriero  (Ferriero jumped ship as soon as Rothman stood up to him).

The irony/tragedy is that, had Rob Andrews stuck to the high road and been patient; his lofty ambitions would likely have been realized.  

peatathome wrapped it up nicely...

Andrews either is incapable of critical thinking or he was swept up in war fever or he was worried about his political career so pretended support.  One of these is the true reason and any one of them disqualifies him for such a high and important position.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 17:55:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]