(The language may be a little crass, but I don't find it as offensive as calling an elected assemblywoman "a jerk." With the Christiecrat wing of the Democratic party taking power in Trenton, are we headed toward one-party government? The only real Democrat in a power position is Senator Loretta Weinberg. Can she single-handedly return the party to its principles? - promoted by deciminyan)
If political perception were reality then one would think that New Jersey is a shining example of economic success.
Just look at the newest television advertisement from the pro-Christie 'Committee for Our Children's Future', which supposedly echoes Ronald Reagan's cheerful "Morning in America" campaign from his 1984 presidential run. And yet, New Jersey continues to remain in the economic muck. As Bill Orr meticulously documents, instead of propelling New Jersey forward, Christie's policies have taken the state in the opposite direction.
This comes on top of Christie's touting his almost successful "bipartisan" tax cut deal. A deal which may come to fruition if the pro-Christie advertising groups have anything to say about it. Yet the Governor once again employs the divide-and-rule tactic to get the same worn out Democrats to fall in line with his policies. This is the antithesis of true bipartisanship. He is playing machine and boss based politics like the crony politician he is, despite his vehement denials.
And so my question is when does the bullshit stop? I wake up every morning demoralized to be a Democrat from New Jersey. I know the majority of my state agrees with my Democratic values, but my party and more specifically my leaders (Sweeney and co.) refuse to step up and fight back. I do not want a fight for the sake of fighting. I am looking for someone to articulate a forward looking vision to get our state economy growing and to stop the posturing that is the basis of the Christienomics. Moreover, I want my party to defend the principles it stands for, regardless of how much the Governor huffs and puffs.
I am tired of bipartisanship meaning Democrats conceding to all the demands of a Republican Governor. I want my values represented in Trenton: fair pay for hard work, respect for public workers, middle class policies instead of tax cuts for the rich, better and better-funded public schools. But all I get from Trenton is more bullshit, more bullshit ads, and bullshit claims of bipartisanship. When does the bullshit stop?
P.S. Apologies if anyone is offended by the word "bullshit," its my Jersey heritage.
A few days ago, I sketched out a diary about a decision by state Democratic Chair John Wisniewski join 10 other state chairs behind an effort to include marriage equality plank in the 2012 Democratic platform. And I held it in draft hoping for an exclusive quote for us about it.
And frankly, as glad as I was to see Wisniewski sign on to that - joining both our U.S. senators and the Dem chairs of the 3 biggest states of California, Texas and our open-for-marriage neighbor New York among others - I didn't think the effort, organized by Freedom to Marry, stood a chance in hell. Adopt a plank to the left of the president? Yeah, right. But I love being wrong...
And also ... Democrats who don't want to put 'Democrat' on the lawn signs. Same deal. - promoted by Rosi
There is a common belief (one that I used to hold) that Democrats running in more conservative areas will fare better if they appear more "moderate" more "independent" more "mainstream." The rationale is that a Democratic nominee can count on the party base and thus needs to appeal to the center and center-right votes to secure victory. Simple enough really, and appealing to candidates forging ahead against heavy odds.
Look at John Arvanites in the NJ-11 who sent out the invitation to his kickoff event with the words "Independent Democrat" in bold. Or at the Democrats vying in the NJ-5: Jason Castle has billed himself from the start as a "moderate Democrat," and Adam Gussen is supposedly a "Blue Dog" Democrat.
Can a third party candidate win a state-wide office? A safer bet would be Congressman Jon Runyan winning the Nobel Prize in Physics. But third party candidates arguably can influence elections. If Chris Daggett had not run for governor (with the endorsement of the Sierra Club), perhaps Chris Christie would be a former US Prosecutor now working at a high-powered Wall Street firm.
Other democracies such as Australia and Israel are not saddled by a two party system, which in New Jersey is more of a 1½ party system. Thanks to the party bosses, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been mostly marginalized, and in the end the Koch Brothers' agenda is being played out by our governor and a loyal opposition.
Today, I interviewed the Green Party candidate, Ken Wolski (below). More discussion, including some questions for readers, below the fold.
Did you catch the many creative ways Raymond Bateman referred to Frank Lautenberg's age in his op-ed yesterday, State's North-South divide heating up? Why, it almost seems that the former Senate President (and holder of the LD-16 Senate spot before Kip) has caught on to the fact that Frank Lautenberg is old. Whoa, nothing escapes him.
"Even as the deadline nears for legislative action on this massive set of changes, New Jersey's aging (88 years old) U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg ..."
(snip)
"It was predicted to be a close primary battle between North and South, between youth (Andrews, 50) and age (Lautenberg, 84)."
(snip)
"The bad vibes from Lautenberg's negative assessment of the New Jersey higher ed changes may well hurt him if he runs (at 90 years old) in 2014."
(snip)
"Frank Lautenberg is the oldest member of the U.S. Senate. In 2014, if he so chooses, he will be campaigning in his 90th year."
You know what happens to old people sometimes. They get forgetful and say the same thing over and over? Maybe Bateman keeps forgetting he already told us how old Lautenberg is. Bateman's op-ed is a GOP hatchet job meant to further wedge Democrats apart by reminding them what they don't like about each other. And, oh yeah, that Frank Lautenberg is old. Bateman's 85; I guess he has 3 years before he's walking into walls, and neglecting personal hygiene. Offensive, right? Right. No less offensive when Bateman indulges in ageist stereotype.
Here's the thing: I don't care how old Frank Lautenberg (or anybody else) is, as long as he's doing his job. Same reason I thought Ronald Reagan's deft turnaround on age in the Reagan-Mondale debate was bang-on. Same reason why fat isn't the reason Chris Christie's a bad governor. These are extraneous issues. Distractions. Shiny objects. Besides, Lautenberg can kick plenty of the asses that make a move on him. When he can't, he'll let us know or the voters will. Sweeney isn't going to tell me. Rob Andrews failed at it. And Bateman is in no position to.
Sen. Bateman, why the hell should I care what you have to say at 85 if you're telling me that at 88, Frank Lautenberg is too dotty to listen to? Ditto the fat man's suggestion Lautenberg should retire. Ditto the Leaders Fund PolitickerNJ ad calling Lautenberg "bizzare" (oh, you mean as in dementia?) and signed by a whole list of mostly South Jersey Democrats itchy to convince us only people in the north question the wisdom of allowing Rowan to subsume Rutgers-Camden, and Lautenberg represents only those people. Get serious.
A few days ago, Sweeney told Lautenberg "this Rob Andrews stuff has to end". As though anybody but the Norcross gang ever brings that up. As though Lautenberg questioning what everybody else in NJ (including South Jersey) is questioning on the Rut-Ro merger was some kind of leftover vendetta (it was Andrews who chose to base his campaign on little more beyond "Frank is old", a big loser strategy).
Ray Bateman sounds ridiculous. That's GOP-flavored silliness, to bang a wedge in further, the idea that the Rutgers-Rowan merger is in trouble because Democrats hate each other (instead of hating really crappy, poorly thought-out plans affecting thousands of people for decades to come). But there's plenty for Democrats to own up to here, too. Sounding just as ridiculous is the squalling and shrieking eminating from the South Jersey machine whose mastermind used to be wedged further under a nice protective rock. That may be unkind, probably is, but unelected people manipulating policy while remaining unaccountable and with motive shielded and untransparent while they do it make me cranky.
Let the Rutgers-Rowan merger be decided on facts, after study, careful cost analysis, and input from the old ones and the young ones, the fat and the thin, and with the proper consideration such a tremendous move requires. That's it.
Governor Christie's "Town Hall" meetings have fascinated the mainstream media with their bombast, fancy props, and security details consisting of State Police and men in dark suits wearing earpieces. The script is always the same - a daytime meeting making it difficult for working people to attend, the governor pontificating for a while and then taking off his coat to answer questions, and his relishing YouTube moments to bash Democrats, teachers, female legislators, or whoever his target happens to be that week.
By contrast, the Democrats' Town Hall meetings are low key, with scant coverage by the press, and no fancy props. After all, while the Governor's political rants are paid for by taxpayers, the Dem's meetings are funded by the party.
Last night, Senate President Stephen Sweeney was introduced by Senator Fred Madden at a town hall meeting at Camden County College in Blackwood. The auditorium was full, but not overflowing. There were no long lines to get in, unobtrusive security from the campus police, and no hoards of mainstream press and TV cameras to bring the proceedings to the general public.
Sweeney only spoke for a few minutes before taking questions from the audience. While the main item on the agenda was his tax reform proposal, he took questions on a variety of topics. Blue Jersey was there to bring you the proceedings. (Unfortunately, we had technical problems with the campus audio feed. The audio is sub-par; listening with headphones for better clarity is recommended.)
Below the fold: some time markers for interesting questions and answers.
Without regard to the merits of the case or how our state senators voted on Gov. Chris Christie's state Supreme Court nominee Phillip Kwon, I was taken by the governor's comment, "They all followed the political line like lemmings," in reference to seven of the eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voting "no."What does the governor call the straight party-line votes Republicans have made on the initiatives and bills endorsed by the governor since he was inaugurated? The united votes of independent thinkers?
That seems to sum things up nicely for the Governor's case. But how is it everyone following like lemmings, if everyone didn't actually follow? It seems like the lemmings were the ones who followed the Governor, no? I guess it's ok if you're a Christie Republican, just more of that independent thinking.
Yesterday's explosive Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which ended with a 7-6 rejection of Gov. Christie's nominee Phillip Kwon and a string of incendiary words from some of the committee Republicans, brought out an altogether expected burst of bluster from the Governor, who called the hearing a "circus".
After all the sturm und drang, it's important not to lose the substance of the objections raised in yesterday's questions and answers. There were serious issues at issue for the committee, as two statements released today by Senator Loretta Weinberg, Senate Majority Leader, member of the Judiciary Committee and also of the Blue Jersey community, and Senate President Steve Sweeney, who was present for the vote.
I have to say that I'm impressed with something, and I don't impress easily. The Somerset Dems, one county over from my own crimson Hunterdon, have just started up an LGBT caucus. It's new, and just in the recruiting stage now.
What can an LGBT caucus do in a group of Democratic activists? County Chair Peg Schaffer says this:
"I have asked this caucus to take a look at specific issues such as marriage equality and bullying, while also asking them to make sure that the voice of the LGBT community is heard on core Democratic issues such as jobs creation and health care affordability."
The caucus may also tackle issues of HIV/Aids prevention and treatment, and bias crime legislation, both to raise awareness and then build consensus locally in Somerset County and have influence statewide. Bedminster's Charles Eader will Chair the Caucus. Schaffer sees the new caucus as a continuation of Democratic Party mission: "The Democratic Party has always been about advancing the civil rights of minority communities and the formation of the LGBT Caucus in Somerset County is building on that strong record."
County parties sometimes seem disconnected from activist life; existing next to, but separate from it. Activists are compelled by issues - war, racism, poverty, labor, poverty, civil rights. They don't always think electorally - which county parties sometimes only do - and because they don't think electorally, activists sometimes miss their opportunities to influence electeds by more effectively lobbying, or fail to see their opportunities to become elected people themselves, influencing their political party as county committee members or influencing policy by running for office themselves.
promoted by the_promised_land - an interesting step back on the state of the Democratic Party in New Jersey in 2012 from a new writer. Welcome, jackstanton!
The title question is, perhaps, overly provocative. As any presidential map since 1992 illustrates, New Jersey is a blue state. But as someone who has spent the past year away, serving merely as an enthusiastic observer, I hope you don't mind me sharing a couple concerns about the state of things headed into the November elections.
While there are many obstacles facing New Jersey Democrats, there are a couple challenges that are paramount. (1) Not having one central democrat to act as a foil to the Governor allows Christie to frame many of the policy debates, (2) Congressional redistricting removed a Democratic seat, (3) factions within the legislative ranks has made it hard to unilaterally oppose Christie's anti-middle class policies, and (4) a lack of recognition among many that the future of the State Party relies on all of its members working together toward common goals.
I don't think any of these challenges would come as a surprise to a reader of BlueJersey, which has fastidiously documented them. I did want to list them though, because if we're not careful, I do think they might come back to haunt us in November.
There is the very real possibility of ending up with an even 50.50 Congressional split, we have a Governor who has no problem forwarding his agenda, and we are facing the prospect of a difficult re-election race for Senator Menendez. It is a worrisome political climate for Democrats. I don't have any unique insight into any of these issues, but as I wrote at the start, I want to share some concerns as a mere observer.
On the first challenge: until a Democrat emerges as the key opposition to Christie, which might not be until after the Democratic Gubernatorial primary, he has the largest microphone in the state. Coupled with Christie's penchant for yelling, I don't see any respite from his loudmouthed politics. I do wonder whether there isn't more that can and should be done to create a coherent and unified opposition?
With the NJ HQ of the Obama campaign now open (Mitt, buddy, where's yours?) and daffodils poking their heads out of the soggy ground to rush the calendar, campaigns are beginning to staff up. And if you're looking for them, they're looking for you.
This morning we have a press release from the NJ Democratic State Committee and its chair, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, to announce a resumé bank now starting up at NJDSC. It's meant to be a clearinghouse, a one-stop shopping for Democratic candidates looking for staffers.
Applicants looking to connect with a Jersey-based campaign should send their resume to resume@njdems.org. If you're looking for a particular kind of position - management, fundraising, research, outreach, political, field or internship - make sure to note that in the body of the email.
An endorsement letter, signed by a number of Monmouth County Democratic municipal chairs, mayors, council members and elected officials, former Freeholders, labor leaders and additional leaders follows this, belos the fold. - promoted by Rosi
BlueJersey Community:
I wanted to let you know I am seeking the soon-to- be vacant Monmouth County Demcoratic Party Chairmanship. Vic Scudiery has served our county party for 23 years with honor and integrity.
Our progressive principles unite us, not divide us. Our desire for an open political process strengthens us, not weakens us. Already we have filled over 75 vacant county committee seats in the past few weeks and we are just getting started!
Together, we will challenge Joe Kyrillos vote by vote in his home county and I will work tirelessly to make sure that happens.
Please urge those you know who live in Monmouth to support our candidacy and join the fight. My list of endorsements are after the thread.
I look forward to standing with all of you in the years ahead.
Earlier this week the Latino Action Network joined with the Women's Political Caucus, Latinas United for Political Empowerment - Political Action Committee, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, Latino Coalition of Monmouth County, and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO to file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in In re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative District, the New Jersey Supreme Court case in which Gabriela Mosquera's election as 4th District Assemblywoman in November 2011 is being challenged despite her having won more votes than her opponents.
On Wednesday, January 26, 2012 we heard that the Supreme Court has accepted our amicus brief.
One of her opponents, Shelley Lovett, argues that because Ms. Mosquera moved to the 4th District 11 months prior to the election, she violated a requirement in the New Jersey Constitution that all candidates must live in their district for at least a year. However, a federal judge back in 2002 had held that provision invalid under the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. As such the Secretary of State (Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno) had told Ms. Mosquera that she could run for office, without challenge, and in fact every candidate since 2002 has been told the same thing.
Watching the NJTV coverage of Governor Christie's State of the State Address was like watching a train wreck. It's no surprise that the station, run by Christie's Adubato clan, made this broadcast just the opening salvo in the governor's re-election campaign.
Of course, Christie is an excellent orator. That's part of his appeal to the average voter. But it's NJTV's job to inform the average voter, not to provide an unchecked platform for the governor. And the Democrats are just abettors in this process.
Conventional wisdom says that one way to defeat Congressman Jon Runyan this year is to fight fire with fire. That is, instead of the Democrats standing up a run-of-the-mill politician against Runyan, they should nominate a celebrity. The thinking is that there's really no one in the Burlington/Ocean county political establishment that has the name recognition, fundraising ability, and gravitas to compete with the ex-NFL "bad boy" and his bottomless source of campaign funds from the corporatists.
There is a celebrity athlete in Runyan's congressional district - one who has dabbled in politics before., and can be orders of magnitude better than Runyan. Olympian Carl Lewis ran for state senate last year, only to be denied the opportunity to serve because a judge ruled that the long-time New Jerseyan did not strictly fit the residency requirements.
Photo of Lewis' announcement of his senate run - April, 2011
(Left to right: Orange, NJ Mayor Eldrige Hawkins, Carl Lewis, Christopher Walker - Executive Director of the Carl Lewis Foundation, New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney)
(Marie's piece here has been getting a lot of buzz around the Twittersphere today, so it's well worth promoting. Follow the links she provides to some other responses to the S-L's editorial; I've added some others below. - promoted by Jersey Jazzman)
I was very disappointed to start my New Year off this morning by reading a fact-less and biased op-ed piece in The Star Ledger about the Voucher Bill. It had already lit up the Twitter and Facebook feeds long before I had my first cup of coffee, with Save Our Schools NJ and NJParents1 posting fact-filled responses.
It is reprehensible and irresponsible for the state's largest newspaper to publish such a work of fiction. Anyone could do a quick Google search to find plenty of evidence to refute their claim that vouchers offer 'a lifeline for poor kids'. I do hope Politifact New Jersey does their homework on this one.
This is not a Democrat vs. Republican or state vs. NJEA issue. This is an issue of our government offering false hope to families of struggling students, financial aid to struggling private and parochial schools, and tax breaks to big corporations. This program that has been tried in various cities around the country for 20 years with no measurable success does nothing to address the crushing effects of poverty on a child's ability to learn. And according to both the US Census Bureau and the NJDOE, poverty, or lack thereof, is a major factor in a child's success in school.
If Trenton is serious about helping struggling students, why not let corporations give those tax breaks to programs that will help the poor live decent lives including affordable health insurance, housing, jobs, and ESL classes? Or how about giving that money directly to the school districts not only to invest in measures that have been proven to work such smaller class sizes, rich, deep curriculums, and strong half day pre-K and full day kindergarten programs, but to help them buy much needed materials and fix broken down, dilapidated buildings?
Newspapers are supposed to uncover the truth, not perpetuate lies. The Star Ledger can and should do better.
As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
This past week, we've seen a lot about the impact of congressional redistricting and the positioning of candidates in North Jersey for the upcoming election. Congressman Steve Rothman has declared that he will move and challenge his colleague Bill Pascrell in a primary rather than face incumbent Republican extremist Scott Garrett. Whether or not Rothman's decision is a good one, it hurts me to see two Democrats spending a million dollars to knock each other off when the money could be better spent in an all-out effort to oust Garrett, one of the worst members of Congress.
It also bothers me that the Fourth Estate has virtually ignored the important race in the Third District. Another member of the "worst congressman's club" is former NFL bad boy and current congressman Jon Runyan. Runyan's voting record is as bad as Garrett's, and over time if Runyan builds up seniority in the House, his impact will be just as deleterious.
U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.) is telling Democrats he plans to challenge Bill Pascrell (D-8th Dist.) in the June primary, according to two Democratic sources with knowledge of the congressman's thinking.
A few anonymous sources are quoted for the article. An announcement from Rothman is apparently due this week.
Needless to say, I am sorry to have found this out, and I hope a strong Democrat will come forward to take on Garrett. It's obviously going to be someone without a $1.5 million war chest, but we need to support them all the same.
Jay Lassiter's Blue Jersey diary, Paging Bill Pascrell, posted at 09:43:28am today, is already out-of-date.
And that's good news.
Garden State Equality just announced a few minutes ago, that the Respect for Marriage Act, intended to repeal DOMA, is now a clean sweep of support by NJ Democratic members of Congress:
BREAKING NEWS: Every Democrat in the New Jersey Congressional delegation is now a sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act to repeal DOMA. That includes Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez, and Congressmen Andrews, Holt, Pallone, Payne, Rothman and Sires - and Congressman Pascrell just told us that he, too, will sponsor. (To facebook supporters, it urges): Click LIKE to thank our unanimous Democratic Congressional delegation.
I don't know if Jay's diary helped edge Rep. Pascrell into our column on this, or if his decision was already made. Doesn't matter. His support on this issue is very welcome.
Just yesterday, Jeff Gardner wrote about Senator Bob Menendez joining the marriage equality efforts, long in coming, and gratifying.
For disclosure's sake, as I've said here before, I'm a member of GSE's board. I'd be writing about this anyway. It's exciting stuff.
If you want to go as a delegate, the state Democrats are offering two free workshops this month to walk you through the process. The Democratic National Convention, which is expected to confirm Barack Obama as the party's nominee against whatever wholly inadequate nominee the GOP throws up in their infinite wisdom. The Democrats meet in Charlotte, North Carolina - Sept. 3-7, 2012.
At the workshops they'll review the delegate selection process and go over the deadlines requirements. These are the first two workshops. More will be scheduled after the new year.
NJDSC Bergen County Delegate Selection Workshop Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, 687 Larch Avenue, Teaneck
NJDSC Middlesex County Delegate Selection Workshop (following MCDO county committee meeting)
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Woodbridge Hilton, 120 Wood Avenue South, Iselin
Here's a couple links to the docs that lay out how delegates will be selected. Enjoy:
.gif)
