Of course, we will be on top of things tomorrow as the polls close and the results start to (happily) roll in.
I will hopefully be live blogging at the Shulman for Congress victory party (wireless access permitting), and we will have updates from other Blue Jersey front pagers who will be "on the inside" at the Adler and Stender camps as well.
The thread will go up around 8PM to coincide with the closing of the polls, and hopefully we will have good news to report throughout the night.
Hope to see you here tomorrow night celebrating with us!!!
Campaigns and Elections has a "Hall of Shame" of electoral nutjobs on this year's ballot. New Jersey has landed the spot at the top with the candidacy - actually, both candidacies, of Jeff Boss:
Candidates invariably say they're speaking the plain truth to voters, but Jeff Boss is one candidate who can claim to be an actual "truther." That's the name that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have given themselves, and Boss is a member in good standing. On the ballot in New Jersey both as an independent Senate and presidential candidate, Boss claims to have extensive personal knowledge of the events surrounding the terrorist attacks seven years ago.
It's tough to glean from his website, which is virtually impossible to navigate because it was so hastily thrown together, but Boss insists that prior to 9/11, one of his relatives with knowledge of national security matters described a scenario in which the government planned to fly airplanes into buildings.
Boss's paranoia is so extreme that it?s difficult to piece together his claims, but they mostly revolve around his cataloguing of several attempts on his life, all of which he believes were carried out by the National Security Agency. He regaled me with stories of finding suspicious items underneath his car that he believes to be bombs, and insists he has been the target of NSA surveillance.
The wonderful thing about electoral politics in the US is the ... well, let's use the word "colorful" ... characters that decide to challenge the system by launching independent campaigns. One of my favorites was Loretta Nall, who ran for Governor of Alabama under the slogan "Vote for Nall, Y'all". Her platform was largely limited to legalizing marijuana and repealing the state law that required women to wear panties when visiting male prisoners in state penitientiaries (go ahead and Google, I'll wait). I mean, when a candidate has an official campaign shirt (more of these boobs, less of the ones in office), you gotta appreciate the effort.
I'm decidedly less thrilled with the latest independent candidate in New Jersey. Daryl Brooks is apparently running so he can expose the horrors of child-support. I kid you not:
"America's child support system has been called by many 'The modern-day resurrection of the debtor's prison system,' " Brooks said in a press release. "Thousand of previously incarcerated people have been re-jailed or imprisoned -- for anywhere from six months to three years or more -- over this type of debt, and face more FELONY convictions tacked upon their records as a result."
The short story:
Daryl Brooks, city activist and independent U.S. Senate candidate, was jailed Monday for failure to pay more than $70,000 in child support payments to three women.
Brooks, who served a jail term for a sex offense in 1998, vowed to embark on a hunger strike to protest the treatment of those released from prison in America.
Brooks says he can't pay his child support - which he owes for an unknown number of people to three different women - because he has trouble finding work when people find out he's a sex offender. Oddly enough, thousands of ex-inmates find paying jobs and manage to live up to their obligations - despite the challenges in doing so. I'm not saying that Brooks' arguments doesn't contain a seed of truth, but it's a seed that is buried so deeply that it can't see the light of day.
FDU PublicMind has a new poll out. If your name rhymes with "Rick Dimmer"; then it might just be bad enough news to make you cry.
With under a month to go before the election, 35% of respondants had never heard of the Generic Republican Opponent (GRO). That included 23% of Republicans. Only 17% of voters had a favorable opinion of the GRO. 36% had heard of him, but had no opinion.
That makes two-thirds of the respondants who had either not heard of the GRO or didn't know what to think of him. The only thing things could get worse would be, as they say in Louisiana, he were caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy.
If the election were held today, Lautenberg would get 50% of the vote (including leaners) to 34% for the GRO. While this is sure to be news that makes our senior Senator relax on weekends, the problem is that... well, it makes him relax on weekends. I haven't even seen a yardsign. The net effect of that is to stunt any sort of coattails Barack Obama might get started at the top of the ballot.
I've not been overly impressed with the campaign Linda Stender has run this year - especially considering how strong she ran in '06. But John Adler is working hard, as is Dennis Shulman. Josh Zeitz and Dave Kurkowski and Tom Wyka are all working their butts off, and they could use support from the top of the ticket. But they aren't getting it - and it looks like they may as well give up on any hope that they will.
Rob Andrews just said on the NJ 101.5 debate that he supports a minimum wage of $15-16/hour.
Lautenberg wouldn't say what level he supports. "I don't think that one can place a dollar figure on it. It ought to be enough to support a family."
Round 1: Andrews 1, Lautenberg 0
Both candidate say they support marriage equality. Andrews also volunteered that he would favor repealing DOMA -- the Defense of Marriage Act - - which he notes both he and Lautenberg voted for.
Round 2: Andrews 2, Lautenberg 0
Update: I joined in late and got bored half way through, hence the weak coverage. Anyone else listen and catch anything interesting?
Speaking of debates, I was a little bored earlier today and put my photoshop skills to use...
The closing statements of Frank Lautenberg, Rob Andrews, and Donald Cresitello are available at mycentraljersey videos. The rest of the debate does not seem to be available.
If you find yourself watching a man kissing a pig, you're playing the wrong video.
Update: I see that the debate is available at the Courier-Post multimedia section but you need to scroll past other videos, and it is cut into pieces.
One of the advantages of a contested primary is the opportunity to ask Democratic candidates to speak out on the issues that are important to us. The Presidential contest has featured a long debate about the merits of the Edwards, Clinton, and Obama health care plans, but all three aimed for major legislation to decrease costs and expand coverage. We know from every previous experience that each senate vote will be important and that swaying public opinion is even more crucial. I believe that Lautenberg and Andrews must seize this opportunity to advance our cause.
With that framework in mind, I think Senator Lautenberg is failing the moment. His health care webpage emphasizes his fine record and a number of important new initiatives, but is silent on the matter of universal health care. In 1994, he was late to the health-care fight, but came on board with a great statement :
"We have left a segment of society behind without health security," Mr. Lautenberg said. "They are in the same situation my mother was in over 50 years ago. For the most part, they work, pay taxes, raise their families and play by the rules. But they lack health care coverage through no fault of their own. They deserve better than our current system provides."
I ask Senator Lautenberg to make universal health care a campaign issue, because qualified support and a senate speech after the legislation is in trouble won't be enough.
Every so often an issue gets into the senate candidates' press releases. Here's one.
Rob Andrews argues that high oil prices are in part due to speculation in commodities markets and points to his work in Congress to introduce new regulations. I've been skeptical, but I was struck by this post by Jonathan Taplin:
I have maintained for a while that oil prices (and perhaps other commodities as well) are being driven higher not by the laws of supply and demand, but by the moves of speculators. This morning the Dow Jones news-wire reported the following.
OPEC member Iran is storing about 25 million barrels of heavy crude oil in tankers in the Persian Gulf. The country expects to move the stored crude by the end of the second quarter or early in the third quarter, an official from the National Iranian Oil Co. said Wednesday.
In other words, there is so little demand that they have completely used up their on shore storage capacity and don't expect to clear this inventory until October...
Today's news roundup featured an interesting article from the Bergen Record.
Rob Andrews, the South Jersey congressman running for U.S. Senate, directed at least $2.3 million in federal grants to Rutgers Law School while his wife was a dean, records show.
Rob Andrews directed at least $2.3 million in federal grants to Rutgers Law School while his wife was a dean, records show.
The money paid for scholarships and student-loan relief, plus a legal-assistance program at the Rutgers-affiliated LEAP Academy, a charter school where Andrews' wife, Camille Spinello Andrews, was a trustee.
Rob Andrews is challenging U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, the Cliffside Park Democrat, in the June party primary election. The Lautenberg campaign Tuesday said the earmark was a conflict of interest.
"Andrews owes New Jersey taxpayers an explanation as to why he ... directed taxpayer money to a program his wife controls," said Julie Roginsky, a spokesman for Lautenberg.
GASP! I can't believe that Rob Andrews (D-Haven't you heard yet that he's actually Dick Cheney in disguise?!?!) would try and secure a grant for one of the state's premier law schools. Especially one in his district. It can't have anything to do with that; it must be solely because his wife works there! Clearly, this is corruption.
If only there was some kind of ethical guideline that could be followed in a situation like this...
But in a phone interview, Andrews - a onetime Rutgers Law School instructor - defended the grants. He said that he had House ethics committee clearance to request the funds.
Oh. Ok. Well, well, but, you see, it's corrupt! Even though the Ethics Committee cleared it! Really! How dare Rob Andrews secure funding for a University with which his wife is affiliated. Clearly, this is political patronage, puffing up a fat cat bureaucracy rather than trying to expand successful and needed programs that benefit the residents of the 1st congressional district!
"The fact is that I was successful in winning funding for a scholarship at Rutgers," he said. "The [LEAP] program has helped produce about 30,000 hours of free legal service for Camden County's poorest residents, who wouldn't get a lawyer otherwise."
Oh. Ok. Well. Whatever. Well, Rob Andrews still supported the war during the critical 2002 buildup. How unprogressive. That's certainly a position unique to him among the two candidates.
Give me a break. If this is all the Lautenberg campaign has, they're really grasping at straws. There are legitimate policy differences between the two candidates. It'd be great to see the campaigns play out those contrasts, rather than engaging in this kind of crap.
ANDREWS DECLARES URGENT NEED FOR TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 17 CORRIDOR
Sarlo, saying the improvements were five-to 10-year projects, said New Jersey needed someone in the U.S. Senate "with the energy, vigor and commitment to see these projects through, somebody who will stand up on the Senate floor and articulate this issue for us."
This evening, I received a call from state Democratic headquarters' phone bank (I think) asking whether I'd be voting for Frank Lautenberg or one of his "two opponents" in the June primary.
I told the person I would vote for Senator Lautenberg if he agreed to debate Rep. Andrews, but if not, I would seriously consider casting my vote the other way. They put me down as undecided.
Both candidates are at fault for supporting the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2002, with Andrews being more culpable due to some mind-boggling statements, like this one.
Lautenberg's campaign is using vehicles besides the candidate to attack Andrews on this, which is why it's disappointing to see him declining debates.
Lautenberg has some strong arguments against nominating Andrews. He should make them in person, in a debate.
Are you disappointed that there have been no debates yet between Andrews and Lautenberg? So am I. And if the Lautenberg camp gets its way, there may be no debates whatsoever, judging from Lautenberg's recent refusal to debate Andrews at Richard Stockton College. With an excuse that we should get used to hearing, the Lautenberg folks (again, it's his media handlers, who seemingly control his campaign, speaking for him) have made "senate business" a repeated excuse for not scheduling any debates
"He won't skip Senate votes to campaign," Lautenberg spokeswoman Julie Roginsky said
Others (including Juan and/or Thurman, if I remember right) have suggested that Andrews wins from this primary even if he loses, because it gives him the exposure to mount a successful campaign for the gubernatorial nomination should Corzine retire or be sufficiently unpopular.
The polls suggest that Lautenberg can probably win this, even if he ducks all debates. Contrary to the slander put out by Andrews partisans, Lautenberg would do fine in a debate. He'd probably win according to a majority those who listen on the radio and he'd probably lose to Andrews' prettier face according to a majority of those who watch on TV. But neither would score a knockout blow, or anything close to it.
So Lautenberg wins if he debates and he wins if he doesn't.
True, Rob Andrews' primary challenge to Frank Lautenberg is young yet. There's still some hard feelings going around, which is understandable, as Lautenberg and the House delegation are pretty ticked off since Andrews allegedly pledged his support for the octogenarian's re-election. On that, Andrews concedes he did pledge, but Lautenberg didn't come through on his end or something, so he's taking the 'It's business, not personal' attitude. It makes him seem like a bit of a jerk, but whatever.
Personally, I feel like Lautenberg is -- and has been -- more honest and consistent about where he stands. If the election were held today, I'd vote for the guy.
The primary itself is so new and fresh that Lautenberg's umbrage towards Andrews hasn't turned me off... yet.
Because at a certain point, he begins to look like he's too good for this -- like having to acknowledge Andrews' challenge is some great indignity.
It's not.
For one, it's important that they debate. Andrews will have a much harder time explaining to New Jersey what he stands for. Surely Lautenberg is worried people will see them standing next to each other and want the younger guy. Some might. But if he's really up to it, it won't come down to that.
He's got the example of Sen. Daniel Akaka who engaged Ed Case, and came out on top because people felt his views were more in-line with theirs and that they could trust him more than his younger challenger. It's not solely a beauty contest, so let's not treat us voters like we can't handle a real campaign. Because if you do, I might start to think that you are the one who can't handle it.
Also, the avoidance of a real campaign makes me worried that hard feelings will cloud all judgment, and that Lautenberg and even the congressional delegation will flake out on John Adler's campaign out of spite. Funds moved through 'Use It or Lose It' are going to be important to all of our congressional challengers, so it's vital the party be able to unite. If I get the feeling that Lautenberg is so bitter that he's incapable of that, I might rethink my vote.
While people may not remember the road traveled come September, the traveling circus known as the GOP U.S. Senate Primary campaign has seen many twists and turns.
In less than one year, the NJ GOP has gone through or proposed 15 candidates, experienced many false starts, had calls for resignation of the State chair and for candidates to drop out all while giving us tons of fun to watch. Here's a recap, in case you haven't been following along...
4/26/07- Assemblyman Mike Doherty became the first candidate to join the show.
5/2/07- A blog aimed at encouraging former baseball player Al Leiter to seek the nomination was started.
7/11/07- Anne Estabrook dipped her toes in the water forming an exploratory committee.
8/9/07- Assemblyman"Jersey Joe" Pennacchio said he was mulling a Senate bid.
8/10/07- Assemblyman Doherty ended his short lived Senate bid leaving only Estabrook and Penachio as candidates expressing interest.
9/10/07- Pennacchio tapped Morris GOP chair to oversee his then exploratory bid.
10/22/07- Anne Estabrook let people know she would run for the Senate seat.
11/13/07- Al Leiter crushed the hopes of conservative bloggers by saying he had his eye on a Senate seat just not Lautenberg's in '08.
This is only the beginning of the ridiculousness. There is MUCH more below the fold...
Although by no means perfect, Frank Lautenberg has had a reliable progressive voting record during his four terms in the senate. Plus, he's been a strong candidate. Milicent Fenwick was no slouch. Nor was Pete Dawkins. And in the best Republican year in memory, 1994, Lautenberg was able to win re-election. When the party was scrambling for a candidate in 2002, Frank was there and came to the rescue. How can we dump him overboard after all that?
Yes....we need more New Yorkers representing NJ in the Senate, we need more substance-challenged club owners in the Senate, we need more Repug millionaires in the Senate who can't even "announce" they are running to represent NJ in the Senate from a NJ location. Yes, let's all vote Unanue!
I'd like to point you to Rob Andrews's speech at Rowan University on Nuclear Proliferation. It was the first lecture in a special series in honor of the 40th anniversary Hollybush Summit which took place at Glassboro State, now Rowan University. (Yes, there was time when American Presidents met with our adversaries, but current Republicans think Iran is more powerful than the Soviet Union was.) It's long (39 minutes with introduction by President Farish) but you might find it helpful if you want to have more idea of his foreign policy views besides the Iraq War.
I think Andrews shows a grasp on details and advocates sensible actions on what I think is an extremely important issue. [While I have no fear whatsoever of Iran, I do think Osama bin Laden meanst it when he said he would like to get an atomic bomb.] I especially liked his defense of international exchange programs. Basically, Andrews is advocating what should be a normal, bipartisan policy, but nowadays you have to vote Democratic to get even a centrist position.
(I actually downloaded a video and an audio podcast of the speech last year, but I haven't been able to find them this week. I also have not found a transcript.)
This by no means tells you (or me) to vote for Andrews over Lautenberg, nor do I suggest Lautenberg disagrees with Andrews. I also don't think anyone will love this speech so much they forget the Iraq war. I just say you might find the speech worthwhile, especially if campaigns are supposed to be about more than soundbites.
