October Senate election...

[MBF72]

As a NJ neighbor, I'm interested in peoples'-on-board reaction to the Governor's decision to hold a special election for Sen. Lautenberg's seat three weeks before the Gov. himself runs for reelection in Nov. From _The NY Times_ front-page article, his reasoning seems very weak.

As a Democrat, I have admired his pluck on several of his positions, especially in addressing the need for fiscal change in your state. (I am a recently retired public school teacher and moderately-involved member of the NEA.) That said, Christie appears to want a decisive fall victory to bolster his national reputation in a blue state, but by avoiding an election day that would see Mayor Booker on the ballot, it looks as if he is running scared.

Is he saying he is a big man in a Democratic state who can attract independent and cross-over voters, but only if the Dems. run weak candidates?

 

[Bobbie Solo]

yet another hypocrite in gov't. mr tough guy who calls everyone else out is now being called out. Would have been nice for some of the press yesterday to call him out on his bullshit lie for having the elections they way they are, but of course they acted meek as usual. you'd think the guy who's popularity is built on his bluster would have maybe kept up his tough guy image and not backed down from the fight he would have if he did things the right way, which would save $24 million apparently. Considering saving the state $ has been his main schtick since he ran, this is pretty bad. dude is a straight liar and should be called out as such. push the election back three weeks and do the right thing.

This post was edited on 6/5 11:51 PM by Bobbie Solo

 

[Pirate6711]

I've heard all the political b.s. reasons behind this decision and it doesn't make sense. It should be held on Election Day, period. Christie isn't going to lose in November and I don't understand what he's so worried about with this special election. It's likely going to be a democrat elected no matter when it's held. Either hold it well before Election Day or well after. Having it just before, but not on, looks foolish.

 

[SnakeTom]

I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the special election should have been in October or November though Nov does make more sense. However the Governor did the right thing by setting up a special election rather than appointing a Senator to serve for the next year and half which he could have done. The voters should decide who our Senator will be not someone hand picked by the politicians. I won't criticize the Governor for doing what was the right thing to do.

PS: I have no doubt that Christie would easily be re-elected regardless of when the Senate election is held and that a Dem (Pilone or Booker) will be elected to the Senate seat.

Tom K

 

[Muggsy Blue]

He wants to win by a 60% plurality to bulster his future presidential run. He didn't want Booker on the top of the Democratic ticket fearing it would syphon off some of his votes. So Booker gets to run in October.

 

[MBF72]

On the other hand, if both/all elections are held in Nov., does the state pay nothing extra to have the added contest on the ballot? Tweny-four million dollars to get an elected Senator into office just three weeks sooner seems like tax payers' money ill spent.

I'd like to see him man up and run in Nov. with a reputable Democrat at the head of that ticket. Since apparently he will not face that challenge, his claim to carry crossover Democrats and indpendents is bluster and conjecture.

Deciding not to appoint a Senate replacement through Nov. 2014 shouldn't get him off the hook.

 

[shu09]

I don't have a problem with it because I don't have a strong opinion either way. I guess I'd prefer him to appoint someone to serve until the general election in November of 2014 but I don't think it's a huge deal.

People are just using this to play political games and attack the governor.

 

[SnakeTom]

The cost of having the election in Oct rather than Nov. is $12 million not $24 million. The other $12 is for the Primary election which would be required anyway unless the Governor appointed a Senator to fill in for the remainder of the unexpired term.

Tom K

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by shu09:
I don't have a problem with it because I don't have a strong opinion either way. I guess I'd prefer him to appoint someone to serve until the general election in November of 2014 but I don't think it's a huge deal.

People are just using this to play political games and attack the governor.

I already shared my opinion, but I do agree that appointing somebody for the remainder of the term would have prevented all the bickering and posturing that has come from when to have this special election. None of this bickering and posturing really helps the constituents; it's just a power grab between the two parties.

 

[HALL85]

I'm with Tom on this. There is political jockeying going on here but I don't have an issue with the special election. Clearly Christie is posturing for 2016, but it seems like he's also created an alliance of sorts with Booker.

 

[SnakeTom]

It would not surprise me if there was a deal of some sorts between Christie and Booker where Booker would not run for Governor and Christie would do nothing to harm his Senatoral chances.

Though I usually vote Dem I would not want to see Booker as Governor based on the fact that he has proven to be such a poor Administrator while serving as Newark's Mayor. While I don't agree with Christie on many things I do think he has done a good job as Governor and deserves re-election. Booker is more suited for the Senate though I will be voting for either Holt or Pilone in the Dem Primary rather than Newark's absentee Mayor.

TK

 

[HALL85]

Tom, agreeing with you again (that's dangerous). Historically, I've been very supportive of Booker. I thought he was the change that Newark needs, given how corrupt and needy that city is for positive change. Is Newark too broken to fix or is his administrative weakness to great to overcome. I think you are right.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Is Newark too broken to fix or is his administrative weakness to great to overcome. I think you are right.

Newark has alot of problems and even an excellent mayor working full time would have problems getting it onto the right track. But Booker is a publicity hound who has become a media darling. Much if not most of his campaign money comes from out of state from types who have never stepped foot into Newark other than the airport. He seems more concerned with getting his face on the 11 PM news and tweeting about himself than actually governing the City that elected him. His people skills are lacking as one can see by his wars with the city councilmen who believe it or not were elected as part of his own ticket. Then of course the public tantrum he had when he didn't get his way & lost a court battle with the Devils & Arena ownership. Why alienate someone who is actually bringing jobs and money into the city.

I guess you get my drift. I'm not all that impressed with Newark's over exposed Mayor. And yes I also thought he would be a breath of fresh air when he was first elected.

Tom K

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Booker is a publicity hound who has become a media darling. Much if not most of his campaign money comes from out of state from types who have never stepped foot into Newark other than the airport.
Tom K

Saw an item in today's NSL which sort of confirms the above. It stated that Booker who is campaigning to be the Senator from NJ will be flying out to Hollywood for a fund raiser tomorrow.

Now I understand that one needs funding to run a campaign but if you are running in New Jersey why do you need backers from California.

TK

 

[Muggsy Blue]

I guess for the same reason Christie needs backers from the Koch brothers to Zuckerberg and his wife who threw him that Beverly Hills soiree. Unfortunately, it's not about New Jersey, it's about their national profile.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Muggsy Blue:
I guess for the same reason Christie needs backers from the Koch brothers to Zuckerberg and his wife who threw him that Beverly Hills soiree. Unfortunately, it's not about New Jersey, it's about their national profile.

I agree with you in this regard Muggsy, but the main difference between the two is that whether you agree with his politics or not Christie does have a record of accomplishment (both as a US Attorney & as Governor). I fail to see what Booker's accomplishments are.

TK

 

[Bobbie Solo]

campaign finance reform solves all these problems. take the $ out of politics, everyone is on an equal playing field and no one has to go anywhere and waste any time raising funds

 

[Muggsy Blue]

Sorry Tom, I have to disagree with you about the arrogant, bully's accomplishments. Although I'm not one to complain about taxes, I do hold Christie to his boast. I just got my new tax bill for July, 2013 and my taxes went up $342.00 for the next fiscal year, so he really needs to shut up, , about that.

 

[SPK145]

This was nothing less than a hypocritical, patronizing, political stunt by Christie. He loses some points from me for this charade.

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by SPK145:
This was nothing less than a hypocritical, patronizing, political stunt by Christie. He loses some points from me for this charade.

That's exactly how I view it as well.

 

[Section112]

It could have been worse for Dems though. Christie could have appointed someone through 2014 and not allow NJ folks to elect their own Senator. For that he gets points from me because he actually lost lots of points from some hard line Repubs for that decision. One columnist thought he made the decision to better the chances of a Republican winning the NJ senate spot. I'm not sure about that as NJ has not elected a Repub for senator in some time.

No one is really talking about the disservice Lautenberg did to the state of NJ by continuing to hang in there as Senator even though he had lost it mentally some time ago. If you listened to his last set of debates he could not answer questions and even finish a sentence. I was amazed. Last year I saw him at Newark airport and he could not find his gate and I helped him find it. He was a brilliant businessman and served the Senate for years but this guy should have hung it up long ago.

We will all get there at some point but he was clearly not at a point in his life where he should be a US Senator and in my opinion after listening to the debate on the radio that was clear before the election. He hung in too long and now the Dems have only themselves to blame for this situation. Someone in his party should have convinced him not to run.

 

[donnie_baseball]

This is the sad state of politics in NJ. Agree with Tom about Booker, another shyster in it for himself. It's sad that the Democratic party has historically let down, if not outright robbed from (Sharpe James) their largest constituents, the inner-city poor.

I remember the lack of outrage at Lautenberg being allowed to come out of retirement, in the first place, and replace the thieving Bob Torricelli within weeks of the election 2002, when the Democrats were certainly going to lose the seat.

 

[SnakeTom]

I strongly disagree with your opinion of Sen Lautenberg. Yes he had been ill the past few years and never was a great public speaker but let's not confuse public speaking ability with being an effective public servent. Lautenberg was not a glamour boy like Booker who jumped in front of the cameras but was someone who could accomplish much working behind the scenes. I especially appreciated him leading a fight against the President of his own party in opposing NAFTA. A bill wich greased the skids for many factories & jobs leaving NJ to other countries. Fact is I represented some of those campanies in Jersey City & Paterson that fled the state after its passage. Every time I fly I'm glad that i don't have to breath in harmfull second hand smoke because of the Senator. We complain about corrupt officials but there was never a hint of anything unethical or corrupt about Lautenberg. I also know for a fact that his Constituant services offices was run much more professionally & effectively than any of our other recent senators. A call to his office always got you a reply & help if possible.

We should not confuse political philosophy with effectiveness either. As I said in another post my philosophy does not coincide with our current Governor but he has done a very effective job & thus earned my vote regardless of philosophy. I suspect some of you didn't like Lautenberg just because he's a liberal & looked no further.

Tom K

 

[Section112]

Tom my point is he simply did not have all his faculties to be effective anymore. Not even sure you are addressing your comments to me. But if you had heard the debate where he could not answer any questions it seemed and saw him at the airport I think you would have had the same opinion - has nothing to do with party. The debate was embarrassing but no one cared or listened. He simply could not answer many of the questions. Brilliant business man - founded ADP and made millions many of which he spent on his own elections. Did some good things in the Senate I am sure. But did not have it anymore and it wasn't even close. Missed many votes this year as well due to his health. Stayed too long IMO. Hurt his own party in the end.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

I heard the debates, at least two of them, and think you're way off base. The Senator may have been ill, but there was nothing wrong with his mind, and to say such is to do him a great disservice. Agree with you Tom, he was a great senator and everyone knew how ill he was, but opportunistic Booker just couldn't wait for what everyone knew was coming. He will never get my vote.

 

[Section112]

The truth is never a disservice. There were articles written about his debate. Do a search and you will see.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

I don't have to do a search, I listened to the debates.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Funny story about Lautenberg, he showed up at the Hall on the Hill event last summer, and spoke for a minute or two, and claimed to have begun as a student at Seton Hall before entering WWII, and then resuming school elsewhere afterwards. Whether or not it was true, I don't know.

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Funny story about Lautenberg, he showed up at the Hall on the Hill event last summer, and spoke for a minute or two, and claimed to have begun as a student at Seton Hall before entering WWII, and then resuming school elsewhere afterwards. Whether or not it was true, I don't know.

Politicians will want to stop speaking at Hall on the Hill. Two years ago, Donald Payne spoke and passed away the following spring. Granted, both Payne and Lautenberg were up there in age, but the event is close to getting the kiss of death label!

 

[donnie_baseball]

I never thought of that angle, 6711. Payne did do it for many years, as our lone SHU grad-representative on Capitol Hill. His son spoke last year, along with the cameo from Frankie. I'm not sure whether Payne's son was successful in his efforts to succeed his dad.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Funny story about Lautenberg, he showed up at the Hall on the Hill event last summer, and spoke for a minute or two, and claimed to have begun as a student at Seton Hall before entering WWII, and then resuming school elsewhere afterwards. Whether or not it was true, I don't know.

I'm not sure about Lautenberg but former Governor Brendon Byrne started at SHU before going into Military service. He went to Princeton after his release from the Military.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Actually ran into Brendan Byrne at a funeral service on Saturday in Caldwell. Not sure how old he is but he was getting around pretty well.