Denounces New Jersey’s weak Dems: Yesterday afternoon, Rep. Bill Pascrell guested on the Ed Show.
Pascrell, a New Jersey Dem, has served in the House since 1997. Before that, he was mayor of Paterson.
At one point, Big Ed floated a big ball of fluff at Pascrell. Instead of reciting the memorized script, Pascrell told the truth about his state’s spineless party:
SCHULTZ (1/14/14): Governor Christie said that he hasn’t spoken to David Wildstein “in a long time.” This picture from the Wall Street Journal that was published today really gives an impression of something much different. Your reaction to that.We share Pascrell’s sense of annoyance. How weak and inept must a party be to let a guy like Christie sweep to a massive re-election in a Democratic-leaning state?
PASCRELL: Well, first, let me say this: Some of my buddies and my friends on the Democratic side are trying to make this a political issue. There’s no gain in this thing. I can ensure them.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PASCRELL: Democrats are not going to come out of this thing ahead because some of us enabled him to do what he is doing. Republicans are not going to come out ahead, obviously. This is sticking to the facts and trying to find out what really happened. That’s what I mentioned here (inaudible).
SCHULTZ: But what Democrats failed?
PASCRELL: Beginning four years ago, they failed. There’s a difference between bipartisanship and stroking the other person to get what you want, even though other people are going to get shafted in the process. And that’s what happened in this situation. Many of the mayors are finally speaking out about what happened to them.
Now, if you can get my endorsement, and you can get me to jump parties, Democrat and Republican is immaterial.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PASCRELL: In order to support you, that tells me that you’re creating a culture where you’ll pass it off as bipartisanship. A lot of this was not bipartisanship. It was back-scratching at its worst. And that’s why none of us come out of this looking good.
Pascrell described his fellow Democrats as “enablers” several times in this segment. One disgraceful example:
Imagine a party which lets someone like Christie get away with that two-election solution! In effect, he stole $12 million from the state treasury to run a pair of separate-but-equal elections last fall.
In the first election, black Democrats turned out to vote for Cory Booker. As everyone always understood, Christie staged that as a separate election in order to reduce black turnout in his own triumphant slaughter of Barbara Buono.
Why would anyone vote for a party which rolls over for that?
In the main, Pascrell was referring to the way many Democrats endorsed Christie so their cities could score all the state and federal loot. But it took a truly spineless bunch to roll over and play dead for those apartheid elections.
Even with all our skill with R-bombs, we sat back and let that proceed! No one comes out of the show looking good, as Pascrell told Big Ed.
Big Ed lobbed a big soft pitch. Ignoring the sign which told him to bunt, Pascrell hit it out of the park.
On the one hand, blogger doesn't like tribalism.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other hand - he doesn't like co-operating with a Governor of the other party
"In the main, Pascrell was referring to the way many Democrats endorsed Christie so their cities could score all the state and federal loot. But it took a truly spineless bunch to roll over and play dead for those apartheid elections."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
This Christie-Maddow thing has unhinged him.
The sooner he gets back to Zimmerman / black kids / Finland / The War on Gore the better.
"Co-operating"? Sounds like they bent over. What's worse is that high ranking Blue State Democrats joined the show intended to catapult Christie onto the "national stage" as 2016 Presidential frontrunner and miraculous post-partisan "uniter". Thanks for the effort. I suppose it's never too early in the process to sell out. All that's left to do now for New Jersey Democrats is complain that they were bullied.
DeleteYou are afflicted with a fogged filter through which you interpret what Bob writes. And with your prejudicial view that whatever he writes is innately dumb and/or "unhinged" you betray an unhinged and dumb personality in yourself. Perhaps you should seek professional help. Until then, please spare us your insights and vitriol.
Delete"New Jersey Dems, the world’s least effective known humans."
ReplyDeleteTDH 1/14
The Malala like narrative from mankind's most effective blogger continuesin this post.
The truth hurts (Dems in NY State also fit this description).
Deleteno doubt the dem party is only a shadow of itself going back forty years (when americans of irish catholic heritage had a more significant say in it...see "why the democrats are blue"). but its not fair to condemn a whole party for what happens in any one state. its also not fair to condemn new jersey dems at a time when the opposing party holds the governorship with a man who is both very popular and ruthless and has the rare circumstance of having a lot of federal largess to hand out at his discretion as a result of the storm disaster.
ReplyDeleteI think Somerby is arguing against corruption and the kind of machine politics that have existed in the NE forever. Might Democrats have gone along with Christie's demands because they needed funds and favors for hurricane Sandy recovery?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/01/09/the-record-nails-christie-story/
ReplyDelete"Imagine a party which lets someone like Christie get away with that two-election solution! In effect, he stole $12 million from the state treasury to run a pair of separate-but-equal elections last fall.
ReplyDeleteIn the first election, black Democrats turned out to vote for Cory Booker. As everyone always understood, Christie staged that as a separate election in order to reduce black turnout in his own triumphant slaughter of Barbara Buono.
Why would anyone vote for a party which rolls over for that?"
That's partly why the Christie story is so fascinating, though, because the entire narrative they built is crashing. By "they" I mean ALL of them, Democrats, Republicans, media.
It was BS. There was no magic bipartisan coming together. It was pure, raw self-interest on all sides.
It's almost pathetic how badly everyone wanted it to be true.
Incidentally, the Bergen Record REVEALED this BS prior to the bridge story. They wrote a great straight politics piece that identified just what Christie was handing to Democrats, and just what they were giving up to get it. Not challenging Christie on that special election was one of the things they traded.
It was a thing of beauty, that story, and completely ignored because The Story about Chris Christie had to be maintained.
I don't care if Christie is "brought low" by the bridge incident in any real or lasting way, but boy am I glad the bridge incident ended this ridiculous fantasy that they were all acting in the public interest "to get things done" or "because of strong leadership"
They weren't. They were ALL pushing their own careers. Not just now, after the incident. Always.
Imagine a party which lets someone like Christie get away with that two-election solution! In effect, he stole $12 million from the state treasury to run a pair of separate-but-equal elections last fall.
ReplyDeleteWhat was anybody supposed to do? The governor gets to call a special election for Senate on his own say so.
OMB (When Story Grows BOB Says the darndest things)
ReplyDeleteWhen scandal script hits, there is no more unique resource than our
ONE TRUE BOB.
Just look how one small story has just growed and Growed and GROWED.
Humble Beginnings
On June 12, 2014 BOB devoted a few lines to Governor Chris Christie's decision to call a separate special election for NJ's vacant US Senate
seat. He called it a "scam", an "absurd decision." "It’s $12 million thrown down the drain. Plainly, it's being done for Christie’s benefit and for nothing else."
A Growth Spurt
The remainder of the month BOB never mentioned the scam again. He did have three posts that month devoted to criticizing Rachel Maddow's coverage of Virginia Governor Bob Ultrasound. Then, on June 27th he came back to Christie's decision. He called it a scam and mentioned the $12 million cost again. For the first time he mentioned an impact on black and Hispanic turnout? Why? He used it as an example of why the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to throw
out the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Right's Act might not be so crazy. But it may have been because the bulk of the post was attacking the stupidity with which he found Rachel Maddow covering that Court decision.
BOMBS AWAY
Today, BOB returns full bore, having continued from time to time to drop the $12 million theft into the picture as the "pointless" bridge story grew faster than 4th grade math scores over a forty years span.
After dismissing liberals for failing to call in the R-Bombs he has chided them over, he drops the A Bomb-Apartheid. This created an "apartheid" election. Democrats just rolled over and let it happen.
Surely had Mandela not been gravely ill, he would have spoken out in June. California would have adopted sanctions and disinvested in the Botha/Christie regime and apartheid would have fallen!
Are New Jersey Dems spineless? WWJD-K! Everything is possible.
Except the accuracy of BOB's analysis throughout this embarassing
affair.
Comes the Scandal and Scam turns to Theft
It took until December 19 before BOB broached the topic again. This time he agains starte with reference to the $12 million electiuon as a "scam." But it quickly grew to "larceny" and the this : "Last summer, Christie stole $12 million from New Jersey taxpayers. He committed this act of theft in broad daylight."
The thrust of the post was an attack on Lawrence O'Donnell for covering the emerging GW Bridge story. As much space was devoted to Gore 2000 and O'Donnell's role in that crime as to this more recent
felony. BOB did get around to dinging Rachel a bit too.
My apologies. I had to take a break to watch the great Rachel Maddow, and when I came back I put the last paragraph in the wrong place. I take full responsibility.
DeleteKZ ( With Kudos to deadrat for stating then obvious and a tsk-tsk to BOBfans for not noting that not-friends Christie and Wildthing were teen mildly acquainted volunteers on the Gubernatorial campaign of someone who ran up an even bigger margin than Christie got decades later in Dem leaning NJ when he ran for re-election. I think his name was Kean.
I'm as careful in taking my kudos as I am in getting my gyros, noting that neither noun is a plural. As usual, you're misguided. What I stated is not the obvious. The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution gives the authority to call elections for Senate vacancies to the executives of the states, but permits the legislatures to set the rules for calling those elections. It just so happens that the New Jersey legislature ceded its authority to the governor.
DeleteJust because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
DeleteAnd lots of people in real time said he shouldn't. Up to and including Rachel Maddow.
DeleteBut none were so bold as to call it "theft," which, as the deceased rodent clearly states, it wasn't..
And before we excuse Bob for using a "mere metaphor," the word he so carefully chooses repeatedly to accuse Christie of is a very specific felony, which reaches well beyond the law and evidence at hand.
A sin for others, never for Bob.
Ya see, if TDH is using the word merely metaphorically, then the fact that it's also a specific felony, ....
DeleteOh, never mind.
Yeah, funny how that works.
DeleteIt is not hard for me to think that had Maddow called the special election a "scam" and a "theft," he'd have spent multiple posts explaining that while the decision might have been ill-advised, she is once again reaching far beyond the facts and the law.
And her motive? Once again, to create a scandal where none exists for the sole purpose of bringing Christie down, partisan hack that she is.
And Lord have mercy on her soul had Maddow dared call the special election "apartheid." Bob would have been in full fury explaining what real apartheid is, and now bone-headed and partisan it is to apply that word to an election that the governor was well within his powers to call.
DeleteIn fact, Bob might even have taken note of the race of the candidate from whom Christie was "apartheiding" himself from, and concluded that Maddow was recklessly throwing around the R-word again.
It is not hard for me to think that ….
DeleteOf course not. It's always easy to think via script. That's one of the lessons of this blog. And one of your scripts and that of other Anonymous commenters is that TDH is a hypocrite. So, of course, it easy to write one of his blog entries in your own mind.
TDH is not always right. I've noted that he's particularly clueless when he talks about science, and I think he underestimated the importance of Bridgegate. But does anyone really think he's so literal-minded that he doesn't understand metaphorical speech? Darlin' Rachel likes to hype the Bridgegate traffic jam with words like "destruction" and "smoking ruin," but TDH hasn't chastised her because Fort Lee wasn't literally destroyed. He's taken her to task for spending lots of air time on stories for which she doesn't have the facts. Her "revenge on the NJ Senate majority leader" theory a case in point.
Stick to comments on what TDH writes, not the voices in your head. For instance, Christie's huge win over Buono isn't quite as impressive as it seems. He won in an election that had a record low turnout for governor, and out of over 2M votes cast, he managed just north of 77K more votes than he got in his first outing, when he beat Corzine. More than winning over Democrats, Christie won his second race because Democrats stayed home. Buono got about 300K fewer votes than Corzine. I think it's safe to say that the special election was part of a strategy to encourage Democrats not to vote, and black voters are an important part of the Democratic base, but did Christie intend to get black voters in particular to pass up the general election? If the answer is yes, then "apartheid" might be a suitable metaphor. But is the answer yes? A few minutes on the google doesn't find any exit polling data for the special election.
Apartheid is a suitable metaphor for an election in which everyone eligible could vote?
DeleteWanker is a few steps above your pay grade.
Oh, dear! A few steps above my pay grade? Now, that would have hurt my feelings. If I had any.
DeleteDo I think apartheid is a "suitable" metaphor for the NJ special election that sent Booker to the Senate? No, I don't. I think the literal apartheid was too horrendous to throw around the term that easily. But, unlike you, I understand what TDH meant -- that Christie used his executive power to call an unnecessary election in the hope that black voters would show up to vote for a black candidate and then ignore the following general election. Is there any evidence for this? Is that even what happened?
Do these questions interest you? Of course not. You'd rather whine that TDH's used the word "theft" when Christie's actions didn't meet any elements of that crime as defined in the New Jersey statutes. You'd rather pretend that when TDH used the word "apartheid," he really meant that P. W. Botha rose from the dead to take over the New Jersey Division of Elections.
But I'm the one who's a wanker. Or not even.
Go figure.
Just a side note. There's a reason NJ so often votes for Brahmins like a Whitman (who was a good horsey-friend with Jackie Kennedy out Mendham-way) or Kean (pronounced "cane") for governor -- not unlike the way MA will vote for a Weld. A misguided hope that the Brahmins will, if not rescue them, at least provide some relief from the unrelentingly crass chicanery. Anonymous @9:23 is right on.
ReplyDeleteisnt kean and wasn't j. kennedy bothcatholic with a significant portion of irish-caqtholic heritage/ and arent those two things the antithesis of what the word 'brahmin' means?
DeleteWhat can you do? At least make a fuss.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think no "fuss" was made of Christie's decision to hold that separate election? Really?
DeleteAnon. @ 1:01
DeleteOne of the people who fussed, but went unnoticed by BOB
when he first covered this, was Maddow. She ran reports on the decision twice before he mentioned it. In the first she
did one of her famous chicken impressions BOB loves so much. In the second she lightly praised Christie for picking a care taker to fill the Senate seat until the election.
BOB never mentions that Christie, had the Democrats stopped his plan for a separate special election, might have had a Christie appointed Republican sitting in the seat Booker now fills until at least this November who could have run for re-election as an incumbent. You rubes don't need to know that. Losers.
KZ