| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Jan 5 2010, 6:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | I fail to see this as an example of David Cook being a virulent partisan. This is truly much ado about nothing. Wait until you have an actual issue to bash the democrats. This is just plain silly. |
I am the one who asked it and I am a Democrat. It wasn't bashing, it was a fair question. Mr. Stout's and his majority's previous policy of filling all Boards with party polisans was an issue brought up during the election and my understanding was Mr. Cook indicated he did not support it. So this seems right on target as an opportunity for him to have demonstrated an action consistent with election rhetoric. Why not demonstrate bipartisanship by allowing a Republican on the planning board that clearly already has a majority Democrats? It comes across, instead, as if he is blindly falling in line as loyal to Mr. Stout's leadership, which he promised not to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jan 5 2010, 7:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | I fail to see this as an example of David Cook being a virulent partisan. This is truly much ado about nothing. Wait until you have an actual issue to bash the democrats. This is just plain silly. |
I am the one who asked it and I am a Democrat. It wasn't bashing, it was a fair question. Mr. Stout's and his majority's previous policy of filling all Boards with party polisans was an issue brought up during the election and my understanding was Mr. Cook indicated he did not support it. So this seems right on target as an opportunity for him to have demonstrated an action consistent with election rhetoric. Why not demonstrate bipartisanship by allowing a Republican on the planning board that clearly already has a majority Democrats? It comes across, instead, as if he is blindly falling in line as loyal to Mr. Stout's leadership, which he promised not to do. |
As a member of the audience, I too was disappointed just in the whole attitude displayed. They acted as though Jay and Win did not exist and then Richard tried to block the only applicant who wanted to be on the zoning board. I had hoped Dave would be Town First, Democrat second. I am willing to give him a pass because it was a fast paced emotional night. I just hope Dave proves my vote right or it will be shame on me time first believing David about wants not needs and then believing Dave about Town first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jan 5 2010, 10:29 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| I hate to be the one to say it, but it may be shame on you. I hope not, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jan 5 2010, 10:38 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
At the end of the day, Mr. Stannard and Mr. Stout's were known quantities. It was already understood from their past actions and statements that they were fiercely partisan and ethically comfortable with playing party politics and putting their personal interests ahead of civil decorum or the collective interests of the Township. So no one should be the least bit surprised or disappointed that they acted the way they did. They were true to their (lack of) character. And it is not a Democrat thing. I too am a Democrat but am disgusted by their behavior. It is their personal politics, a microcosm of New Jersey corruption where they believe that “playing politics,” from padding volunteer positions with allies to participating in the State political machine, is appropriate. They are out of touch or simply disinterested in the majority view that local government should be about serving the community not just first but first and last.
So I agree with other posters who have said they were disappointed with Mr. Cook’s performance at the meeting. I know Dave personally and like him and his family. They are good people and positive contributors to the community. But it would be a real shame if he simply falls in line with Mr. Stout’s politics. I would like to have seen him come out of the gate as his own man but it didn’t happen. Hopefully he still will. I certainly know him to be capable of it and wish him the best. The Township would benefit greatly if he ignores Mr. Stout’s example and acts independently. Let’s all root for him because the alternative is another depressing year for local government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 11:07 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Dan Mulligan wrote: | I have sat through many township meetings over the last several years however after last night’s meeting I thought about how over the last year or so in Cranbury we have had a lot of talk about our Committee working together in a bi-partisan manner.
Unfortunately the events of last night and as well as the comments here on this board today have shown this bi-partisanship was not necessarily apparent from our Township Committee during its municipal reorganization last night.
I truly believe this needs to change in Cranbury as we continue to face, COAH, consolidation, difficult economic times locally and other pressures from our State Government.
In the end we all need to expect more from our committee not only for the rest of 2010 but beyond as they take on the challenges which face our town in what must be a bi-partisan approach. |
There has indeed been a change in tone and policy. The republican party has been taken over by teabaggers who can't get power because of the ridiculous ideas they propose but they will be first to damn the government and institutions they can't control. It's happening all over the country and in Washington. Don't expect anything different from the Republicans - they are now teabaggers
Even some of the most ardent conservative republicans are reacting to their own party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reacting to prominent conservative blogger Charles Johnson's announcement that he would not follow the right wing off a cliff, Andrew Sullivan is offering his own reasons for parting with the movement.
Johnson, who blogs at Little Green Footballs, wrote on Monday that fanatic politicians, racism, sexism, anti-Islamism, hate speech, conspiracy theories and other troubling trends on the right wing have led him to make a formal break.
"The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff," he concluded. "I won't be going over the cliff with them."
Andrew Sullivan, though not as consistent a conservative as Johnson, felt compelled to emphasize his own separation from the right wing. Among other things, he writes:
I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another example
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 11:47 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Dan Mulligan wrote: | I have sat through many township meetings over the last several years however after last night’s meeting I thought about how over the last year or so in Cranbury we have had a lot of talk about our Committee working together in a bi-partisan manner.
Unfortunately the events of last night and as well as the comments here on this board today have shown this bi-partisanship was not necessarily apparent from our Township Committee during its municipal reorganization last night.
I truly believe this needs to change in Cranbury as we continue to face, COAH, consolidation, difficult economic times locally and other pressures from our State Government.
In the end we all need to expect more from our committee not only for the rest of 2010 but beyond as they take on the challenges which face our town in what must be a bi-partisan approach. |
There has indeed been a change in tone and policy. The republican party has been taken over by teabaggers who can't get power because of the ridiculous ideas they propose but they will be first to damn the government and institutions they can't control. It's happening all over the country and in Washington. Don't expect anything different from the Republicans - they are now teabaggers
Even some of the most ardent conservative republicans are reacting to their own party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reacting to prominent conservative blogger Charles Johnson's announcement that he would not follow the right wing off a cliff, Andrew Sullivan is offering his own reasons for parting with the movement.
Johnson, who blogs at Little Green Footballs, wrote on Monday that fanatic politicians, racism, sexism, anti-Islamism, hate speech, conspiracy theories and other troubling trends on the right wing have led him to make a formal break.
"The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff," he concluded. "I won't be going over the cliff with them."
Andrew Sullivan, though not as consistent a conservative as Johnson, felt compelled to emphasize his own separation from the right wing. Among other things, he writes:
I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another example
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader |
I want to make a disclaimer that this is not a normal Democrat. This is the extreme side of our party just as the right wing teabaggers are the extreme of the Republican party.
For example as a Democrat, I can't justify excluding Win from the Planning Board and David filling 2 seats.
I also can't say the Republicans in Cranbury government are partisan when they vote for David Stout as Mayor. I also can't say the Democrats are bipartisan in Cranbury government because their statements and actions demonstrate otherwise which upsets me. So the poster above is ignoring reality in trying to flame the board. Democrats should not be throwing stones if we want to keep power.
So please ignore the flamer above we are not all this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 11:49 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Dan Mulligan wrote: | I have sat through many township meetings over the last several years however after last night’s meeting I thought about how over the last year or so in Cranbury we have had a lot of talk about our Committee working together in a bi-partisan manner.
Unfortunately the events of last night and as well as the comments here on this board today have shown this bi-partisanship was not necessarily apparent from our Township Committee during its municipal reorganization last night.
I truly believe this needs to change in Cranbury as we continue to face, COAH, consolidation, difficult economic times locally and other pressures from our State Government.
In the end we all need to expect more from our committee not only for the rest of 2010 but beyond as they take on the challenges which face our town in what must be a bi-partisan approach. |
There has indeed been a change in tone and policy. The republican party has been taken over by teabaggers who can't get power because of the ridiculous ideas they propose but they will be first to damn the government and institutions they can't control. It's happening all over the country and in Washington. Don't expect anything different from the Republicans - they are now teabaggers
Even some of the most ardent conservative republicans are reacting to their own party
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reacting to prominent conservative blogger Charles Johnson's announcement that he would not follow the right wing off a cliff, Andrew Sullivan is offering his own reasons for parting with the movement.
Johnson, who blogs at Little Green Footballs, wrote on Monday that fanatic politicians, racism, sexism, anti-Islamism, hate speech, conspiracy theories and other troubling trends on the right wing have led him to make a formal break.
"The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff," he concluded. "I won't be going over the cliff with them."
Andrew Sullivan, though not as consistent a conservative as Johnson, felt compelled to emphasize his own separation from the right wing. Among other things, he writes:
I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another example
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader |
I bet you won't hear a peep from the republicans on the council and from those who ran for town council who are members of the Tea Party movement - the so called teabaggers. They all run as "non-partisans" and then anonymously use right wing Joe McCarthy tactics.
This is America. Those who were voted into power, with input from their constituents, make the decisions. You don't have to rip down everything you can't control or personally demonize those who you disagree with |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cranbury liberal
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 12:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Wow, you are so off-topic. The politics you are mentioned, regardless of what side you are on, have, or should have, nothing to do with Cranbury Township. I could care less whether you voted for Obama or McCain when it comes to the issues that affect Cranbury. If you honestly believe whether someone's position on te national Stimulus Bill or health care reform should be a factor in who you vote for for Township Committee, let alone be used as an excuse for why the Township Committee should shut-out any opposing views you are part of the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 12:59 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| cranbury liberal wrote: | | Wow, you are so off-topic. The politics you are mentioned, regardless of what side you are on, have, or should have, nothing to do with Cranbury Township. I could care less whether you voted for Obama or McCain when it comes to the issues that affect Cranbury. If you honestly believe whether someone's position on te national Stimulus Bill or health care reform should be a factor in who you vote for for Township Committee, let alone be used as an excuse for why the Township Committee should shut-out any opposing views you are part of the problem. |
Actually I think that guy hit the nail on the head. Many of the posters were anonymously attaching Cook because he was siding with a democratic majority - citing that as "politics as usual" and equating that as bad government. That's what republicans do these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest 2
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 1:12 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
Remember, there are nine members of the Planning Board. You are somehow imagining that these two positions are very powerful. I don't see it.
I think the biggest source of partisan politics in this town is this message board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 1:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | cranbury liberal wrote: | | Wow, you are so off-topic. The politics you are mentioned, regardless of what side you are on, have, or should have, nothing to do with Cranbury Township. I could care less whether you voted for Obama or McCain when it comes to the issues that affect Cranbury. If you honestly believe whether someone's position on te national Stimulus Bill or health care reform should be a factor in who you vote for for Township Committee, let alone be used as an excuse for why the Township Committee should shut-out any opposing views you are part of the problem. |
Actually I think that guy hit the nail on the head. Many of the posters were anonymously attaching Cook because he was siding with a democratic majority - citing that as "politics as usual" and equating that as bad government. That's what republicans do these days. |
Don't let facts get in the way of your view now. Cranbury Liberal is right.
The Republicans voted 2-0 to support a Democrat for Mayor.
The Democrat Mayor decided to keep 2 seats a PB seat and the Mayor.
That is bad government.
Dave cook nominated Richard for the PB seat and seconded David Stout for Mayor. That's fine,but that is all party line. As he had an option to second Win and chose not to.
So how can you say Win and Jay are not bipartisan, but that Dave Cook is? The facts are contrary.
Now, they have a right to be that way they are the majority. But, don't ignore facts that party politics as usual continue and it is not the Republicans in Cranbury on our TC being party driven. It is all bad for our town. If Republicans are in charge next year they better cross party lines and appoint a Democrat as Mayor or PB rep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 1:34 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| I am saying, "It doesn't matter". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Mulligan
Joined: Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:41 pm EDT
Posts: 172
Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 3:31 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| cranbury liberal wrote: | | Wow, you are so off-topic. The politics you are mentioned, regardless of what side you are on, have, or should have, nothing to do with Cranbury Township. I could care less whether you voted for Obama or McCain when it comes to the issues that affect Cranbury. If you honestly believe whether someone's position on te national Stimulus Bill or health care reform should be a factor in who you vote for for Township Committee, let alone be used as an excuse for why the Township Committee should shut-out any opposing views you are part of the problem. |
Thank you Cranbury Liberal for adding clarity to the conversation as your comments make sense to me.
As I said earlier in this thread
"In the end we all need to expect more from our committee not only for the rest of 2010 but beyond as they take on the challenges which face our town in what must be a bi-partisan approach."
To add it's not about either political party its about doing what is right for our town, Cranbury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Mulligan
Joined: Fri, Sep 19 2008, 5:41 pm EDT
Posts: 172
Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 3:47 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
Also one more thing to add. We need to give our new Committee members Dave C and Jay T a chance to prove themselves.
They have both been on the committee all of one reorganization meeting which does not provide any true record as of yet.
It was encouraging to see they were both for changing Township Engineer this year and were both part of the 5-0 vote in making that change.
During the campaign this past year Both Dave C and Jay T spoke of being bi-partisan and I am sure they will both hold to their promise of bi-partisanship when it comes to our town as we move forward into 2010.
If not then its up to us all to speak out, which I am sure everyone will. Especially the "Guests" in this forum  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cranbury liberal
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 7:08 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | cranbury liberal wrote: | | Wow, you are so off-topic. The politics you are mentioned, regardless of what side you are on, have, or should have, nothing to do with Cranbury Township. I could care less whether you voted for Obama or McCain when it comes to the issues that affect Cranbury. If you honestly believe whether someone's position on te national Stimulus Bill or health care reform should be a factor in who you vote for for Township Committee, let alone be used as an excuse for why the Township Committee should shut-out any opposing views you are part of the problem. |
Actually I think that guy hit the nail on the head. Many of the posters were anonymously attaching Cook because he was siding with a democratic majority - citing that as "politics as usual" and equating that as bad government. That's what republicans do these days. |
Wow, let me get this straight. You are saying that because some national Republican politicians are playing partisan politics it is okay or even a good idea to do it in our tiny little municipal government? Didn’t your mama ever teach you two wrongs don’t make a right? I think the way the Republican Congress is acting is repugnant (they don’t have to agree with the President, but when they pressure their membership to the last person to always oppose every single thing on principle, they cease to be representing the people are simply representing a black and white party ideal), but that doesn’t make it appropriate to emulate it locally or even to justify it as “that’s politics.” Our local Township Committee should be about serving the community. We are too small, our issues too local and our relationship to the our constituents too personal to justify playing politics. It’s just wrong. Thinking otherwise is part of the problem with political service in New Jersey. It is just disgusting how tolerant we are of corruption. And when we believe that “politics” should trump common sense, service and civility, it’s easy to see why it pervades in our system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 7:14 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest 2 wrote: | Remember, there are nine members of the Planning Board. You are somehow imagining that these two positions are very powerful. I don't see it.
I think the biggest source of partisan politics in this town is this message board. |
And when was the last time a person was apppointed to any position on it who happened to be a Republican? That's the point. Historically, regardless of which party had the majority or who the mayor was, people of both parties made up these boards because party affiliation wasn't a driving factor. Now it is and has been under Stout. He really should be ashamed of himself for putting any party ahead of the interests of the township, for degrading our community government by trying to make it some mini version of the state machines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
