| Author |
Message |
| Question?-43686qr |
 Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2012, 7:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| Someone keeps posting the Republicans want the police and public works outsourced. I never heard that. Is that a platform position of the Republican candidates? Where is that posted? |
|
 |
| Yes, Really-58q6103 |
| Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2012, 7:07 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| really?-4368q8s wrote: | | Quote: | If you identify with The Republican party because you want to outsource police and PW then isn't that an identification because of a personal benefit. You personally want something done.
If you identify with the Democrats because you value local police and the parks isn't that a personal benefit. Again you personally want something done. |
This is ridiculous and just continues to stereotype the parties. People across party lines appreciate and value the local police and parks. |
"Really?"-
You are right that people of both parties value local police and parks. However, the current Republican "leadership" is interested in outsourcing the police and public works. This is one of many reasons why, regardless of party affiliation, many people of both parties will vote for Jay and Dave. |
|
|
| really?-4368q8s |
| Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2012, 10:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| Quote: | If you identify with The Republican party because you want to outsource police and PW then isn't that an identification because of a personal benefit. You personally want something done.
If you identify with the Democrats because you value local police and the parks isn't that a personal benefit. Again you personally want something done. |
This is ridiculous and just continues to stereotype the parties. People across party lines appreciate and value the local police and parks. |
|
|
| Sean |
| Posted: Thu, Jun 7 2012, 8:54 am EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| These posts are ridiculous. I am drawn to them for some reason, however, I am getting bored now. I am interested to hear your opinions and judgements on the social status of the Cranbury School Student Counsel candidates. Please advise... In lengthy and ridiculous (but highly educated eloquence) of course. |
|
|
| obvious-n524490 |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 9:56 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| IMHO, the persistent personal attacks on Mr Taylor tell everything you need to know about why Jay would want to disassociate with the republican "leadership" in Cranbury. |
|
|
| guestguest-43697on |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 6:23 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
^^^
Wow, are you really so desperate Real Deal/Guest that you now feel the need to re-post the exact same comments multiple times on the same topic? Were you worried your sage words would get lost on the previous page so you just had to bless the readers with an encore cut-and-paste?
New low for the forum, and that's really saying something... |
|
|
| guest |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 5:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
To clarify, Jay chose not to run as a Republican. Jay also HAD A CHOICE to run as Independent where he didn't require any endorsements other than a minimum # of petition signatures. The fact of the matter is Jay choose to run as a Democrat because he wanted to take advantage of the benefits of running on a party line. In reality Jay would have not had enough support to win in the Nov election without party line support therefore JAY CHOSE to become a Democrat. Make no mistake Jay had a choice and he made that choice for his own personal benefit not because he suddenly realized he was actually a Democrat. The decision to switch parties was solely Jay's choice not the Republicans therefore, you need to hold Jay accountable for his decision not the Republicans.
Think about it, the strategy on the part of the Democrats to court Jay to switch was as follows.......Jay was in a weak position, having Jay run as a Democrat the Democrats hope he will split a portion of the Republican vote therefore all but assuring Cook's re-election. I honestly don't think most Democrats like Jay anymore than the Republicans did, it's all part of an overall strategy to ensure Cook's re-election and continued majority on TC. If by chance Jay wins that would just be an added bonus for the Democrats, there is essentially no risk here. Although I don't necessarily support Jay's decision to switch to the Democratic party (he should have run as an Independent), I do believe he is just a pawn in the game and he probably doesn't even realize it.
Lastly, unless you are the GOP chair or Jay Taylor himself you couldn't possibly know "first hand". If you want to post your opinion on what happened that is one thing, but to imply something as fact because you know "first hand" lacks all credibility. |
|
|
| guest67 |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 5:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| As for the "Real Deal" - I know a few of the leaders of the Democratic Party quite well, and they would be crushed if Jay lost on their ticket, and not because they want the seat but because they personally like Jay and appreciate his total commitment to Cranbury. They thought he did a great job on the council as a Republican and thought it was crazy how he was treated by his own party. They know he cares deeply about the town he grew up in - that is why he made the party switch. It would be a total waste of a competent volunteer if he could not run for office and win, that is why they welcomed him as a candidate |
|
|
| Question |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 5:01 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
If you identify with The Republican party because you want to outsource police and PW then isn't that an identification because of a personal benefit. You personally want something done.
If you identify with the Democrats because you value local police and the parks isn't that a personal benefit. Again you personally want something done.
What I don't understand is the personal benefit that is so great on the TC. They spend time in meetings, take vacation days for other meetings, get attacked in public by people, attacked here, and then yelled at by residents when tax rates go up, but overall spending goes down. If those are personal benefits of being on the TC then I wonder what they consider negatives.
The only comment I have heard Mr. Taylor utter is that he and only some of the group leaders had irreconcilable differences. Yet, I constantly hear from some Republicans how bad Mr. Taylor is and read here how evil he is. Yet, I don't see those same posters acknowledging their lies such as the write in posts. |
|
|
| ok |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 4:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| Real Deal wrote: | | guest5 wrote: | | The Real Deal wrote: | To clarify, Jay chose not to run as a Republican. Jay also HAD A CHOICE to run as Independent where he didn't require any endorsements other than a minimum # of petition signatures. The fact of the matter is Jay choose to run as a Democrat because he wanted to take advantage of the benefits of running on a party line. In reality Jay would have not had enough support to win in the Nov election without party line support therefore JAY CHOSE to become a Democrat. Make no mistake Jay had a choice and he made that choice for his own personal benefit not because he suddenly realized he was actually a Democrat. The decision to switch parties was solely Jay's choice not the Republicans therefore, you need to hold Jay accountable for his decision not the Republicans.
Think about it, the strategy on the part of the Democrats to court Jay to switch was as follows.......Jay was in a weak position, having Jay run as a Democrat the Democrats hope he will split a portion of the Republican vote therefore all but assuring Cook's re-election. I honestly don't think most Democrats like Jay anymore than the Republicans did, it's all part of an overall strategy to ensure Cook's re-election and continued majority on TC. If by chance Jay wins that would just be an added bonus for the Democrats, there is essentially no risk here. Although I don't necessarily support Jay's decision to switch to the Democratic party (he should have run as an Independent), I do believe he is just a pawn in the game and he probably doesn't even realize it.
Lastly, unless you are the GOP chair or Jay Taylor himself you couldn't possibly know "first hand". If you want to post your opinion on what happened that is one thing, but to imply something as fact because you know "first hand" lacks all credibility. |
I don't think anyone has taken the position that "Jay had no choice" or was "forced" to do anything. But some have incorrectly suggested that he’s behind a false rumor that they weren't going to support his re-election, which is just a silly claim because several people involved with the local party had been openly saying that to various people all over town. As you suggest, he made a politically calculated choice to get re-elected. I think if he had tried to actively run as a Republican with the local party organization actively opposing him and running alternative candidates in the primary and general election as they had said they would, his odds would have been mixed at best. Running as part of an "incumbent ticket" with the full support of one of the local parties gives him much, much better odds. Personally I think he and Dave will both win and win decisively. The local Republican organization really shot itself in the foot by so aggressively ostracizing the remaining Republicans on the Committee when a vote didn't go their way. I think Dan Mulligan is hoping their probable defeat in this election will cause them to realize this before he’s up for re-election.
Jay was a "moderate" Republican by the current standard which has shifted more right over time, so the switch is not all that shocking. He didn’t change beliefs, just realize he was more in-line with one local party than the current people organizing the other, and that he pragmatically had an advantage to joining them. There are plenty of people in town who belong to one party or the other, usually for national political preferences, but vote across party lines locally. Not a big deal, except to the people who want to try and make it one just to oppose him or to the people who think that party matters over people or issues. There’s always some of those but thankfully we have a fairly smart base here and smart people don’t make that mistake. |
Here is a question for you....when did Jay file the paperwork to declare himself a Democrat? I am sure once you confirm that date it will put this whole issue of Jay's "non-endorsement/forcing out" to rest. Again if Jay was a "moderate" Republican in my opinion that makes a person identify more with an Independent (the majority of registered voters in Cranbury) than a Democrat. I don't argue the point about local races and voters crossing party lines however, I think the bigger picture here points more to the decision process and the motivation behind it. Jay was a Republican for 3yrs on TC. If he assumed himself a "moderate" or didn't feel comfortable representing himself as a conservative then why did it take him 3yrs to realize it? I agree that the voter base is comprised of smart individuals, and these individuals can recognize switching in an election year as playing into politics, appearing opportunistic, and self-serving, and not in the best interest of Cranbury. |
I voted for Jay when he was a Republican and I will vote for him as a Democrat. It is obvious that the local Republican organization has had some infighting the past 4 years. I don't really care why. I too think the local populace is intelligent. That is why I think these thinly veiled screeds will have little impact. I think Jay is bright with the best interests of Cranbury at heart. I don't think the party he chooses to run with will make any difference. |
|
|
| guest |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 4:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| Get a Mirror wrote: | | Moderate wrote: | | write In wrote: | | Pathetic wrote: | | more signs wrote: | | THe signs are up because of the primary - I don't think anyone with the signs in their yards intend to keep them up through November. |
I guess Tommy and Cindy must be worried about losing the primary to a write in candidate. |
I hear there is a movement among moderate republicans to write in Jay Taylor as a Republican candidate.
 |
I was just as unhappy to see taylor have a tough time with some of the local republicans as anyone however as a moderate republican in town I am upset he switched party. The truth is The only person talking about a jay Taylor write in is jay Taylor. No republican movement. He is now being shown as the calculating politician he really is. |
What kind of conniving hypocrite do you have to be to attack Jay's character and anonymously lodge false accusations against him in the same post?  |
First of all every person on this blog post anonymously including you "Get a Mirror" so what is your point.
To clarify, Jay chose not to run as a Republican. Jay also HAD A CHOICE to run as Independent where he didn't require any endorsement. The fact of the matter is Jay choose to run as a Democrat because he wanted to take advantage of the benefits of running on a party line. In reality Jay would have not had enough support to win in the Nov election without party line support therefore Jay chose to become a Democrat. Make no mistake Jay had a choice and he made that choice for his own personal benefit. |
|
|
| LOL |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 4:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| guest wrote: | Why is this such an issue for people? Campaign signs are part of a political process, one in which voters can express their opinions at the poll.
Perhaps you are unaware that there is a primary election this Tuesday, if you don't like the signs go make your voice heard at the polls and stop the whining. Most intelligent people don't take issues with use of signs. People don't upset when they see a 'for sale" sign around town because they understand that is part of the sale process. Residents also don't oppose the signs in town for the Fishing Derby or Strawberry Festival because it is simply a means to communicate an event. The campaign sign is simply notifying voters there is an election this Tuesday and making them aware of who is running. Get over it...... |
It's only a "problem" at any given moment for the people who are opposed to the candidates. Last year it was people complaining about the Democratic candidates signs, this year about the Republican candidates. If the people who took issue with the signs on this rant-fest forum were really just taking a position on principle against signs they wouldn't have revealed their hand by turning it into a slam of a particular party or its candidates. Just more meaningless noise... |
|
|
| guest |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 4:15 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
Why is this such an issue for people? Campaign signs are part of a political process, one in which voters can express their opinions at the poll.
Perhaps you are unaware that there is a primary election this Tuesday, if you don't like the signs go make your voice heard at the polls and stop the whining. Most intelligent people don't take issues with use of signs. People don't upset when they see a 'for sale" sign around town because they understand that is part of the sale process. Residents also don't oppose the signs in town for the Fishing Derby or Strawberry Festival because it is simply a means to communicate an event. The campaign sign is simply notifying voters there is an election this Tuesday and making them aware of who is running. Get over it...... |
|
|
| guest5 |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 3:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| Real Deal wrote: | | guest5 wrote: | | The Real Deal wrote: | To clarify, Jay chose not to run as a Republican. Jay also HAD A CHOICE to run as Independent where he didn't require any endorsements other than a minimum # of petition signatures. The fact of the matter is Jay choose to run as a Democrat because he wanted to take advantage of the benefits of running on a party line. In reality Jay would have not had enough support to win in the Nov election without party line support therefore JAY CHOSE to become a Democrat. Make no mistake Jay had a choice and he made that choice for his own personal benefit not because he suddenly realized he was actually a Democrat. The decision to switch parties was solely Jay's choice not the Republicans therefore, you need to hold Jay accountable for his decision not the Republicans.
Think about it, the strategy on the part of the Democrats to court Jay to switch was as follows.......Jay was in a weak position, having Jay run as a Democrat the Democrats hope he will split a portion of the Republican vote therefore all but assuring Cook's re-election. I honestly don't think most Democrats like Jay anymore than the Republicans did, it's all part of an overall strategy to ensure Cook's re-election and continued majority on TC. If by chance Jay wins that would just be an added bonus for the Democrats, there is essentially no risk here. Although I don't necessarily support Jay's decision to switch to the Democratic party (he should have run as an Independent), I do believe he is just a pawn in the game and he probably doesn't even realize it.
Lastly, unless you are the GOP chair or Jay Taylor himself you couldn't possibly know "first hand". If you want to post your opinion on what happened that is one thing, but to imply something as fact because you know "first hand" lacks all credibility. |
I don't think anyone has taken the position that "Jay had no choice" or was "forced" to do anything. But some have incorrectly suggested that he’s behind a false rumor that they weren't going to support his re-election, which is just a silly claim because several people involved with the local party had been openly saying that to various people all over town. As you suggest, he made a politically calculated choice to get re-elected. I think if he had tried to actively run as a Republican with the local party organization actively opposing him and running alternative candidates in the primary and general election as they had said they would, his odds would have been mixed at best. Running as part of an "incumbent ticket" with the full support of one of the local parties gives him much, much better odds. Personally I think he and Dave will both win and win decisively. The local Republican organization really shot itself in the foot by so aggressively ostracizing the remaining Republicans on the Committee when a vote didn't go their way. I think Dan Mulligan is hoping their probable defeat in this election will cause them to realize this before he’s up for re-election.
Jay was a "moderate" Republican by the current standard which has shifted more right over time, so the switch is not all that shocking. He didn’t change beliefs, just realize he was more in-line with one local party than the current people organizing the other, and that he pragmatically had an advantage to joining them. There are plenty of people in town who belong to one party or the other, usually for national political preferences, but vote across party lines locally. Not a big deal, except to the people who want to try and make it one just to oppose him or to the people who think that party matters over people or issues. There’s always some of those but thankfully we have a fairly smart base here and smart people don’t make that mistake. |
Here is a question for you....when did Jay file the paperwork to declare himself a Democrat? I am sure once you confirm that date it will put this whole issue of Jay's "non-endorsement/forcing out" to rest. Again if Jay was a "moderate" Republican in my opinion that makes a person identify more with an Independent (the majority of registered voters in Cranbury) than a Democrat. I don't argue the point about local races and voters crossing party lines however, I think the bigger picture here points more to the decision process and the motivation behind it. Jay was a Republican for 3yrs on TC. If he assumed himself a "moderate" or didn't feel comfortable representing himself as a conservative then why did it take him 3yrs to realize it? I agree that the voter base is comprised of smart individuals, and these individuals can recognize switching in an election year as playing into politics, appearing opportunistic, and self-serving, and not in the best interest of Cranbury. |
1. You'll need to be more specific about your point that the timing of the paperwork would "put to rest" any question of whether Jay switched parties because of non-endorsement/opposition from the local Republican organization members. It makes no sense. These local party members have been saying they were going to push Jay and Dan out for a over a year, far longer than the paperwork deadline or filing.
2. As for him being more of an "Independent" that is an entirely personal opinion of yours. Many (most) people consider there to be two "real" parties in this political system, which is borne out by general elections as well. Some Republicans and Democrats hold such visceral disdain for the opposing party that it makes them feel better to consider the "Independent" party a buffer between the two, but that doesn't make it a practical reality for most people. This fact is demonstrated in national surveys. A vast majority of voters who declare themselves politically "independent" are in fact registered to either the Democratic or Republican parties, as are most Libertarians, etc. As a result, both major parties have plenty of people who are moderate and beyond moderate somewhat either liberal or conservative despite being in the party typically associated with the opposite ideology. There are "Conservative Democrats," which typically means fiscally conservative, for example. We would have a heck of a lot more registered Independents if you're theory held any water. So you can try any imply that a true moderate would not have joined the Democrats but it's a notion built on a house of sandy logic.
3. Again, no one has suggested that Jay didn't switch parties now due to the election. So why do you keep implying otherwise? You're inventing a position to argue against that no one made. My comments certainly didn't suggest that I thought his switch was entirely a naturally timed revelation independent of the election. Just the opposite, I agreed with you that of course it was related to the election. Here's my exact words, from the text you replied to: "As you suggest, he made a politically calculated choice to get re-elected." But that's not the same thing as saying he's a secret die-hard conservative masquerading as a liberal just to get elected, nor a "turn coat" who gave up his principles to get elected. I stand by my statement. He's always been a moderate. He was a moderate Republican. The local party, like that of the party in general, has swung to the right. Meanwhile you have moderate Democrats in office now like Dave Cook versus the more partisan ones that used to hold local office. Over the last 2.5 years, well before the election or the ostracizing by the local Republican party, Jay found himself on the same side of a majority of issues as the current Democrats on the Committee. Check the official voting record, going back well before last year's budget flap which officially set the local party against Jay and Dan. So the reality is it's not a stretch for him to consider the other party, knowing full well it improves his re-election prospects, when in fact 2.5 years of experience suggests the current leaders are compatible with his personal ideologies. |
|
|
| Real Deal |
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 12:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: signs |
|
| guest5 wrote: | | The Real Deal wrote: | To clarify, Jay chose not to run as a Republican. Jay also HAD A CHOICE to run as Independent where he didn't require any endorsements other than a minimum # of petition signatures. The fact of the matter is Jay choose to run as a Democrat because he wanted to take advantage of the benefits of running on a party line. In reality Jay would have not had enough support to win in the Nov election without party line support therefore JAY CHOSE to become a Democrat. Make no mistake Jay had a choice and he made that choice for his own personal benefit not because he suddenly realized he was actually a Democrat. The decision to switch parties was solely Jay's choice not the Republicans therefore, you need to hold Jay accountable for his decision not the Republicans.
Think about it, the strategy on the part of the Democrats to court Jay to switch was as follows.......Jay was in a weak position, having Jay run as a Democrat the Democrats hope he will split a portion of the Republican vote therefore all but assuring Cook's re-election. I honestly don't think most Democrats like Jay anymore than the Republicans did, it's all part of an overall strategy to ensure Cook's re-election and continued majority on TC. If by chance Jay wins that would just be an added bonus for the Democrats, there is essentially no risk here. Although I don't necessarily support Jay's decision to switch to the Democratic party (he should have run as an Independent), I do believe he is just a pawn in the game and he probably doesn't even realize it.
Lastly, unless you are the GOP chair or Jay Taylor himself you couldn't possibly know "first hand". If you want to post your opinion on what happened that is one thing, but to imply something as fact because you know "first hand" lacks all credibility. |
I don't think anyone has taken the position that "Jay had no choice" or was "forced" to do anything. But some have incorrectly suggested that he’s behind a false rumor that they weren't going to support his re-election, which is just a silly claim because several people involved with the local party had been openly saying that to various people all over town. As you suggest, he made a politically calculated choice to get re-elected. I think if he had tried to actively run as a Republican with the local party organization actively opposing him and running alternative candidates in the primary and general election as they had said they would, his odds would have been mixed at best. Running as part of an "incumbent ticket" with the full support of one of the local parties gives him much, much better odds. Personally I think he and Dave will both win and win decisively. The local Republican organization really shot itself in the foot by so aggressively ostracizing the remaining Republicans on the Committee when a vote didn't go their way. I think Dan Mulligan is hoping their probable defeat in this election will cause them to realize this before he’s up for re-election.
Jay was a "moderate" Republican by the current standard which has shifted more right over time, so the switch is not all that shocking. He didn’t change beliefs, just realize he was more in-line with one local party than the current people organizing the other, and that he pragmatically had an advantage to joining them. There are plenty of people in town who belong to one party or the other, usually for national political preferences, but vote across party lines locally. Not a big deal, except to the people who want to try and make it one just to oppose him or to the people who think that party matters over people or issues. There’s always some of those but thankfully we have a fairly smart base here and smart people don’t make that mistake. |
Here is a question for you....when did Jay file the paperwork to declare himself a Democrat? I am sure once you confirm that date it will put this whole issue of Jay's "non-endorsement/forcing out" to rest. Again if Jay was a "moderate" Republican in my opinion that makes a person identify more with an Independent (the majority of registered voters in Cranbury) than a Democrat. I don't argue the point about local races and voters crossing party lines however, I think the bigger picture here points more to the decision process and the motivation behind it. Jay was a Republican for 3yrs on TC. If he assumed himself a "moderate" or didn't feel comfortable representing himself as a conservative then why did it take him 3yrs to realize it? I agree that the voter base is comprised of smart individuals, and these individuals can recognize switching in an election year as playing into politics, appearing opportunistic, and self-serving, and not in the best interest of Cranbury. |
|
|
| Patch article |
|
|