Author |
Message |
Guest |
Posted: Thu, Nov 5 2009, 9:57 am EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
Just reading the Trentonian, Linda Greenstien is quoted as saying "I am still in the mourning stages about the Governor, I feel the Governor did a good job." And you all voted her back in! My vote wasn't wasted on her or D'Angelo. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 9:46 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
guest western wrote: | Can someone please convince Panconi to take on D'Assholo in the next round of democratic primaries? |
I dislike Wayne D'Angelo's record as much as anyone on these boards. Please have the decency to refer to the man by name. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 8:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
Now that he is an independent he can go after him, tho for a real shot he may have to switch parties. As you can tell with Daggett an Independant cant win. But I would also vote for him, whatever party, but am not sure about the other robo voters. |
|
 |
guest western |
Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 7:24 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
Can someone please convince Panconi to take on D'Assholo in the next round of democratic primaries? |
|
 |
Edward K |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 11:35 am EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
You are absolutely correct. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 11:25 am EST Post subject: Here's why State Politics are so corrupt |
|
Check out this list of State Assembly results:
http://elections.nj.com/dynamic/files/elections/2009/by_state/NJ_State_Assembly_1103.html?SITE=NJNEWELN&SECTION=POLITICS
Now try and find a single example where an incumbent running for re-election didn't win.
The State Assemby and Senate, even more than the Governor, are responsible for our current problems and the overall system of party machine corruption. Yet the same voters who could narrowly wrap their heads around change in the governors office could not manage to unseat even ONE Assembyperson, no matter how terrible a job they did.
That's just sad. Until we colectively take responsibility for our own role in this system -- elections -- we have only our collective selves to blame for our crappily-run State. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 10:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election (Christie the winner) |
|
The Star-Ledger declares Christie the winner. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 9:32 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election (The Star-Ledger result 44%) |
|
The Star-Ledger
Governor - General
2795 of 6305 Precincts Reporting - 44%
Christie, Chris GOP 514,692 49%
Corzine, Jon (i) Dem 460,120 44% |
|
 |
HistoricallyFiscal |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 8:30 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
District 14 results on Gov were on CNN,
51% Christie
40% Corzine
9% Daggett
so far |
|
 |
Jay T. |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 5:34 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
No problem, but there is a usage fee for using my name . The fee is one vote per family member of your household for Dan and I.
Seriously, great stories during the campaign and that is one of the many things I will miss about the campaign. |
|
 |
CranburySauce |
|
 |
Jay T. |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 3:57 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
I was debating on whether to comment on this thread, but I think people should know my views. I have posted here during the course of the campaign and plan to continue to do so if I am fortunate enough to be elected tonight.
When my dad was on the TC back in the early-mid 90's, I attended meetings on a number of occasions. Often the meetings went until 10 or 11pm. The reason the meetings did go late was because issues were discussed out in the open, residents weighed in and discussion occurred with resident input being part of the equation. Many votes were 3-2 or 4-1 (after the 5 person TC was instituted).
Now, I am certainly not advocating that every meeting should go that late simply to say the meeting went long. However, I do believe we should have meetings that take resident input into consideration and then have discussion based on the input received. If the meetings end at 9, 10 or 11 at night it should not matter. What should matter is that we're weighing resident input when making a decision. I firmly believe that if we as a TC do that then participation/attendance at the meetings will increase and we will be creating a great back and forth and fostering of community ideas.
I am also concerned when I see any board vote the same all the time. There are times I have sat in a meeting agreeing with Richard Stannard or Pari and not Win. There are times I sat there agreeing with Win and not the others. Dan and I would also sit there and have discussions as the meeting was occurring having our own disagreements at times. The good news of working together is that we don't have an us vs them mentality and that there are no bad feelings when we all disagree. Win, Dan and I have very small egos which means we don't take things on a personal level.
I also consider myself to have pretty solid ethics and I view Dan and Win the same way. I can assure you that so called "parking lot meetings" will not occur. I ask you to believe me based on two facts. First it is against the law as it would constitute a quorum and I have no desire to break the law regardless of chances of being caught or seriousness of the crime.
Second, Dan and I both eat at Teddy's and are active in the community. I do not want people I see to come up and state their fear or concern that I am not listening to them. I do not want people feeling we are not involving them and making decisions prior and it is for that reason as well that I want to minimize closed door meetings.
During the campaign Dan and I did walk and work together. We did this because we wanted to have open dialogue with residents and for residents to understand two key items.
1) Dan and I will work together and listen to residents. Many times we heard comments that we had not considered. When we walked alone we saw residents were not as open in their views. I do not know why, but when we both showed up our discussions were much longer in length.
2) We wanted residents to see that Dan and I did have different views, but that we still could agree to disagree. And in so doing we could still work together as a team. On a macro-level we do agree on key items and we have worked hard to provide residents with our ideas and possible solutions for the problems we see being raised.
I understand that by the time of this posting a lot of people will have voted.
If you have voted for Dan and/or I then I thank you.
If you have yet to vote then I would hope you'll consider us both.
If you voted for someone else and we're still elected then I hope you will find Dan and I are both worthy of the position and I hope we will earn your respect and trust. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 12:01 pm EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
This, from PolitickerNJ.com is revolting. Let me paraphrase: the State Democratic Party LIED initially, then came clean about their bankrolling the robocalls!? They lied. Period.
----
Dems continue robocalls to GOP voters urging vote for Daggett
By Editor
Controversial robocalls made by the Democratic State Committee that criticize Republican Christopher Christie and seek votes for independent Christopher Daggett continue to be made today. Democrats had initially denied they were responsible, but admitted last night that they were behind them.
Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R-Morris Twp.) said he received one at his home within the last hour.
"I just got one of those pro-Daggett calls from the DSC," said Carroll. "I can only conclude that they are so ashamed of their own candidate that they cannot bring themselves to advocate for him directly."
The Christie campaign says that they have received reports of the calls being received by Republicans in other counties, including Union and Essex. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 11:23 am EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
Mr. Stout's endorsement of Mr. Cook is what convinced me not to vote for Mr. Cook. I was on the fence because I like him personally and am a Democrat. But Mr. Stout represents everything that has been done wrong with our Township government. Besides pushing for unnecessary spending projects and then not seeing that they are managed properly, Mr. Stout has demonstrated that he places party politics above the interests of the Township. He has gone out of his way to undermine a long tradition of appointing local citizens to boards and sub-committees in a non-partisan way based on qualification and interest and instead turned it entirely political, making party affiliation, and loyalty to him, the primary basis for selection. And he has endorsed State politicians against the interests of our township. Throughout most of the campaign Mr. Cook presented himself as his own man, and though he co-opted the positions that the Township republicans have owned for the last couple years in opposing the reckless leadership of Mr. Stout, he seemed to indicate he would not blindly endorse their positions. But in accepting an endorsement from Mr. Stout he undermines all that. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 11:15 am EST Post subject: Re: governor's election |
|
Another Voter,
Interesting post. I read things here but never write, but you inspired me to! I've not ever been involved much in local politics, so I can't be too critical of decisions made when I have not offered my two cents. But lately I've wondered, are we going in the right direction? I don’t always think so and I've concluded that it is my responsibility to be more involved.
I've wondered for a while, who should I vote for locally? All four candidates seem like bright, capable people. But I really hate this “us” versus “them” mentality that I think I see a lot of times. To be honest, any discussion of a group of 3+ TC members voting in unison is a concern. Even those voting to create a change in current TC composition (to a Jay, Dan, Win "majority") are falling prey to this logic.
We are a small town. We are facing challenges from State mandates and elected officials who understand or care little for our town's interests. At a local level, we need 5 free-thinking, transparent TC members that will listen to resident concerns and make open & informed decisions in the best interest of the community.
I'll tell you the tipping point for me. I was really amazed at a comment at the candidate's night debate. Candidates were criticized at one point for supporting a neighborhood at the north end of town that is concerned about how affordable housing will be built by them. It was said that they were acting like a small minority not concerned about the community. (I've known some folks that live there for a long time and don't believe for a second that this is true.) It was said that the candidates did not have all the facts. It seems to me that the candidates are all pretty bright and had a good grasp of issues, why were these “facts” missed? Were they easily available?
This is really not how we should conduct ourselves. Decisions that affect all or part of our town should be debated with civility in the clear light of day. But this comment struck me and made me walk away thinking that the concerns of this one neighborhood were viewed as inconvenient and conflicting with some already-made decisions. That is not transparency. I was on the fence until that point, thinking we had 4 solid candidates. I still think all four are good, bright, well intentioned men. However, it made me really wonder whether a change in TC composition is needed.
Well, good luck to all 4 candidates. May the best two men win! And whoever wins, please think and act openly and independently. Disagreeing over issues should not lead to "us" and "them" relationships . Parties don't matter. We have a lot at stake here, so work in the interest of our community and preserve what drew many of us here long ago. |
|
 |