Adubato-Eyes of Nation on Kean / Menendez Race

[Fed Up]

politics.nexcess.net/adubato/2006/09/eyes_of_nation_on_kean_menende.html

Eyes of Nation on Kean / Menendez Race

By Steve Adubato, Ph.D.

All eyes in the nation are on the New Jersey race for the United States Senate between incumbent Democrat Bob Menendez and his Republican opponent Tom Kean Jr. Sure, what happens to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut is important, but what happens in New Jersey could decide the balance of power in the nation's most prestigious club, otherwise known as the U.S. Senate.

Amazingly, on paper this looks like a virtual dead heat. New Jersey is supposed to be a very "blue state" where we consistently elect Democrats to statewide office. The last Republican to win statewide was Christie Whitman. The last Republican to win a U.S. Senate seat was Clifford Case back in 1972. However, if the polls are right, Tom Kean Jr. may actually hold a slight lead over Bob Menendez.

But polls can be deceiving and people often make their choice late in the game. But we still must ask why Menendez isn't blowing Kean out at this early stage. The biggest reason is the name Tom Kean. Let's face it, it is a great name. People love Tom Kean -- senior, that is -- our former governor and head of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Kean Sr. was and is a class act that both Democrats and Republicans like and respect. I know better than most because in 1985 as a member of the state legislature in a so-called marginal swing district, I lost my seat because Tom Kean Sr., a Republican leading the ticket, blew out his Democratic opponent 70 to 30 percent. I lost by two percent. Thanks, governor.

And over two decades later the Tom Kean name is still golden, only enhanced by his leadership as head of the commission examining what happened on and after 9/11. My point is that a lot of people think Tom Kean Jr. is Tom Kean Sr. Others who know he is the son figure he's got to be pretty good since the father was so great. Still others are just comfortable with the name and figure how wrong can you go with a Tom Kean?

But there is another name that is impacting this race and that name is Menendez. Not a lot of people want to talk about it, but I am convinced that there is something going on here. It is something respondents will never tell pollsters, but nonetheless it is there. New Jersey has never elected anyone with a Hispanic surname before. Bob Menendez is Cuban American. It shouldn't matter, but with some maybe it does even a little bit. Could there are some who just aren't comfortable with electing a U.S. Senator named Menendez? It's not "PC" to say it, but are you convinced that I'm wrong?

The fact is that Bob Menendez is one of the most articulate, thoughtful and effective members of Congress. But to some, that may or may not matter, but again, they are not going to tell a pollster who calls them on the phone and asks whom they might be voting for in the upcoming election. I hope I'm wrong, but again, are you sure I'm not?

There is also Iraq. According to the recent PublicMind poll, if Iraq were not an issue, Tom Kean would be leading in this race 47-36 percent over Menendez. That's amazing. But because Iraq is a huge issue for many, Tom Kean's lead is only 43-39 in the same poll. That's a statistical dead heat.

Tom Kean is doing all he can to distance himself from President Bush's unpopular leadership on Iraq. This past week, Kean Jr. called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign after Menendez challenged him to do so. I'm not sure that is going to give Kean enough breathing room on the issue. He won't criticize the president directly and he won't say we need to get out of there by any particular date and Rumsfeld has to go? Pretty fuzzy, huh?

Conversely, a couple of days ago, Bob Menendez called for a withdrawal of most American troops from Iraq within a year. He also called the war effort a "massive failure." Menendez said this of Kean's call for Rumsfeld resignation; "Firing him while still endorsing the same status quo policy (in Iraq) is like throwing the first mate of the Titanic overboard while standing side by side with the captain as he steers straight toward the iceberg." Talk about an analogy that hurts. Tom Kean Jr. is going to have to respond to that. He must be clearer on his Iraq position or his great name won't get it done.

Meanwhile, Kean has been blasting Menendez implying, if not saying, that the Democrat is ethically challenged. Kean held a press conference in Union City in front of a non-profit organization housed in a location that Menendez owned for many years. The problem, says Kean, is that the non-profit organization was paying rent to landlord Menendez when then Congressmen Menendez was helping the non-profit in Washington gain important federal dollars. The implication is that Menendez used his influence as a public official to enhance himself as a landlord. Personally, I think it is weak, but then again, if Tom Kean Jr. can make himself out to be a sort of adult Boy Scout, unlike the prototypical "New Jersey politician", it could hurt Menendez. Who knows?

There are a lot of factors that will come into play over the next several weeks to decide this race. But one thing for sure is that interest in the win goes way beyond New Jersey's borders. This one is going to be a really fascinating if not terribly nasty race. Then again, we are in the Garden State.

[Marc LeVine]

I am not impressed by the mudslinging that has taken place, by either candidate, in this sordid campaign. If you can't win discussing the issues, you should find another profession, in my opinion.

Mendendez is often painted as a typically corrupt "north jersey" politician. There must be some truth to this and many fingers have been pointed his way on questionable ethics. Are these poltically manufactured accusations or based in reality? I suppose, this is where we need to search our hearts and minds. I don't get a comfortable feeling, nor do I get one about his ability to get the job done in Washington.

Tom Kean Jr. should not be confused with Tom Kean Sr., a former governor - and person - I like. However, name recognition in this particular case may be very dangerous to the voters. This Kean must stand on his own merits and prove he can lead the State of New Jersey. We are not electing his father, this ime around. What little I have seen and heard from Jr. - even in our own forum - suggests that he may be the better of the two candidates in this year's election.

With illegal immigration a hot topic, especially here in New Jersey, I fear that Bob Menendez may be partial to illegal immigrants and stand in the way of making some hard decisions regarding immigration reform. Sure, he wants to seal our borders to keep out terrorists, but will he fight hard for a system that punishes the employers of illegal aliens or make the immigrants pay back the system in return for breaking the law? Or, will he be among the first calling for a blanket amnesty that few of us want or need. I'm not convinced that he will look out for the NJ towns that are paying a big price for an immigration system not in check.

Marc L.

[admin]

Marc, all of your points are on the money. The mudslinging is very uninspiring. With a campaign like the senate race we see, we all have reason for concern and skepticism.

On the topic of name recognition I am reminded of the way in which current Senator Lautenberg was elected. When Torrecelli went down in flames, the Democrats gave us Lautenberg as a candidate, purely because of name recognition. It worked. How sad.

Third party, anyone?

[Fed Up]

admin said:

On the topic of name recognition I am reminded of the way in which current Senator Lautenberg was elected. When Torrecelli went down in flames, the Democrats gave us Lautenberg as a candidate, purely because of name recognition. It worked. How sad.

Third party, anyone?

So do you have the same contempt for the Repubs and their DiFrancesco-Franks switcheroo business in 2001?

[admin]

Fed said:

admin said:

quote]

So do you have the same contempt for the Repubs and their DiFrancesco-Franks switcheroo business in 2001?

You have not seen me jumping up and down for the Republicans, have you?

Third party, anyone?

[Fed Up]

admin said:

Fed said:

admin said:

quote]

So do you have the same contempt for the Repubs and their DiFrancesco-Franks switcheroo business in 2001?

You have not seen me jumping up and down for the Republicans, have you?

Third party, anyone?

No, but I have noted which party you generally single out for criticism.

[Fed Up]

Marc said:

I am not impressed by the mudslinging that has taken place, by either candidate, in this sordid campaign. If you can't win discussing the issues, you should find another profession, in my opinion.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901079.html?sub=AR

In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal
Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; A01

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.

John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University and the author of a book on negative advertising, said Republicans and Democrats alike lack positive issues on which to run because of divisions over the war and economic policy. This will be a "very negative campaign and probably a more negative campaign than any in recent memory," Geer said.

As Republicans try to localize races, Democrats' hopes for the most part hinge on being able to nationalize the election and turn it into a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the performance of the Republican Congress -- all faring poorly in polls this year.

Bush will try to make terrorism the issue nationally, casting the election as a choice between two distinct approaches for protecting the nation from attack. Beyond that, however, most Republicans want to distance their elections from the national context.

That strategy is born of necessity. Republicans are alarmed by the large number of House and Senate incumbents who are trailing or tied in their internal polling. Many are attracting the support of less than 45 percent of likely voters -- a danger zone for any incumbent 60 days before an election. The political rule of thumb is that incumbents rarely draw a majority of voters who make up their minds in the days shortly before Election Day.

History shows how the combination of opposition research and negative advertising can work. In 2000, Republicans unleashed a furious attack on the spending practices of Democratic House candidate Linda Chapin, including her purchase of an $18,500 bronze frog as a legislator in Florida. Chapin, then the favorite to win an open Florida House seat, lost to Republican Ric Keller. That same election cycle, Republicans dug up a tape of state Rep. Eleanor Jordan (D-Ky.) asking to speed up a vote so she could attend a fundraiser, an image that destroyed her chances of knocking off Rep. Anne M. Northup (R).

This year, the challenge is tougher, as national polling shows voters dissatisfied with the party in power and ready for a change.

"When all [Republicans] do is launch potshots, they look like they're trying to cover up the fact that they have no solutions" said Phil Singer, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

As in past elections, the bulk of negative advertising this year probably will be delivered by party committees -- a strategy that allows the candidates to distance themselves from the trash-talking messages that turn off some voters.

Wisconsin's 8th District offers an example. Earlier this summer, the NRCC sent a young staff member to the district for one week to look through court records, government and medical documents, and local newspapers to find embarrassing information about physician Steve Kagen, one of the leading Democratic candidates in an important swing district, an NRCC aide said. The researcher discovered that Kagen's allergy clinic has sued more than 80 patients, mostly for failing to pay their bills.

A new NRCC ad airing in the Green Bay area, the district's main media market, warns: "What Dr. Millionaire doesn't want you to know is his clinic left more than 80 patients behind -- suing them. That's right, suing more than 80 patients."

In recent elections, Democratic officials have complained that Republicans are much better at opposition research. But Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chair the Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees, have invested more heavily in research. Notably, the researchers dig not only into Republicans, but also their own candidates. This allows Democrats to anticipate what is coming and be ready to respond quickly.

One Democratic research success this year came when Emanuel's staff combed though the archives of several universities to find a copy of an article Colorado Republican candidate Rick O'Donnell wrote for an obscure publication in the mid-1990s. A researcher eventually found the article at George Washington University. In it, O'Donnell argued that Social Security should be abolished -- a revelation that was highlighted in three sharply worded DSCC mailings in the district.

Direct-mail appeals often carry the most negative and potentially damaging messages. Dan Hazelwood, a leading GOP direct mail consultant, said that if a hypothetical Democratic candidate favors the establishment of a garbage dump in a section of the district, for instance, it makes more sense to "narrow-cast" this message by mail to the people most affected rather than buying an expensive, districtwide television ad.

The RNC's expanded role in part reflects concerns that Senate Republicans may not have enough money to take the fight to Democrats. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, under Chair Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), had $15 million less to spend than the DSCC at the end of July. But, the RNC is planning to make up the difference. The committee ended July with nearly $44 million in the bank, four times what the Democratic National Committee had on hand.

In setting up a separate arm to spend money on Senate races, the RNC is altering its past practice. In the past, the RNC simply transferred a large sum of money to the House and Senate campaign committees and let the chairmen decide how to spend it. This year, Nelson -- a former top official in the Bush reelection effort and political strategist for House Republicans -- will work with consultants Tony Feather and Curt Anderson to oversee the TV and direct-mail campaign, which by law must remain independent of coordination directly with candidates.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[admin]

Fed said:

admin said:

Fed said:

You have not seen me jumping up and down for the Republicans, have you?

Third party, anyone?

No, but I have noted which party you generally single out for criticism.

Fed Up, You are an interesting one. I am missing your point in this partisan tone we have taken. The original point I made in reference to Lautenberg is the impact that name recognition can have.

For you to point out my tendencies in who I single out and then follow it up with a partisan piece, is quite puzzling. Do not take that the wrong way, your last post IS very interesting. I think your timing is a bit off.

If you are challenging my partisan ways, allow me to lay it out for you.

I have admitted to voting for Democrats on only a small handful of occasions. For Freehold Mayor and town council and for Barbara McMarrow for Freeholder.

The rest of my votes have been for Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservative Party candidates.

The lack of votes, from me, for Democrats is a reflection of my beliefs, which are that the Dems rarely reflect my values, do not offer solutions that I find acceptable, and I believe, that at least in New Jersey, they are the more corrupt party.


I would love to see the Dems offer something more, but they do not. If you would like to start by trashing republicans, be my guest. I am not a party hack and have no problem with criticizing them.

I do have my beliefs and I will not cower nor try to hide them. I do not expect ANYONE on this board to shy away from what they believe in.

Again, I will restate my true partisan ways. I would love to see third parties rise. The major parties are very uninspiring. With third party challenges, the two big baddies would have to be more honest.

One last thing, Fed Up. you appear to be a smart person. I do like ALL of the articles that you post. Something tells me that if you wrote your opinions alone, you would be very interesting and thought provoking. I welcome that.

[Fed Up]

admin said:

The original point I made in reference to Lautenberg is the impact that name recognition can have.

Which was exactly my point: The Republicans did what you are critical of the Dems for doing (replacing an unpopular/undesirable candidate with one that was more acceptable to the masses). The Republicans did it first. And they set the precident for the Dems being allowed to do it a year later. The onloy difference is that it didn't work for the Repubs; they weren't able to prevent Schundler's primary win.

For you to point out my tendencies in who I single out and then follow it up with a partisan piece, is quite puzzling. Do not take that the wrong way, your last post IS very interesting. I think your timing is a bit off.

My posting of the Washington Post piece was in reponse to Mr Levine's comment, as an illustration of why the mudslinging is there and why it is unlikely to stop. (I do have a question though - is the article partisan because the Post is a "lefty" rag? Becasue my reading of it was that it is straight reportage... the NRCC isn't trying to hide that they intend to do, they are talking about it on the record.) Did you watch either of the televised debates between the Senatoral candidates? I did, and I know which one avoided addressing issues and expended his time on ad hominem attacks.

If you are challenging my partisan ways, allow me to lay it out for you.

Not in the least. Just letting you know that they have been noted.

The lack of votes, from me, for Democrats is a reflection of my beliefs, which are that the Dems rarely reflect my values, do not offer solutions that I find acceptable, and I believe, that at least in New Jersey, they are the more corrupt party.

Unless you are talking about Monmouth County, where I do believe the Republicans hold the upper hand.

I would love to see the Dems offer something more, but they do not. If you would like to start by trashing republicans, be my guest. I am not a party hack and have no problem with criticizing them.

I am a very independent voter who takes the implied obligation to know who and what I am voting for very seriously; if you are assuming that I am a "party hack" you are dead wrong. If Carol Gay were a serious candidate for Smith's seat, I'd be posting research about her - but she isn't and frankly there no point in wasting my time on it.

One last thing, Fed Up. you appear to be a smart person. I do like ALL of the articles that you post. Something tells me that if you wrote your opinions alone, you would be very interesting and thought provoking. I welcome that.

Thanks. I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and I generally prefer to let those who are more adept with words carry the discussion.

[admin]

Fed Up,

I am going to end this back and forth with this last post. First, I am far from being "fed up" with you. You have challenged me a couple of times now, and I enjoy that. The other time was your response to Rich Kelsey's question as to what readers would do if they were in charge of the town. Both times you have proved yourself capable of reasonable views.

I mention this for the good of all readers. You claim to not be the sharpest tool in the shed. I know that I am not. On this board, we have some well educated, experienced, and articulate individuals participating. Marc, Rich, Publius, and Calliope, to name a few. That does not mean that others have no value. That is the beauty of living in a free country, a republic based in democratic principals. We all count.

I bring this up because we do have many people reading and not participating. I know this because of the privilege of being admin. I would love to see some others take some time to write.

I end this now because I realize that as admin, I have to use caution in allowing this to become a partisan board. IT IS NOT! I do have my beliefs, but ALL others are welcome, as long as they are not hateful or hurtful.

FED Up, you are right to point out all of the things that you have.

Brian

[Marc LeVine]

"Applause." Excellent debate.

This is what this site is supposed to be all about. I only lament that passive lurking isn't far less and active participation isn't much more. This should be the definative discussion forum for Freehold Borough. As your councilman, this has become an invaluable tool for me to hear from, at least, a segment of our residents. It is also a great place to deseminate information about our town, too.

Folks - you have nothing to fear by posting on this board as long as you speak your convictions and follow the guidelines of the forum.

Hail to Brian & Fed Up both for holding an intelligent and respectful (of each other) debate.

Marc L.