Musings...

[dfx]

As of last night my month of crazy traveling finally came to an end and (much to the relief of Mr. Kelsey and Mr. DeFonzo I can finally post messages again! That said, I've noticed a few interesting things in my absence:


- Where is the outrage over the fact that our town's Republican candidates for Town Council reversed course and declined to participate in a neutrally-moderated public debate after initially accepting the challenge back in July?

- Where are the questions about our town's last minute Republican candidate switch-a-rue? (Is this developing pattern a good or bad thing?)

- A recent News Transcript article mentioned Linda Lichardi's connection to the schools, but overlooked the fact that both Kevin and Jaye are also involved with this year's update to the district's 5-Year Strategic Plan. In fact, during the initial strategic planning volunteer meeting I didn't see either Republican candidate in attendance. (I was actually quite surprised at not seeing Mr. Miller in attendance since he's been an active supporter of the district in the past.)

- What was up with the underlying dig at the town in Kim's recent APP article regarding the town receiving 100% state aid for demonstrating sound fiscal policy? What should have been a positive story instead left readers with a poor impression because the budget was not presented in an "easy to read" format. (I know in the private sector, an "easy to read" format is typically a summation page. I also know that if a summation page were presented to the public - as opposed to the full detail which were presented - many people would be unhappy and accuse the town of "hiding" something. I know everyone can't be pleased all of the time, but couldn't we simply have just a positive story without a negative detractor - which in this case seems like a whole lot of nothing - for once?)



dfx

[richardkelsey]

Welcome back.

Debate -- I think the Dems played this as well as can be played. As I said earlier -- if I were the Republicans, I would never have agreed to a debate that could not be covered by local media before the election. According to the various democrat releases related to this debate -- the GOP apparently did so agree, and then reversed course.

In the end, the Dems look like the winner -- and the Borough is certainly the loser -- no doubt about it.


Candidate change -- I think it is a non issue because it appears to be a non-campaign.

5 Year Plan -- I thought about this the night of the "Meet Your Councilman" Dinner which was hosted by the Borough Democrats and was a campaign event -- which I enjoyed immensely. If I were a democrat, I probably would not make "5 year plans." I say this because the Soviet Union lived, worked, and designed their entire failed economic system of perverted socialism based on "5 year plans." A point the opposition would use in a real campaign.

The 100% aid -- that was good news for the Borough -- and a job well done. The standard for getting the 100% was pretty low -- and in reading the article, a community that basically scored zero was going to get 95%. Nonetheless, the Borough score was excellent -- and well deserving of credit to the Borough Council.

It was a delight -- BTW -- to meet you and so many others that night. You dems throw a nice party, with many of my favorite people. I still wish I had won the jacket.

[dfx]

Mr. Kelsey -

The fact remains that the publication schedule of the News Transcript had nothing to do with the selection of the proposed debate dates. (I wrote "dates" in plural form since it's important to remember that 2 distinct dates were provided to the Republicans in the initial debate challenge letter sent in July.) The date(s) were selected because they fell two weeks before election day and the desire was to have the candidates positions/views top-of-mind with the voting public. However if the Republican candidates felt that strongly about basing this forum around the Transcript publication schedule, they should have made this point back in July - not now. (In my mind these shenanigans also raise serious credibility questions about the truthfulness behind the Republican's debate challenge last year, but I digress.)

Regarding the fact that the candidate change will be (in your opinion) "a non-issue because it appears to be a non-campaign" does not mean this disturbing trend of last minute candidate switches should be ignored. If anything, I would think town Republicans should be very upset since it would appear the local GOP establishment is counting on people blindly supporting whichever GOP candidate is on the ballot on November 2nd. (I mean let's get real - the fact that the first town council candidate the GOP put forward this year had only registered to vote AND had only registered as a Republican on the last day a candidate could register to run is something that wasn't even yet mentioned...)

Point of clarification: the school district's Strategic Plan is a living document updated every 5 years with the help of anyone wishing to help. (It is not a political document and is in no way tied to either the town's Democratic of Republican establishments.) And if we really want to debate the historical collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, it goes waaaaaay deeper than their publishing of 5-year planning documents!

Unless you and I read different articles regarding the state's distribution/awarding of financial aid, I did not at all get the impression that state aid could basically be assumed regardless of score. On the contrary, I would think our current no-nonsense Governor would have no qualms about withholding state funds to "under-performing" towns since he publicly touts strong accountability...


dfx


PS.
I DO have a jacket for you. It may be snug since I'm a little guy, but it we can consider it a "starter" jacket...

[BrianSullivan]

Oct 27, 2010 10:06:23 GMT -5 dfx said:

As of last night my month of crazy traveling finally came to an end and (much to the relief of Mr. Kelsey and Mr. DeFonzo I can finally post messages again! That said, I've noticed a few interesting things in my absence:


- Where is the outrage over the fact that our town's Republican candidates for Town Council reversed course and declined to participate in a neutrally-moderated public debate after initially accepting the challenge back in July?

- Where are the questions about our town's last minute Republican candidate switch-a-rue? (Is this developing pattern a good or bad thing?)

- A recent News Transcript article mentioned Linda Lichardi's connection to the schools, but overlooked the fact that both Kevin and Jaye are also involved with this year's update to the district's 5-Year Strategic Plan. In fact, during the initial strategic planning volunteer meeting I didn't see either Republican candidate in attendance. (I was actually quite surprised at not seeing Mr. Miller in attendance since he's been an active supporter of the district in the past.)

- What was up with the underlying dig at the town in Kim's recent APP article regarding the town receiving 100% state aid for demonstrating sound fiscal policy? What should have been a positive story instead left readers with a poor impression because the budget was not presented in an "easy to read" format. (I know in the private sector, an "easy to read" format is typically a summation page. I also know that if a summation page were presented to the public - as opposed to the full detail which were presented - many people would be unhappy and accuse the town of "hiding" something. I know everyone can't be pleased all of the time, but couldn't we simply have just a positive story without a negative detractor - which in this case seems like a whole lot of nothing - for once?)



dfx

From my perspective, there is little to be outraged about.


- Where is the outrage over the fact that our town's Republican candidates for Town Council reversed course and declined to participate in a neutrally-moderated public debate after initially accepting the challenge back in July?

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows. Ask me about this after election day. Right now, I will not bother with this discussion because silly season causes mass hysteria.


- Where are the questions about our town's last minute Republican candidate switch-a-rue? (Is this developing pattern a good or bad thing?)

As long as everything is done legally, it sounds to me that this is an internal GOP issue. The people involved with the party have to deal with this, if it is an issue for them at all.


- A recent News Transcript article mentioned Linda Lichardi's connection to the schools, but overlooked the fact that both Kevin and Jaye are also involved with this year's update to the district's 5-Year Strategic Plan. In fact, during the initial strategic planning volunteer meeting I didn't see either Republican candidate in attendance. (I was actually quite surprised at not seeing Mr. Miller in attendance since he's been an active supporter of the district in the past.)

- What was up with the underlying dig at the town in Kim's recent APP article regarding the town receiving 100% state aid for demonstrating sound fiscal policy? What should have been a positive story instead left readers with a poor impression because the budget was not presented in an "easy to read" format. (I know in the private sector, an "easy to read" format is typically a summation page. I also know that if a summation page were presented to the public - as opposed to the full detail which were presented - many people would be unhappy and accuse the town of "hiding" something. I know everyone can't be pleased all of the time, but couldn't we simply have just a positive story without a negative detractor - which in this case seems like a whole lot of nothing - for once?)

Both of the above points are very related and all I can say is NEVER depend on the papers. I had that point driven home the last time I was interviewed by the APP. It wasn't Kim or Colleen, but my moderate comments were completely omitted by another reporter. My comments were used purely to inflame and incite different sides. That is not honest for the APP to do that!

This all ties back into the discussion you and I had about campaign strategies. I said before that I want more than ugly signs, cut up articles, and door knocking. At least the Dems had an open meeting. I think that gives them an edge. Let's look at these things again.

Signs- build name recognition, but tell us NOTHING about issues and platforms.

News papers- see lessons above. Not only the party, but the public just doesn't know what they will get. Often there is limited space so many good things can and do get cut out.

Door knocking- probably the best of the three. The downside is the public may not be prepared with comments or questions for an unannounced visit.

[dfx]

Brian -

I'm not trying to poke anyone in the eye over this, but you're not getting off that easily...

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows.

The fact is many people on this very site unfairly blamed the Democrats for "ducking" a public debate last year. Yet this year there appears to be a hesitancy in acknowledging that the Democrats did everything possible to ensure a public debate would take place in 2010. (Provide enough lead time? CHECK. Provide multiple debate dates? CHECK. Accept almost every Republican debate parameter? CHECK. Refuse to raise a fuss about the Republicans' last minute candidate switch? CHECK.) If this site is truly a politically-impartial site, than the assigning of blame for the breakdown of this year's candidate's debate must be delivered with the same vigor as was the case last year.

As far as the Republicans' (annual?) switching of political candidates, I believe your dismissive assessment that this is simply "an internal GOP issue" minimizes the gravity of what continues to transpire. Again I have to think there'd be a little more of an uproar on this site had this situation been continually happening with the town's Democratic party.

I also agree with your feeling that you can never rely on newspapers as the only means of obtaining information. (Which makes me wonder why the Republicans are using the publication schedule of the News Transcript as a means to avoid debating this year.)


dfx


PS.
On a lighter note, I've noticed John N. has been posting quite frequently on this site. Anyone who knows me understands how important I hold ongoing community communication and I applaud his efforts. John and I may not agree on everything (millionaires tax, tougher landlord registration procedures, etc.), but this is one area where I support him wholeheartedly...

[richardkelsey]

Oct 27, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5 dfx said:

Brian -

I'm not trying to poke anyone in the eye over this, but you're not getting off that easily...

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows.

The fact is many people on this very site unfairly blamed the Democrats for "ducking" a public debate last year. Yet this year there appears to be a hesitancy in acknowledging that the Democrats did everything possible to ensure a public debate would take place in 2010. (Provide enough lead time? CHECK. Provide multiple debate dates? CHECK. Accept almost every Republican debate parameter? CHECK. Refuse to raise a fuss about the Republicans' last minute candidate switch? CHECK.) If this site is truly a politically-impartial site, than the assigning of blame for the breakdown of this year's candidate's debate must be delivered with the same vigor as was the case last year.

As far as the Republicans' (annual?) switching of political candidates, I believe your dismissive assessment that this is simply "an internal GOP issue" minimizes the gravity of what continues to transpire. Again I have to think there'd be a little more of an uproar on this site had this situation been continually happening with the town's Democratic party.

I also agree with your feeling that you can never rely on newspapers as the only means of obtaining information. (Which makes me wonder why the Republicans are using the publication schedule of the News Transcript as a means to avoid debating this year.)


dfx


PS.
On a lighter note, I've noticed John N. has been posting quite frequently on this site. Anyone who knows me understands how important I hold ongoing community communication and I applaud his efforts. John and I may not agree on everything (millionaires tax, tougher landlord registration procedures, etc.), but this is one area where I support him wholeheartedly...

I think the Democrats still lead in debate ducking! But really -- I am not keeping score.

I am not sure how I would react if the dems kept replacing the candidates -- I might be happy. :-)

I think the point you raise about this is handled by the political market. That is -- you can't do this repeatedly without losing credibility. This hurts party building, and it hurts individual campaigns. Notwithstanding Councilman Newman's success, a strong campaign should be a long, sustained, trust building endeavor with the people and the town.

I think this year's campaign, the candidate change, the debate debacle, and the absence of action is a major setback for the GOP in town. Because a strong second party is essential to good government -- no matter the party in charge - that makes this a setback to the town in its entirety -- whether people get that or not.

Putting on my political analyst hat -- the Freehold GOP should have built off last year's success and the outstanding work and reputation of Councilman Newman. Moreover, with the national mood decidedly anti-incumbent and mostly anti-democrat, this year should have been one where a strong, well-organized, well-funded, thoughtful campaign would be launched by a fresh set of candidates. The failure to make that materialize is not insignificant.

To the contrary, Councilman Newman's win was a double victory for the people of Freehold. He was an outstanding and needed replacement -- bring fresh blood and an outsider's perspective. However, he also made the dems think they can lose elections. That's good. They were much better organized, much leaner, and ran a great operation mostly because they realized they could bleed. That too is good for the people, as government should believe it is accountable.

Hey -- I was at the dem affair. It was energetic, fun, filled with community servants, and well attended. it had the feel of a winning effort -- and talking with everyone that night reminds me of just how refreshing and real small-town campaigns are when one literally can win votes one at a time.

[BrianSullivan]

Oct 27, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5 dfx said:

Brian -

I'm not trying to poke anyone in the eye over this, but you're not getting off that easily...

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows.

The fact is many people on this very site unfairly blamed the Democrats for "ducking" a public debate last year. Yet this year there appears to be a hesitancy in acknowledging that the Democrats did everything possible to ensure a public debate would take place in 2010. (Provide enough lead time? CHECK. Provide multiple debate dates? CHECK. Accept almost every Republican debate parameter? CHECK. Refuse to raise a fuss about the Republicans' last minute candidate switch? CHECK.) If this site is truly a politically-impartial site, than the assigning of blame for the breakdown of this year's candidate's debate must be delivered with the same vigor as was the case last year.

As far as the Republicans' (annual?) switching of political candidates, I believe your dismissive assessment that this is simply "an internal GOP issue" minimizes the gravity of what continues to transpire. Again I have to think there'd be a little more of an uproar on this site had this situation been continually happening with the town's Democratic party.

I also agree with your feeling that you can never rely on newspapers as the only means of obtaining information. (Which makes me wonder why the Republicans are using the publication schedule of the News Transcript as a means to avoid debating this year.)


dfx


PS.
On a lighter note, I've noticed John N. has been posting quite frequently on this site. Anyone who knows me understands how important I hold ongoing community communication and I applaud his efforts. John and I may not agree on everything (millionaires tax, tougher landlord registration procedures, etc.), but this is one area where I support him wholeheartedly...

Dan, I have no further comments about this years or last years debates. Last year saw many unfortunate things that never should have happened. There is no sense in going backwards and reliving that. As far as this year, I am not in the least bit involved with organizing a debate. I am simply a spectator enjoying the show. It has been entertaining.

AS far as the GOP switch, I do not mean to be dismissive. If other people have issues, that is their prerogative and they are more then welcome to come here and express themselves. This is an open site and we welcome all.

[dfx]

A few things:

1. It was brought to my attention that I incorrectly attributed an article (re: 100% financing) that I referred to in my initial posting as an APP piece written by Kim P. I was incorrect and the article was actually in the News Transcript and written by Clare Marie Celano. I apologize wholeheartedly to Kim P. and promise to be more careful in the future.

2. Brian - you mentioned that don't want to assign blame for this year's debate debacle, yet you recently called out George Schnurr with the tagline "Hey George, where's the debate? We the people are waiting......."

- Why was it George's responsibility to organize a debate this year? He isn't even running in the election...

- Have you ever noticed the one thing each failed public debate effort has in common? (I'll give you a hint: this "perennial candidate" has the initials T.M.)

Perhaps the call out to George should be reworded to "Hey T$d M#LL%R, where's the debate? We the people are waiting......."



dfx

[BrianSullivan]

Oct 27, 2010 19:36:25 GMT -5 dfx said:

A few things:

1. It was brought to my attention that I incorrectly attributed an article (re: 100% financing) that I referred to in my initial posting as an APP piece written by Kim P. I was incorrect and the article was actually in the News Transcript and written by Clare Marie Celano. I apologize wholeheartedly to Kim P. and promise to be more careful in the future.

2. Brian - you mentioned that don't want to assign blame for this year's debate debacle, yet you recently called out George Schnurr with the tagline "Hey George, where's the debate? We the people are waiting......."

- Why was it George's responsibility to organize a debate this year? He isn't even running in the election...

- Have you ever noticed the one thing each failed public debate effort has in common? (I'll give you a hint: this "perennial candidate" has the initials T.M.)

Perhaps the call out to George should be reworded to "Hey T$d M#LL%R, where's the debate? We the people are waiting......."



dfx

Dan, believe it or not, tha tag line is NOT meant to blame George. But thank you for your assumptions and perspectives. After the election, I will get back to George.

For now, here is some breaking news.

freehold.injersey.com/2010/10/27/borough-debate-a-no-go/

Actually, it is not so breaking. I predicted exactly this ages ago. The more the two sides blame each other, the bigger my smile grows. More on that after the election. It is fun being the spectator this year.

[BrianSullivan]

Oct 27, 2010 15:32:51 GMT -5 richardkelsey said:

Oct 27, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5 dfx said:

Brian -

I'm not trying to poke anyone in the eye over this, but you're not getting off that easily...

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows.

The fact is many people on this very site unfairly blamed the Democrats for "ducking" a public debate last year. Yet this year there appears to be a hesitancy in acknowledging that the Democrats did everything possible to ensure a public debate would take place in 2010. (Provide enough lead time? CHECK. Provide multiple debate dates? CHECK. Accept almost every Republican debate parameter? CHECK. Refuse to raise a fuss about the Republicans' last minute candidate switch? CHECK.) If this site is truly a politically-impartial site, than the assigning of blame for the breakdown of this year's candidate's debate must be delivered with the same vigor as was the case last year.

As far as the Republicans' (annual?) switching of political candidates, I believe your dismissive assessment that this is simply "an internal GOP issue" minimizes the gravity of what continues to transpire. Again I have to think there'd be a little more of an uproar on this site had this situation been continually happening with the town's Democratic party.

I also agree with your feeling that you can never rely on newspapers as the only means of obtaining information. (Which makes me wonder why the Republicans are using the publication schedule of the News Transcript as a means to avoid debating this year.)


dfx


PS.
On a lighter note, I've noticed John N. has been posting quite frequently on this site. Anyone who knows me understands how important I hold ongoing community communication and I applaud his efforts. John and I may not agree on everything (millionaires tax, tougher landlord registration procedures, etc.), but this is one area where I support him wholeheartedly...

I think the Democrats still lead in debate ducking! But really -- I am not keeping score.

I am not sure how I would react if the dems kept replacing the candidates -- I might be happy. :-)

I think the point you raise about this is handled by the political market. That is -- you can't do this repeatedly without losing credibility. This hurts party building, and it hurts individual campaigns. Notwithstanding Councilman Newman's success, a strong campaign should be a long, sustained, trust building endeavor with the people and the town.

I think this year's campaign, the candidate change, the debate debacle, and the absence of action is a major setback for the GOP in town. Because a strong second party is essential to good government -- no matter the party in charge - that makes this a setback to the town in its entirety -- whether people get that or not.

Putting on my political analyst hat -- the Freehold GOP should have built off last year's success and the outstanding work and reputation of Councilman Newman. Moreover, with the national mood decidedly anti-incumbent and mostly anti-democrat, this year should have been one where a strong, well-organized, well-funded, thoughtful campaign would be launched by a fresh set of candidates. The failure to make that materialize is not insignificant.

To the contrary, Councilman Newman's win was a double victory for the people of Freehold. He was an outstanding and needed replacement -- bring fresh blood and an outsider's perspective. However, he also made the dems think they can lose elections. That's good. They were much better organized, much leaner, and ran a great operation mostly because they realized they could bleed. That too is good for the people, as government should believe it is accountable.

Hey -- I was at the dem affair. It was energetic, fun, filled with community servants, and well attended. it had the feel of a winning effort -- and talking with everyone that night reminds me of just how refreshing and real small-town campaigns are when one literally can win votes one at a time.

Very good post. I think we can agree that the republican campaign is a real head scratcher this year. None of it makes sense to me.

You are right, the Dem party was a really nice time and they really do have a lot of positive energy within their base.

Dare we get into predictions this year? We were both so wrong last year.

[jefffriedman]

Oct 27, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5 dfx said:

Brian -

I'm not trying to poke anyone in the eye over this, but you're not getting off that easily...

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows.

The fact is many people on this very site unfairly blamed the Democrats for "ducking" a public debate last year. Yet this year there appears to be a hesitancy in acknowledging that the Democrats did everything possible to ensure a public debate would take place in 2010. (Provide enough lead time? CHECK. Provide multiple debate dates? CHECK. Accept almost every Republican debate parameter? CHECK. Refuse to raise a fuss about the Republicans' last minute candidate switch? CHECK.) If this site is truly a politically-impartial site, than the assigning of blame for the breakdown of this year's candidate's debate must be delivered with the same vigor as was the case last year.

As far as the Republicans' (annual?) switching of political candidates, I believe your dismissive assessment that this is simply "an internal GOP issue" minimizes the gravity of what continues to transpire. Again I have to think there'd be a little more of an uproar on this site had this situation been continually happening with the town's Democratic party.

I also agree with your feeling that you can never rely on newspapers as the only means of obtaining information. (Which makes me wonder why the Republicans are using the publication schedule of the News Transcript as a means to avoid debating this year.)


dfx


PS.
On a lighter note, I've noticed John N. has been posting quite frequently on this site. Anyone who knows me understands how important I hold ongoing community communication and I applaud his efforts. John and I may not agree on everything (millionaires tax, tougher landlord registration procedures, etc.), but this is one area where I support him wholeheartedly...

I quote Dan here because most of the issues of the thread are mentioned. As for this and last years debate's or lack there of. The Republican candidates should be chastised for avoiding this years debate. Last years debate plan unlike what some like to represent was put together by residents the paper and the LOWV. Neither the Republican candidates nor the Democratic candidates were involved. In fact many of the residents involved were people who had been appointed to committee positions by the governing body.

As for last minute candidate switches, I too do not like that as a normal procedure but we may not know all the facts. Dan us Dem's should tread lightly on the candidate switch issue as two of my former employers made that action famous in 2002.

As for John Newman and his votes. Everyone knows that I am a Democrat, everyone also knows that I support John. I too do not agree with everything he supports but if one is to criticize votes facts help. The millionaire tax vote was a non-binding non-enforceable vote. A vote with no authority to change or do anything. I think both sides are wrong on this. I think taxes should be higher for millionaires but not to the point of driving them out of the state, a balance is necessary.

As for the "landlord" vote. The fact is that John was the sole vote for maintaining the stricter system. The Majority of the council voted to reduce inspections to once every three years from once a year. The Majority voted to remove the children's names from the Registration form. The Majority removed the extra registration fee for violators. I am glad the Majority removed those items. I did not like how they went about dong it and believed then and now more must be done but those changes were steps in the right direction. But If however we are going to talk about peoples votes we should lay out the facts as they really are not how some would like peole to think they are.

[lisas84]

Maybe the GOP lack of a campaign has to do with lack of funding, which would severely hamper marketing (campaign) activities. That's just my guess. Regarding the rejection of participating in a debate, I would assume that it may be a lack of confidence. I cannot think of any other reason.

Jeff, I agree about CouncilNewman. He is fully invested in providing solutions and he's also a nice, trustworthy fellow, who like the rest of the mayor/council, is easily approachable.

[BrianSullivan]

Oct 28, 2010 7:07:49 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

Oct 27, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5 dfx said:

Brian -

I'm not trying to poke anyone in the eye over this, but you're not getting off that easily...

I am not going to get to into the debate debate. All I will say is that what happened this year is exactly what I have said would happen. I am NOT blaming either side, but, the more each side blames the other, the bigger my smile grows.

The fact is many people on this very site unfairly blamed the Democrats for "ducking" a public debate last year. Yet this year there appears to be a hesitancy in acknowledging that the Democrats did everything possible to ensure a public debate would take place in 2010. (Provide enough lead time? CHECK. Provide multiple debate dates? CHECK. Accept almost every Republican debate parameter? CHECK. Refuse to raise a fuss about the Republicans' last minute candidate switch? CHECK.) If this site is truly a politically-impartial site, than the assigning of blame for the breakdown of this year's candidate's debate must be delivered with the same vigor as was the case last year.

As far as the Republicans' (annual?) switching of political candidates, I believe your dismissive assessment that this is simply "an internal GOP issue" minimizes the gravity of what continues to transpire. Again I have to think there'd be a little more of an uproar on this site had this situation been continually happening with the town's Democratic party.

I also agree with your feeling that you can never rely on newspapers as the only means of obtaining information. (Which makes me wonder why the Republicans are using the publication schedule of the News Transcript as a means to avoid debating this year.)


dfx


PS.
On a lighter note, I've noticed John N. has been posting quite frequently on this site. Anyone who knows me understands how important I hold ongoing community communication and I applaud his efforts. John and I may not agree on everything (millionaires tax, tougher landlord registration procedures, etc.), but this is one area where I support him wholeheartedly...

I quote Dan here because most of the issues of the thread are mentioned. As for this and last years debate's or lack there of. The Republican candidates should be chastised for avoiding this years debate. Last years debate plan unlike what some like to represent was put together by residents the paper and the LOWV. Neither the Republican candidates nor the Democratic candidates were involved. In fact many of the residents involved were people who had been appointed to committee positions by the governing body.

As for last minute candidate switches, I too do not like that as a normal procedure but we may not know all the facts. Dan us Dem's should tread lightly on the candidate switch issue as two of my former employers made that action famous in 2002.

As for John Newman and his votes. Everyone knows that I am a Democrat, everyone also knows that I support John. I too do not agree with everything he supports but if one is to criticize votes facts help. The millionaire tax vote was a non-binding non-enforceable vote. A vote with no authority to change or do anything. I think both sides are wrong on this. I think taxes should be higher for millionaires but not to the point of driving them out of the state, a balance is necessary.

As for the "landlord" vote. The fact is that John was the sole vote for maintaining the stricter system. The Majority of the council voted to reduce inspections to once every three years from once a year. The Majority voted to remove the children's names from the Registration form. The Majority removed the extra registration fee for violators. I am glad the Majority removed those items. I did not like how they went about dong it and believed then and now more must be done but those changes were steps in the right direction. But If however we are going to talk about peoples votes we should lay out the facts as they really are not how some would like peole to think they are.

Jeff, good post, thank you. I just want to make one point about the landlord issues and John. Yes, he was the lone dissent. At that meeting I recall he did not mention so much tough vs. softer stances. If I recall correctly, he did not like either the past nor the current ordinance that the rest of the governing body voted for.I do not believe he liked the way either was written. I could stand to be corrected here, but that is the big point I recall.

[Mike Rosseel]

On this years election....

I am a supporter of Jaye without a doubt(let me say that first). The sad part is the GOP could have used the NEwman win as a starting base for future success in town, maybe not this election but certainly the next few. I understand reusing canidates, I know its a part of politics, the Dems do it as well with MArc LeVine. It just seems to me that the people spoke last election, what would make you think this year for Miller would be different or 2 years from now with Marc. Im not putting anyone down but running the same people over and over from either party, is not healthy for Freehold. We need new blood, thats a fact!!! Jaye will do good this year, he works hard and deserves it, but I find it hard to believe the best the Freehold GOP had was Miller. I think its time for Miller to drop his ego and let people that really care about Freehold get involved, no one wants to run with him(no offense). Its a fact!!

I hope in the next few year, theres new blood not old recycled names!!!(from all parties)

[jefffriedman]

Oct 28, 2010 15:40:15 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Oct 28, 2010 7:07:49 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

I quote Dan here because most of the issues of the thread are mentioned. As for this and last years debate's or lack there of. The Republican candidates should be chastised for avoiding this years debate. Last years debate plan unlike what some like to represent was put together by residents the paper and the LOWV. Neither the Republican candidates nor the Democratic candidates were involved. In fact many of the residents involved were people who had been appointed to committee positions by the governing body.

As for last minute candidate switches, I too do not like that as a normal procedure but we may not know all the facts. Dan us Dem's should tread lightly on the candidate switch issue as two of my former employers made that action famous in 2002.

As for John Newman and his votes. Everyone knows that I am a Democrat, everyone also knows that I support John. I too do not agree with everything he supports but if one is to criticize votes facts help. The millionaire tax vote was a non-binding non-enforceable vote. A vote with no authority to change or do anything. I think both sides are wrong on this. I think taxes should be higher for millionaires but not to the point of driving them out of the state, a balance is necessary.

As for the "landlord" vote. The fact is that John was the sole vote for maintaining the stricter system. The Majority of the council voted to reduce inspections to once every three years from once a year. The Majority voted to remove the children's names from the Registration form. The Majority removed the extra registration fee for violators. I am glad the Majority removed those items. I did not like how they went about dong it and believed then and now more must be done but those changes were steps in the right direction. But If however we are going to talk about peoples votes we should lay out the facts as they really are not how some would like People to think they are.

Jeff, good post, thank you. I just want to make one point about the landlord issues and John. Yes, he was the lone dissent. At that meeting I recall he did not mention so much tough vs. softer stances. If I recall correctly, he did not like either the past nor the current ordinance that the rest of the governing body voted for.I do not believe he liked the way either was written. I could stand to be corrected here, but that is the big point I recall.

Brian, You are correct in summarizing John Newman position. I was highlighting the effect of the vote in response to Dan's belief that Mr. Newman was in some way against "tougher landlord registration procedures" as Dan put it as Dan mention that as one area of disagreement. I would think we all want regulations that are EFFECTIVE and FAIR.

[BrianSullivan]

Oct 29, 2010 7:11:22 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

Oct 28, 2010 15:40:15 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Jeff, good post, thank you. I just want to make one point about the landlord issues and John. Yes, he was the lone dissent. At that meeting I recall he did not mention so much tough vs. softer stances. If I recall correctly, he did not like either the past nor the current ordinance that the rest of the governing body voted for.I do not believe he liked the way either was written. I could stand to be corrected here, but that is the big point I recall.

Brian, You are correct in summarizing John Newman position. I was highlighting the effect of the vote in response to Dan's belief that Mr. Newman was in some way against "tougher landlord registration procedures" as Dan put it as Dan mention that as one area of disagreement. I would think we all want regulations that are EFFECTIVE and FAIR.

Gotcha and agreed. It is no secret that I am no fan of landlords, but for years I have been writing on this site that all sides have to be heard and respected and considered. IT is far better than needless law suites. I have alwasy said fair, but I like your use of the word effective. That will be a part of what I continue to advocate for.