Will illegal endorsement be challenged?

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7339 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 7:31 am:        Ken and Kathy should easily beat their weak challengers on Tuesday. This is a no brainer. Here's the issue moving forward and I'm very curious to hear some answers. Corzine did not endorse the candidates but they did made that claim using mass mailers and ads including one here on MOL. Is this enough to get the elections results overturned? What's the process for such a challenge during local primary elections? Does anyone know? Can Ken and Kathy be charged with some type of election fraud? I've found little information on the subject but I would imagine some type of punishment could potentially be dealt for misrepresenting a major endorsement.   Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 301 Registered: 9-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:17 am:        No, Straw, the endorsement will not be challenged. You may now go back to your crayons and play dough.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7340 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:30 am:        I'm looking for some intelligent responses. Let's keep the angry half wit comments like the one above to a minimum.   Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11720 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:44 am:        From what I have heard this is more a misunderstanding than deception. There is some indication that a verbal endorsement was given at one point, but never followed up on and probably some second thoughts on the part of Corzine. Corzine has quite a lot of contacts in and around Maplewood, including his daughter and an advisor named Scott Kisch (sp), who ran for TC several years ago as an unendorsed by the Maplewood Democratic Committee, then controlled by Jerry and Vic.   Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 5275 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:45 am:        I thought the Ledger (or was it the Snooze Wreckered) had a recent article that said Corzine originally did endorse them then discovered he was not allowed to in a Primary.   Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6456 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:04 am:        I think it was in the Star Ledger JTA, a paper Straw probably doesn't have time to read while he is managing all his properties and counting all his money and berating all the democrats.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7341 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:13 am:        I'm not a fan of the Ledger. Just the real estate section. Back on topic, hundreds of voters probably still believe Corzine endorsed Ken and Kathy. It would be in the opponents best interest to fight the election results. Vic who is the man behind the candidates has a great deal to gain with a Ken and Kathy loss as does David.. So, again what's the next step for the challengers assuming they lose? Despite the Corzine " I endorsed them before I didn't endorse them" excuse, how can K & k justify using that endorsement in a mailer, a mailer that probably clinched them the election?   Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 5276 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:15 am:        Bob- That's pretty much what I read in the paper. Tried to Google for the article with no luck. Duncan- Do you remember the date it was in the Ledger?   Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6457 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:15 am:        I couldn't find the specific article, but if you read this one about how divisive the Maplewood Democratic party is, you would think that any inpropriety about some false endorsement would have made this article. Read of MacDuff   Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2187 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:15 pm:        Quote: Let's keep the angry half wit comments like the one above to a minimum. Speaking of half wit comments let me share a few with you. Boring. Libs are stupid. Rumsfeld Iraq Al Qaeda Iraq Rumsfeld.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7348 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:19 pm:        Yes,libs are stupid but that has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is about 2 Democrats who say Corzine endorsed them. Corzine on the other hand says he would never do such a thing. Wait a second!Actually you're right, "libs are stupid" has everything to do with this thread.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14592 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:51 pm:        I think it's a good question. Can this be considered fraud? It may have been unintentional in the beginning, but they continued playing up the so-called endorsement. That's not admirable. Meanwhile, the Adams and Lewis-Powder campaign is dirty, too. They imply that Ken Pettis parks his car illegally, however the parking permit is one of the privileges of membership on the township committee. Can't they think of something substantial to complain about? My vote is not yet decided, as you can tell.   The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1582 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:54 pm:        Straw- Sometimes you do crack me up.... I ran into Vic last week campaigning hard for the challengers at the train station. I asked him if his actions were a conflict of interest and he said, "no that is politics.." I wonder how Ken and Kathy feel knowing they have to work with someone that totally wants them out of there...? I guess politics sure can be vicious. -SLK   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14595 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:01 pm:        SLK, I know what you mean. How uncomfortable it must be to work with someone who worked for your removal! And it must be equally bad to work with someone and work for his/her removal. But perhaps it's a lesser evil than giving someone a rubber stamp merely because he/she is an incumbent.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7350 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:14 pm:        "I think it's a good question. Can this be considered fraud?" BINGO! If let's say they sent that mailer to 1,000 homes. Of those homes 700 support Corzine. Of those 700, 500 have no clue that endorsement turned out to be false. Of those 500, 400 go to the polls to vote for K&K based on that endorsement. I mean talk about stealing an election?? Seems as if Ken and Kathy need to issue a public retraction quick...Don't know how they can but my guess is Vic and David are feeling pretty frisky right about now.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14597 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:15 pm:        Kathy just told me that what they did was honest and legal. They heard from Corzine's office about the "no endorsement" rule after the mail went out. The Corzine office understood that Ken and Kathy can't retract the mail. They changed the website. Now I hope to hear similarly from Nancy or Lester, explaining the dirt they've been flinging. I'm in the book and also in Anywho.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7352 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:22 pm:        Kathy better hope what she did was legal. I tend to believe that since there was no written proof, she's wrong. Unless she's confident The Corzine camp will back her story which I find unlikely. I hope Kathy's correct because this town doesn't need a contested election.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9718 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:28 pm:        Stop for a second and think this through. Either Ken and Kathy totally misunderstood Mr. Corzine, which says something about their ability to comprehend simple communications and puts into question their suitability to sit in public office where comprehending what constituents are telling you is Job One, or they knowingly went ahead with it. You decide.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14600 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:30 pm:        Or Corzine changed his mind?   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9719 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:33 pm:        Corzine has a strict no-endorsement policy in D primaries. Also it's fairly customary when getting an endorsement to get it in writing or at least let the endorser proofread the mailer. I think they're lying about the endorsement or stretching the truth to an incredible extent that it's indistinguishable from a lie or are simply paying selective attention to what others say to them. Notice also, the lack of a formal apology to Maplewood voters for spreading disinformation.   mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 6254 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:41 pm:        Straw, I did research after our conversation last weekend and second Tom Reingold's post, it was an honest mistake. I bet you Corzine didn't even knew about the policy! He certainly verbally endorsed them, but is that a good thing? I hate politics!   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7354 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:43 pm:        100% agreed with Dave.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9720 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:44 pm:        Corzine made the policy. Corzine said he endorses all Democrats. Ken and Kathy re-interpreted it, put it on everything they printed or pixelated and spent most of the weekend verbalizing it in town to passsersby. You decide.   fmertz Citizen Username: Fmertz Post Number: 119 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:17 pm:        An honest mistake since they WERE endorsed in the previous campaign. Compared to that sleazy parking flyer about Ken Pettis, it is a misinterpretation at worst (something that NEVER happens on MOL). You decide.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9724 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:22 pm:        Assume there's been an honest mistake. How does this sound: K&K: Senator, will you endorse us? Corzine: Sure, call my office for a quote. K&K then call their printer and tell printer to run thousands of copies WITHOUT a quote from Corzine. Why not call for a quote? I'd love a nice long quote from a popularly elected US Senator, if I were running. You decide. (NOTE: This doesn't make the parking flyer less sleazy. Both sides are teaching us something.)   Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6461 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:27 pm:        If Corzine did indeed say he endorses all Democrats than Adams/Lewis-Powder could say that Corzine endorsed them as well, no? Any way the whole TC primary is nonsense. I have spoken with every candidate this year (except Ken, ironically enough) and not one of them has given me a good and powerful reason to vote for them. Nor do I expect any democrat in Maplewood to give me a good reason to vote for them in a primary. It is silly. The democratic party around here is like 400 - 450 nanometers. I want to see the other 200 nanometers. But I have to wait until November to see that and then only if the Republicans can put up a good candidate.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9725 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:31 pm:        Here's the perfect Maplewood TC makeup: Wendy, Tom Reingold, Joan Crystal, Jamie, Strawberry   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14606 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:35 pm:        Thanks, Dave. Remove me and Strawberry from the recipe, and I think you have something good. This is a petty issue, like the parking one. Campaigning is ugly and doesn't tell us about how these people will govern.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9727 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 2:52 pm:        Whomever wins, they'll still be better than the South Orange BoT loonies, so at least you have that going, Maplewood.   Aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 936 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:02 pm:        Dave, Please do not insult loonies. Thankey.   steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1082 Registered: 2-2002 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:03 pm:        Since Dave is inclined to ask readers questions he may wish to ask himself one as well if he can do so in good faith. -Does he really believe that Corzine's office would have, without a fury of protest allowed Pettis & Leventhal to continue distributing already printed literature using the words, "Endorsed by Gov Corzine" if they did not acknowledge their own complicity in the confusion? You needn't struggle, -the correct and obvious answer is "no freakin' way". However, there is no need to speculate on the facts involving the "Corzine" endorsement as they have already been widely reported in the News Record and repeated here. Anyone is free to contact Corzine's office if they wish to avail themselves of such an extraordinary measure being so truly concerned that their vote could possibly hinge on such a thing or are so truly filled with the righteous spirit to pursue "truth" as self-proclaimed. However if they are not so inclined to accept the story as it occurred and as reported to Tom by Kathy and are more inclined to paint it darkly out of their own malice, alternate loyalties or amusement then perhaps they are not so inclined to vote for K&K for other reasons of their own, if indeed they even have a vote in this primary. If some voters wish to continue pondering trivial campaign matters rather than Maplewood issues they may wish to further examine the grand question of "where does Pettis park?" as pursued by the challengers and deemed worthy of them as a way to spend campaign money and voters time rather then using the precious opportunity to lay out their own ideas more broadly. It occurs to me the challengers in this election and those who have directly supported them, -otherwise good people who view themselves and have portrayed themselves as the "true democrats" in the past have taken a very low-Rove in an attempt to get to the high ground. It is tragic that those involved directly in the challengers campaign seem to have taken a lesson from national politics and forgotten that they are purporting to represent the people of Maplewood. Maplewood voters wish themselves to be represented by candidates not just in the way they would serve but also in the way they run. You cannot run and serve with two sets of principles in these four-square miles where people at least try to maintain some mantle of civic decency and expect citizens to forgive such poor example of how to behave as "just politics" or that, "it is what you have to do". No. It is not what you have to do. Not here and not anywhere, but especially not here. I believe that the challenger candidates have begun to learn that lesson already in the Village this past weekend where previously benign voters and long-time Maplewood citizens were furiously wagging the "parking mailer" literally in their faces with recriminations. Should indeed the challengers tomorrow manage to eek out a win for one of their candidates I surely hope that they would realize that it was in SPITE of such a mailer and not because of it or God help us all for future politics in this town.   kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 542 Registered: 3-2005 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 3:44 pm:        Steel, When the Forces of Fred run for election, the first club out of their bag is always spreading scurrilous implications of illegality against Vic and David --and this has been going on for years. If they aren't trying to trump up outrage with false charges like "the state is investigating their campaign" then it's "he didn't follow the law when he struck my gate." -- In fact, ever since Fred entered politics in town, his campaigns have been characterized by frame-ups and malicious prosecution. Two wrongs don't make a right and I've deplored the mailer about Ken's car, but please don't debase political discussion further by doing Fred's dirty work and spreading his manure. There is plenty of integrity in the people who have put themselves forward in this town for election and joined public service to fight for property tax reform, community-sensitive development in Maplewood and better youth service and real crime prevention. Ken and Kathy like to tiptoe around the manure on their side while they whistle "Everything's coming up roses." I don't blame them for keeping their skirts clean. But they've not shown a lot of leadership in cleaning up the stinking mess on their side of the hedge. You can indeed pin the ONE obnoxious mailer about Ken on the tail of his opposition. But the backers of Ken and Kathy have a six year history of foul play in Maplewood politics, and Ken and Kathy have never broken with it. Just benefitted from it. In the meantime, back to the issues that affect us all, not a handful pols egos: * there are $12 million in cost overruns at a police station that still hasn't broken ground, *taxes are not held to the CPI as promised but instead go up and up and up, *no work done on genuine property tax reform *no plan for crime prevention * lots of big talk but no delivery on development   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7356 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 5:51 pm:        Steel and Kathleen, Both of you have brought a great deal of information to the table with the above posts.. Thanks. The Great Straw is a proud American.   breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 919 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:02 pm:        At this point I don't think there's anything K&K could do win Straw's good opinion. Nope. He just doesn't like them. He doesn't like them at all.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7357 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:10 pm:        That's not true. Up until the Corzine endorsement I was in their camp. Frankly, I think Corzine is a clown so the endorsement bothered me because I could not figure out why a Governor would waste his time on a local election. Obviously, my concern doubled when the endorsement turned out to be a hoax. This is the second time Kathy has engaged in lying. The first time during the open fields "tax" and now this. I won't be voting for Kathy tomorrow. Pettis is on the fence. I may simply decide not to vote period even though believe it or not I'm currently a registered democrat. I did so to support Fred the last time out. Fred needs to ditch these two and find some fresh meat. Maybe he can get Ian Grotman to run as an independent. That would be a smart start.   breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 921 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:24 pm:        Let me just be sure I understand: Straw will not be voting for Kathy tomorrow. Correct? I'll take it under advisement.   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7358 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:36 pm:        Right...No Kathy in 06.   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5050 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:05 pm:        As far as the legality of it, in all seriousness I've got to think that if lying during a campaign (and I'm not saying they did) were cause for overturning an election, 50% of the results in the whole U.S. of A. would be tossed out.   mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 6264 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:08 pm:        Tom, You made me laugh out loud with that one - thanks!   mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 6265 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:14 pm:        Straw - who ARE you voting for if you don't mind my asking?   Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7359 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:17 pm:        Alison Zeifert...straight shooter... Possibly Ken...Will not vote for the other 3...   anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2756 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:43 pm:        As far as the legality of it, in all seriousness I've got to think that if lying during a campaign (and I'm not saying they did) were cause for overturning an election, 50% of the results in the whole U.S. of A. would be tossed out. 50%? Talk about understatement!!!!!!