[Infuriating] Quote of the Day: Sweeney the Abstainer

That's a Hard Statement to Believe (4.00 / 2)

He had over a month to think about how he would vote.   Given that Sen. Sweeney seemed to be one of the legislators who initially led the push to try to keep the legislature from voting on the bill during the lame-duck session, it's really hard to believe his statement is sincere.   I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this statement doesn't square with his statements and actions before the vote.

---

by: princetonblue @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:11:05 AM CST

Sweeney is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Trenton (2.50 / 2)

Pure political calculation and expediency.

Leadership? Statesmanship? Courage? Hell no!

---

by: Anzana @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:28:16 AM CST

Unbelievable. (4.00 / 1)

This was not a game of checkers, Senator.  This was people's lives you affected by being a coward, plain and simple.  

This wasn't a win-some lose-some kind of no consequence, throw-away moment.

A particular vote, or being to cowardly to cast one has consequences.  For thousands of families and CHILDREN across the state this "mistake" had real consequences.  Now that you are contemplating the consequences to your own re-election, you have doubts?  

Quite selfish if you ask me. What a disappointment you are, sir.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:29:40 AM CST

Simply Not Credible..... (4.00 / 1)

....the bum is desperately playing a damage control game.

He needs to be primaried....and every progressive Democrat in the state should pony up an average of five bucks each to send Mr Sweeney into the full time direct on the books employ of Mr Norcross, where he belongs

Of course, his "defense"/take will then be that the "unforgiving" progressive community is a single issue mob applying an unreasonable "litmus" test.

I wonder if FA7 and the Norcross operation have already focus grouped this ploy?  Don't buy it.
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:39:25 AM CST

I happen to KNOW Sweeney is b.s.'ing us (3.75 / 4)

because he made this apologetic statement to some journalists and others pretty quickly after the vote on Thursday - like what, he had an epiphany minutes after the vote?   Seems all planned, as if he tried to get the best of all options in his mind.  Abstain then act contrite right after to preserve his support.  

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:56:00 AM CST

Hedging his hedge (3.67 / 3)

So not only did he hedge by abstaining, he then hedged again but quickly "regretting" his hedging. Wow. Now that's a leader.

---

by: Aegletes @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:07:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cowardly Act #2 (4.00 / 2)

This comment adds insult to injury.  Just hours before the vote, "Senate Abstainer" Sweeney clearly said the following to Marsha and I :  "Although I believe this is a civil rights issue, remember I told you that I wouldn't be #15."  He doesn't even have the courage to admit that his cowardly abstention was a decision he made long before the vote.  I lost all respect for him!  Is there a way to unseat him as Senate President????

---

by: lounur @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:51:24 PM CST

Cowardly? (0.00 / 1)

Sweeney never said he would vote Yes on this Bill. He did say that he was influenced by the arguments in favor of the bill and that he would be #21 if it worked out that way.

There is no way in the world that he would not have caught hell in his District if he voted Yes ,but he would have voted yes if it meant something.

His vote was not going to influence Madden or Van Drew. His vote was not going to influence the two sacred cows that the progressives on this site refuse to attack ,Rice and Turner.

He waited to see if his vote was needed and when it was not he abstained. Your arguments kept him from voting NO,but his District kept him from voting YES.

You really want to blame someone ,blame Codey for not posting this bill back in May .

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 13:06:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

then Sweeney is no leader (0.00 / 0)

If Sweeney cannot vote for certain issues out of fear of how his constituents will react, then he should be a back bencher and not the Senate President.

Only because he is the head of the Norcross/South Jersey bloc does he have any influence and only because Norcross was able to cut a deal with Adubato and other party bosses was he able to win the Senate Presidency.

This is not how a functioning democracy should operate, but since NJ doesn't have one, obviously someone like Sweeney is going to be at the top of it.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 13:46:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think I can speak definitively on this (4.00 / 1)

The day before the vote, Sweeney told a number of people, including me, he was voting yes - and he dropped his long-standing "Ill be there as vote 21 only."  He was a yes, period.  He no doubt told others other things.  He's not a leader.  Period.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 14:37:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I also heard before this (0.00 / 0)

that Sweeney had led folks in the Senate to believe he was with them in voting FOR ME.  I think he did it to get their support for his leadership bid, which makes him a not very ethical guy.

You were not the only ones who thought Sweeney would vote yes.  He used a lot of folks, it appears. That makes him the proper target of NJ progressive rage right now.  

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:55:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

give him the chance to curry our favor (4.00 / 1)

Steven should call him today and tell him that if the Democratic Party wants to avoid all-out civil war in 2011, he should call Codey and ask that the bill get a new vote on Monday with Sweeney delivering his vote along with that of Beach, Madden, and Van Drew.  Codey would be responsible for delivering Girgenti, Rice Sr., Sacco, Sarlo, and Turner.

I found something even more infuriating in the APP yesterday, where Sweeney said that the vote should have been taken in the spring, when there were more Republicans on board.

If Sweeney is not willing to go to Codey and ask for a new vote, we should be able to turn to Loretta Weinberg, Ray Lesniak, and any other marriage equality supporters who also voted for Sweeney to be the next Senate President and find out if there is some way that Sweeney can be removed from his new office before he is sworn into it.

I would sooner have a bipartisan election of Bill Baroni as the next Senate President than see Sweeney running the Senate for the next two years?  Is this remotely possible?

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:59:44 PM CST

Sweeney didn't just abstain, (4.00 / 3)

he encouraged and gave cover to other South Jersey senators either not to vote (Beach) or to vote no (Madden, Van Drew). This statement of regret is an obvious attempt to play both sides and I'm glad the posters here aren't falling for it.

---

by: boomer @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 15:30:37 PM CST

silly comment (0.00 / 0)

Madden and Van Drew were never going to vote yes.Never.

Beach is still a mystery but he did not make his decision because of Sweeney.

He gave no cover to anyone and if you knew the area and the people you would know that to be true.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 15:57:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What is a litmus test? (4.00 / 1)

A litmus test gets its name from a chemical test for acidity.  It's a go/no-go test.

If ME were a litmus test for this community; then I would expect the front page to be filled up with rants against the six Democrats who voted against ME.  I haven't seen a single one.  This is true, despite the fact that you have done your best to bait people into doing it, even stooping so low as to bring race into it with Rice and Turner, but neglecting that more white Democrats voted against it and haven't been called out.  It has largely been treated as a matter of conscience, where principled stands against the issue have been respected, but observed with some measure of grief and outrage.

On the other hand, your contention is that if Sweeney had voted his conscience and cast an affirmative vote, he would be summarily dismissed from office by his constituents.  In other words, you are saying that this issue is a litmus test for the voters of his district.  If he had voted affirmative, even in a losing effort, he would be turned out.  That's the argument.

So the argument is that there is no way he would ever possibly vote yes.  So even his talk about being the 21st vote was a lie.  That is your argument.  So everything about Sweeney on this topic has been a lie.  That is what you are saying.  And if it was anything else than a lie, then Sweeney would be turned out of office.

Well, what makes it okay for the voters of Sweeney's district to make it a litmus test, but not for the people on Blue Jersey?  What makes it okay for Sweeney to lie all the way around and hold out as if he has some sort of principle for lying to all sides on the matter?

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 16:17:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

race is a part of this issue (0.00 / 0)

Just as it cannot be ignored that a significant percentage of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans in California voted for Prop 8 in CA, it should not be ignored that Ron Rice Sr. and Shirley Turner, people who have undoubtedly experienced more than their fair share of discrimination in their lifetimes, chose to discriminate in kind when they voted against marriage equality legislation.

As far as I am concerned, their votes are particularly heinous and offensive.  To one degree or another, we could write Beach, Girgenti, Madden, Sacco, Sarlo, Sweeney, and Van Drew off as the bigots that they are and leave it at that, but for people who have experienced discrimination in their lives to discriminate against others is simply unconscionable.

In my opinion, Rice Sr. and Turner should have their photos in the history books alongside George Wallace as they are the George Wallaces of the marriage equality movement, standing in front of the justice of the peace's door the same way that Wallace stood in front of the schoolhouse door.

All 9 of these Democrats should face primary challenges in 2011.  It will be interesting to see if they do.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 17:59:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

I don't like that people do not support marriage equality, but I understand that many people truly have searched their hearts and come to a different belief than I hold.

I have no problem with anyone facing a primary challenge for any reason.  I believe you live in Sarlo's district, correct?

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 19:05:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nellie Pou for Senate (0.00 / 0)

Girgenti's district needs its first female Senator, someone who represents the diversity of the district.  His old-boy views are outdated and he hasn't progressed with the times. Nellie Pou is a seasoned legislator, a progressive, and a strong woman who should join Teresa Ruiz as the second latina in the State Senate.  

---

by: Giovanni @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 19:19:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What if Hawthorne and Paterson are in different districts after redistricting? (0.00 / 0)

Others have talked about Jeff Gardner, who lives in Hawthorne, as a potential challenger for Girgenti, but we have yet to hear from Jeff on this issue.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 19:59:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Asw. Pou lives in North Haledon. (0.00 / 0)

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost

---

by: Matthew Jordan @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 20:15:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What if Haledon and Hawthorne are in different districts after redistricting? (0.00 / 0)

Others have talked about Jeff Gardner, who lives in Hawthorne, as a potential challenger for Girgenti, but we have yet to hear from Jeff on this issue.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 17:21:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Incorrect (0.00 / 0)

I live in the 22nd.  Nick Scutari's district.  I am hoping that when redistricting has taken place, Dunellen winds up in Bateman's district.

You're entitled to your own opinion.  Mine is that anyone who has searched their heart and chose to discriminate has a heart that is blacker than coal.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 19:48:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (4.00 / 1)

I honestly think you'd be a great person to go against someone like Sarlo.  Whatever disagreements we have, I'll never knock your passion, and it could work well for an insurgent campaign.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 14:10:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Go For It Bertin!!! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 15:00:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll make you guys a deal! (0.00 / 0)

Buy my house in Dunellen from me for the amount that I owe on my mortgage and buy me a house in in Wood-Ridge with 4BRs and 2 bathrooms, and as soon as the closings are completed, I will announce my candidacy against Sarlo.  What do you say?

As much of a toilet as Southern Bergen County might be, I am willing to leave my idyllic lifestyle and relatively low property taxes in Northern Middlesex County to take one for the team as long as you guys can hold up your end of the bargain.

To be honest, I think that we would all be better off waiting and hoping that Dunellen gets redistricted into Bateman's district.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 17:18:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Litmus Test (4.00 / 2)

Who's got the litmus test?  Seems like Sweeney does. Based on firstamend's comments, Sweeney didn't vote for the marriage bill because he has Catholic and conservative voters to worry about. Isn't that a litmus test, to only support legislation that is ok with the Catholic Church? That's essentially what he is saying. Or am I missing something here about Sweeney's litmus test?

---

by: Giovanni @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 19:16:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

that is what I am saying.  Progressives are being castigated for having a litmus test, but in reality, it is the other side of the aisle that has that test in place.

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 14:09:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nothing wrong (0.00 / 0)

You are gay first and progressive second and your support is based on that fact.

At least you admit that and do not hide behind the progressive label.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 16:00:54 PM CST

Who is gay first and progressive second? (0.00 / 0)

Who were you responding to?

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 16:13:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Are A Norcross Sycophant/Toady First..... (1.00 / 1)

...and a human being second.

And clearly, you don't hide that fact very well.  lol

As for Jay's comment, I don't blame him a bit for proudly proclaiming that ME is a priority for him.....any more than I would blame a black person for being for civil rights.  

FA7, the more you defend Sweeney, the more you lose any cred you may have ever had.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 08:02:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I've Reread This Comment.... (4.00 / 1)

....and stand pleased to defend it.

FA7 has indeed been virtually 100% consistent over the years in acting as a defacto shill/press agent for the Norcross machine and Sweeney.

Also, for FA7 to implicitly criticize Jay Lassiter for stating that ME is a priority/"litmus test" for him (as if that was some kind of significant concession/confession on Jay's part which FA7 had won) ignores and distorts the reality/truth which is that it is Sweeney who is the villain in this piece not Jay Lassiter or the many thousands of LGBT folk who's lives are DIRECTLY afflicted by Senator Sweeney's self serving betrayal and duplicity.  

In my opinion, being loyal to a political machine/boss like George Norcross is indeed dehumanizing/soul killing.   And I would say the same thing about the pros hired to defend the Bush/Cheney record/administration.     Without smart pr types to put lipstick on pigs, pols would have a much harder time implementing regressive policies.

Further, I have yet to hear a single cogent well thought out argument against marriage equality that isn't based on some degree of bigotry/ignorance/irrationality.

The closest thing to a respectable rationale for opposing ME that I've heard is from the biblical fundamentalists who truly sincerely believe that it's against God's will.....and I don't think any of the abstainers (or many of the Dem OR Rep no votes) fall into that category.

For Sweeney to have actually told Steven Goldstein that he would support the bill and to then back off for self serving political considerations is sleazy......and for FA7 to defend that sleaziness by coming here to try to divide us and cause dissension is just as sleazy.

We have to face the fact that the real reasons that most of the NJ Senate voted no or abstained on this is because they were afraid of losing the votes of bigots and/or they wanted to curry favor with the new governor..........and when FA7 comes here to try to paint the whole progressive movement into an ideological corner of being "single issue" voters or then asks us to criticize the minority members of the Senate in particular for voting no (a kind of race baiting).....I am greatly offended by such tactics.

Again, it's clear that FA7 is here for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to defend Sweeney/Norcross and to deflect/distract criticism of them.    

I find it encouraging that in the last day or so even the NJ MSM has come around to criticizing Sweeney for his "vote".......there is hope yet!

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 15:28:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Primary Sweeney? No Way (4.00 / 1)

I don't think Primarying Sen. Sweeney is the way to go. He has too much money and it would waste valuable resources. It sounds nice, because we are angry, but let us not make decisions when angry. That's how Sen. Girgenti made his decision to be anti-gay. Did you hear his anger in the Judiciary Committee vote?

What should happen, though, is finding top quality candidates to diversify the Senate.  

Progressives need to focus on 1 or 2 key races and put all their resources in those races, and win them.  They should not waste their time, money and effort in unseating Sweeney. You won't beat him, so don't waste your time.  

Of course, you should make sure your friends, family and employers stop donating to the Senate PAC and the Democratic state committee.  Pool your money and assets strategically. Sweeney's power only comes from having money and having votes in his caucus. Changing that caucus changes his power.

You should also show up and participate in county committee and democratic clubs, which decide who candidates will be.  Get onto the county committee and make it more progressive.

Finally, be public. Write letters to the editor. Call the Legislative offices and hound them. Constantly. Remind these guys they lost the faith of many loyal democrats. Remind them they lost our support. Remind them they turned their backs on progressives and don't deserve our money, votes or respect.

And by the way, are there no democratic women in south jersey worthy of running for State Senate? Why is it all white men? Is this South Jersey or the Southern US during the 1950's?  What's with the all white boys' club?

---

by: Giovanni @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 18:24:58 PM CST

the Democratic 9 can be primaried and defeated (4.00 / 1)

Primary elections in 2011 will have very low turnout.  If progressives in these districts can be properly mobilized and motivated, a primary challenger could beat an incumbent.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 18:57:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't take money to unseat incumbents (0.00 / 0)

it takes ideas, and the courage of your convictions to say what you mean and do what you say.

I helped unseat 2 incumbents a few years ago with nothing more than ideas and less than $10,000.  We won not one, not two, but THREE seats, kicking 2 incumbents out and re-electing a Dem.  

Primaries can be the most effective means of cleaning house when elected politicians turn on their base.  

Sweeney is not a good leader.  If he cannot summon the courage to vote, or even be honest with his fellow Senators about his intentions, why should ANYONE vote for the man.  We shouldn't have to hold our noses to vote in a general election.  That is why we are allowed to have primaries.  So we don't have to vote for the other party's guy in November.

The other alternative is that WE put up a candidate to challenge him.  A "Real NJ Dem".  A Dem who will actually stand up for Civil Rights again, instead of the Democratic leader who likes to stage coups and take rights away from NJ citizens.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:09:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IMHO Girgenti Was/Is Afraid Of Being Primaried (0.00 / 0)

His vote was what it would have been any way.......the anger at the end of his BS remarks was a sign of fear.    The smarmy buttering up at the beginning was a self serving attempt to try to minimize anger and to inoculate himself from charges of bigotry (which I sincerely doubt he is).

As for primaries, every non-progressive pol in the state.....from BOTH parties should be primaried by progressives.   It should be a state wide movement.    There are Republican progressives out there too!

By having a statewide progressive movement with a set of common platform items a statewide brand is created.

By registering many thousands of new voters to come out and to vote in primaries (instead of the relatively small number of regulars who now show up) we may find that the here-to-for "impossible" actually happens!

I fare say that the level of absolute disgust with the status quo that most of us here have is shared by the vast majority of rank and file people......in both parties.    The real challenge is to get those people to believe that their votes can actually make a real difference.   The reason people don't vote is because they've given up on the system...not because they like the status quo.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 15:46:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My final word (0.00 / 0)

Everyone here obviously has an opinion.

Here is my opinion.

I believe Sweeney was torn after hearing the debate.

I believe he would have been #21 if it came to that.

I KNOW his District is socially conservative .It is a blue collar,union district that went for Christie.

He took the easy way out and that offended many on this site who demanded and fought for a vote they knew was lost.

Hate him forever for that ? Make him your life long enemy for that?

I say no.

The "one issue" ,litmus test  progressives will disagree with a vengeance on that forgiveness conclusion.. OK, that is their opinion.  But  I think that will be very shortsighted.

Those progressives who have other items on their agenda simply need to move on from the venom.

The reality is that Marriage Equality is dead in the Legislature for 4 more years. Sweeney did not kill it, Codey and Corzine killed it by not putting it up for a vote last spring when it had the votes to pass.

If Progressives become one trick ponies then the whole agenda is destroyed.

ME should now be fought in the courts. See if what happens in the California case helps the cause. Also if necessary to correct current inequities then the Legislature should be forced to reform civil unions. If they do that the Court case will get even better since inequity will be officially recognized.

Well that is my opinion.Time to move on....    

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 20:01:54 PM CST

courts (0.00 / 0)

Here's a way to help....raise and donate money.

Will Sweeney raise and donate the necessary funds to fight this in court (and in the media)?  What will he do to openly support the court battle ahead?  you know the socila conservatives will mount a well-funded campaign, and progressives will need the fiscal resources to continue this fight in court.   Hopefully Sweeney will take a lead on doing this.

---

by: Giovanni @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 20:10:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Move on? (4.00 / 1)

That's the problem. We can't move on. Victims of discrimination can't be told by the majority to just "move on" or "get over it." That's patronizing.

Please don't tell the thousands of same-sex couples who are being denied equality to just move on.

Sorry, Sir, but do not tell people to move on when it's about their civil rights.  

What if you weren't allowed to marry your wife, and have your family recognized by the government, while you pay these high taxes? Would you be ok to "just move on"? I doubt you'd move on, nor would I hope you'd move on. I'd hope you'd fight like hell, and point out hypocrites.

It's not time to move on until we can all be treated fairly and equally. And as you said, it would take 4 more years to do this legislatively, but why would we count on Sweeney in 4 years to vote for it. After all, if his district is so conservative, won't he just vote no on marriage equality?  

---

by: Giovanni @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 20:27:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1)

Even if marriage equality were to be won in the courts in 2010, I still think that the Democratic 9 should face primary challenges in 2011.

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 21:25:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]