4 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

An incredible lack of leadership by Senator Sweeney

by: Adam L a/k/a clammyc

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:48:12 AM EST

For someone who claims to be in favor of marriage equality and someone who is poised to be the next Senate President, Senator Sweeney had an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership on an issue of basic equal rights. And he bravely punted on an issue that should be a signature issue of his party - equal rights under the law.

Sweeney was one of three abstentions on the marriage equality vote, and his cowardice was explained so well by Charlie Stile's article late last week:

It's also clear that the next Democratic Senate president, Stephen Sweeney, wants nothing to do with it. Sweeney, soon to be the second most powerful person in Trenton, abstained on the grounds that the measure was doomed for defeat. Instead of declaring where he stood on a gut-check, civil rights issue, Sweeney made a strategic decision to play it safe.

This comment was backed up by Sweeney's own words:

"They [same sex marriage advocates] made a very strong case, and I would have been very happy to pass it," Sweeney said. "It wasn't close, unfortunately."

So, no whipping other Senators to vote in favor of a bill he personally believes in. In fact, his comments a few weeks ago indicated that he would rather focus on the economy during the lame duck session (good thing they saved the economy, by the way) instead of pushing for something he believes in. And quite frankly, admitting that he made a mistake so close to the vote shows that he either had no courage or no foresight as to just how big of an issue this really is. Apologies are nice, but that does little when it comes to what he could have done as, you know, a leader.

While it is nice to call a supposed leader out on this lack of leadership, there are other things that can be done. On the "low impact" side, there is a Facebook group calling Senator Sweeney out for his lack of conviction. However, a state that is as progressive as New Jersey deserves a progressive leader in the Democratic Party. And it is important to note that there only need to be three Democratic Senators to abstain or vote against Sweeney for Senate President in order to throw a wrench into Sweeney's hostile takeover of the Senate Presidency.

That being said, can we identify three Senators (Sens. Weinberg and Codey come to mind) and see what can be done?

This is about Democratic leadership on Democratic issues in a Democratic State. And Senator Sweeney has already failed that test on all levels.

Adam L a/k/a clammyc :: An incredible lack of leadership by Senator Sweeney

Tags: marriage equality, Senator Stephen Sweeney, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

An incredible lack of leadership by Senator Sweeney | 8 comments

Our good friend.... (0.00 / 0)

Ron Rice Sr.?

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 @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:54:53 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

are you sure about this? (0.00 / 0)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Senate Presidency vote already took place several weeks ago. I don't know Senate procedures and protocols, but if there is a way to block Sweeney's ascension to the Senate Presidency, we should be talking about it, particularly to those supporters of marriage equality in the Senate who also voted for Sweeney to be the next Senate President.

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:18:16 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

from what I've been told (0.00 / 0)

and please correct me if I am wrong, even if (though?) there was a vote, there still needs to be a vote to seat him. no?

Get the facts about right wing lightweight politician Chris Christie

by: Adam L a/k/a clammyc @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:32:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think... (0.00 / 0)

also from what I've been told - that even if Sweeney didn't have 21 votes, he would still assume the Senate Presidency as the high vote getter. But I could be wrong.

Any NJ Senate parliamentarians out there?

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 @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:51:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

from 2008 rules (0.00 / 0)

I'm no expert in how the State House works, but reading from the website, Senate Rules 1:4

At the organization meeting, the Senate shall elect a President, a President, pro tempore, and a Secretary, each of whom shall continue in office at the pleasure of the Senate. The votes of 21 or more members are required for the election of each of those officers and for their removal from office. Vacancies in those offices shall be filled at the next meeting of the Senate.

by: cktung @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:51:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that meeting took place in December, but... (0.00 / 0)

...I don't know what "each of whom shall continue in office at the pleasure of the Senate" means.

There must be some means by which a Senate President can be removed from office or prevented from taking office, but that would require outreach to the Senators who voted for both marriage equality and Sweeney to become President and encouragement that they act against him. An effort like this would require some leadership, which we do not have at the moment.

by: rachael'sdad @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 13:30:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nov 23rd meeting (4.00 / 1)

I'm once again not sure my reading is correct, but it was a Democratic caucus meeting, which basically concluded that all th Democratic Senators will vote for Sweeney to be the next President. So a few of abstaining Democrats should be enough to make a scene.

by: cktung @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 15:59:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Much As Sweeney Deserves A Public Spanking.... (3.00 / 1)

....I doubt it will happen soon, since opposing Sweeney now would be a direct challenge to the Norcross machine.

Given that that machine is now in bed with Christie, no one in the Senate really has the stomach to make a fuss.

If there is ever to be any progressive impact in the legislature (beyond things that don't cost money or that don't upset entrenched monied interests) we will need to organize a much stronger and more cohesive movement.

GSE is a good model for a real movement...one that would consist of hundreds of thousands of activists with a broad agenda. We are very far from that place.

As effed up as Sweeney is, we are stuck with him for a bit longer. People like him don't give a shit about mere words in a newspaper or on a blog. Only the direct application of massive raw political power will unseat Sweeney and Norcross.

Having said all that, I would still love to see a procedural fight if the rules permit it. Progressive senators should let Sweeney know that much of the state thinks he's a shit. And that debate should include extensive quotes from all the sources Clammyc cited.

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:39:09 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.