Blame Trenton Democrats for making Cory Booker discuss his sexuality

Writer Matt Katz recently tweeted: “Cory Booker confirms his heterosexuality (which he has to do, because opponents have stirred rumors about this from the beginning) & says he sees a pathway to becoming the first unmarried president since 1884.”

Well lucky Cory Booker… at least he is alive to confirm his sexuality.  That’s not the case with James Buchanan, the 15th President of the United States, and someone whose sexuality has been the center of endless speculation – in an attempt to codify same and to teach children that he was America’s “first gay president.”

See, the LGBT movement has become a kind of religion… well, not kind of, it is a religion.  This new religion has adopted, as one of its core beliefs, something not unlike the Mormon Church’s “baptism for the dead” – also known as vicarious baptism or proxy baptism.  In the new LGBT faith, living people speak on behalf of those who are dead and ask on their behalf to become “gay” so that they may be added, posthumously, to the fold. 

Once added to the LGBT “sainthood” their life “stories” are then taught to children in the didactic manner, much as children in religious schools are taught about the lives of saints or martyrs or prophets.  In New Jersey, with yesterday’s passage of S-1569, the Legislature has made this an unfunded mandate – with the scrapping of old textbooks and their replacement with new “religious” tracts that focus on the lives of said “saints”. 

Strange how things go.  That we are back to this again.  It is like the ring-around-the-rosy in Poussin’s “Dance to the Music of Time”.  There is no such thing as progress… we just get stupid again, profligate, dissolute. 

But the religion bit is for real.  No less than Atlantic magazine and New York magazine have today unveiled stories that paint Cory Booker as the candidate of a “new” religion.  Atlantic calls it the “theory of love”, while New York magazine plumps for “candidate of the Christian Left”.  No kidding.  So it’s here.  Welcome to the new paradigm.  The religion of the Trenton Democrats is no longer Roman Catholic or Jewish or Protestant… but that of the golden ass, the most holy orgasm, and the sacrament of abortion.  These are not matters of policy… but of faith.  Not open to debate.

Writing in the Star-Ledger yesterday, reporter Jonathan Salant (pronounced Slant) noted that when Booker first ran for the Senate and was asked about his sexual orientation, Booker answered, “What does it matter?” 

We could not agree more.

But that was back in those quaint times of long ago… 2013.  Today, in today’s politics, religion matters – and nothing matters more than how you reach orgasm and with whom.  Piss on policy… today’s religious leaders in politics, corporate America, and academia want to know how you get down.  Just read S-1569.  It is the most important thing about you.

Poor Cory Booker.  He wants to run for President, so he has to declare a side.  And in the America of today – the America fostered by legislation like that passed yesterday in Trenton – it is a conundrum as great as that faced by any Irish politician in the midst of The Troubles.  What are you?  Who are you?  It’s all that matters.

Oroho got highest number of GOP votes in state

It was supposed to be the most watched race in the state.  NJ101.5's Bill Spadea and Save Jersey's Matt Rooney had Steve Oroho in their crosshairs.  Liberals like Democrat Senator Ray "Lord of Ass" Lesniak and Republican Jennifer Beck had lots of bad to say about him. 

The Koch Brothers and the petroleum lobby used their astro-turf group to engineer the now notorious screw card; that child of David "Wally Edge" Wildstein, the ObserverNJ, ran a hit piece by NJELEC's own James Comey, Jeff Brindle; an AFP operative had a state employee try to shake down a candidate; and DOT employees got in on the action, tearing down some political campaign signs while leaving those up of candidates they supported.  But at the polls, the wheels came off -- and they couldn't quite put the clown car back together again. 

On election day, June 6th, Senator Steve Oroho (LD24) got more votes than any Republican Senator or Senate candidate in New Jersey.  Senator Oroho picked-up 10,773 votes in the Republican primary -- the most votes won by any Senate Republican in the 40 legislative districts in New Jersey, according to the elections division of the Secretary of State's office.

The closest to Senator Oroho was Senator Mike Doherty (LD23) who got 10,742 and Senator Joe Pennacchio (LD26) with 10,357.  But unlike Senator Oroho, both had no opposition.

In comparison, Republican luminaries like Senate Republican Leader Tom Kean Jr. and NJ101.5's favorite, Senator Jennifer Beck, picked-up 7,678 and 5,081 votes, respectively.

LD01  6,269

LD02  5,879

LD03  4,133

LD04  3,697

LD05  2,524

LD06  3,985

LD07  5,794

LD08  6,541

LD09  9,221

LD10  8,856

LD11  5,081

LD12  4,263 (faced opposition)

LD13  5,939

LD14  3,475 (faced opposition)

LD15  2,228

LD16  8,364

LD17  2,060

LD18  2,560

LD19  1,834

LD20  678

LD21  7,678

LD22  2,306

LD23  10,742

LD24  10,773 (faced opposition)

LD25  8,740

LD26  10,357

LD27  4,609

LD28  (no GOP candidate)

LD29  498

LD30  8,434

LD31  663

LD32  913

LD33  907

LD34  1,029

LD35  978

LD36  1,861

LD37  1,052 (faced opposition)

LD38  4,094

LD39  6,132

LD40  7,698 (faced opposition)

Among Republican Assembly members, Parker Space got the most in the state, with 11,097 votes.  Space was bracketed with Hal Wirths, who picked-up 9,797 votes -- the fourth highest in the state.  Oroho, Space, and Wirths ran as a team.

Spadea lost, just like he always does

Over the past year, Bill Spadea has used the corporate resources of Townsquare Media and Oaktree Capital Management in an effort to make Spadea a major player in New Jersey politics.  Those corporate resources are worth tens of millions of dollars and the airtime alone expended by Spadea and his agents would have cost the average political campaign millions to buy.  All it took was a complacent board of directors and a greedy local management for Spadea to accomplish this enormous appropriation of resources and capital.

Spadea accomplished what some would have considered impossible.  He took hold of a wallflower Lt. Governor and tore her away from the Governor who had mentored and promoted her.  Spadea smirked as the Lt. Governor performed stunts for him, like opposing Governor Christie on Ballot Question 2 (a subject she had been in silent approval of until Spadea taught her to sit up and beg, bark, and bite).  The Lt. Governor's Super PAC spent money to defeat Ballot Question 2 as she campaigned across the state on a platform that included advocating for a NO vote on both Question 2 and Donald Trump.

Poor Kim Guadagno.  She lost on both.  This is what happens when you follow the fluttering eyelashes of Billy "the hand" Spadea.  Yep.  A political prognosticator he aint.  Spadea can't help it, because his big ego gets in the way of him seeing clearly.  He wishes it to be, so he believes it will be, even when it won't be.

Spadea has had this problem his whole life.  He thought he was part of an historic wave when he tried to split the RNC and start a far-right third party in the mid-1990's.  That failed.  Then he ran for Congress and lost.  He started his "Red Shirt" movement, the "Building a New Majority" project, promoted a statewide GOP candidate who would transform the Republican Party to remake it in his vision.  Failed, failed, and failed again.  He even set his sights lower, ran for Assembly, and found himself blocked.  Another failure.  Bitterness followed.

Then he was rescued by FOX. Given a late-night "news of a kind" show.  Then the popular host of NJ101.5 had an accident, and Spadea found himself with a lever of power that he quickly learned and used to pursue his personal ambitions.

But Spadea went too far.  Having lost the gas tax vote he decided on the "Big Lie" approach and made up the myth that Ballot Question 2 was a vote on the gas tax.  People like Kim Guadagno believed him, but groups like AFP and ATR saw Spadea's bullshit for what it was.  On Tuesday, Spadea lost once again.

Is Sweeney man-enough for real reform?

Will Senate President Steve Sweeney drop his pussy attempt to rig every legislative election that follows the next round of redistricting... or is he man-enough to put real reform on the ballot and take on all comers in a fair fight?

The odds don't look too good.  After all, he's an Ironworker Union boss and they are known for their bullying.  Members of his union -- of his own District Council when he was President -- are on trial for an arson attack against a house of worship that wouldn't play ball.  Yeah, a church!  What's next, mugging nuns?

Now Sweeney wants to use the same scumbag tactics to bully the Legislature into enshrining "one party democracy" in the state Constitution.  Hey, this aint "On the Waterfront" and you aint Johnny Friendly (no, that would be Georgie Norcross), though you try to play the part:

What with the all-powerful executive and the legislating courts, democracy in New Jersey is pretty thin already.  And now you want to kill it forever by making it a one-party state.

Come on Sweeney, fight fair.  Don't rig the ring.  If it's reform you are looking for, how about real reform?  Adopt redistricting the way they do it in Iowa.  Here's an overview:

Iowa conducts redistricting unlike any other state.  The Iowa system does not put the task in the hands of a commission, but rather non-partisan legislative staff develop maps for the Iowa House and Senate, as well as U.S. House districts, without any political or election data (including the addresses of incumbents).  A five-person advisory commission is also formed.  This is different from all other states.  The redistricting plans from the non-partisan legislative staff are then presented to the Iowa Legislature for a straight 'Up' or 'Down' vote; if the Legislature rejects the redistricting plans, the process starts over.  (Eventually, the Iowa Supreme Court will enter the process if the Legislature fails to adopt a plan three times.)

Here are some excerpts from a great Boston Globe story on Iowa's redistricting process: 

In a locked windowless chamber across the street from the Iowa State House, three bureaucrats sequester themselves for 45 days every decade after census data is released. Their top-secret task: the “redistricting” of the state’s legislative and congressional boundaries.

But here, unlike in most other states, every care is taken to ensure the process is not political.

The mapmakers are not allowed to consider previous election results, voter registration, or even the addresses of incumbent members of Congress. No politician — not the governor, the House speaker, or Senate majority leader — is allowed to weigh in, or get a sneak preview.

Instead of drawing lines that favor a single political party, the Iowa mapmakers abide by nonpartisan metrics that all sides agree are fair — a seemingly revolutionary concept in the high-stakes decennial rite of redistricting.

Most other states blatantly allow politics to be infused into the process, leaving the impression — and sometimes the reality — that the election system is being rigged.

...Iowa, with its impartial way of drawing congressional districts, the results are viewed as a model of equity — and a model for the nation...

Moreover, Iowa’s system has led to some of the nation’s most competitive races. In a country where the vast majority of members of Congress coast to reelection, Iowa’s races are perennial tossups.

“This puts the voter as the primary consideration,” said Ed Cook, the agency’s unassuming legal counsel who leads a mapmaking team that also includes two geographers. “The basic concept is if it’s a blind process, the result will be fair.”

...This is done by making population size the primary metric when determining a district’s boundaries, followed by the goal of compact, contiguous districts that respect county lines.

“Having a more competitive district encourages somebody to really try to represent not just the ideology of his or her party but to represent the people of the district,” said Iowa’s governor, Terry Branstad.

You can read the entire article here: 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/08/iowa-redistricting-takes-partisanship-out-mapmaking/efehCnJvNtLMIAFSQ8gp7I/story.html

Sweeney is hoping to push through his "vote rig" amendment tomorrow, during a "lame duck" session of the Legislature.  Lame duck is when they push through all the lame dick legislation that wouldn't get through any other time.  So if you want to comment on having representative democracy stripped out of the state constitution, tomorrow would be the time to do it.  There will be two hearings on "vote rig".

Thursday, January 7, 2016

10 AM

Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation

Committee Room 7, 2nd floor

State House Annex

SCR 188

Legislative Reapportionment Commission

Thursday, January 7, 2016

11 AM

Assembly Judiciary

Committee Room 12, 4th floor

State House Annex

ACR 4

Legislative Reapportionment Commission

Does the Left really want to negotiate on TTF?

In the run-up to the November election, the Democrat leadership in both chambers remained resolutely silent on raising the gas tax to fund the Transportation Trust Fund.  Good politics on their part -- and it paid off.  Republican leaders, on the other hand, put on their policy caps and openly discussed any and all options for addressing the problem.  They put policy before politics and look what it got them.

Meanwhile, the coalition of Leftists -- underwritten by funding from corporate leaders and working people's union dues -- who it appears are charged with passing the gas tax without compromise, made a lot of noise against any tax cuts to balance a rise in the tax on gasoline.  Saul Alinsky would be proud.  Somebody has read "Rules for Radicals."

So along come two libertarian Republicans -- Senator Mike Doherty and Senator Jennifer Beck -- with an idea about how to address the TTF funding issue without raising the gas tax and they are attacked as if in a political campaign by a "mainstream" TTF group -- again, underwritten by funding from corporate leaders and working people's union dues.  When have Democrat Senators faced such a coarse response?

This should not be tolerated by either Republican caucus.  If these folks (and they are not without sin) want to make this political, then let's make it political.  The Democrats have their nicely expanded majority and they can pass pretty much whatever they want to.  Well then... do it.  You have all the firepower you need.  Throw down boys.  Make it an all-Democrat show and see what happens.

If, on the other hand, the Democrat leadership -- and their house Leftists, front groups, and corporate funders -- want to make this a serious policy discussion, treat your Legislative colleagues in the Republican Caucus with respect and address their ideas from the position of policy... not politics.

Post-Election Lesson #1: Never Again

Post-mortems are important.  To move forward, you have to know what you did right and what you did wrong.  Looking back over the post-election landscape there are several massive steaming wrongs laying about. 

So let's start at the beginning -- candidate recruitment.  The rule of thumb is that challengers should be recruited based on the requirements of the election year in which they are running. Once elected, adjustments are made, so that a candidate responds to and is prepared for the electorate he or she will face -- election by election. 

2015 was not a presidential election year.  It was not even a gubernatorial election year.  It was a partisan turnout-driven year, more like a special election.  Whoever got their partisan voters out would win.  But instead of recruiting candidates based on the requirements of 2015, those responsible for candidate recruitment selected them based on the requirements of 2012 or 2013, or maybe 2017. 

Many of the candidates recruited had no particular affinity for the average Republican voter.  This is different from the average Republican insider.  Our candidates certainly understood what was expected of them by insiders.  Many of them just failed to have any idea as to what motivates the average Republican voter to want to go out and vote.  This is not to say that they were "bad" candidates.  In another year, some would have made admirable candidates, just not this year.

For the most part, our candidates were not vetted.  Happily none turned out to have mortal faults, but proper vetting would have prepared their campaigns for the attacks that came their way.  This is what vulnerability studies are for.  In times past, they were standard.  We have had to re-learn their necessity.

We learned too that some Republicans scare easy.  They believe in the P.C. boogeyman and have failed to understand that, for too many illiberal "liberals", the "R" next to your name is all they need to condemn you.  For them, your soul is lost, so act accordingly -- or at least indifferently -- towards them.  Don't crave their favor and don't alter your course to please them. You will never have their approval, so piss on them, they should mean less than nothing to you. 

But we don't piss on them, do we?  We seek their favor, and turn on our own.  District 38 was a fine example of what happens when you fail to do a vulnerability study, and what happens is Republican on Republican sex, to the delight of Democrat onlookers.  A simple Google search would have revealed that one candidate was the author of one book and the publisher of two.  Yes, t-w-o. 

A vulnerability study would have uncovered that the first book in question was a species of comedy, while the second was a pro-LGBT confessional written by a "Gay Big Sister" (so much for the "anti-gay" myth).  It would have rendered the "anti-Asian" myth, laughable too.  With a vulnerability study the state GOP would have had the tools to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wished to defend the candidate and his book.  If so, it would have prepared them for the attacks that came.  But that is not how it was done, was it?

Instead, many thousands of dollars were spent promoting a candidate and then trashing that candidate.  Once the campaign of this "targeted" district was wrecked, the money the Democrats would have spent defending it could flow elsewhere.  And make no mistake, the Democrats would have burnt buckets of money defending District 38.  It is one of those districts that gets the Democrats emotional -- District 3 is another.  We should never allow them rest in these districts.  Make them spend buckets of money there so they don't spend it elsewhere.

But we are determined to be positive.  The contributors to this website know a thing or two or three about research.  Going forward, Jersey Conservative will conduct vulnerability studies on Republican candidates in competitive contests, and then make that research available to the party leaders responsible for candidate selection.  In this way, the NJ GOP can make informed choices and the candidates will know what they face and how to face it.

Never again.  2015 will never happen again.

LD38: A Question for Brother Eustace

The campaign over who gets to represent District 38 in the Assembly has become something of a pissing contest, with a heavy assist from Democrat-leaning pundits as well as a Rutgers -- The University of the State of New Jersey -- affiliated Super PAC.  There have been deep dives into the backgrounds of both GOP candidates, who were hand-picked for their apparently Republican-lite views on, well, just about everything.  Nevertheless, they have ended up being portrayed as David Duke and Curtis LeMay, respectively.  There is a lesson here...

So to interject some balance into the proceedings, one of our bloggers took a cursory look at the Democrats in the race.  He started with incumbent Assemblyman Tim Eustace, and needed to look no further.  There, on the New Jersey Court's public ACMS website, are two "active" judgments against a Timothy J. Eustace: 

A search of the details reveals that two civil cases filed in Bergen County are connected with these judgments.  They are dockets DC-624821-89 and DC-625025-89.  These cases refer to civil actions taken by the Leonard Shaw Bail Bond Agency against Timothy J. Eustace of 453 Golf Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607.  

453 Golf Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607, is the same address used by Assembly candidate Timothy J. Eustace.  Could the Timothy J. Eustace with the two outstanding judgments be Assemblyman Timothy J. Eustace?

Who is the other party in the case?  Who or what is the Leonard Shaw Bail Bond Agency?  Well, they are now known as Kirk Shaw Bail Bonds.  The company website advertises that they are "directly across from the Bergen County Jail" and have "24-hour service."  Here is a look at their website:

http://www.kirkshawbailbonds.com

Who uses a bail bond company?  To explain that, here is a video by a well-known New Jersey attorney:

So what we have here are two outstanding judgments against a Timothy J. Eustace, by a bail bond company.  These relate back to two civil cases in which, apparently, Timothy J. Eustace owed something to the bail bond company.  This could relate back to a criminal case, for which the bail was needed.

Now it is important to understand that these court records are maintained by the same entity that has taken it upon itself to dictate the education funding formula in New Jersey.  These people are idiots, so there is every possibility that the Court's records -- just like the Court's judgments -- are full of crap.  In a phrase, these people suck large, so this might be just another of the Court's cluster... you know.

Of course, Assemblyman Timothy J. Eustace of 453 Golf Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607, can probably set the record straight.  So, Brother Eustace, if you would like to, we'd be happy to.

Did Star-Ledger Editor become part of the story?

According to a source who claims direct knowledge of it, Star-Ledger Editor Tom Moran contacted Republican Party officials in an attempt to have GOP candidate Synnove Bakke recant some controversial opinions she had expressed some years ago regarding Muslims and Islamic terrorism.  Apparently, after this attempt to steer a political campaign the Star-Ledger launched an editorial attack on the candidate and the entire state GOP. 

If this is true -- and we will publish in full and unedited any clarification offered by Mr. Moran -- it represents an escalation of the growing censoriousness by the political pundits who now shape and control news content in New Jersey.  If true, then it is political correctness gone mad -- choking the free expression of ideas, constraining candidates, censoring them when they neglect to self-censor, and through them telling us all what to think, what to do, and how to feel.

Political pundits have pushed traditional journalists out and have taken over the reporting of the news.  But instead of reporting the news, these pundits try to steer it, picking winners and losers as they go.  Instead of reporting what one candidate said and then asking his or her opponent for comment, they condemn what a candidate says as "out of bounds" and then ask the opponent and others to pile on.  Who elected these pundit "judges" to preside over us and to determine what may and may not be said? 

These pundits are paid by extraordinarily rich and powerful families.  The stinking rich, union-busting Newhouse family, the corrupt Kushner family, the in and out of bankruptcy Trumps.  Their money does not set the bounds of what we can and cannot say.  We shouldn't be afraid of people whose personal lives are replete with the shame they attempt to use to muzzle us.

Rough speech is genuine, from the heart.  Do not shame it.  Let people vent, allow the emotion to flow free.  If there is something in it with which you disagree, if you see an error, then cure it with dialog -- not with name-calling and attempts to shame.  That only shuts people up, makes them give up, and tune out.  But maybe that is what you want?

They are vendors NOT journalists

As if it needed to be clearer, Matt Friedman's page on Politico included this salesman's pitch yesterday:

Want to make an impact? POLITICO New Jersey has a variety of multi-platform solutions available to reach and activate the most influential people in the Garden State. Have a petition you want signed? A cause you’re promoting? Share your message with our influential readers to increase awareness and drive action. Contact Chris Falls to find out how: cfalls@politico.com.

The message:  Hire us as your vendor.

This goes beyond blurring the line, it jumps it.  "Multi-platform solutions... to reach and activate... Have a petition you want signed?  A cause you are promoting?"  Wanna bet that "cause" will get better treatment than Synnove Bakke did?

For Jersey Democrats (and the pundits) how low is the bar?

The Star-Ledger came to the defense of political pundit Matt Friedman today.  Friedman, for a time, worked at the Star-Ledger, but that's not how he became a member of New Jersey's political punditry.  Friedman started with David "Wally Edge" Wildstein, creator and editor of the political pundit website that became PolitickerNJ.com, and later the mastermind behind the Bridgegate scandal. 

Remember the cold indifference Wildstein exhibited towards school children caught in traffic on that bridge?  Something worthy of an Ernst Roehm, was it not?

As editor Wally Edge, Wildstein inculcated his apprentice pundits with his peculiar take on New Jersey politics.  He hated a lot of people, a lot of them were Republicans, and at every opportunity, he made them feel his hate.  This was the training that Friedman and other future pundits picked up from the notorious Wally Edge.

Pundits are different from journalists.  While journalists report the news, pundits try to mold the news to fit a particular agenda.  Wally is not around anymore -- but his acolytes are -- and they have bent the way political news is reported in New Jersey.

Take today's Star-Ledger editorial as an example.  The "crimes" it reports on are "crimes" of thought.  This candidate thought about something and wrote something that we disagree with.  Instead of debating it -- of addressing words with words -- we want to criminalize it.  We demand that these ideas, these words, be "denounced" and that the offenders be made to recant such thoughts and words or be denied their civil right to run for public office.

In the case of one candidate, he stands accused of the high crime of comedy.  This fellow wrote a book many years ago, marketed as "satire", that was nonetheless treated like a position paper freshly released from his campaign.  They even targeted his marriage, accusing him of being "anti-Asian" when they full-well knew that his wife is Korean, and he is not anti-her or anti-their children.  This is the madness of punditry as practiced by Wally's acolytes.

It's not like there isn't plenty to write about in New Jersey.  There's a seemingly never-ending saga of crime and corruption.  But pundits aren't equal opportunity writers.  They have an agenda and that agenda has targets.  Those targets get the business and everyone else gets a pass.  So you have to take everything one of these pundits writes with a healthy dose of skepticism. 

Unfortunately however, a lot of regular reporters get caught up in the crap spewed by pundits.  Go back and read the last month of political reporting in this state and you would be led to believe that the only candidates running for the Legislature who have anything remotely objectionable in their pasts are three or four Republicans who made the mistake of thinking the wrong thoughts or writing satirical prose. 

It's pretty darned sad -- and a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Here's an example -- just one, of many, many, many.  Back around the time our Republican comedian was writing his book, a young up-and-coming Democrat lobbyist was being accused of stalking women, breaking into their home, and so on.  Accused, mind you, only accused.  He is rich, connected, and powerful.  Well, here's the headline: 

Lobbyist accused of stalking pleads guilty to trespassing

Additional charges dropped as part of deal  

A 22-year-old business whiz and lobbyist from Fanwood faces a probationary term after pleading guilty yesterday to a count of trespassing, admitting he was intoxicated when he entered a home where, police say, a young woman and her boyfriend were sleeping... avoided a trial on charges of stalking two women under a plea agreement reached as jury selection was about to begin in Middlesex County.  

Today this Democrat is an incumbent member of the Assembly and is on the ballot for re-election this November 3rd.  Now Matt Friedman should know all about this because, like him, the Assemblyman was an associate of Wally Edge and his operation.  But trespassing isn't the only thing this guy got up to.   

Around the time a certain Republican candidate for Assembly was committing the unforgivable crime of thought, aka "the tweet", the Democrat Assemblyman was, well, let's just say he was violating federal law.  Here is a copy of the federal indictment:

This guy had a masterful defense team and they played out the clock, seemingly waiting for United States Attorney Chris Christie to leave office.  In the end, he got a plea deal.  He pleaded guilty to one count and five others were dropped.  Among the terms of his probation were:  "...the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics..."

Like those Republicans targeted because of their thoughts and opinions, this Democrat is on the ballot on November 3rd.  The difference is, what is documented here is a bit more serious than expressing an opinion.  So why isn't it worthy of a mention?

Why does the "readers' right to know" begin with opinion and end with satire -- and leave out criminal case records?  

And this is by no means the worst incidence by the punditry.  A few years ago the arrest and conviction of a candidate was brought to a newspaper in this state.  It involved violent assault on the part of this candidate against a woman.  The editor of that newspaper so wanted to defeat the Republican that he shrugged his shoulders, claimed that it was not newsworthy, and ignored actual violence.  The Republican won but the defeated candidate might be a candidate again, only next time there will be no presentation of the evidence to the press.  Next time it will be on cable.

And that's because New Jersey's political pundits are only interested in pursuing candidates who commit thought crime, not real crime.