2019: There are millions in conservative money in NJ

When it comes to picking through the detritus and finding the gems nobody does it better than David Wildstein.  Yep, before he was Wally Edge he was a political consultant, campaign manager, opposition researcher, and successful candidate for public office.  You can’t take that away from him.  He’s been in battles up close and personal.  He’s had to punch and claw.  And that’s what makes him different from a guy like Max Pizarro.  David Wildstein remembers what it was like to be in the muck of the trenches.  Max Pizarro has only known clean sheets and maid service.

Given the excruciatingly poor results Republicans have had raising the necessary levels of funding for legislative races in New Jersey, a recent post by Wildstein on his latest venture – NewJerseyGlobe.com – noted that the very conservative United States Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, has raised more money in New Jersey than his very woke, very hip, wildly popular with the Left opponent – Congressman Beto O’Rourke.  Cruz has raised $139,783 in New Jersey to fund his re-election effort in Texas.  Media darling Beto managed just $52,349.  

But here’s the clincher.  Wildstein notes that in his failed 2016 run for President, the plain-as-day, no-doubt-about-it, right-winger raised $903,417 in New Jersey. 

How is that possible?  We are endlessly told that there aren’t any conservatives in New Jersey – let alone nearly a million bucks worth (and that’s not counting what the other wingers raised in New Jersey, like Rand Paul, and Donald Trump himself!).  A million bucks would be a BIG part of the budget of a committee like ARV, wouldn’t it be?

Reminder to those concerned:  In preparation for next year, get a message that doesn’t ignore the acres of diamonds out there.

Selling out: Media's decline from Al Doblin to Jonathan Salant

New Jersey's establishment media -- its editors and reporters -- are in a freefall and have lost their sense of decency.  Job security is such that they have all become free agents, writing articles to please prospective employers. 

So we have Star-Ledger Editor Tom Moran performing a masochistic panegyric to please Democrat machine boss George Norcross.  Over at the Bergen Record, that newspaper's editor was turning out pro-Democrat columns non-stop while engaging in backdoor negotiations with Senate President Steve Sweeney's office.  A few years ago, boss Norcross tried to buy the Philadelphia Inquirer, now his machine is getting all the talent on the cheap.

The NJGOP's answer to this was predictably self-defeating.  It's idea of a GOP counterbalance to the growing Democrat hegemony over media was to bring back Bridgegate mastermind David "Wally Edge" Wildstein, possibly the only person more hated in New Jersey than his old boss, Chris Christie.  To fund Wildstein's operation they found former Jamestown alumnus Ken Kurson.  It was Kurson who ran such memorable efforts as incumbent Marcia Karrow's loss to Mike Doherty in 2009 and incumbent Jeff Parrott's loss to Parker Space in 2010.  But losing has never been a bar to advancement in the NJGOP.  In fact, it generally is an asset.

Yep, Kurson has been accused of sexual harassment by writer and cancer-survivor Deborah Copaken.  This comes at a time when Kurson's old firm is trying to convince the women of New Jersey that the NJGOP's choice for U.S. Senate -- Bob Hugin -- is a new kind of man, when it comes to women (whatever that is supposed to mean).  You can read about what Kurson gets up to here: 

https://www.mediaite.com/online/author-deborah-copaken-accuses-ex-observer-editor-ken-kurson-of-sexual-harassment-in-powerful-op-ed/

It was Wildstein who outted Al Doblin as the ethical-free-zone he is.  Doblin plainly hated the kind of attention he's bestowed on others his entire working life.  In a series of whines, he complained to Wildstein:

“I am the editorial page editor.  If someone makes me an offer, I have the right to consider it,” Doblin explained.

Doblin called a request for information regarding his employment search “truly horrific.”

“This is unfair.  Truly unfair,” he said.

But Doblin is not the worst of the bunch.  That "honor" must surely go to Jonathan "short-ass" Salant, a reporter worthy of his own Duranty Prize for consistent blindness to all but the party-line.  In case you've forgotten Walter "the hand" Duranty.  He's the assbandit who denied that Stalin was starving to death millions of human beings in the Ukraine and elsewhere in what was once called the "Soviet Union".  He even won a Pulitzer Prize for it. 

Duranty wrote for the New York Times, which later was forced to admit that his articles denying the famine constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."  There have been calls to revoke his Pulitzer, but you know how tough it is to get elitist filth to admit they made a mistake.  So Duranty's award -- for 1930's era Fake News -- still stands.  And so much for journalism.

Salant's latest dry-humping of the news came a few weeks back, when he attempted to write an update of the various congressional races in New Jersey. 

He started off by being childishly giddy about Republican Leonard Lance's district having gone for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while failing to mention that Democrat Josh Gottheimer's had done the same for Trump that year.

Salant never fails to describe a Republican donor negatively, offering bits of color, always dark.  On the other hand, old short-ass describes such creatures as George Soros in this light:  "Malinowski (received a donation of) $5,400 from investor George Soros, a major Democratic donor."

Investor?  A major Democratic donor??  How about convicted financial scammer who liberal economists have criticized for his callous manipulations of currency? 

Perhaps Salant is displaying his talents for the consideration of one of the many Soros media organs?  That seems to be the way these days.

In writing about the fifth district, Jonathan Salant somehow missed the fact that a third Republican, Jason Sarnosky, had dropped out of the race weeks before.  He wrote about him as if he were still campaigning. 

He went on to cover the race in southern New Jersey's first district.  And once again, Salant behaved like he was on a job interview.  He never once mentioned the machine that bears the Congressman's name and wrote as if it didn't exist.

Not to place Donald Norcross in the context of the machine of which he is a part is misleading and unethical.  It promotes bad government by purposefully covering up the truth and it gives aid and comfort to one of the most authoritarian political machines in America.  Don't want to see it, Jonathan?  Well just try being an ordinary citizen when the machine decides it wants to use eminent domain to take your property in order to give it to one of their corporate friends.  That's what you are shilling for.

The southern region of New Jersey is an example of a dominant-party system or one-party dominant system of government.  According to South African political scientist Raymond Suttner, such a system occurs when there is "a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future".  It is a de facto one-party system, often devolving into a de jure one-party system, a semi-democracy. Usually, the dominant party has a tendency towards "suppressing freedom of expression and manipulating the press in favor of the ruling party." 

Well, short-ass, that is who you are shilling for.  That is who you are now.  All those romantic post-Watergate notions about doing right... well you're over that, right?  Expensive restaurants and sexy vacations got the better of you, didn't they?

Sell-out.

Democrat shill Friedman digs for dirt on Singh

Let us never forget on whose knee this critter was raised.  Matt Friedman learned his trade from the notorious Wally Edge (AKA David Wildstein of Bridgegate).  Like Wildstein, whose blog was an integral part of the Christie project, Friedman uses his position at Politico to push a specific political agenda.

Instead of reviewing public documents put out by the Office of Legislative Services and discovering that Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-01) is abandoning his conservative past now that he's a candidate for Congress, Friedman is trolling the college-era Facebook posts of Van Drew's Republican opponent, Hirsh Singh.  Is that a handjob move by Friedman or what?

Friedman ignores real policy switches like this:

Van Drew recently took his name off two very important bills, according to the New Jersey Legislative Digest, put out by the Office of Legislative Services:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/digest/012218.htm

Co-Prime Sponsors Withdrawn:

S539(Van Drew,J)Death penalty-reinstates certain

SCR35(Van Drew,J)Minor child med procedures-notify parent

S-539 would restore the death penalty for persons convicted of certain murders.  The bill's statements lists the following:  "(1) the victim was a law enforcement officer or correction officer and was murdered while performing his official duties or was murdered because of his status as a law enforcement officer or correction officer; (2) the victim was less than 18 years old and the act was committed in the course of the commission of a sex crime; (3) the murder occurred during the commission of the crime of terrorism; (4) the defendant was convicted, at any time, of another murder; or (5) the defendant murdered more than one person during the same criminal transaction or during different criminal transactions but the murders were committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct."

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S1000/539_I1.HTM

Yes, Jeff Van Drew took his name off this legislation.

SCR-35 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution stating that "the Legislature may provide that a parent or legal guardian shall receive notice before his or her unemancipated minor or incompetent child undergoes any medical or surgical procedure or treatment relating to pregnancy, irrespective of any right or interest otherwise provided in the State Constitution."

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/SCR/35_I1.HTM

This legislation simply applies the same parental notification standards to the evasive medical procedure of abortion, that exist for every other medical procedure.  It looks at abortion as a medical procedure... not as a sacrament or mystical rite of passage.

And Van Drew withdrew his name from this as well.

Instead of real reporting, on real issues, Freidman has turned Politico into a kind of "Mean Girls" online "burn book." Freidman has never met a policy debate he could understand, so for him it must be all about the shoes.  "Oh, that's so fetch... on Wednesdays we wear pink."

Friedman has done this before.  We all remember how he tried to personally destroy the reputation and future well-being of Synnove Bakke.  We also remember how he, and others, refused to take a polygraph to determine if they had made similar comments in unguarded moments. 

We remember too how another website had weirdly endorsed the Orwellian idea that there should be permanent corporate surveillance of Twitter and Facebook.  As well as a "news" blog, never forget that Politico is a vendor for corporate lobbyists and the political establishment.  As with all such ventures, Politico is the sum of its paymasters.

Matt Friedman has become the bully boy of Establishment Democrats in New Jersey.  He picks on weak candidates or those without the experience to defend themselves -- and he does so by invading their private space, trolling on Facebook to find something from long before they had entered public life.  Knowing what he got up to in his younger days, he uses that as a mirror to his victims.

Bullies like Matt Friedman need a take down, so let's turn it over to...

Beware of know-it-alls from the House of Wally Edge

There is a lot of major league handjobbery going on these days from the former occupants of the House of Wally Edge.  You know the guys (no gals, just guys).  They were all trained by that know-it-all of know-it-alls, David "Mr. Bridgegate" Wildstein (aka Wally Edge). 

Whether they occupied positions at PoliticsNJ, or PolitickerNJ, or one of its state affiliates, these people all learned at the hand of Wally and they have all absorbed much of his arrogance.  Like Wally, his acolytes are political "players" disguised as journalists.  They take sides and then try to deliver winners and losers. 

This hubris has caused some to over-reach and to look ridiculous in even bigger settings.  Here is one of the more famous exercises in arrogant over-reach by a former inmate at the House of Wally Edge:

Get that?  Hillary Clinton in a landslide. 

Should the Observer apologize for Wally Edge?

We all remember who the infamous David "Wally Edge" Wildstein turned to when he wanted to grow his blog into something that would land him a gig in the Christie administration.  Old Wally went to the Observer Group and got himself the dough that enabled him to go on to bigger things... like Bridgegate.

Christopher Hetrick, is a "journalist" for what was formerly the House of Wally Edge, and of what remains the House of Jared Kushner.  He writes for that outpost of the Observer Group that is the remnant of what was once Wally's domain.  And, we must say, that he is keeping it in Wally's tradition:  The political drive-by.

Chris Hetrick is currently pushing the line that we no longer have a right to personal privacy.  Hetrick's theory is that our private conversations and private thoughts should be subject to invasion by any old handjob with a recording device.  In Hetrick's world, there should be drones armed with recording devices hovering over our shoulder, ready to capture the slightest "offensive" remark so that he might pontificate over it.

Sounds pretty f**ked up, doesn't it?  Who would want to live in such a world?  Who shares Chris Hetrick's vision? 

Would Chris Hetrick even want to live in his world?  Certainly those we know who have written for PoliticsNJ or PolitickerNJ  or the Observer, certainly none of them would pass muster.  Not a one.  But perhaps Chris is a real convent girl, a virgin whose ears remain untouched by a commonplace like "bitch."

The Observer is only the latest media organ to express mock horror at the word.  Al Doblin of the Gannett organization, fresh from presiding over the execution last week of his remaining workers, dutifully expressed his concerns.  If firing someone from his or her job is the capitalist equivalent of the death penalty, then Al Doblin is Mr. Death Penalty.  He destroys lives with relish.  No wonder he has to reassure himself of his "virtue" by pointing fingers at someone, anyone, else.

On Friday, the Newhouse organization -- who are in a kind of competition with Gannett for workers' lives destroyed -- found just the right tool for a little virtue signaling of their own.  The tool, and we do mean tool, in this case was David "the hand" D'Alessandro.  Yes, they selected a career sportswriter to deliver a moral lecture to a politician.  Talk about clueless. 

If you want to know how media coverage came to resemble the inside of a truck-stop shithouse, look no further than Dave D'Alessandro.  It was the nation's sportswriters who simultaneously dumbed-down and dirtied-up news coverage in America.  They brought in the foul language, the school yard humor, and the scatological references.  When it could have gone either way, they grabbed the America of the 1980's and headed straight down the toilet.  And now one of these dirtbags has the feral balls to complain about a word they sold to us and our children -- a word that they first normalized and then popularized?

Why not?  Like in any good noir novel, this is the last thing you see circling the bowl before it's all finally flushed to hell.

- - -

As a public service, your fellow sinners at Jersey Conservative would like to provide you with some facts that the Observer's Chris Hetrick purposefully suppressed.  That's right, Chris Hetrick was provided with these facts, but either followed orders or took it upon himself to suppress these facts.

FACT #1:  Unlike the Democrat State Senator who called Governor Christie a "prick" or the female Democrat State Senator who said she wanted to see President Trump assassinated, or the female United States Senator who dropped the f-bomb, what happened here was not public.  It was a private conversation between three people after a non-political event.  Private.  Get it? 

FACT #2:  A dirtbag snuck up and taped that private conversation.  He handed the tape over to the political campaign of Kate Matteson & Gina Trish, who reached out to a Trenton media figure and LGBTQRSTXYZ activist to circulate it.  So now that the media has rewarded dirtbag behavior, you can expect more of it.

FACT #3:  Chris Hetrick suppressed the following statement made by Jacqueline Stapel, the Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Sussex County: 

"As an individual and a Sussex County resident, I am deeply offended that a private conversation amongst myself, Jennifer Hamilton, and Parker Space was secretly recorded and leaked to the media for cheap political gain.  As an American, I denounce its secret leakage and use by the media and political campaigns because it is undermining everyone’s privacy rights.

With underhanded tactics like this, it is no wonder why Democrats and Republicans have a more difficult time working together for the common good.

Parker Space is my friend.  I may not agree with him on issues, but that does not lead me to hate him.  Unfortunately some people can’t see the difference between disagreement and hate and it is denigrating our political discourse."

Get that Chris Hetrick?  You are not on the side of the angels, you are on the side of the dirtbags.  But hey, you write in Wally's tradition.  Just keeping in real?

- - -

Finally, someone needs to create a Loretta Weinberg Award in honor of the striking levels of hypocrisy achieved by the Senate Democrat Majority Leader.  Maybe we will.

Not content with leaving vulnerable women to die while being guarded by men armed-to-the-teeth, or shilling for a fellow Democrat who exported girls into the United States so that some rich old scumbag could have his way with them, or allowing thousands of children to be lured into sexual slavery because she won't post a bill to stop it -- now she's on her high horse, pontificating once again!  There is no filter on this old gal's mouth -- and that is probably because the media has never called her to account for anything she says.  Still, can this woman be that stupid?  Here is Loretta Weinberg's reaction to a Republican legislator saying the word "bitch" in a private conversation:

"Parker Space’s conduct is absolutely disgusting and his continued presence in the Legislature is an insult to not only every woman who serves in public office, but all of the millions of women in our state.”

Wait a minute... aren't we still waiting for her to demand that Democrat Assemblyman Neil Cohen resign for accessing child pornography from his legislative office?  Heck, that guy has been to jail and out and we are still waiting for Democrat Weinberg to say something.

And we are still waiting for Loretta Weinberg's statement on Democrat Assemblyman Raj Mukerji -- accused of stalking a woman victim and breaking into her home.  The Democrat later pleaded guilty to federal charges in another case, but still no word from Loretta and Assemblyman Mukerji is still in office.

Hey Loretta, if you were really who you have deluded yourself into thinking you are, you would've -- at the very least -- called for them BOTH to resign.  But you won't, because you are just an old hack politician.  No morals, no ethics, no integrity.

And Chris Hetrick... just another handjob enabler.

Brindle op-ed "an October surprise" says Herald

Jeff Brindle, the executive director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, got his wish.  But we bet he didn't expect this line from Sunday's New Jersey Herald story on an opinion column he wrote for the Observer.  Writing about and in direct reference to Brindle's column, the Herald wrote:

"It's patently unfair that this Primary Election-style October Surprise landed just days before the election." 

That's it.  The executive director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC) has now written a hit piece labeled an "October Surprise" by a major New Jersey newspaper.  How can this guy continue to do his job?

Brindle destroyed NJELEC's reputation.

Brindle waded into partisan political campaigns in two legislative districts when he posted a column on David Wildstein's old website, Observer.com (formerly PolitickerNJ.com, AKA PoliticsNJ.com) which was quickly picked-up by Wally Edge alumnus Matt Friedman over at Politico.

For the record, here is what Wally Edge wrote about Jeff Brindle at the time of his appointment:

Brindle was active in Republican politics before taking a post at ELEC. He worked as a political consultant in the 1970's, served as New Brunswick GOP Municipal Chairman, worked on the legislative staffs of State Sen. John Ewing and Assemblymen Walter Kavanaugh and Elliot Smith, and as Deputy Somerset County Clerk. He was the Republican candidate for State Assembly in the 17th district in 1977, but lost the general election to Democrats David Schwartz and Joseph Patero. He joined state government after Thomas Kean's election as Governor and was the Communications Director at the Department of Community Affairs from 1982 to 1985.

http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/30639/elec-picks-ex-gop-operative-executive-director

Old Wally knew his stuff.  By-the-way, did you catch the name of Brindle's political godfather? 

For someone who is supposed to be a fair-dealer in these matters, Brindle's tone and language in his Observer column is in marked contrast to what he employed in the past.  For instance, when commenting in 2015 on the more than $3 million raised by a SuperPAC named the General Majority PAC, Brindle was positively sanguine about it:  "Usually, an election with just Assembly candidates on the ballot is a low-key affair.  But the involvement of the independent committees is definitely adding some drama this year."

And where was Brindle's commentary when the General Majority PAC -- with the aid of Alex Baldwin -- raised over $5 million the same day his Observer column came out?

"Drama," is it?  Well compare that with Brindle's breathless -- and deeply subjective -- alarm in Thursday's Observer column:

"The active participation of Stronger Foundations Inc. in the Republican primaries in the 24th and 26th legislative districts is a fresh example of why legislation needs to be enacted to require registration and disclosure by independent groups.

The group has spent $275,100 on these primary races in North Jersey, but the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."

As opposed to what?  The General Majority PAC? 

We know that "this group" spent $275,000 on two primary races in New Jersey., which Brindle, using the group's disclosures with NJELEC, was able to break down.  From these disclosures, Brindle was able to discover that the money was being spent on advertising and polling, as well as who was behind the group and why it was organized:

"To its credit, Stronger Foundations Inc. filed independent expenditure reports with ELEC, showing it had spent $63,300 in the 24th district and $211,800 in the 26th district as of May 25.

Among the information the public can glean from Stronger Foundations expenditure reports is that that the group is working with MWW Group, a highly regarded public relations firm, and McLaughlin and Associates, a nationally respected polling firm.

...A Google search did indicate that the person who registered on behalf of the group is employed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 in Springfield. The union helped spear-head last year’s successful efforts to raise the state gas tax and enact a new long-range transportation improvement plan. It’s political action committee also is a top contributor to New Jersey campaigns."

Brindle then writes this most curious sentence:

"A voter reading the independent expenditure reports filed by Stronger Foundation Inc. wouldn’t know any of this."

Well hell, has he seen what information is required by NJELEC to file a political action committee subject to full disclosure?  To find out anything really useful about the mission or policies or current political goals of any organization subject to full disclosure by NJELEC, you would have to use Google and find the group's website or news articles written about it.

At present, NJELEC requires only the vaguest information be disclosed by political action committees and those filing an A-3 are required to disclose practically nothing at all.  As weak as the NJELEC's D-4 PAC registration form is to start with, it soon becomes useless as an organization grows, adds or removes leadership, or changes its direction.  Why isn't the D-4 required yearly?  Without a yearly D-4, even for basic information, any voter would have to consult Google.

And yet, knowing this, Brindle bangs on and on about "the group" painting an ever-darkening picture of what is -- at the final accounting -- perfectly LEGAL behavior that has been codified as such by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Writing as one might about gay marriage, Brindle employs phrases to give the impression that something very bad is going on when, in fact, it is perfectly legal and has been ruled so by the highest Court in the land:

Let's start with the headline:  "Mystery Spender on NJ Races Again Shows Need for More Disclosure."

"...the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."  Under NJELEC's weak rules, they never do.

"These groups do have a First Amendment right to be engaged in the electoral process and spend unlimited sums. That much is clear. At the same time, the public has a right to know who is behind the group and what it stands for."  That is Brindle's opinion (and we agree) but unfortunately, neither NJELEC or, more importantly, the United States Supreme Court appear to agree with us.  And, as Brindle works for NJELEC (and it follows federal law, we assume), why is he painting this nefarious picture?

"Political parties, candidates and political action committees are subject to registration and disclosure requirements. Why shouldn’t the same guidelines apply to these groups?"  Brindle knows darn well why -- the Supreme Court said so.  Besides which, Brindle's NJELEC "registration and disclosure" requirements are a joke and are out-of-date.

"...If they finance advertisements that do not specifically call for the support or opposition to a candidate in their communications, there is no filing requirement at all. And anyone familiar with the process knows it is easy for high-powered operatives to finesse the language and avoid reporting."  Once again, Brindle full well knows that this is federal law.  As for finessing language, that is precisely what he is doing here.

"Disclosure is important because independent groups can become surrogates for candidates they support, undertake harsh attacks against the opponent, and do so with no accountability."  Yes, we agree, but -- once again -- no law made in New Jersey will overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision.  So, why are you writing as though it would?  Simply to paint a nefarious picture?

"At the same time, the candidate who benefits from the independent spending can claim to have no association with the group, thereby not being accountable for its activities."  Now this shows Brindle to be something of an accomplished liar.  He darn well should know that it is illegal for a candidate to have an "association" with such a group.

"Because it is the mission of the Election Law Enforcement Commission to bring disclosure of campaign finance information to the public, the staff often will dig more deeply into these organizations to ascertain where its support comes from. When that information can be obtained, ELEC makes the information available to the public."  So NJELEC is doing opposition research on groups operating legally under the Constitution of the United States of America?  Why?  Because E.D. Brindle thinks the law is wrong and so a little spying is in order?  And you are using taxpayers' money for this?

"The public, however, does not have the time nor inclination to investigate these groups and therefore is often robbed of the opportunity to make informed opinions about a group’s motives or even the veracity of its message."  Maybe they don't care about it in precisely the way E.D. Brindle does -- or whoever put him up to writing this obvious hit piece.  In any case, it is NJELEC Brindle's "motives" that are at question here because, after all, they are taxpayer-funded.

"This is why it is important for the Legislature to pass legislation that would bring greater transparency to the process by requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups. Both parties have introduced bills to bring about more disclosure."  Yes, we agree, start with an annual D-4 for those who currently do disclose and then fashion legislation that will pass Constitutional muster.  Don't spend a lot of taxpayers' money and waste a lot of taxpayer-paid staff's time only to have your law chucked out by a federal court.  If your staff have so much free time on their hands, cut some and save the taxpayers some money.

"...If the primary figure is any guide, these largely anonymous groups will once again dominate the general election at the expense of more accountable political parties and candidates.  It is long past time for matters to be set right in New Jersey by bringing balance back to the electoral system, by strengthening the political parties, requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups, and offsetting the growing influence of organizations that would often operate anonymously."  This is coming from the man who, in 2015, dismissed this as little more than "drama"?  What's changed? 

What this is, is a hit piece, written by a political consultant turned career bureaucrat with a mentor named Tom Kean.  It was a disgraceful act for NJELEC's executive director to wade into partisan political campaigns the weekend before an election and offer his words in a way he knew or should have known would have an outcome on that election.

Jeff Brindle is himself an undisclosed independent expenditure.  We cannot be sure who put him up to this.  What we can be sure of is that he should go, for so long as he is at the head of NJELEC its veracity is in question and its trustworthiness is shit.

Jeff Brindle just destroyed NJELEC's reputation

Jeff Brindle is the NJELEC executive director who recently waded into partisan political campaigns in two legislative districts.  Brindle posted a column on David Wildstein's old website, Observer.com (formerly PolitickerNJ.com, AKA PoliticsNJ.com) which was quickly picked-up by Wally Edge alumnus Matt Friedman over at Politico.

For the record, here is what Wally Edge wrote about Jeff Brindle at the time of his appointment:

Brindle was active in Republican politics before taking a post at ELEC. He worked as a political consultant in the 1970's, served as New Brunswick GOP Municipal Chairman, worked on the legislative staffs of State Sen. John Ewing and Assemblymen Walter Kavanaugh and Elliot Smith, and as Deputy Somerset County Clerk. He was the Republican candidate for State Assembly in the 17th district in 1977, but lost the general election to Democrats David Schwartz and Joseph Patero. He joined state government after Thomas Kean's election as Governor and was the Communications Director at the Department of Community Affairs from 1982 to 1985.

http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/30639/elec-picks-ex-gop-operative-executive-director

Old Wally knew his stuff.  By-the-way, did you catch the name of Brindle's political godfather? 

For someone who is supposed to be a fair-dealer in these matters, Brindle's tone and language in his Observer column is in marked contrast to what he employed in the past.  For instance, when commenting in 2015 on the more than $3 million raised by a SuperPAC named the General Majority PAC, Brindle was positively sanguine about it:  "Usually, an election with just Assembly candidates on the ballot is a low-key affair.  But the involvement of the independent committees is definitely adding some drama this year."

"Drama," is it?  Well compare that with Brindle's breathless -- and deeply subjective -- alarm in Thursday's Observer column:

"The active participation of Stronger Foundations Inc. in the Republican primaries in the 24th and 26th legislative districts is a fresh example of why legislation needs to be enacted to require registration and disclosure by independent groups.

The group has spent $275,100 on these primary races in North Jersey, but the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."

As opposed to what?  The General Majority PAC?

We know that "this group" spent $275,000 on two primary races in New Jersey., which Brindle, using the group's disclosures with NJELEC, was able to break down.  From these disclosures, Brindle was able to discover that the money was being spent on advertising and polling, as well as who was behind the group and why it was organized:

"To its credit, Stronger Foundations Inc. filed independent expenditure reports with ELEC, showing it had spent $63,300 in the 24th district and $211,800 in the 26th district as of May 25.

Among the information the public can glean from Stronger Foundations expenditure reports is that that the group is working with MWW Group, a highly regarded public relations firm, and McLaughlin and Associates, a nationally respected polling firm.

...A Google search did indicate that the person who registered on behalf of the group is employed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825 in Springfield. The union helped spear-head last year’s successful efforts to raise the state gas tax and enact a new long-range transportation improvement plan. It’s political action committee also is a top contributor to New Jersey campaigns."

Brindle then writes this most curious sentence:

"A voter reading the independent expenditure reports filed by Stronger Foundation Inc. wouldn’t know any of this."

Well hell, has he seen what information is required by NJELEC to file a political action committee subject to full disclosure?  To find out anything really useful about the mission or policies or current political goals of any organization subject to full disclosure by NJELEC, you would have to use Google and find the group's website or news articles written about it.

At present, NJELEC requires only the vaguest information be disclosed by political action committees and those filing an A-3 are required to disclose practically nothing at all.  As weak as the NJELEC's D-4 PAC registration form is to start with, it soon becomes useless as an organization grows, adds or removes leadership, or changes its direction.  Why isn't the D-4 required yearly?  Without a yearly D-4, even for basic information, any voter would have to consult Google.

And yet, knowing this, Brindle bangs on and on about "the group" painting an ever-darkening picture of what is -- at the final accounting -- perfectly LEGAL behavior that has been codified as such by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Writing as one might about gay marriage, Brindle employs phrases to give the impression that something very bad is going on when, in fact, it is perfectly legal and has been ruled so by the highest Court in the land:

Let's start with the headline:  "Mystery Spender on NJ Races Again Shows Need for More Disclosure."

"...the public knows very little about where the money is going or what the group’s agenda is."  Under NJELEC's weak rules, they never do.

"These groups do have a First Amendment right to be engaged in the electoral process and spend unlimited sums. That much is clear. At the same time, the public has a right to know who is behind the group and what it stands for."  That is Brindle's opinion (and we agree) but unfortunately, neither NJELEC or, more importantly, the United States Supreme Court appear to agree with us.  And, as Brindle works for NJELEC (and it follows federal law, we assume), why is he painting this nefarious picture?

"Political parties, candidates and political action committees are subject to registration and disclosure requirements. Why shouldn’t the same guidelines apply to these groups?"  Brindle knows darn well why -- the Supreme Court said so.  Besides which, Brindle's NJELEC "registration and disclosure" requirements are a joke and are out-of-date.

"...If they finance advertisements that do not specifically call for the support or opposition to a candidate in their communications, there is no filing requirement at all. And anyone familiar with the process knows it is easy for high-powered operatives to finesse the language and avoid reporting."  Once again, Brindle full well knows that this is federal law.  As for finessing language, that is precisely what he is doing here.

"Disclosure is important because independent groups can become surrogates for candidates they support, undertake harsh attacks against the opponent, and do so with no accountability."  Yes, we agree, but -- once again -- no law made in New Jersey will overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision.  So, why are you writing as though it would?  Simply to paint a nefarious picture?

"At the same time, the candidate who benefits from the independent spending can claim to have no association with the group, thereby not being accountable for its activities."  Now this shows Brindle to be something of an accomplished liar.  He darn well should know that it is illegal for a candidate to have an "association" with such a group.

"Because it is the mission of the Election Law Enforcement Commission to bring disclosure of campaign finance information to the public, the staff often will dig more deeply into these organizations to ascertain where its support comes from. When that information can be obtained, ELEC makes the information available to the public."  So NJELEC is doing opposition research on groups operating legally under the Constitution of the United States of America?  Why?  Because E.D. Brindle thinks the law is wrong and so a little spying is in order?  And you are using taxpayers' money for this?

"The public, however, does not have the time nor inclination to investigate these groups and therefore is often robbed of the opportunity to make informed opinions about a group’s motives or even the veracity of its message."  Maybe they don't care about it in precisely the way E.D. Brindle does -- or whoever put him up to writing this obvious hit piece.  In any case, it is NJELEC Brindle's "motives" that are at question here because, after all, they are taxpayer-funded.

"This is why it is important for the Legislature to pass legislation that would bring greater transparency to the process by requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups. Both parties have introduced bills to bring about more disclosure."  Yes, we agree, start with an annual D-4 for those who currently do disclose and then fashion legislation that will pass Constitutional muster.  Don't spend a lot of taxpayers' money and waste a lot of taxpayer-paid staff's time only to have your law chucked out by a federal court.  If your staff have so much free time on their hands, cut some and save the taxpayers some money.

"...If the primary figure is any guide, these largely anonymous groups will once again dominate the general election at the expense of more accountable political parties and candidates.  It is long past time for matters to be set right in New Jersey by bringing balance back to the electoral system, by strengthening the political parties, requiring registration and disclosure by independent groups, and offsetting the growing influence of organizations that would often operate anonymously."  This is coming from the man who, in 2015, dismissed this as little more than "drama"?  What's changed? 

What this is, is a hit piece, written by a political consultant turned career bureaucrat with a mentor named Tom Kean.  It was a disgraceful act for NJELEC's executive director to wade into partisan political campaigns the weekend before an election and offer his words in a way he knew or should have known would have an outcome on that election. 

 Jeff Brindle is himself an undisclosed independent expenditure.  We cannot be sure who put him up to this.  What we can be sure of is that he should go, for so long as he is at the head of NJELEC its veracity is in question and its trustworthiness is shit.

Is Save Jersey playing it straight?

We remember when Save Jersey was created as a vehicle for the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey.  That's the actual origin of the website's name:  Chris Christie was going to "Save Jersey." 

Save Jersey was to be a Lonegan-bashing adjunct to Wally Edge's PoliticsNJ (aka PolitickerNJ and Observer.com).  The Christie people already had the somewhat mercurial David "Wally Edge" Wildstein in their pocket, so Save Jersey's young editor, Matt Rooney, worked slavishly to impress the boss.  The website even went so far as to mock conservative Steve Lonegan's blindness. 

There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.  Rooney got out of school and failed to get that social media job at the Governor's office he had his eye on.  Wally Edge left his website, got a political patronage job at the Port Authority, did his BridgeGate thing, and pleaded guilty in federal court.  Chris Christie went from being (in Rooney's eyes) New Jersey's savior and potential occupant of the White House to a liability.  Rooney, along with Kim Guadagno, and an assortment of rats, "jumped ship" and began to attack their former master, the one-time object of their somewhat overly intense affections.

Once upon a time they praised Governor Christie for "reaching out" to secure the support of organized labor, much as Ronald Reagan had done.  Today, they treat anyone in a blue-collar as a pariah.

For the record, the contributors here at Jersey Conservative (except for Professor Murray Sabrin) were uniform in their support for Steve Lonegan in his 2009 gubernatorial battle with Chris Christie.  It is not that we have ever supported the Governor's agenda (although parts have been very worthy of that support), it is just that we abhor the craven, vulgar, opportunistic disloyalty shown towards Governor Christie, by those who once attacked us for not following him.  We marvel at how their intensity has not changed.  They were jerk-offs then and they remain jerk-offs now.

Take Matt Rooney as an example.  A shameless self-promoter, even by New Jersey standards.  He is a lawyer who belongs to a firm that exists in the highly political, you-scratch-my-ass-and-I'll-scratch-yours, world of municipal contracts. 

And we have to tell you, that for all Rooney's protestations about being anti-Democrat Party, he doesn't seem to mind being associated with a law firm that takes contracts from Democrat machine towns in South Jersey.  Hey, didn't someone say "follow the money"?  Okay, let's do that:

Save Jersey's Matt Rooney is a lawyer with the Camden County firm of DeMichele & DeMichele.  According to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, the principals of that firm hold the following public contracts/offices:

We searched for Matt Rooney, but came up with nothing:

But that doesn't jive with what Rooney puts in his lawyer's biography:

Matt Rooney has been a member of the New Jersey Bar since 2011 and the District of Columbia Bar since 2012. A significant portion of his practice concerns matrimonial matters including divorce, custody disputes, support modifications, and domestic violence. Matt also handles personal injury, municipal court, and a variety of other types of litigation. He currently serves as a municipal prosecutor in four (4) different South Jersey communities.

So what gives?  Aren't you the guy who is preaching disclosure?  So how about compliance with Local Government Ethics rules?

Matt Rooney

Photo credit: Madison Mae Photography (2014)

Phone: (856) 546-1350
Fax: (856) 546-1365
Email: matt@southjerseylawfirm.com
LinkedIN: MattRooneyNJ
Facebook: MattRooneyNewJersey
____

Practice areas: family law (divorce, child support, domestic violence); municipal court; personal injury; civil litigation; collections

____

Matt Rooney has been a member of the New Jersey Bar since 2011 and the District of Columbia Bar since 2012. A significant portion of his practice concerns matrimonial matters including divorce, custody disputes, support modifications, and domestic violence. Matt also handles personal injury, municipal court, and a variety of other types of litigation. He currently serves as a municipal prosecutor in four (4) different South Jersey communities.

http://southjerseylawfirm.com/blog/attorney-profiles/matthew-rooney/

Ethics complaint to be filed against ELEC's Jeff Brindle

The "hit piece" was published on a website that was once the domain of David "Wally Edge" Wildstein.  That's before he sold it to Jared "to Russia with love" Kushner.  Yes, that Jared Kushner, the son of Governor Jim McGreevey's number one bagman and son-in-law of the sitting President of the United States, whose obscure and anything-but-transparent  business and financial dealings have led to a string of controversies.

Under the editorship of the late Peter Kaplan, the Observer newspaper was once a genuine instrument of reform in New York City.  But Kaplan left after Kushner bought the newspaper.  Later, Kushner would install establishment GOP political consultant Ken Kurson as editor.  Kurson, who ran political campaigns in New Jersey (in particular, Northwest New Jersey),  would transform the newspaper into a web-only publication that ruthlessly pushed the Kushner political agenda. 

And so Mr. Jeff Brindle, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, chose a most irregular venue for expounding on the benefits of campaign finance reform.  Of course, Mr. Brindle's arguments were not for the benefit of the general public or even the more specific electorate.  What Mr. Brindle presented in yesterday's Observer was a carefully crafted, opposition-research fueled, hit piece. 

Mr. Brindle argues that there should be more disclosure requirements covering organizations that spend money that could indirectly affect the outcome of an election.  We agree.  It is important to know the people behind organizations that have at their disposal mass amounts of cash and who seek to use that cash to influence the political process.  The Observer Media Group, for instance, which regularly endorses candidates and pushes a policy agenda (dare we say "lobby"?) that directly benefits the bottom line of its owners.

Or take Advance Publications -- an $8 billion corporate media giant owned by some of our region's richest -- and most politically liberal -- billionaires.  These guys hate labor unions, of course, because it means less for them and more for the people who work for them.  So they have successfully conducted a long-march through their work force.  First they came for the teamsters, then the printers, then the writers, and finally, the salesmen.  The billionaires who own Advance have a political and economic agenda.  They endorse candidates for public office and inject their opinions into elections.  And they have been so successful at lobbying that they have won for themselves a special state-mandated subsidy, directing millions in advertising to their businesses each year -- under penalty of the law.  Well, you know what they say:  Money comes to money.

In his "hit piece" in the Observer, Jeff Brindle takes aim at a group that has spent just over$275,000 on advertising in Northwest New Jersey.  Mr. Brindle hints strongly of a labor union connection with this group.  Now ask yourself, Mr. Brindle, why would working people, organized as a union, feel the need to become involved in the political process?  Perhaps they have heard about Advance Publications??  Maybe, just maybe, they seek to have some small measure of control over their personal economic well-being???  We're just guessing here... but maybe the great George Carlin has the answer...

What the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission leaves out of his discussion is his agency's own special "little rich boy" loophole that allows the very rich mommies and daddies of wannabe politicians to fund their campaigns for public office.  Look, rich people been cleaning up the lives of their more useless offspring for as long as any of us can remember.  Generally, when it comes to employment, daddy provides young Doofwhistle with a job at which he will not hurt the company or its employees... too much.  A bankruptcy here, a bankruptcy there -- it's all part of the fun of being a (very rich) parent!

But now -- thanks to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission -- young Doofwhistle can be shoved-off on the taxpayers.  Daddy can use his millions (or billions) to get his young incompetent elected to public office, where he will receive a salary (sometimes even with benefits) and make laws and run things and generallyJe help our civilization down that long road of post-democracy.

That's right!  Under NJELEC's "little rich boy" loophole, if a candidate still lives at home with his parents, their money is treated as if it was the candidate's own money.  We shit you not. 

D. Use of Personal Funds  Use of a candidate’s personal funds on behalf of his or her campaign must be deposited into the campaign depository and must be reported as either contributions or loans to the campaign in the same manner as all other contributions or loans. If the candidate intends to be reimbursed fully or partially for personal funds used on behalf of his or her campaign, then the funds must be reported both as a loan and as an outstanding obligation to the campaign if still outstanding at the end of the reporting period. Once a candidate’s personal funds are reported as contributions, the funds cannot be later characterized as loans and be repaid to the candidate. There is no limit to the amount of personal funds a candidate may contribute or lend to his or her own campaign (except for publicly funded gubernatorial candidates). See Gubernatorial Public Financing Program Manual for more information.  Also, a corporation, of which one hundred percent of the stock is owned by the candidate, or by the candidate’s spouse, child, parent, or sibling residing in the candidate’s household, may make contributions without limit to a candidate committee established by that candidate, or to a joint candidates committee established by that candidate.

We all remember how Hank Lyon won a seat on the Morris County Freeholder Board in 2011.  He used NJELEC's "little rich boy" loophole to get a late infusion of cash from a corporation controlled by his father. 

That infusion of corporate cash was improperly reported.  A judge overturned a close election, a lawsuit followed, another judge overturned the first decision, while an appeal wasn't pursued after the opposing candidate received a gubernatorial appointment.   Lyon's campaign still owes a huge amount of money to this corporation -- $75,966.66 -- according to Mr. Brindle's own New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.

Per NJELEC's "little rich boy" loophole, this large infusion of corporate cash is only legal while Freeholder Hank Lyon and his father reside in the same household (according to corporate records, Lyon's mother resides in Texas). 

And now it's happening again.  Freeholder Hank Lyon recently found himself before a judge again, accused -- once again -- of violating New Jersey election law.  Lyon, who is a candidate for the state Legislature in next week's Republican primary election, could face serious ethical and legal issues in the weeks and months ahead -- and could endanger the seat (even handing it over to a liberal Democrat) if a court finds that, as in 2011, he violated the law.

Hank Lyon has long chaffed at the idea of his political career simply depending on "daddy's money."  He's worked to appear to be outside his father's shadow, going as far as lying on his official Freeholder biography:

"He is a lifelong resident of Morris County, specifically the Towaco section of Montville Township, where he was a member of the Montville Housing Committee.  He now lives in Parsippany."

Lyon even pictured his new home in legislative campaign advertising, with the words:  "Recently bought his first house, pictured above."  But if Hank Lyon no longer lived at home with his father, then how is he still using his dad's corporate money and keeping to the law? 

In February 2016, Freeholder Lyon did purchase a residential property in the Lake Hiawatha section of Parsippany-Troy Hills.  However, Lyon never occupied the property.  Neighbors claim to have no idea who lives at 45 Manito Avenue.  Mail has piled up and apparently gone unanswered.  Repairs and renovations have been pursued in a more or less desultory manner.  Then, on April 3, 2017, Lyon executed a mortgage on this property -- borrowing $125,000. 

According to Mr. Brindle's New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, Freeholder Hank Lyon loaned his legislative campaign $35,000 on May 12th and $83,000 on May 16th.  His campaign then purchased $99,997 in cable television advertising that began airing on May 19th.

The mortgage stipulates that the borrower (Freeholder Lyon) "shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower's principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument."  This Saturday, June 3rd, those 60 days are up.

When Freeholder Hank Lyon moves in three days' time, the loan his father's corporation has with him will go sour.  It was only allowed while Freeholder Lyon made his father's home his principle residence.  Freeholder Lyon should have paid off the loan that will clearly place him outside normal, ethical, campaign finance limits.  Instead, he borrowed more to finance another campaign for political office.

Now this drama is taking place in one of those legislative districts Mr. Brindle mentioned in his hit piece.  Shouldn't the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission -- maybe, just maybe -- be writing about this money too?  Shouldn't Mr. Brindle be demanding that his agency end its "little rich boy" loophole?  And if NJELEC can't do it, then shouldn't he be writing columns suggesting that the Legislature do it?

It's not like this isn't a growing problem.  We now have a candidate for Governor -- yes, for the job of chief executive of the state -- running around with nearly a million dollars to spend on a political campaign, courtesy of NJELEC's "little rich boy" loophole.  Do we really want elected officials whose main qualification for office is their ability to fan daddy's ass?  Like... aren't things kind of f'ed up enough all ready?

As the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, Mr. Brindle's choice of opinion venues was highly questionable.  But it is what he wrote -- and his obvious bias against some and blindness towards others -- that should earn him a review.  And to that end, we have been made aware that someone intends to provide him with such a forum at which he can answer those questions. 

NJ Dems set to assist would be terrorists

If you thought the Democrat Regime of Steve Sweeney and Vinnie Prieto was going address property taxes or jobs or foreclosure or the record child poverty in New Jersey, you were wrong.  Instead, they are celebrating the Democrat Regime's historic victory two weeks ago by bringing up an issue nobody talked about during the 2015 legislative campaign -- making sure a valid driver's license can be issued to anyone who sneaks into the United States illegally, evades capture by law enforcement, and defeats the protective measures of the Department of Homeland Security. 

With said license, a valid form of identification throughout the United States, an individual within the borders of the United States illegally, can travel anywhere, buy just about anything, and access other means by which he or she can carry on all sorts of illegal enterprises.  Later today -- at 1pm on Monday, November 16th -- the Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee will be holding a hearing in Committee Room 11, on the 4th floor of the State House Annex in Trenton.

The sole legislation on the Committee's agenda is Assembly bill A-4425.  This bill "establishes driver's license for residents who cannot prove lawful presence in the U.S."

One of the bill's sponsors in Democrat Assemblyman Raj "I know Wally Edge" Mukherji, who got into hot water with the feds over homeland security issues a few years back.  Another is Assemblyman Reed "The Crybaby" Gusciora -- a knucklehead who long ago traded in thinking for emoting.  And last but not least in this trio of sponsors is Assemblywoman and Municipal Prosecutor Annette "Get out of jail free" Quijano, Speaker Vinnie Prieto's hand-picked point person for this kind of nonsense.  A Senate version of the bill (S-2925) has been proposed by Senator Joseph "I managed to make it through the 12th grade" Vitale.

These critters are all Democrats.  That is a good thing.  It would be an even better thing if every Democrat joined them in flushing their hopes for 2017 down the toilet.

The Democrats are set on pushing this legislation through committee a little more than 72 hours after Paris was hit by a coordinated series of terrorist attacks that left hundreds killed and wounded.  According to the French news agency AFP, Greek police linked at least one man to the Paris attacks who was registered as a recent refugee from Syria.  At a time like this, the Democrats seem hell-bent on rewarding illegal behavior by issuing valid identification to people who they really know very little about. 

But why not?  Wasn't Democrat Senate President Steve Sweeney the deciding vote to do away with the death penalty for crimes like those we saw in the French capital on Friday night?  If you slaughter people in New Jersey, Democrats like Steve Sweeney have made sure that you get a pass.  Assembly Democrats even went so far as to argue that criminals shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes and that employers shouldn't have the RIGHT TO KNOW who they are hiring.  Things like these empower would be terrorists.  It provides them with useful tools and lets them know that New Jersey isn't serious about protecting its citizens.

So go ahead... pass it out of committee.  Vote for it.  Every Democrat should play follow your corrupt leaders and vote for it.  And let's make sure that no Republican -- starting with the leadership -- is so stupid as to provide cover for the Democrats.  Remember, if they vote for it, they won't have the Rutgers SuperPAC dropping $250,000 cable buys on their heads... but you will.  So get smart, stay sane, don't share with them the title of "the stupid party."

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.