The Iranian view: 2 sides of the same coin

Spend any considerable amount of time in the Arab World, and you'll be amazed at how many locals talk as if they are experts on American politics, simply based upon what they see on state-run TV channels, with a bit of al-Jazeera influence for a varied perspective. Much like the American cable news junkies who love to show off their new vocabulary (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) and dazzle friends at cocktail parties by explaining how "Iraq is really 3 separate countries for 3 different peoples." uh-huh.

In light of these amateur views, it was interesting to see reactions to the results of the recent mid-term Congressional elections from the Middle East angle. There seems to be a happy consensus in the region at Bush's proxy defeat. No surprise there. However, beyond this angst-driven factor, opinions diverge. For example, Sami Moubayed, a noted Syrian political analyst and historian, in his post-election piece quotes a Baathist longing for "The America of Jimmy Carter and the one of Bill Clinton."

We can read this 2 ways, and either is distasteful. First we can take the cynical view and suggest that the political class in countries like Syria are only interested in putting on a dog-and-pony show to impress what they perceive to be naive American Presidents like Carter and Clinton, while they continue to work a regional agenda subversive to American interests. Alternatively, we can take the optimistic view that they really do want to see the Peace Process advance, and feel that they are better off with the engaging, perpetual-photo-op style of Clinton.

While I understand the frustration with Bush's policies and lack of engagement, to translate that into nostalgia for the "good old days" of Clinton's failed and flawed peacemaking efforts demonstrates a staggering lack of political sophistication.

Curiously, however, the enigmatic Iranians (who are not Arabs, remember) seem to have taken a much more skeptical view than the pining Baathist quoted by Moubayed. As evidence, I asked my "savvy Iranian source" (who earlier explained to us why President Ahmadinejad never wears a tie) for his view. His entire analysis is quoted below, but the 2 most thought-provoking quotes are: (continued...)

"They essentially view the Democrats and Republicans as two sides of the same coin" and

"After Iran helped the US extensively in Afghanistan and as a reward got branded as part of the Axis of Evil, it got a major wake-up call".

He writes:

I agree with you about the mistaken analysis by many in the Middle East that the Democrats are better for them than the Republicans. The main analysis coming from official and semi-official sources in Tehran was interesting however, in that it didn't cast this issue in this light (something they used to do a lot in the past). This I think is borne out of the fact that they have become thoroughly disillusioned with the US (as well as continuing to mistrust its intentions) and have lost hope in the potential of partisan US politics changing anything for the better for Iran. They essentially view the Democrats and Republicans as two sides of the same coin.

Following their inability to get anywhere with the Clinton Administration and being acutely aware of the problems they have with the Bush Administration, the Iranians seem to have concluded that it doesn't really matter anymore who is in power in the US (whether Congress or the White House). After the Republicans' defeat, they were quite happy, not because the Democrats won but because it was - as you mentioned - a referendum on Bush and the policies he had pursued over the past years. Even the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei highlighted that this electoral defeat marked the end of "Bush's neo-conservative dream" and was as such something that should be lauded.

Overall, the analysis I am getting from Tehran is that people (i.e. officials) are being very cautious to draw any conclusions about the future course of US policy. While they are happy about the growing pressure on the Bush Administration to engage in dialogue with Iran, they are under no illusion that a Democrat-controlled Congress will turn things around 180 degrees or put any clear pressure on Bush to change his ways. I think the main thing people are hoping for now is that there will be some more pressure on Bush and some resistance to a number of his policies to stop him (and VP Cheney's office) from pushing on with a hawkish agenda. There is also some hope that the increased pressures to engage in dialogue with Iran over Iraq may set the groundwork for more debate about wider-ranging issues in the future.

In this setting however, the Iranians don't want to give anything for free to the US anymore, something that was made clear by Iran's UN Ambassador Mohammad-Javad Zarif, when he had his discussions with James Baker as part of the ISG (Iraq Study Group) report research. After Iran helped the US extensively in Afghanistan and as a reward got branded as part of the Axis of Evil, it got a major wake-up call that if it is going to sit down with the US over any issue (whether it is Iraq, the nuclear program, or whatever else) there must be a clear gain involved for Iran.

So in sum, I think that although the Iranians are happy that the Republicans lost, they are not under any illusion that the Democrats will be any better and will continue seeking to maximise gains and minimise losses as they go along.

continue reading "The Iranian view: 2 sides of the same coin..."

Sheriff Jerry Speziale responds to my recent post

I checked my email this afternoon to find a letter (shown below) from Passaic County Sheriff Jerry Speziale, which he also posted in the comments section of a previous post (lest anyone think I am publicizing any confidential communication). Here is my response to his email.
-------

Dear Jerry,

Thanks for the very thoughtful letter, much appreciated.

I am currently in Dakar, Senegal, but certainly look forward to having a chat after I return to NJ on December 10.

In the meantime, I wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving!

Best regards,
George Ajjan

Fri 11/17/2006 6:36 PM

Dear George:

I hope this letter finds you in good stead.

After reading the article authored by you on November 11, 2006, I felt compelled to send you a quick response.

Undoubtedly, you interject your political view, which is solely based on your belief and opinion. I beg to differ with that opinion and it’s clear to me that you don’t know the voters of Passaic County or me at all.

As you know, my life and career is an open book and I am proud of all that it has symbolized. Unfortunately, you see me as a political foe, which is founded on politics.

I am secure in my position and standing with the voters of Passaic County and confident Karl Rove tactics of hate and deceit does not fool them. This is evidenced by the malicious campaign mounted against me by Ron Fava, a former Prosecutor and Acting Sheriff who ran against a relatively unknown.

I will never forget my reelection campaign in 2004, which ended unexpectedly two months prior to my reelection. My best friend of twenty-eight years, mother of my three children and the love of my life, my wife Maggie was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. I can assure you that campaigning was the last thing on my mind. I was focused on taking care of my three children, holding my family together, praying for my wife’s recovery, taking care of her when she returned home and managing the department. The most important thing to me is my family, which I am so grateful for. Yet, through it all, the voters of Passaic County overwhelmingly reelected me for a second term by record numbers, (78%).

Nothing has come easy for me in life, I was shot, hit by a cab; fell off a roof, beat by rouge cops undercover and many other dangerous situations that nearly cost me my life. However, complex situations are when I am at my best, because I remain alert, focused, composed, resolute and steadfast in my abilities to handle the situation at hand. Believe in me, I worked hard and earned everything I have attained in life taking nothing for granted.

So, with that being said, I want to address your comment about Reporter Paul Brubaker. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Mr. Brubaker who has been fair and balanced in his reporting. I don’t believe for one minute that the Herald News, Record or Mr. Brubaker is going to engage in any conspiracy to assassinate my character in an effort to assist the Republican Party.

Certainly, they are aware of my record, accomplishments and services provided by the department. Nevertheless, I have opened my doors to Mr. Brubaker and the newspapers. In fact, unlike any other agency, I don’t require them to make written requests through the Open Public Records Act. Clearly, I make sure the documents released are not protected under any law or privilege and then release them immediately upon their request. I have met with him on a number of occasions and provided him all of the budgetary documents of the department and outlined the operation.

George, I would like to personally invite you to join me for lunch and a tour of the Passaic County Sheriff’s Department if you promise to be objective, non-partisan in your view and are open minded. Perhaps it would give you a clearer picture of the effective and efficient operation and our awesome responsibilities.

This is not about partisan politics, as you would like to have it. It is about public safety and providing essential services to the public at the most affordable cost.

Please try and understand that my budget is based on the cost of the agency to the taxpayers. With that being said, you will learn that during my tenure as the budget has increased because of contractual obligations among other things. The department operates with revenues and expenditure's ultimately being the bottom line to the taxpayers.

Since becoming Sheriff, I have increased my revenues by more than (100) million dollars offsetting the cost of the department to the taxpayers, my operating expenses have been flat for (6) years and the department has purchased all of it's vehicles and equipment with millions of dollars in drug forfeited funds. So when you look at the actual cost to the taxpayers and average out my years in office you will learn that we are operating about (15) million dollars under the cost to the taxpayers of my predecessor Ron Fava.

I welcome any debate on my budget and would only hope I get the chance to educate the public instead of the unsubstantiated propaganda spewed by people that have no clue how the agency operates.

As for my opposition, I welcome any candidate and will work vigorously to ensure my Victory in 2007.

In my opinion, turn out is not a factor for a candidate who won (15) towns overwhelmingly (3-4-5 and 10 to 1), and narrowly lost one.

As to be expected, I conduct poll data every year about the department and me, to include this year. Consequently, this years (800) sample poll has me even higher than my previous years, to include the year I beat Mr. Michalski and set record numbers in Passaic County. For the record, the poll data excludes Paterson and Passaic.

As for you absurd comment about the horrific events of 911 fading from the minds of our residents. Those terrible and tragic events will forever be etched in the minds of every American.

We have had great success in Passaic County in the area of homeland security as well as traditional law enforcement endeavors. We have modernized our infrastructure and have put into place a coordinated and cooperative effort to prepare ourselves for any contingency threatening our people. I do want to point out that this would not have been possible without the coordinated team comprised of our Police Chiefs and County Prosecutor.

Rest assured that the Passaic County Chiefs, Prosecutor and I have an extremely close working relationship founded on mutual respect, trust and friendship. Together, we have put together the finest law enforcement effort Passaic County has ever seen. The coordination between us all brings a keen awareness of balancing vigorous crime fighting efforts and criminal prosecution with just as vigorous protection of constitutional rights and civil liberties.

During my tenure, numerous programs have been initiated. These programs have been designed to improve both the services we provide and the relationships we share with the community.

I have dedicated my life to fighting crime and protecting and serving our citizens. So, as to be expected, I feel energized knowing that the people recognize and appreciate my abilities as their Sheriff.

So my friend, bring on your candidate, because I look forward to spending my million dollars to ensure that the public knows the truth about their Sheriff for a sweeping victory for me in 2007!

Sincerely,

Jerry Speziale
Sheriff of Passaic County

continue reading "Sheriff Jerry Speziale responds to my recent post..."

The Democrat Congress and the Syrian opposition

Given the Democrats' takeover of both houses of Congress, things are going to change in DC, even with respect to America's foreign policy, but I have no reason to believe that the Syrian opposition will benefit from these forthcoming changes. They have not demonstrated to me that they possess the political skill to evaluate and seize potential opportunities before they arise.

Dominating the scene in DC up until now, we have had the Reform Party of Syria, which is sure to dazzle Syrian citizens with its website full of Arabic grammatical errors. Led by Syrian-Lebanese-Saudi-American "Frank" Ghadry (by the way, those are only the 4 citizenships he possesses that we know of, there may yet be more), this motley crew hitched its wagon to the once-rising-now-plummeting star of Dick Cheney and the neocons. They even invited very special guest and cheerleader Richard Perle to one of their early meetings. Let me be clear: this group is a bunch of self-aggrandizing nobodies. They have no following inside Syria save a handful of opportunists from the politically isolated eastern part of the country, as they give simultaneous lip service to both the Assyrians and their nemesis, the Kurds. Nobody in Syria knows who Ghadry is, and nobody cares either.

However, Ghadry, who has lived in the DC area for years, did demonstrate some political savvy on the American side. He rode the coattails of anti-Arab sentiment following the September 11 attacks five years ago and sought to convince policymakers and elected officials to listen to his slick pitch. If only he could, through the magic of US-imposed democracy, become President of Syria (a country in which he has not lived for over 40 years), all the problems of the Middle East would be solved. The Ahmad Chalabi comparisons abounded, and for good reason.

Ghadry opened up his checkbook and made good friends with well-placed members of Congress – especially Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Elliot Engel of the House International Relations Subcommittee for the Middle East. By an amazing coincidence, Ghadry was then called to testify as an "expert" on hearings pertaining to Syria. And what a splendid job he did defending the Caledonians. (continued...)

It is worthy to note that we are not talking about very large sums of money donated. According to the FEC, Ghadry has doled out less than $15,000 total for federal campaigns. When you're the only game in town and you’re singing a popular song, access is cheap.

But Ghadry's world became a lot more complex when ousted VP Abdel Halim Khaddam, a Baathist, hooked up with exiled Muslim Brotherhood leader Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, an Islamist, and formed the National Salvation Front. It was somehow reminiscent of an 80s Supergroup, without the big hair. These are two prominent names, but thus far they've proved to be all sizzle, no steak. That didn't stop Ghadry, however, from blasting them repeatedly and making every effort to discredit them in Washington (the NSF's base is in Europe, where both Khaddam and Bayanouni live). Ghadry's tact was simple: the words "Baathist" and "Islamist" do not generally provoke warm and fuzzy feelings in Washington.

Whatever clout the NSF's 2 key leaders possess, they seem to lack in political know-how. Despite all the millions of dollars that Khaddam has "earned" (he has been a licensed attorney in Syria since 1958, don’t forget!) he has not had the good sense to even hire a decent PR firm. Case and point, the NSF's kick-off conference at the oh-so-predictable Dorchester Hotel in London was largely a flop and their website is a joke. As I have mentioned before, I don't think this group or its two main leaders are ready for prime-time. Khaddam in particular has been sloppy in interviews and does not have consistent answers to predictable questions. I get the feeling that he has done one too many softball interviews with Tishreen, although sources in the know tell me that Khaddam is smarter than he looks and "quite willing to learn new tricks". The NSF, too, is struggling with trying to be all things to all Syrians, which leads to some tension especially concerning the Kurdish issue.

But they have been chugging along and are now ready to open up an office in Washington. The key point man here will be Ammar Abdulhamid, an ultra-liberal dissident who writes books about lesbians and whose only meaningful common trait with Khaddam and Bayanouni is the vitriolic negative attitude they all feel toward the current Syrian regime. He joined the NSF according to the tried and true formula: enemy * enemy = friend. Yes, that does send up lots of red flags for Abdulhamid, but he's got to play the cards he's been dealt, I suppose.

Unfortunately for him, he's already received the kiss of death: when Ghadry attacked Abdulhamid by name, out came David Schenker to defend his honor (former Middle East advisor to Donald Rumsfeld and now on staff at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, better known as WINEP). Suffice it to say that WINEP's agenda is not one that many Syrians share.

So as the NSF encroaches on Ghadry's turf, and the tit-for-tat continues, which side will win the ears of policymakers? Well, with the Republicans in shambles, the White House may be leaning toward a more practical approach suggested by former Secretary of State James Baker, who has encouraged the US to engage Syria in helping stabilize Iraq. On the other hand, rhetoric linking Syria and Iran, and blaming them both for Lebanon's woes, continues. Bush has his hands full and is probably not going to pick more fights with Syria, despite reported fondness for Ghadry in Cheney's office. But he's not likely to warm up to Syria either.

But what about Congress? We know that the Democrats will be hungry for revenge and are going to schedule all sorts of hearings to try to embarrass the Bush Administration. Will that allow any room for the Syrian opposition to get some air time?

It depends how clever they are at gaining access. Neither Ghadry's group nor the NSF seems to have had a contingency plan for what might happen in Congress. If they did, they would have been sure to hold fundraising events for every member of the Middle East subcommittees in both the House and Senate. I'm wildly guessing that this didn't happen. At a minimum, every one of these officials should have received a press kit, and a flurry of follow-up phone calls.

A good place to start would be the ranking minority members of the subcommittees in either chamber, since those individuals have a likely shot at gaining the Chairmanships come January. In the House, this would be Gary Ackerman, and in the Senate, Barbara Boxer. It's worth noting that the loss of Rhode Island's Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee is a boost for the Syrian opposition. Chafee was the Middle East subcommittee chair in the Senate, and he was fiercely independent – the only GOP Senator to vote against the Iraq War, and the only GOP Senator to vote against the Syria Accountability Act. It's a likely bet that Boxer will be more amenable to embarrassing the Syrian regime than Chafee.

So, in this context, let's see how Ghadry and Abdulhamid square off in the coming months, bearing in mind that none of this is going to help the opposition gain traction in Syria – in fact fighting amongst dissidents only strengthens the regime. Nevertheless, Ghadry has a natural advantage as long as he keeps reminding people that a Baathist/Islamist couple is not an ally. However, the existence of political competition in the form of the NSF is going to expose to everyone who matters in DC just how insignificant and phony Ghadry really is. Plus, Abdulhamid is far more knowledgeable, more articulate, and more Syrian – having left the country just a couple of years ago under juicy circumstances. As I told him recently (we are friendly): better thicken up your skin, because Ghadry has devoted the last 5 years to being the neocons' Syrian pet and is not likely to go down without a fight. Things are going to get very nasty.
continue reading "The Democrat Congress and the Syrian opposition..."

Wherefore go the neocons?

Approaching last week's mid-term Congressional elections, the positions asserted by the misguided foreign policy planners commonly referred to as "neocons" tilted toward the desperate, even when evaluated in the context of their dangerous worldview. In the aftermath of the Democrats bruising electoral triumph, it should be interesting to see where they align themselves politically and what strategy they employ to assure their continued influence in Washington.

Very little has gone according to the neocon plan for the Middle East. Iraq has descended into civil war, Iran swaggers with impunity, and democratic elections have either endorsed dictatorship (Hosni Mubarak's landslide in Egypt) or legitimized terrorism (Hezbollah and Hamas's big electoral wins in Lebanon and Palestine). Plus, perennial pain-in-the-neocon-neck, Syrian President Bashar Assad, puts the icing on the cake by playing the good cop and repeatedly calling for a resumption of peace talks with Israel (what some curiously refer to as "begging for peace"). Furthermore, a lack of interest in, or progress on, the Rafik Hariri investigation has led to a European thaw towards Syria - even Tony Blair sent a high-level envoy to Damascus to meet with Assad, and the EU trade agreement with Syria seems to be back on track.

The neocons just can't take it, and have lashed out with criticisms and assertions more irrational than ever - such as exaggerated, alarmist analyses about Syria's closeness to Iran, and downright delusional strategy making when it comes to Lebanon. The best example of this was a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Bret Stephens, essentially blaming Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for helping Bush "lose" Lebanon. I would venture to guess that Mr. Stephens did not see the clip on al-Jazeera, during the Summer War, in which a woman in Beirut being interviewed asked if she could close by saying something in English. The words she chose: "Mr. Bush, F___ your democracy!!!" That woman's sentiments, vulgar though they may be, pretty much sum up how disconnected these pundits are from the reality of Arab public opinion. (continued...)

After blasting Madrid Peace Conference architect James Baker III as a "sell out", Stephens goes on to quote Walid Phares, who is on the payroll of an organization called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies - its Board of Advisers includes the likes of Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle, etc. - just so you know where he's coming from. Phares suggested that Lebanon can be saved by getting all the Lebanese NGOs together in DC to launch a second "Cedar Revolution".

Lebanese NGOs? With all due respect to patriotic, dignified Lebanese-American activists like my friend John Akouri: unless Lebanon's citizens will be helped by cocktail parties in New York City where self-obsessed exiles ask people they don't even know to shell out $50 in order to show off their friendship with the likes of former CIA head James Woolsey, I really don't know of much that the American-based Lebanese NGOs will be able to contribute, given the forces at play.

Anyway, the neocons are grasping at straws as their plans unravel. Ahmad Chalabi blames Wolfowitz, while Perle passes the buck to Bush. So the cracks were already on the wall before Tuesday's big defeat for the Bush agenda. In the aftermath, Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense and is replaced by a Bakerite, which surely incensed the neocons. The question now is: just how stubborn is Bush? Will he "stay the course" or will he partially backtrack and follow Baker's advice to ask Syria and Iran to help stabilize Iraq? Or will he really roll the dice and facilitate Syrian/Israeli peace negotiations, as I and others have vigorously advocated?

Basically, the Democrats' big win last week raises the stakes even higher for Bush and the Republicans as they figure out what strategy to embrace for the Middle East looking toward 2008. The wily neocons may figure that the GOP cannot help them, and look for a new home amongst the Democrats. There is no reason to believe that the likes of Hillary Clinton (enormously emboldened by last Tuesday's result) would not take Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. into her inner circle. And what would that mean for John McCain, who would otherwise have likely continued to rely on this influential DC crowd? Is the Republican base finally going to realize, in the aftermath of Tuesday's terrible defeat, just how detrimental the neocons have been to our party, and our country for that matter? (I, for one, will do everything I can to facilitate that outcome.) And if so, does this give the likes of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been a vocal critic of their policies, a higher profile and potent ammunition for the GOP Presidential Primary?

Wouldn't it be interesting to see McCain, drunk on neocon Kool-Aid and fearful of losing their support, square off against a more practical Hagel who connects the dots for the Republican base, showing how reckless neocon policies led to the GOP's defeat in 2006 and must be stopped. Nothing would be better for America's long-term foreign policy interests than for the 2008 Primaries in both parties to shine a very bright and very public light on the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of the neocons.
continue reading "Wherefore go the neocons?..."

A peek at Passaic County in 2007

I watched the disastrous November 6, 2006 election from London, where I was fortunate enough to be able to watch Fox News until 3 am at a friend's flat, while I logged on to NJN and watched TV coverage of the NJ races on the internet and simultaneously chatted via Skype with my friend Mike Klein, a longtime Democrat operative who happened to be on vacation in Buenos Aires. Global multitasking.

Republicans went down hard across the nation, and Passaic County was no exception. Not only did our Freeholder candidates lose by a whopping margin, but local Democrats made inroads in some painful places. They knocked out incumbent Haledon Mayor Ken Pengitore, plus Council members in Pompton Lakes and Little Falls. It was not a good night.

Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether newly elected Republican County Chairman Scott Rumana will seek to keep his hard-fought-and-won party post. There have always been suggestions that his heart was never in it 100%. I have seen evidence that supports both conclusions.

Though he can write off his current 0-for-1 record to an overwhelming national trend, he will not have that luxury next year. His expectations for party rebuilding will increase exponentially, since he doesn't have a rough transition to blame for slow progress. Very soon the Republican base will want to know: what is the plan for building the GOP in the urban areas? How can we stop the encroaching Democrats in our traditional strongholds like Pompton Lakes? How are the party’s candidates selected? What is our fundraising strategy?

Furthermore, 2007 is the lowest turnout year of the 4-year cycle, with a very bottom-heavy ballot ideal for Passaic County Republicans to pick up some wins. In 2003, the electoral analog to 2007, turnout in Paterson was so low that the Republicans would have swept in 3 Freeholder candidates, had it not been for poor performance in up-county Republican towns.

Additionally, the big player next year in Passaic County will be Sheriff Jerry Speziale, who is up for re-election. Given the tone of the Freeholder debates even this year, Speziale should not be surprised if his budget comes under serious scrutiny during the campaign season next year. His 2004 challenger, Hawthorne policeman Mark Michalski, largely refrained from attacking the Sheriff. However, if a more aggressive challenger emerges in 2007, the campaign could be very intense.

As I mentioned earlier, the temporal distance from September 11, 2001 will weaken the political appeal of "Homeland Security". The last time Speziale ran was in 2004, alongside the first Presidential election following the attacks. It was largely a referendum on security, and the emotional stakes were high. Speziale did a great job of playing up his considerable credentials, and it was not difficult for him to ride "security coattails" to an unprecedented victory margin. But next year, those coattails will be long gone. Without any national issues at stake, and only state and local posts to be filled, the campaign will be about taxes, taxes, taxes – a liability for Speziale, whose Department accounts for over 50% of the bloated County budget.

Whether this will be enough to undo his immense popularity is unclear. It depends upon, first of all, whether the Republican Party will be gutless enough to discourage potential candidates and allow Speziale to run unopposed. For the record, I am 100% against that strategy as a matter of principle – it affronts democracy itself.

Beyond that, Speziale's fate will be partially determined by the strength of his GOP challenger, how much money is raised, and whether the local press continues to sharpen its teeth. Speziale should take note that in recent months, the Herald News has cracked open Totowa's nepotism culture, badly embarrassed Paterson Mayor Joey Torres, and strongly endorsed local Republican candidates. Paul Brubaker, the county political reporter, has a very good grasp of what is really happening and he will not be afraid to tackle the budget. Also, the departure of Alfred Doblin may change the disposition of the Herald's editorial board vis-à-vis Speziale. Although Doblin's new post at the Record will continue to improve that paper's coverage of Passaic County politics.

The other big question mark concerns Rumana's own intentions. Conventional wisdom says that Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole will wait for State Senator Henry "Hank" McNamara to retire, and then Rumana will seek to fill O'Toole's place in the Assembly for the 40th District. It doesn't look like McNamara's long-sought "golden parachute" is imminent, so he will likely not retire. He already has a declared challenger in conservative activist and self-proclaimed "RINO hunter" Joseph Tomanelli, but will O'Toole roll the dice and enter the race as well? Better question: will Rumana dump O'Toole and run for the State Senate himself, using his clout as County Chairman to secure "the line" for himself in Passaic County, which comprises 45% of the Republican Primary electorate? Some sources say that such a disloyal move is unthinkable for Rumana. Conversely, others argue that what Rumana surely possesses in cunning he lacks in courage. Either way, a Rumana/O'Toole divorce seems unlikely.

But he should consider his options carefully. Bergen County Republicans (who comprise another 45% of the 40th District Primary electorate – the remaining 10% are in O’Toole’s home county of Essex) in the 2006 Primary steered to the right and even threw out incumbents perceived not to be conservative enough. This even boiled down to the local level, with major upsets even in my parents’ hometown of Franklin Lakes, for example. Tomanelli is hard-wired into that strategy, and given the more democratic process for selecting candidates in Bergen (a County Committee Convention, imagine that in Passaic or Essex County!) he has a shot of tossing McNamara (who supported the losers in the 2006 Primary) off "the line".

Finally, to what extent will the previous Passaic County GOP regime attempt to make a comeback in 2007, or at least to play kingmaker? Peter Murphy is close to both McNamara and Speziale, which offers him the possibility to squeeze Scott Rumana from both sides. If Rumana thought his political headaches were over, he was dead wrong – they are only just beginning.
continue reading "A peek at Passaic County in 2007..."

_ _ _ _ _ for County Clerk, 2009

This week in Passaic County, we heard the oh-so-stunning revelation that former County Clerk Ronni Nochimson, "irked by attack" (according to Paul Brubaker at the Herald News), has...

...DRUM ROLL PLEASE...

...switched her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat!

My first reaction is: yawn. Especially reading the trite quote, "I really feel like the (Republican) party left me."

My second reaction is: chapeau. Nochimson has done a brilliant job of generating a story and getting her name all over the paper. She has launched a political comeback with impeccable timing, earning a flurry of accolades from Passaic County Democrat Chairman John Currie, who said:

She's always cared for the working poor in the Passaic County community...Anything is possible in this business. We'll wait and see. I have not had any communication with her whatsoever. We will start a dialogue.

Note the obvious implication that Nochimson could easily seek the 2009 Democrat nomination for her old position, which she rejected for the 2004 race. She's got plenty of time to build upon the momentum she established this week, and fortunately for her, Passaic County taxpayers will continue to pay her $89,697 per year and provide a car for her to drive around as she considers her options.

But, more importantly, there are 3 people likely to be devastated by Nochimson's move.

First, we have the sitting Clerk Karen Brown, who was only selected for her current position by the Democrats after the first choice candidate, Charles Thomas, dropped out in disgrace. Brown was never loved and has made quite a few enemies in her own party. Now she is sure to get dumped in 2009 and has no legs upon which to stand running "off the line". As Wally Edge might say, "She's no Nia Gill." Bye-bye, Brown.

Second, we have Bill Pascrell and his "My 3 Sons" Passaic County franchise. As the Currie/Pascrell intra-party feud continues, Currie may gain an extremely valuable ally in Nochimson to combat the Pascrell affinity for Brown. Pascrell's clout with local Democrat power brokers continues to falter, and unless he comes up with 75% of the vote on Tuesday, it increasingly looks like a checkmate for Currie. Worse yet for Pascrell, his Union Boulevard water boys are now out of power in the county GOP, hampering his ability to wage proxy battles. Of course, none of this is bad enough to endanger his comfy position on the Democrat line for Congress, but when he steps down, "My 3 Sons" is going off the air permanently. Bye-bye, Billy 3.

Third, we have Passaic County Democrat operative Keith Kazmark, a West Paterson Councilman who also serves as the County's Communications Director (it was a letter from Kazmark that admitted that Freeholders Gallagher and Way lied during the recent debates when asserting that the 2005 County Audit Report had been filed and was in Trenton).

Karen Brown had rejected a push by Currie to appoint Kazmark as Deputy Clerk, and conventional wisdom suggested that he was plotting to get the Democrat nomination for County Clerk in 2009. Well, he can kiss that dream goodbye. If Brown is no Nia Gill, Kazmark is no Ronni Nochimson.
continue reading "_ _ _ _ _ for County Clerk, 2009..."