Underrating the Suburbanite
It appears that I did not give the staff of the Suburbanite enough credit when I poked fun at it a couple of weeks ago. I mistakenly assumed that it was either foolishness or naivete that led to the inclusion of the religious affiliations of the Council members who opposed the adoption of a resolution condemning unsavory campaign tactics. Not so, according to the "Our View" column in the Opinion section of this week's Suburbanite (dated August 9, 2006). The Suburbanite made a deliberate decision to lump certain members of the Council together by religious affiliation, out of a sincere belief that religion was integral to the story of the Council's decision. In the Suburbanite's own words:Campaign literature of unknown origin used fear tactics in pitting one religious sect against others. Religion thus became part of the political process and the election story. A resolution emanating from the campaign asked the council to condemn the illegal and negatives (sic) practices, including the interjection of religion into the political process. That four people voted against this resolution make (sic) their religious persuasion part of the story.This poor defense of poor editorial judgment fails to address a number of objections.
The resolution in question made no specific reference to the "interjection of religion into the political process." Even if it had, is the failure to support such a resolution an endorsement of religiously divisive campaign tactics? Does the Orthodox version of the Jewish faith compel its adherents to favor the appeal to religion in political campaigns? According to the Council members themselves, the grounds upon which they voted against the resolution were not informed by religion. So why is the religion those Council members practice a pertinent detail?
It appears that the Suburbanite really meant to suggest that the candidates who were perceived to have been the beneficiaries of the inappropriate campaign tactics in question were the very same Council members who voted against the resolution. Why not just write that? Why introduce religious labels into it and turn a moderately controversial issue into a powder keg by hinting at collective responsibility for the actions of unidentified actors, who may or may not have been members of the religious group?
Furthermore, the resolution was not solely focused on the "campaign literature of unknown origin [that] used fear tactics in pitting one sect against another." This literature, which by all accounts reached only a portion of the Teaneck electorate (and which I and many others have only heard about from other residents), was only one of several instances of inappropriate campaigning. The most notable "mailing of 'unsigned' letters, postcards and brochures which is not allowed by New Jersey law" referred to in the resolution were the anti-Teaneck New Beginnings brochures that appeared in mailboxes throughout Teaneck. Those brochures made no reference to religion. Anybody who would have been elected to the Council ahead of Ronald Schwartz and Dennis Crowley could have been viewed as having gained an advantage from those prohibited mailings. Those mailings, the most visible and professionally executed violations of campaign standards, did not promote the particular candidates who won, so to assume that they bear some particular responsibility to address this issue is not justified.
Given these considerations, it is easy to see more nefarious purposes behind the grouping of Council members by personal religious affiliation. The parallel, and similarly unnecessary, mention of the gender of the dissenting voices on the Council seems in retrospect to have been a feeble attempt to camouflage the Suburbanite's cynical use of religion to link those who sided with the majority on this issue.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:35 AM
17 Comments:
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck...well, you get my drift. In addition, anyone who attended this week's Council meeting and witnessed Gussen's oh-so-obvious attempts to agree with Ms. Kates observed that this verbal "stroking" didn't translate into any change in voting against her.
While you and others like to pretend something else happened most of Teaneck believes there was a concerted effort to have Katz, Feit, Gussen and Rudolph elected on no other basis but there religious affiliations. Few believe the oft repeated claim that it was probably the landlords who sent the anonymous literature. While it's hard to imagine Gussen won for any other reason, it's impossible to believe Rudolph did.
While you and others like to pretend something else happened most of Teaneck believes there was a concerted effort to have Katz, Feit, Gussen and Rudolph elected on no other basis but there religious affiliations. Few believe the oft repeated claim that it was probably the landlords who sent the anonymous literature. While it's hard to imagine Gussen won for any other reason, it's impossible to believe Rudolph did.
OK, thank you for supplying the missing subtext. Apparently there was an Orthodox Jewish conspiracy afoot to elect certain candidates, and this was precisely what the proposed resolution was addressing. I wish the Community Relations Board had made that clearer. Now I am pleased that the Suburbanite was perceptive enough to see the true message of the resolution and to properly single out the Council members by religious affiliation who voted the way they did to protect their conniving coreligionists.
And you are right, there is no other plausible explanation for how Elnatan Rudolph could have emerged victorious over the two candidates he faced, neither of which had ever won an election in Teaneck themselves. After all, Clifton Arrington had the endorsement of the tenants' associations, who are enormously popular with Teaneck homeowners, whose interests and concerns are perfectly aligned with them. And Councilman Langford was so well known throughout the community, having resided in Teaneck a full year longer than Rudolph and having communicated his positions on the issues so clearly. No way anything but a vast conspiracy was at work there. Thanks for setting me straight.
My letter to the Suburbanite:
When I read the July 26th issue of the Suburbanite, I was quite disturbed to see a group of Teaneck Councilmembers characterized solely on the basis of their religion. Surely this was a momentary and regrettable lapse of judgement on the part of the newspaper in citing the religious affiliation of some members, when no relevant connection was made to justify the mention, a basic fundamental of journalistic ethics.
The only other time that religion was mentioned in the article was regarding anonymous postcards mailed to Teaneck residents, with one of several versions thereof aimed at Orthodox neighborhoods in the Township. As written, the original article uses this sleazy insinuation to push readers to make the connection between the religion of these Councilmembers and the anonymous mailings, and to conclude that the opposition by the Council to the draft resolution on Advisory Board on Community Relations must have been based on some implied -- but entirely unsupported -- connection to these mailings.
Weeks of research by the Bergen County Prosecutor and the New Jersey Attorney General's Election Law Enforcement Commission have not made any identification as to any person who may have been behind these despicable anonymous mailings, or any individual who was involved in their creation or was aware of the process. Yet the Suburbanite has no qualms in making a rather sly implication that some shadowy connection exists.
I was all the more disturbed to see the editorial in the August 9th issue ("Our View: A question of relevance"), standing tall to justify this egregious lapse as an essential and deliberate part of the story. While the editorial acknowledges that the article's evaluation of the head-covering practices of one Councilmember was "100 percent" inappropriate, the paper insists that reference to religious affiliation was justified.
The Suburbanite's specious rationalization for referring to religion in the article -- the fact that the Advisory Board on Community Relations' draft resolution asked the Council to condemn "the interjection of religion into the political process" -- is completely and entirely false. No mention of religion, whatsoever, was made in the resolution passed on to the Council by the ABCR. A reading of the draft resolution, printed in full in the earlier edition of the Suburbanite, will clearly demonstrate this fact.
If it is indeed justified to make "religious persuasion part of the story", the Suburbanite applied this offensive policy in a rather inconsistent fashion. What is the religious persuasion of those who voted in favor of the resolution, and how might their religious persuasion have pushed them to vote as they did? Why was the religious persuasion not included for Martin Greenwald, an Orthodox Jew, Chairman of the Advisory Board on Community Relations, and the primary author of the board's resolution opposing offensive campaign tactics. Why was my religious persuasion as an Orthodox Jew who even wears a yarmulke in public not mentioned, when I was quoted at length in the article as a member of the ABCR disappointed that the resolution was not passed on for consideration by the Council?
While there are extremely limited cases that would justify this selective reference to religion, this is not among them. By insisting on interjecting religion into the press coverage of the issue, the Suburbanite is only sharpening the divisions that divide our Township, rather than contributing towards their resolution. Teaneck deserves better.
Alan Sohn
752 Cottage Place
Teaneck, NJ 07666
201-895-3732 (cell)
Very good letter. The highest quality content in the Suburbanite is often found in the letters to the editor. Teaneck does indeed deserve better.
Alan Sohn said...
No mention of religion, whatsoever, was made in the resolution passed on to the Council by the ABCR. A reading of the draft resolution, printed in full in the earlier edition of the Suburbanite, will clearly demonstrate this fact.
True. But had the people who won actually not won, I highly doubt the ABCR would have entertained passing a resolution, even with the anonymous mailings and even with Mr. Greenwald's and Mr. Sohn's ABCR membership.
True. But had the people who won actually not won, I highly doubt the ABCR would have entertained passing a resolution, even with the anonymous mailings and even with Mr. Greenwald's and Mr. Sohn's ABCR membership.
I am not sure about this. I think it can be argued that it was the defeat of the much hyped Teaneck New Beginnings slate, rather than the victory of any specific candidates, and the ensuing bitterness about that result that raised a hue and cry.
Very true -- and while I was not in favor of the entire TNB slate, I also felt there were one or two worthy "independent candidates" -- and also was appalled at some of the anti-TNB mailings that circulated before the election.
Likely, the "hue and cry" has more to do with the methods used in this campaign and the belief many share that it influenced the results of the election. Blaming it on the defeat of the TNB candidates seems to be an attempt to minimize an issue that is of importance to many Teaneck voters.
If Rudolf and Gussen's election finance reporting were not also questionable, people might have more respect for their votes against the resolution.
If this were really about them and there really was an overwhleming presumption of guilt swirling around them, would they really be so foolish as to put up vigorous resistance to the resolution? I think those who want to spin this issue as having to do with the manner in which Gussen and Rudolph in particular were elected just dislike those two for what they stand for...
I think those who want to spin this issue as having to do with the manner in which Gussen and Rudolph in particular were elected just dislike those two for what they stand for...
The constant trick of making up points of views of others and than disputing them fools no one but fools like you.
The constant trick of making up points of views of others and than disputing them fools no one but fools like you.
A haughty comment from someone who appears not to know the difference between "than" and "then."
To put your simple mind at ease, there was no invented point of view here. Previous posters argued that the resolution contained some kind of implicit rebuke toward certain individuals now serving on the Council, which is the reason they opposed its adoption. I maintain that this is, at best, a misunderstanding of the intent of the resolution, and at worst, an underhanded attempt to delegitimize certain Council members based on unfounded suspicions.
I totally agree, TeaneckBlog, and hope that arguments and discussion in this forum can be made with good will on the part of the whose who post them, and not with malice. The fact that Gussen & Rudolph received a huge campaign contribution from Ferriero and the Bergen County Democratic party says much about where they are coming from, but their future actions are now all that matters since the electorate has spoken. I continue to find it sad that bullet voting has seemed to disenfranchise those independent candidates worthy of consideration in recent local elections, as well as the lack of interest or participation in voting by a significant portion of the Teaneck community. (However, if you choose not to vote, you must be prepared to live with the choices of others who did so...)
There is a law that requires candidates to report the source of their campaign finances so the electorate can include the information in making an informed decision. As of election day the Gussen/Rudolf reports showed total contributions of $100. At no point have they acknowledged in their reports any contributions from Ferriero and the Bergen County Democratic party. It would take very little time to file an amended report acknowledging they received an in-kind contributions from the Charles Gonzalez campaign. While some appear to believe that the winning candidates should be above the law, many feel all candidates whether winners or losers should obey the laws. My guess is that Rudolf and Gussen don't share this view that they should be above the law and have some rationale which makes them believe they have reported properly.
You are not the only one mystified by this. But this is a separate topic altogether, and not one that hasd anything to do with religion or post-campaign resolutions.
TomAbbott said...
As of election day the Gussen/Rudolf reports showed total contributions of $100. At no point have they acknowledged in their reports any contributions from Ferriero and the Bergen County Democratic party. It would take very little time to file an amended report acknowledging they received an in-kind contributions from the Charles Gonzalez campaign. While some appear to believe that the winning candidates should be above the law, many feel all candidates whether winners or losers should obey the laws. My guess is that Rudolf and Gussen don't share this view that they should be above the law and have some rationale which makes them believe they have reported properly.
Before guessing other people's views, maybe we (you) should have a look at Mr. Gonzalez's campaign reports and see whether he, in fact, lists any in-kind contributions to other campaigns.
The last time I looked (shortly after the election), he had not listed any.
It seems that you are very focused on some of the sources of funding for Gussen & Rudolph. Is there something on your mind that you know that you'd like to share with us?
While it's buried, and probably in the wrong spot, it's on the "20 Day Post Election" report dated June 5th. On page 12, under outstanding obligations it says, "In-kind for Committee to Elect Rudolph + Gussen ... printing $12,398.11 ... postage $3715.89".
It's admittedly hard to make sense of the Gonzalez report. It shows a total exenses of $13,760.43. Leaving out the mailings listed on page 12. It also says the outstanding obligation of $24,171.00 (not included in total expenses above)was incurred 3 days after the election.
This amount, owed to "Comprehensive Communications Group" of Hackensack, covered the cost of the three mailings by the Gonzalez campaign supporting Gonzalez, Rudolph and Gussen.
While I don't believe there was any intentional wrong doing on the part of any of these candidates, I do believe all candidates are required to file reports that reflect the sources of their financing in accordance with the NJ Election laws. All the candidates in question may believe they have filed properly, but by failing to acknowledge the source of their funds it gives the appearance that they are trying to hide them.
Post a Comment
<< Home