Debates do as debating does.

At the debate at NJN this passed Friday night, Andrews tried to make the case that he, and not Lautenberg, should be the standard bearer for the Democrats this fall. So, Congressman Rob Andrews does have greater rhetorical skills than Senator Lautenberg. Just not enough to shake loose the Senator.

While he made the case that he is a better speaker, Andrews’ powers of persuasion still have not convinced me that age alone should be the criteria by which Democrats should judge Lautenberg unworthy of their support. We all should be as energetic and intelligent at 84 as Lautenberg is now.

Andrews picked, poked, prodded, and punched Lautenberg over and over again, but like a well-worn world champion who still has the experience of a thousand battles, Lautenberg kept his cool and showed a thick skin. He remained serious, sage and unshaken.

I arrived at NJN about 7pm, and there were dozens of Lautenberg supporters out front holding blue placards bearing the Lautenberg name, chanting, and “Bank on Frank!” over and over again. An apt, if not entirely clever, slogan.

We can bank on Frank, and, of course, bank on Frank’s bank account as well. He donates much to his own campaign. As Andrews pointed out during the debate, he and his wife Camille could not write their own campaign a two million dollar check because it would bounce.

Like that concern has ever stopped politicians from writing checks before.

In the audience was a Who’s Who of NJ Democratic politics: Mercer County Executive Brian Hughes; his brother and Andrews campaign manager Michael Murphy; Assemblyman Reed Gusciora; Congressman Frank Pallone; and Governor Jon Corzine himself. Where else should NJ’s in-crowd be on a Friday night in Trenton?

Even conservative columnist Paul Mulshine was there to cover the festivities. Mr. Mulshine and I have a mutual dislike for the exorbitant fees charged by Wachovia Bank for overdraft protection. Ironically conservative Mulshine thinks there should be a federal law addressing the issue. Imagine that?

Anyway, there was a lot of' 'he said/he said’: [“You supported the war.” “No, you supported the war”: “You voted with President Bush”. “No, you voted with President Bush”. “You’re running from your record.” “No, you have no platform”].

The poor mayor of Morristown was the only one saying, “But, what about me?”

One final note: The press release sent out by the Andrews campaign which contained Lautenberg’s statements from the debate included the “umms” and “uhhs” that occasioned the Senator’s answers: This was rude, crude and entirely unnecessary. -----As unnecessary as if Lautenberg’s campaign pointed out Andrews’ ‘well-practiced’ standard political-debate ‘hand gestures’ and/or his occasional casual head movements, all in a press release of their own. It was a low point for the Andrews campaign. Andrews is much better than that.

When it all shakes out, both Andrews and Lautenberg have good records as Democrats in Congress and in the Senate respectively. While I do give a tip of the hat to Andrews, I must give the nod to Senator Lautenberg.

However, I will work as hard for either candidate, which ever one wins. The mere thought of a Senator Sabrin, Senator Zimmer or Senator Pennacchio is just too much to wrap my brain around.

Voting early and often. Too often.

There seems to be less interest in the New Jersey Senate race, than there is me pitching next weekend for the New York Yankees against the Twins. Now, the Twins are in second place in the Central Division, while the Yankees are dead last in the East. And I guess I couldn’t pitch any worse than them into last place.

Democrats have, of course, Andrews versus Lautenberg: You’d think that a race that had candidates with such pronounced differences--- a progressive versus a conservative, southern NJ versus northern NJ, age versus youth ----would get people interested. But not so.

Republicans: Three very different candidates. Pennacchio. Zimmer. Sabrin. It’s like the Id, Ego and Superego of politics. Unhappy with Jersey Joe, some Republicans have changed candidates more often than the price of gas changes on Route 1. With the conservative cry of “From Esterbrook to Unanue to Zimmer”---that sounds like the infield double play combination of the Somerset Patriots.

Call it election fatigue: We will have asked New Jersey voters to go to the polls [in some towns] five times since last fall:

• November 2007 [regular state elections]
• February 2008 [Presidential primary]
• April 2008 [school board elections]
• May 2008 [non-partisan towns]

...and now June 3rd. That’s a lot of democracy.

Combine that with the day in day out never ending Obama/Clinton race in the news constantly, I think voters are simply tired of the whole primary process. Even if Obama/Clinton ended this week, the Obama/McCain or Clinton/McCain race would begin immediately, with the conventions this summer.

According to Newsday, and Ingrid Reed of the Eagleton Institute, the prediction is that less than 15% of the electorate will decide the nominees.

Now, that's some democracy. Too few voters, voting too many times.

Ending the war: Not complicated at all.

In E.J. Dionne's column today in the Star-Ledger, he advises left-wing Democrats [as if they are the ONLY ones to oppose this war and find problems with the President's failed war policies] to follow Barry Goldwater's advice from the 1960 Republican Convention and just "Grow up". Senator Goldwater back then was attempting to beat back “a rebellion against Richard M. Nixon, whom conservatives saw as selling out to liberals on various platform planks.” How much wiser the Republicans were in 1960, then in 2007. Had they only beat back Richard Nixon, he may have gone into historical oblivion much sooner.

Dionne says “The Democratic Party's progressive wing, furious at what it sees as the capitulation of its congressional leaders to President Bush on the Iraq war, should remember this history. The decision to drop withdrawal timelines from the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill is not a decisive defeat.” While not a ‘defeat’, it still sets back months and months the objective the Democrats were elected to do, which is end this war. The president certainly has no desire or plan to do that.

Dionne is suggesting that somehow progressive Democrats should learn a lesson from Goldwater, the doyen of the conservative movement, and simply “grow up.” They should not look at the House Democrats giving up on meaningful timetables and benchmarks as a major defeat. I must vehemently disagree. This is a problem of major proportions.

The Democrats in the House folded their tent went home. Not all Democrats. Speaker Pelosi and others did have the courage of their convictions and voted their conscience and did the right thing. All the Democratic NJ Members of Congress did the same, with the exception of Rep. Rob Andrews. The reasons given by Rep. Andrews were filled with political platitudes like “We do not have a veto-proof majority for that proposition.” or “There are two ways to end our involvement in Iraq's civil war. The first is to elect a new President who will accomplish this goal.” Both reasons, I fear, are not of any importance to the families waiting for their loved ones to return. Nor to the 200-300 more families who may suffer a devastating loss this summer, should the war continue.

But the rest of the Democrats let down the American people who overwhelmingly wish to see an end to America involvement in this war, period. The headline of Dionne’s editorial is “See you in September”. Unfortunately, there may very well be several hundred more soldiers dying during the summer in this horrible mistake of a war----those who will not make it to see their families in September. So, while many of us will be at the Jersey Shore, at community pools, and on vacation sometime this summer ----Congress now must wait an additional four months to September in order to deal with the next funding bill for the Iraqi war.

Dionne goes on to say that “Democrats, in short, have enough power to complicate the president's life, but not enough to impose their will.” This unfortunately, is very true.

However, I think that it is well worth making the president’s life more and more “complicated”, as long as more and more American lives are lost in Iraq.

That is, not “complicated”, at all.

Democrats fold to Mr. 28%: Not SMART

I cannot express how disappointed I am that the Democrats, in spite of their ascendancy to control of Congress in January, have folded their tent, and capitulated to “Mr. 28%”, ----voting for Iraq war funding without a set of specific, measurable, attainable, responsible, and time-tabled benchmarks for bringing the Iraqi people in control of their own nation, and bringing our troops home.

"Specific, measurable, attainable, responsible, and time-tabled". If you use the first letters of each of those words it spells SMART. The Democrats were not SMART here at all.

The Democrats, once again, have shown how completely without a backbone they can be. I do not think they could have achieved less had the Republicans remained in control of Congress.

On a positive note, I can say that that I am proud of the fact that most of the Democratic members of New Jersey Congressional delegation voted NO. Rep. Rob Andrews was the sole Democratic supporter of the President’s failed policies in Iraq from New Jersey.

I wish that the Democratic Party had the conscience and courage of their convictions, and put this issue to the President in the simplest way possible by declaring:

"Mr. President -- This is the funding bill for the troops in Iraq. It has all the funding you have asked for. The bill supports the troops, giving them what they need.

If you veto it, you are the only one responsible for not supporting the troops. The rest is up to you, and it is the way the Congress wishes to fund this war effort, with an understanding of specific, attainable, measurable, responsible, and time-tabled benchmarks for bringing the Iraqi people in control of their own nation, and bringing our troops home."

It is sad to see Democrats not supporting the point of view held by the vast majority of the American people----that which gave them the majority in Congress.