Some advice for Lobbyist Dick Zimmer

According to a Fairleigh Dickenson poll, Senator Frank Lautenberg leads Lobbyist Dick Zimmer by 16 points, 50-34. 14 percent say they’re undecided.

So, if Lobbyist Zimmer by some amazing miracle can still somehow muster a coalition between his “Zimmer Supporters” and “The Undecideds” ----he will still be behind Frank Lautenberg 50-48. Where is the other 2% here? Where do they stand? Are they the Silent Minority? I am waiting for the poll folks at Fairleigh Dickenson to explain. I don't know.

However, there are more bad numbers for Lobbyist Zimmer: More than two-thirds of New Jersey’s most likely voters (71%) have no idea who Lobbyist Zimmer is. Have no opinion of him. More people have been to the Vince Lombardi Service Area, than know who Lobbyist Zimmer is. Tough to run in NJ if people have no idea who you are.

Now, the last time Lobbyist Zimmer won an election [in 1994], Clinton had not even met Monica Lewinskly; George W. Bush was not yet the Governor of Texas, and a baseball strike had canceled the World Series.

So, no wonder more people know who Gilligan is than Lobbyist Zimmer. He needs to learn how to be more popular.

So, here are some basic tips for Lobbyist Zimmer, courtesy of Wikihow, on “How to Be Popular”:

1. Be willing to step out of your comfort zone.
That means seeking the support of Democrats, as well as Republicans. Tough one, this year with Bush hanging around every Republicans’ neck.

2. Be friendly.
I have met you in Hunterdon County, and you seem like a friendly guy. Just maybe stop the “Where’s Frank?” schtick, though. It’s annoying people at diners.

3. You may see popular kids that can be very mean to others. Just try to ignore them.
This is what got you in trouble in 1996 in your race against Torricelli---you tried the ‘nasty campaign’ style of your fellow Republicans, and it did not work.

4. Talk to anyone and everyone who crosses your path.
A ‘gimmee’ in politics. Talk to people at train stations, bus stops, door-to-door

5. Stop thinking about yourself.
Tough one in politics. Electeds always think about themselves.

6. Give a helping hand.
You’re a Lobbyist. Duh.

7. Be yourself.
See number 3.

8. Don't say anything that would be laughed at, only say what you wouldn't care if anyone knew.
Perhaps a little bit more humor would actually help.

Poor Lobbyist Dick Zimmer*

I feel badly for Lobbyist Dick Zimmer*, Republican candidate for Senate. He cannot seem to get any campaign traction.

Lobbyist Zimmer*, in his quest to be the next Senator, has been doing what Paul Wellstone did when running against Rudy Boschwitz, going around the state at diners asking “Where’s Frank?”

Only thing is, Lobbyist Zimmer* lacks the campaign charisma, sincerity and progressive agenda that Wellstone ran on. Lobbyist Zimmer*: I have taken the Wellstone training, and you, Lobbyist Zimmer, are no Paul Wellstone.

Although he is trying to create a buzz, he seems to be mostly just annoying people trying to eat their lunch. Maybe Frank should go around NJ diners, and ask if anyone still knows Lobbyist Zimmer*......overheard at the Manalapan Dinner...

"Excuse me, folks, do you know where Frank Lautenberg is?"
"Can someone help this confused man, he's looking for the Senator..." "Maybe he's in DC working for NJ. Maybe you should drive down there..."
"Leave us alone...I would like to eat my chicken salad sandwich in peace."

Anyway, there is a debate set for November 1st, three days before the big day.

*Oh, by the way, I refer to Dick Zimmer with the title “Lobbyist”, because basically that is what he has been for the past twelve plus years or so. I know there are many in my neck of the Republian woods who refer to him as “Congressman”, because once you’re a member of Congress, you sorta retain the title forever. But he has been a Lobbyist much longer than he was a congressman [1992 -1996]; [Lobbyist 1997 – present].

Three times the Senator

In 1996, the price of a gallon of gas was just $1.23. The median price of an average home was just $144,200. And in 1996, the cost of running for Senate in New Jersey was much less than it is today.

But don’t tell that to Dick Zimmer, ‘cause he is running as if we’re still at 1996 prices. Shhhh! Mum’s the word.

The last time lobbyist/lawyer Dick Zimmer ran for Senate, it was 1996. He spent alot less money in that race than he will have to spend to win in 2008. However, because of the Repuplican primary and his very late start, he is very far behind Frank Lautenberg in fundraising.

Nearly three times as far behind as of the last reporting deadline with the Federal Election Commission.

Senator Lautenberg has $1.29 million cash on hand. While lobbyist/lawyer Zimmer has just $411,029 at the end of June.

While primaries in both parties were costly, Lautenberg spokesperson Julie Roginsky told the Star-Ledger, “The campaign is confident that we will have the resources necessary to win this November.”

The late great Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neil said that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Zimmer is going to have to really start milking those cash cows, if he is going to compete with Lautenberg.

The Star-Ledger reported that there is a $1000 per head fundraiser for Zimmer at the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington later this month. Hope they’re serving milk.

Meet Senator Frank Lautenberg, the Anti-Zimmer

Lobbyist and lawyer Dick Zimmer lives in Hunterdon County, and just became the nominee for the Republican Party for the United States Senate seat currently held by Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Mr. Zimmer has been introducing himself periodically as the “Anti-Lautenberg”.

Note to Mr. Zimmer: It’s going to be a tough sell to the voters in New Jersey that we should elect someone to the Senate other than Lautenberg.

According to Realclearpolitics.com:

“….Lautenberg's biggest benefit is his name recognition and voter perceptions that he's doing a good job. 48% approve of his job performance while 31% disapprove, and 43% view him favorably, compared with 30% who see him unfavorably. That's not a great number, but given that his name is recognized by a total of 94% of the state is a positive…

So, Zimmer's strategy is to call himself the Anti-Lautenberg? Or the Un-Lautenberg? Read on:

“In this year's Senate contest, the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, remains a strong favorite in the Garden State. 54% of respondents said they were more likely to vote for that party, while just 24% said they would likely vote for the Republican winner.”

Although Mr. Zimmer had three decent terms in the Congress, [1] he was present for only one term [1995-1996] with the Republican Party in control, and [2] since he lost to Congressman Rush Holt, he has been working as a lobbyist. Many former elected officials are tapped as lobbyists, but it is rare for a lobbyist to be tapped as a candidate for office.

Recently on News 12’s “Power & Politics”, Lobbyist Zimmer declared that ‘age’ would not be an issue in his Senate run.

That is it won’t be, at least until Zimmer gets desperate.

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.

I heartily endorse the reelection of Senator Frank Lautenberg

Throughout the rhetorical buzz over the last few days of opponents popping up hither and yon to challenge Senator Frank Lautenberg, one thing remains quite clear: Frank Lautenberg is the best candidate the Democrats can put up these year for Senate, period.

Former State Democratic Chair Tom Byrne. Congressman Rob Andrews. Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello. Good folks all. But they should stay put, and get behind Senator Frank Lautenberg, and here’s why:

He is solidly pro-choice. Supports gun control. He has been a chief critic of the Bush administration on national security issues. He opposes the war in Iraq. He has been very involved in various anti-smoking legislation, anti-alcohol legislation as well as airline safety legislation, and is probably best known for being involved with, and authoring some of, the legislation that banned smoking from most commercial airline flights. His name is also associated with the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, which prohibits any persons convicted of misdemeanor or felonious domestic violence from possessing firearms or ammunition.

I have had the experience of working with Lautenberg on many occasions. He is vibrant, has a great sense of humor and a great sense of people. And no one can doubt his dedication to New Jersey: he has been both the senior Senator and junior Senator twice.

New Jersey could not ask for a better advocate.

Just when you thought Obama-Clinton was the only interesting race…

And you thought that the Obama-Clinton race was the only one grabbing headlines. How does this grab you?

Whiny Republican State Chairman Tom Wilson is really pissed off at Senator Lautenberg. Excuse me, while I cry and whimper. With his number one candidate dropping out of the race, and his new number one candidate acknowledging that he shows up hung-over at his office, Wilson sent via fax an angry letter to Lautenberg. Boo hoo. Wilson, if you can’t stand the heat…

He accused the Lautenberg campaign of tipping off the newspapers that about a lawsuit that led to new Republican Senate candidate Andy Unanue’s being dumped as Chief Operating Officer of Goya Foods.

The Daily Kos:

During a trial on a lawsuit about the firings, a company vice-president testified Unanue came to work drunk at least five times, possibly more. Unanue denied that, but admitted he had come to work hung over and drank a lot at company parties. "Work hard, play hard. That was my motto," Unanue testified.

Good luck with that, Wilson.

And from within the Democratic Party ranks…Former Democratic State Chairman Tom Byrne is giving some strong thought to running for Senate against Lautenberg in a primary.

He is waiting for the results of a poll, and will take the weekend to decide. Hopefully, he is not going out drinking this weekend with Unanue.

Estabrook Supports a Waiting Period…when answering a question.

Generally speaking, it’s not a good thing for a candidate for office to like the Sounds of Silence. Maybe the song, but certainly not while on the stump.

Now some may differ, like Mark Twain who said, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and have your peers think of you as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

But that advice is too late for Anne Esterbrook, Republican candidate for Senate, either way. The issue that shot Estabrook in the foot was, ironically, gun control and the Second Amendment.

Ms. Estabrook was speaking to the Woodbridge Republican Club, a small group in a Democratic bastion of a town. She appeared with UberLibertarian Dr. Murray Sabrin, who was videotaping the event for his website.

The question that shut her up was about her support or lack thereof.for the Second Amendment.

Her first assertion was that she supported Federal legislation currently on the books that requires that gun shop owners to be told if a prospective gun purchaser is one who has been a mental health risk.

Sounds reasonable, even for a Republican.

Next, she said she supports a ‘waiting period’. Unfortunately, we’re not sure if she meant a ‘waiting period’ for the purchase of a handgun, or a ‘waiting period’ when answering a question.

In the middle of her answer, she fell silent, shuffled through her papers, hummed and hawed and waited a full ‘Final Jeopardy 30 seconds’ to say that she supports a “Criminal background check”. Good for you, Anne.

If she does that in each and every debate with Senator Frank Lautenberg for each and every question, the debate could take a while.

Age before beauty

“Three out of five New Jersey voters are concerned about Sen. Frank Lautenberg's age and think it's about time for someone else to take his job, a new Rutgers-Eagleton poll released yesterday shows. It is the second poll this summer in which the incumbent's age emerged as a major issue with voters. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) would be 84 at the start of a new term.” (Donohue, Star-Ledger)

In the Senate race, 60% of the voters are concerned about Senator Lautenberg’s age [83]. Of course, he is more experienced, accomplished and energetic than people half his age. But the ‘age’ issue will weigh heavy in the election. For those on the Republican side of the aisle, who consider this an issue, here is your political doyen, Ronald Reagen on the issue of ‘age’:

In other news: Although the calendar reads 2007, 2008 is floating closer and closer in the minds of all New Jersey politicos, with 2009 not too far in the rear-view mirror.

The presidential races are in full swing and it is a two-horse race everywhere between Hillary and Obama, with John Edwards shouting “But what about me?” somewhere in the distance.

Me, I lean toward Bill Richardson, the candidate with the most experience in the race:
Clinton Administration Cabinet member. UN Ambassador. Governor. Congressman.

He does not have the best bank account or the best hair or was he the funniest on The Tonight Show. But he is the person I would like to see in charge on January 20th, 2009.

Like Yogi Berra said, "This is like deja vu all over again."

When it comes to Republicans, the great Yogi Berra is right.

Case in point: Jim Bunning is a Republican Senator from Kentucky. And in his prime, he was a great pitcher with the Phillies. Also, he is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Bunning became the first pitcher to record 100 wins and 1,000 strikeouts in both the American and National leagues. He also threw no-hitters in both leagues, including a perfect game on Father’s Day 1964. A good baseball career in anybody’s book.

However, in the Senate, he sometimes acts like a first year rookie, just up from the minor leagues.

Yesterday, the Senate was debating a bill that would re-authorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and boost it by $35 billion over the next five years. This bill would add more than 3 to 4 million children and adults, to the 6.7 million already receiving health care under the joint federal-state program.

And who crafted the original bill in 1997? None other than the bipartisan team of Senators Kennedy and Hatch. With that kind of team, you’d think you’d have all bases covered.

But not for Senator Jim Bunning.

Senator Bunning decided to throw a curveball and add the “Bunning Amendment” to the SCHIP bill. His "amendment”, had it passed, would have knocked thousands of New Jersey and New York children from poor working families out of the batter’s box when it came to health care.

Senator Lautenberg made the good call on Bunning’s pitch: “The amendment was a direct shot at New Jersey’s FamilyCare program, which covers children from families that make up to 350% of the federal poverty level – working and low-income families that don’t qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford health insurance in a high cost-of-living state like New Jersey. Had the amendment passed, only children in New Jersey would have been immediately affected.”

Bunning said this on the Senate floor, which is what qualifies him for acting like he is pitching Single-A ball in Kentucky:

"Why should people in every other state subsidize government health care for families in New York and New Jersey?" Bunning said before the vote. "If people in these two states think this is a priority, then they should be willing to pay more."

Senator Bunning, here’s the real score on who's subsidizing who:

According to the Northeast-Midwest Institute [a Washington-based, private, non-profit, and non-partisan research organization], New Jersey gets back only 55 cents for every dollar it sends Washington, while Kentucky gets back $1.45 it sends.

Senator Bunning, you may have thrown no-hitters in The Show ----but in the Senate, you’re nothing but a Bush-Leaguer.