[Below is a adaptation of a note posted on a Facebook group page this morning. I think it is of general interest, so I post it here as well. – KM]
Members of the Committee formed to recall Tony Mack back in 2011 yesterday announced a formal endorsement of their preferred Mayoral candidate for this year’s election, Jim Golden. This is an announcement that has led to a great deal of criticism in some of the local grumbling and shouting pages of Facebook, and elsewhere.
What I find odd about much of the criticism about the Recall Committee’s endorsement announcement – ok, ONE of the things that I find odd – is that a recall effort would somehow have ended when enough signatures had been collected for an election. This concept was summarized in the words of one commentator as “… just the purity of removing former mayor Tony F. Mack from office.”
Purity of removal? That’s weird. The way a recall works in New Jersey, as a quick refresher, is that it’s a 2-step process in the voting booth. The first step is the so-called “pure” step, the question that asks “Should this incumbent be recalled?”
The second step, right there at the same time, is “Who shall replace the incumbent?” with the incumbent having the opportunity to run again.
A successful recall effort, in New Jersey and elsewhere, is joined at the hip with an election effort. It has to be. If a recall committee is successful at recalling an official – but has no one in the bullpen to replace him or her – that is a 100% wasted effort.
The Recall Committee recognized that at its formation. I was more closely associated with the recall at its formation and early months, then again in its latter weeks as I had just begun what is my current job in the middle of the summer of 2011.
I saw and heard and discussed with the Committee that at the beginning of the effort the focus was to be put on getting Mack out of office. But it was understood that sooner or later the Committee would have to – HAVE TO – put up its preferred candidate, as the alternative to Tony.
One other, vitally important note to make is that the Committee did its math. At a recall election, the winner would not need a majority of votes. There would be no runoff. That meant that if there was more than one candidate running against Tony, Tony could win with a vote of only 35%, if the other candidates split the vote. Simple arithmetic.
No one wanted a chance of that outcome. So there were three imperatives to the Recall Committee at the time. One, get Tony recalled; the “Pure” motive. Two, unite behind and endorse a credible and desirable alternative candidate. Three, use whatever persuasion possible to keep the number of candidates down to a minimum.
Only persuasion would have been possible, since there was no absolute way to keep other people from jumping in to run. Like we have this Spring.
As it turned out, the recall effort was unsuccessful. Not enough signatures were attained.
But the Committee won a great moral victory. At a time when the deck was stacked against an effort like it – NJ law made it prohibitive from the start; there was a lot of instinctual defense of Tony’s tenure on emotional grounds (“Give him a chance!” “It’s a conspiracy to squeeze him out”) – the Committee got more signatures on their petitions to remove Tony Mack than voted for the man in May of 2010.
And the history of the last four years proved that the Committee was right. Tony was a disaster: an incompetent, mean, vindictive and petty criminal we would have been better off getting rid of in 2011 when we had the chance.
The Recall Committee earned a great moral victory in 2011. If they choose to endorse a candidate in 2014, they are doing no more than what they did in 2011 – making their choice known for the person to replace Tony Mack, and start to reverse the damages of the last four years.
The members of this Committee are doing no more than finishing the job they started 3 years ago.
I think they have earned the right to do so.
Does anyone in Trenton presume the right to tell them they don’t?
I doubt it.
Are you endorsing Jim, Kevin?
Great job in breaking down this endorsement Kev!
I won’t be making an endorsement, Joey. I don’t like the innuendo I get when I’ve been posting lately, suggesting that what I write or don’t is subtly shaded toward one candidate or another.
I don’t want for the remainder of the campaign to keep hearing that. Especially since none of the criticism I get ever addresses any of the substantive points I try to make.
I like to think that I am asking questions or presenting my opinions based on some firm information, either actual occurrences or facts, or statements or positions taken by the candidates.
It’s distracting and counter-productive (as well as pretty damned lazy, in my opinion!) to write a piece based on what I think is, for instance, a fair but quick survey of the state of the casino industry in the Northeast as a way of questioning the feasibility of Walker Worthy’s platform, only to be met with, “So what? You’re just a secret Golden fan.”
I mean, really? I guess it’s too much to expect a response like, “No, I think a Trenton casino will work, and here’s how and why.”
It’s a lot easier to attack my motivation than it is to attack my positions. But that’s OK. I just choose not to validate those attacks by choosing to back a horse in this race.
I won’t avoid those continued attacks, I know. As I said, it’s easier (and lazier) to go after perceived allegiances. That satisfies the more conspiratorial instincts of a lot of Trentonians. Plus, that kind of short-term motivations about individual candidates is easier to comprehend and act upon than a lot of the tough, tough issues that we have to face as a City if we want to get out of this 60-year race to Rock Bottom.
But I’ll feel better about myself. And I think over the last four years I have a pretty good track record with being more right than wrong.
And I have a good track record of writing and posting in the off-election years – before, during and after the recall effort. Short-term political considerations haven’t dictated my writing over the last four years, and it isn’t doing so now.
So no, I am not endorsing Jim Golden, Joey, or anyone.
Where’s the “Like” button?! Well said.
Thanks, Chrissy!
Good move, Kevin – and your insights are spot on. People are apt to go with their emotions and seek out “explanations” that back up their existing beliefs. So anything which surfaces to challenge that will be quickly dismissed with the first explanation that comes to mind – that you’re biased and your words shouldn’t be trusted.
Keep the light on the candidates Kevin ~ all of them ~ the best candidates will use that input to reconsider where they were wrong and build on it to strengthen ideas that will really help this city. However, the majority of them will probably ignore it and carry on as usual…