June 1, 2008 - 9:09pm

Murphy v. Hughes

PRINCETON - New Jersey’s Hughes-Murphy alliance has parted company in the big party races lately, with Michael Murphy backing Barack Obama and Rob Andrews, and Brian J. Hughes standing by Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg for president and U.S. Senate respectively.

Murphy and Mercer County Executive Hughes are half-brothers, whose Irish-American families joined forces with the marriage of Elizabeth Murphy to the late Richard Hughes, New Jersey’s governor from 1962 to 1970.

While he supports U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Hughes likes and respects U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (D-1).

"He helped me when I ran for Congress," he recalls. "I didn’t have a whole lot of friends in that election, and Rob Andrews was one of them."

Still, the U.S. senate candidate did not get in the race early enough to contend for the organizational line - vital in Mercer County as elsewhere - Hughes says. Moreover, Andrews co-sponsored the Iraq War resolution, not exactly banner-waving history in a blue state primary.

His brother, who serves as campaign chairman for Andrews, argues that his candidate possesses unique powers of reason - on display in the candidates’ two debates last week - that Lautenberg simple can’t match, in Murphy’s view.

"The U.S. Senate is the debating house, and the power of persuasion, the ability to convince others of your position, is a critically important skill," Murphy says. "I honestly think Rob Andrews as a 50-year old freshman is better prepared to serve in the Senate than an 84-year old sophomore."

(Please see the accompanying video for the full Lautenberg v. Andrews debate in Princeton between the brothers.)

The brothers’ own individual runs at higher office to this point have proved unsuccessful. Hughes went after Chris Smith’s Congressional seat in 1992, and Murphy ran for governor in 1997.

"Actually, my brother has gone 4-5 in his political career," says Murphy, reflecting on Hughes’s freeholder wins and two victories as executive. "I’m 0-1."

Already governor in 1968, their father, too, might have had a shot at standing out within a bigger political constellation, the brothers say. But instead of seeking higher office himself and losing outright, Gov. Richard Hughes came up against the hard segregationist edge of his times.

Hughes was famously close to President Lyndon Johnson, and played a leading role in the 1968 Democratic Convention as the party desperately tied to summon unity in the aftermath of Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election and the back-to-back assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy.

Seeking black representation at the convention, the Mississippi Freedom Democrats and Georgia Democrats set up challenge delegations in their respective states. Julian Bond headed the Georgia delegation.

Bond was a newly elected state legislator trying to carry the King legacy into politics and coming up against the likes of Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox, who guarded his lunch counter against integration with a handgun and pick handles.

"Our father, Dick Hughes, threw out the Mississippi delegation, split the (old guard) Georgia delegation and seated Julian Bond," recalls Murphy.

Mindful of the traditional white Southern Democrats, Texas Gov. James Connelly told Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the eventual party nominee for president, that based on what Hughes did for Bond, in no way was the New Jersey governor to be considered as a vice presidential candidate.

"In any event, he did the right thing," says Murphy.

Comments

Hughes Wins This Debate: Lautenberg Wins The Election


I'm sticking to my prediction from early April...Lautenberg by 15 points.

As I said in April, the only "stick" (or should I also say "shtik") Andrews has is the "age" issue.

Lautenberg proved his competence in the debates; that's all he had to do to win.

I've actually seen (anonymous) Andrews supporters come out on the web and boldly state that they didn't want Lautenberg reelected because he was "too old". That's it! "Too old". Not much else.

Imagine if someone had said that they refused to vote for a candidate on the basis of race, gender, religion etc!!!???!!!

Hey folks, were talking outright bigotry here.

If a prospective employer had said that he was refusing to hire someone just on the one "criterion" of age; that's a violation of law!

Of course, people have the constitutional right to all manner of bigoted prejudices in the privacy of the voting booth; but to have a sitting respected Democratic congressman like Rob Andrews, essentially, base his campaign on the lowest prejudicial impulses of human nature is an abomination.

Frank Lautenberg was never a slick smooth glibolicious talker like Andrews even when he was in his 50's. Hey, Andrews could make a great presidential press secretary; maybe Bush should have hired Rob instead of Scott McClellan?!!!?

In any event, clearly, Frank Lautenberg has more than enough marbles left to continue doing a fine job in the Senate.

Evidently the Lautenberg camp feels that there's so little risk of losing that it's not even worth bringing up the character/credibility questions re the how, whens, whos and whys that were the unclean genesis of Andrews candidacy.

Had Frank Lautenberg been willing to really go for the political jugular on those issues I dare say the margin on Tuesday would be 50 points or more!

Most folks would be rightly disgusted if they knew and understood more of the details of just how and why Andrews became a last minute candidate for the Senate.

Meanwhile, I predict the Champagne will be flowing freely in Newark on Tuesday night!

........and that Rob Andrews will not be our next Governor.

 

 

 

 

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

06/01/08 10:42 pm