Senate candidate search continues in aftermath of manifesto

 Perhaps it IS a fascist.

“You disagree with somebody and right away you call for his resignation?” asked Pennacchio. “On the senate floor, say he’s having a disagreement with a Senator from Idaho. What’s he going to do, call him a fascist and tell him to resign?”

This statement by Pennacchio seems to imply that Sabrin's complant is baseless.. Had he READ his OWN booklet!? It's frightening!

would make a great candidate. As would Bill Baroni.

Seems to me that many of the Liberal Establishment RINO Republicans are now looking for an Exit.

 If they stick with Pennacchio, Lautenburg will slaughter them in the post June 3rd era.

 If they get behind Murray, they know that the party will change direction in New Jersey, which disrupts the status quo.

 Looking for a 3rd candidate, no matter how pathetic, gives them an out. Should one arise, they can drop Pennacchio and hide behind the 3rd candidate, even though they won't have the money, staff, or support to run a campaign. But atleast in their own little county run worlds, they could then say to themselves that they didn't surrender their liberal ideals to a Real Conservative.

 Rats fleeing from the sinking ship. I love it.

 I find it interesting that Pennacchio mentions a senator from Idaho. Isn't the current Republican Senator from Idaho Larry Craig, the one who was arrested for lewd conduct in the bathroom at Minneaapolis-St Paul International Airport?

 Yeah, I can see Murray asking for his resignation. Regardless of sexual orientation, any politician soliciting or having sexual relations with anyone in public is conduct unbecoming of a Senator and a Gentleman. 

 Is Joe suggesting that perhaps lewd conduct is acceptable behavior on the part of elected officials? Then perhaps James MCGreevey and Eliot Spitzer should've maintained their seats despite their behaviors.

I'm not trying to burn bridges, but if Murray doesn't win the primary are you going to support the party's nominee?  I have no insight into the county chairs minds other than that they want a candidate who can self fund or bring a large amout of money from the beginning, but it seems like they are hesitant to come towards Murray because he is trying to tear down the walls of the party instead of trying to build something.

How is he going to win county lines when he has said he will run his own candidates and such?  We should be a united party, not the train wreck that is the Democratic presidential primary! 

I'm not trying to burn bridges, but if Murray doesn't win the primary are you going to support the party's nominee?

I won't support Joe Pennacchio if he is the nominee.  And let me be clear, I won't vote for the Democrat either. I can either skip this race or do a write-in.

Republicans are going to go into this election with a significant voter registration disadvantage. Thus, it is simply ludicrous to say that Murray Sabrin can win the election without moderates. And yes, it also ludicrous to say that a moderate candidate can win without support from conservatives. 

This is why I'm rooting for someone new to jump into the race.

but I am not looking for cover. While I have criticized Dr. Sabrin in the harshest terms, I have criticized all of the announced candidates to date.

The "front porch" campaigner was William McKinley not Warren Harding.

Enough already !!! working on ways to get the homeless some needed shelter.  whats the big deal. ?

This is going no where. If Murray had donated to Republicans in the past he just might have won a few conventions. The GOP has very little time for Johnny cum lately semma cum laudes.

Joe will throw this grenade right back at both Sabrin and Lautenberg

I've only read the first 10 chapters so far but an awful lot of it sounds libertarian-ish to me. I haven't been offended yet although maybe I haven't gotten to the good parts yet.

I mean the whole part about the US not playing the world police anymore and slimming down the defense budget comes right out of the Ron Paul/Murray Sabrin playbook and Joe wrote that in 1991.

Me thinks Murray supporters are pushing this as far as possible in hopes that the undecided people and others swing to their candidate, which won't happen because most people have serious reservations supporting Murray. Considering he's done nothing but run a negative campaign to the farthest reaches of the right and constantly blasted the moderate wing of the NJ GOP. You always hear the conservatives complain, but it doesn't help a candidate when he does nothing but exclude the moderate wing, just as much as it doesnt help for the moderate candidates to not even try and reach out to the conservatives.

I find it kinda funny that the conservatives backing Murray say they won't support Joe in a general election. I can understand if they are actually offended by the 17 year old agenda, but I think it's more because they are so extreme for Murray they can't see themselves backing Pennacchio. Heck before this RLC and some Murray cronies were calling Joe Pennacchio a "big government" Republican and a "liberal" in some cases, yet nobody could point to one single example. Because believe or not, Pennacchio is a conservative. And now some of the Murray conservatives are complaining cause Jersey Joe apparently advocated some not so conservative things in the agenda like an "abortion pill" in 1991. Mind you, some of these people ran to Mitt Romney's campaign like flies to honey and he changed multiple positions just a few years ago. My understanding is Murray has also changed some positions as well.

Still I'm looking for that other option since there is no denying that the agenda gives Lautenberg some good ammo for the general that I'd rather not hear 4 million times. I'm not a big fan of losing elections, but it seems some of those so stubbornly stuck on their principles are.

Here are my comments on the first 30 pages, and I promise, I will comment on the rest.

 Just because the apple only has one worm in it, doesn't make it a good apple to eat on any occasion. Sure, there are a handful of good ideas in there, but interspersed among alot of authoritarian nationalist ideas, that doesn't excuse away the document.

 My comments are reposted below...

------------------------------------------

One dosen't have to examine the document completely to see what his ideals are. Lets just examine the first 30.

 Pg 5 "First Step should be getting rid of our constant need for elections. Expand terms to 6 years."

 This alone is absurd. The system in terms of elections cycles is fine. We all cry foul when we are stuck with officials we don't like for 3, or sometimes 4 years. Do you really think expanding terms to 6 years is going to improve anything?

 PG 8. "Americans do not trust their elected officials when it comes to dividing the national pie.  Its an every man for yourself attitude. Naturally, special interests with the biggest clout get  the biggest pieces. The Nationalist party sees the answer in not chopping the pie into smaller pieces, but in helping to make a bigger pie."

 Translation: Bigger Pie = Bigger Government and More Entitlements. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this doesn't align with the party principles of limited government.

 PG 10.  "The Nationalists believe that the Amer. Taxpayer has carried the burden too long.  We believe a combination of substantial cuts in existing spending, better collection methods, along with a program of investment stimulation will help get our country out of this economic mess."

 Although the first part of this statement is acurate, the heavy burden of taxes, as well as the cuts in spending, but I question what he really means by "better collection methods". The IRS on numerous occasions already oversteps its bounds, raiding people's places of residence at gun point, often sending some to jail, confiscating property. The best part, half the time, its the IRS who was wrong, not the "tax payer" but try getting your seized property back, and erase the horrible memories from your children's minds about being assaulted with men in black SWAT style gear, pointing semi automatic rifles at your 9 and 10 year olds.

 Also, what right does the government have to start up a program of investment stimulation. Have we not realized already, any stimulous package that the government creates, has been a failure. Look at what the fed has been doing as of late, and watch as the value of the dollar keeps plumeting because of it. 

 PG 13 (In reference to a Constitutional Convention, article V) "Clarification to the right to bear arms provision in our constitution.  Owning a gun would carry a greater responsibility. Saturday Night Specials and deadly ammunition would be eliminated. Law abiding individuals would still be allowed to own their registered weapons."

 I think the right to bear arms is pretty clear. Why the hell in the world to we need to have a "clarification" outlawing "deadly ammunition". Notice to everyone: ALL AMMUNITION IS DEADLY. Thats why our Fore Fathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms: To protect ourselves, family, rights, and property. A properly handled fire arm can kill anyone, regardless of caliber. Are we supposed to only have rubber bullets? Also take note that there was no actual clarity here as to what "laws" would be changed. 

 Also on PG 13 "Article VII Equal Rights Amendment where it is noted that women are equal but physically different. This would allow for equal pay for equal work but would prevent women from taking on jobs of which they are not physically able."

 This is a waste of legislative time. Just like not all men are built alike, same holds true for women. I know some farm girls that could do anything short of peeing while standing. Who is going to decide what jobs a woman can or cannot do? Just enforce the laws currently provided in the Constitution. Its a "civil rights" issue, not a black rights issue, or woman rights issue, or gay rights issue. Its CIVIL RIGHTS, we are all GUARANTEED THE SAME... 

  PGs 19 and 20 (In reference to “National plan to reduce the deficit” Article IV) "Restriction of udnerground economy. Estimates are that the GNP of the underground economy runs  into the hundreds of billions of dollars. If we conservatively say 200 billion and if the taxes of this would be %40 (Federal, state, local) then collecting these funds would  increase our tax base by about 80 Billion Dollars. This underground economy is america’s black market. All transactions are done in cash.  The easiest way to stop this cash economy is  is to exchange all present money for new colored money In the future do this periodically

PG 20. Every number of years. Colored the money from green to blue for instance would  cause fits for this illegal black market. The money would be turned over to banks and in return new colored money would be issued.  Any amount over 1,000.00 would be reported to the IRS.. The government would realize an immediate tax increase from all the money that would be deposted.  A side benefit would be law enforcements ability to recognize illegal activities such as narcotics and gambling."

So your telling me that the government is going to monitor every person's wealth, and if they even suspect that there might be something illegitimate they're going to notify the IRS, who of course, we know, will come and investigate/interrogate and possibly confiscate. So if I personally put aside money under my mattress, and then I go and "change it in" when the new currency comes out, it best not be in excess of a 1,000.00 or I'll have to hire an attorney to protect my interests. Remember, in the world of the IRS, your already guilty until proven innocent. This is just an expansion of their powers, powers which need to be restricted already.

 PG 24. "Article X Creative Revenue Enhancements.  For lack of a better word, they could be called Tax Gimmickeries. The fact that they cost the government very little and can generate a lot of money should make us pause to look into them."

 The federal government is not in the business of playing games with tax gimmicks. The Revenue Code is already beyond most people's comprehension. This does nothing to ease it for people, not by a long shot.

 PG 24 Cont: National Lottery

 Are You kidding me? Is not the IRS a big enough beaurocracy already? Despite Mr. Penn's claims that it would only add a small office staff and secretary, what right does the Federal Government have to get into EXPANDING and already out of control agency?  Also, despite his belief that it would cost almost nothing, I beg to differ. Everytime government is expanded, it costs more money.

 PG 25. Article XI. Gifting Delinquint Accounts.  ….excert "The Nationalist Party proposes that  businesses be allowed to gift court awarded judgements to the  IRS for collections.  If the IRS manages to collect these deadbeat funds, then the companys would be able to have a %10 tax deduction. This could turn out to be a very lucrative plum for the government worth billions of dollars"

 Yet again expanding the powers of the IRS... I need not gripe here anymore about this travesty against the American People.

 PG 27 In reference to Minority Mainstreaming…

 This next section is just beyond the pail. I know many people of differing ethnicities, and just like we have white trash, they have their own delinquent people within their cultures. But to try and "Assimilate" them into main stream, I ask, what is the definition of "Main Stream"? Who is going to set the standard? What right does the government have to "Force" assimilation on people? Sure, we all encourage it, but who is going to define the "american standard" for which we all need to assimilate too?

 Something else to ponder. Since we all come from differing backgrounds to begin with, "assimilation" is going to have a different interpretation to different people. Are we going to set up a set of standards to guage how much a person has assimilated? I know a few people of differing backgrounds that live the "Hip Hop" lifestyle. Are they going to be blacklisted as not assimilating even though they hold careers, have homes, wives, children, and are productive contributors to society in general?

This is just too much, and it seems that its an attack on minorities for not being "white enough".

 PG 30. “Government will standardize education."

 Republicans once ran under the ideal of abolishing the department of education. Clearly this statement proves that Mr. Penn wishes to maintain that status quo, and perhaps attempt to justify its existance even more by allowing them more control. Surely this is another expansion of government vs. reduction in its size.

 Thats just the first 30 pages. It gets better the deeper you go, but I assure you, Joe Pennacchio is hardly republican by any standard, and for anyone to even attempt to defend these ideals, only reveals yourself as a liberal as well.

  What the party needs is a serious house cleaning, where all liberal republicrats are thrown out and sent packing back to democrats. It is people of this political persuasion that have ruined the republican party in the past 20 years, and they need to find refuge elsewhere now.

 Real leadership means having the courage to point out fatal flaws in some of the best laid plans. Saving the party by enlarging our "tent" has been a horrible idea, one which needs to immediately come to an end. 

Just out of curiosity RLC, what have you ever led?  Have you run a company?  Have you led men into battle?  Have you ever managed a successful political organization or campaign?  You are obviously a "my way or the highway" kind of leader.  It appears that your "leadership" skills are limited to anonymous posting on a relatively obscure political web site.  You should reveal yourself so we can follow you as our new conservative messiah. 

BTW, I'm interested in your answer to my question -- would you vote for Reagan (the intermittent apostate) or Murray (the rock of conservative virtue)?  RR posesses several policy lapses that by your standards would make him a RINO.  So it is safe to assume you would prefer Murray in a head-to-head matchup.  And therein lies the absurdity of it all.  

As for brianewart, you miss my point.  By bending in terms of policy, Reagan violated the Sabrinist conservative trust.  There can be no deviance from the law or one is cast into political purgatory and forced to read the collected works of Harry Browne for eternity and bear the scarlet letter R-I-N-O on his forehead.  Alluding to your analogy, Sabrinists only accept boiling water, not the luke warm liquid mixed in the basin of compromise.  Reagan may have preached a conservative ideology, but he ultimately practiced principled pragmatism and acheived incredible goals such as defeating Soviet Communism and restoring our position as the leader of the free world. 

I can see the political cartoon now. It is 1980 and Murray Sabrin is in the voting booth writing in Ron Paul's name for President.

"What the party needs is a serious house cleaning, where all liberal republicrats are thrown out and sent packing back to democrats. It is people of this political persuasion that have ruined the republican party in the past 20 years, and they need to find refuge elsewhere now.

Real leadership means having the courage to point out fatal flaws in some of the best laid plans. Saving the party by enlarging our "tent" has been a horrible idea, one which needs to immediately come to an end. "

Have fun losing elections then!

Tell me, did it work for Pennsylvania Conservatives to stick with Rick Santorum and throw him up someone who is perceived as a blue dog Democrat? Tell me, did it work for Mitt Romney in a REPUBLICAN primary campaign to completely alienate the moderate base of Republicans? Tell me, did it work for Bret Schundler in New Jersey in 2000 when he was painted as an extremist because he ran so far to the right in the primary? Tell me, did it work for Guy Talarico up in Bergen County? Tell me, did it work for John Ginty against Tom Kean Jr?

Tell me will it work for Jim Gilmore in Virginia when the first poll I saw had him 20 points down while McCain was up in the state by a few points against either Obama or Clinton?

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this argument and the excuses offered up by the conservatives. Face it, a conservative can't always win every single district, region, or state that a moderate could. You want to tell me a conservative can win Diane Allen's district? I'd have to seriously suspend all logic I have. You want to tell me a conservative Republican could be the Governor of California? I'd have to start taking some kind of drugs. I'm not saying a conservative can't win New Jersey, but it would be wise for them to not alienate the moderate base.

Do you really want to throw all those people out who voted for Tom Kean Jr out of the Republican party? Do you seriously think telling the moderate Republicans to join the Democrats in New Jersey is the smart idea?

Enlighten me please!

Jim Saxton has a great record on defense ,the environment,and economic issues.

He is experienced in running successful campaigns,and an ethical legislator who is well respected on both sides of the aisle.
We only have to convince him to run

I never said the more moderate Republicans could win either. But do you agree that all Moderate Republicans should be thrown out of the party AJ? Come on, your smarter then that.

By the way I checked 02, the guy who ran as a conservative was John Matheussen. I wasn't old enough to vote so I didn't really pay attention at all, but if Forrester ran to the right of Allen, then I wonder how far to the right this guy Matheussen ran to the right.

I'm wondering though, since when is Joe Pennacchio a moderate? Does a 17 year old paper make him a moderate all of a sudden? If either Sabrin or Pennacchio wins the nomination and goes up against Lautenberg it will be the first time since 2001 that a conservative ran statewide. Are people already starting to make excuses up in case Pennacchio gets the nod and loses?

Pennacchio may have a populist message that can appeal to moderates and independents..but his voting record is pretty damn conservative. You were calling him a conservative a few weeks ago until Estabrook dropped out. Your telling me a 17 year old book changes that?

Someone point me to Joe Pennacchio's actual voting record and tell me where he's been liberal. Go ahead, I assure you it will take quite some time.

a candidate who will work to unite moderates and conservatives by stressing the issues that both wings of the party agree on.
We don't need, nor can we afford, a candidate who seeks to divide the party, like Murray Sabrin is doing now.

As far as I am concerned, Murray Sabrin's candidacy was over the day he decided to field his own slate of delegates. 

Alan  Marcus when you need him?

Or

I think its about time we find out if Bob Schroeder really does love New Jersey.

What say you Mr. Wilson?

 I don't know what I enjoy more wathching the Dems rip each other apart on the national level or sheer panic and deperation of the establishment libs in the Republican party in NJ.  

This is too much fun. I think I need a 12 step program.

in the Star Ledger today. LOL

at when they were a successful party in NJ and held the Senate seat for 24 years.   The name of Clifford Case still appears in articles and blogs, when reflecting on the "good old days."

Diane Allen, Bill Baroni, both would be great candidates, able to pull most GOP Voters to the polls, as well as the independent base.  For that matter go back and find Case's grandson, Hunterdon County, who certainly has expressed intent to move from his current Freeholder Seat. 

Former Monmouth County Sherriff Joe Oxley?

Or maybe MoH Vietnam Veteran & MSNBC Military analyst Jack Jacobs?

Or possibly now retired State Senator Pete Inverso?

Morris County Freeholder John Murphy?  He would probably decline but its worth looking into.

 Hamilton Mayor John Bencivengo?

After reading all these comments, I concluded that ... Dr. Sabrin is it. It's the economy stupid, and finances, stupid.

Let's forget Forresters, Keans, Allens, Treffingers, Marcuses, and whoever else you supported in the past. Let's start the new beginning with a ... new candidate. That's sounds refreshing.

The NJ GOP seems desparate to find anyone...anyone with a pulse. What NJ GOP is looking for is another machine candidate. A candidate that takes orders and platforms from party boss's. They themselves have no platform, in the case of Unanue and now Crowley. Neither have any political experience or real ambition. They are being dragged in. Lets ask each candidate "why they feel so strongly to enter a important race?"

What the party needs is a genuine candidate that actually believes and practices true conservative values. The values the Republican party once stood for: limited government, low taxes, free markets, individual liberty, strenght through peace foriegn policy.

The Republican party under the Bush administration has become the party of big government, more entitlements, borrow and spend policies. Romney was right when he said Washington is broken, and thats because Republicans are acting like Democrats.

And that is EXACTLY what Unanue and Crowley are...Democrats. Giving alot of money to the Republican party doesnt not give you a automatic pass.

Right now the only candidate that speaks of the great Republican platform of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan is Murray Sabrin.

Do we tow the party line, or do we send a real conservative to Washington?

p.s. i admit posting same reply to oither post as im going on vacation for a week....i feel a point needs to be made.