New Jersey Senate Primary Could Be A Real Race
When Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) announced two days ago that he'd be challenging incumbent Sen. Frank Lautenberg in the Democratic primary, a lot of readers from outside the state were probably ready to dismiss it as a non-starter — Lautenberg is a four-term Senator, after all, and it's only two months from now to the primary.
But the reality is, this could be a very serious challenge. Lautenberg is 84 years old, with many polls showing that voters think he's too old for the job. On top of that, New Jersey politicians are almost never truly popular, and Lautenberg isn't the exception.
The ambitious pol Andrews has a few things going for him: Relative youth, a lack of any statewide unpopularity, and the support of the South Jersey party organization — whose power is growing and whose zeal to defeat the North Jersey establishment, which has ruled the state since forever, is as feverish as it's ever been.
Andrews's support in South Jersey is typified in the backing of one of the state's most powerful fundraisers, George Norcross, who in many ways runs the South Jersey Democrats and has been mounting a real challenge to the Northern leaders.
"I'm very happy that he is supporting me," Andrews said, after he'd announced his candidacy. "The South Jersey Democratic Party has been solid and unified in my favor."
For example: Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts was at Lautenberg's big campaign kickoff on Tuesday — a show of force featuring practically the whole lineup of the state party's leadership, meant to scare Andrews off from the race. After endorsing Lautenberg on Tuesday, Roberts switched on Thursday to supporting Andrews, his fellow South Jerseyan.
So where does it stand now? Lautenberg has the support of Gov. Jon Corzine, Sen. Bob Menendez, and state Senate President Dick Codey — all Northerners. He also has the support of every incumbent House member except Andrews, and they span the state geographically but are mostly from the North. And of course, the DSCC will be actively supporting the incumbent.
Andrews meanwhile, looks to have the united South Jersey front he boasted of, with multiple legislative endorsements, Southern county organizations starting to come in for him, and even a handful of big supporters from up North.
But here is Andrews' problem: North Jersey has long dominated the state because they simply have more people. If the South Jerseyan is to take over, he's going to need to work very hard for the next two months. We'll see what happens then.
The statement that "New Jersey politicians are almost never truly popular" isn't true. Some obvious examples of very popular politicians are Tom Kean, Bill Bradley and Peter Rodino. More recently, Richard Cody charmed nearly everyone as interim governor.
April 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
# NJ-Sen: Full results
Frank Lautenberg (D-inc): 52%
Rob Andrews (D): 21%
(h/t SwingStateProject)
April 4, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Andrews' district and am thrilled he is running. He's a good guy and a gentleman. I hate his Iraq War vote (he's been rightfully quiet about it since), but otherwise, he's liberal. I appreciate that Lautenberg is a reliable, fiery liberal, but he's also a bit of a jerk-as far as my dealings with him. Nothing controversial, just the sense of entitlement. Bring on a primary!
April 4, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting to me because this is one of the only examples I can think of in awhile on the Democratic side of a person who opposed the Iraq war being primary-challenged by a person who voted for it. Rather than the other way around...
April 5, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The coverage of this race in the blogosphere so far has centered around the quirks of New Jersey state politics, which is really a shame because it's overshadowing how horrible of a Senator Rob Andrews would be. Blue Jersey has a good overview of where Lautenberg and Andrews stand on this issues here: http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7349
I think its clear that for Democrats looking to build a broader progressive coalition in Congress, electing Rob Andrews would be a giant step back. Shinner23 noted that he voted for the war in Iraq, but not only did he cast his lot with Bush, he actually helped to write the resolution! Here's what he had to say about the UN weapons inspectors back in 2002: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xst1NvN_sfk (h/t again BlueJersey).
Lautenberg's age is a concern, but he's been a reliable progressive, a champion for New Jersey, and really bailed the party out after the Torricelli debacle. He's earned this term. Let's give him these six years and then promote Rush Holt or Frank Pallone, either of whom I would much rather see in the Senate then Andrews.
April 5, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in NJ and ill be sticking by Frank for another term.
April 5, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rob Andrews is a Republican in Democrats clothing. He is a power hungry and corrupt politician with no regard for the welfare of his constituents. South Jersey may be happy with a Bush yes-man patsy, but the rest of the state will not fall for it.
April 5, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gimme a break-a Bush yes man? He's nothing like that. As I said, i'd be content with Lautenberg in there, as long as it's not a GOP, but to pretend Andrews is a conservative Dem or a GOP wannabe is a joke. Just look at Norcross-as much as he wants South Jersey representation, he wouldn't back a Dem who's really a GOP.
April 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This could actually turn out to be good for the Democrats. This Senate seat was essentially promised to Rob Andrews by the party establishment as motivation for him to not run against Bob Menendez in the 2006 primary. Andrews' decision to oppose Frank Lautenberg will give the party exactly the excuse it needs to back out of the deal and throw their support behind someone more deserving like Rush Holt or Frank Pallone whenever Lautenberg does decide to hang it up.
April 5, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
pip,
Not a bad point.
Let Andrews give it a shot and if/when he loses, he's out of the way. I just don't think he's a bad Dem or a bad guy.
April 5, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left out the fact that Frank Lautenberg is likely the most popular with a job approval rating of 77% as shown in a recent poll. The same poll found that 61% of respondents will definitely vote for him again. What this writer is also forgetting is that Lautenberg has a 30 point lead over Andrews already and in some other categories has an over 50 point lead. When you've done what you've promised, you get those sorts of numbers! Go Frank Go! We need you...
April 5, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the news from the Politicker this AM is that Crowley has declined to run. So the Republicans are still looking for a credible contestant.
Between Andrews and Lautenberg? I'll take Lautenberg. He may be old but he's feisty spry old, with a the strong fighting spirit of a true Dem. He's been on the right side of all the issues and he's read the Riot Act to the Bush administration more than once. We can count on his vote to always fall on the Progressive side.
He's earned my vote, that's for sure.
April 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also from South Jersey and have lived with Rob Andrews as my congressman for a long time. He is definitely Republican-lite. I was in teh midst of writing a commentary piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer just before Andrews' vote to give Bush the big okay to invade Iraq, and I called his chief of staff to find out the breakdown of the calls coming into his office, pro and con. His chief of staff told me the calls were running 50 to one against his voting with Bush...but Andrews voted for it anyway. I truly wish someone would challenge Andrews from the left...he has been a lousy congressman. South Jersey is progressive and deserves better.
April 6, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sold on this "out with the old, in with the new" attack that Rep. Andrews may push in his primary battle against Lautenberg. For one thing, I truly respect Frank's 26 years of public service in the U.S. Senate (not to be confused with the 35 years of experience Hillary Clinton began accumulating her second year of law school).
For another, I remember how the shit went down in September, 2002—two short months before the crucial 2002 congressional midterm elections. At that time, New Jersey, and the Democrats of the U.S. Senate, were saddled with then-Senator Bob Torricelli as their candidate, a man so mired in corruption he made Jack Abramoff look like Coke Stevenson.
Due to the fact that Torricelli was the incumbent senator and a statewide cash machine—despite week after withering week of negative press, endlessly leaking scandal details, and debate after debate featuring Torricelli being raked over the coals on ethics by his Republican opponent Doug Forrester—the party was stuck with him. In a year where the Democrats held the U.S. Senate by one vote (hmm...), Bob Torricelli was the definitive albatross.
When Torricelli's poll numbers cratered in the wake of "severe admonishment" by the Senate Ethics Committee (in addition to the criminal indictment of several of his closest campaign aides), New Jersey's Democratic political establishment went into overdrive to locate a replacement candidate against Republican Doug Forrester.
It just so happened that Frank Lautenberg had retired from the Senate just one year before, and had already expressed the sentiment that retirement "was the worst mistake I ever made". Faced with taking to the voters either the New Jersey equivalent of Edwin Edwards, or a beloved former senator with a sterling reputation for integrity (who just happened to be a multi-millionaire with oodles to spend on his own race), the party bigwigs took the "high road" and went with Lautenberg, stripping Torricelli of his nomination.
The rest is history. Frank went on to cruise to victory over Forrester in a 54-44% rout on Election Day. The rest of the Senate Democrats fared quite differently that day, losing 3 incumbent seats and with them, their Senate majority.
Much of that loss can be attributed to many of those Democratic senators cowardly voting a month prior in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, in the hope that casting their lot with Bush would end the national security debate that had roiled the country since 9/11. Rather than ending it, of course, it only made the Dems look even more spineless than they already did, crushing the morale of the antiwar base of the party, and validating the GOP's false choices on national security.
While Lautenberg was not yet in the Senate for the war resolution, he has been a vocal critic of the Iraq war since its inception. A veteran of WWII, he famously defended attacks on John Kerry's patriotism in 2004 by labeling Dick Cheney as "lead chickenhawk", and rightly defined "chicken hawk" as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."
He has the 6th most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, according to the National Journal. That's ahead of liberal stalwarts like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and another aging lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.
Since the Republican opposition in Jersey has yet to unify around a particular nominee, and none of the potentials are all that strong, the real fight for Lautenberg's Senate seat will likely be in the Democratic primary battle between himself and Andrews.
I've got enough reasons to like 'ole Frank. I like that he jumped in and saved a Democratic Senate seat when it sure looked lost to the GOP. I like that in the midst of attacks on his age during that race, he jumped up on a stage and danced a jig on live television, just to prove his vitality. I like him for being a broadly progressive guy, even though he's filthy rich.
But if I needed a more substantive reason to support Frank Lautenberg over his new, fresh-faced Democratic opponent, Rob Andrews, here's all the reason I need:
On October 10, 2002, Rob Andrews was among the 81 House Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq.
Done. Over. Next. Go Frank!
April 13, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink