Stout & Palin – Opposite sides of the same coin?

[Guest]

There was an fascinating article in the New York Times today about Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s early political tenure as Mayor of what at the time was a 7,000 person town. What struck me about it was how many aspects of her tenure mirror our current Mayor Stout’s, albeit on different sides of the political spectrum.

Stout is a liberal Democrat and Palin a conservative Republican. But that aside, both began their political careers exactly the same way – by upturning a long tradition of nonpartisan politics in local elections and city government and pursuing rapid public works projects in what had previously been a quaint farmstead town. Palin closely aligned herself with and ingratiated herself to State Republican politicians and officials, thus getting their support in her campaign and later using it to propel her higher political ambitions. Similarly we have seen Stout continue to praise State Democratic officials who have supported or failed to oppose measures that would destroy Cranbury and he has consistently moved to thwart any independent efforts by Cranbury citizens to take a more aggressive stance toward State Democratic politicians. Upon taking office, Palin quickly reversed decades of tradition of city officials and committee heads being nonpartisan and forced any that were not aligned with her party to resign and outright fired those that didn’t. We’re talking librarians, city preservation and museum officials, the local police chief, etc. She quickly developed a reputation for destroying anyone who wouldn’t support her aggressive agenda. For example, when the librarian refused to start banning specific books that Palin had personally selected for censorship, she was initially fired, then reinstated after public protest and later resigned under continued pressure from Palin. Similarly, Stout has made it a policy to only allow political allies on any township committee, something never done before him. Both Palin and Stout follow in a rich historic tradition that dates back to the early dictators of Rome (of which Caesar was not the first) who usually pretended the Senate was still an independent body representing the people but usually suspended normal procedures and filled it with new people politically loyal to the dictator. Like Palin, Stout has used his position to pursue rapid public expansion projects like the Babe Ruth Ballpark (so his daughter can play in that league, which he helps coach) and the attempt to spend substantial money on a new library, etc. And like Caesar (and now possibly Bloomberg?) he first supported the long tradition of requiring the Mayor position to rotate between Township Committee members every year when it allowed him to become Mayor over an incumbent, but then used his control of the 3 person majority in the TC to undermine that long tradition and assume his dictator-like tenure as Mayor.

I predict Stout’s goals are similar to Palin’s. He is looking past Cranbury to State office. The COAH issue has been an inconvenience for him for two reasons: 1) Because it has put more local taxpayer focus on his public works pet projects and thwarted some of his efforts, and 2) Because it has put the Township in conflict with the political party he hopes to advance in and therefore needs to prove his allegiance to. So far he’s doing a good job of playing to the party while putting on just enough of a show of legitimate support for Cranbury’s interests to allow those inclined to favor himself to convince themselves his interests are noble. He’s actually a decent politician (though that is like saying Stalin was a great dictator)…

Frankly (as if it wasn’t clear) I don’t support either of them. Small Township’s should be nonpartisan and as Palin has demonstrated, usually when someone makes them partisan it usually is being done for personal interest and ambition over the welfare and interests of the Township.

[Guest]

I judge a political candidate by asking whether his/her motivations are for the benefit of 1) his/her political career, 2) the people (fake), or 3) the people (real).

It's tough to find the 3) candidate. I look at track records and will place a candidate's character over his/her capabilities.

It's hard for me to forget that I voted for mayor Stout because of his (fake) promise:

[Guest]

"

[Guest]

Ouch - I think you are a bit harsh. Remember, he is member of this community too.

[James]

This board is entering a slippery slope and I am a bit concerned.

I don't disagree about some of the comments, but as the other person stated Mr. Stout is a resident and a fellow citizen in Cranbury. He should be treated like any other resident and shown respect as we would ask about ourselves on this forum. Not as Mayor or TC holder, but as a resident. You can disagree with the actions of a person on our TC, the TC as a whole or select members, but we don't need to get personal. The tone of the original post I think was a bit personal and over the top.

We need to focus on making Cranbury apolitical again, I agree there is no doubt that this goal MUST be achieved. Yes, some on our TC have gone too far in politicizing our town boards and offices. However, I don't think personal statements about individuals serving on or running for TC is really appropriate in terms of achieving that goal.

[Cranbury Conservative]

I agree with James the original post is raw to say the least.

As for the current TC yes there are the 3 on the TC with a personal agenda which may not always be in the best interest of our town.

This November we have a chance to Elect Win Cody and then next year we have two more open seats as well on the TC. With this we have an opportunity to help Cranbury look to both its past and its future. By that we have a chance to make the TC more bipartisan or apolitical as James put it and have people on the TC who are there to serve the town and its resident’s in their best interests which represents the best of the past and the future of our town.

Like I said it all starts with Win Cody this November.

[Guest]

I disagree. Mayor Stout has made himself a public figure and it is actually the responsibility of the citizens in a Democracy to scrutinize the actions and motivations of its public officials.

That said, I agree it is unnecessary and distasteful to get personal. For example, I think the accusations about Palin's daugher really being the mother of Palin's youngest child was inappropriate.

But I just re-read the original post and didn't find anything "personal" about it. I think the closest to it was the "dictator" comment but that's not exactly personal. If we want to challenge the original post we should do so with facts. Can anyone challenge the assertions? If it isn't a point of fact that Mayor Stout has taken political party affiliation into account in making appointments or that it wasn't in fact a tradition for the TC to take turns as Mayor or that he hasn't pursued multiple new public projects then someone should post a response.

As James and CC say, the Township should be nonpartisan. But Mayor Stout appears to be the instigator of making it partisan so doesn't reserving this start with taking on Mayor Stout? And isn't the most productive way to do this in a Democracy to raise public awareness of the issue?

[Guest]

[publius]

But, does Stout speak in tongues and take up serpents?
I know that all "good" republicans do that these days.
Don't forget about The Rapture!

[Guest]

I hate the way both parties are trying to peddle the candidates frankly. It’s the same old message on both sides.

The Republicans are running on a fear platform, fear of new Russia, Terrorism and bigger government/taxes.

The Democrates are running on a Change platform, but change to what? Change can be good or Bad. Obama has had 2 years in senate, and the others in his party have been in office far longer, and what is the result in the past 8 years? Not all of our problems can be blamed on the president, that's why our forefathers created three legs of our government in Washington (President, The Senate and the House) they all have a hand in how the last 8 years have gone --- so what has Obama and the democrats changed?

I'm giving Obama another few years in the senate to show me what he can change, and will go with the record of what McCain has done. I frankly can not vote for a smooth talking politician with an unknown record of change. Too many have promised change without showing or doing anything prior. Talk is cheap.

Has anyone else noticed how hard HOLLYWOOD glitzyed up the Democratic convention? or was that supposed to be a Rock concert? And the Republicans were beat challenged during Barracuda song 

But I do hate the direction of US politics lately. On one hand its an alter to either Jesus on the other its Elvis, maybe someone will enact a law to turn off the TV and read about your candidates on the Internet instead. So voters will know what they have done in the past and future, instead of these sound bytes and TV spots. How has either already changed my life is how I will vote this Nov.

As far as Palin and Stout, we should instead be comparing Palin record to Corzine's. Partisanship is the major problem in our local NJ government and one person can change that. Its a shame that we dont have stronger local representatives, but I will meet with one at the Cranbury day at Baroni's booth. I'm stopping by to thank him for his support and will let Linda and the others know my disgust of what they are doing to NJ and cranbury.

[Historically Fiscal]

To some its boring to follow the track record of a political candidate. This shows weakness given how easy it is to research on the internet, but the best US presidents in history may not be the best on TV or in front of the mic today. I bet if George Washington was around today he would never have cut the mustard in our libral Media because of his false teeth and military background. Or if Lincoln was on stage yesterday instead of McCain, would he be viable because he was a maverick and became the first Republican candidate to oppose the unpopular slavery causes? Its not sexy enough for TV. But are today issues any less important with rouge nuclear nations and the global economy.

I wonder why the past record of a candidate is less important then personal tribulations? Why doesnt prior civil duty and a voting record/authoring legislation play a bigger role for Voters and on the NEWS? There is more info on Wikipedia then on CNN or the news about the real resume of how these two have affected your life in the past and what their decision making will be for your future. What has your candidate done for you?

To me we sell more media time and newspapers because of the sideshow with Palin. And when a candidate is builtup to be the next Kennedy on national TV with little to no record in Washington, it makes for a good show and sells a lot of airtime. But does this convention carnival show on TV make us better citizen voters? Does it help make Washington better?

I think the first place to fix Washington is right at Home, go get educated about your candidate and find out what he has already done to make your life better. Future promises are easy to make but what prior legislation and deeds have either Obama or McCain enacted that have affected you? I agree that should be a primary consideration.

[publius]

You can always tell if someone is a republican.
For some strange reason, they have NO ability to dance or even move to a musical beat.
Why is that?

[cranbury liberal]

[publius]

LOL!
I tried watching the rnc snoozfest, and everytime they played some music the attendees would make an attempt to move in time with the vibrating sounds coming from the loudspeakers!
I believe that it's called MUSIC.
Maybe, the anal retentiveness has them in it's fateful grip?
They tried to electrify the audience with a speech from Fred Thompson, but he didn't gather up enough energy to static cling a Kleenex. Very amusing.

[mrfun]

If George Washington ran for office today, he would've been done in by The Durhamboat Veterans for Truthe! Who was the 18th century version of Karl Rove anyway?

[publius]

Also, Palin said that she was against the Bridge to Nowhere (after she was for it) but she decided to keep the money for other purposes. Don't let the smoke & mirror show fool you. Alaska THRIVES on gov. handouts. As well as subsidies from oil companies. They get it from both ends at the same time.
But, the loony-tunes will not discuss that. They will prattle on about how cute her family is and how she can field dress a moose. Thats a skill that EVERY potential president should have. RIGHT?