Some fibs fly by; they might be a single word-- like a "no" instead of a "yes", the kind that children tell.
Others are elaborate constructions; stories with a beginning, a middle, and an end.
The latter is the kind of fib Council Vice President Jen Giattino told to the public on January 17, 2018. It isn't a particularly interesting fib-- except for the fact that it was framed as "history" being taught to an audience presumed ignorant of history.
GA is not ignorant of history, and Giattino's fib didn't fly by-- it got stuck in my ear. Ouch!
So, the question is, what was the lie really about? Allow me to deconstruct it.
PART ONE: Giattino told the public there were two questions proposed for the ballot (TRUE) and both were on one petition (FALSE).
"Thank you. Um, just for some history on this in 2012 there were two questions on the ballot. One was to move the elections to November the other was for the runoff. Those two questions, the referendum for them, the petition was one- you had to sign once. So there were many people, and I was part of the discussion so I know it well..."
PART TWO: She explains that people organizing the referendum "thought the best way to do it would be to combine the two [on one petition]" in order to "pull the people in who were concerned with eliminating the runoff..." (FALSE)
"There were many people that were for moving the elections to November that were opposed to eliminating the runoff... um, a lot of the people that were organizing this referendum thought the best way to do it would be to combine the two and then you would kind of pull the people in that were concerned with eliminating the runoff..."
PART THREE: She says voters historically seeing Hoboken elections as "good versus evil" (Reform vs. VBM harvesters?) but "in real life... there could be more than one good person running..." IMO, she's referring to herself, her own candidacy as "more than one good person running." Guess what? Too many "good" people running for office split the vote, and elect an "evil" person. That is why political factions (or parties) choose ONE candidate, not TWO.
"...and the concern that people had with eliminating the runoff wasn't anything to do with this past election but it was, you know... Hoboken... historically people had seen it good versus evil, and we all know in real life, it isn't always going to be good versus evil, there could be two good people running, so if that were the case... or three good people running, if that's the case, eliminating the runoff would be a bad thing and I actually think personally, eliminating the runoff is always a bad thing because you do want 50% plus one, um..."
PART THREE: Pinocchio-territory! Giattino did sign the "Runoff Petition" and (I am told) signed the "Initiative Petition." Her partner collecting petitions signatures- a witness- called her claim that "she told people she was not supportive of eliminating the runoff" patently FALSE.
"I did not vote for eliminating the runoff in 2012 and actually when I had people sign the petition I told them why I was not supportive of eliminating the runoff."
PART THREE: She says voters historically seeing Hoboken elections as "good versus evil" (Reform vs. VBM harvesters?) but "in real life... there could be more than one good person running..." IMO, she's referring to herself, her own candidacy as "more than one good person running." Guess what? Too many "good" people running for office split the vote, and elect an "evil" person. That is why political factions (or parties) choose ONE candidate, not TWO.
"...and the concern that people had with eliminating the runoff wasn't anything to do with this past election but it was, you know... Hoboken... historically people had seen it good versus evil, and we all know in real life, it isn't always going to be good versus evil, there could be two good people running, so if that were the case... or three good people running, if that's the case, eliminating the runoff would be a bad thing and I actually think personally, eliminating the runoff is always a bad thing because you do want 50% plus one, um..."
PART THREE: Pinocchio-territory! Giattino did sign the "Runoff Petition" and (I am told) signed the "Initiative Petition." Her partner collecting petitions signatures- a witness- called her claim that "she told people she was not supportive of eliminating the runoff" patently FALSE.
"I did not vote for eliminating the runoff in 2012 and actually when I had people sign the petition I told them why I was not supportive of eliminating the runoff."
So, why did Giattino tell the public this elaborate fib?
According to a friend.
A word to the wise: if an elected official tries to con the public once, he/she cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
According to a friend.
Jen describes a strategy- to conflate the two issues into a single petition both so she can claim she supported one but not the other and to claim that the rest of us were trying to trick people and she was running around as The Truth-teller explaining the ruse to people she talked to so they wouldn't be tricked. Note that she doesn't call the imaginary single petition a convenience. She describes it as a strategy to falsely conflate the issues.Oh, dear. Who is Giattino's political guru? Fire him. Or her.
A word to the wise: if an elected official tries to con the public once, he/she cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Well this isn't the first con attempt and she is pretty bad at this stuff. Usually doesn't work to be full of horse manure when the people who you keep telling this stuff to are pretty smart and aware. You will get caught when you pull these sorts of stunts.
ReplyDelete"...Too many "good" people running for office split the vote, and elect an "evil" person. That is why political factions run ONE candidate, not TWO...."
ReplyDeleteLove this. - in 2017 3 people selected their candidate (Dawn, Stan, Ravi) - that's not a faction. That is 3 people making the decision for all of these so-called "good" people.
I am curious. Are Dawn, Stan and Ravi the arbitrators of the selection process from now on? Or, was it just a 1-time thing? (Sort of like succession in a monarchy) If not, who will be the next arbiter of the selection process? Will Stan choose the 1-3 people who will do all the deciding on who the "good" people will support in future elections? And, if some/a few/many people don't agree with the choice of the 3 (or 2, or 5, etc.) as to who the ONE and only choice of ALL of the "good" people will be, do those some/few/many people automatically become "evil" people?
And heaven help us, what if one or two or three of those many "good" people also have an interest in serving the people as an elected representative? Do they automatically become "bad" people?
Just curious.... kind of used to be like that back in the day.....
Listen, Indie. Since you mulled over running on a slate with the likes of Mike DeFusco, clearly you are not selective about the ethics and character of Hoboken elected officials. I won't use "good" versus "evil" - those were Giattino's words. I use "Reform" and "Dark Side." Running two Reform candidates was idiotic. But not for Romano, Hoboken would be under Dark Side management. Sometimes a politically ambitious person has to take a hit for the greater good. Other than a circle of insiders, no one else gave a shit about the transition. That circle of insiders, a dozen dozen, rolled the dice with the future of Hoboken. That's the truth. And the "more voices are better" crowd left a shitload of damage in their wake. Broken relationships. Wounds. Was it worth it? You know, it's fair to be angry about the way the mayor selected Ravi. I was. But there is no do-over. I have been consistent from the get-go about the peril of Reform running two candidates. Said it privately and publicly. Thankfully, Ravi worked his butt off 7 days a week and had an excellent organization. He was a better candidate, made better choices, and won more of the public's confidence.
DeleteAs far as the WAH-fest about how "dirty" this election was- go back and look at the stuff Carmelo and Beth Mason's political committee "Real Democrats" cranked out against Jen- mailers, the anonymous letter, all of it. THAT was dirty.
Indie girlfriend, you are losing your noogs if you're still mad about that. There is a difference between entitlement and injustice. I'm sorry if a large majority of Hoboken is not mad about a popular mayor's choice of her replacement. While her predecessors went to jail, Dawn Zimmer cleaned house and cleaned up Hoboken. Lady was entitled to her choice of successor. Newsflash - no one is forced to vote for that person! Your entitlement seems little in comparison to the true injustice facing many in our country in this time. I suspect that is why a lot of people did not buy the story of "more voices are better." Those voices were not speaking up for people facing injustice; those voices just wanted theirs to be heard for self-interested reasons.
DeleteI used to think Jen and Tiffanie were bad-ass girl politicians whom many of us could look up to for taking on the old guard and election fraud. But based on their bumbling policy failures last year, the lack of grace after the election and now the Queen Bee behavior in city council, it is more clear now than ever that Dawn was a genius in her choice. It's also made me realize that maybe Jen, Tiffanie and Peter were riding Dawn's coattails of reform success all this time... because on their own, they are flailing and unconvincing. Don't understand Suez? Then get a municipal finance expert. Don't trust the #s? Then check with the city lawyer before proposing an illegal audit committee. I still think highly of Jen but I think this recent behavior is beneath her. Girlfriend needs some honest friends to tell her to get back to her reform roots and fast.
This idea that “More Voices are Better” is probably the most disingenuous load of tripe yet.
DeleteNo, more voices are not better. Everyone is not equal. Some people just aren't smart or informed or honest. And those people's voices being added to the mix of informed, intelligent, and honest voices are not additive, they're actually detracting.
So enough with this b.s.
If "more voices are better" why were Jim Doyle and Emily Jabbour's voices shut out of the Council re-organization?
DeleteWhy weren't Doyle and Jabbour's voices not heard in the "more voices are better" Council deliberations?
Vapid sloganeering-- yeah, we are that stupid. Absolutely arrogant- lying and sloganeering as a substitute for truth and action.
"more voices are better" belongs in the same file as "we can. we will. watch us."
It's ironic that the slogan is used by a politician who to put it charitable doesn't count the ability to listen to the voices of others as one if her attributes. When you're convinced you're the smartest person in the room the only voice you think matters is your own.
DeleteIndieComa fails to realize that Mayor Zimmer, as a popular elected official, had every right to name the candidate she felt was best to lead the city forward. IndieComa and pals have a very unhealthy interest in the former mayor's husband, and too bad, boo-hoo that she didn't consult with those on council she had correctly perceived as duplicitous, scheming, opportunistic amateurs. Had we been unlucky to have had a DeFusco or Giattino as mayor, they would have the right to name their preferred candidate when the time came too.
DeleteThe only "more voices" IndidComa and the Council Of No are hearing are the ones in their heads.
Now, now, GA - of the two of us, you are the only one that supported DeFusco as an elected official. Actually you and the former mayor and her husband were all in for him in a big way. I recall seeing them campaigning in the 1st ward. Seems to me he became a "bad guy" er, "dark side" when he stepped out of line because, ya know, the so-called reform crowd has to follow the rules and the rules are that there will be only one candidate and two of us will pick the candidate.
DeleteLucky for "reform" that Romano was so helpful, right? What would have happened to reform's power and control had he not stepped in and saved the day? (perish the thought). I definitely have noticed how supportive Romano's #1 person, Mike Russo, has been of our new mayor - singing him all sorts of praises at city council meetings and, in turn, "reform" is welcoming him into the fold. Not a cartoon caricature of Russo in months. Reform does flippy-floppy around a lot don't they?
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2010/06/hijinks-underway.html
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2011/02/mike-russo-blogger.html
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-feeling-isnt-mutual-russos-ballot.html
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.co.id/2011/01/exclusive-video-russo-drafting-temp.html
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2015/08/much-ado-about-russo.html
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2015/04/it-takes-masons-village-to-smear-sacs.html
https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2013/12/russo-grabs-chair.html
Yes, that's right, snarky "eh" lady. I served with DeFusco on the ZBA. There he comported himself very differently, and to my knowledge did not lie in public, nor file an ELEC report infested with P2P violations, nor throw political allies under the bus. Based on what I knew then, I believed him to be a viable option to take on Terry C. Hindsight is 20-20, as they say. What's your excuse? Sure you were mulling over being on his slate- no secret- you did not deny it after InsiderNJ and Al Sullivan named you as a possible running mate. Nor did you deny it when I asked you same on Facebook messenger.
DeleteIndie, I don't give a rat's ass what you think about this site. You obviously don't get it, and you never will. Posting a bunch of links over the years of articles that were snapshots in time to make some kind of false narrative is plain stupid. I don't do "cartoons" I do visual commentary on political events. Don't like it? Who cares.
I will correct you on Russo- he appeared on my "Dark Side" chart this month, along with your Council pals (who seem to have a problem with truth-telling.) https://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2018/01/dark-side-welcomes-new-membership.html
One thing Councilwoman Giattino was right about GA. The good vs evil paradigm is too simplistic. After all we have crazy people too and they aren't really good or evil. Just crazy.
DeleteSpeaking of flippy-floppy, who did indie support for the 6th Ward council seat in 2011?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePhew! I was afraid in the heat of the moment InDenial (sp?) was going to accidentally say something about the actual subject of the article. Namely, that our candidate got caught in a series of baldfaced lies.
ReplyDeleteBut not only did she not go there, she even managed to get all haughty like we have the moral high ground! As someone who likewise lives in utter contempt for the truth, I have to admit it brought a tear to my eye. I If there is ever a Hall of Fame for Shameless Apologists, she's first ballot all the way!
Thank you, InDenial! (sp?) Keep shoveling!
Team giaFISHco: Truth Schmuth
Most people are extremely uncomfortable when they lie. However, the more they do it the more comfortable they become.
ReplyDeleteWatching the video, I found it extremely disconcerting how comfortable Councilwoman Giattino appeared as she spun her fictional tale. Hopefully appearances were deceiving and she was more uncomfortable than she appeared since being comfortable with lies is a scary attribute in an elected official.
It is clear that, at a minimum, her memory of something she claims to have been intimately involved with was woefully incorrect, and she wrongfully impugned the integrity of the sponsors of the effort.
Everyone makes mistakes. The test of character is what you do after you realize you've made one. Hopefully the Councilwoman will correct the record and apologize rather than dig the hole deeper with more lies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete