Folks, you don't get more inside than this. Someone with direct knowledge of the Giattino-Fisher-Cunningham political strategy opened up to GA.
The following is verbatim what I was told.
"[Giattino] is in the super powerful position to derail Ravi or blackmail him by simply saying she'll vote with the other side. Lenz and company have a lot more power as a third party than they ever would joining the crowd. They can make life hell and they intend to."
Really? I asked if "they can make life hell and they intend to" was my source's opinion or did one of the parties actually say that.
"Both" was the answer.
EXHIBIT A: HOW GIATTINO "INTENDS TO MAKE LIFE HELL" FOR JABBOUR
On January 19, 2018 Councilwoman Jabbour introduced a "RESOLUTION URGING THE STATE TO PERMIT INSTANT RUN-OFFS IN HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY."
Following the introduction, Council VP Giattino launched a meandering statement wherein she invented a story that there was only one election reform petition in 2012 (false), that she never supported eliminating runoff elections (false), then pointed at "inaccuracies" in Jabbour's resolution (but never identified what they were.)
Without her colleagues' support, Emily withdrew her resolution. But, she stated that her resolution would be resubmitted at the next meeting, after consultation with her colleagues.
Not so fast, Emily!
Jabbour's oh-so-clever council colleague VP Giattino put up her own identically-named "RESOLUTION URGING THE STATE TO PERMIT INSTANT RUNOFFS IN HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY" and had her pal Council President Ruben Ramos place it above Jabbour's, so that it would be voted on FIRST.
Don't believe me?
GIATTINO'S RESOLUTION
___________________
JABBOUR'S RESOLUTION
Can anyone explain to me the material difference between the resolutions?
There is NONE.
But, petty, childish, SORE LOSER Giattino has the "power" to deny Jabbour a legislative achievement. And she is.
Councilwoman Jen Giattino and her council pals are making good on the promise to "make life hell" for Mayor Bhalla and his At-Large Council.
This is not how "reform" behaves.
But you notice how the sellouts recognize that instant runoffs are NOT ALLOWED per state law yet they insist on going back to runoffs in December. Absolutely disgusting.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Giattino just needs a hug. Some validation. :) LOL
ReplyDeleteNow that Jen has become a democrat maybe she'll get a hug from Chris Christie like President Obama did. Hopefully she'll hug him back - I think Chris needs a hug too!
ReplyDeleteLike Mason before them, Giattino and Fisher are prime examples of why most believe it's always a bad idea to vote for unemployed bat-shit fucking crazy, neurotic women.
ReplyDeleteLatest letter from Fisher actually exceeds Giattino's for being disingenuous. It also leaves the 1000 bought votes as Bhalla's problem. And includes the kicker that Bhalla can leverage his relationship with the AG to get it taken care of.
ReplyDeleteSo basically any relationships Bhalla has outside of Hoboken are bad and indicate that he is inches away from turning his back on the city. But he is supposed to use them to get favors done. Even favors for institutions like vote buying that defy the passing decades. Other than that, he is supposed to be shamed for having a wide circle of influence.
To bottom line it - they have no shame. They won't change. The only thing that will get their attention is knowing someone is warming up in the bullpen. Namely candidates who will run in the 2nd and 6th. When they start showing up at CC meetings, you'll see a sudden change. Until then, they just don't care and it shows.
You forgot the 5th ward. Peter needs to go to if he is going to support a change to a December runoff. He has a building in his ward where vote farming happens repeatedly every frigging election so completely inexcusable to pretend this isn't a massive issue in his ward and city wide.
DeleteI'm not sure he views it that way. He did Carmelo a big solid in the run-up to his first re-election bid, and miraculously performed much better in that building than he did in his first go-round, and won the election handily. Now he's doing Ruben a solid and may be expecting the same outcome. Cynical, no doubt, but that seems to be the most descriptive term to apply to this entire debacle.
DeleteRavi wins either way tomorrow. Hoboken is in a different position though.
ReplyDeleteIf the Peter-Tiff-Jen vote to override a veto Ravi wins because he now has a clear policy-based, good government reason to break with them. If Peter-Tiff-Jen think what’s left of their base after their 2017 move to waste everyone’s time stays with them after their 2018 move to force all of us all to go through yet another referendum/election they are so so wrong. They will have no base left except for their closest tribal friends after this stunt. Even Mike’s support in 2019 would not be sufficient to keep them alive after this nonsense.
So Ravi wins because he has a principled reason to part ways and force them to depend on Mike and Ruben for more support than they would be able to muster on their own, BUT Hoboken loses because we will all have to tune into this referendum and spend time and money on it.
If they don’t vote to override the veto then Ravi and more importantly Hoboken wins.
Either scenario Ravi wins, but Hoboken is really what matters. Hoboken loses and this would be the last jail in the Peter-Tiff-Jen coffins. Long-term it’s for the better. Their votes will be their undoing and when you believe in good government, that’s all that should matter.
RIP Peter-Tiff-Jen. Died fighting with Ruben, Mike, and their vanity and ego, not what’s right for Hoboken.
I don't think the vote to create a December run-off can be anything but a referendum on Jen, Peter, Tiffanie, Defusco, and Russo. I'm surprised they'd put so much of their personal reputation on such an unpopular issue.
ReplyDeleteClarification: By “RIP” I am referring to their political lives not actual life. I hope that their lives outside of politics are happy, healthy and deeply fulfilling.
ReplyDeleteGood point FAP. The 2018 December run off referendum is a vote on their political future, particularly Peter-Tiff-Jen. I’m amazed that after having to go through their own elections in 2015, then a quixotic, poorly thought out net loss run in 2017 where they ruined their brands (that’s all good government was for them, a brand), they would in 2018 put themselves and their family and friends through another election, and all the while further cutting to their good government brand.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure they get that the 2018 election season starts for them tomorrow. Ravi is already fundraising and has a much bigger public platform. Where are they? Are they ready to campaign for the next 9.5 months until the November 2018 election?
Who is advising them? As they say, with friends like these who needs enemies. Ravi could not sabotage them better if he tried.
It doesn't matter if their advisor is the village idiot - the buck stops with them.
ReplyDeletegot an email blast from cunnningham trying to justify their position on the matter, which tells me the sellouts must be getting pressure from voters. good. everyone should email their ward and at-large council people and tell them how you feel.
ReplyDeleteHe can try and justify his position all he wants but I am still hoping a credible candidate runs against him so we can be rid of him. This stunt they are pulling is disgusting, poorly thought out and being done completely out of spite.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I think the term "sell out" is a misnomer. Someone who "sells out" is "selling"something meaning getting paid something in return.
ReplyDeleteCunningham, Giattino and Fisher are empowering Ramos and DeFusco at their own expense. They aren't only receiving nothing in return, they are spending whatever political capital they had.
Wrong! No money is involved. "Selling out" means betrayal of one's alleged principles, and/or integrity and/or conviction to advance themselves- could be career, could be politics, etc.
DeleteThe top 3 definitions in the urban dictionary for sell out are:
#1 Anyone who sacrifices [artistic] integrity in an effort to become more successful or popular;someone who forgets their roots.
#2 A human being who abandons their convictions to impress people and or become more popular.
#3 One who betrays a cause for personal advancement.
"Selling out" is in the mind of the actor. No success guaranteed! Sell-outs may not be rewarded the way they expect.
Because runoffs would disproportionately benefit the old guard, I think the duplicitous Fisher, Giattino and Cunningham are getting something from them, which is the support from De Fusco, Russo and Ramos on their vindictive machinations, at least in the short term, and they're willing to sacrifice what's left of their reputations and constituent support to get it. They're too stupid to know they're being played, which is the best reason to replace them.
Delete