HOBOKEN -- Last week, Jake Stuiver, an ally of Mayor Dawn Zimmer, submitted a letter published here and in the print edition of the Hoboken Reporter complaining that 2nd Ward Councilwoman Beth Mason should practice what she preaches by calling on her supporters on the internet and elsewhere to stop making personal attacks on their opponents, particularly attacks on their families or their physical appearance.
However, a supporter of Mason responded this week that there are Zimmer allies on the web whom she feels have engaged in similar below-the-belt tactics. Recently, one Zimmer ally published graphics on her blog of a group of school board candidates whom Zimmer did not support in a punch bowl beside a floating bit of feces, and last week, there was a graphic of Mason in a Dumpster.
While politicians can't control their supporters, writer Elizabeth Markevitch -- a former school board candidate who was among the people in the pictured punch bowl with excrement -- says that if Stuiver is going to call on Mason supporters to be more civil on the internet, he should extend that to everyone.
Her letter:
I am writing in response to Jake Stuiver's letter that was published in last week's Hoboken Reporter. I am a mother who has been politically involved in Hoboken for many years. The participation of Beth Mason's two daughters in her political campaign does not make them fair game for political opponents to use as targets for attacks. No matter what level of government a person seeks public office for, it is never acceptable to attack their children.
I agree with a call for a more civil political discourse. However, several hours after Stuiver's letter, in which he calls for a more civil political discourse, [was published] Nancy Pincus, a Hoboken Zoning Board member who is allied with Mayor Zimmer and Kids First, published an Internet graphic that showed Councilwoman Mason tossed in a Dumpster with Jake Stuiver standing in front of it along with a [post] congratulating Stuiver for unloading [on] Beth Mason.
Jake Stuiver's call for a more civil political discourse is disingenuous because he made no mention of a more civil political discourse from Nancy Pincus or any of his allies who continually attack anyone who disagrees with them on the internet. As someone who has been a victim of Pincus' online graphics, one of which included my face floating in a punch bowl with a piece of human excrement, I have one simple question: Is this any way for a public official who represents the people of Hoboken to conduct herself?
I hope that every person in Hoboken will agree with me that children are always off limits and it is time to stop the cyber-bullying that has increased to a ridiculous level due to the "bravery" of anonymous posters.
Elizabeth Markevitch
What do you think? Comment below! See links below to similar stories.
And you can believe what I said before or not, but I voted for Zimmer, have no intention of voting for Beth Mason ever, and would *not* just be accusing Zimmer of 'censorship' if she put some more visible distance between herself and her most unhigned 'supporters'.
And again one thing which the Mason and Zimmer extremists have in common is seeming inability to look past Mason v Zimmer or in general can't seem to believe anyone in this town doesn't view politics as 100% a personalities game and who likes who and who hates who. I want my taxes lowered, and not just for the hell of it but because they are objectively way too high and the city spends way too much money. If I criticize Dawn Zimmer's progress it doesn't mean I'm secretly for Beth Mason or the Old Guard. And the same will be true, and I think of a lot of voters, if Zimmer hasn't gotten taxes down by a lot before 2013, when looking for alternatives *besides* Beth Mason or some Old Guard stooge.
No, I don't think that Pincus & Soares should be told not to express their opinions. I think that the Zimmer Administration should distance itself from Pincus and Soares (and any other blogger & commenter who utilizes attack pieces). Then it's up to the individual commenter/blogger what they want to say and do if they wish to stay in the administration's good graces.
That's my opinion. But remember, at first it was ok for Beth/reform to be negative, until Beth & Dawn split and reform went with Dawn. Then it was Beth is negative and that's bad. MSV & HJ seem to keep it either neutral or somewhat positive. Pincus & Soares go out of their way to instigate (and yes, .
Dawn runs clean and positive campaigns, her supporters should take a lesson from her and do likewise.
And I 100% agree with you that this is an ancillary issue to what really is going on here - Beth is crying foul and being hypocritical in the doing.
Are you suggesting that Soares and Pincus should not be free to express their opinions? Are you suggesting that their respective unpaid volunteer service to the city precludes their free expression of thought? I suspect that if Soares and Pincus were seen to be parroting messages and towing a "party" line from the administration you and Hobo87 would be the first to accuse Zimmer of censorship and complain that Zimmer was demanding her supporters act in lockstep.
Soares and Pincus are carefully chosen targets by Mason and her acolytes to deflect attention away from Mason's political impotence. The strategy of having Mason playing the victim is a passive aggressive act of desperation. This tempest in a teapot from Mason's camp only serves to further highlight her inability to present a coherent platform on any issue of importance to the city.
The real question is Beth Mason willing to distance herself from the antics her attack squad, Lane Bajardi and Perry Klaussen's Hoboken411 site and some others or will she continue to feign any conection as she has tried to do in the past.
Beth Mason weather she owns up to the obvious relationship with Klaussen, Bajardi and some others has become definded by their ongoing and very offensive actions. The pretense mason tries to maintain also reflects poorly on her own image.
As far as an alternative candidate I have no doubt that likes of Perry Belfiore and Mike Novack help fan the flames between the two camps to position another like did for Peter Cammarano as a compromise candidate when the time comes.
"the key difference between Camp d'Mason and Zimmer enthusiasts is simple: Mason is running the show on the cyber attacks (or is at least aware of who is making them and aligning with those people), while Zimmer is 100% uninvolved."
I voted for Zimmer. Beth Mason has no crediblity with me anymore.
That said, I believe your statement is probably more true than not true. But someone like me, long time 'newcomer' but political outsider, has no way to tell if you're statement is 100% true. And I think Zimmer should realize that applies to a lot of people.
Tony Soares' (just to take one example) blog antics tend to make me think less of Zimmer. I don't believe Zimmer is coordinating with him, but when it's so intense and out of line, why can't she just have a friendly chat telling him to cool it, and then if that doesn't work indicate in some public way she's not happy with him? Ardent Zimmer fans are deceiving themselves IMO to think that pro-Zimmer excesses won't eventually taint her, just because pro-Mason excesses are worse and have already tainted Mason *a lot*.
A more credible alternative to Zimmer than Mason may arise, especially depending what Zimmer actually achieves in job 1: cutting taxes (she's made negative process so far, not to blame her yet because it's early and big mess, but still)
Markevitch is saying thank-you for the Mason's $5700 donation. Miss Manners would be proud.
If Markevitch's doesn't support for Mason why did she join Mason at her 2nd Ward event in April; Markevitch lives in the 3rd Ward. I suspect this letter of support from Markevitch is in part a big thank-you for the $5000 Mason donation to Markevitch and the Sullivan/RealResults BOE campaign. Manners matter especially if you want the Mason $ support in future BOE campaigns.
http://hoboken.patch.com/articles/what-was-beth-mason-up-to-last-night-at-lua
Hoboken Reporter -- why are you calling Liz Markevitch a supporter of Beth Mason? Did you check with her before you wrote that? My understanding is that she supported someone else for mayor last year. In your quest to divide everyone into Mason supporters and Zimmer supporters, you've made a very faulty assumption here that you need to correct.
http://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2010/06/mason-sympathy-tour.html
I am reminded for some reason of a antidote attributed to Sir Winston Churchill:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds ?
Socialite: My Goodness Mr.Churchill...Well I suppose... we would have to discuss terms of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds ?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am ?!
Churchill: We have already established that. Now we ar haggling the price.
http://grafixavenger.blogspot.com/2010/06/back-at-ya-liz.html
As I stated, the key difference between Camp d'Mason and Zimmer enthusiasts is simple: Mason is running the show on the cyber attacks (or is at least aware of who is making them and aligning with those people), while Zimmer is 100% uninvolved. So calling out Zimmer would be fruitless, while calling out Mason is actually a way to put an end to things. And let's not forget that Jake has a lot of inside information on the Mason campaign and how it was run, so he is in a better position than any of us to call her out.
Mason bought Hate411 to back her, her close friend Lane Bajardi is the alleged ghost writer for politics, and Beth is rumored to pay minions online slinging mud. Lane Bajardi, the poster boy of all things hate, is Beth's mouthpiece. His acid tongue at counsel meetings and sharp barbs online under screen names are legendary. Then she decries online "attacks" against her off-limits daughters to deflect attention from the real issue at hand (her defection to the dark side, aka alignment with the Russos and her knowledge of the nastiness spewing from her camp).
Zimmer's supporters are by and large a bunch of people who belong on the island of misfit toys, and are generally posting their own thoughts and not an online coalition. They want to see things change, and they are frustrated by the vitriol directed at them by H411 & Lane. Some of them don't post under their real names for fear of lengthy (just-this-side-of-out-and-out-libelous) "exposés" at their expense. These fears are legitimate, given all the articles and tenuous connections made over on that site, as well as Zimmer supporters being attacked in person by Mason minions like Lane Bajardi (who is going to court) & a former Mason running mate's wife. A few of them are over the top (Tony Soares comes to mind) with their constant online bashing, but to my knowledge (which comes from a pretty well placed source, but not infallible) none of them are getting any information or support from anyone in the council majority or the mayor to act this way.
Basically, when you go against Beth Mason, you have no idea who is going to be sent after you (online or in real life) and to what extent Beth is involved in those attacks. When you go after Dawn Zimmer, likely you'll be made fun of online, but no one in her camp will physically accost you and our mayor is not involved at all.
That's the key difference between the two IMO and why Jake called out Mason but not Zimmer.
The internet facilitates a type of discourse that is often nasty and inappropriate. Supporters of all of Hoboken's political factions have been guilty of misusing this medium, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. Sadly, the individuals complaining the loudest are in many cases among the worst abusers in their own anonymous internet incarnations.
Mr. Stuiver in his letter refers not only to the internet nastiness but to the tone of Mrs. Mason's "official campaign - her TV commercials, mailers etc. Both Mrs. Mason and Mr. Cammarano ran extremely negative campaigns as compared to Ms. Zimmer, and any review of the mailers and commercials used easily confirms that.
This hardly puts Mrs. Mason in the position to decry the negativity of others without acknowledging her own, an acknowledgment that she, Mr. Keim and Ms. Markevitch failed to make.
Remember this discussion began with Mrs. Mason's allegations - not with Mr. Stuiver's response. This is a fact those claiming "double standard" seem to be conveniently forgetting.
Why are those crying "double standard" failing to point out that if Mr. Stuiver is applying one, then certainly Mrs. Mason, Mr. Keim and Ms. Markevitch are as well, and Mrs. Mason was the first to do so.
Finally, Mrs. Mason, Mr. Keim and Ms. Markevitch have all either directly said (in the case of Mrs. Mason and Mr. Keim) or strongly implied (in the case of Ms. Markevitch) that Mrs Mason's children were "attacked."
This claim appears to have been, by any objective measure, false. The making of such a false claim is, in itself, a negative inappropriate attack.
If Mrs. Markevitch were serious about addressing the "double standard" writing a letter repeating that false claim (by implication) is not a particularly credible way doing so.
Glad you think mason is 'worse' but i guess you are acknowledging being almost as bad. if youcall one side out for excrement, call the others as well. you have a good day too.
1. No one is cyberbullying or harassing anyone in this thread.
2. My understanding is that Elizabeth posts online under screen names too.
3. The letter is disingenuous
4. You're right, the letter doesn't explicitly state that mason's daughters were attacked, it insinuates it and then states they shouldn't be (I posit that they shouldn't be trotted out with Beth for political purposes if she doesn't want people commenting on them).
5. Camp d'Mason is much worse than anything going on by Zimmer supporters, as Zimmer supporters don't have Hate411 bought and paid for and backing them.
6. Civil political discourse does go on, daily, on the hoboken journal and mile square view.
7. Stop trying to make a coat of Dalmatian puppy fur, it's almost as ridiculous as the idea that Elizabeth is being genuine in her letter.
Have a nice day.
2. Why would you question the fact checking when so far there is not one thing in Elizabeth's letter that has been said to be unfactual, only opinions you disagree with! The only thing people are questioning is whether the children were attacked, and Elizabeth in this letrer never says they WERE only that they should not be and that they are not fair game. It is funny taht you and khoboken still cant read read, ironic since K keeps quoting the paragraph she is misreading. Go back and look a ninth time.
Maybe the letter refers to something earlier from mason that you disagree with, but this letter does not say the children were attacked, other than that they are not fair game. Everything else in the ltter is an opinion and I happen to agree.
In addition Rudy already said where they were brought into a campaign and there was debate over whether that constitutes attack, so clearly they were brought up. (As someone said it can be a verbal attack or criticism, it certainly was not said to make Mason look GOOD.)
Sounds like we have a little Axis of Hypocrisy going. Proving the point of the ltter again and again. Keep it up, what other insults can you fling all why criticising other internet posters for being uncivil? Probably Jake is embarased by you now.
Can't take credit for that one. The indomintable Katie Scarlett coined that one over on the Mile Square forum when she took Mr. Kiem to the woodshed over his vomitous editorial piece. I will say that it does apply to that coterie of Mason doppelgangers that think most people in town are stupid enough to fall for their crap. It is funny to watch them get their panties in a bunch when anyone dares to point out the utter falsehood of their grand pronouncements (which they think are pure genius) and the sheer stupidity of their arguments.
Secondly, cyberharassment is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_harassment
Thirdly, no one is harassing anyone by this definition. People are name calling and pointing out the flaws of public figures. No one is calling out anyone who isn't putting themselves out to the public for review (either through running for office or because they wrote a stupid letter).
Fourthly, Elizabeth is being disingenuous at best. Isn't she the one that outed Nancy's identity once they had a falling out. That was beyond the pall. That was done to embarrass Nancy at the very least, but more than likely it was done to shut Nancy up through intimidation-- the very thing she is so against in her letter.
Fifthly, because of sites like hate411 and people like Lane Bajardi, lots of folks who would be excellent at improving this town can't be bothered because they don't need their good names smeared publicly.
Sixth, it is appalling that the HudsonReporter did not fact check this letter.
And finally, khoboken you are hilarious -"axis of stupid" is fantastic. I will use that one liberally. Does it apply to everyone in camp d'Mason or ?