DISPATCHES: Remember what they say about payback

DISPATCHES By Hank Kalet The Democrats should watch what they say.

   Here is what she said: "This is something I have been waiting for since 1998. This is a great day for the voters of South Brunswick."
   But what did she mean?
   Carol Barrett won her third term on the South Brunswick Township Council last week pretty convincingly — but re-election was not enough. Defeating long-time Republican incumbent Ted Van Hessen is what seemed to energize her and many of her Democratic colleagues at VFW Post 9111 after the polls closed.
   This is what they were waiting for since 1998, when the Township Committee was disbanded and the Township Council was created. This is what they were waiting for from the first day that Ms. Barrett was elected.
   And why? Because Mr. Van Hessen apparently acted as some kind of impediment to council action — Mr. Van Hessen, who was just one vote of five, a lone voice with little power.
   Mr. Van Hessen could not stop the other four Democrats from borrowing money, could not stop them from rezoning properties, could not prevent them from doing much of anything unless one of the Democrats came over to his side. And that happened rarely.
   But I don’t think that’s what Ms. Barrett was talking about. The power that Mr. Van Hessen did possess derived from his ability to voice his opposition, to put alternative viewpoints on the table and force the council to at least nod in his direction. He sometimes acted as a one-man filibuster, forcing debate when the council otherwise would have preferred there be no debate at all, lengthening meetings and getting under the skin of his fellow council members. He was an inconvenience, but one that helped ensure that there would be some deliberation when the majority appeared uninterested in deliberation.

   As we wrote in an editorial last week, it was Mr. Van Hessen who forced pay-to-play on to the agenda and raised questions about township budgeting practices. The Post has not agreed with all of his criticisms — just as we have not agreed with everything the majority has proposed. But we have always respected his passion and commitment, which is why we have endorsed him four times.
   But this isn’t about Mr. Van Hessen. It is about Ms. Barrett and her fellow Democrats. Ms. Barrett’s comment, made at the Democrats’ post-election party at the VFW, belies a certain vindictiveness, a nasty edge, as if Mr. Van Hessen has been the only man standing in the way of their plot to rule the world.
   It comes at the end of a campaign that had been relatively quiet until the final weeks, until the Democrats sent out fliers accusing Mr. Van Hessen of owing $346,000 in back taxes to the state. Mr. Van Hessen will not comment on the flier or the tax bill, but Republicans were livid, calling the release of the fliers — the first one showed up in my mailbox Oct. 26 — a sleazy trick.
   And it was. A charge of this magnitude made during the final days of a campaign is designed to do only one thing: smear a candidate. Mr. Van Hessen had no ability to respond, nor did his party.
   Negative campaigning is part of the game, and anyone who runs for office should expect to be dragged through a little mud, especially during the final weeks of a campaign. But this went beyond that. It was the kind of attack that does more than undercut a candidacy. It can damage a person’s reputation.
   The validity of the charge is not the issue here — there appears to be more to this than the flier lets on, though Mr. Van Hessen does not want to discuss it. What is at issue is the ruthlessness with which the Democrats decided to play the game this year. It was as if they didn’t already hold all the cards (they outspent the GOP by at least 10-1, they had coattails from the top of the ticket — Sen. John Kerry captured 57.2 percent of the vote in town, one more vote than Ms. Barrett — and they have recent history on their side). They were going to win at least two seats, and probably three. Why drop a bomb like this?
   The only answer I can come up with is payback — payback for all the times that Mr. Van Hessen raised uncomfortable questions. Payback for his temerity in questioning the majority, for his pointing out that the folks who give campaign contributions tend to end up with jobs in town, for his unwillingness to just shut his mouth.
   What the Democrats need to remember is that payback works both ways, that their evident glee at Mr. Van Hessen’s defeat could backfire, that the tactics they’ve used can and likely will be used against them in the future. Remember, the GOP has not been immune to this kind of sleazy hardball in the past, to which former Democratic Mayor Debra Johnson can attest. The Republican campaigns of 1997 and 1998 were studies in vitriol for which the party should still be ashamed.
   But the Democrats should be ashamed at their behavior this year and they should remember what they say about payback.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of the South Brunswick Post. His e-mail is [email protected].