Truth in Advocacy, part 1

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."--Galileo


As part of our continuing campaign to bring the truth to the people of Matawan, we're going to be "shadowing" the Matawan Advocate, and sharing some of their findings here. At times, we might agree with the "truth" they're showing, more often, we'll be shedding some light on their fallacies and inaccuracies. We'll be starting with their November posts.

In their post of November 1, Matawan Advocate writes:

"When businesses enter into politics it can only lead to rule by others. Does the owner of the Plaza where StarBucks is located live in Matawan? Does the owner of Dunkin Donuts live in Matawan? Does the Dr. on Main Street, the Financial Planner on Main Street or the Prudential Bulding on Route 34 live in Matawan. Do owners of any business in Matawan live in Matawan? Well if they don't then I say, Mind your own business? If they do a sign at your home is sufficient. Spare me from the people who put "huge" signs on businesses but when it comes to their homes do not! We in Matawan are not sheep that need outsiders telling us how to vote. We hopefully vote on issues. If I need a Doctor, Financial Planner, Bank or any other related services, you better be damn good at what you do because I for one am not interested in your politics! Having signs on our homes is one thing but plastering signs all over the Borough in the hundreds is absolutely ludicrous. Main Street Matawan looks like "Trash City" with all those signs. You would think it was a Presidential election and the candidate lived in Matawan. Are you people stupid or what spending all that money for signs? How many people do you think that could be fed with that money? How many homeless families could be better served by that money? This election has made me ashamed to live in Matawan. My hope is that this never happens again. Perhaps I'm wrong and the more signs you clutter a Borough with, the more votes you get. I hope not. Never wanting to trample on anyone's rights, whatever makes the residents of Matawan happy. "

I'm sorry, but this post reads like one big batch of sour grapes. Their depiction of Main Street bedecked in signs is a vivid one, if a little inaccurate. While there are plenty of the little Buccellato, et al signs on Main Street, I want the Advocate to imagine that the Republicans had the support of the town and its' businesses and it was THEIR large signs up and down Main Street. Would it look so ugly to them then? I think not.

And if they want to imagine what Main Street would look like, all they have to do is drive through Marc Woods. There are houses there with more Republican signs than blades of grass. There's one house in particular, with such a big sign done up in such an outlandish manner than the term "Shrine" comes to mind. We were surprised that we didn't see the owner out on the lawn the night before election day doing novenas.

What's worse is that it's a residential neighborhood, not a commercial one more suited to signs, as Main Street and Rt. 34 are. It is indeed a blight on the neighborhood.

Now, the Advocate does make a valid point about the owners of the properties not living in Matawan (for the most part). Well, it WOULD be valid, that is, if commercial property owners didn't pay property taxes. Oh wait, they do. So their point now becomes completely IN-valid. I hope they can appreciate the distinction.

Oh, and to answer one of the questions they asked, the financial planner they point out that had the huge sign apparently lives in the same house as the office. So the answer would be yes to their question of "Does she live in Matawan?"

Now on to the issue of WHY would the businesses support a candidate (or a party if you prefer) that is not the candidate (or party) that the Advocate obviously supports? Furthermore, why would they support a candidate in Mayor Aufseeser (or party in the Democrats) that, as Councilman Buccellato's campaign literature pointed out, raised their property taxes two years in a row by a large margin?

Could it be that they recognize the value of fiscal responsibility--that is, that an administration that steadfastly refused to raise taxes for years in a self-interested effort to get itself re-elected, and instead bonded the town into financial ruin to the point where it has no more available credit at all, and in the process let the town go to rot and its services dwindle to nothing, was an administration they they did not want to see return to power, even if it meant higher property taxes in the short term?

Could it be that they recognized that raising the taxes in an effort to get us out of a deficit situation, so that we may enjoy our first surplus in YEARS and so that services could be better deployed was something worthwhile, rather than the "same old" policy of don't raise taxes and borrow, borrow, borrow till you can't borrow no more?

Or could it be that, when faced with the choice of a genuine, caring person or a would-be Machiavellian schemer, they saw it as no choice at all. A choice of a person who people know and love and will take the time to talk to anyone, even her detractors, or a liar who plots behind the scenes and mopes and sulks on the dais and who doesn't give his constituents the time and respect his position of authority requires him to. If you were a business and property owner in town, who would you choose?

In summary, their post was long on vitriol but short on facts and common sense. I look forward to perusing the rest of their blog to see if the rest of the posts are similar, or if this was an isolated case.

By the way, we're wondering how much money the Matawan Advocate donated to feed the homeless this election season. We'll be waiting for the answer. If they need a suggestion, they can try donating to The Community Foodbank of New Jersey, a worthy cause.