That time is now, as Warren County resident Tod Theise has answered the call and announced his candidacy against Garrett. In his statement to the press, Thiese noted the following contrast between him and Garrett:
"I don't think he represents working families in the district," Theise said. "He voted against extending unemployment benefits ... he voted for every [George W.] Bush budget."
A former Republican, Theise became an independent in the early part of the last decade and then migrated to the Democratic Party. He said his reasons for the leaving the Republicans were the spending policies and lack of Wall Street regulation under Bush.
His criticisms of Garrett are similar.
"What I find lacking is that he gives the people on Wall Street a complete and utter pass," Theise said. "He is basically bought and sold by Wall Street."
Now, I've met Tod and spoken to him numerous times over the past few months as he has been moving towards a run at Garrett. There are a few things about this candidacy that I like personally - for starters, it will be interesting to see how a non-Bergen County challenger plays out - especially in the current climate where being associated with the BCDO isn't the best of associations right around now. Additionally, I've always thought that lowering the 60%+ of the vote that Garrett routinely gets in Warren and Sussex counties is imperative - that this race cannot be won in Bergen alone. I also like the views and approach that Tod is taking on a number of issues - but this will come out over the next few months as the campaign gets under way.
Of course, this is one of the most uphill battles in general, as Garrett has never gotten less than 55% of the vote in his 4 previous races. But you never know what can happen in an election, and there has been unprecedented focus on Garrett by a number of grassroots organizations in the District (ahem....).
I'll start by saying that anyone who uses the sentence that "MSNBC is the only counterpart to FOX and the right wing noise machine" has their head completely up their ass. Two hours per day (Olbermann and Maddow) do not make up for the countless hours of "fair and balanced programming" that Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or much of the daytime programming comprises - certainly, this is a mixed bag at best and nothing near the ridiculously and blatantly skewed programming on FOX - or even worse, the "supposedly neutral" but SO NOT neutral CNN.
But I digress....
A couple of weeks back, Chris Matthews had two Congressmen on Hardball to discuss health care reform and how the issue could be moved forward in a bipartisan manner. The Republican Congressman appearing was New Jersey's own Scott Garrett. At the end of the segment, Chris heaped effusive praise on Garrett, calling him his type of Northeastern Republican, which I guess means the most radically rightwing kind. He even invoked the word "moderate" to describe Garrett (at which mention Garrett visibly cringed).
To grasp the abject stupidity of Matthews' misplaced admiration, you have to understand who Scott Garrett is and what he stands for. As we have documented here time and time again, Garrett is arguably THE most radical right-wing member of Congress. His illustrious legislative record includes, among many other things:
Voting against aid for victims of Katrina,
Voting against extending unemployment benefits for American families,
Voting against extending the Voting Rights Act,
Voting against providing health care to poor children,
Voting against anti-price gouging legislation holding big oil accountable,
Voting against taxing bonuses for Wall Street execs (he actually argued that they "deserved" them),
Voting for every bloated Bush budget, and
Voting for every dime spent in Iraq.
Oh, and by the way Chris - He's also catering to the birthers - if not necessarily an outward one himself, having said at a public meeting that he wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. Garrett further distinguished himself following the earthquake in Haiti. His message on his Congressional web site said the he was praying for those constituents of his affected by the quake. No mention of the thousands of Haitians who were dead or injured. Garrett also opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest - allowing a rapist to choose the mother of his child or a molesting father to force his daughter to bear his own grandchild. And he referred dismissively to the push to eliminate DADT as a "side issue" not worthy of his consideration. That's Chris Matthews' kind of Republican.
As Jason notes below, Garrett also recently appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show with guest host Ed Schultz. Once again he performed his one man show designed to portray himself as the sincere moderate that truly wants to work across party lines for the good of the American people. I can't blame Ed because he was filling in at the last moment. But I can blame the show's staff for not doing even a modicum of homework on their guest. Like Matthews, Schultz - someone who should know better - bought the well rehearsed charade hook, line and sinker.
By giving Garrett this kind of forum without challenging him on his record, MSNBC has aided and abetted an insidious political fraud. It is incumbent upon MSNBC to make sure this journalistic incontinence doesn't happen again. First, try to actually do some research on your guests. You know, like Rachel Maddow does so well. Second, next time you extend an invitation for Congressman Garrett to appear on one of your infotainment shows, ask him why he voted time and time again to deprive Americans of their most basic civil rights. Then ask him how we can buy into his fairy tale of working toward a bipartisan utopia when he questions the very legitimacy of our President to serve in office based on debunked crackpot theories.
Maybe then MSNBC can begin to regain some semblance of journalistic integrity.
As pointed out by our friends at Down With Tyranny, a vote was held yesterday in the House with respect to the National School Lunch Program - a program that is even more necessary now given the state of the economy:
H.Res.362. It expresses the House's support for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program and "recognizes that our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school." It passed 403-13, every Democrat and 155 Republicans, including the entire GOP congressional leadership voting in favor.
And guess who was one of the 13?
Let's look at some numbers. There are approximately 200,000 children living in Bergen, Sussex and Warren Counties. Of that, there are 12,400 children in Bergen who are on reduced or free lunch programs due to need, over 2,300 more in Sussex County and another 1,900 in Warren County. That is one out of every twelve children in these three counties who can't afford a decent meal and rely on the National School Lunch Program.
And this is too offensive for Scott Garrett to support.
Garrett is very good at explaining away his unconscionable votes with a caveat such as "I agree in principle but..." or "I would have supported this, but....". Quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. Time after time and vote after morally reprehensible vote, Garrett shows where his loyalties lie. This is about struggling families. And just as his vote against clean drinking water shows, Garrett can't keep explaining away votes that show a pattern of disdain for the health and welfare of those in his district that he is supposed to represent.
What makes this worse is the fact that the BCDO is choosing to give Garrett a pass without even so much as a challenger to a man whose actions and record are nothing short of abominable.
A comment over on Blue Jersey about the state of our Congressional District really raised an eyebrow and got me thinking. The comment was this:
I'll give you another example - I live in NJ-5, Scott Garrett is my congressman. It is looking more and more like the county parties aren't going to put ANYONE up - at a time where republican turnout will be higher and more motivated than the past 5+ years.
This is a sad statement on our politics in their current state. Gerrymandering has gotten to a point where folks like Garrett can serve until they are redistricted out or retire. His only threat real and perceived is in the primary, when the smallest fraction of the electorate makes all the decisions. Democrats won't run anyone because they don't want to spend the money. Politics is a business.
This reality undermines the entire intent of a Representative being accountable to their constituents. Forget the fact that the Democrats can't get someone who believes enough in their values to step up. With the Democrats punting, there's no one to bring up relevant questions for voters to ponder at the ballot box. Why vote against small business tax cuts repeatedly? Why vote against balancing the budget repeatedly? Why vote against extending unemployment benefits repeatedly? Why vote to hasten Medicare's insolvency?
Granted, Garrett is by all accounts safe in this seat. In fact it hasn't really been close on election day in a very long time. That said, Democrats failure to supply voters with any kind of alternative abdicates their fundamental responsibility in our already flawed two party system.
As Jason notes just below, Congressman Scott Garrett is quick to use fear and hyperbole when talking about his views of healthcare reform. And the interesting thing with all of his fearmongering is the complete absence of some of the most basic underlying concerns on why health insurance providers are able to collude, deny coverage and hike rates by however much they feel like.
Congressman Pallone recently posted about repealing the antitrust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy (linked above). And while this may not be the only reason why rates have been hiked and competition is all but eliminated, the simple fact remains is that there are industry wide price and competition abuses that are fostered by the exemption.
So, back to Garrett - he is always in favor of more competition and more "market forces". Even his own website section on healthcare talks about competition across state lines. But without a removal of the antitrust exemption, this is close to a nonstarter. And because of the lack of oversight on the hundreds of mergers that occurred, the competition that he talks about was bound to disappear rapidly. It is clear that when it comes to standing up for the very principles he purports to have, Garrett is nothing more than a walking hypocrite and contradiction.
A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District.
The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.
It's interesting to note why the court ruled the way it did, as a constant argument from opponents of Marriage Equality is that it should go to a referendum before the voters:
In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
Of course opponents plan to file an appeal of the decision, but the clock is ticking:
Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law.
City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.
Garrett may wait to try and take the power from the judges again until they rule on an appeal holding out hope, but no doubt he'll be back to stopping those activist judges as soon as they don't rule his way the last time.
Someone recently told me that Scott Garrett spends more on mailers to his district than any other Congressman or Congresswoman. And while I'd love to find out if that is actually true, I tend to ignore (probably foolishly) his 3 or 4 page glossy "newsletter" that I receive a few times each year. My reasoning is that I know his schtick - he routinely votes against bills that 400 other members of the House vote for because of some "technicality" and then tells his constituents that he is really in favor of the bill but couldn't have it 100% his way so he has to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
So when I got his latest mailer, I tossed it in with the rest of my recyclables (of course), but then had the fortune to come across this post by a former Goldwater conservative who hits fat cat CEO's favorite Congressman right between the eyes with a brilliant takedown of the fluff, misdirection and outright twisting of the facts contained in Garrett's latest mailer.
I won't repeat all of Michael Fremer's arguments, especially since we have made them here and at Retire Garrett issue by issue, and there really is nothing new. He rails against the stimulus (which presumably would include the vote he cast against the largest middle class tax cut in history and scary teabagger talk about healthcare. That being said, it is refreshing to see someone say it so plainly when it comes to Garrett's hypocrisy regarding unemployment:
"You offer no job creation plans in your email other than more tax cuts.
"A job creation engine" was the supposed purpose of the Bush tax cuts for the rich back in 2001 that produced the weakest job growth out of a mild recession in recent history. All it produced was a deficit from what had been a projected surplus.
Had we allowed G.M. and other businesses to fail, the unemployment rate would now be catastrophic, yet that would have been your "solution."
So I find your carping about unemployment churlish and dishonest.
Lest we forget that Garrett's proposed solutions include his very own stimulus bill that he introducedconsisting entirely of corporate tax breaks. When Wall Street needs more tax breaks, they call on their "Hero" to champion a bill for them. And when AIG executives want to keep the bonuses they paid out from Government money, they call on "Wall Street Hero" Scott Garrett. But when families in his district are struggling, they get smacked in the face by his votes and his disingenuous rhetoric.
Up here in Hackettstown, there was a very famous murder case in 1886.
A woman named Tillie Smith was "outraged and murdered" on the campus of the Centenary Collegiate Institute. That is the word the papers at the time used for rape. Even though they toned down the word, the story definitely had an effect on its audience.
Not long after her body was found strangled, the Prosecutor ran out of leads.
Unfortunately for the janitor at the college, James Titus, he made a sexually suggestive comment about young Ms. Smith to another young man that night.
Live in the 5th congressional district? You can get reporting at Blog the Fifth you won't find in your newspaper, plus context on some of the nutty, nutty things your congressman does, plus opportunities to join up with efforts to make a change there. - - - Promoted from the diaries by Rosi. Cross posted from Blog the Fifth
Representative Scott Garrett finally explained why he voted against extending unemployment benefits and the first time home buyer tax credit:
So, in sum, we have a program rampant with fraud, which gives taxpayer dollars to people who don't legitimately qualify, and fails to appropriately credit the individuals that do qualify. It's clear that employees of the IRS were aware of the problems with claims process for this program, as the inspector general found 53 cases of IRS employees filing "illegal or inappropriate" claims for the credit. In its current form, this program costs taxpayer about $1 billion a month and is expected to cost $15 billion for the year. Rather than terminate this program, Congress voted on November 5 to expand the program to homeowners looking to buy a replacement principle residence. How many more four-year olds will fraudulently receive taxpayer money under this program before Congress realizes this is a terrible idea?
Voting to expand this program would have been irresponsible of me, and an abdication of my responsibility as a guardian of taxpayer dollars. The Homebuyer Tax Credit Program was a poison pill to otherwise well-intended legislation.
It bears repeating that Garrett was one of 2.7% of the House to vote no on this bill, so it hardly was a poison pill.
Promoted by Jason Springer: An interesting exchange with Congressman Garrett talking healthcare and more great work by rmfretz keeping an eye on the Congressman at Blog the Fifth.
Representative Scott Garrett chats with Fox 5 about his vote against the health care bill. Garrett talks almost exclusively about Medicare Advantage as his reason, which as I've written before can currently charge taxpayers up to a 40% mark up on services.
It's good to see Garrett using the full term, as opposed to earlier, but I still can't understand how someone who claims he is a fiscal conservative can defend taxpayers paying up to 40% more than something actually costs for anything.
Although the House bill is dead in the Senate, taking the 40% mark up will be out no matter what bill comes back to the House for reconciliation.
While Garrett claims the program will be taken from those enrolled, nothing in the bill eliminates the program. What it eliminates is the 40% mark up. Now should insurance companies only participate due to their ability to gouge taxpayers, one could see them cease to offer the program, as the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid noted.
That aside, Garrett's interview is interesting in that it shows his true feeling on the Bill and overhaul in general.
How do you free someone who has been dead for 57 years?
Write to Governor Corzine and tell him about James Titus (b. 1857 - d. 1952).
Titus served almost nineteen years doing hard labor in the New Jersey State Prison because he was a little guy prone to panic attacks and the newspapers in New York, Trenton and Philadelphia wanted somebody to be caught for the rape and murder of Tillie Smith in Hackettstown, NJ on April 8, 1886.
You can do everything you can to spread the word that James Titus needs a Presidential Pardon.
I've been thinking a lot about the man who was arrested for taking a bath in public in Belvidere. He had been living in his car outside the Warren County Courthouse for several months after he lost his house. Finally, The Express-Times reported he had had enough and tried to get the filth off of himself in public because he thought he had nowhere else to go.
I met this man over the summer, just a few weeks before the incident. So I read the article with interest. He had a sign on his car window that said he was running for Warren County surrogate because he didn't like the way Susan Dickey had handled his case after the last of his parents died. He had a genuine tin-foil helmet in his backseat.
I am not writing to continue the ridicule that this man has surely received since his face appeared on the front page of the paper under the headline, "Naked man arrested." I am sorry if this letter has that effect on him. The real intent of this letter is to encourage readers to be more compassionate to him. I certainly hope his accusations are false, but if some of them are true, I hope the officials who made the mistakes will read this and do their jobs in an exemplary manner in the future. With the economy going the way it is going, one thing is certain: We are going to encounter more cases such as this.
A bit more fun figuring out good ways to let people of NJ (and NJ's fifth district) know just what their "representative" wants for the people of the state.
Congressman Scott Garrett appeared on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC for an interview talking about the healthcare legislation in Congress and why he says he opposes it. Here's a sampling of what he had to say:
But Congressman Scott Garrett, a Republican from northern New Jersey, says the government-backed medical coverage for the elderly is doing a bad job. He says it should not be a model for broader coverage, in part, because it pays providers too little.
GARRETT: A lot of doctors who have been in the business and who?re getting out of the business say, "I can't make any money on this. I'm not gonna shift any more. I'm gonna get out of the business."
Garrett told WNYC's Brian Lehrer that private insurers have much higher administrative costs than Medicare, because they provide much more helpful consumer information than the government does.
I particularly like the part of his answer where he says the private insurers provide more consumer info and that's why their administrative costs are higher, while at the same time the GOP rails against how ineffective the government program is. Here's what the House Energy and Commerce committee says the healthcare bill Garrett opposes would mean to his district:
America?s Affordable Health Choices Act would provide significant benefits in the 5th Congressional District of New Jersey: up to 20,400 small businesses could receive tax credits to provide coverage to their employees; 9,400 seniors would avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D; 900 families could escape bankruptcy each year due to unaffordable health care costs; health care providers would receive payment for $51 million in uncompensated care each year; and 33,000 uninsured individuals would gain access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. Congressman Scott Garrett represents the district.
Promoted by Jason Springer: This is grassroots organizing at its best. What are you doing in your area?
What: The Take Back the 5th Town Hall
When: Sunday, March 1 at 2:30 PM
Where: The Demarest Borough Hall
118 Serpentine Road
Demarest, NJ 07627
RSVP (Preferred, but Not Mandatory): E-Mail msimonson19@gmail.com or call Mike at 201-572-1030
Did anyone see me dancing in the streets at the Gazebo on Main Street in Hackettstown on Inauguration Day? I had an "Unidos con Obama/Biden" sign with me. Thank you to so many people in the cars, vans, trucks and big tractor-trailers who beeped, waved and blew their horns and sirens at me! Only about a half a dozen people in 45 minutes refused to look at me, gave me a frown or some other negative look.
I am sorry someone felt it necessary to tear down the sign I had put up on my corner in Independence the following morning. They left a lot of it up there, so they were obviously not interested in cleaning up the community. When is this going to stop in Warren County? When will the Obama opposers learn that they can't just go around breaking any law they feel like in order to stop what is going to happen in the next four years?
Oh well, the real work begins now. Viva Obama and God bless America!
I was a part of Dennis Shulman's campaign to unseat Congressman Garrett and now am collaborating with Blue Jersey contributors clammyc and Matthew Jordan on the Retire Garrett blog (retiregarrett.com). I was first introduced to bluejersey on Dennis' campaign and really enjoyed seeing the campaign's name in print so often here. I hope to stay involved with your blog as our campaign to unseat Garrett progresses.
I recently posted this abbreviated article on "Retire Garrett." It's about the Congressman's opposition to the bailout packages and his role in the current economic crisis:
Congressman Garrett's voting record since his 2002 election disputes the stances he has taken on the bailouts and economic crisis. His votes, speeches, and media appearances regarding the bailout and economy are dishonest.
The evidence speaks for itself:
* Congressman Garrett has consistently opposed government regulation of businesses since his 2002 election. Whenever a bill was proposed that held businesses accountable for how they earned their money, Garrett voted against it. His philosophy has been to let businesses act according to their own rules.
o The Congressman voted for decreasing government oversight of the Credit Rating Agencies. Many experts have blamed the lack of government oversight of Credit Rating Agencies for misleading investors, contributing to the collapse of Wall Street (Project Vote Smart).
* Even though he has aggressively criticized the CEO's of failing Wall Street banks and Detroit auto companies, Congressman Garrett actually supported out-of-control CEO salaries and "Golden Parachutes."
o The Congressman was a vocal critic of a bill that would have required publicly owned companies to fully disclose the salaries of their top executives as well as the payments made to departing executives, also known as "golden parachutes." (Los Angeles Times)
* Incredibly, the Congressman supported a $4,700 pay raise for himself and the rest of Congress that will be enacted in the middle of the current economic crisis, with taxpayers footing the bill. Garrett already earns $169,300 annually, which is the average for the rest of Congress.
o A bill co-sponsored by 34 Congressmen would have blocked the $4,700 pay raise from occurring. The bill had Republican and Democratic supporters, but Scott Garrett opposed it (Fox News; govtrack.us)
Scott Garrett claims he wants whats best for his constituents and the rest of American taxpayers. He says he did his best to hold Wall Street and Detroit accountable for their business practices. He has declared that he will fight to get the country out of the current economic crisis. Scott Garrett maintains there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale at a bargain rate.
The following is a statement to supporters of the Grewal Family, who signed up at the Hardwick Township Unity Rally on November 15th, which was held in response to the cross burning incident on their lawn on November 6th.
The cross was wrapped in a bed sheet that their daughter had made to celebrate Barack Obama's victory earlier that week.
Arianna, Alina and Gary would like to thank you for participating in the Hardwick ?Unity March,? physically or in spirit. Thanks for caring!!! The ?Yes we care chant? still rings in our ears. Your support by being here goes a long way in restoring our faith and belief in our community and our wonderful country.
The rally was a powerful message, especially to Arianna, that we are not alone as she starts to live her normal life again.
The hundreds of people who were here sent a very strong signal that such bias and racist crimes are not accepted in the world we live in now. We are all Americans and as Americans we are free to choose our beliefs, our values, our religion, where we live and whom we vote for. No citizen has the right to dictate to others how they should live. If these cowards thought we were going to roll over and play dead they had another thing coming. They WILL catch them and bring them to justice.
Again, thank you for your sincere support and have a wonderful holiday season!!
The Grewals
The link below is a moving video of the Hardwick Unity March put together beautifully by Robert Daniel II, LEPOCO Peace Center
A letter from Brian Facarra, President PBA Local 369 wrote a very important letter to the editor in today's Daily Record:
The Hackettstown PBA Local 369 is very proud of the longstanding relationship that exists between our officers and residents. Because this relationship is so important to us, we now ask for your help.
The Hackettstown Police Department has dipped to a manpower level not seen since 30 years ago. We fear that this lack of officers may jeopardize important programs and levels of service. Even worse, we believe that the safety of our residents and officers is being compromised. Future retirements will bring our manpower levels even lower. This dangerous situation must be corrected now.
Electoral victories on the local level are the key to electing Democratic officials to higher offices. It creates a crop of candidates with elected experience to recruit from and strengthens the influence and organization of local parties. A key to winning in Republican held districts is to target Council and Mayoral seats on the local level and turn them Democratic.
That is why the news out of Wyckoff is exciting and encouraging for Democrats in NJ-5.
Voters have chosen a Democrat for the Township Committee for the first time in 75 years, township Clerk Joyce Santimauro said Tuesday.
Republican incumbent David Connolly garnered the most votes, 4,666, in the four-person election and claimed the first open slot on the committee.
Democrat Brian Scanlan won the other seat with 4,505 votes, followed by Republican Kathleen Scarpelli, with 4,481, and Democrat Brian Hubert, who received 4,401 votes, Santimauro said.
This proves that any town can be won in NJ-5, and across the state, as long as a strong message is applied. Furthermore, it states how important local issues are to people, and if we can adapt this theme to the Congressional level, then a message is more likely to resonate with voters.
