This past Saturday, I officially announced that I am a candidate for Congress in New Jersey's 5th District. Our priority as Democrats right now must be finding the best candidate to unseat this extremist and get real representation in Congress - someone fighting for middle class values, not right wing ideologies. I'm not afraid to fight Scott Garrett and his extreme positions that hurt middle class families across New Jersey and the 5th District. During my three terms on the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders I have worked across the aisle with Republicans and Democrats alike to get things done. I will bring that same type of leadership to the halls of Congress.
We need common sense solutions, not partisan bickering.
I know what it takes to win in Republican territory. In 2010, Democrats were swept out of office in record numbers across New Jersey and the nation. This wasn't the case in Passaic County. On a ticket led by Congressman Pascrell, we bucked the national trend and were reelected by a strong margin - even with a popular Sheriff dropping out of the race only two months before Election Day. We need a Democrat who can go into Republican territory and make a populist appeal to voters. And most importantly, expose Congressman Garrett's extreme record.
I know I am that candidate in 2012.
I want to join the ranks of giants like Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Bob Menendez and Congressman Bill Pascrell to put our nation back on track. I will work with Democrats across the 5th District to ensure victories up-and-down the ballot. Now more than ever we need to come together and beat Scott Garrett. I am going to need your help in the coming months talking to your neighbors, going door-to-door and exposing Scott Garrett's extreme record in Congress. And I hope you'll follow my campaign on Twitter and Facebook as we move forward.
This past November, with your support, I was re-elected to the State Assembly to represent Bergen and Passaic Counties. I am honored to have earned your trust and respect over the past 4 years as your Assemblywoman. I've never considered myself a politician, but always a public servant. I have been elected to serve the people of New Jersey, something many elected officials forget, which is truly the most important part of our job.
Our state and country face many challenges and it will take the efforts of Democrats, Republicans and everyone in between to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
Public education has been the backbone of America and at every turn there are those seeking to dismantle it. Higher education is becoming out of reach for many of our high school graduates due to escalating tuition. Our environment and our health are being put at risk at a time when we should be embracing new technology to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Government inefficiencies and outdated ways of doing things continue to keep the costs of running government too high. Unemployment and underemployment are rampant, jobs continue to be shipped overseas and the middle class in America is struggling to survive.
These are among the major issues dear to my heart, issues that I have fought, and will continue to fight, to address. In what capacity I can best tackle these challenges is a question I am now confronted with.
U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman (D-9th Dist.) is telling Democrats he plans to challenge Bill Pascrell (D-8th Dist.) in the June primary, according to two Democratic sources with knowledge of the congressman's thinking.
A few anonymous sources are quoted for the article. An announcement from Rothman is apparently due this week.
Needless to say, I am sorry to have found this out, and I hope a strong Democrat will come forward to take on Garrett. It's obviously going to be someone without a $1.5 million war chest, but we need to support them all the same.
Notwithstanding my views as someone who specializes in employment tax on the whole "payroll tax rate reduction" that was in effect for 2011 and is now back on the table for 2012, I want to offer up a perfect example of the noncommittal but hidden agenda of my representative, Scott Garrett. Over the five years I've lived in his District, I have been able to learn and master the understanding of "Garrettspeak" - which is essentially the clouding of issues, justification of votes or statements with reasons that may apply at one time (states' rights for most of his votes) but not for others (the recent vote about concealed carry laws or Terri Schiavo, for example) - and most importantly, the little nugget in most statements that show his true constituency - the upper echelon of the 1%.
Garrett was recently quoted in a NY Times post highlighting a "rift" in the Republican House caucus on the issue of the payroll tax cut. This relates to the reduction in the rate for the employee portion of social security tax from 6.2% (of the first $106,800 in 2011) to 4.2%.
In the article, Garrett's quote is as full of nothing as you can get in one quote:
Representative Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, noted that the Senate on Thursday rejected two competing versions of a payroll tax cut. "If the Senate is able to do that, we could do it, too," he said.
"We should not be taking money from seniors to give to people who are fortunate enough to have a job," Mr. Garrett said.
So to be fair, it isn't just state's rights hypocrite Scott Garrett who voted to allow for federal overreach in permitting individuals to carry concealed and loaded weapons into New Jersey if they have a permit to do so that is issued by another state - even though New Jersey's gun laws do not permit this of New Jersey residents. And it wasn't just Scott Garrett who, along with every NJ House Republican voted against an amendment to exclude terrorists, stalkers, pedophiles, those who have committed domestic violence and other violent criminals from the lax concealed carry rules that this federal overreach would result in
But (1) Garrett is my Congressman (lucky me), and (2) he has used "states' rights" as a reason for many many of his many many many many extreme votes - saying that he thinks that {INSERT COMMON SENSE ISSUE HERE} should not be decided by the Federal Government and that it should be left to the states to decide. One other notable exception to this rule is when Garrett thought it was A-OK for the Federal Government to overstep into the bedroom of Terri and Michael Schiavo in a deeply private and personal medical matter.
With Garrett, it is always about weasel-like excuses such as "we all agree on 'X', but....." with the "but" mainly being Federal overreach. Here, Garrett is just fine with Federal overreach when it is for the NRA (who, according to OpenSecrets ) has given Garrett close to $30,000 over the years) - even though it puts his constituents at risk.
That being said, this little video I did could just as easily apply to so called "social moderates" Leonard Lance or Rodney Frelinghuysen, or any of the other NJ House Republicans. But I did it for Garrett instead. Hope you enjoy it.
The honor system never works well when there is public money for the taking. After Hurricane Katrina, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, was vilified by pretty much everyone for not supporting emergency federal funding for victims, but he raised what later became a prescient point: That there wasn't proper oversight and without it, there would be widespread fraud and abuse.
Michele Bachmann says we can reduce unemployment by eliminating the minimum wage. Is that the kind of economic "recovery" we want—$4 and $5 and $6 per hour jobs? Van Jones is absolutely right. Too many of us are already sacrificing plenty. Too many of us are already paying for Wall Street’s recklessness with our personal austerities and anxieties. The Tea Party’s solution is to discredit our ideals and dismantle our government. But we can do better. We can build a movement to make OUR democracy work for OUR American Dreams. Let’s take the first step together by meeting on July 16th to get acquainted and share ideas.
While I would never assign blame to you for the tragedy yesterday, you and every member of Congress have a responsibility in the tone with which our nation discusses its business. The more I've read conservative commentators explaining away the connections between words and consequence, the more frustrated I've become.
Not standing up and strongly denouncing content calling for violence, such as that hosted on popular Conservative websites, enables those sick individuals out there to legitimize their thoughts based on the fact they appear alongside articles written by Members of Congress.
Back in the summer of 2007, when I was blogging regularly and your staff was reading, I took you to task for contributing to Townhall.com. It wasn't necessarily for what you were writing, but it was the fact your contribution helped provide advertising revenue to pay for the hosting of a 21 part murder fantasy, called Juliet Smith's Diary, in which "Patriots" kill liberal Senators, Representatives, US Attorneys, talk show hosts, etc.
After the shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in 2008, where the gunman felt he should do good for the country by killing Democrats, I again mentioned that the Diary should be taken down. At the time, this is what I wrote:
We're a better nation than this, and one sick individual doesn't change that. At the same time, we have to expect those making and shaping public policy not to legitimize this sort of illness by providing it a forum.
As of this writing, Juliet Smith's Diary is still there.
On behalf of your constituents, I ask you use your leadership position to put an end to this tacit approval of calls for violence within our political process. And maybe, finally, get that blog series taken down.
Scott Garrett has always been on the leading edge of crazy, but his crusade as a "tenther" and his consistent voting against funding most federal agencies and programs is one that he is pushing to a growing audience who is receptive to taking a selectively literal interpretation of the Constitution.
As Herb Jackson noted today, Garrett has big plans with his newfound power and initiative, although the ironic thing here is that in pushing his new Constitution "rules", he neglects the very document he is clinging to.
For starters, Garrett and his fellow "tenthers" like to say that anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution as provided to the federal government is therefore not something that the federal government can impose, since it is then left to the states. However, Garrett and his ilk conveniently and selectively leave out the very important remainder of the amendment: "or the people":
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Garrett is using a selective reading of the tenth amendment to speak out and to vote against such horrors as federal funding for education, clean drinking water and other threats to our country. Not to mention the fact that the Preamble's "promote the general welfare" clause as well as the commerce clause under Article I have both been used successfully (and beaten back challenges) to do exactly what Garrett is falsely claiming as "unconstitutional".
Two years ago, I drafted a post (edited by the good members of Blue Jersey) with a rundown of what happened in the 2008 Congressional election in New Jersey's fifth district. We deconstructed the voting trends in each of the four counties, discussed how outreach and messaging (and money), as well as a different strategy, are needed to (1) win Bergen County, where most of the votes are and (2) close the gap in Passaic, Warren and Sussex Counties:
But this is a low information district with an inherent Republican advantage, where a large majority of people never hear a stump speech or listen to debates. And that is especially true in the rural areas that count for roughly one-third of the votes. So it's clear that very heavy handed, yet accurate, tactics must be used - and used consistently in a way that will not only reach these voters, but close the gap in Sussex and Warren Counties by 1/3 to 1/2 of the roughly 25,000 deficits of 2008 and 2004.
Now, I will admit this post may be a bit more subjective. But that's because since 2008 (and out of that diary), I helped start "Retire Garrett", a grassroots effort with outreach in all four counties to help recruit a candidate, solicit donors, craft message, coordinate outreach, and try to tackle the very tough feat of ousting Garrett in a fairly Republican leaning district. I (with other volunteers) figured this would be a 2 cycle effort, but worth pursuing.
I know, a cryptic title - so follow me here. But any comments by Representative Scott Garrett in support of women's suffrage as this country celebrates the 90th anniversary later this week would be in conflict with his consistent vote against the rights of those who aren't wealthy corporate donors.
It is a real good thing that the right for women to vote isn't up for reauthorization as well - because you never know what Garrett will come up with to deny them the most basic right as an American.
Why do I say this? Back in 2006, Garrett was only one of 33 Representatives to vote AGAINST the reauthoriziation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In attempting to explain a vote that seemed to anyone with a conscience as insensitive and racist, Garrett said the following:
Now, I have been here now for 3 years, just as the gentleman from Iowa has been as well, and I can think of many other very important significant legislations that we have reauthorized. But for the life of me, and I stand to be corrected, I cannot think of any other bill, any other important issue, whether you are dealing with the air, the water, the environment, our schools, our education or our health, our defense or otherwise, I cannot think of any other areas, and again I stand to be corrected, where we have reauthorized something for two and one-half decades. So I think that is the first area that we need to be addressing, and you are rightfully so for bringing it up.
Just as a side note on this, I did put in an amendment that would limit this down to 6 years, but that was the proverbial compromise amendment if we were not successful in getting your amendment to the floor tomorrow which would eliminate the multi-lingual ballots entirely.
Now, Garrett had a number of issues with the reauthorization, but his first two are incredibly telling. For starters, he felt that equal rights for something as basic as voting should only be reauthorized for 6 years, and not 25. Garrett's own words on this issue were that "circumstances in this country will be significantly different than they are today 25 years hence". His second issue? That ballots would not be English-only.
I ask this - what could possibly change in this country that would make the right to vote obsolete?
Of all of the scummy things that Rep. Garrett has voted against (cuz he doesn't actually vote FOR anything), this is one of the worst:
A bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to people sickened by World Trade Center dust fell short in the House on Thursday, raising the possibility that the bulk of compensation for the ill will come from a legal settlement hammered out in the federal courts.
The bill would have provided free health care and compensation payments to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working in the trade center ruins.
So those who were brave enough and put their time, lives and health on the line to help those in the days and weeks after 9/11 have to fight in court to have the diseases and illnesses they got from serving this country after the 9/11 attacks. This vote actually had a huge majority - it got support from 255 Reps and voted against by 159 - far more than 50% support. But it failed to get a 2/3 majority and lost by around 20 votes.
Now, only 12 Republicans in the entire House voted for this, and 4 of them were from New Jersey. You know, the state that had the 2nd most victims on 9/11. And guess who was the one Representative that couldn't even stomach helping his own fellow New Jerseyans pay for the health problems that arose from them stepping up for their country in its' darkest day?
There is no excuse. Nothing can be more indicative of what Garrett's priorities are, and who his is as a person to his core. There is a quote I saw recently that goes something like this:
Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has just introduced his new "Partisan Propensity Index" (PPI). If you've been following elections closely, you're probably already familiar with the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) from Cook, and similar statistics from Swing State Project. Cook's idea is to look at how each Congressional District voted for President compared to the nationwide average. So, for example, the NJ5 district (Garrett's) is rated R+7, meaning it voted 7 points more Republican than nationwide, while NJ13 (Sire's) is rated D+21. You can see why Democrats had such a hard time even with a good candidate against Garrett, and why Republicans didn't seriously contest NJ13 when Menendez left it. Unlike Congressional races, where often one candidate is hardly covered in the news and has hardly any campaign budget, the two party's Presidential candidates are well known. The PVI index is widely used to identify competitive districts.
Here's Silver's idea:
Are there any systematic differences in the ways that votes tend to fall for the Congress, as opposed to the Presidency? Are certain districts better or worse for Democrats, or Republicans, than PVI alone would suggest?
It turns out that there's one other factor which is fairly useful to look at, which is socioeconomic status. Relative to how they do for the Presidency, Democrats are somewhat more likely to win races for Congress in poorer districts, and somewhat more likely to lose them in wealthier ones. Another way to put this is that a split ticket of Republican for President, Democrat for Congress is more likely to occur in a poor district, whereas a split ticket of Democrat for President, Republican for Congress is more likely to occur in a wealthy one.
Click through for the statistical analysis he uses. Silver expresses his PPI index as the chance for Democrats to win an open seat in an average election cycle, based solely on two factors: the recent Presidential Vote and the percentage of the population with incomes under $25,000/yr. Here are the results for New Jersey:
District
Name
PVI
PPI
NJ11
Frelinhguysen
R+7
2.5%
NJ5
Garrett
R+7
3.2%
NJ4
Smith
R+6
10.9%
NJ7
Lance
R+3
13.9%
NJ3
Adler
R+1
27.9%
NJ12
Holt
D+5
62.9%
NJ2
LoBiondo
D+1
66.0%
NJ6
Pallone
D+8
85.2%
NJ9
Rothman
D+9
88.8%
NJ8
Pascrell
D+10
96.6%
NJ1
Andrews
D+12
97.0%
NJ13
Sires
D+21
99.95%
NJ10
Payne
D+33
99.998%
The main lesson, if you take this ratings seriously, is that New Jersey's wealth makes the battleground Congressional districts lean Republican compared to how they vote at the Presidential level. In many states, the R+3 and even the R+7 districts have a great chance of going Democratic at the Congressional level, but here NJ5 and NJ7 are actually quite unfavorable, and should vote for the House like R+14 districts in the rest of the country. When we evaluate how our candidates did, it's worth keeping this effect in mind.
Frank LoBiondo's district is the poorest in New Jersey, and by this measure is slightly better for Democrats than Holt's district, but we are stuck with the echo of 1994. In case it's not obvious, being an incumbent matters, scandals matter, and cycles can be more or less Republican than the average cycle, and you should always remember that the most likely outcome doesn't always happen. All of our 2010 races have incumbents so the percentages definitely do not apply. Also, this is the last election in the current districts.
...the three year old boy in the bathtub? What his mom says about his "privates" will make your skin crawl.
It's the "short joke of the year" in the Warren County Edition of Our Town (Issue #15 - July 8, 2010).
There's an angry, seething rant about Obama sucking the oil spill through a straw on the front page.
Brought to our nice community by the following advertisers:
Houston & Palmer, Attorneys at Law - (that's Municipal Court Judge J. Edward Palmer's private law firm!)
Fiedler Real Estate, Brass Rose Salon & Spa Bach's Home Health Care Supply Marley's Gotham Grill Second Time Around Consignment Store Main Street Ice Cream Rita's Water Ice Brian's Market Blairstown Inn and dozens of other so-called "respectable businesses" (wink! wink!).
The scripture passage this week is 2 Corinithians 3:1-18.
With the disaster in the Gulf, it is important to remember that there is one NJ Congressman who was in favor of offshore drilling right near NJ. With that, I put together the video below:
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.
