In Article One of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers required Congress to control debt and spending. Our current Congress is failing. In fact, 535 Members of Congress could not agree on how to get spending under control and failed to meet their Constitutional responsibility, shirking this obligation and delegating it to a small supercommittee of six to do what they couldn't do. This supercommittee came up on its deadline, and also failed. Meanwhile, our families and businesses are suffering at their hand.
How did we get here?
The Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, a.k.a. the "supercommittee," was formed as a result of a congressional battle over whether or not to pay our current obligations. The compromise to raise the debt ceiling included the creation of the supercommittee to identify ways to reduce the deficit. It was signed by President Obama on August 2nd. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would have had dire consequences to the American economy, including default on our treasury obligations.
In an effort to get something passed and avoid default, the legislation punted spending reductions to the supercommittee composed of twelve legislators whose goal was to find specific cuts to make up $1.2 trillion of the $2.1 trillion in deficit reductions by November 23. If Congress did not approve the agreement, the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will automatically be divided equally against defense and non-defense spending, excluding Social Security, Medicaid and some low-income programs.
On September 8, the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction had its first official meeting. I remained hopeful that this select group could have moved beyond partisan politics and come to an agreement, but unfortunately they failed again.
It's important to put the current debt crisis into historical perspective. When George W. Bush took over the responsibility of the budget from Bill Clinton, the budget was running a surplus. The deficit crisis we face now is the result of the failed policies of the Bush Administration, and I am afraid this new Congress is trying to take us back to those broken policies.
In 2008, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated the total cost of the Iraq war at $3 trillion, including both direct expenses and the war's detrimental effect on the economy. It's worth noting that, at the beginning of the war, George Bush estimated the cost at between $50 billion and $60 billion. In 2010 Stiglitz called his own estimate too low. Some of his additions included ongoing medical care for our troops, the war-generated increase in oil prices, and the neglect and lengthening of our commitment in Afghanistan. Let's not quibble about the details and call it an even $3 trillion. That's still a lot of money to have spent in order to deal with imaginary weapons of mass destruction, as compared to the $2.1 trillion that the supercommittee needs to cut.
When President Obama signed the agreement forming the supercommittee, the Republicans immediately declared victory. And as is all too often in Washington, politics as usual began, and the political rhetoric from both sides was hurling across the Capitol.
An important factor in understanding our economic crisis is to know just how much financial damage the current recession has done. According to the Pew Economic Policy Group, real estate wealth decreased $3.4 trillion in the United States during the period from July 2008 through March 2009. During this time, stock wealth decreased by $7.4 trillion, wages lost amounted to $360 billion, and the Gross Domestic Product was reduced by $650 billion. Add to it the cost of the stimulus packages, the cost to the FDIC to bail out failed banks, the cost of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and so on. In human terms, 5.5 million workers lost their jobs early in the crisis, and the vast majority of those jobs have not come back. Lost jobs result in lost wages, which means the loss of tax revenues for the government.
The bottom line is that we need to get people back to work. The best way to address the debt is through a strong economy with full employment. I will create jobs. As a small business owner, and teacher, I understand the challenges our families and businesses face, and I will work everyday I am in Congress to implement solutions to our problems and get people back to work.
If it weren't for Bush's war in Iraq and the Republican generated financial meltdown, the current deficit and unemployment problems would not exist. The Republicans who caused these problems are less
extreme than the Tea Party that has a stranglehold on our country, and are standing in the way of sensible policies to spur job creation and improve the economy. Hopefully, the election in November of 20
12 will reverse this trend and usher in a Congress that can get the job done.
Unless a miracle takes place this Tuesday and Republicans in LD1, LD3, and LD4 pull off major upsets, South Jersey party boss, George Norcross, will have more than enough votes to replace his primary adversary in the Assembly, Majority Leader Joe Cryan, with his top ally in the legislative body, Louis Greenwald, sending Cryan to the back bench.
What remains to be seen, however, is what Cryan will do once he is sent there. Will he unite with his fellow back bencher in the Senate, Dick Codey, to build an opposition movement that will contend not only for the Governor's office in 2013, but also all 120 legislative seats? As much as I would love to see this, I do not expect that this will happen. It is very possible that Dick Codey will run for Governor in 2013, but it is also possible that Cory Booker, Barbara Buono, and Steve Sweeney will run as well and it is unlikely that any of them will run opposition slates against the party lines that they do not win, which means that regardless of who wins the gubernatorial primary, there will not be much change in the legislative roster or its leadership.
If I am right about this, then Cryan will most likely remain on the back bench for most of the next decade. That is, unless he finds a new office for which to run or that office finds him. There have been times in the past decade when Cryan expressed an interest in running for Congress in the 7th district, but admitted that the current configuration of the district made it extremely difficult for a Democrat to win.
This is very true. Our best chance to win this district came in 2006 when a very popular Assemblywoman, Linda Stender, challenged a very unpopular Congressman Mike Ferguson in a year that Democrats were trending up and Republicans were trending down. However, despite these trends, Stender came a few thousand votes short of victory. Two years later, Stender did not run as strong of a campaign as she did in 2006 and faced a very popular State Senator, Leonard Lance. Despite huge turnout increases inspired by Barack Obama's candidacy, it was not enough for a Democrat to win the 7th and Lance defeated Stender by a much wider margin than Ferguson did two years earlier.
While it is nice to solicit input from constituents, it would be even nicer to be up front about your positions or defend those that are contrary to the persona that has been carefully crafted when called
I wanted to spend my first blog post at BlueJersey thanking you for the coverage of NJ7, not just this year but since you started this site. You've been a vital voice in trying to turn this district over to the good side, and have been instrumental in my decision to run for the seat.
Things are going very wrong lately in America, as we can see with the "negotiations" over the debt ceiling limit. And it's representatives like Leonard Lance who are the problem, unable to stand up to the GOP bosses who refuse to compromise to solve America's big challenges or to let Republicans think for themselves.
Once upon a time, he was known as an independent thinker who was willing to buck his party in Trenton and challenged Governor Whitman who made the single worst fiscally irresponsible act in modern New Jersey history. But the move down the Amtrak route to DC has done nothing but turn the Congressman into a paper tiger who is willing to risk the good faith and credit of America, and by extension your family's economic security, because he is unwilling to stand up to the extreme right leadership of the House Republicans. I'm excited to be part of the effort to change the representation we have in DC, and have been working hard to be the nominee.
I announced that I was going to run on May 5th, and in less than two months had raised significantly more funds for the campaign than Lance did for the entire second quarter. But that's just the numbers from a single quarter.
What's most amazing is that after just two months, we are already almost equal with a sitting Congressman in cash on hand. He's got $215,000 on hand (after subtracting debt), while we have $160,000. Given that he's been in office and has raised half of that from PACs while we've raised almost nothing from PACs, that puts our campaign in a great position.
But it's about more than money, and more than getting distracted by the horse race of the campaign. It's about the people of New Jersey who need quality jobs, who need access to a world class education and affordable healthcare, who need a safe and healthy environment, and the opportunity to live out the American Dream. I want to work with the Blue Jersey community to make this a reality.
The 2012 cycle finance numbers are finally out for the second quarter of 2011, and I kniow you all have been waiting with bated breath for the news.
There's only one race in New Jersey as of right now, and it's a two-fer. But before we get to that, let's look at the rest of the state.
Every incumbent is raising money, though some slower than others. Chris Smith (R-4) and Albio Sires (D-13) each raised less than $100K this quarter, but neither is really in trouble. There's little talk that either of them could be districted out next year.
Scott Garrett (R-5) is the winner, pulling in a whopping $703,681for the quarter first half of the year, outpacing the number two William Pascrell at $489,056 and Frank Lobiondo at $486,271. Updated: I give you the first half numbers because the FEC pages are not being helpful in parsing things out by quarter yet.end update
Those are the highs and lows, but the real interesting one right now is the 7th. Most folks out there suspect that the 7th will be the one to disappear. It's the weirdest looking district, an easy win for the Republicans most of the time but recently got more Democrats registered than Republicans. It borders on Democratic districts (6, 10, 12 and 13) and Republican districts (5 and 11) into which it could be subsumed.
The 7th has also never made any sense at all, with the urban and hyper-Democratic east combined with the more rural and hyper-Republican west. more...
This diary is posted on behalf of Americans United For Change.
Congressman Leonard Lance is ready to face the music - sort of. He is holding a town hall meeting in Westfield tomorrow at 5pm in Westfield at the Westfield Town Hall where he should be asked to explain himself. But as is the habit of Lance and his colleagues, he has made absolutely zero effort to let those of us who might - ahem - disagree with him, know about the event. Nice try, congressman.
Below are the details on the event and some questions I'm betting the congressman does not have a good answer to. If you have time this afternoon or evening and are in the neighborhood, please stop by. Oh, and get it on video. This ought to be good.
How do tax breaks for millionaires create jobs?
Why are you cutting benefits instead of cutting the cost of Medicare?
The Bush tax cuts created a net zero jobs. How are these different?
How do tax breaks for oil companies help me?
Why should seniors pay for tax breaks for Wall Street billionaires?
Name one specific tax loophole for corporations that's closed in the budget you supported.
If you care so much about saving Medicare, why did you vote to make it bankrupt 10 years earlier?
Why should the middle class pay for tax breaks for the rich?
Since you voted to end Medicaid, how are you going to pay for nursing home care?
Why did you vote to subsidize big oil companies?
Will you vote to let Medicare negotiate with drug companies for cheaper medicine?
Details When: Thursday June 9th at 5:00pm
Where: Westfield Town Hall
425 East Broad St
Westfield, NJ 07090
Today is Earth Day. While I'd like to be able to say "Happy Earth Day" I can't in good conscience.
I am extremely concerned at the lack of headway to protect our environment and ensure our future generations have access to clean air and water.
In just under 3 months, the new GOP led House of Representatives have undone years of progress taking us in the wrong direction and setting a course for unprecedented misuse, abuse, destruction, and peril.
House Republicans illustrated their disregard for the environment when they canceled a recycling and composting program in the Capitol. The program employed the best practices in sustainability.
After switching from paper to plastic, the GOP passed legislation to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate green house gases and gut its budget. These efforts will undermine the agency's ability to enforce our environmental laws to keep our air and water clean.
The Republican Majority puts corporate profits ahead of protecting American families from toxic chemicals.
The GOP is taking its cues from special interests representing the logging, mining, oil, gas, and nuclear industries and protecting the profits of these corporations instead of protecting our natural resources.
Hydraulic fracking is a drilling process used to extract natural gas from shale by injecting large volumes of water laden with hazardous and carcinogenic chemicals.
A new survey by Democracy Corps in 50 of the most competitive battleground Congressional districts - nearly all of which gave a majority to Obama in the last presidential election - shows the new Republican majority very much in play in 2012.
The Republican incumbents in these districts, 35 of them freshmen, remain largely unknown and appear very vulnerable in 2012 (depending on redistricting). In fact, these incumbents are in a weaker position than Democratic incumbents were even in late 2009, or Republican incumbents were in 2007 in comparable surveys conducted by Democracy Corps.
The polled districts include the old NJ-3 (Jon Runyan) and NJ-7 (Leonard Lance). Now, we don't know what the new districts will be, and New Jersey is losing a seat, so it's too early to worry about details. What is clear through this and other polls that the Republican extremists in the House (and their counterparts at the state level) are alienating independents, exciting Democrats, and all-in-all building a voting record that will be difficult to defend.
The key though is that Democrats -- and progressives -- must recruit credible challengers while the window of opportunity is still open. LoBiondo's district is very favorable to Democrats, but giving him a pass year after year has left him seemingly invulnerable. Democrats can't afford to make the same mistake with Runyan.
Interesting and sensitive questions from some well-informed students at Westfield High School. Parents should be proud. - promoted by Rosi
Two weeks ago, I posted on Blue Jersey about the need to protect our young people from the bullying and harassment that leads many teens to depression or suicide. This week, I had an interesting exchange with teenagers at Westfield High School about what we can do to make things better, both on a government level and on a personal level.
This past Thursday, I visited Westfield High School to speak to a group of nearly 300 students about the political process and the issues facing our county.
continue reading below the fold
I didn't know until today that Ed was once the Residence Counselor at Davidson, the dorm Tyler Clementi lived in. A few years earlier, and it might have been Ed that Tyler came to for help. Breaks my heart. - promoted by Rosi
As you may know, Monday October 11 is National Coming Out Day. The annual day encourages young people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or questioning to feel comfortable being open about who they are. Sadly, we know all too well that for many, coming out isn't easy or safe. Last week, the senseless death of Tyler Clementi was an unfortunate reminder that too many GLBTQ young people do not feel safe or welcome in this world. It breaks my heart that he was made to feel unwelcome at Rutgers, my own alma mater. It has been heartening to see the gay and straight communities come together in the wake of Tyler's suicide to condemn the bullying and violence that makes our young people feel alone and unsafe. But we must continue working together to ensure that the coming out process for our young people is more accepting. Thousands of teens and young adults like Tyler face bullying and violence every day simply because of who they are. This has to end.
Teenagers are dying because they are gay. Tyler was not the only life lost this month because of gay related bullying or violence. This is unacceptable.
National Coming Out Day is a call to arms for both the gay and straight communities. We must commit to making the world safe for all of our children. We have to make sure that children and young adults grow up knowing that they are loved and welcome for who they are. And we must repudiate intolerance from the start, so that more children grow up knowing that homophobia, hatred and bullying are unacceptable. As Harvey Milk once said, "all young people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential." Milk said this over thirty years ago, but the sentiment is timeless, and we are clearly not there yet. We still have work to do make this a reality.
Earlier this week, I filmed a video for Dan Savage's "It gets better" project. I'd like to share it with you:
We all have to work together to ensure that for those who are preparing to come out and those who are already out, it WILL get better.
Like many in New Jersey, I couldn't afford to go to college without help. In addition to work-study, part time jobs, and scholarships, I took out student loans to help pay my tuition at Rutgers. I am still paying for those loans today. Paying for college is difficult for many students and families in our communities and these tough economic times have only made it harder. New Jersey high schools graduate about 100,000 students every year. Most of them want to go on to college, but many families cannot afford the high cost of higher education. Here in New Jersey, the rising cost of higher education is outpacing inflation. I'm not sure how Congressman Lance paid for his education at Lehigh, but he certainly hasn't shown any empathy in Congress for the struggling middle class families trying to help their children go to college.
I've spoken about Congressman Lance's disastrous vote on the Education Jobs Fund Bill earlier this summer, when he opposed rehiring 4,000 New Jersey teachers to teach in public schools K-12, where they are vital in preparing our students for higher education and giving them the tools they need to succeed in the workplace. On Wednesday, on the two year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, I called out Congressman Lance's vote against financial reform legislation. Mr. Lance's only committee assignment is the Financial Services Committee, where he and his colleagues are tasked with regulating the financial and insurance industries. Congressman Lance accepted more than $300,000 in campaign contributions from the finance and insurance industries- the very companies he's supposed to be regulating! So, it should come as no surprise that he voted against legislation that will protect the life savings, retirement funds, and college funds of New Jersey families.
What I find truly egregious is his vote on student loan reform. In March, student loan reform legislation sought to remove Big Banks as the middle men for lending federal dollars to students. The economic crisis has compounded the rising costs of higher education, putting college out of reach for too many hard working students. Meanwhile, these banks were pocketing $68 billion in profits on student loans, just for moving the money - dollars that could have helped make college more affordable for more students. The reform legislation that Mr. Lance voted against changed all of that. Now, billions of dollars that were going to Big Banks fund additional Pell Grants, which will help make college more accessible for many students.
In this economy, no one should be standing in the way of making college more affordable. The priorities of my opponent are way off. In New Jersey, we value higher education. We cannot afford to send a man back to Congress who wants to help the big banks make college more expensive for New Jersey students.
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.
Our guest will be Ed Potosnak, who is challenging Congressman Leonard Lance in the 7th District. We'll get the low down on his campaign and his thoughts on the issues of the day. Adam and I will also recap the last week in NJ politics and I'm sure he will have something to say about my next step.
So, join us for New Jersey's fastest half-hour of political talk. We'll see if we can keep up with the change-by-the-minute pace of news coming from just about everywhere these days.
Something special on your mind? Leave your thoughts in the comments, and maybe we can have some fun with them on air. Or, feel free to give us a call tonight, and share what's on your mind. Remember, it's all LIVE, so don't be afraid - join us!
I do not think Leonard Lance can be beaten in a Republican Primary. Even if David Larsen won, he would be cut out in redistricting in 2012."
Doherty's statement is sure to anger some of the same people that put him in office, but his decision seems to be more about is own political standing and thinking Lance is the safe bet so it's better to keep his powder dry in this one. Larsen will need to raise some seed money to show people he's serious and not just looking to loan his campaign money for the effort. I'm told that Lance won't be the only Republican to get a challenge from the tea party crowd as someone may run against Frank Lobiondo.
Then in the seats held by Democrats, there are a few primary races to run against the Incumbent. There are numerous candidate running in the 3rd district and Justin Murphy could also get support from the tea partiers as he runs again this year. There is also the primary to run against Rush Holt as Mike Halfacre and Scott Sipprelle will face off in a right v. further right battle and there may be more candidates to jump in the race. Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini and others have expressed interest in challenging to run against Frank Pallone as well. The tea partiers are even saying they may put someone up against Scott Garrett from the right, if that's possible in comments to stories that are being written. The amount of candidate running in GOP primaries can be seen as an indication of the enthusiasm and also anger out there with the public right now, who only want to see 8% of incumbent re-elected right now.
By contrast, the Democrats in New Jersey don't seem to like primaries as much. The only primary challenge I've seen so far is one against John Adler, but his warchest will make that an uphill climb. I know inside political circles they tend to shy away from primaries, because it makes you spend resources you want to conserve for the general election battle and take stands you often don't want to defend. But sometimes primaries can better prepare candidates for the trial by fire that is a general election campaign. Even if the GOP candidates don't win their primary challenges, the incumbents will already be in campaign mode given the voter angst right now. The competitive primaries to challenge Democratic incumbents will season them for the rigors of a race. With the climate and public opinion where it is, it's important that candidates don't wait to start their campaigns and these primaries insure that the GOP won't.
The DNC announced the other day that they will target Congressmen Lance and Lobiondo as part of their effort to focus on the group of 32 House Republicans who opposed the healthcare bill that are in Congressional Districts won by President Obama in 2008:
Through this campaign, the DNC will send a message to Republicans who have reflexively said no to health insurance reform by urging them to do the right thing and support reform when it comes to the House again for a final vote. The campaign will include press releases, Op-Eds and letters to the editor, local events and will leverage the energy and enthusiasm of the DNC's grassroots supporters and its email list in holding these members accountable for their vote. The effort may also include paid advertising. DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan released the following statement on the effort:
"You would think a Member of Congress should think twice about voting against health insurance reform that their families and small businesses so desperately need and want. But you have to think to vote against health insurance reform in a Congressional District won by President Obama just a year ago could be a political death knell at a time when Americans are clamoring for solutions to vexing issues like health care," said Sevugan. "These members not only represent districts that voted for President Obama, but also where health insurance reform, as in the rest of the country, is badly needed and where passing it will be politically popular. Some on the very far right wing would have people believe that voting for health insurance reform is a mistake politically - when the truth is that any Republican who votes against reform, especially those from districts won by the President, will undoubtedly place themselves in real political peril."
We've focused here at Blue Jersey a good deal of a attention and effort on getting the people in our own party on board with healthcare reform, but the DNC is taking a look at the other side of the aisle and lining up their targets for the next election based on what they see. In separate releases, the DNC noted that President Obama received 54% of the vote in Congressman LoBiondo's district and didn't give a percentage in Lance's district, but pointed to the President's victory. In fact, they and Organizing for America started putting out those releases hitting Lance and LoBiondo immediately following the vote on Saturday night. Congressman LoBiondo's spokesman had a simple, short response to the targeting:
Asked about the DNC's targeting of LoBiondo, Galanes asked, "Are they targeting John Adler? ... Just curious."
Are we in Congress or pre-school? A bad vote by Johnny doesn't excuse Franky from doing the right thing by his people.
Promoted by Rosi. - - I live in NJ-7, too. When do I get my phone call? Nah, that's okay, I didn't mean it.
And so it begins. We got our first robocall of the 2010 election against Leonard Lance (NJ7) today. I'm not sure, nor do I really care, who Accountable America is, but they left a voice mail for me or my boyfriend today and here it is in it's full glory.
Hello, this is a message from Accountable America. Why is the recession and increased unemployment dragging on? We need to ask our Congressman Leonard Lance. He voted against spending money to put America back to work. Congressman Lance voted against extending unemployment benefits and lowering taxes for 95 percent of working Americans. However, Congressman Lance did vote for executive bonuses for the same Wall Street Firms who took taxpayer bailout money .Call Congressman Leonard Lance and tell him we need to create jobs and to end this recession. Tell him to stop protecting bonuses for the Wall Street Executives who caused this mess.
It'd be more effective with a phone number, but I guess they're just trying to drive negatives at this point.
We hear he's turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. And Eric Cantor's office is really pissed.
It's one thing if he makes a deal with Vern Buchanan in Florida or Chris Smith in New Jersey, but we're hearing that he's offering to protect Republicans who have been slated as major DCCC targets, like Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Bill Young (R-FL), Leonard Lance R-NJ) and Charlie Dent (R-PA).
This is not a deal to get universal health care passed, which I could certainly forgive. This is a deal to vote for A. The Iraq War, B. Bailing out European banks via the IMF, and C. Covering up abuse photos. There's not much reason any Democrat should vote for it, much less make a deal to protect Leonard Lance.
Let's hope the rumor is not true, or the DCCC has the guts to tell Rahm he's not their boss.
According to the Cook Report we have three districts that are ripe for the out-party, two for the Rs and one for the Ds. Every two years they put together a new analysis (find out the metrics elsewhere) of the Partisan Voting (PV) index of Congressional districts based on the last vote.
Last year the only ones that were close were NJ3 for John Adler, NJ2 for Frank Lobiondo, and NJ7 for Leonard Lance. The rest are pretty much out of reach barring a live goat or a dead boy.
vmars suggests an easy, but vital, action item here, which I just did in under 2 minutes. Try it, it's a great idea - promoted from diaries by Rosi
Leonard Lance is at it again, trying to garner stimulus funding and the credit associated with it even though he voted against it. Heck, he went so far as to write an op-ed piece lambasting Obama and the Democrats for putting it together.
In the letter written on Monday, Lance said he was concerned about the delay in delivering the funds for the "shovel-ready" project available in the stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by Congress earlier this year and signed into law by Obama.
Congress passed it, yeah, but of the hundreds of Republicans in Congress only two voted for it. And Lance wasn't one of them.
UPDATE: BTW, you can call Lance out on the hypocrisy the papers won't mention in the comments section of the MyCentralNJ article. Just register and remind the reporters to get more than one view of the issue.
Generally people like honors, but Leonard Lance is not thrilled with his inclusion by the DCCC in their "Hypocrisy Hall of Fame." Lance was inducted after he started claiming credit for projects he opposed. Here's what vmars said at the time:
You never heard Lance say this before the stimulus vote. It would have gone against the GOP bosses position that stimulus spending was bad if Lance had suggested we should put the Green Brook Flood Control Project in the stimulus package. And going against the bosses can be bad juju for a freshman Rep.
Further proof that this was a partisan effort to take credit for a bill he voted against, Lance toured the area solely with Republican Pilato -- former staffer for Mike Ferguson -- and none of the Democratic council members from Bound Brook.
He didn't invite the Democratic Mayors of Green Brook, Manville or North Plainfield either, three towns that flooded massively in the 1973 storm that spawned the Green Brook Flood Control Project, flooded again in 1999 when Hurricane Floyd hit and gave new impetus to the effort. Manville again flooded in 1997 when the Nor'Easter hit.
No, after voting in lockstep with his party against the Democrats in the House Lance blocks out Democrats from working with him in protecting their homes and businesses from flooding.
In the State Senate Lance had a reputation for bi-partisanship and working to solve problems without being a blind party follower. In just a month as a member of Congress he's giving up that hard earned image to become another drone in the national Republican party.
Making an appearance at the special convention at the Clinton Township Middle School after attending the Union County Republican Convention today, Lance said he preferred a GOP alternative stimulus package proposed by Republican Whip U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Richmond) to what he saw ultimately as a bloated Democratic offering.
"I favored the Cantor package totaling $500 billion, which included money for shovel-ready projects," Lance told PolitickerNJ.com.
But which shovel ready projects? Lance's claim is he supported the bill put forth by the minority whip, whose job it is to keep members of the party in line? Did that bill even include specific funding for the Green Brook project he's claiming, or just other projects? That would indicate he played follow the leader with his party rather than standing out as a maverick for his district. By the Lance standard, everyone could claim credit for supporting everything if the standard is legislation that doesn't go anywhere. Lance opposed the stimulus package that was signed and will fund the projects he's standing with for photo ops. And it's more insulting to see him stand there after opposing, while the NRCC hammers John Adler for having the courage to vote for the package before touting its results. Where was the Lance amendment in this package dealing with Green Brook if he was so passionately committed to the project? He could have introduced that to be included in the final package. Instead he's hoping you either don't realize or aren't paying attention.
