"As Senator McConnell's statement today makes clear, the only thing standing between 160 million Americans and a tax increase is House Republicans' refusal to act." – Nancy Pelosi
Well, if you want to ask our “moderate” GOP delegation to the United States Congress why they are standing in the way of bipartisan agreements on taxes, unemployment and energy exploration legislation passed with 90 percent support in the Senate, here’s their addresses and phone numbers.
Frank Lobiondo (R-2) 5914 Main Street Mays Landing, New Jersey Phone: (609) 625-5008
Jon Runyan (R-3) 4167 Church Road Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054 Phone: (856) 780-6436
Scott Garrett (R-5) 266 Harristown Rd, Suite 104 Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452 Phone: (201) 444-5454
Leonard Lance (R-7) 425 North Avenue East Westfield, New Jersey 07090 Phone: (908) 518-7733
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11) 30 Schuyler Place, 2nd Floor Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Phone: (973) 984-0711
Side thought. Why can members of Congress send us pretty, printed mail at taxpayers’ expense but their offices don’t have 800 numbers?
So, someone has gone to the trouble of constructing a pretty good replica of The Honeymooners set, and videoed a little domestic comedy of about 10 minutes: The Goveymooners, starring Chris Christie (not really), Nancy Pelosi as his wife (deeply unsettling for both of them, I'd think), and their upstairs tenement neighbors, Mike Bloomberg and his wife (again, so impossible) NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn.
The two ladies are tricksters one step ahead of their husbands, and Christie is the odd man out - on marriage equality. and Christie is as always the odd man out on marriage equality. The big guy does a pretty a good Jackie Gleason. Coptergate and Disneygate come up. And then there's a last minute visit from Jim McGreevey. And karma, er, Carmen.
Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make this. I don't know who. Enjoy.
At the exact instant I sat reading about Congressman Albio Sires calling for Nancy Pelosi's ouster as Dem leader in the next Congress, my Blackberry lit up with a press release from Congressman Rob Andrews who's still got Speaker Pelosi's back. Andrews:
"I am strongly supporting Nancy Pelosi for Democratic Leader. As Speaker, she has proven to be a strong leader in tumultuous times. She is a consensus builder who listens to and respects all sides. While she has the skills necessary to find common ground for the American people, I am confident that under her leadership we will never abandon our principles. We will build on our record of landmark healthcare reform, a reduction in taxes for 95 percent of the American people and a strong financial reform bill.
In the 112th Congress, we need strong leadership to continue these efforts to improve our country and revitalize our economy. I believe Speaker Pelosi is the right person to continue to lead our party and, therefore, support her run for Minority Leader."
I am torn about Pelosi and in the end I'm not change-averse on this one. It's an open thread, BlueJersey. What's your take?
We now have both debates available on video, both below.
A few observations: Lance goes - many times - to the dusty GOP tactic of mentioning Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as though she's some kind of demi-witch, just in time for Halloween, with evil intentions that well-meaning Republicans must protect America from. It's quite overdone, and in the News 12 debate, Potosnak finally calls him on it, and reminds him of who he's actually running against and who he's not. The DADT conversation is interesting; Lance voted against the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (he rates only 38% Human Rights Campaign's scorecard). On the War question, Potosnak is unequivocal, a very clear position. Lance uses the opportunity to claim bi-partisanship with Obama, and try and trump Potosnak by showing off an incumbent congressman's access to classified briefings. Not too subtle. Also interesting is how assertive, aggressive even, he is toward Lance's record on several issues, particularly on economic issues. More than a few times, particularly in the News12 debate where the candidates are sitting 2 feet apart, Potosnak stared him down. Lance is good on his feet, a consummate speaker, but several times he appeared rattled and angry.
For the rest of this, frankly, I feel too close to this race (it's my District, and I helped bring Democracy for America (DFA) into the race, full disclosure) to be objective. So, Blue Jersey, I'd be interested in what you think. Of both debates.
NJ-7 Debate, sponsored by News 12 New Jersey 10/20/10
The only other debate (just 2 days earlier) is very different, and you can watch it after the jump. So, jump:
Monday night's debate between John Adler and Jon Runyan had its share of Tea Party folks posing their wedge issues during the question and answer session. One person asked each candidate if he would vote for their current House leader (Nancy Pelosi for Adler, John Boehner for Runyan) as Speaker if their party were in the majority. Luckily for Runyan, the answer was a no-brainer. But I was surprised at John Adler's response.
Adler is a skilled attorney and politician, and did not give a direct "yes" or "no" answer. Playing into the propaganda propagated by the Tea Party and Fox News, he stated that he felt that Speaker Pelosi was "divisive", and that troubled him. Where has he been?
The capstone legislation of the 111th Congress is, of course, the Affordable Care Act. The House Republicans were just a dead weight in its passage through the labyrinth of legislation. All GOP members abided by their loyalty oath and publicly stated that they would vote "no" on every one of the president's initiatives and obstruct this important bill, even though it is essentially the same bill that the Republicans promoted as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's health care initiative in the '90s. So, as leader, Speaker Pelosi needed to corral all of the Democrats - Liberals, Centrists, and Blue Dogs - to cobble together a bill that they could collectively support. Pelosi is a masterful politician and got the compromises necessary to pass the bill, despite 34 Democrats (including Adler) voting against it. Her ability to bring this diverse group of Democrats under the "big tent" is by no means divisive - on the contrary it is close to miraculous.
Adler's pandering to the right wing's anti-Pelosi (possibly anti-powerful woman) mantra indicates his willingness to swing toward what is required to be re-elected rather than toward what is right and decent. His remarks will encourage other conservative Democrats to mount a challenge to the leadership of one of the most effective Speakers in my lifetime.
Like other voters in the third district I've been inundated with mailers from the Runyan campaign to vote for him because he will "fire" Nancy Pelosi. He says very little about John Adler except he votes with Pelosi 90%. It seems the Runyan strategy is to make this election a referendum on Nancy Pelosi. He never mentions Obama, and hardly refers to Adeler. Instead, it's all about Pelosi.
I'm wondering just how many voters who get this junk even know who Pelosi is. I mean, many voters don't even know who their Congressman is, or even their Senators, except when there is an election. Does anyone have any polling data on Pelosi's name recognition, especially in the third district?
Personally, I don't think Runyan's strategy will work. My guess is relatively few voters, even likely voters, recognize her name, and focusing his attacks on her instead of his opponent will likely backfire at the polls.
This morning, Vegas time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be here at NN10 to take questions from 2,000 bloggers here at NN10. Later today, Majority Leader Harry Reid shows up to do the same thing.
Got any questions you want us to ask? Can't guarantee we'll get the time at the microphone, but we'll try. Use Comments to post your question.
Reid's opponent - SharronAngle - is also in Vegas, though I doubt she'd have the courage to walk through the halls here and take any of our questions, since she seems to specialize in dodging anybody's questions. Maybe Angle will feel more comfortable tonight when she's the closing speaker at the Right Online conference, which each year follows Netroots Nation to whatever city it's in, and draws righty bloggers there. They're bigger than they were last year. Turnout's still less than half of Netroots Nation, but they're telling participants that Right Online now outstrips our size. Their big draws are Michele Bachmann, Angle, Curtis Sliwa.
Angle's their closer tonight. Al Franken closes Netroots Nation. We win.
Now that the primary is over and the insurgent candidates were beaten back by their respective party's establishments, what choice does a Progressive Democrat have in New Jersey's Third Congressional District?
Two years ago, we rejoiced at John Adler's victory on the coattails of Barack Obama. Adler is the first Democrat to represent this area in over a century. His reputation as a "liberal" in the State Senate brought hope that he would pursue an agenda that would be for the people and not the corporate interests. But it all came crashing down when Adler bucked his party by voting for the insurance companies and denying health insurance coverage for 40 million Americans for another generation.
So now it's Adler vs. Runyan. The Harvard-educated lawyer with tons of legislative experience vs. an ex-footballer who shuns public scrutiny. The Democrat who abandoned the people who got him elected vs. the anti-tax Republican who harbors donkeys on his Moorestown estate to escape taxes. A Morton's Fork creating a dilemma for Progressives this fall.
The Case For John Adler
While Adler brags about his middle-of-the-road voting record, we can assume that in a second term, his approach would be better than that of Jon Runyan. As a Republican, Runyan would vote in lock step with the GOP leadership, just like his potential colleagues have done over the past two years. Say what you want about Adler, at least he shows some independence. But the overriding rationale to vote for Adler has nothing to do with votes on particular issues. The House races this Fall will be very close, and with the current anti-incumbency fervor, the race for control of the House of Representatives is at stake. It is critical for the Democrats to keep control, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Despite being demonized by the right, Pelosi has been the star of the 111th Congress - building consensus among the diverse views within her party and shepherding Health Insurance Reform through the process while the President stood at the sidelines until the very last minute. If the Republicans take control of the House, John "Hell No We Can't" Boehner will be Speaker, second in line for the Presidency, and would make today's obstructionist Senate pale by comparison. If the race for Speaker gets down to a single vote, I'd want John Adler to be there representing NJ-3.
The Case Against John Adler
An Adler defeat would send a clear message that there's not a large gap between his Blue Dog version of being a Democrat and a less-than-extreme Republican such as Runyan. This would open the door for a real Progressive Democrat to ride Barack Obama's coattails into the House in the 2012 election. While he spouts much of the Tea Party rhetoric, Jon Runyan purports to be pro-choice and is not as homophobic as his party's leadership. If he can hold his own against their powerful grip, it might be a good thing to have someone like that in the Republic Party.
So as someone who almost always has voted Democratic, I have not yet made up my mind. Right now, I can't see myself voting for either candidate and regardless of what happens in the next five months, I can't ever contemplate a scenario where I would vote for Jon Runyan. Whether I vote for Adler or sit this one out remains my dilemma.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Rush Holt will tour the University Medical Center at Princeton, a 308-bed acute care hospital tomorrow. Following their tour, they will hold a press conference to discuss healthcare reform.
MSNBC's first read had this exchange with Congressman Andrews trying to get some details about how co-ops would work if they were in place of the public option with healthcare reform:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her opening remarks, vowed that health reform would provide choices and noted, "I believe a public option is the best way to do that."
Others pressed further, trying to take down the proposed alternatives.
Democrat Rob Andrews (D-NJ) prodded Yale professor Jacob Hacker, a proponent of reform, on ways in which co-ops would not be effective.
Hacker said it's difficult to create a large enough provider network with co-ops and declared they have "little chance of success." He said the public option is better because there's a "presumption of participation." In other words, there would likely be more people who participate; it would guarantee a larger pool.
But Baucus, in what appears to be a doomed attempt to achieve bipartisanship, favors a system of regional, consumer-run insurance cooperatives over a public option.
Health care co-ops have been tried, and most have failed. And it's doubtful any could recruit enough members to compete aggressively with the insurance companies in negotiating cost savings with pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and physician groups. Only a single public option would have that clout.
Congressmen Holt and Hoekstra, both members of the House Intelligence Committee appeared on the Lou Dobbs show to face off over a potential investigation of the CIA.
Congressman Holt started by taking the opportunity to reiterate that he has been pushing for an investigation of the CIA, but pointed out that he is looking for something with a broader scope than what is currently being considered. Congressman Hoekstra trotted out the Democrats have attacked the CIA argument in response, to which Congressman Holt said that "it's not the same Peter Hoekstra that I've served on this committee for so many years with."
Dobbs tried to say the program wasn't implemented and asked what they could possibly do. Holt said the program was operational, but that the law requires informing even for anticipated operations. He said there was a responsibility and legal obligation to keep Congress informed, reiterating some of the same points he made with us recently on Blue Jersey Radio.
Dobbs then turned to Hoekstra again, who tried to define operational saying that while money was spent, the full intent of the program wasn't carried out, though I think Holt would argue that isn't really necessary to require briefing. Hoekstra made sure to finish his points by going back to the Democrats saying the CIA lied argument.
Congressman Holt just appeared on Countdown. At the beginning of the interview, they had some technical difficulties which they joked about. When the problems were fixed, Holt talked about a pattern of denial and deception that hurts our national security. Holt talked about a serious egregious example that went unexamined by Congress because it was unknown to Congress for many many years. He referred to a culture of concealment that can be dangerous and the need for Congressional oversight saying, this is something that is not new. He said anyone who has served on the intelligence committee and is straightforward would tell you that yes there is denial and deception among the intelligence community. The Congressman closed saying the fact that these major dangerous activities would be conducted without any oversight whatever, that they shouldn't even want that risk:I've also included the segment with Howard Fineman that came afterwards, because their discussion is real interesting on the topic as well. This one sounds like it could be big.
On June 26, seven Democrats on the committee - Anna Eshoo (Calif.), John Tierney (Mass.), Rush Holt (N.J.), Mike Thompson (Calif.), Alcee Hastings (Fla.) and Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) [Update: I received an early version of the letter. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) also signed it) - wrote to Panetta, "Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week." The letter - which doesn't explain what those "significant actions" concerned - asks that Panetta "publicly correct" his May 15 statement that it isn't CIA "policy or practice to mislead Congress." TWI acquired a copy of the letter, which comes after CQ reported that committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) also nebulously stated that CIA "affirmatively lied" to the committee.
MSNBC was all over this story on both Olberman and Maddow. Here is the opening segment from Keith's show:I'll put an additional segment from Olbermann and the opening of Rachel's show below the fold. Ackerman also has a copy of the letter the members of Congress sent, which I'll also put below the fold. This is sure to generate discussion in D.C. tomorrow.
Its been a busy week for those of use working to reform the broken health care system. Just two days ago, Speaker Pelosi pledged that the House would pass a meaningful reform plan by the end of July. We all know the cost of health care is too high and that there are far too many people in this country without health insurance. Now, it is time to do something about it.
On Monday, I took part in a live teleconference at Rutgers University with my good friend and fellow health care reform advocate State Senator Joe Vitale. The focus of the call was to bring together patients and reform advocates from the state and federal levels. More than 5,000 AARP members dialed in to discuss healthcare reform and the issues they're facing with the current system.
We heard a number of compelling stories from people who are unable to afford needed coverage. That?s because insurance plans are able to discriminate against older people who have a history of illnesses or are likely to need medical care. More often than not, these people are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions or charged exorbitant prices that make it impossible to afford insurance.
We also had a lengthy conversation about the Biologics Bill pending in Congress. You can watch a video clip below of me talking about this legislation, otherwise known as the ?Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act,? and the positive impact it will have in lowering prescription costs.
Congressman Rush Holt joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting foreign leaders, military leaders, and troops (including NJ National Guardsmen and women in Iraq) in Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq on a trip that began last Thursday and saw them return home last night:
Yesterday morning in London, Pelosi and Holt met with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to discuss the international economic crisis, climate change, trade and the United Kingdom's participation in the multinational force in Afghanistan.
This weekend, Pelosi and Holt also met with King Abdullah and Queen Rania of Jordan, the Emir and Sheikha of Jordan, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, among other leaders.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and four other Congressional leaders joined Rep. Rush Holt, Princeton University President and molecular biologist Shirley Tilghman, and a panel of leaders in science and technology for a panel discussion on science policy at Princeton this morning.
(l to r) Rep. John Larson, Rep. Edward Markey, Rep. Rush Holt, Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Bart Gordon & Rep. George Miller
Speaker Nancy Pelosi campaigned for Assemblywoman and Congressional candidate Linda Stender at a house party this weekend.
"Linda Stender is a talented candidate with a proven record of fighting to end global warming, promoting life saving stem cell research and fighting for hardworking middle class families," said Speaker Pelosi. "I am confident that come November, the voters of North New Jersey will elect Linda Stender, who will put their concerns first."
Also attending the event were Senator Frank Lautenberg, Congressman Frank Pallone, State Senator Loretta Weinberg and Bob Gordon, Assemblywomen Valerie Huttle, Nellie Pou and Joan Voss and Bergen County freeholder Connie Wagner. Weinberg, who mc'ed the event, pointed out that Stender would be New Jersey's first Democratic woman elected to Congress in a long time.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be in Princeton on Friday, February 29. She'll be speaking at a 12:30 pm fundraiser for Congressman Rush Holt at the Princeton Marriott Forrestal Hotel on College Road East, Plainsboro. Here is a copy of the flyer announcing her speech:
For more info, please contact: noodletalk@mindspring.com
In a sign that maybe the national party is going to take New Jersey's 7th Congressional District seriously in 2008, Linda Stender got a nice boost from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
The candidates receiving money from Pelosi will not be a surprise to political insiders. Several of them are repeat challengers whose races weren't on the political map early last year but are getting more than enough attention this time around: Darcy Burner (Wash.), who came close to upsetting Rep. Dave Reichert (R); Dan Maffei (N.Y.), who nearly knocked off 10-term Rep. James Walsh (R); and Linda Stender (N.J.), who was leading Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) most of election night 2006 only to see Ferguson pull off a narrow victory when the most conservative portion of the district's votes came in.
Maffei and some other repeat challengers have already received contributions from Pelosi's political action committee, PAC to the Future, from which she can give up to $10,000 per election cycle. These might be considered guilty contributions, make-up money for lost opportunities from last year.
Frankly, I don't care if it is guilt money. The national party, national party leaders and national independent expenditure groups were largely absent from the 2006 election. Stender got to within 1.5 percent with good fundraising, a weak Ferguson campaign and the local support of grassroot volunteers and blogs.
2008 can be different, if the national takes it seriously. I'm still not confident they will, but there are starting to be more and more indications that way.
Update: Pelosi gave $2,000 to John Adler, as well.
Chatting with Congressman Rush Holt the other day left me with the impression that the House leadership (and committee chiefs) are being a bit squishy with our civil liberties. Cases in point: FISA and this week's ENDA debate.
