The Record has endorsed Paul Aronsohn, calling Congressman Garrett a "radical" and urging moderate voters "to look beyond party affiliation and at the record of candidates."
Voters in Rep. Scott Garrett's district should take a good look at his record. Chances are they would be amazed. Chances are they would find the views of Democratic challenger Paul Aronsohn more in line with their own.
Republican Garrett is not a conservative in the true sense of the word, as one who seeks to uphold traditions and institutions. He is radical.
He was the only House member from the Northeast to vote this year against extending the Voting Rights Act. He was the only House member from New Jersey -- Republican or Democrat -- to support a significant weakening of the Endangered Species Act. He calls for making abortion illegal even when a woman is a victim of rape or incest.
I just moved into a pretty red neighborhood in a pretty red district (NJ-05) in a very blue state. I heard somewhere that the village was nearly 2 to 1 in favor of republicans. And a few weeks ago, ours was the only lawn in the neighborhood with an "Aronsohn for Congress" sign. So when I volunteered to helpout with Paul Aronsohn's uphill battle campaign, I didn't expect too much.
But today, I just got back from walking my entire neighborhood distributing flyers and other literature about Aronsohn's campaign (close to 100 houses) and damn, am I excited. Because if there is the response that I got to my day today in my fairly red neighborhood, then that bodes real well for not only Paul's campaign, but also for Menendez' bid for reelection.
If you read or watch television, then you know our prospects are looking good for Election Day - but you also know that the difference between a two-seat majority and a ten-seat majority in the House of Representatives will have massive implications for our ability to keep the Administration honest and start moving a more progressive agenda.
Just as important, you know - in the words of Councilman Peter Cammarano, speaking with Bob Menendez in Hoboken on Sunday - that "ground zero in the fight for the U.S. Senate is right here in New Jersey." The Republicans know they're losing seats in unlikely places like Montana and Ohio, and they're pinning a lot of hope on stealing back a New Jersey seat they haven't won in half a century.
It's about New Jersey, but it's also about America.
(Sub Ferguson and Jersey, too - promoted by blue7thpac)
OK. Maybe he's talking about another nutjob, Senator Jim Talent, but substitute "Garrett" for "Talent" and "New Jersey" for "Missouri" and you've got an ad for the NJ5 race. A real powerful ad, and exactly the kind of thing the people of New Jersey's 5th district should know about E. Scott Garrett.
Garrett, a Republican representing the district that stretches from Warren across northern Passaic and Bergen counties, is facing a challenge from Democrat Paul Aronsohn. He and Garrett have diametrically opposing views on key issues, from abortion rights to embryonic stem cell research to offshore oil drilling. Voters in this district would benefit from hearing the two candidates challenge each other's positions.
But Garrett is refusing to appear alongside Aronsohn in any forum where more than a tiny fraction of the district's voters could see or hear them.
Is Garrett afraid of something? Is this Sussex County congressman trying to hide his record and views from voters, specifically from voters in Bergen and Passaic counties, who tend to be more politically moderate?
In a word, yes. He banks on the fact that people won't notice that he's an out of touch wingnut.
Oh Congressman Garrett, you've let me down. Naive little me, thinking you had the spine to bravely stand up for those who would shield child predators for political gain. Say it ain't so!!
Embattled House Speaker Dennis Hastert will not be munching on hors d'oeuvres or posing for photos today in Englewood.
Instead the fund-raising event for Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, has been postponed to an undetermined date, Garrett said Sunday.
Garrett had drawn criticism from his opponent, Democrat Paul Aronsohn, who said Hastert's appearance sent the wrong message to the public.
Hastert has been accused of knowing former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., had sent sexually suggestive messages to teenage pages in Congress. Several Republican congressmen have canceled fund-raising events with Hastert. Garrett has maintained his support.
If you're like me, you're a bit displeased that the Democratic Congressional Committee has not given funds to multiple races in N.J.; they only seem to have appropriated funding for Linda Stender, who is perhaps our brightest star in her attempt to unseat Mike Ferguson. (Can you imagine what we could do if the DCC dropped $1 million into Rich Sexton's campaign, for example?)
I've been contacting the PACs and organizational apparatuses of several possible 2008 Democratic presidential contenders, encouraging them to come to the state to campaign for our congressional candidates and Sen. Menendez. Though I'm leaning towards John Edwards for the Democratic nomination, I don't think he has made it to the state to help our 2006 candidates, and his lack of participation, along with several other Democratic contenders, troubles me. Perhaps I'm not being fair to Bill Richardson or Hillary Clinton, however, since both are currently in reelection campaigns of their own.
Joe Biden's PAC told me that he was in NJ-7 today campaigning for Stender and Menendez.
In September or August, Gen. Wesley Clark made his way to NJ-5 to campaign for Paul Aronsohn.
Today and on 17 October, Barack Obama, who I don't think will be running for president, is campaigning for Sen. Menendez.
A few months ago, former governor Mark Warner did have a fundraising dinner for the state Democratic party, but he hasn't campaigned for anyone since, unless I'm mistaken.
I've contacted the Vilsack and Bayh campaigns besides the Edwards, Warner, Biden, and Clark listed above. When our primary comes in 2008, I say we remember who came to N.J. to fight for us in 2006 when we really needed them. Thus far, that is Biden and Clark. Anyone else I'm missing?
CQ Politics, which had listed NJ's 5th congressional district as a "Safe Republican" seat for Scott Garrett has updated their rating to "Republican Favored":
Democratic House nominee Paul Aronsohn must make significant gains over the final four weeks of the campaign in order to seriously threaten Republican Rep. Scott Garrett’s two-term hold on the seat in New Jersey’s 5th District.
But Aronsohn, like many longshot Democratic candidates across the nation, has gained at least a glimmer of hope for an upset because of the continuing and building problems that have forced the Republican Party on the defensive, even in some of their usually safe districts.
Aronsohn...commissioned a poll which purported to show the challenger reducing his deficit to 16 points. The poll, conducted Sept. 27-28 showed Garrett leading with 49 percent to 33 percent.
PoliticsNJ also gave Garrett a little arrow pointing in the "likely Republican" direction. It's a tough district to win, but Scott Garrett's embracing of party leadership who turned a blind eye to child predators is giving Aronsohn an opening:
One Republican who is especially on the hot seat is the party’s House leader, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, whose handling of the Foley matter has been questioned. Some Republican incumbents facing serious races have scrambled to distance themselves from Hastert.
But Garrett is not one of them. A conservative stalwart who reliably votes with the GOP leadership on legislation, Garrett made clear his continuing support by re-confirming an Oct. 16 campaign fundraiser which Hastert is scheduled to attend.
...
Aronsohn told CQPolitics.com Monday that inviting Hastert to the district demonstrated “a level of insensitivity,” adding, “What does this say to the families of the community and the families of the teenage boys who Foley was preying on?”
Paul is being kind. "Insensitive" is probably the nicest adjective that can describe Garrett. He was one of just 11 Members of Congress to vote against aid for Hurricane Katrina victims and the only one north of the Mason-Dixon line to vote against the Voting Rights Act. Oh, and while everyone else is scrambling to return dirty money, he keeps taking it from child predator enablers.
The latest internal poll from Linda Stender's campaign shows a quickly tightening race. In May, Linda was down 46%-33% but since then she's cut that gap nearly in half, with Ferguson ahead by just 7 points now: 47%-40% (4.9% MOE). Though Stender has increased her name recognition from 18% in May to 47% now, it's still only about half of Fergusons (86%). That's bad news for Ferguson since Stender still has room to grow as she boosts her name recognition (and no doubt Ferguson will continue to help her do that with his ads). After spending over a million dollars on ads, Ferguson was only able to improve his numbers by one point. The really bad news for Ferguson is that he's an incumbent and still polling below 50%. These numbers have Democrats smelling blood.
In the generic ballot, Democrats lead 44%-38% and 62% of voters give Bush a negative approval rating while only 37% give him a positive rating.
In the 5th district, voters seem to be just as ready for change. According to internal polling, 57% of voters believe the country is on the wrong track - up from 49% in March of 2006 and only 36% in 2004. Bush's popularity is down to 43%, from 48% in March and 51% in 2004. And perhaps most telling, more voters in the district now identify as Democrats and fewer identify as Republicans than before. In March of this year, 38% of voters identified as Republicans, and just 23% as Democrats. The margin has been cut in half, to 33%-26%.
Even in the reddest parts of the state, New Jersey voters are eager for a change. Buying ads in New Jersey is expensive, but given the resources to drive up name recognition, these races could narrow down to a matter of a few percentage points, at which point the race would be decided by turnout.
Mr. Garrett has practically been alone in his silence on this matter. No condemnation of Mr. Foley's disgusting behavior. No comments on his Party leadership's apparent cover-up of
the situation. No nothing from Mr. Garrett, except for silence.
The question is – Why. Why has Scott Garrett been silent on this very important, very serious issue. Even critics of Mr. Garrett's couldn't explain his silence.
Well apparently the cat might have gotten Garrett's tongue because he's bringing in Hastert to raise money next week.
"Scott Garrett has once again failed to demonstrate leadership in a time of moral crisis and has therefore once again failed the people in New Jersey's 5th District."
"In a sense, he has allowed his silence to be bought."
I guess having the funds to protect his seat is more important than the safety of our children. Just another reason to replace Garrett and elect Paul Arohnson.
You're not going to believe this! I hope Paul Aronsohn's campaign doesn't mind me borrowing all of this press release:
Paramus -- Congressional Candidate Paul Aronsohn sharply criticized Republican Congressman Scott Garrett for failing to speak out on the unfolding scandal involving former Republican Congressman Mark Foley and for holding a fundraising event with a person at the center of the scandal: disgraced House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
"Scott Garrett has once again failed to demonstrate leadership in a time of moral crisis and has therefore once again failed the people in New Jersey’s 5th District," Aronsohn stated. "In a sense, he has allowed his silence to be bought.
Aronsohn released the following statement:
"Over the past week, the world has learned of a terrible, terrible secret: A Republican Congressman had for years been sending pornographic emails and messages to teenage boys working on Capitol Hill.
And the world has also learned of what appears to be a giant cover-up of this morally reprehensible situation – a cover-up that seems to reach all the way up to the third highest ranking official in the United States Government – House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
As a result, people throughout our country and many of their elected representatives in Washington have spoken out on the issue. All have condemned the vile behavior of Republican Congressman Mark Foley. And most have demanded accountability from the Republican leadership on the Hill, including many calls for Speaker Hastert’s resignation.
But there has been one voice that has not been heard -- one Congressman who has not spoken out against Mr. Hastert; one Congressman who hasn’t even spoken out against Mr. Foley.
That Congressman, sadly, is our own Congressman Scott Garrett.
Over the past week, Mr. Garrett has practically been alone in his silence on this matter. No condemnation of Mr. Foley’s disgusting behavior. No comments on his Party leadership’s apparent cover-up of the situation. No nothing from Mr. Garrett, except for silence.
The question is – Why. Why has Scott Garrett been silent on this very important, very serious issue. Even critics of Mr. Garrett’s couldn’t explain his silence.
And then we learned the reason: Scott Garrett is planning to bring Dennis Hastert to Bergen County to help him raise money next week.
That’s right, Scott Garrett has remained silent in the face of one of the most egregious, most revolting episodes in the history of the United States Congress all because he wanted the disgraced Speaker to raise money for him. In a sense, he has allowed his silence to be bought.
10/9/06 UPDATE:
Looks like the Daily Record isn't too happy about Garrett's cherry picking, either:
...
Rep. Scott Garrett, like most candidates, knows the importance of selective reading. A few months ago, a Daily Record editorial criticized Garrett for opposing a measure to ban price gouging by oil companies. It noted that Garrett, who faces a spirited challenge in the 5th Congressional District from Democrat Paul Aronsohn, thinks government should do as little as possible. It said, for example, that Garrett has opposed a President Bush-backed plan to extend unemployment benefits and federal money for Katrina relief.
But one line in the editorial praised Garrett for being "one of those rare politicians who seems to put his principles over political expediency."
What line do you think the Garrett campaign picked up and used on a mailer to district voters? You got it, the one about putting principle first. This is like an advertisement for a movie that cherry-picks one line from a lousy review for marketing purposes.
A spokeswoman for the Garrett campaign noted that the candidate simply picked up a line that had appeared in print.
Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 15:42:05 PM EDT
As I mentioned in a comment earlier, I received a snazzy mailer from "independent" Congressman Scott Garrett. (Someone must have screwed up, since the mailer failed to mention that Mr. Garrett is a Republican.) The cover of the piece, entitled "An independent voice, getting results", shows a quote from the May 9, 2006 Daily Record:
"Scott Garrett is one of those rare politicians who seems to put his principles over political expediency."
An impressive endorsement for an "independent" politician, huh? Well, I decided to take a look at the whole article, just to confirm how wonderful Mr. Garrett is. Here are some other quotes from the piece that Mr. Garrett could have used:
I've been trying to find out if Scott Garrett supports Speaker Hastert or if he thinks the Speaker should resign for his knowledge of sexual exploitation of minors under his watch (and for his subsequent coverup of the issue). Unfortunately, I can't get an answer.
I can see where Mr. Garrett might be torn on the issue. When Tom DeLay faced indictment, Mr. Garrett felt it was a good idea to change house ethics rules to keep him from losing his position. On the other hand, Mr. Garrett likes to tell us how deeply committed he is to upholding "family values". (For the record, I think supporting veterans, helping the poor, providing healthcare to children and fighting for quality public education are "family values", but what do I know?) So maybe you all can help me get an answer-
Update, 2:15pm: Good news and bad news.On the bright side, we are up over $7,1oo! Unfortunately we are up against a deadline. Tomorrow is the quarterly filing day for federal candidates. That means today's "$5 Friday" is especially crucial.
It's been a big week here at Blue Jersey, especially as we celebrate our one year anniversary "covering NJ like a rug." Traditionally, the proper gift befitting a first anniversary is PAPER. Now since it's a special occasion I humbly suggest that (in lieu of gifts) you make a $5 or $10 or $20 contribution to your favorite NJ candidate on Act Blue.
If you go look at the current fundraising totals on the Act Blue page, you see that the numbers are impressive. We are just shy of the $7ooo mark and we still have a few more short weeks to show support for one or more of the fantastic New Jerseyans who are on our Act Blue slate.
I realize dollars do not grow on trees. And I admit that there's a small amount of sheepishness that I feel every Friday asking you to consider parting with your hard-earned money. But this is important! And for many of you with hectic lives who are too busy to volunteer, we wanna give you the chance to help out too. Your time is valuable to the campaigns, but so is your financial help. So our Five Dollar Friday feature is meant to make helping out easy, since you can contribute or volunteer on the Act Blue Site.
E. Scott Garrett to the House of Representatives - September 09, 2004:
"Madam Speaker, Iraqis are not lashing out through political activism, they are shooting American soldiers. They are killing the very same people who have come to help them."
So, on September 9, 2004, E. Scott Garrett recognized that IRAQIS were shooting at American Soldiers. Well, here we are TWO YEARS LATER and he still says stay the course? What's the definition of insanity again?
Well, speaking of insanity, maybe we'll find those WMDs that Mr. Garrett still thinks are there:
As the rate of gun violence dramatically increased during the 1980s and early 1990s, American children paid the price. From 1984 to 1994 the firearm death rate for 15-19 year olds increased 222% while the non-firearm homicide death rate decreased almost 13%. While deaths from gunfire have been decreasing since 1994, firearms are still expected to overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children.
Cars do kill children: so do poorly-made toys and swimming pools and dozens of common household items. But of all the thousands of products with which children have contact, only one - firearms - are completely exempt from consumer protection regulations. Back in 1972, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created, the gun lobby's political power ensured that the one product that is specifically designed to cause death and injury remained exempt. Thus, most handguns have so little trigger resistance that they can be fired by a three-year old, while many guns fire when dropped on the floor. Many popular semi-automatic handguns lack magazine safety disconnects or load indicators, meaning that children have no way of knowing that a gun that appears unloaded actually has a bullet in the chamber.
So something like trigger locks would be a no-brainer, huh?
Updated: 6:01 p.m. ET June 29, 2006
WASHINGTON - The House on Thursday passed legislation that would suspend a new requirement that gun dealers provide a trigger lock with every handgun they sell.
The development came on the heels of a 230-191 vote late Wednesday to block the Justice Department from enforcing the trigger lock law. The vote came during debate on a spending measure funding the department's budget.
...
The Senate had voted 70-30 to impose the trigger lock sales mandate, which proponents said would prevent gun accidents and save lives, especially those of children who discover a parent's handgun.
...
A foe of the amendment, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., said that the $5 to $7 that a trigger lock costs is a small price to pay for preventing some of the 30,000 gun deaths that occur in the United States each year.
.gif)
