A lot has been said, both here at Blue Jersey and in the traditional media, about the recent Congressional redistricting - and more specifically with an eye on the new Fifth and Ninth Districts. Here in the Fifth, where I (still) live, the District is better in terms of the ability to beat radical right winger Scott Garrett, but the District is still a fairly Republican district. Where things are very interesting in terms of just how serious the New Jersey Democratic Party is, not to mention the national Democratic Party, lies right here in Bergen County.
When Rep. Steve Rothman decided to run against Rep. Bill Pascrell in the Ninth as opposed to running against Garrett, my thought on the bigger picture is that there will be a lot of money spent on a Democratic Primary (assuming there is one) that could have been much better spent knocking down one of the worst Representatives in the truest sense of the word "representative" in that Garrett does not represent the best interest of most of his constituents.
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 Government inefficiencies and outdated ways of doing things continue to keep the costs of running government too high.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.
PolitickerNJ is reporting that according to "two sources with knowledge of the offer" say that DCCC offered a cool $1 million to Steve Rothman if he stayed in the 5th to challenge Scott Garrett. And that the offer would slide up to $2 mil if polling showed the matchup competitive.
The sources are unnamed.
What would be the motivation for somebody to tell politicker this?
DCCC? No. Rothman has already declared his intentions in the 9th, no reason to screw a 15-year House member. Even if the story's true, it doesn't serve DCCC to embarrass a congressional Dem.
Rothman's team? Obviously, no. Only hurts the boss.
There's a lot of anger directed at Rothman now from some corners. You can read it all over our pages, but not from me. Disappointment, even for some a sense of betrayal, that Rothman would "take the easy route" and compete with another Democrat in the district Pascrell now lives in, but with constituents the bulk of which Rothman represents. Resentment that Rothman declined to challenge a Tea Party love-object in a district with a clear GOP advantage.
I have no idea if the item is true or not. But I can't help thinking who gains in a story without evidence or confirmation from the players that makes Rothman look bad, or look like somebody DCCC might write off. Am I too cynical?
This past week, we've seen a lot about the impact of congressional redistricting and the positioning of candidates in North Jersey for the upcoming election. Congressman Steve Rothman has declared that he will move and challenge his colleague Bill Pascrell in a primary rather than face incumbent Republican extremist Scott Garrett. Whether or not Rothman's decision is a good one, it hurts me to see two Democrats spending a million dollars to knock each other off when the money could be better spent in an all-out effort to oust Garrett, one of the worst members of Congress.
It also bothers me that the Fourth Estate has virtually ignored the important race in the Third District. Another member of the "worst congressman's club" is former NFL bad boy and current congressman Jon Runyan. Runyan's voting record is as bad as Garrett's, and over time if Runyan builds up seniority in the House, his impact will be just as deleterious.
Wagner supporters are using facebook to rally for her. Bertin has the link - so does Nick - if you haven't seen it. Anybody know if any other potential NJ-5 candidates have a social media campaign presence? - promoted by Rosi
Ever since it was first announced that Congressman Steve Rothman would be running for re-election in CD9 instead of CD5, I have talked up the idea of drafting Assemblywoman Connie Wagner to run in CD5 against Congressman Scott Garrett, based on my belief that she has the potential to be a stronger candidate in this district than Rothman, because of her capacity to attract national attention and dollars.
Just a few minutes ago, while reading a thread started by our very own Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, I discovered that a Draft Connie Facebook group has been started. Please join me in joining this group and working to build energy and excitement around this extremely important effort.
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.
The Republican, elected to Congress in 2003, is one of the most vexing in an already right-leaning House of Representatives; a wingnut the tea party loves to love. The Democrat, who went to Congress in 1997, came out early for Barack Obama when nearly the entire NJ Democratic establishment was pushing Hillary Clinton, and became the president's Northeast Regional co-Chair.
Now, the Democratic members of NJ's congressional redistricting commission have submitted a final map that pits Scott Garrett (NJ-5) against Steve Rothman (NJ-9) in one competitive district, as reported in nj.com this morning.
John Farmer, Jr. the former New Jersey Attorney General and current Rutgers-Newark Law School Dean, now is empowered to decide between proposals from the Democratic and Republican teams, six members each. What the GOP proposes is still unclear.
New Jersey's population loss loses us one seat in the House, and the Democrats' plan focuses on the north, the region that has seen the greatest shifts. The NJ congressional delegation as it stands now is 7 Democrats, 6 Republicans. The Democrats' map would create 6 safe districts for Democrats, 5 for Republicans and the competitive district one both parties - and perhaps two incumbent congressmen - would have to battle for.
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.
Blue Jersey's Quote of the Day is out of the mouth of Congressman Scott Garrett, of New Jersey's 5th congressional district, and its 90% whiteness.
I only take note of the 5th CD's whiteness, because I confess I'm baffled what the hell Scott Garrett was talking about on a "backwoods" tour of (even lily-whiter) Warren County for some business visits last week, ending up at Rudolph Research Analytical in Washington Township (in Morris County, but near Hackettstown, in his purview). Rudolph Research Analytical is a 30,000 square foot lab that designs devices for the pharmaceutical, chemical, petroleum & food industries. Some labs have an outsize demographic of Asian people working in them (and plenty don't) and some people think all Asian people are alike. Is that what Garrett was talking about? Or was he commenting on people darker than himself? What, what, Scott Garrett? What does this mean?
The lab's director, Richard C. Spanier, said something nice about dealing with people in the American Midwest. Their attitude is "straight-forward". To which Garrett replied:
"Other ethnicities are not that way," Garrett said. "They'll say yes to you constantly and then you'll realize they really didn't mean it."
Other ethnicities? Dude. What are you talking about? You scare me.
Ironically but not surprisingly, Sarah Palin and a good number of those on the right like to address their crowds, who have increasingly been playing dress-up as "patriots" (and not in the Tom Brady kind of way), as "Real Americans™". They talk about "the tree of liberty", "patriotism" and any number of cherry picked or out-of-context quotes from the Founding Fathers or the Bible. Yet when it comes to actions, what we see from her, Scott Garrett, Chris Christie, Eric Cantor, many on the right (and a growing number on the "left" as well) is just the opposite of what a "real American" is.
Real Americans don't vote for $50 billion in Iraq "reconstruction" like Eric Cantor, Scott Garrett and so many Republicans did with no strings attached, yet demand more cuts here in America to help those in need after devastating earthquakes and hurricanes.
Fake Patriots like Chris Christie and so many Republicans talk about cutting Medicare and social security benefits for those who desperately need them, cloaking it as "reform", while turning their nose up at raising the social security wage limit to address the most regressive tax in this country.
Last week, I wrote a post about how House Republicans like Scott Garrett and Eric Cantor were using this past week's disasters (earthquake, Hurricane Irene) and used them as a sick opportunity to take cheap shots at those who were the most in need and vulnerable.
Of course, I'm referring to the self righteous calls for more cuts to desperately needed programs to help those who aren't super rich in order to pay for cleanup of the massive and widespread damage.
Hopefully, everyone is safe, with power back on if it was lost or all water bailed out (as I spent most of yesterday doing) or all tree branches picked up (as I still have to finish myself).
House Republicans demanded earlier this year that new disaster relief be funded by cuts elsewhere, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office said Thursday the Virginia Republican continues to believe that.
Rep. Scott Garrett agreed. Garrett, R-N.J., said through a spokesman it was the "responsible thing to do."
"With $16 trillion in debt and budget deficits as far as the eye can see, the last thing we should be doing is spending money we don't have," Garrett spokesman Ben Veghte said.
Unless you're living in a cave and are cut off from the outside world, you probably are aware that a hurricane is coming to New Jersey. The press coverage is relentless, and credit should be given to those reporters who are providing helpful hints on how to deal with the pending disaster.
By all accounts, Irene is predicted to be one of the worst natural disasters to hit New Jersey in a long time. There will be millions of dollars of damage, lots of inconvenience as we are diverted from our daily routine, and, tragically an inevitable loss of life.
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.
The President rightly pointed out today that the House Republicans are jeopardizing Social Security checks, disability checks, and veterans benefits:
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it"
Stopping checks or defaulting on debts would be a complete disaster, whether we're talking about the consequences to individuals or the consequences on the national macro-economy.
Setting recent arrivals Jon Runyan and Leonard Lance aside, every New Jersey Republican and Democrat have voted to raise the debt ceiling multiple times (PDF), each voting yes when their party was in the majority and no when it wasn't. These long-term Republicans -- Frank LoBiondo, Chris Smith, Scott Garrett, Rodney Frelinghuysen -- are in perfectly safe seats and it's time for them to step up for the good of the country. After all, they already approved the budget so they have authorized every dollar of spending, knowing that it required borrowing. It's been pure political showmanship until now, but reality is intruding. They need to vote -- with some Democrats of good faith -- to raise the debt ceiling without continuing to take the country hostage.
The Republican deficit reduction plan does not even win majority support, but when voters learn almost anything about it, they turn sharply and intensely against it. They have particularly grave concerns about the plan to end Medicare and slash Medicaid spending, pushing seniors into the private insurance market and costing them thousands of dollars more in out-of-pocket expenses.
Today, every New Jersey Republican voted for the plan: Frank LoBiondo, Scott Garrett, Jon Runyan, Chris Smith, Rodney Frelinghuysen, and Leonard Lance all have now tried to end Medicare.
Today, Scott Garrett asked the House of Representatives to replace Rep. Ryan's already extreme budget with the nutty Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget, which basically does away with most government programs. It's an unconvincing attempt to make Ryan look reasonable and show the conservative purity of the supporters. Ezra Klein comments on the hilarious results when the vote came:
...a bunch of Democrats - 172 of them, to be exact - either voted "present" or, more sneakily, switched from "no" to "present." As the number of "no" votes dwindled, the confused Republican realized their "yes" votes - votes that were friendly expressions of conservative solidarity rather than an actual effort to pass the RSC's plan - were becoming a majority. The result, as Brian Beutler says, was "chaos" on the House floor, as Republicans, once they realized what was going on, rushed to switch their "yes" votes to "no" votes to make sure the RSC budget didn't actually pass.
The resulting 111-112 vote is very entertaining, as former "moderate" Leonard Lance joined Scott Garrett as the only New Jersey Republicans to join the super-extreme right. Does he anticipate a primary with Garrett? Has he given up on a general election?
House Republicans huddled late Monday and, according to a GOP aide, gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparing for a possible shutdown. That process includes alerting lawmakers and senior staff about which employees would not report to work if no agreement is reached.
Jon Runyan, Frank LoBiondo, and the others have direct responsibility for what is going to happen. Whatever measured official statements are made, they are actually applauding and cheering when the cameras are turned off. Every reporter should include it in their accounts.
(And oh yes, the pathetic Democrats who failed to pass the budget last year are the ones who gave them this opportunity.)
.gif)
