While I would have loved to have seen Wagner run for a number of reasons, it seemed to me (just my gut feeling from some discussions and observations I had) that others were more enthusiastic about her running than she may have been. This is no knock against her - it is a huge undertaking and commitment to run for Congress, and Garrett has been known to play dirty against his opponents (recall he smeared former opponent and Rabbi Dennis Shulman as anti-Israel).
This creates a void in terms of big name NJ politicos who can raise the attention and money required to mount a successful run against a very well-funded Garrett. Whether this was in the works for a while, whether this clears the way for former NY Giant Harry Carson to make a run (which has a lot of appeal as well as some potential hurdles), or whether it opens the door for a primary fight among a number of already-declared other candidates remains to be seen.
Either way, this decision by Assemblywoman Wagner to not run (if confirmed) is too bad as it would have brought a different and more high profile seasoned politician to challenge Garrett with more built in and coordinated support from the Democratic Committee of Bergen County. Hopefully, whoever emerges as the challenger will receive coordinated support that will be needed up and down the ballot - especially with the Presidential and Senatorial races this coming year. It is a big opportunity for Democrats in Bergen County and hopefully it isn't a missed opportunity.
Since New Jersey was redistricted late last month, leaving the state with one less congressional district and a volatile, unsettled Democratic Party beginning what looks to be an ugly primary contest between Bill Pascrell and Steve Rothman, focus has been on the 9th, the district Rothman declined to run in.
That leaves the 5th an open question; who will challenge Tea Party darling Scott Garrett?
I don't know much about Gussen, except that 3 years when he was a councilman ago he filed to primary Valerie Huttle and Gordon Johnson, who serve LD-37 with Sen. Loretta Weinberg, and then dropped out.
Bergen folks, I'd be interested to know your impressions of Gussen and how strong he might be against Garrett.
How to strike the right note in this diary. Now, that's a challenge. As someone who has been an outspoken fan of primaries, I certainly can't and won't join the chorus of Democratic leaders horrified by Steve Rothman's decision to run against Bill Pascrell in a primary solely because a primary is expensive or can be divisive. Sometimes, primaries are important ideological fights and can be valuable party-building opportunities.
Unfortunately, the situation in NJ-9 is clearly neither: Steve Rothman, unhappy with the outcome of Congressional Redistricting, is moving from his home in Fair Lawn 10 miles east to somewhere in Englewood for the sole purpose of challenging his fellow Democrat, Bill Pascrell, because he calculates that's the best way to stay in Congress.
Instead of using his sizeable war chest - and up to $2 million additional dollars of funding from the DCCC - to challenge Scott Garrett, we now get to watch him spend that money against his friend, a democratic colleague with whom he has no ideological or political dispute. At a minimum, I considered this a disappointing decision, which I assumed was reached after much soul-searching.
So, I was shocked to learn that Rothman never seriously weighed running against Republican Scott Garrett. While nearly every democrat in New Jersey rejoiced at what appeared to be the potential finally to take out our most conservative tea-party Congressman, Steve Rothman never even seriously considered that opportunity.
That's a huge loss for the Democratic Party. Rothman is running away from a winnable fight with Scott Garrett, and running against one of the most effective - and most progressive - members of Congress. If the City of Paterson had been moved into Scott Garrett's district, we all know Bill Pascrell would be all in trying to take Garrett out. And that contrast is something I think Democrats can and should fairly take into consideration when evaluating who they are supporting this June.
It's no secret where I stand. I was on a long list of Bergen, Hudson and Passaic County officials endorsing Bill Pascrell. I'm standing with Pascrell for a lot of reasons - his strong record fighting for the middle class, his tireless work to obtain national park status for the Great Falls and his commitment to job creation. But I'm also disappointed. Disappointed Rothman would rather start this fight than take on a Tea Party Republican we've been trying to oust for years.
As the Record's Al Doblin noted, if Rothman were to run against Garrett, "Even if [he] lost, he would win" - a hero among democrats for taking on the fight. Instead, Rothman's putting himself in a position where the exact opposite might happen.
I'm still hoping he reconsiders. Or at least gives it serious consideration.
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?
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.
In case you missed it, U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett got singled out on last night's Rachel Maddow Show with guest host Chris Hayes and Michael Isikoff, on the money pouring in from Wall Street hedge funds at astronomical amounts some by indirect routes or via non-disclosure entities ... and what those hedge fund executives expect to get for their money out of Garrett:
Scott Garrett has always been on the leading edge of crazy, but his crusade as a "tenther" and his consistent voting against funding most federal agencies and programs is one that he is pushing to a growing audience who is receptive to taking a selectively literal interpretation of the Constitution.
As Herb Jackson noted today, Garrett has big plans with his newfound power and initiative, although the ironic thing here is that in pushing his new Constitution "rules", he neglects the very document he is clinging to.
For starters, Garrett and his fellow "tenthers" like to say that anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution as provided to the federal government is therefore not something that the federal government can impose, since it is then left to the states. However, Garrett and his ilk conveniently and selectively leave out the very important remainder of the amendment: "or the people":
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Garrett is using a selective reading of the tenth amendment to speak out and to vote against such horrors as federal funding for education, clean drinking water and other threats to our country. Not to mention the fact that the Preamble's "promote the general welfare" clause as well as the commerce clause under Article I have both been used successfully (and beaten back challenges) to do exactly what Garrett is falsely claiming as "unconstitutional".
Two years ago, I drafted a post (edited by the good members of Blue Jersey) with a rundown of what happened in the 2008 Congressional election in New Jersey's fifth district. We deconstructed the voting trends in each of the four counties, discussed how outreach and messaging (and money), as well as a different strategy, are needed to (1) win Bergen County, where most of the votes are and (2) close the gap in Passaic, Warren and Sussex Counties:
But this is a low information district with an inherent Republican advantage, where a large majority of people never hear a stump speech or listen to debates. And that is especially true in the rural areas that count for roughly one-third of the votes. So it's clear that very heavy handed, yet accurate, tactics must be used - and used consistently in a way that will not only reach these voters, but close the gap in Sussex and Warren Counties by 1/3 to 1/2 of the roughly 25,000 deficits of 2008 and 2004.
Now, I will admit this post may be a bit more subjective. But that's because since 2008 (and out of that diary), I helped start "Retire Garrett", a grassroots effort with outreach in all four counties to help recruit a candidate, solicit donors, craft message, coordinate outreach, and try to tackle the very tough feat of ousting Garrett in a fairly Republican leaning district. I (with other volunteers) figured this would be a 2 cycle effort, but worth pursuing.
I know, a cryptic title - so follow me here. But any comments by Representative Scott Garrett in support of women's suffrage as this country celebrates the 90th anniversary later this week would be in conflict with his consistent vote against the rights of those who aren't wealthy corporate donors.
It is a real good thing that the right for women to vote isn't up for reauthorization as well - because you never know what Garrett will come up with to deny them the most basic right as an American.
Why do I say this? Back in 2006, Garrett was only one of 33 Representatives to vote AGAINST the reauthoriziation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In attempting to explain a vote that seemed to anyone with a conscience as insensitive and racist, Garrett said the following:
Now, I have been here now for 3 years, just as the gentleman from Iowa has been as well, and I can think of many other very important significant legislations that we have reauthorized. But for the life of me, and I stand to be corrected, I cannot think of any other bill, any other important issue, whether you are dealing with the air, the water, the environment, our schools, our education or our health, our defense or otherwise, I cannot think of any other areas, and again I stand to be corrected, where we have reauthorized something for two and one-half decades. So I think that is the first area that we need to be addressing, and you are rightfully so for bringing it up.
Just as a side note on this, I did put in an amendment that would limit this down to 6 years, but that was the proverbial compromise amendment if we were not successful in getting your amendment to the floor tomorrow which would eliminate the multi-lingual ballots entirely.
Now, Garrett had a number of issues with the reauthorization, but his first two are incredibly telling. For starters, he felt that equal rights for something as basic as voting should only be reauthorized for 6 years, and not 25. Garrett's own words on this issue were that "circumstances in this country will be significantly different than they are today 25 years hence". His second issue? That ballots would not be English-only.
I ask this - what could possibly change in this country that would make the right to vote obsolete?
Scott Garrett wants to drill off the coast of New Jersey. Most people in New Jersey have been against this idea. Well now we have the numbers to back it up.
The northern Atlantic Ocean, including the Jersey Shore, holds more economic value for activities such as commercial fishing and tourism than it does for oil extraction, according to a report released today by the New Jersey Sierra Club.
For every dollar an oil company would make from drilling off the North Atlantic coast, the more environmentally friendly pursuits of fishing and tourism would generate $12, making sustainable uses of the ocean more prudent than offshore drilling, the report said.
The report said New Jersey was responsible for generating $11.5 billion of the estimated $61 billion generated by leisure and hospitality and recreational and commercial fishing among the seven states in the North Atlantic region. The suspected oil and natural gas in the region is estimated at $5.1 billion, according to the report
With the disaster in the Gulf, it is important to remember that there is one NJ Congressman who was in favor of offshore drilling right near NJ. With that, I put together the video below:
It's still early, but if you have literally 10 seconds available, please give us an indication of who you will be voting for this November. This isn't a Quinnipiac or Gallup poll, but it will produce a fairly accurate and unbiased result and may help us get an idea of Scott Garrett's vulnerability. Please send the poll to friends, family members, and others interested in the NJ-5 race. Thanks for participating!
After the initial amusement of watching Congressman Garrett get schooled by Rep. Weiner for citing a memo that was proven to be a hoax, more information started to trickle out about just when the memo was determined to be fake - or at least the distinct possibility that it was not real. And with that, I started to wonder if Garrett knowingly cited a fraudulent memo on the House floor - or if he should have known and was irresponsible in his actions.
I'll look at two things in this post: (1) Garrett's past history of being deceitful with his constituents on healthcare and (2) the timeline of events on Friday leading up to his House floor speech.
For starters, Garrett's own website cites a study by "The Lewin Group", which is supposed to show just how evil health care reform is and how bad it is for the American public. Garrett also cites The Lewin Group in other pieces as "proof" of his views. What Garrett fails to mention is that The Lewin Group is WHOLLY-OWNED by United HealthGroup, so he is citing the insurance industry for his support without disclaiming that there is a tremendous conflict of interest, at best.
Garrett also disingenuously referred to the health care bill as "having bipartisan opposition", yet the Medicare Part D bill in 2003 (which he voted for) was (1) grossly and willfully underestimated in terms of cost; (2) was a giveaway to big Pharma (noting that Garrett was one of a handful to vote for allowing insurance companies to continue collusion and price fixing a few weeks ago) and (3) had the vote kept open for HOURS while deals were cut to pass by a single vote - and had bipartisan opposition.
So, to say the least, there is a history of him being deceptive and taking the moral low road in order to push his personal or political agenda.
12:30PM - Republicans first "learned about" the memo. Interestingly, some Republican offices did nothing with this information since the origin could not be verified;
12:30PM Democratic Senate offices started receiving inquiries as to whether the claims were true (not whether the memo was real or fake though);
12:45PM - Politico story posted about the memo (also posted on right wing sites like Washington Times and Breitbart). Picked up by Drudge;
1PM - Rep. Boehner's office sent the memo to reporters, without verifying whether it was fake;
2:40PM - After Democrats verify memo didn't come from any offices, they pushed back on it;
Mid afternoon - The Atlantic posts apology for posting the fake memo, Politico takes down the memo and The Hill tweets that it opted against posting the memo;
3:40 PM - Press conference with Eric Cantor and other Republican leaders indicating they knew the memo was fake but dismissed its importance (after pushing it hard all afternoon);
5:15PM - Scott Garrett makes remarks on House floor
Now, Garrett's excuse was that it was distributed by a "reputable Capitol Hill newspaper" and he didn't know it was retracted. But neither Politico nor Washington Times would have issued this in a print version, so he had to have received it online. And with his House colleagues/leadership all knowing a few hours earlier that this was at a minimum, not necessarily a real memo (not to mention the fact that there was no name and nobody could source the memo), it is incredibly irresponsible for him to cite something that could not be verified, was only received electronically, was taken down and refuted by numerous sources throughout Washington at various points throughout the day, and Garrett - someone with a history of bending or cherrypicking his facts to suit his agenda "didn't know" about the retraction, the updates on every blog and publication, the press conference by his own caucus or even the hint that this memo was fraudulent?
Each week, Blue Jersey Radio streams LIVE with New Jersey's latest political buzz, interviews with newsmakers, and your stimulating calls.
This week: We're joined by NJ-5 Congressional Candidate Tod Thiese seeking the democratic nomination in New Jersey's 5th District, for a chance to take on Scott Garrett in November.
Sure, it feels like we've been through this before. So, what's Tod got in mind to change it up this cycle? Find out from the candidate himself.
Have your own ideas? Drop 'em in the comments, then tune in and join the conversation!
It's all LIVE tonight at 8:00 p.m..
And, of course - you can always give us a call and have your say. That number again is: 646-652-2773.
That time is now, as Warren County resident Tod Theise has answered the call and announced his candidacy against Garrett. In his statement to the press, Thiese noted the following contrast between him and Garrett:
"I don't think he represents working families in the district," Theise said. "He voted against extending unemployment benefits ... he voted for every [George W.] Bush budget."
A former Republican, Theise became an independent in the early part of the last decade and then migrated to the Democratic Party. He said his reasons for the leaving the Republicans were the spending policies and lack of Wall Street regulation under Bush.
His criticisms of Garrett are similar.
"What I find lacking is that he gives the people on Wall Street a complete and utter pass," Theise said. "He is basically bought and sold by Wall Street."
Now, I've met Tod and spoken to him numerous times over the past few months as he has been moving towards a run at Garrett. There are a few things about this candidacy that I like personally - for starters, it will be interesting to see how a non-Bergen County challenger plays out - especially in the current climate where being associated with the BCDO isn't the best of associations right around now. Additionally, I've always thought that lowering the 60%+ of the vote that Garrett routinely gets in Warren and Sussex counties is imperative - that this race cannot be won in Bergen alone. I also like the views and approach that Tod is taking on a number of issues - but this will come out over the next few months as the campaign gets under way.
Of course, this is one of the most uphill battles in general, as Garrett has never gotten less than 55% of the vote in his 4 previous races. But you never know what can happen in an election, and there has been unprecedented focus on Garrett by a number of grassroots organizations in the District (ahem....).
I'll start by saying that anyone who uses the sentence that "MSNBC is the only counterpart to FOX and the right wing noise machine" has their head completely up their ass. Two hours per day (Olbermann and Maddow) do not make up for the countless hours of "fair and balanced programming" that Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or much of the daytime programming comprises - certainly, this is a mixed bag at best and nothing near the ridiculously and blatantly skewed programming on FOX - or even worse, the "supposedly neutral" but SO NOT neutral CNN.
But I digress....
A couple of weeks back, Chris Matthews had two Congressmen on Hardball to discuss health care reform and how the issue could be moved forward in a bipartisan manner. The Republican Congressman appearing was New Jersey's own Scott Garrett. At the end of the segment, Chris heaped effusive praise on Garrett, calling him his type of Northeastern Republican, which I guess means the most radically rightwing kind. He even invoked the word "moderate" to describe Garrett (at which mention Garrett visibly cringed).
To grasp the abject stupidity of Matthews' misplaced admiration, you have to understand who Scott Garrett is and what he stands for. As we have documented here time and time again, Garrett is arguably THE most radical right-wing member of Congress. His illustrious legislative record includes, among many other things:
Voting against aid for victims of Katrina,
Voting against extending unemployment benefits for American families,
Voting against extending the Voting Rights Act,
Voting against providing health care to poor children,
Voting against anti-price gouging legislation holding big oil accountable,
Voting against taxing bonuses for Wall Street execs (he actually argued that they "deserved" them),
Voting for every bloated Bush budget, and
Voting for every dime spent in Iraq.
Oh, and by the way Chris - He's also catering to the birthers - if not necessarily an outward one himself, having said at a public meeting that he wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. Garrett further distinguished himself following the earthquake in Haiti. His message on his Congressional web site said the he was praying for those constituents of his affected by the quake. No mention of the thousands of Haitians who were dead or injured. Garrett also opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest - allowing a rapist to choose the mother of his child or a molesting father to force his daughter to bear his own grandchild. And he referred dismissively to the push to eliminate DADT as a "side issue" not worthy of his consideration. That's Chris Matthews' kind of Republican.
As Jason notes below, Garrett also recently appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show with guest host Ed Schultz. Once again he performed his one man show designed to portray himself as the sincere moderate that truly wants to work across party lines for the good of the American people. I can't blame Ed because he was filling in at the last moment. But I can blame the show's staff for not doing even a modicum of homework on their guest. Like Matthews, Schultz - someone who should know better - bought the well rehearsed charade hook, line and sinker.
By giving Garrett this kind of forum without challenging him on his record, MSNBC has aided and abetted an insidious political fraud. It is incumbent upon MSNBC to make sure this journalistic incontinence doesn't happen again. First, try to actually do some research on your guests. You know, like Rachel Maddow does so well. Second, next time you extend an invitation for Congressman Garrett to appear on one of your infotainment shows, ask him why he voted time and time again to deprive Americans of their most basic civil rights. Then ask him how we can buy into his fairy tale of working toward a bipartisan utopia when he questions the very legitimacy of our President to serve in office based on debunked crackpot theories.
Maybe then MSNBC can begin to regain some semblance of journalistic integrity.
As pointed out by our friends at Down With Tyranny, a vote was held yesterday in the House with respect to the National School Lunch Program - a program that is even more necessary now given the state of the economy:
H.Res.362. It expresses the House's support for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program and "recognizes that our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school." It passed 403-13, every Democrat and 155 Republicans, including the entire GOP congressional leadership voting in favor.
And guess who was one of the 13?
Let's look at some numbers. There are approximately 200,000 children living in Bergen, Sussex and Warren Counties. Of that, there are 12,400 children in Bergen who are on reduced or free lunch programs due to need, over 2,300 more in Sussex County and another 1,900 in Warren County. That is one out of every twelve children in these three counties who can't afford a decent meal and rely on the National School Lunch Program.
And this is too offensive for Scott Garrett to support.
Garrett is very good at explaining away his unconscionable votes with a caveat such as "I agree in principle but..." or "I would have supported this, but....". Quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. Time after time and vote after morally reprehensible vote, Garrett shows where his loyalties lie. This is about struggling families. And just as his vote against clean drinking water shows, Garrett can't keep explaining away votes that show a pattern of disdain for the health and welfare of those in his district that he is supposed to represent.
What makes this worse is the fact that the BCDO is choosing to give Garrett a pass without even so much as a challenger to a man whose actions and record are nothing short of abominable.
Say what you want about former BCDO Chairman Joe Ferriero, but he knew how to rack up Democratic wins in Bergen County. As for his successor, Michael Kasparian, 2009 didn't look too good but let's not give him all of the blame for the loss of two freeholder seats and a near draw between Christie and Corzine in the backyard of the very popular Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate. After all, he did have to come in on the heels of a cloud of corruption and it didn't go away (probably still hasn't). That being said, Kasparian did say that he was not going to be the same type of leader as Ferriero and would have more transparency in the BCDO. I assume he also had a goal of restoring the tarnished image of the BCDO.
Which makes the information I have been hearing that much more puzzling as well as maddening.
Now, knowing that Scott Garrett is by far one of the most out of step Congressmen, tucked safely in a district that is hand drawn for a Republican to hold on the Congressional level and the desire for the Bergen Democrats to lay as low as possible, I can understand a level of concern, given the county and statewide election results last November. But I have heard from at least four different people in four different parts of the county who have spoken to three very well known and high profile people high up in the BCDO - all of whom have indicated the chosen strategy of the BCDO (and I am paraphrasing):
We think it would be best to not run a challenger to Scott Garrett in the hopes that Republican voter turnout will be depressed and our local candidates will have a better chance of winning
Where to even begin here? How about the following reasons why this is quite possibly the absolute dumbest and worst political strategy I have seen in a good long time:
Republicans are more motivated this year than in the past 6 years. To think that they won't be coming out stronger and hope they will forget there is an election is fantasyspeak;
Having no Congressional candidate will not "free up motivated volunteers" to help with, for example, Freeholder, County Executive, County Sherriff or other lower tier races - local races where quite frankly, most people don't know or care enough to get involved;
Voter turnout in an off year (i.e., non-Presidential) is low as is - without giving the base a real reason to vote - and voting just for downticket races is hardly reason enough to get the full base out to vote - will only depress Democratic turnout further;
Sending a signal that you don't even want to field a top of the ticket candidate is a message of fear - a losing message. This will likely (1) depress the base vote further, (2) depress the motivated activists who would otherwise vote for an entire ticket, tell their friends and neighbors to do the same, volunteer and talk up the race and (3) create a backlash and resentment among those who know the damage that Scott Garrett does to the people of this district; and
Give the impression that an attempt to save their own personal political lives is more important than helping those constituents who they hope will elect (or re-elect) them to serve.
What message does it send to me - a motivated activist who has spent the better part of my four years living in New Jersey working to oust Garrett? That I should not only suck it up and let Garrett walk to a win - even if he ends up embroiled in his own horrific scandal - but I should also be a sport and team player and have all of my friends and neighbors come out and vote for downticket candidates because why?
And I know that there are hundreds of people like me - people who can get hundreds more to vote for a whole slate of Democrats. What the Bergen Democrats don't realize, just like the New Jersey Democrats who don't understand Garden State Equality's stance on not donating to the Democratic Party as a whole, is that our votes, our time and our money is earned.
By not running a Congressional candidate, the Bergen Democrats are doing none of the above - and they will only lose by a larger margin than if they had a Congressional candidate.
