Did you miss last night's scintillating edition of BlueJerseyRadio? You know, the one where Jeff and I served up the pithiest political dish in the land? The one with chairman John Wisniewski rallying the troops to keep flogging Governor Christie whose latest hissy cost New Jersey students nearly a half billion dollars?
The Christie Administration has cast a wide net, blaming everyone from mindless drones in Washington to Rahm Emanuel and the Obama Administration itself. The facts are clear, that the mistake in New Jersey's Race to the Top application originated in the Governor's office and the blame game should begin and end there.
The Governor was already prepared to scapegoat President Obama before that kind of blew up in his face, instead of taking the blame himself as he should have. Even before this mess started with former Education Commissioner Bret Schundler, the Christie administration was already planing on what they're response was going to be to be, simply to blame the federal government.
Never mind that the federal government and the Obama administration are the reason we even have a Race to the Top program and funds we could apply for that can help this state. The Christie administration is still going to try and scapegoat them. Gov. Christie is contributing to the shrill nature of politics in this state and in this nation yet again with this scorched earth policy.
The governor needs to apologize to the Obama administration and to the President directly, take responsibility, and stop trying to push it away from his desk.
This got posted over by the Blue Jersey Radio post, so I'll pull it up into the sun for its own little while.
It isn't just the "professional left" that puts the starch in the White House's shorts. Now, we get word from inside a closed-door meeting at the White House with state-based equality groups that Brian Bond, Dep. Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, had some interesting things to say:
Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, "Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country." Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is "99 percent supportive of your issues." [emphasis added]
This reminds me of the deep blue howl after Garden State Equality announced it was closing the gAyTM on political party contributions, after the utter failure of NJ Democrats to be what we elected them to be (full disclosure: proud member of GSE board here, and that decision was frickin' unanimous). Democrats - here in NJ & in DC - are delighted to take money from gay people and orgs supporting their issues, but you can make the same argument on the President that we here in the Garden State make about the Dems: he hasn't done enough. The White House isn't where it needs to be - on DOMA, on marriage equality...
But it makes me wonder. If gay bloggers have the White House frustrated, what about us? We've got both kinds at Blue Jersey - straight 'n gay. So, let me put down the Cheetos and straighten the collar of my flannel PJ's with the little poodles on them and ask: Did we piss the White House off too?
Pretty strongly-worded post. Blue Jersey, do you agree? - promoted by Rosi
President Barack Obama and New Jersey Congressman John Adler were elected to their respective posts in 2008 to the delight of progressive democrats. While there were numerous differences between their elections, the actions of both men have been a disappointment.
Obama replaced an unpopular incompetent president. Adler replaced a very popular and effective retiring long-term congressman. Both men won against moderate Republicans, although starting with his VP selection, Senator McCain has been intoxicated by Crazy Tea.
Both men ran on platforms of change - change from the "me first" attitude espoused by Republicans. Yet, once in power, both men moved to the right to the consternation of their respective bases. If there are any exemplars of the kind of moderate Republicans they defeated (corporatists who promote small, incremental improvements in social programs) then both Obama and Adler fill the bill. But these are not the policies that swept these men into office.
Of course, John Adler faces a re-election challenge this year, while President Obama still has two years to go. Adler's opponent is a know-nothing unqualified celebrity who has memorized the Tea Party talking points that resonate with an electorate influenced by Fox "News" and sound bites. While it's still early to speculate on the GOP presidential nominee, as of now it looks like Obama also will face a corporate-sponsored Tea Party sympathizer. Adler has abandoned his base and is pursuing conservative voters who would normally vote for the Republicans. The danger is that many Liberals and Democrats will sit out this election. This is a danger that is magnified many times if Obama still believes he can work with the intransigent Republicans - Republicans who put defeat of the president's agenda ahead of what's good for the middle class and the nation as a whole.
Could an Adler defeat be a harbinger of what's ahead for Barack Obama? Will anticipated Democratic losses in 2010 validate or repudiate Obama's rightward swing? If enough moderate Democrats Republicans like John Adler lose this year, President Obama will have to work with a John "Hell No We Can't" Boehner House and will be distracted by so many GOP-run congressional investigations that it would make the Clinton impeachment circus seem like a blip. What would it take to re-energize the progressive left that brought both men to power in 2008?
President Obama arrived in Newark Wednesday afternoon as part of a whirlwind day in the metro area for the Commander-In-Chief. He was scheduled to tape an episode of "The View" to air Thursday, attend a private DNC fundraiser at New York's Four Seasons hotel and a second fundraiser at the home of Vogue editor Anna Wintour – all this after a lunch stop at the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, NJ.
Eagerly waiting to greet the President on the tarmack at Newark Liberty International (as shown in these photos released by the Governor's office) were Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Governor Chris Christie, in what could have been a rather uncomfortable political Ménage à trois. You see, Christie just might like to take Obama's job, Booker would probably settle for either Christie's or Obama's job, and Obama was just wanting to get the formalities over so he could grab half a "Super Sub" at Tastee and hang with Whoopi Goldberg & Co.
Only three people REALLY know the conversation that took place during that brief encounter, but wouldn't it be fun to speculate?
More after the jump.
So what was Mayor Booker thinking? Perhaps this:
"Not only can I block his shot and kick this skinny guy's ass, I'm smarter than him." (HT to 'Winston Smith' for that one)
It was suggested that the "toilet paper" reference might be a bit harsh, but Mayor Booker did start this, after all! And the Mayor even good-naturedly "re-Tweeted" a post of the above photo to his Twitter followers Wednesday evening.
And Governor Christie, his expression is priceless - what was going through his mind?
"What on earth am I doing on this hotter-than-hell runaway with these two clowns? Why not bring "Snooki" and "The Situation" along while we are at it!"
There are certainly topics we know were NOT brought up by the Governor:
"You know, Mr. President, I really have NO idea what goes on in the minds of Congressmen Frelinghuysen and Garrett."
"Mr. President, I'm working on this "Municipal Tool Kit thingy...would you happen to have a few hundred million dollars of stimulus funds laying around that aren't needed?"
So what conversation do you think took place on the tarmack? Inquiring minds want to know!
With what looks like boxes of single-serving potato chips in the background, Barack Obama talked after a meeting with New Jersey small business folks at the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison (where POTUS ordered a half-sized Super Sub to go). C-SPAN ran the whole speech (here's a link), but the video isn't embeddable (what's up with that, C-SPAN?)
Obama's here in NJ to support HR 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act, a mixture of tax breaks, loan guarantees and a $30 billion dollar pool designed to help small businesses get loans via community banks. Edison's Mayor Antonia Ricigliano was along for the ride (and presumably, sandwiches).
Maybe the President will do a little blog-reading today between bites of his half-sized Super Sub to go at the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison. - promoted by Rosi
Actually, I hate just about everything the man stands for and everything he does. But there's one attribute of his that I wish President Obama would emulate.
Christie is the consummate Republican. His policies and actions serve big corporations and his political cronies at the expense of the middle class and economically disadvantaged. He puts politics above service (e.g. Judge Wallace's firing), cloaks his political financing (Reform Jersey Now), and cares little about women and gays. He rarely listens to his opponents (most of whom are also his constituents), and compromise is not in his vocabulary.
But you have to admire his chutzpah. He has no hidden agenda - you know exactly what his lousy policies are. He has usurped the power of the state legislature to the point of their irrelevance. He panders to the common man - repeating his false "no tax" mantra so many times that people actually believe his lies despite evidence to the contrary.
Now, imagine if President Obama operated the same way. There would be none of this 60 vote supermajority in the Senate that has made that body so ineffective. The stimulus would be large enough to make a real difference. Health care reform would include a single-payer option instead of the gift to the insurance companies that we got. Campaign finance reform would be real. Troops would be coming home from the Middle East. And his two Supreme Court nominees would not take the court even further to the right. Don't get me wrong - President Obama has done some good. But if he had Christie's cojones, this country would be a lot better off.
The self-described (I kid you not) "Paul Reveres and Paula Reveres" of the "Tea Party" set are issuing a "call to arms" for all "patriots" to gather at "Edison Green" to confront the "tyrant" and "usurper".
It should be quite a show. There are indications that Tea Party pin-up girl "Landslide" Anna Little, who won the 6th district GOP congressional primary with only 6000 votes, will be on hand to rally the troops.
For my part, I'm really hoping that Chris Christie shows up and has a "Charlie Crist" moment with he and President Obama embracing one another. That should really drive the TNuts wild.
Published reports say that the President will be making a stop in New Jersey next week:
Obama will appear in or around Edison to talk about the economy, the White House announced yesterday. White House spokeswoman Moira Mack said further details about the trip will be announced next week.
This will be the President's first time in the state since he campaign for Jon Corzine just before Election day. The President canceled his last scheduled visit after the Gulf Oil spill began. We'll keep you updated as the White House releases information.
The approval-disapproval numbers for the sample of 801 New Jersey adults:
Obama 52-42
Lautenberg 45-31
Menendez 37-31
Own Congressman 54-28
We all know most Representatives are re-elected, but somehow I'm still surprised. 66% of the sample is "dissatisfied with the way things are currently going in Washington," yet they like their own Congressman. Perhaps there is something to be said for the way district boundaries are drawn? In any case, this suggests to me that the NJ3 race is the only one to be competitive. Most New Jersey adults (51%) think it doesn't make any difference who controls Congress, with the parties splitting the remainder equally. That's the disillusionment that the Republicans sought with their "Party of No" strategy in the Senate thanks to the super-majority rules.
A comment on Bob Menendez: He just isn't as well known. Not only his overall disapprove, but the subgroups of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have virtually identical "disapproval ratings" as Lautenberg does. His missing approval numbers are in the volunteered "Don't Know" category, at least in this poll, and at the end of the 2012 those voters who like the very same acts by Obama and Lautenberg will vote for Menendez. You may recall that other pollsters recently found Menendez at a net plus 7 (50-43, Rasmussen) and minus 5 (38-43, Quinnipiac.) But look at how pollsters can differ: Rasmussen's automated poll of "likely voters," which (I think) pushes voters for a second choice, has only 7% "don't know" but Monmouth's poll of adults, with presumably no pushing from the human operators, has 32%. Lots of people don't vote! The pollster also has numbers showing there's not much support for the recall effort.
The headline for the energy poll was the offshore oil drilling:
Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast, while 63% are opposed. This marks a turnaround from two years ago, when a majority of 56% favored this energy option compared to only 36% who opposed it.
By comparison, support for both wind and nuclear energy remains basically unchanged. Fully 8-in-10 residents support the placement of energy-generating windmills off the New Jersey coast (80% today, compared to 82% in 2008) and just under 4-in-10 support building another nuclear power plant in the state (37% today, compared to 41% in 2008).
Pollster Patrick Murray observes that the coastal counties give the same numbers as the inland ones.
As for this Salem County resident, I think the interesting number is that 58% statewide oppose a new nuclear power plant.
When asked "which of the following do you think should be the more important priority for U.S. energy policy - keeping energy prices low or protecting the environment?", 28% go for low prices and 55% for the environment. 15% volunteer "both" despite not being given it as a choice. New Jersey is not Sarah Palin country.
Tensions are high in Washington these days as campaigns gear up for the fall elections and many members face the challenge of a tough climate to run in. So you can imagine how happy members of the House were when Robert Gibbs said this on Meet the Press recently:
"there is no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control"
Of course many people have been talking behind closed doors about the possibility, but it didn't sit well with everyone that the spokesman for the White House was giving such a candid assessment of the road ahead. One member of the New Jersey delgeation was not pleased at all and his thoughts made it into Chris Cilizza's story in the Washington Post today:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) led a closed-door meeting of Democratic members that amounted to an extended Gibbs smackdown -- the proceedings of which inevitably were leaked to the media. In a subsequent interview, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (N.J.) nicely summed up the sentiment in the room. "What the hell do they think we've been doing the last 12 months?" he said of the White House. "We're the ones who have been taking the tough votes."
DCCC Chair Van Hollen tried to back things up and present a unified front, saying the Democratic Leadership had a positive meeting with the President. Van Hollen did acknowledge that there was some frustration, but it's clear that tensions are high as we head toward the general.
Yesterday, President Obama met with Senators at the White House and pushed them to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Still, the skeptics are spinning a monotonous web of negativity regarding what is achievable on this front. And, not surprisingly, the "mainstream media" once again has been asleep at the wheel in setting the record straight. Fortunately, we know that when this President rolls up his sleeves, he gets stuff done and delivers on his promises. One thing’s for sure; President Obama is anything but an underachiever!
Along these lines, President Obama held a press conference following the G-20 summit in Toronto. In response to a reporter’s question regarding how he would achieve his deficit reduction goals, the president responded:
For some reason people keep being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So, I say I’m going to reform our [health care system], and people say well gosh that’s not smart politics maybe we should hold off. Or I say we’re going to move forward on [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] and somehow people say well why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics. I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it, and I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficit and debt step up cause I’m calling their bluff.
To that list of accomplishments, we could also add:
Creating or saving 2.2-2.8 million jobs, well on the way to Obama’s February 2009 pledge that he would "create or save 3-and-a-half million jobs over the next two years."
Reforming Wall Street (likely to pass Congress any day now)
Overhauling the student loan market
Reaching a nuclear arms treaty with Russia
We could go on and on, but you get the point: anyone who continues, at this point, to be "surprised" when President Obama gets things done when he puts his mind to it is deep in denial. Or, as a previous president might have put it, they are wildly "misunderestimating" our 44th president.
Clearly, as we’ve seen over the past two years, underachieving is not a problem Barack Obama suffers from. Of course, even a superachiever like Barack Obama has an awful lot on his plate to deal with. And right now, one of the most important things on Obama’s plate is figuring out how to push comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation through the U.S. Senate. Along those lines, yesterday, Obama met with a group of Senators on this issue, reportedly holding firm in his call for putting a price on carbon emissions.
The question at this point is, will President Obama roll up his sleeves and deliver on another of his major campaign promise (as well as a major challenge facing our nation)? Given the long list of accomplishments mentioned above, it certainly wouldn’t be smart to bet against him. The fact is, Barack Obama usually succeeds in whatever he puts his mind to.
Given the nation’s increased focus on energy and climate issues – and the increased support by the American people for taking strong action as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster – now is clearly the time for boldness and for bluff calling by our nation’s leaders. Today, President Obama has the opportunity to demonstrate once more that, when he rolls up his sleeves, he accomplishes what he says he’s going to do. In sum, today is clearly the moment for President Obama to prove the doubters and naysayers wrong – to call their bluff - yet again!
It looks like the 2012 Presidential election may be the tale of the bully vs. the wimp. While we are all generally happy that Barack Obama is in the White House, we are also disappointed with his reticence to enact a progressive agenda. In prior posts, the president has been characterized as a moderate Republican and even as Wimp-in-Chief.
Now there's talk about Chris Christie running for president. If he can convince the electorate that he balanced the state budget, he will be held in high esteem by some - even though balancing the state budget is totally different than balancing a federal budget.
This would set up the bully vs. wimp battle for the presidency. Unlike many of the other Republican contenders, Christie does not seem to be a lunatic, and if he kowtows to the Tea Party leadership of the GOP, he has a decent chance for the nomination. So look for the governor to go on a strict diet and start a series of overseas trips to establish his foreign policy creds. If those happen, it should be an interesting race in 2012, especially here in New Jersey.
As President Obama prepares for his meeting tomorrow with Senators at the White House to discuss clean energy and climate change legislation, he might want to check with the White House staff on an important matter first. No, not the details of the legislation, although that’s important of course. Instead, what President Obama might want to make absolutely sure about is the non-trivial matter of whether the White House air conditioning is in tip-top shape. I say "non-trivial," but these days it’s more like "life or death." How hot is it in the Washington, DC area? As NBC Washington puts it, "We're Talking Spontaneous Combustion." (UPDATE: it's more likely this is apocryphal than literally true, but it sure feels like plants could catch on fire these days in Washington, DC!)
How hot is it? It's so hot that dead plants are spontaneously combusting in Frederick, Md.
Don't believe it? Just ask Frederick County Fire Marshal Marc McNeal, who told the Frederick News-Post that excessive heat caused a dead plant to catch fire Sunday afternoon in a hanging planter on the rear deck of a townhouse.
The hanging basket fell to the deck and burned some vinyl siding, causing about $3,000 in damages.
It has definitely been hot in the Washington region. Monday will be the 10th day in a row that we've reached 90 degrees or higher, and this will be the 17th day of the month that the thermometer has reached 90.
NBC4 meteorologist Tom Kierein said that when it's all said and done, June 2010 likely will be the hottest June on record in the District.
Dead plants catching on fire in the hottest June on record in the Washington, DC area? Sadly, this may not be an aberration, but a frightening sign of things to come in a global warming world. True, we shouldn’t draw broad conclusions about the earth’s climate from one heat wave in one specific geographic area, as certain climate change deniers dishonestly did during last winter’s "snowpocalypse" blizzards. However, when we see month after month, decade after decade of record-setting heat globally, it starts to get a bit hard to ignore.
In fact, climate scientists are not ignoring these heat waves and other phenomena. Earlier today, for instance, The Project on Climate Science reported that the "record-breaking heat wave" we are currently experiencing in the eastern United States "is consistent with climate change." According to Tom Peterson, Chief Scientist for NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, "We’re getting a dramatic taste of the kind of weather we are on course to bequeath to our grandchildren." Of course, as The Project on Climate Science points out, "individual heat waves can be driven by a number of factors." However, they conclude, "more frequent heat waves are one of the more visible impacts of climate change already underway in the United States" and "will occur more frequently in the future."
In sum, if you enjoy record-setting warmth – not to mention the stronger storms, mass extinctions and "record sea ice shrinkage" in the Arctic that go along with that warmth – you have a lot to look forward to! If not, then you should contact your Senator and let him or her know you want climate action now.
Come to think of it, perhaps we should all hope for the White House air conditioning to be broken tomorrow – or turned off on purpose - so that the Senators meeting there get a taste of what the planet will feel like everywhere if they don’t do something about it now. When you think about it, a bit of Senatorial sweat and a few stained shirts is not too high a price to pay if it results in long-overdue, comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation on the President’s desk sometime this sweltering summer. Is it?
We have new New Jersey polls from Quinnipiac and Rasmussen. Between the two, Chris Christie does about the same as before, and I'd say so far he is holding onto the people that elected him.
Rasmussen has Governor Christie at a solid 51% approval with 45% disapproval. Quinnipiac has him at 44-43%. Right or wrong, Rasmussen is consistently about six points more Republican than other pollsters, so the better Rasmussen number is just what we should expect. Quinnipiac notes especially strong support (56%-29%) in the "Shore" region.
The bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen's polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.
Quinnipiac has Senator Bob Menendez at 43% approval to 38% approval, "his highest disapproval ever." On the other hand, Rasmussen surprisingly finds Menendez's approval at 50%(!) and disapproval at 43%. Of course, Rasmussen buries the number in a release touting NJ likely voters as split 39-39 on recalling him. Combining the two Menendez seems to be where he usually is.
President Obama is at 50-46 according to Quinnipiac. These state polls don't give us data on Adler, the guy actually in a 2010 battle, and unfortunately, I don't see a generic Congressional ballot either. I recommend this post by Tom Jensen on the likelihood of Democrats staying home.
On issues, Rasmussen finds strong support for salary freezes at schools and capping property taxes. Quinnipiac finds the same thing with a slightly different question, even though they also find strong liking for teachers. On the other hand, Quiniipiac found an overwhelming majority (72%) are worried about state aid cuts increasing their property taxes. Furthermore, 61% say Christie should have signed the millionaires tax, which oddly enough Rasmussen didn't ask about. A similar number oppose increasing their own property taxes to avoid cuts to schools.
Quinnipiac asked about the Supreme Court and Judge Wallace in various ways: More people disapprove of Christie's actions than approve, but many don't know about the issue.
No, this is not the name of a politically connected law firm. Check out this story on Huffingtonpost about Joe Sestak offered a job in the Obama administration for getting out of the primary race. It reminds me of a similar allegation Rick Merkt made last year about being offered a job if he got out of the primary. I recall at the time some folks pointed out that if the story was true it would amount to election tampering.
If Republicans go after Obama on this one will they defend Christie for doing the same thing?
President Obama continues to slip. Governor Christie's approval is the same as their previous poll but the disapprove has gone up by 10%. Both are being hurt by the economy but in my opinion aren't in bad shape.
Direction of the country:
Right 34%
Wrong 52%
Direction of New Jersey
Right 35%
Wrong 55%
Those numbers are almost identical overall but check out the partisan breakdowns: 74% of Democrats but only 30% of Republicans say New Jersey is on the wrong track. Meanwhile, 83% of Republicans say the country is on the wrong track and only 28% of Democrats do. It's a good warning about taking those numbers too seriously.
Basically all budget cuts asked got strong majority support as a "good idea:" "Not letting public employees save up more than two years of vacation time" (74%-23%), "By law, limit salary increases for public employees to a maximum of two and a half percent a year?" (60%-33%), "Raise the retirement age for public employees to 65 from 62." (61%-33%), "Ask school teachers not to take a pay increase for the coming year" (64%-31%) and "Move school elections from April to November" (53%-18%).
On the other hand, "Taking everything into account, do you think the budget Gov. Christie has proposed is good for New Jersey or bad for New Jersey?"
Good: 41%
Bad: 37%
Unsure: 22%
Christie could be getting more support, I think, if he didn't come off as a bullying jerk, but this poll is certainly not going to scare him off his course.
On the floor of the US Senate, right now, Sen. Menendez is laying out a case to eliminate any cap on the amount of economic damages that oil companies would have to pay for spills they've caused. He is due shortly to be joined by Senator Frank Lautenberg and Sen. Bill Nelson.
The Democrats' proposed legislation, called the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, is a revision of earlier legislation from Menendez which would have raised the cap from $75 million to $10 billion. This jacks up the heat on British Petroleum, although as expected it has already been objected to on the other side of the aisle, as there was opposition to Menendez' earlier proposal of the $10 billion cap. President Obama has not so far named a figure to raise the cap to, though they have discussed raising it.
The catastrophic proportions of one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history with more than 210,000 gallons of oil is continuing to leak daily from a ruptured oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is continuing to threaten the shores of Louisiana and Florida. The unprecedented underwater leak has led to hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil spewing unchecked into the Gulf and moving to the coast, between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Florida.
The "potentially unprecedented environmental disaster," as President Obama describes the Gulf of Mexico oil spill which was caused by an explosion and fire on the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig followed by a ruptured well. It is sadly noted that 11 workers were killed in the explosion. In addition, the total bill to include clean-up and compensation for damages could exceed $14 billion.
Environmental scientists estimate the ecological and biological consequences could last for years, if not decades. These include, oil remaining in the sediment of a marsh for 20 years, complete plant and animal species being wiped out, and oyster reefs being endangered. Several attempts to contain it have been unsuccessful and only estimated 15 to 20 percent of oil can be recovered from water.
Then, there is the question of corporate responsibility of the London-based BP Plc that owned the oil involved in the recent spill as well as the regulatory environment that oversees the offshore drilling. Three years ago, BP was reeling from accusations of putting profits before safety because of the high incidence of on-the-job accidents in its Texas City refinery, including a deadly explosion. That was turned around by new management, but, it appears that accidents still continue.
