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?
Welcome to Blue Jersey, Assemblywoman Wagner. - promoted by Rosi
He's done it again. On what should be a wonderful day for education in New Jersey with the passage of a federal education aid bill, Bergen County has been sold out once again by Congressman Scott Garrett. Instead of joining colleagues like Senator Frank Lautenberg, he voted against a bill that will save 3,900 teaching jobs in our state. For any other member of Congress, this would be seen as a shocking betrayal of our children and hardworking school teachers. But for Congressman Garrett, it's just another day at the office.
It should come as no surprise that Congressman Garrett has voted against health care reform, financial regulatory reform and the entire recent Democratic legislative agenda. After all, nearly all Washington Republicans voted in lock-step against these bills. But did you know that Congressman Garrett voted against health care funding for 9/11 first responders? Or that he was one of only 11 members of Congress to vote against aid for Hurricane Katrina victims? He voted against funding the prosecution of hate crimes, against stopping offshore drilling, against mandating child safety locks on handguns and against preventing oil companies from price gauging. And now, he has added another vote to this sordid list - voting against saving 3,900 teaching jobs in New Jersey.
The federal aid contained in this bill could not have come at a better time for New Jersey's teachers and students. Governor Chris Christie's budget cut $820 million in education funding, and a recent survey by the New Jersey School Boards Association showed that 80% of schools would have gone into the new year with fewer teachers, before the passage of this bill. Numerous studies have shown that overcrowded classrooms hurt educational development. That's exactly where we were heading before this crucial vote.
Besides the case for our children, there's also another important reason to support this bill - unemployment. Congressman Garrett, Governor Christie and the Republican Party want us to think public employees like teachers, police officers and firefighters are not real people with real jobs that provide real service to our community. Of course, we know that is far from the truth. With unemployment still hovering near 10%, needlessly firing 161,000 teachers nationally, 3,900 in New Jersey, would have been a catastrophe. Now, instead of filing for unemployment, these men and women will return to the classroom and educate our children, while continuing to pay their mortgages and purchase goods and services, helping the economy remain on a path toward recovery.
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner recently referred to teachers and police officers as "special interests" while attacking the education aid bill. Clearly, this distorted view is shared by Congressman Garrett, since he's so determined to stick it to them that he's willing to vote against saving 3,900 jobs during a recession. For a politician who labels himself a job-creator, this is nearly incomprehensible.
Despite the best efforts of Congressman Garrett, the education aid bill passed the House and the Senate and is awaiting President Obama's signature. There are many aspects of economic recovery that are out of the government's control, but providing funding to keep teachers in the classrooms and off the unemployment rolls certainly is not one of them.
There will be many more important votes in Congress soon, and it can sometimes be hard to determine what your Congressional representative stands for. But with Scott Garrett, it's easy - he stands for nothing.
Congressman Scott Garrett was surprised the other day when in a committee meeting, Barney Frank unexpectedly decided to support Garrett's amendment that would reduce the power of rating agencies by requiring all federal agencies to remove any references to them in all regulation. Here's how it went down and check out Garrett's reaction:
But Garrett's office wasn't expecting the amendment to pass - Republican staffers on both the House and Senate sides told me last week that their Democratic counterparts told them, privately, not to expect any Republican amendments to pass. But Garrett was in for a shock when Frank interrupted him 30 seconds into his introduction of the amendment to declare that he would support it. After taking a quick voice vote, Frank declared that the ayes had prevailed. "I have some more amendments if you'd like to do them that way," Garrett joked.
That's probably why they didn't tell Garrett in advance, because they knew he'd have more amendments.
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!
One of the late bipartisan achievements of the Bush Administration was the America COMPETES act which aimed to increase research and development funding in certain engineering and science areas, and support science education. The 10-year process of doubling this R&D funding (7% per year) requires a new authorization this year. (The same kind of increase was done successfully with National Institute of Health funding over the previous decade.)
The 2007 bill so was so bipartisan that every New Jersey Representative voted for it. Frank LoBiondo supported it. Yes, even Scott Garrett supported it. This is "mom and apple pie" stuff because we know that such government funding is paid back in economic growth. The nations we are competing with are investing heavily even as our private sector abandons basic research.
House Democrats had to scrap their only substantive bill of the week Thursday after Republicans won a procedural vote that substantively altered the legislation with an anti-porn clause....
But the Republican motion to recommit the bill -- a parliamentary tactic that gives the minority one final chance to amend legislation -- contained language prohibiting federal funds from going "to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography, including child pornography, on a federal computer or while performing official government duties."
That provision scared dozens of Democrats into voting with Republicans to approve the motion to recommit. After it became clear the GOP motion was going to pass, dozens of additional Democrats changed their votes from "no" to "yes." In the end, 121 Democrats voted with Republicans -- only four fewer than the number of Democrats who voted with their party.
Of course the porn thing is just an attempt to sink the very bill these Republicans supported. (Why Democrats worry about this nonsense is beyond me, though to be fair many say Rahm popularized the tactic when Democrats were in the minority.) The Roll Call vote is here. The Republicans don't have an ounce of integrity and are trying to paralyze the government in a time of crisis by even destroying things they support.
ps. If you saw "scared Democrat" and thought John Adler you're right. That's what I predicted we'll see again and again. No other New Jersey Democrat voted for the Republican sham. Remember that this tactic would not work without cowardly Democrats. (Runyan, of course, would be even worse.)
Scott Garrett would be against a cure for cancer if it came up for a vote in Congress. The only people who aren't aware of Garrett's obsessive tendency to vote against legislation are the ones who just can't bring themselves to follow the shitstorm that is American politics, and Chris Matthews.
It shouldn't be a surprise, then, in the last week Congressman Garrett voted against two bills that for all intents and purposes would have benefited people in his district as well as the rest of the country.
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?
Today, on the House floor, my wonderful Representative and embarrassment to the state, Scott Garrett, read from a "memo" that was already discredited as fake earlier in the day. Rep. Anthony Weiner completely shredded Garrett's willingness to talk about fake memos as opposed to things like reducing the deficit or expanding health care or, as Weiner said so well - "we're here to solve the problems of the American people, not quote from fake memos".
Here it is, for your viewing pleasure:
But wait, there's more! Weiner and Garrett faced off on Good Day New York as well (although after watching this, he is also debating the Good Day host, who lobbed softball questions to Garrett and went hard at Weiner as well):
Here's what you've got to know about the 5th Congressional District: Up there, you've got your Sussex Tea Party people, the creationist-led, baby-dinosaurs-in-Noah's-Ark-believing captains of the effort to recall a seated US Senator, 'cuz they don't like how he votes. Tough, they are. But also up there, you've got you some progressives, and they're just as tough, and maybe more firmly affixed in the real world. And if you Tea Party folks get to have your legally-disputable recall of a United States Senator, maybe they go after your poster boy, Rep. Scott Garrett. Game on. - - Promoted by Rosi
This morning I read something that got my blood to boiling. As I frantically was working this morning to pay off my many medical bills at my very tiny small business, something I read before work kept me distracted - so I had to blog.
It was simply this: crazy nonsense about Tea Party activists who want to recall Senator Menedez, for VOTING. Not criminal wrongdoing, not Republican style adultery, not even ethical misconduct. Just for VOTING in a way that the little girls throwing their Tea Party tantrums didn't like. Aw.
I got news for those Tea Party guys. This cuts both ways you know. I have had to endure the heartless voting record of Mr Scott Garrett for way too long. Silly me, I assumed, when your guy loses the election, the other guy gets to vote for what HE wants. The loser LOSES. See, that's how it was supposed to work.
Well, the Tea Party activists stirred up by the hate groups here decided to go after the Senator with an ethnic sounding name. Lautenberg votes with Menedez and they vote so consistently Democratic that I trust they will vote for Democratic values 99% of the time - which they do. Why the little Tea Party girls chose to ONLY go after Menendez is shocklingly, astoundingly, absurdly blatant bigotry. In addition, The Tea Party activists, instead of actually winning an election, want to circumvent the democratic process and only invite their friends in for tea.
Here is where it can cut two ways. Who would Progressive NJ Dems who actually believe in evolution and helping their fellow man DEARLY love to remove from the Senate? Scott Garrett of course. You go after our guys, we will recall yours. We actually respected the outcome of the past elections where the 5th district was so gerrymandered as to ensure Scott Garrett's win for the foreseeable century. Lou Dobbs, king of anti-immigrants lives with other old angry white men in the rural parts of the 5th, and THEY have had their say for WAY too long here. I have been resigned to NOT having ANY representation in the House for the past 8 years. Because my guys lost the election. Now that the Tea Party folks have shown that ANY angry idiot with an ax to grind and too much time on their lazy hands can destroy democracy as we know it, I hope they realize they will have to reap the consequences of their actions.
You take away the Senators that speak for ME and the progressive community in NJ and I will see to it that your boy Garrett and his friends are recalled too. Just cause I don't like the way they vote and I think their mother dresses them funny. Wars have been fought over less. This recall effort by the Tea Party bigots is more than a silly prank. It is literally a shot across the bow. One that CANNOT go unanswered.
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.
Poor Scott Garrett. He was complaining the other day on the Dylan Ratigan show with Ed Shultz show that the President isn't reaching out to him and that Republicans have ideas that are being ignored. I guess he's not paying attention to the ideas that have been incorporated into the Presidents proposal. The White House even put out a list of the ideas they have included. That didn't matter for Garrett as he said Obama hasn't been genuine and has just talked down their ideas. Then they moved onto talking about abortion, because what else will we talk about when it comes to healthcare. Garrett pointed to Conservative Democrats and Congressman Stupak as stumbling blocks for Speaker Pelosi:
In a move to provide the first comprehensive protections for children against abusive disciplinary actions by schools, the House on Wednesday easily approved a bill to restrict the use of forcible restraint and seclusion, in which children are held down, drugged or isolated in a locked room to control their behavior.
and, no, it's not an imaginary problem:
The legislation stems in part from a government report last year that found evidence that hundreds of children - from preschool age to high school - had been traumatized or physically harmed by being held down or locked alone in rooms, some even tied to chairs. Many had developmental problems or were in special needs programs; many others were in regular classes. Some children have died, apparently because of overly aggressive discipline, according to numerous reports over the last decade.
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.
It's a shame that last night's BCDO convention failed to pick a candidate to run for CONGRESS!!!
The people of the 5th CD are being politically disenfranchised because the BCDO machine is so damned delusional that they evidently think that running a Democrat against Garrett would increase Republican turnout and maybe hurt their local candidates. I don't buy it.
Running scared is a sure way to lose elections. You would think we would have learned that from the way Corzine just lost to a hypocritical Bush administration hack who's not even in the same league as Jon Corzine.
The Republicans smell blood. I predict their turnout in November will be even higher than it was in 2008...or pretty close to it.....and that Democratic turnout will be relatively depressed.
There needs to be an exciting new charismatic energized candidate to run against Garrett, with or without the establishment Democratic party line!!! Such an aggressively progressive candidate will give Democrats a reason to get excited enough to leave their homes and vote in November.....such a candidacy will actually HELP the lower tier races! Let's find that candidate and get them on the ballot!!!
Sadly, even with boss Ferriero gone, the BCDO still hasn't figured out that to win as a Democrat in today's political climate you have to get people excited. The old machine is broken and out of gas.
Don't get me wrong, I'll still show up and vote the party line in November....the way I figure it, our candidates are still better than what the Republicans have to offer; but I dare say that there will be a lot of disaffected Dems staying home and a lot more turned on Republicans crawling out of the woodwork encouraged and inflamed by Christie's win and by the fact that we didn't even bother to run against Garrett.
Bullies don't walk away just because you cross the street. On the contrary, that sign of fear just motivates them to cross the same street and to beat you up all the more.
The politics of running scared has infected the Democratic party at every level. and that's a shame.
Of course it's more complex that that......it has more to do with trying to keep the payers who play happy and with not upsetting the establishmentarian apple cart. It's about the money, stupid.
Here's a great video that is directed toward the national situation...but I put it to you that it applies to New Jersey politics as well. When he says "DC" think Trenton....
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.
