Thursday, October 30, 2008

Garrett's Camp Has Some "Fun"

The campaign of Representative Scott Garrett had some "fun" today by releasing bitingly sarcastic press release. Garrett is calling on Dennis Shulman to return money roughly $168K from a particular donor: Dennis Shulman.

From the release:

This donor heads a long list of questionable donors to the Shulman for Congress campaign, many of whom represent interests outside of New Jersey’s 5th District:

* Playboy Enterprises CEO Christie Hefner
* Ethically-challenged Congressman Charlie Rangel
* Fannie/Freddie Patron Saint Barney Frank
* Scandal-ridden Clinton fundraiser Beth Dozoretz
* Pro-amnesty businessman Roger Berkley
* Eliot Spitzer devotee Marsha Laufer
* Illegal-immigration activist and basement couch surfer Jeffrey M. Hauser

In reality, Dennis Shulman should be thankful he’s not in Congress, because if the tax plan he supports went through, he’d have less money to loan to his own campaign.

It is kind of an amusing way for them to raise the fact that Shulman's raised far less in state money than Garrett, and take a poke at Hauser who has been the chief antagonist of Garrett's people.


Parker said...

What could it possibly matter that Shulman has taken out-of-state donations? Doesn't that, in fact, preserve democracy more soundly than being beholden to donors from your own district? Should a politician have to rely on pleasing big district donors rather than actually having a spine and doing what's right?

Garrett's a nut. Even his own party has acknowledged that. As for his "people," they must be ignorant, stupid, and crazy to work for such a lunatic. Jeff Hauser, on his worst day, is smarter than any member of Garrett's staff on their best day.

rmfretz said...

In terms of donations, I suppose it's personal preference. Do you prefer someone beholden to the district represented or national interests?

Personally, I think Shulman is an exception to the money makes the decisions type of politician. It's simply stating a fact on part.

rmfretz said...

"on my part" not on part.