Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Frank and Garrett

I've often thought about what a great reality show it would be to have Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Barney Frank live together. Their fights on the House Floor often have a hilarious, old married couple feel. From the Boston Daily comes an example:
On Republican Congressman Scott Garrett’s testimony that he had sponsored numerous amendments that would have helped prevent the Fannie/Freddie meltdown if they hadn’t been defeated by Democrats:

“Yes, the gentleman from New Jersey offered amendment after amendment—in his head. This is a serial violator writing on the mirror, ‘Stop me before I don’t legislate again.’ …I know it is a bad feeling not to get your own party with you. Sometimes, [your amendments] were defeated by only 60 percent of Republicans.”

With Garrett getting much more face time with regard to the bailout bonanza, I'm sure we can expect more exchanges in the future of a comic value. Unfortunately for our District, this is the reputation Garrett has. Although, as noted in an earlier piece, because he's become a voice against the bailout bonanza Garrett has the chance to reinvent himself.

Whether it's reinvention or continued comedy, there's a lot to look forward to in the coming months. For that I'm grateful.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Bailout Bonanza

With the news that Citigroup is going to get $300 billion in taxpayer dollars, and that commitments of taxpayer dollars are nearly $8 TRILLION, it's not surprising to see Representative Scott Garrett in the news today. From Bloomberg:
“Whether it’s lending or spending, it’s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about,” said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. “The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.”

Garrett's dead on with this one. And when pressed for more transparency, Fed Chairman Ben Bernancke had this to say:

“Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,” Bernanke said Nov. 18 to the House Financial Services Committee. “We think that’s counterproductive.”

I'm sorry, but this isn't Ben's personal piggy bank we're talking about. It's nearly $8 TRILLION in taxpayer money. We have a right to know that the Fed and Treasury are being more responsible with it than the people they seem hellbent to lend it to were with their own institution's money.

The commitments made by the Fed and Treasury (appointed), when added to our existing deficit (Congress), have pushed the amount each man, woman and child owe to over $61,000.

For comparative purposes, the median income for a family of four in the United States was $67,000 in 2007, but their Washington induced debt is roughly $244,000.

We're responsible for it, but without Congressional oversight, we have no way of making sure we get our money back or that we're not throwing money down a hole. In order for the Big Three to get their $25 billion, they have to present a business plan. That's .32% of what the Fed and Treasury are kicking out without having similar conditions.

Something has gone very, very wrong. And we the taxpayer are in line for getting royally screwed.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Garrett Bailout Op-Ed

Representative Scott Garrett published an interestingly sarcastic Op-Ed in the New Jersey Herald over the weekend. I don't have time to dissect this right now, but here it is for folks to read.

Bear Stearns bailout. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout. AIG bailout. $700 billion bailout. Auto industry bailout. Medicaid bailout. Where do the bailouts end? Depends. How much money can you, the taxpayer, afford to pay?

Every bailout is the government committing you the taxpayer to pay more money. Thought you were saving for your children's college fund? Nope. That money is going to save Detroit. Thought you were going to save up for a house? Nope. That money is going to help people who bought houses they couldn't afford in the first place.

I have fought against all of these rash bailout measures, calling on my colleagues to stand against this commitment of your money with little or no government oversight. With the support of many of my colleagues, I called on President Bush for an increase in transparency to provide the American people and Members of Congress insight into the decision-making process that yielded the $700 billion bailout plan. I also backed the bill that was introduced as the alternative to the $700 billion bailout, the Free Market Protection Act. This Act contained many efforts to fundamentally address the systemic issues affecting the financial markets while preserving free market principles.

Every year, the government goes through an appropriations process of determining how much money will be budgeted for spending over the next fiscal year. There are hearings, there are debates, and while there could always be more oversight, there is at least a degree of accountability for how we are allotting money to be spent in the federal budget.

With these bailouts, however, there is no oversight. There are no hearings. There's a degree of exigency that started with Bear Stearns ("Too big to fail!") that has carried over to every other bailout proposal ("We bailed out Bear Stearns, why not Fannie and Freddie?!"). As a result of this "sky is falling" pressure to pass these bailout initiatives, Congress has spent almost as much in bailouts alone this year as it has in the federal budget. And has certainly ignored any attempt at the preservation of the free market.

Congress is currently discussing a "Stimulus II" package, to potentially be voted on next week. The word "stimulus" is really a misnomer, used to shore up public support for yet another bailout. In reality, it's "Spending II: Bailout Returns." It's unclear as to whether Nancy Pelosi will be fighting Apollo Creed in this bailout sequel, but by the end of the 110th Congress, there will be more chapters in the bailout saga than there are Rocky movies.

The line for a piece of the bailout pie is growing as businesses see an opportunity for free money from the government (aka: you, the taxpayer). American Express is faltering because of high credit card default rates. Their bailout handout means that you are writing a check to cover the people who aren't paying their credit card bills. The "Big Three" auto producers, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, received a $25 billion bailout in September. Now, they're back for more, claiming they need money to fund "innovation." You, the taxpayer, are writing a check to get them through this creative rough patch. Ethanol producers are also eagerly awaiting your money, as is the Medicaid program.

I am working diligently to find real and effective solutions to this economic crisis. There are other alternatives to constantly turning to the American taxpayers to bail out struggling companies, and I assure you I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find ideas that are in our best economic interest, both in the short and long term.

Shulman on the Campaign

Folks have probably already seen this, but for those that haven't, Dennis Shulman wrote a very thoughtful post-mortem on the race here in the Fifth:

This was a remarkable year.

A year that was peopled by thousands.

A year that found me:

In countless county and neighborhood fairs;

In Capitol Hill offices and parties;

At high school football games;

Marching in parades on Memorial Day, July Fourth, and Halloween, surrounded by enthusiastic supporters and some not-so-well-wishers;

On the pages of the New York Times and the New Yorker, on Blue Jersey, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos;

In campaign caravans rushing from Alpine to Phillipsburg;

In a union hall speaking to a hundred or so sheet metal apprentices, after investing five years of their life mastering their trade, unsure now if there will be work when they graduate;

In spacious living rooms, sipping champagne and munching hors d'oeuvres with governors and senators;

In Ringwood, touring a desolate track of land poisoned by Ford, surrounded by the Ramapo Mountain Indians who were this land's owners, its victims, its defenders.

This was truly a remarkable year.

And what I heard wherever I traveled this year was that people, whether affluent or impoverished, young or the retired, Republican or Democrat, were worried -- worried about their children, worried about their future, worried about our country.

Political campaigns these days have a way, too often, of getting lost in the contest between the two individuals vying for the seat. They become something closer to a food fight than a comparison of ideas and issues and alternative visions for America'

s future. They become a competition about "Gotcha," and in the process the more personal accusations drown out the political differences that really do matter. There are many reasons why this happens in this political climate, many reasons why this happened in the congressional race between Scott Garrett and myself, but that analysis is for another time and another place.

This race for the United States House of Representatives in NJ-5 should not have been about Scott Garrett or Dennis Shulman. It should have been about the contrasting political ideology and moral vision of the opponents. It should have been about the future of America. It should have been about the soul of our country and of our district.

It should have been about global warming and alternatives to oil and gas -- whether we should support increases in fuel efficiency and investment in wind, solar, and bio fuels.

It should have been about stem cell research -- whether we should provide the scientific community an incentive and the freedom to do the research here in the United States that could offer hope and cure for people with Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries.

It should have been about taxes -- whether any representative who voted for a war that is costing us ten billion dollars a month, who voted against the Alternative Minimum Tax every time it came to the House floor, and voted for every one of the Bush budgets could honestly claim to be a fiscal conservative and a tax cutter.

It should have been about healthcare for children -- whether there was any moral justification for a congressman or congresswoman who makes more than 165 thousand dollars a year accepting a premium healthcare plan paid fully by federal funds for his or her family, but votes to deny healthcare to a family of four who makes twenty-five thousand dollars a year living in Dumont or Cresskill or Newton.

It should have been about reproductive choice -- whether the people in this district agree with the incumbent that abortions should be illegal even when the pregnant woman was a victim of rape or of incest.

It should have been about our sacred responsibility to our young men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan -- whether we should support any congressman or congresswoman who would vote against medical benefits and other needed services for our disabled vets, and against tuition and housing benefits for those who returned to us able bodied.

Instead, sadly, incredibly, ridiculously, our election was about whether I was patriotic enough or in league with terrorists, and whether Scott Garrett had a farm or just a tax dodge.

Would the results on November 4th have been different if this election were about the comparative moral vision and political sensibilities of the candidates? I don't know.

But what I do know from this extraordinary year of my life is that everyone I met, irrespective of where they lived in the district and where they sat on the political spectrum, believed that the past eight years have been disastrous years -- that these have been years when our great and beloved nation has lost its way, and that we, as a nation, are certainly better than this.

Although I will not be taking a seat in Congress in January, I am hopeful about our country. I am hopeful that, with a new president and with Scott Garrett's positions becoming even more marginalized in the House, that our country will again find its way.

To all, in this past year, whom I have touched, and who have touched me:

Thank you.

Dennis Shulman

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Let My Spaces Go

This has been a growing frustration of mine, the parking garage at the Ramsey Rt. 17 station. Granted, far too few people had discovered how great a set-up it is, and to offset some expense the top floor and a half have been rented to car dealers. I didn't agree with that, but could understand.

Now, it seems they're getting ready to block off more spaces for non-commuters and it's getting packed in there. This is a park and ride, and the harder NJ Transit makes it to park the less people are going to ride. With the new lines going into the Meadowlands, appropriately scheduled trains could make the park and ride an integral part of the bigger picture of reducing traffic into the Meadowlands.

Adding insult to injury, NJ Transit decided to eliminate the 8:13, 9:17, and 10:15 evening trains from stopping at the station. While there may not have been the ridership to justify trains every half hour, why would NJ Transit choose to eliminate the trains with the shorter trip?

Ten (scheduled) to fifteen minutes (reality) may not seem like a lot to NJ Transit schedulers, but you're talking about an extra hour out of the lives of commuters every week.

The Rt. 17 Station has the potential to be the gateway point for north Bergen county transit. More express trains, and less difficulty finding a space are the keys to success there. I can't believe I'm alone in thinking this.

Taxpayers didn't put up a corporate parking lot, they put up a park and ride.

Update: Even worse, some of the spaces have been blocked for parking, others seem to be blocked because the ceiling is falling in. Unbelievable.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Let's Go Red Bulls

With an impressive win last night on the road, the Red Bulls are playing in the Major League Soccer championship game next Sunday. As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a fan, so this is great.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Garrett vs. GM

Represntative Scott Garrett has officially started beating the drum against saving GM, Ford and Chrysler. From today's Wall Street Journal:
Another Republican, Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, said that "the real problem with this is that [a bailout] is not going to change the company, but simply to perpetuate the same business practices that created the problem in the first place."

"You will be asking the average middle-class taxpayer that doesn't have as rich of a benefit package to subsidize buyouts," Rep. Garrett added. "There are a lot of jobs on the line, but a bailout does not permanently solve the situation. Who's to say we won't be facing the same crisis in 2009?"
I'm not surprised by Garrett's stance, and even heard someone use the same line on the train this morning. Unfortunately, it's a sentiment, a subtle kind of class warfare if you will, that is likely to gain traction.

Instead of addressing the root cause of this issue; Garrett and others are going to go after the employees. While the credit crisis and gas prices were the incendiary added to the Big Three's cash burn, it's not the cause. It's health care.

Unfortunately, GM saw this crisis coming back in 2005, and started pushing for meaningful reform then. Back in 2006, the CEO's of the Big Three were given an audience with the President, who paid them the typical lip service. They weren't asking for a loan then, they were asking for health care reform. Our health care crisis is killing them.

The problem is, from a competition standpoint, that their competitors all come from nations with socialized medicine. The last estimates I saw in 2006 were that health care per car is costing more than steel per car. Obviously, we can't flip a switch and eliminate that cost to save the Big Three overnight. However, there may be another way.

While it may be too late for this, instead of a loan, the Big Three should be able to buy into the government health benefit plan. They'd pay for it, not taxpayers.

The main reason this could be a win win is from the massive cost savings both to the Big Three and taxpayers; the more people in a pool the lower the costs. Right now, GM is insuring more than a million people. Ford and Chrysler pooled with that would create a new group of close to 2.5 million all together.

Pooling the Big Three's employees with Federal workers would offer unparalleled savings to taxpayers as well, once again, as the bigger the pool the lower the cost per person. It's simply how insurance works.

I realize there will be those who would falsely claim this is some kind of expansion of government. In fact, it would be more cost effective than loans or bailouts; while at the same time lowering fees for insuring our government employees. And the Big Three would be paying for it, not taxpayers.

In essence, this option is a practical shrinking of government while preserving the companies who provide so many jobs to so many people across the country.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Garrett on Veterans Day

Dear Friends,

We owe no greater gratitude than that belonging to our nation’s veterans. These service members have sacrificed their lives, comfort, and safety to fight for the continued security of our democracy. From World War II through Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the current War on Terror, our veterans deserve the best that we can give to them.

As President Calvin Coolidge said, ‘The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.’ We must take pause more often to thank those who sacrificed their time and in some instances, their lives, so that we may live in freedom. We are fortunate to have these brave men and women share their histories and memories, which are really pieces of themselves. While we can never repay their heroism, we can learn from their experience and thank them for their sacrifice.

I am so very proud of the Members of our Armed Services, and I am very proud to have the privilege of representing them in Congress. I salute our veterans, their families that stand with them, and those who currently serve our great nation. They have fought on the behalf of our country and now it’s time for us to fight for them. Rest assured that I will continue to work to protect and provide them with the security and support they need.

Scott Garrett
Member of Congress

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Earnhardt Economics

Those looking to bolster the efforts of GM to get loans from the government to weather the economic crisis got a voice to raise expectations: Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

The most popular driver in NASCAR had this to say:
Earnhardt doesn’t believe GM will go the way of failed banks.

“They’re too big,” he said. “The government won’t let them fail.”

For those that don't follow NASCAR, this would be akin to Derek Jeter saying something like that about NY politics. Earnhardt has a national following so large he runs his own social networking site.

If NASCAR nation is expecting the government to give the loans, it will be harder for those who depend on their support to reject the idea. Back when the bailouts began, Representative Scott Garrett often would ask how we define "too big to fail". Well, Earnhardt may have just defined that for Washington. It should be interesting to see how the debate plays out down there.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Garrett & The Burned Cross

Not sure how many people heard about the cross burning in Warren County or not. A family that supported Obama had a homemade banner torn down and turned into the kindling for a cross burning. Now, the eight year old daughter of the family is having trouble sleeping.

This is a spot where Representative Scott Garrett needs to take a stand. Garrett won the Warren County part of our District by a 2 to 1 margin, so what he says there carries some weight. I'm disappointed I haven't seen any comments from him condemning the act.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Future of the Republican Party?

Governor Sarah Palin is headed back to Alaska, apparently with $150,000 in new clothing and a lot of ill will with John McCain's staff. In what seems like an effort to prevent her from further damaging the Republican Party, McCain's staff are starting to talk and Fox News is on the warpath.

From the Los Angeles Times:
Fox News reported Wednesday that Palin's lack of knowledge on some topics also strained relations. Carl Cameron reported that campaign sources told him Palin had resisted coaching before her faltering Katie Couric interviews; did not understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country; and could not name the three nations that are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Wow. When Fox News is slamming a Republican, you know they've got to be pretty bad.

Hope for Garrett

Similar to John McCain, as soon as the financial crisis hit, Dennis Shulman's chances seemed to dwindle. Representative Scott Garrett performed better, in a more hostile environment, because he actually represented the views of the vast majority of our District at a critical juncture. On whether or not the bailout should happen, Garrett was in his element in opposing it.

With a staff that kept him in front of the cameras, Garrett went from the obscure Northeast Congressman voting against the Voting Rights Act and extensions of unemployment benefits, to a leader speaking to the American people. The American people were with him in opposing the bailout, and obviously so was the District.

Now, we get to find out what Garrett's made of, and what kind of Representative we actually have.

In the past, Garrett has been excessively partisan and hyper-critical of bi-partisanship. He's also wasted a lot of time proposing going-nowhere legislation. And let's not forget all of the misrepresenting the facts on issues, which has led to open ridicule within the press and on the House floor. This has made it difficult for us as a District to have a voice that is listened to on the Hill; whether we needed AMT relief or transit funds.

The bailout debate has likely changed that; and as odd as it is to write this about someone who was in the bottom 5.5% of influence a short time ago, Garrett seems to have political capital.

How long that lasts will depend on Garrett and Garrett alone.

In essence, Garrett needs to return to Washington and make the decision as to whether he is going to play well with others. Garrett has the potential to be the leading conservative voice on the Hill, however, there's a pragmatic way to do that and an ideological one. Does he work toward sensible fiscal conservative principles in bills? Or does he do what he's always done?

Here's an example: small business programs and tax cuts. In the past, Garrett's voted against them based on ideology. If his goal is to reduce government, and actually achieve it instead of talking about it, programs which create jobs are important. Such programs and tax cuts reduce government by reducing the unemployed, medicaid, government housing, and welfare rolls. Garrett should be voting for them pragmatically.

Make no mistake, there are going to be a lot of no votes from Garrett in the next two years. That said, I'm optimistic Garrett will realize the opportunity he has, and take our District's vote in the House from an afterthought in the legislative process to one of prominence.

Granted, this may seem too optimistic to most of you, but a year and half ago I was optimistic about having an Obama vs. McCain Presidential race. Every now and again, you get what you hope for. Either way, I'm wildly curious to see how the next few months pan out.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Shulman Letter on Election

Dear Friends,

Thank you for all you did to help bring change to our country over the course of this campaign. While we were not victorious in our race in the Fifth District, our work contributed to a national movement which helped bring important, much-needed change to our country. Our opponents poured millions of dollars into what was once considered a "safe" seat, taking resources from other races throughout the country, many of which we won.

This election was about more than me or you or Scott Garrett. It was about fixing our broken economy. Solving our energy crisis. Ending the disastrous war in Iraq. Caring for our veterans. Protecting a woman's right to choose. Offering hope to people in search of a cure. Offering support for America's working men and women and the middle class.

We did not win, but we remain right on all of these issues, and we will continue to fight for what we believe in.

While Scott Garrett will keep his seat in Congress for now, he will no doubt continue to be a marginal figure in the minority of his minority party. He will no doubt continue to take money from the special interests he is supposed to oversee. He will no doubt continue to hire former lobbyists into his taxpayer-funded office. He will no doubt continue to evade ethics laws and take tax breaks he is not entitled to. He will no doubt continue to pursue an aggressively extremist, right-wing agenda. And no doubt, the day will come when Scott Garrett will be defeated. His seat is "safe" no longer.

No one likes negative campaigning -- but we were right to take this fight aggressively to Scott Garrett, and we are right to continue highlighting the disturbing record of extremism and corruption he has amassed in Washington while he was supposed to be representing us. We have lost this battle, but this war is not yet over. Together, we will win this long-term struggle, we will beat back the special interests, and we will defeat corrupt politicians like Scott Garrett who hold us back from our nation's righteous course.

Thank you to each and every one of you who invested your time, energy, money, thoughts and prayers into this race. Our efforts were not in vain. We delivered our message to hundreds of thousands of people, and we helped bring about a wave of change that ushered President Barack Obama into office. It is a new morning in our country, and all of us should be proud that we helped make that happen.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate all the support you gave me during the past year. Thanks again, for everything, from the bottom of my heart.

Dennis Shulman

Garrett's Statement on Re-Election

Rep. Scott Garrett won re-election in the race for NewJersey’s 5th congressional district with 57% -42% of the vote, adecisive 15-point spread.

This victory will mark Garrett’s fourth election tooffice, and will send him back to Washington to continue his work as a taxpayer hero.

“This election is confirmation that voters want solutions to the issues facing this country and they repudiate the negative tactics employed by the Shulman campaign,” said Garrett.

“I would like to thank my family for their love and support, and I thank the people of the 5th district for the honor of returning me to Congress to fight to lower taxes, rein in profligate government spending and keeping our homeland secure.”

“Our opponent had an overwhelming amount of out-of-district resources, including DCCC financial support, and hundreds ofout-of-state volunteers,” said Amanda Gasperino, Garrett’s campaign manager.“They threw everything but the kitchen sink at him and spent well over a million dollars, yet Garrett’s victory, in spite of these factors, is overpowering evidence that he represents the interests and values of the people of New Jersey’s 5th District.”

Tuesday, November 4, 2008


President Barack Obama.

As I was hopeful after Iowa, now we can officially say, bring the change.

Garrett Wins

According to CNN and the AP, Representative Scott Garrett will be going back to Washington. With 80% of our Districts reporting, Garrett has a commanding 15 point lead.

Congratulations, Congressman.

What's With The Record?

For their Election Central '08, the Record seems to not count yours truly, Blue Jersey, CWA or Inside Bergen as part of the Blogosphere.

Most of us link to them, or at the very least to the excellent work of Herb Jackson, Charles Stile, and Alfred Dobson. Most of us were linked to by them in 2007. What changed?

I'd understand if I was knocked off the list for telling them they needed to do a better job of fact checking the campaigns and press statements from politicians. I could even understand a couple others, but all of us? Where's the Jersey love in their list of the Blogosphere? Here's their list, as of this afternoon:

Jersey Public Interest Research Group

N.J. Elections
Huffington Post
Red State
Talking Points Memo
The Corner
Town Hall

Monday, November 3, 2008

Hoboken Mayhem

Hoboken lived up to my expectations in terms of insanity. I had the priviledge of being introduced to Senator Lautenberg by Dennis Shulman. Then I was able to talk to Representative Scott Garrett for a while. Now I can say quite a few people have pressed my flesh.

I honestly wish both candidates good luck tomorrow. To the staff of each, who have busted their tails for this, enjoy it.

Come Wednesday morning, it's going to be a different landscape in Washington. Whether it is Shulman or Garrett, I'll be here to report on how they're doing down there.

Robo-calls for Shulman

President Bill Clinton and Mayor Mike Bloomberg are doing robo-calls for Dennis Shulman. I tried to post the audio, but for some reason it's not working.

In response to the Steve Forbes endorsement of Representative Scott Garrett, Shulman's campaign manager Jeff Hauser showed he still has some bite left in his remarks:
"Garrett's earth shattering endorsement from Steve Forbes, who almost but not quite earned a delegate per million dollars of his father's money he spent running for President, indicates that Garrett is seeking to shore up his base of support. What's Garrett's base? People like Forbes and Garrett who inherited millions upon millions of dollars in cash or fake farms.

On the other hand, Dennis is proud to have earned the endorsement of groups who don't always endorse members of his party -- the Firefighters, the nation's best respected Independent (Mayor Bloomberg), and of course the school children of Garrett's home town of Wantage. Yes, indeed, the Wantage Schools children voted last week, and in a landslide, Shulman beat Garrett 350-250. And while those school children are nowhere near as wealthy as Forbes, Mayor Bloomberg is actually wealthier -- and earned it himself."

Giuliani for Garrett

Rudy Giuliani has come out to endorse Representative Scott Garrett:
“Scott Garrett has been called a Hero of the Taxpayer – and rightfully so. He has been a true leader in the fight to lower taxes on New Jersey families, working diligently to ease the burden of the AMT and fighting to bring back more of the money New Jersey sends to Washington. Even when challenged by members of his own party,Scott stood up against wasteful spending. I know first-hand the determination it takes to make a stand on what you think is right, and Scott’s resolve in protecting the taxpayer should be commended."

“In these tough economic times, we need more principled leaders to fight against increased taxes and bloated government budgets. That’s why I am proud to support Scott Garrett’s campaign for re-election to Congress.”

Garrett Pressed My Flesh

It was a pleasant surprise to see Representative Scott Garrett shaking hands at my train station this morning. There were a few folks who came up to shake his hand in the couple of minutes we were there and wish him well. It was a little chaotic because NJ Transit switched tracks on us, but he took it in stride.

For those that would like to meet Garrett, or challenger Dennis Shulman, both will be in Hoboken this evening greeting evening commuters. Should be a zoo. People can buy popcorn from one of the vendors in the station to watch the festivities.