Thursday, May 31, 2007
It's not even June
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Dems Firing Up the Engines
While the Dems are still waiting on Paul's announced intention to announce, they'll get to take a second look at Camille. Here's what she had to say to PoliticsNJ (Anne is Anne Wolfe, who some have speculated will also jump in).
“Anne’s withdrawal left a very moderate Democrat as the only alternative,” Ms. Abate said. “I am convinced that we need a strong voice in Washington to speak out against the war in Iraq and the assault on civil liberties by the Bush Administration and to fight for working and middle class people who have been shouldering enormous burdens as a result of Bush's misguided policies and a complicit Congress. This time I intend to win the Democratic nomination and unseat Scott Garrett in the general election."While the "very moderate" part of the quote could actually help Paul in the general election, with barely over 10,000 people voting in the Democratic primary in '06, it could help Camille. She's also been very busy explaining her views on things through her CAJA Institute.
Paul hasn't been quite either, he's kept his website going, putting out press releases and such. Paul got an Op-Ed published in the Record about the disabled community, to which Camille responded, and then Paul put up a follow-up piece on Blue Jersey. He's also been campaigning for Democratic Sussex County Sheriff candidate Wayne Yahm.
It's safe to say the fun has begun on the Democratic side.
Unless the moderate and classic conservative Republicans that Garrett loathes throw him out; and in spite of the fact he single handily has taken one of the highest tax paying Districts in the nation to the bottom of Congressional influence; Garrett could be tough to beat. Gerrymandering is a natural advantage and one distinct advantage is Garrett's cash on hand: Paul has roughly $17,000 and Camille's at $13,000, as Garrett's sitting on $238,144.
Partisanship Incarnate Episode II: The Moderate Wars
The loyalty of Tuesday Group members was questioned last week during a House GOP conference, when Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee, questioned why several Tuesday Group members voted for a Democratic gasoline price gouging bill.Questioning the loyalty of the first major Republican group to tell the President point blank that the Republicans face anhililation next year if his war policy doesn't change is a bit ridiculous. While Garrett keeps re-issuing the same tired soundbites supporting the President's policies, The Tuesday Group at least seems to have some grip on reality. Even White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton understands the importance of the group."It was pointed out that we could have beaten back that bill if we had voted a different way," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a member of the Tuesday Group. But LaHood said it would have been tough to go back home to Illinois -- where gas can be more than $3.50 a gallon -- if he had voted the way conservatives wanted.
Bolten said he understands that there are disagreements among Republicans and praised what he described as the constructive tone of last Tuesday's White House meeting with GOP congressmen concerned about Iraq. "The only thing that went wrong with the meeting was when someone had the poor judgment to talk about it outside when it was clearly meant to be an in-the- family discussion," he said.
In the interest of being fair, questioning the loyalty of Republicans isn't a new activity for Garett. It's pretty safe to say Garrett went into Congress disliking the fact moderates of the Tuesday Group, and their related Republican Main Street Partnership, were known to buck the party leadership when it served the interests of their District. Compromise has never really been of interest to Garrett, and that attitude was financially supported by the conservative counterpart to the RMSP, the Club for Growth. The Politico pointed out how they operate in this article.
The moderate Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP) and conservative Club for Growth have faced off in a handful of contentious primaries in recent years. The Club for Growth has been more visible, and last year achieved its goal of beating a moderate Republican lawmaker in a primary contest by helping knock off then-Rep. Joe Schwarz of Michigan. The Club for Growth also spent more than $700,000 opposing then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who fended off a primary challenge from the right but lost in the general election.
[snip]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.) and former Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.) and Marge Roukema (N.J.), each faced challengers whose campaigns were largely funded by the Club for Growth. Boehlert survived a couple of close calls while Roukema retired in 2002 after twice nearly losing her seat in the Republican primary.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
To all of the men and women who currently serve, thank you.
To my friends getting redeployed, home safe.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Scott Garrett and the 'family budget'
Reading "Garrett Steadfast on Taxes" (Letters to the Editor, May 18) seemed like something straight out of Rep. Scott Garrett's press room. Much of the spin reiterated by the author has been exposed as being overblown by many reputable reporters in this and other newspapers, including Herb Jackson and columnist David Broder.
Garrett may say he looks after the family budget, but his votes speak louder than his words.
With Garrett's vote against decreasing the interest rate on federal student loans, which he voted to raise a year ago, it seems working families with college kids are not of his concern. Garrett also voted against scholarships for children interested in studying science in college and grants for research professionals beginning their careers.
This eliminates families of those who perform the research and those whose manufacturing jobs are dependent on their findings.
In addition, Garrett voted against a U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed 10 year tax cut package for small business owners, followed by a vote against reforming and expanding Small Business Administration loans to help owners grow their businesses and create jobs, helping owner's families and those they employ.
These are just a few of Garrett's votes since January where the "family budget" was the central question. Garrett joined a small minority (between 2 and 6 percent) in voting no each time. It seems the only family budgets Garrett is concerned with closely resemble an A-Rod post-season hit: few and far between.
Matthew Fretz, Upper Saddle River
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Garrett vs. First-Time Homebuyers
Yesterday the House voted on the National Housing Trust Fund. Originally proposed by then Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the bill sets up a Trust
Fund to support building of Affordable Housing nationwide. The funding for the bill comes through surplus dollars at Fannie Mae and FreddieMac.
I added this comment to their conversation.
The bill, which the White House had initially supported, is veto proof with a 313-104 margin.
The Bill also raises the limits of loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to offer first time home buyers in higher cost areas, like the Fifth District. In addition, it provided a new office to regulate the companies to prevent issues like they've had over the last three years.
I'm not sure how the amendments panned out in terms of White House support, but Garrett proposed an amendment that was crushed. It would have all but eliminated Fannie and Freddie from being able to help first-time homebuyers in the Fifth by restricting the types of mortgages they could offer to exclusively affordable housing stock, and cutting out the ability of middle income families to obtain F&F mortgages.
I feel a bit lazy reposting this here, but I had a really long day at work and am headed to bed a good two hours early. I apologize for slacking.