How Garrett Sees a Terrorist Attack

This from Representative Scott Garrett on the floor yesterday (emphasis mine):

Even beyond the horrific human toll, terrorists could inflict real pain by melting our infrastructure and economy down.

I'm pretty certain the families of 9/11 would say the real pain was the loss of their loved ones.

Garrett's Positive Flip Flop

After voting against implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission back in January, yesterday Representative Scott Garrett voted for the bill agreeing to the version worked out between the House and the Senate. He didn't offer any reason for his change of heart, so whether he no longer feels it's too expensive as he did then; or this is just a move of political survival; or he just came to his senses we may never know. Whatever his reasons, the bottom line is he voted for the final bill.

Garrett Votes Against Police...Again

In yet another classic example of saying something during the campaign and voting differently once down in Washington, Representative Scott Garrett joined 33 other Representatives in opposing the "COPS Improvements Act of 2007." The Bill restores many of the funds stripped from community policing programs over the last few years, and establishes new grants for anti-terrorism training for officers, training grants for veterans to join law enforcement, and technology upgrades.

Here's part of how the National Sheriff's Association described the Bill:

As sheriffs are often the first-responders in times of emergency, police hiring grants will begin to allow sheriffs to appropriately man, train and prepare for effective responses to both local and terrorist disasters. Furthermore, as first-responders, it is important that sheriffs have the ability to coordinate, collaborate, and communicate with other law enforcement agencies and public safety agencies. Thus, the technology grants that the bill supports will allow sheriffs to increase their interoperability with other agencies, and also provide sheriffs with the opportunity to obtain necessary state-of-the-art equipment for crime tracking and reporting.

Makes sense to me, and 92% of the Representatives voting on the Bill, but not our Garrett. Once again, as with his vote against the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Garrett has failed to live up to his campaign rhetoric.

Here's what Garrett claimed to believe on his campaign website:

Providing for our security also means ensuring that our local law enforcement personnel have the tools and resources they need to do their jobs.

And then there is this from his official website:

Scott Garrett has set up a First Responders Advisory Council of firefighters, police, and paramedics from across the Fifth District to discuss issues of importance to these brave community leaders.

Obviously, Garrett has now voted against two major bills favored by law enforcement. So it would seem he doesn't believe the first statement, and more than likely doesn't listen to the group touted in the second.

Votes speak louder than words, and I hope our the Fifth District's finest are listening. How Garrett can look his Advisory Council in the eye and say to them he's doing what he can to get them the resources they need bewilders me. If Garrett said anything in his defense, I'll post it as soon as I see it in the Congressional Record.

Collins Fights Back

A few days ago I saw an attack ad, produced by Americans United for Change, against Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The attack ad has been viewed over 21,000 times, the comments under it are passionate on both sides of the war, but the most important thing about this ad is that it is a classic example of smear. Collins is one of the most vocal critics of the President's surge plan, and she's decided to hit back with her own ad pointing that out. It has only been viewed a little over 3,600 times, so I'm re-posting it here hoping a few folks will watch it:



Here is the part of Senator Collins speech that they clipped (italics), and what they left out (bolded):

Just this last weekend, the State of Maine lost another soldier in combat in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where each and every one of us stands on the President’s strategy, on whether to cut off funding, on the important issues related to this very pressing issue. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are those who agree with my position that a surge of 21,500 troops would be a mistake. There are those who believe that the surge is the right course to follow. I respect the views of Senators on both sides of the aisle and, indeed, this is not a partisan issue. But surely—surely this is an issue that deserves our full debate in the best traditions of this historic body. Surely—surely our constituents deserve to know where we stand.

The vote that they cite in the ad was the pork stuffed emergency appropriations bill. Most of the Republican Senators and Representatives who are opposed to the President's management of the war and our indefinite involvement voted against the bill, including all three Republicans whose speeches I highlighted earlier. Instead of working with these Republican allies to craft a bi-partisan bill, the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate bribed some of their own caucus with pork to get them to vote for the resolution, which then lost most of the Republicans.

It's selfish of the Democrats who demanded the pork. I can hear them saying "Well, of course I support the troops in the field. But my District supports them more with a sugar beet subsidy." How ridiculous is that? It is also very weak of the Democratic leadership to cave to it. I had hoped the Democrats were going to act differently than the Republicans over the last few years, especially when it came to stuffing pork and earmarks into spending bills, but obviously it's more politics as usual.

Sen. Collins's very vocal criticism of the management of the war has been paired with her attempt to get a bi-partisan approach to bringing the President in line. She also stood up to the President when it came to enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, acting as an original co-sponsor of the Senate bill and voting for it, something our own Representative Scott Garrett didn't do. Collins was also part of the Gang of 14 that prevented the authoritarian Republican leadership from eliminating the filibuster in the last Senate.

I haven't studied her record completely, but what I do know about Collins I tend to like. She's hardly as partisan as Representative Garrett, has refused to cower in the face of the President, and tries to find the middle ground more often than not. As partisan as Washington continues to be, often Sen. Collins seems like the voice of sanity. She should be praised instead of being attacked with misleading information.

Unfortunately, this is where single issue and overtly partisan politics have taken us. I'm glad to see Collins fight back (they do need to make the ad shorter), just as I would be to see a Democrat fight back when they're being smeared. If we're really going to start moving forward as a nation again, we as voters need to demand more than the 30 second attack ad.

Garrett votes against 9/11 Commission

Unbelievable.

Representative Scott Garrett voted against the implementation of the commonsense recommendations offered by the 9/11 Commission. This from the man who said the following on his campaign site:

My top priority since being sworn in as your Representative in Congress has been the safety and security of our nation. To this end, I have been a leading advocate for strengthening and improving our security, particularly here in New Jersey.

Yes, that's right, his "top priority." I would love to know how many people voted for him instead of Paul or me because they believed he'd do a better job on Homeland Security. This was his first test, and his credibility just went down the toilet. Votes speak louder than words, they always have. His next opponent won't even have to spin this or attempt to confuse the issue as is so often the case in the modern campaign.

The average voter:
"Mr. Garrett, did you really vote against the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations?"

Rep. Garrett:
"Yes, but..."

The average voter in our district either knows someone, or someone who knows someone, who was directly impacted on 9/11. The average voter will stop listening at yes.