Garrett Fails Purity Test

The announcement of the Republican Purity Test is further proof of how far from an inclusive party the Republicans have gone, and how far the authoritarians written about by John Dean have come. Instead of allowing people to choose their own Representatives, the powerful few want to dictate to the masses from their pirch in Washinton.

How'd that work out for you kids up in NY 23?

If this goes through, gone will be the future Tom Keans. Gone will be the Marge Roukemas and Leonard Lances and Frank LoBiondos. Gone will be the Teddy Roosevelts and the Abraham Lincolns.

Depending on how seriously they took this rule, gone would be Representative Scott Garrett.

While I doubt Garrett would fall from favor with this crowd, let's look at the pledge line by line to see where he gets tripped up, through a strict constructionist view (8 of 10 to pass):

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Garrett, and every other Republican that voted for a Bush Budget fails on multiple fronts on this one. They exploded the deficit and the national debt. Many also voted against PAYGO, which would make new spending deficit neutral, and in many cases voted against tax cuts for actual small business owners (the non-publicly traded type).

Epic fail.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Garrett's been clear on all of these, so that's a pass.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

This one is a mixed bag. They supported going to war with less than what the military wanted, but voted for the surge. I suppose, they could say, they'll only listen to the military after the civilians like Rumsfeld mess things up. I suppose Garrett passes.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

In order to contain Iran and North Korea effectively, we need to engage them as Reagan engaged the Soviet Union. While the Republicans interpreting this little test probably won't see it this way, Garrett and many others have been on record against engagement, and therefore should fail this one.

That's two fails.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Republicans used to stand for all men and women being treated equal, however that's no longer the case. Special interest fundraising based discrimination has turned into party dogma. Garrett's on board with this.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

By arguing the status quo, as they do in point 2, Garrett and the rest of those that would profess these ideals are actively supporting corporate America dictating who gets what care. On top of that, they also fail point one yet again with point two, because it protects taxpayer rip off programs like Medicare Advantage.

The third fail.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Really? With a blanket statement like that Republicans seem to want to arm every convicted violent criminal on parole? Wow. Since I don't know if Garrett would back that, we'll leave this one as an uncertain.

As I said, those who would dictate from the top what the party means instead of leaving it to their members, are unlikely to boot Garrett. That said, it's also important to look at this pledge with what it's missing:

• No commitment to a balanced budget;
• No commitment to eliminating waste;
• No commitment to veterans;
• No commitment to innovation;
• No commitment to education;
• No commitment to the environment;
• No commitment to a brighter future, only opposition.

This little Purity Test simply reinforces the image of Republicans as the party of No.

It also is a dangerous development. More on this topic to come soon...

Garrett a Birther? Nah.

Representative Scott Garrett seems to have been backed into a corner by Birthers. During the health care "house calls", Garrett managed to get badgered by a couple of birthers (those that refuse to believe the evidence President Obama was born here).

After a few minutes of his health care discussion being hijacked by these two nuts, one of whom fancies himself a blogger (sans spelling and grammer I suppose), he gave a very tacit "I agree" that has been picked up by the Washington Independent and Daily Kos.

While the Kos article has prompted a ton of comments based on the video, I think this one is closest to the truth:

I can't fault Garrett for pretending to agree with a group of mentally challenged Pbaggers. If a bunch of looneyloons approached me about Obama's birth I'd pretend to agree with them too just to get them off my back.

While I wish Garrett had had the fortitude to squash this whole thing, he's in a very precarious spot, as is the Republican Party. From the description of the video (spelling/grammar theirs):

NJ Lawyer confronts NJ Congressman Scott Garrett at 11/5/09 Washington DC House call on the Obama Presidential qualifications requirement of US Constitution under Article II Section 1. Repblicans and all Congressman do not realize the tens of millions of voting Americans wanting this issue resolved. Although considered a minority, the numbers are large enough to impact primaries especially for Republicans who seem to be skirting the issue.

That's right, these fringe folks just threatened Garrett and every other Republican who doesn't agree with them. As the Republican Party has embraced the Tea Party people and their organizing skills, including our local Bergen County Republican Organization, they've opened themselves up to further purity tests. This is reminiscent of when the Christian Coalition started their purge.

I've seen enough of Garrett over the years, both in person and video, to have seen him be serious and passionate about a belief of his. This isn't one of those times. The thing is, I'm pretty sure the Birthers know that, too.

An article a long time ago said Garrett would only have to fear a Republican primary challenge from someone on the Right, which I had a hard time believing was possible, but I suppose now we all know it is. As participation in primaries dwindles, these small groups of fanatics wield more and more power because they actually show up to vote.

This will likely be a non-issue for Garrett in the long run, but when Garrett gets attacked for not being Conservative enough, you know the Republican Party is in for a rough time ahead.

Partisanship Incarnate Episode II: The Moderate Wars

How does Representative Scott Garrett deal with being in the minority and one of the least influential Representatives on Capitol Hill?

True to Tom Delay form, The Politico reports he's taken to attacking his fellow Republicans.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

After being kicked around by the leadership style Garrett seems to embrace; watching many of their moderate collegues go down last year because of anti-Republican sentiment; and having to endure primary challenges from within the party for not being "Republican enough"; is it any wonder the moderates want to get the word out that not all Republicans fit into the mold of authoritarian Republican whipping boy?

In addition to Iraq, it's safe to say gas prices are going to be a big issue next year, as big oil has said not to expect a drop in gas prices for the forseable future . The bill Garrett challenged the moderates on wasn't perfect, but no matter who runs against Garrett it will be pointed out this was actually the second time he's voted against making sure big oil isn't taking unfair advantage of consumers.

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.

Pat Moynihan seems to have coined the phrase "rule or ruin" when describing partisan zealots, saying if they can't rule their way, they'd rather ruin their party. It seems to fit Garrett here.

Better Know an Authoritarian

After reading John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience, I gained a better understanding of what's been going on in Washington. It explained the authoritarian psychology of those in power, and how many of the Republicans under them could be capable of such abdication of duty. Last week, Dean's column covered an interview he did with Dr. Bob Altemeyer, a leading expert on the psychology of authoritarianism, regarding Tom DeLay's autobiography. Here's a sample quote:

Q: Is this characteristic of authoritarians, to open themselves up to being easily discredited by what they say? Or something pathological about DeLay?

A: I try hard not to call people pathological. Why has he let himself be so easily discredited in this and the other cases? I think it's because he knows his audience, which will be mainly authoritarian followers, who would never doubt what he says, nor check his stories against other accounts. Studies show that authoritarian leaders can say almost anything, and their followers will believe them.

It's a really good read if you have an interest in what's been going on, who was calling the shots, and why folks like Representative Scott Garrett following this guy got us where we are today.

Garrett drops us to bottom 5.5%

Saw this when I was scanning Blue Jersey, according to Congress.org the power ranking for our Fifth District is now 411 out of 435. I've used the phrase "minority of the minority" before when describing our District's position on the Hill, and this serves as reinforcement. When the Republicans were in the majority, Representative Scott Garrett was only able to get 1 of 41 bills he sponsored enacted. Due to his unabashed partisanship and sporting a voting record that's more conservative than 97% of the House, our District's position is likely to drop this year instead of climb.

The art of compromise is something that Garrett ran against from the very beginning, and is going to haunt our District the longer he is in office. Garrett is of the Tom Delay school of thought that compromise is a bad thing and that "Real Republicans" according to this mindset don't work with Democrats (sorry, 3% doesn't cut it). I've spoken before about how our former Representative Marge Roukema was targeted by these authoritarians and how Garrett was all too quick to answer their call for a challenger. This conservative cannibalism was also evidenced in primary challenges to Senator Arlen Specter and other good legislators who were targeted for no other reason than refusing to follow the hard right Republican leadership like lemmings at the expense of their constituents.

Closer to home, in New Jersey's 24th District, a battle for State Senate had been brewing between Garrett's friend and fellow "Mountain Man" Assemblyman Guy Gregg and New Jersey's longest serving legislator, retiring Senator Bob Littell. Voters in the 24th should think long and hard about Gregg's attacks that Littell wasn't a "Real Republican." As the State Senator's wife said to PoliticsNJ about her husband:

“He's a Republican,” Virginia Littell says proudly. “Sometimes you vote with the Democrats. Hello! You run in a Republican primary but when you go to the capital the people put you in the general election.”

"You get what you can get through the process of negotiations,” she said. “My husband is not a traitor; he's a trader, a horse trader."

In order to get things done for the District, you have to cut deals when you're in the majority and especially when you're in the minority. Gregg was using the same rhetorical attacks against Littell as Garrett used against Roukema (RINO, etc.). However, in this case, the game has changed. Littell has announced his retirement, and a fusion ticket has emerged in the 24th that seems to be principled, less divisive and more results oriented. Being effective leaders requires both principle and pragmatism. Garrett has plenty of principles he likes to talk about, but absolutely no pragmatism. Of all people, Richard Nixon probably has the best quote on this:

Idealism without pragmatism is impotent. Pragmatism without idealism is meaningless. The key to effective leadership is pragmatic idealism.

My hope for the 24th, as with our Congressional District, is that Republican primary voters will see that the race to irrelevance being run by Representative Garrett serves neither our District nor will it serve the people of the 24th with Gregg.

The Price of Silence

According to this week's McLaughlin Group over 70,000 of our nation's men and women have been wounded in Iraq. While criticism for the President's handling of the war helped sweep Democrats into power last November, a growing amount of criticism is coming from Republicans. There's also an increase in the verbal intensity of the salvos.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): We have serious concern about the policy of this administration, and that many of us feel you are not listening.

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R-NE): There is no strategy. This is a ping pong game with American lives. We better be damn sure we know what we're doing before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.

The question of what took so long for such public questioning to come to light needs to be asked. Based on how things have been run in the Senate and the House the last few years, Vice President Dick Cheney provided the most honest answer in a Newsweek interview.

Let's say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican

To understand the significance of this statement, you have to understand the authoritarian manner (self-righteous, mean-spirited, amoral, manipulative, bullying) in which the House and the Senate have been run over the last few years. Under rule of Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum, loyalty to the Republican leadership was demanded on an absolute basis. Our former Representative Marge Roukema learned this when she was passed over for Chairwomen of the House Financial Services Committee, despite having the most seniority. Rep. Roukema was a moderate, or centrist, who did not go along with the Republican leadership when it went against the values or interests of our District. For that, among many other things, I hold her in the utmost respect.

Congress, as intended by the Founding Fathers, is meant to be a check against the Executive Branch. It is not meant to be an extension of the Oval Office, as has been the case with the submissiveness of those taking the "11th commandment" to heart. When a Representative takes the Oath of Office, it is to the Constitution, not their party. Regardless of what party the President is, Congress bears the responsibility of oversight. My hope is more Republicans will join those who have stepped up demanding the accountability that has been missing since the beginning. Party loyalty should never be placed above a Representative's Constitutional responsibility.

For the 70,000 wounded, and over 3,000 families who have lost loved ones, the price of silence from Capitol Hill the last few years is unacceptably high. The price for party disloyalty will always be far less than the price those who have volunteered to protect our nation will pay when things go horribly wrong and are allowed to continue down that path. It is up to us as a public to ensure our future leaders have the moral fortitude to stand up and say something.