Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Introducing Garrett Watch

Interesting and certainly timely to see this post asking for bloggers to help take down Scott Garrett as I have been thinking of a few ways to do this, and what is needed.

There really are two main thought processes here - the first is what I will call "Garrett Watch" which is to take stock of and follow his votes, actions and other things that can be used against him. This would consist of documentation (like the "Retire Garrett" site but maybe more along the lines of "dumpmike"), as well as a long term effort to get OpEds, LTE's, calls to radio shows, etc. in order to spread the word of Garrett's more extreme of his already extreme votes and views.

The other is more of a "data collection/analysis" approach, which I will explain more below:

For starters, there needs to be a broken down understanding of this district. There are (I believe) four counties represented and they are pretty different in terms of demographics and priorities. We need a more targeted approach, at least for each county.

Data MUST be available that would give voting breakdowns by county, age, income, etc. as well as other types of information that would be helpful (unrelated to voting).

We have more than a few months to compile this as well as figure out what data is good for us - (e.g., clubs, political contributions, etc.) and once we have it, we can update it accordingly.

This would be immensely valuable to any campaign and there is no reason why, with what we have here, we can't do this.

Hell, since I was going to do it anyway, I'll take the lead or coordinate it.

Back to the first part - there was already a vote in the House (HR 6), which had a few parts to it.

It should be noted that Garrett voted AGAINST the "pay as you go" for earmarks - so this should be positioned as him being against control of the budget, for pork barrel spending and someone who is a "borrow and spender". Let's start branding him appropriately.

The other noteworthy vote was in favor of an amendment which failed that dealt with granting the minority party more rights and reforms. Sounds good on the surface, until you realize that the Democrats tried on numerous occasions to get a "Minority Bill of Rights" passed in prior Congresses but the republicans WOULDN'T EVEN LET IT COME TO THE FLOOR.

Paint Garrett a hypocrite and an obstructionist here.


You see where I am going with this. There is no reason that NJ-5 should have Garrett as it's representative. There is more than enough ammo to take him down in 2008. Add to that his ties to Abramoff and his solid status as a rubber stamp for Bush's failed occupation of Iraq and we are off to a real good start.

I will keep this up with respect to his voting record as I see things, but please -- if anyone wants to post something on this, or sees something and wants to pass it along -- do not hesitate to contact me.


Garrett must go. Let's make sure it happens.


Anonymous said...

I've been watching him and have already written him twice. This man must go. He'll simply continue to vote party line and not for what's best for NJ's 5th. In addition to what you point out, his stellar voting record for the 110th Congress is:

Voted No on Implementing the Fair Minimum Wage Act (HR 2, Roll Call #18)

Voted No on Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act (HR 1 Roll Call #15)

Voted No To enhance intelligence oversight authority (HRes35, Roll Call #13)

I'm all for helping out in any way.


clammyc said...

And I assume that he voted against the stem cell research bill.

I would like to do a running total of his horrific voting record, but will need help in getting this all together.

Anonymous said...

I support Scott Garrett one hundred percent. This minimum wage bill will put more people out of work. Small businesses cannot afford to hire more people if their labor costs increase. Personally, owning a small business in New Jersey is a waste of time in this high tax democrat state. I would also vote against stem cell research. Why should taxpayers pay for stem cell research? The 9/11 commission is a joke anyway. I want out of this high tax state with its low quality of living. In terms of the pay as you go program, why did this not include the current social programs. More social programs and more taxes results in lower economic growth and more people on the unemployment line.

jonjr70 said...

"I want out of this high tax state with its low quality of living."

Dont let the door hit you in the A@@ on the way out

Anonymous said...

I guess property taxes of over $10,000 a year are ok with you. People who work, save, and invest are severely punished with high taxes. Tell me what is so great about New Jersey anyway. Also, what is so great about the rich Nancy Pelosi who was born and married into wealth. The difference is that I had to work for what I have.

clammyc said...

hey "anonymous" - with your big time posts, why not show who you are like the rest of us?

Your "facts" on minimum wage are absolute nonsense. See here for why and for supporting information. That is, if you are interested in facts as opposed to talking points.

And you are against federal funding for stem cell research? But I guess federal funding for right wing religious extremist groups like Focus on the Family, who are tax exempt and are behind the cloak of "faith based initiatives" are a-ok. Or "absintence only" programs that are disingenuous, don't work and don't reduce AIDS are ok too for federal funding?

As for high propoerty taxes, well I just moved to NJ from NY and the property tax issue is a STATE issue, not a FEDERAL one. You want to take that up with someone, take it up with the legislature. Or you can look to the republican congress which sent NJ LESS money back for every dollar it received than it did for every other state. Yes, NJ was dead last in net money received from the federal government.

Nice strawman argument about "rich Nancy Pelosi". What about all of the "rich" republican legislators in Congress? Do they get a pass?

So, you want to debate, bring it, but bring facts as spin and talking points have no place in reality.


SmartyJones said...

I'm in!

I will contribute as much (probably very little) as I can.

The best thing I can do at the moment is to spread the word of this blog.

I found you via BlueJersey. in case you are keeping tabs.

Sidd Finch said...

What percentage of NJ5 voters support stem cell research?
What percentage of NJ5 voters think contraception should be illegal?
What percentage of NJ5 voters think a woman should go to jail if she has an abortion, even if it was a result of rape?
What percentage of NJ5 voters would have voted against earmark reform?
What percentage of NJ5 voters think increasing the Federal minimum wage is a bad idea?
What percentage of NJ5 voters know that Scott Garrett wouldn't be in his position without the support of a group who's founder thinks the Federal gov't should be shrunk to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub?

and so on...

It seems to me that the key isn't finding a few points where Garrett has voted against the interests of his constituents. It's a matter of showing that he almost ALWAYS does.

Anonymous said...

I think Garrett is very much in step with the NJ 5th CD. Some of the criticisms expressed here are certainly warranted. However he stand bravely against bailouts (with suppourt from only a few in both parties)if not against the wars (which are suppourted by both paties if not in words, then certainly in boths wars continues with dem house, senate and pres.)