The heat is on Garrett after 2 scandals are uncovered

After word got out about Scott Garrett's $41,000 tax break for his farm that had $600 in income, as well as his ties to failed financial services giant Countrywide Financial, the press is starting to shine a light on the problems and conflicts of interest that Garrett has.

To recap the 2 scandals, they are as follows:

• Garrett has taken thousands of dollars in campaign cash from Countrywide Financial and has hired its former lobbyist as his Chief of Staff. Despite his seat on the House Financial Services Committee, he has sat idly by while our economy spiraled into crisis.


• Garrett has taken a $41,000 tax break, intended for real farmers, on his multi-acre estate by claiming his brother sells $700 worth of "shrubs." He does not disclose the complete value of the adjoining land or the income from this so-called shrub farm as required by federal law. Learn more and view Shulman's new ad at www.GarrettShrubs.com.

Here are some of the things that are being said in the press about the 2 scandals:

The Star-Ledger highlighted Garrett's extensive ties to the financial services industry: "Garrett has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from financial-service firms and in March hired as his chief of staff a former lobbyist for Countrywide Financial, the nation's former largest mortgage lender that earlier this year became synonymous with the financial-services meltdown." - Jim Lockwood, 9/25/08


The Record highlighted Garrett's tax problems in "Fake farmer TV ad could hurt Garrett": "Garrett's campaign says he's done nothing wrong taking advantage of the state's farmland assessment program.... But a similar attack of being a fake farmer cost Ellen Karcher, a Democratic state senator from Monmouth County, her seat in 2007." - Herb Jackson, 9/25/08

More coverage of the Shulman campaign's new tv ad:

"Gasperino [Garrett's campaign manager] did not respond to follow-up questions to identify which statements she deems untrue." - The Express-Times, 9/24/2008

"They say there are about two or three enduring storylines in world literature, and over the last year there have proved to be two or three storylines in New Jersey politics.... [T]he Shulman campaign argues that it's the Ellen Karcher story all over again, with Garrett receiving a $41,000 tax break on a piece of land that yields approximately $700 per year in income." - PolitickerNJ, 9/24/2008

More coverage of Garrett's ties to our economic crisis:

"[Garrett's] chief of staff, Amy Smith, used to be employed by a lobbying firm that listed Countrywide Financial as a client. Countrywide has borne part of the blame for the subprime mortgage situation that led to current financial distress." - New Jersey Herald, 9/21/2008

"When I'm in Congress, I will never put Countrywide Financial and Big Oil above the citizens I represent. That is why I have pledged to never take campaign contributions from an industry I'm supposed to oversee." - The Hill, Congress Blog by Dennis Shulman, 9/17/2008

Farmer Scott and his creative accounting

Over at Blue Jersey, there is a real interesting story about Garrett and some very shady tax related matters for his "farm". Since Jason Springer says it best, I'll just paste it below:

Maybe he means fiscally conservative in the sense of tightfisted with his own finances? Or possibly we should start calling him Farmer Scott? The Shulman campaign comes out today with a new website - www.garrettshrubs.com - and goes on the air with an ad hitting Congressman Garrett on a farming tax exemption he avails himself of but fails to report as required:

According to the Shulman campaign's research, Garrett claims nine acres of his estate as a farm because his brother sells $700 worth of shrubs, then takes up to $41,000 in tax breaks meant to lighten the load of real New Jersey farmers.

The ad will run on cable throughout the 5th district. You can find their evidence on the Garrett Shrubs site along with the potential implications of such dishonesty. It appears Garrett actually reported the farm up until 2002. And here's what appears to be the website of the business in question. I wonder if Farmer Scott is a member of the NJ Christmas Tree Growers Association?

New poll shows Garrett under 50%

Good news from a new Research 2000 poll in the district - besides Garrett polling under 50%, it looks like the Democratic sample may be underrepresented, and there is a lot of room for Democratic candidate (and "Orange to Blue" candidate) Dennis Shulman to pick up ground. The poll shows Garrett with 49%, and Shulman with 34%.

Here are some snippets from the poll, which is reported here:

On the positive side, Garrett is below the fifty percent mark, which is always troubling for an incumbent. At the same time, his favorables stand at a weak 44-38 - almost as many people dislike him as like him. On the flipside, Rabbi Shulman's favorables stand at 36-26, which means that nearly 40% of likely voters don't yet know who he is. In other words, he has room to grow.

It's exactly that growing room which gives Shulman the chance to make up the fifteen-point gap that R2K says he faces. Shulman's doing pretty well among Dems, winning them at a 72-11 rate, while Garrett is doing ten points better among members of his own party, taking Republicans by 77-6. The real issue, though, is independents. Garrett cleans up here 48-35. The good news for Shulman is that this group is the least familiar with him: fully 45% of indies say they have no opinion of the Democrat - an opportunity, if Shulman can get his name out there.

Those independents are the real X-factor in this poll. They make up a huge 54% of the sample, while Republicans clock in at 27% and Dems at 19%. This is actually pretty close to where registration stood in the district before Super Tuesday. However, Dem registration has shot up since then; I'm told that more recent figures indicate the district's makeup is more like 44I-32R-24D today. But knowing registration numbers is one thing - figuring out who will show up on election day is quite another.

And in that regard, NJ-05 is a bit of an electoral engima. The district voted for Bush in 2004 by what looks like a daunting 57-43 margin. In 2000, however, the margin was half as wide, just 52-45. Why the seven-point shift, when Bush only gained about three nationwide? Most analysts I've discussed this with believe there was something of a "9/11 effect" here, just as there was in many parts of the tri-state area.

If this assessment is accurate, then this right-ward shift may have been temporary. One possible piece of support for this thesis is the presidential head-to-head, which shows McCain leading Obama 52-37. Obama trails past Dem performance quite significantly, but McCain is at Bush 2000 - and not Bush '04 - levels, for the moment. In a red district, though, undecideds are more likely to drift Republican, so McCain's current 52% may not be his ceiling.

If you want to see a breakdown of the participants and other metrics, chck out the link above.

But this is great news for a district whose representative is so far out of touch with his constituents, the other members of the republican NJ delegation, as well as nearly every member of Congress.

Garrett's Responsibility for the Failure of Fannie and Freddie

According to an article in today's Financial Times, Mike Oxley, the former Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is blaming Alan Greenspan and the Bush White House for killing a bill that "could well have prevented the current crisis."

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatization, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

While Oxley lays the responsibility for this at the feet of Greenspan and Bush, it is worth noting that even though the House passed the bill, Scott Garrett was one of 90 congressmen to vote nay. Keep that in mind the next time Scott Garrett tries to claim he saw this crisis coming and tried to stop it. Or has a plan to fix it.

Maybe This Is Why He Is A "Taxpayer Hero"

The latest debacle in the financial services industry has the federal government planning to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored enterprises that make and guarantee mortgage loans.

The total potential liability for the federal government: tens of billions of dollars.

The Congressional committee with oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: the House Committee on Financial Services ("HCFS") and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity ("HCO")

Longtime member of HCFS and HCO: you guessed it, Scott Garrett

Ironic Award of the Day

Scott Garrett, who has spent virtually his entire career collecting a paycheck funded by the taxpayers of the United States, has been named a "Taxpayer Hero" by Citizens Against Government Waste.

For those of you who don't know, Citizens Against Government Waste ("CAGW") is a non-profit organization dedicated "to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the federal government." You know, wasteful programs like childrens' health insurance.

In 2006, the Senate Finance Committee found that CAGW "appear to have perpetrated a fraud" on taxpayers" and probably violated their tax-exempt status "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. [Jack] Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients."

Jack Abramoff was sentenced the other day to four years in prison for conspiracy, honest services fraud and tax evasion charges, to be served after his sentence in Florida for fraud in connection with a casino deal.

Hey, I've got an idea to help eliminate "eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the federal government." Get rid of Scott Garrett.

Garrett smacks families in the face on stimulus package. Twice.

If it wasn’t enough that Scott Garrett wanted to screw over American taxpayers and families by being one of only 34 Reps. to vote against the Economic Stimulus Package that Bush signed last week, you can look at the stimulus package that he introduced himself as an alternative to see exactly where the fifth district’s Congressman’s priorities really lie.

Granted, the economic stimulus package that overwhelmingly passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by Bush was far from perfect. I made no bones about my feelings regarding the tax rebates being a farce as they didn’t help families in the long or medium term, barely helped them in the short term, don’t address the needs of families or the root of this country’s economic woes (hint and note to Mr. Garrett - it isn’t that corporations need more tax cuts) and will likely go right back to the credit card companies, the oil companies, the banks, or the utility companies, therefore mainly helping those who are creating the economic problems in the first place.

And actually, on a part of that point, I agree with what Garrett said:

"An increased one-time payment does not bring about real economic growth or security to American families,”

The problem here is that real economic growth - real meaningful economic growth that would help American families, and families of this district who struggle with the higher gas prices (especially in counties other than Bergen), higher heating bills, and higher prices for other basic necessities would focus on helping those families in this time of need, as well as help them in the longer term. Things like extending unemployment benefits. Things like giving rebates to all people who are below a certain income level, recognizing that the lowest income earners need the most help. Things like addressing the AMT in a responsible manner - something that increasingly is hitting middle class and upper middle class in the district.

But no. Garrett can’t even have a thought or a plan that looks out for his constituents. Unless, his constituents are corporations.

One of the main reasons that he voted against the stimulus bill is that it would help the lowest of income earners. The ones who need all of the help they can get to help pay for rising gas costs. For higher food prices. For medication that is necessary. For heat. I guess because these individuals’ primary source of income is social security benefits (meaning the elderly and lowest income earners), which allows them to not have any income tax liability, they shouldn’t receive a rebate.

And to Garrett, if these people would get a rebate, that is not fair, so then he feels that nobody should get a rebate. Garrett didn’t vote against the stimulus package because it didn’t go far enough. He voted against it because he felt it would help TOO MANY people - and damn those lowest of income earners who clearly don’t need the measly rebate that they will be getting in the first place.

So what does Garrett think would be a good way to stimulate the economy and help American families - families in his district? Well, we know exactly what he thinks, as he sponsored his own economic stimulus package. A stimulus package, that if Garrett got to design it himself, would be precisely the kind that would help those who Garrett personally thought would (1) need it the most and (2) be able to help his constituents the most.

Or at least you would think so.

Garrett’s idea of a “real” stimulus package would not include rebates to American families. And on that, I may actually agree to an extent. But that is the only thing that I can say I even remotely agree with Garrett on.

While I would think that some stimulus package that would help American families would include an extension of unemployment benefits, possibly tax credits or a rate reduction for many families, extension of food stamps in certain instances, reduced costs for heat for certain income levels, possibly incentives for certain businesses to increase wages or hiring - you know, things that help families now and also help them in the future, as well as helping certain business grow and keep people employed.

Garrett’s ideas? ALL CORPORATE TAX BREAKS. For American families and families in his district? Zero. For low income earners? Nothing. For those out of work? Zip.

What Garrett thinks is good for the families in his district are none of the above. His “hand picked” selections on how to help families includes the following:

• Reducing corporate tax rates from 35% to 15% on CORPORATE capital gains;


• Capping the amount of AMT that corporations can pay;


• Reducing overall corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%


• Repealing certain limits on taking bigger immediate deductions on most business equipment, thereby allowing corporations bigger and quicker deductions and reductions to their income; and


• Changing the rules on certain corporate assets for calculating gains and losses (no doubt this will substantially help corporations reduce their income tax burden.

Actually, that’s the extent of Garrett’s proposal. More corporate giveaways. More tax breaks for corporate entities. Nothing to do with hiring, increasing wages. Nothing for low income families. Nothing for families at all.

If you didn’t know how little Garrett cared about the people of his district and their needs, you can look at his vote on the economic stimulus package. Or you can look at why he voted against giving thousands of families in his district a little extra cash, even though the bill has some major flaws. Or, if you still aren’t convinced, you can look at how Garrett REALLY thinks his district and this country can be helped in these tough economic times.

You’ll be stunned. But not because this is out of character for Garrett. More so because even for an extremist like Garrett, it shows utter contempt for the people he was elected to represent.

Scott Garrett - no friend of the education community

Back in 2002 then-candidate Scott Garrett gave us a taste of his feelings on education when he said that “we could do without the Department of Education”.

His overall voting record on educational matters is just as abhorrent as his comment above. While his choice to home school his kids isn’t necessarily something to hold against him in and of itself, it does offer insight into how out of touch he is on matters concerning education. On numerous occasions, Garrett has been the only Congressional member from NJ - Republican OR Democratic to vote in a certain manner.

In fact, Garrett voted “no” on each and every one of the last 10 education bills in Congress. Some of his “highlights” are noted below:

Garrett voted not once, not twice but three times against the Appropriations bill for the Department of Education - the last time casting the deciding vote that kept the House from overriding Bush’s veto of this bill.

Garrett voted against helping college students pay for college - reducing interest rates on student loans, increasing Pell Grants. He was one of two NJ Representatives to vote against this bill. This was also the second time during 2007 that Garrett voted against a bill whose main thrust was to help college students.

Just last year - Garrett was one of only 36 Representatives to vote against Project Head Start, in a bill that passed the House by a vote of 381-36 and the Senate by a vote of 95-0. This made Garrett one of only 36 out of 435 people in Congress that voted against this bill. Head Start was recognized by Republican Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02), who sits as a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor had favorable comments on the Program:

”Head Start is an important program that has the potential to help raise the level of early education for thousands of American children”

Even President Bush recognized the positive role of Head Start when he said the following upon signing this legislation:

Over the past 40 years, Head Start has provided comprehensive child-development services to more than 20 million low-income children and their families to promote school readiness.

And of course, back in 2005, Garrett urged New Jersey schools to teach "intelligent design" in addition to evolution, when he made the following statement:

"Evolution is the predominant theory right now," said Garrett, R-Wantage. "[But] intelligent design is one that is apparently growing in some scientific communities, in academia. ... It seems that a school board should at least consider being tolerant and open to discussing both theories."

Lastly, who can forget his comment from March 2007 that plainly laid out his stance on education, despite the fact that Article VIII, Section IV of the New Jersey Constitution indicates that “The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years”:

Contrary to common modern misconceptions, there is no constitutional right guaranteeing each citizen an education.

On education - whether it be our children’s education, funding for public schools, the Department of Education itself, assistance for college students or advocating for introducing out-of-the-mainstream religious teaching in our public schools, Scott Garrett stands alone when it comes to extremist views on this District’s education policies. It is clear that Garrett is not looking out for the people of this District when it comes to educating our children.

Garrett: Pro-life. Unless you are an uninsured child

How sad it is to be represented by a Republican who consistently votes against his community's interests.

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 906 - Representative Scott Garrett voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act which would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In other words, hhe voted against insuring another four million kids who lack health insurance because their parents simply don't make enough money to pay for it.

New Jersey has a greater percentage of uninsured now than just five years ago. This bill would have provided health insurance for close to 200,000 of them (down from the larger number in the original Democratic version of the bill). But even that increase was too much for Garrett, who toed the GOP party line that effective government programs must not be allowed to grow, for fear that people might start to believe that government can actually help them.

Of course, the term "pro-life" that Garrett proudly wears only applies to before one is born and when they are about to die. Once they are here in this world - whether they need Hurricane Relief (which Garrett voted against), or health insurance that they can't afford - suddenly Garrett isn't so "pro-life" anymore.

What a terrible, terrible vote. It's not the childrens' fault that their parents are poor. And the amount of money at stake is remarkably low in the grand scheme of things -- compared to tax cuts for the richest Americans or a couple of months in Iraq for example.

Will no one rid of this representative who votes against our interests?

Remember this vote? Does Garrett love dogfighting?

Back in March, there was a vote on a bill titled Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, which prohibited dogfighting, among other "animal fighting".

While only 39 total Reps. voted against this bill (as opposed to 268 who voted for the bill), our own Scott Garrett was one of the 39.

Additionally, New Jersey's fifth district has the sixth largest number of Humane Society members out of the entire 435 districts, yet Garrett once again goes against the wishes of his constituents.

A recent OpEd in the Bergen Record states the following:

This anti-crime legislation was backed by animal welfare groups, the poultry industry and more than 400 law enforcement agencies. It was approved by 368 of Garrett's House colleagues -- 215 Democrats and 153 Republicans -- before passing the Senate unanimously and being signed into law by President Bush in May.

Garrett, however, apparently preferred to give dog fighters and cock fighters a free pass, rather than strengthen the federal government's enforcement of laws to combat animal fighting. Never mind that dog fighting and cock fighting are both the equivalent of felony offenses in New Jersey. Never mind that the illegal transport of birds for cock fighting has been linked to deadly diseases such as bird flu and exotic Newcastle, threatening public health and the poultry industry.

Animal fighting not only fosters unspeakable cruelty to animals, but also spawns other criminal activity, such as narcotics traffic, illegal gambling, public corruption and violence toward people. When animal fighters can earn tens of thousands of dollars wagering on a single fight, a slap on the wrist is considered just a cost of doing business.

Makes you wonder what Garrett is thinking. Or if he is thinking at all.

Garrett loves hate crimes but hates education and the Jersey delegation

Once again, Scott Garrett had a week in Congress that is as impressively arrogant and out of touch with reality as it is baffling in its draconian nature.

There were a number of bills this week that Garrett was (once again) on the wrong side of, but there are three pieces of legislation that stand out to the point that they could not be ignored.

For starters, there was the much-discussed Federal Hate Crimes Bill that expanded the original hate crimes law to include offenses based on sexual orientation, gender or disability in addition to the previously covered offenses of national origin, religion and race. The bill passed by a vote of 237-180 but Scott Garrett thinks that it is ok for hate crimes if they target sexual orientation, gender or disability. Only one other NJ republican Congressman voted against this bill. What a nice understanding compassionate conservative.

The second bill, one whose goal was to renew and improve the Federal Head Start Program, as well as raise teaching standards was approved by an oerwhelming vote of 365-48. Garrett was the ONLY MEMBER of the New Jersey congressional delegation to vote against this bill

Once again, Garrett stood completely alone amongst the New Jersey Congressional delegation with an amendment he proposed that would reduce the proposed growth in funding for the National Science Foundation from 7 percent to 6.5 percent. There were no cosponsors to the amendment, and it was defeated 126-292. I'll reiterate that NOBODY ELSE FROM NJ voted with Garrett on this amendment

It is one thing to be out of step with the mainstream. It is another to be out of step with reality. It is even yet another to be out of step with your own party. And it is EVEN ANOTHER thing to be out of step with the entire delegation from your own state

Sadly, this is one thing that Scott Garrett qualifies as "all of the above"

Guess who voted against the Voting Rights Act

Hat tip to jmelli at Blue Jersey, who originally posted this at Blue Jersey

Warren Hills High School students asked Congressman Scott Garrett why he voted against the Voting Rights Act (h/t Fretz):

"I'm looking out for the American citizens who were born here legally."

Ouch. If that kind of ignorance were spoken by my Congressman, I might question the value of my naturalization certificate. But no, it was from the only Congressman north of the Mason-Dixon line to oppose the Voting Rights Act. What an embarrassment to New Jersey.

Garrett Against Federal Aid to Education

If Radical Republican Scott Garrett had his way, education would be privatized, available to those who can afford it.

Scott Garrett believes that the federal government has no role in education, that we should eliminate the Department of Education, that we should let states deal with education, and that public schools are not required by the Constitution.

Don't believe me, check it out yourself.

Let's give Scott Garrett an F and take away his tuition in Congress.

A District Full of Montys

Americans United for Change Dubs U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett Middle Class New Jersey's ‘Public Enemy #1'

Sometimes I wonder if Ernie thinks that this is the average NJ5 resident:

Now that I think about it, Garrett reminds me of Mr. Burns. He sure votes the way you'd expect Monty Burns would.

Out of the Mainstream - even in his own party

Front paged at Blue Jersey

It is one thing to be out of step with what the American people want - whether it be on Iraq, on government spending, on having close ties to convicted republican felon Jack Abramoff or many other areas where Scott Garrett seems to excel.

But when it comes to Garrett's House votes, even to members of his own party, Garrett is far outside of the mainstream.

This past week (ending March 9), there were three major votes in the House. And our "esteemed" Representative was on the wrong side of all three. All three votes passed - Garrett voted against all three.

But that only tells part of the story.

Addressing Global Warming: The House voted 269-150 in favor of HR 202, which provided funding for energy independence and an advisory panel on global warming. Over 40 other Republican House Members voted for the measure, including EVERY OTHER NJ REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE.

Reclaimed Water and Sewage Overflow Grants: These were even more egregious, as these bills passed by 368-59 and 367-58 votes, respectively. The Reclaimed Water vote (HR 700) authorized $125 million in grants (the same cost of approximately one hour spent in Iraq) for developing alternate water sources for homes, farms and industries. Once again, Garrett was the ONLY NJ REPRESENTATIVE to vote against this bill.

The Sewage Overflow Grants bill (HR 569) authorized $1.8 billion (less than a week's worth of costs in Iraq) over five years to upgrade city sewerage systems. And once again, Garrett stands along among NJ republicans in voting against this bill.

Scott Garrett is not only out of touch with the American public and his own district, he is dangerously out of step with his own party.

Not just his own party, but his vote was out of step with every other NJ House representative.

It is time for him to go.

Dick Support

And I want to thank all of you for coming, first and foremost, to give our support to a great member of Congress, Scott Garrett. I'm proud to stand with you and I bring good wishes to all of you from the President, George W. Bush.
...
When future generations look back on our time, they will know that we met our moment with courage and clear thinking. And they'll know that America became a better nation -- stronger, more prosperous, and more secure -- under the leadership of President George W. Bush. (Applause.)

We'll continue making progress for the American people -- and it's vital that we have strong partners like Scott Garrett in the Congress of the United States.

-Dick Cheney, June 30, 2006 (at $1000 a plate)

Yep. Making lots of progress....

Garrett- CEO Pay A.O.K.

House debates shareholder role in executive pay

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers clashed today on whether shareholders should have a louder voice in approving executive pay, while a top regulator scolded companies for failing to deliver the clear-cut pay disclosures now expected by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

OK. So something needs to be done about executive pay disclosure. Not about the amount, mind you, about the fact that compensation isn't adequately reported to shareholders.

The SEC action "makes it easier to go forward," said Frank, who has argued that shareholders have the right -- and the wisdom -- to have a say in what's appropriate pay for their executives.

"To have a say." We're not talking about putting a cap on CEO pay here. (That's an argument for another time.) All that's being said is that shareholders have a right to know. If a representative put their constituents first, this would be a no-brainer.

But Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) worried that the proposal could pave the way for more intrusive government involvement in corporate pay decisions.

He compared Frank's proposal to "the camel's nose under the tent -- and I just wonder where we might go next."

So let me see if I understand. Tax cuts for the Paris Hilton crowd- great. Secret pay deals for CEOs- perfect. Tax cuts to Big Oil- awesome. Katrina aid- hell no. Clean water- nope.

Yup. Ernie's really got his finger on the pulse of NJ5. Seriously, folks. This guy's got to go.

An oldie but goodie...

This is from last year's "Hannity Freedom Concert" (Sorry. Writing that made me vomit in my mouth a bit.) :

Scott Garrett gives a hearty thanks to Craig Schelske for all of his support.

So who is Craig Schelske, you ask?

Well, according to "Dancing With the Stars" participant and his (soon to be?) ex-wife, Sara Evans, he's the guy who:

• Keeps over 100 obscene pictures of himself on his computers


• Keeps several photographs of himself having sex with other women


• Solicited various types of sexual activity over the internet through Craigslist


• Frequently threatened and verbally abused her


• Watched "pornographic material" in front of one of their young children


• Would not let a "Dancing with the Stars" costume designer into their home because he is a "sodomite"


• Said that one of their young children "broke out in hives because he saw the costume designer who is a 'sodomite'"


• "Refused to let (their) children go to a performance to hear their mother sing The Star Spangled Banner"

I guess it doesn't count if they raise money for you.

A Democrat in 2008

I supported Paul Aronsohn in 2006. And I am a big fan of his. He is smart, he is energetic, and he demonstrated his tenacity in a campaign that was dogged by a lack of attention by the national party committees.

Paul is thinking about running again in 2008. I've discussed this with him and I think it's a good idea.

But I will not endorse a particular candidate in the Democratic primary until the various candidates prove themselves worthy of support. We should not blindly support any one candidate, and Governor Corzine and Chairman Cryan should be wary of throwing their support behind a candidate this early in the race.

I hope Paul runs. But there should be a vigorous Democratic primary that will encourage the candidates to hone their policy positions and become better candidates to face Garrett in 2008.

The one thing I will say here and now, I will not support any candidate who negatively attacks another Democrat in the race. So for those Democrats out there that think it's a smart idea to get nasty, forget it. Let's stay focused on the real opponent, extremist Scott Garrett.

I invite all the Democratic candidates to lay out their reasons for running here on Retire Garrett. And I hope our site can host a live Democratic primary debate, live blogged for every candidate to see free of charge.

So come one, come all, our minds are open.

What exactly does he stand for?

I'm not always on the same page as the US Chamber of Commerce, but you'd think "anti-tax" zealot Ernie Garrett would be, especially when it comes to tax relief legislation. Maybe it's only tax cuts for the wealthy that he supports and we're on our own. (Unless, of course we want to make a decision about how we live our lives. I digress...)

February 13, 2007

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OR REPRESENTATIVES:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to support H.R. 976, the “Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007.” This legislation provides tax relief to assist small businesses’ job growth.

... and how did the NJ contingent vote?

New Jersey
Aye NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]
No Vote NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R]
Aye NJ-3 Saxton, H. [R]
Aye NJ-4 Smith, Christopher [R]
Nay NJ-5 Garrett, E. [R]
Aye NJ-6 Pallone, Frank [D]
Aye NJ-7 Ferguson, Michael [R]
Aye NJ-8 Pascrell, William [D]
Aye NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]
Aye NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]
Aye NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
Aye NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
Aye NJ-13 Sires, Albio [D]

Surprise, surprise! What a hypocrite. So what exactly does Garrett stand for?