DCCC monitoring Shulman, but won't commit to funding him
By Matt Friedman, PolitickerNJ.com ReporterThe Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) seems confident that Democrats will pick up two House seats in New Jersey this year, but stopped short of promising financial help to Dennis Shulman, a blind rabbi/psychologist who is challenging Rep. Scott Garrett in the 5th district.
"The closer we got to Election Day the more opportunities developed. Sometimes as you get closer some fall off the list. The last time we went through this in 2006, the closer we got to voting day the more competitive," said Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.) in a conference call with reporters today.
The DCCC's third priority in New Jersey is Shulman, who has raised a lot of money for a challenger in a long-shot district, and whose unique personal story has recently drawn national media attention from publications like Time, Newsweek and The New Yorker.
"The short answer is that we're very impressed with what they've done and we see that campaign on an upward trajectory," he said.
So far, the DCCC has only pledged significant resources to the campaigns of John Adler and Linda Stender, the Democratic nominees for two open seats currently held by Republicans. There has been no commitment of financial resources to Shulman, who received a $5,000 in donation from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md). He has been moved into their "emerging races" category, however, and will be considered to participate in the "Red to Blue" fundraising program that Stender and Adler take part in.
Late last month, the DCCC did run some anti-Garrett radio ads using a Bush impersonator.
Stender, a four-term Assemblywoman from Union County, was largely ignored by the DCCC until the early fall, when Democrats started to believe incumbent Mike Ferguson (R-Warren) was in trouble. Stender came within one percentage point of winning.
Van Hollen wouldn't say whether the DCCC made a mistake in ignoring Stender last year, but did stress that they started paying attention to her campaign early this year. Recently, the group announced that they've set aside $1.8 million for radio buys for Stender in the 7th District and $1.7 million for Adler in the 3rd.
"It's always hard to do the Monday morning quarterbacking, so what we've done this year is just focus on this cycle and we've identified this race very early as one we thought we could win, which is why we began to run our radio ads in these districts even before the incumbent decided to retire."
Van Hollen also responded to frequent Republican attacks on Stender over her donations from Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who's facing tough questions about four apartments he rents from a developer with stabilized rates. He said that the attacks are meant to distract from economic issues in the district, and noted that Stender has $1.2 million to Republican Leonard Lance's $80,000 on hand.
"I don't think that kind of tactic is going to work," he said. "I think it will simply highlight the fact that he has been unable to attract much financial support."
National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Julie Shutley said that, while the Republicans may be out-funded this time around, they have to contend with a Congress that's not exactly popular with the public.
"I think that the two Republican candidates in the two districts are working hard and running good, competitive campaigns," she said. "The Democrats are running with a very heavy load on their backs from their low approval ratings and they left town today without doing one thing to lower energy prices. I think that will have a drag effect for some of these Democrats running for congressional seats."
Lance Campaign Manager Amanda Woloshen pointed out, as she has before, that Stender had the luxury of not having to run a primary campaign, and that Lance, a State Senator from Hunterdon County, had raised much more than he has on hand.
"Leonard Lance has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in this campaign, none of it from politicians who are under investigation by the House Ethics Committee," she said. "Linda Stender turned a blind eye to corruption in Union, Trenton and now she's doing it in Washington. That's the last thing we need in Congress."
ALSO on PolitickerOH.com:
DCCC adds Wulsin in OH-2 to Red to Blue
ALSO on PolitickerNV.com:
Derby selected for DCCC's 'Red to Blue'
Contributors
Wally Edge
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group that promotes ethics and accountability, has filed a complaint with the ... >
Ummmm, Matt?
Stender was on the Red to Blue list in July of 2006. Hardly being "largely ignored."
See Below for a Wonderful Comment! ;-) n/t
DCCC Is Blowing It If They Think Garrett is Invulnerable
Abate could have won this one with a couple of million bucks to spend and the same is equally true of Shulman.
Garrett is vulnerable on the issues and on his character.
Garrett has made votes that should disqualify him from ever showing his face in public again, let alone serving another term.
Garrett is a "dominionist fundamentalist" who is a front for a particular/peculiar extremist sect; he has no business in government.
Shulman is a Rabbi; but he's not a religious fanatic like Garrett.
The 5th is Roukema conservative not Pat Robertson insane.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc8XS-PxFFA
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm
The minute the bright lights of consciousness are turned on Garrett becomes toast; the irony of those lights being turned on by Dennis Shulman is sweet.
But it'll cost money to pay for those lights and the power to illuminate them...and the DCCC has that money.
It won't help, if Shulman loses by 4 points, that they'll be willing to come back with cash in a couple of years. NOW is the time to turn retire Garrett to the "private sector" where he will, no doubt, be collecting millions of dollars worth of chits.From Frederick Douglass
Of course they won't waste money on him.
The DCCC is not run by whining liberals like Lento.
They know Shulman is a joke.
Vote Column - All the way!
Hey D and D...
You couldn't go one round with Dennis Shulman. The man is your intellectual, moral ethical and political superior....and Garret couldn't go two rounds with him
What I said about Garrett stands untouched by anything you've said.
Again, if you want to have an argument, fine...I'm up for it. Try quoting me directly and making a case for why you think I'm mistaken. If you make a good case, I might even change my mind!!!
But simply claiming that people you disagree with are "whining" or "liberal" and thinking you've somehow made or scored a point is an indication of your own pathetic intellectual bankruptcy, at best.
From Frederick Douglass
DCCC Eyeopener
its time for Lento to see the Light. Schulmann is going nowhere in a hurry
does anyone else see the resemblance
to rob reiner aka meathead on all in the family?
This is not Democratic year!
Only ideological liberals like Lento could hope that the Democrat led Congress with 15% approval rating will remain in Democrat control. It will be a hard awakening on November 5th for Democrats, especially in NJ. The arrogance of the political class in NJ has reached its braking point. It will be a massive cleaning of the house in NJ and nationwide. The lack of action on energy policy on part of Democrats is going to bury them in November. In addition, Obama's fading appeal to American voters will complicate Democrats chances in November. Going back to Lento: "Garrett is a "dominionist fundamentalist" who is a front for a particular/peculiar extremist sect; he has no business in government." Is this the statement that requires a rational response? I do not think so. What the hell is a "dominionist fundamentalist" anyway? "Shulman is a Rabbi; but he's not a religious fanatic like Garrett." I am not aware that Garrett is a religious fanatic. I mean he goes to Church on Sundays, is a family man, a decent man. He stands for what he believes in, is against corruption, abuse and waste in government. I get it. This means, in Lento's mind that he is "a religious fanatic." I say to Mr. Lento, you are forgiven, because you do not know what you are saying.
Bergenite and Wiel, Now pay attention....
The premise of my comment was that Shulman have a couple of mil to spend illuminating Garretts record and where the core of his support comes from. Unless, he's well funded; the odds are he'll lose. But I guess, reading my whole comment was beyond your capacity Bergenite.
*************
And Weil, let's start with a direct quote from you.....
"This is not Democratic year! Only ideological liberals like Lento could hope that the Democrat led Congress with 15% approval rating will remain in Democrat control."
My comment concerned the probability that Shulman could win if he had a couple of million bucks to spend...and I could understand that that's a debatable proposition. But for you to go off into some fantasyland and assert that the Democrats will be in the minority in Congress is absurd. Hell, in NJ alone we'll likely see a two seat pickup.
If you're willing to come out from behind that anonymous moniker and make that same statement I'll be happy to make you a 50 dollar bet (with the proceeds going to a charity of the winners choice) that you are dead wrong and that the Democrats will retain control of both chambers. Make my day! :-)
Scott Garrett is well known for the support he receives from right wing fundamentalists throughout the nation.
He is radically anti-choice to the point of criminalizing a woman's right to choose.
If you had taken the time to peruse the three links I provided you wouldn't have to ask what a dominionist is.
If I am wrong; then I challenge Scott Garrett to affirmatively proclaim that he is indeed NOT a dominionist and that he disagrees with their brand of radical fundamentalism. When he does that, I'll gladlyadmit my error and apologize for it.
Meanwhile, I suggest you read up on the subject rather than copmplaining to me about your lack of knowledge as if that was my fault.
Here's another link to a wonderful radio program that aired in March of 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290373
"Kevin Phillips rose to prominence on the heels of Richard Nixon's political triumphs. His 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority was hailed as a visionary work of political analysis. But his new book, American Theocracy, argues that the Republican Party -- and the country -- is headed for disaster.
Subtitled "The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," American Theocracy puts the trials of modern America into the context of other great historical powers. From Rome to Great Britain, Phillips identifies the keys to their decline -- and draws parallels to modern America."
The more you inform yourself Wiel, the less you're going to like Scott Garrett and the theocrats he represents....again, if you can get Garrett to officially deny that he's in sympathy with fundamentalist dominionism; I'll admit my error and apologize.
As for me I like the idea of a secular state that doesn't kow tow to any particular religious sect....that hasn't worked out well for the Iranians, eh?
From Frederick Douglass
Congressman Scott Garrett
What a discussion this article has become! I find it interesting how no one notes the simple fact that Congressman Garrett has been elected to congress 3 times from the fifth district and is both well known and liked. Just because the Rabbi from Demarest and some leftist blogs hate Garrett doesnt make Shulman worth wasting time and money on. Liberals wish they could slay Garrett because he is the only Republican from NJ with a spine, votes his conscious and protects his constituents’ property, hard earned tax dollars and rights. Rep. Van Hollen is smart; why waste money losing? If Majority Leader Hoyer felt the fifth was vulnerable he would have sent more than his best wishes and pocket change. The people of the fifth district will send Rep. Garrett to congress once again this November, no doubt about it
I agree with Publius
Just because Scott Garrett cares about the people of district 5 doesnt make him this religious zealot. His personal convictions do not seep into his strongly held political stances. Congressman Garrett is a man of character and is a role model for the Republican Party. We need his leadership in the 111th congress.
Nick....
But simply claiming that people you disagree with are "whining" or "liberal" and thinking you've somehow made or scored a point is an indication of your own pathetic intellectual bankruptcy, at best.
Nick, just to play Devil's Advocate here, I understand your point - and I agree that when making a statement one must do more than simply "make a statement" and expect others to just accept it without somekind of persuasive argument.But in your first post you make comments like 'Garrett is vulnerable on the issues and on his character' or 'Garrett has made votes that should disqualify him from ever showing his face in public again, let alone serving another term'
Now, assuming that you truly feel the way you do about making intellecutually sound comments, then how do you make these commens without backing them up? I'm not saying you have to repeat Garrett's entire record in a blog, but you can at least explain what he has done to make you dislike him.
Anything else is simply a character assassination and a personal attack with no substance - nothing more.
That being said, I don't think that Shulman has much of a chance here.
Shulman has no real record to speak of. He never held public office, nor does he know the first thing about public policy. He may be a very nice man in his personal life, but if that alone was a qualification to hold elected office (and Federal elected office at that), then I would be a Senator by now. Every bit of attention that Shulman has gained to this point is based entirely on the media drawing attention to him. And even then, they've done so sporadically. One article in Time magazine even mentioned him in the same breath as other Congressional "challengers" like Jack Kevorkian - not exactly flattering for a Rabbi.
Besides, as the Democratic lead Congress has an abysmal approval rating right now, I think that Shulman should be careful of how quickly he submits to photo-ops and campaign contributions by big time Democrats like Charlie Rangel and others. They may be highly regarded in Liberal circles, but we're talking about affluent North Bergen here - where even independents don't take kindly to tax increases and seeing their money sent elsewhere.
The closer we get to November, the more and more the economy is becoming the focal point of the election. Shulman is against drilling on the outer continental shelf and for Obama's tax increases to pay for universal healthcare. In suburban Jersey, this doesn't play well anymore. Residents are sick and tired of spending and taxes - Trenton's behavior has assuredly pushed that on the electorate. And even "blue" New Jersey has started to wake up to the idea of off-shore drilling - to the shock of many eniro-nazis who have taken over the Democratic Party in state. Garrett has always been for letting each state decide if they will permit off-shore drilling. And he has continually fought for taxpayers - often going against his own party. He doesn't have to invent a stance since these are issues he's always believed in.
Honestly, what makes Shulman (and his supporters) believe he can contribute anything to getting things done in a Congress that his own party couldn't do in 2 years with solid public support?
PS - Friedman should take note in his article that at this stage of the game Shulman has roughly $200,000 less on hand right now then Dr. Anne Sumers did when she ran against an un-known Garrett in 2002. Shulman's fundraising numbers may be impressive, but it's not anything that Garrett hasn't faced before.
Veritas vos Liberabit
"Collecting more taxes than absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." - Calvin Coolidge
Core Values
Nick. Wake up. The voters know that "Paper Tiger Shulmanns" core values have no American constitutional anchors. This guy is a puppet for George Soros and others who do not want to inspire Americans to become # 1 in the world again.
puppet or not Shulman is a
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE EDITOR
First, I find
First, I find LiberalFascist's anti-semitic remarks to be absolutely abhorrent. Such comments do nothing but further alienate voters from the political view being espoused, here, conservatism.
And Nick Lento is completely right about the fundamentalist positions that mark Scott Garrett's political philosophy. No Republican with any moderate views whatsoever can vote for Garrett in good conscience. He's even against sexually-assaulted women being able to terminate their pregnancy, he wants to change the Constitution to discriminate against gays and lesbians, he voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, he voted not to provide emergency funds to Hurrican Katrina victims, and he unquestioningly supports an unending presence for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Yes, my support of Shulman stems less at this point from him as a candidate than it is from being completely revolted by Garrett's luddite, extremist views. But Shulman represents a welcome change from the pro-war Garrett policies (Shulman is against it), and he would be much better at implementing substantive health care reform and expansion than Garrett. Did I mention that Garrett has one of the worst environmental records of any politician since 1970?
So, yes, Chris Van Hollen, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, give money to Shulman, and help make Scott Garrett (R, 17th-century) merely an embarrassing, past chapter in New Jersey political history.
No Room for Anti Semite idiots
Not in this forum please.
Shulman is wrong on Policy and his Anti American association with the far left. Attacking him on that alone is fair game. One does not hear him or Obama lifting the spirit of individual freedom and liberty or inviting Americans to join him on a journey to the shining city on the hill.
Hey Alice
Hey Alice or Tinker Bell (aka Martian One) no one cares what you think. I am beginning to suspect that you don't care what you think. Otherwise you wouldn't wear a purse in your official picture. Say hi to Peter Pan, Tink. Or should I start calling you Dorothy. There is no place like Communist home...
at least schulman
is trying. seems to be running an aggressive campaign.
Hey Lento.
Shulman is a complete political lightweight by any rational standard as you are a whining liberal.
An emotional political cripple who runs the party line up the flag pole like a messenger for PRAVDA during the Cold War!
You are 100% liberal. You can't see the trees from the forest.
You spend half your posts defending the corrupt Democrat Party and it's flunkies no matter how obvious it is to the thinking world the likes of Sharpe James, Neil Cohen, Jim McGreevey, Jon Corzine, Bob Torricelli, Jim Florio, etc., et al have destroyed the state!
Shulman has accomplished nothing politically and the reason he's the candidate is because he cannot win. How many beatings in the 5th CD must these Democrats take before you read the reality of the tea leaves and give up?
! Vote Column - All the way!
Cincinnatus, Raises Good Points/Questions
First, thanks for the relatively civil and intelligent tone!!!
This is a site that is frequented by knowledgeable folk (with some glaring exceptions lol) , but you're right in that I shouldn't assume that every person reading these blogs is aware of Garrett's record.
Dennis Shulman has done a great job of summarizing some of Garretts major flaws on record. Here's a list...
http://shulmanforcongress.com/garretts-record/
Scott Garrett voted against the federal funding of stem cell research.
Scott Garrett voted for every one of the bloated Bush budgets.
Scott Garrett voted against choice for women.
Scott Garrett voted against the Head Start program.*
Scott Garrett voted against the recent energy bill which increases automobile fuel efficiency and funds alternative sources of energy.*
Scott Garrett voted against a crackdown on price gouging by oil companies.*
Scott Garrett voted against aid to victims of Katrina*
Scott Garrett co-sponsored a bill to support home schooling, and advocates the teaching of intelligent design in schools.*
Scott Garrett voted to support religious proselytizing by Air Force officials.*
Scott Garrett voted to delete references to global climate change in congressional legislation.*
If Garrett really had courage he would debate Shulman on all of these points.
If Shulman was really the lightweight some of the folks here proclaim him to be; he would then be no problem for Garrett to "swat away" like a fly.
The truth is that Garrett would lose IF Shulman had a couple of million bucks to get his positive message out and to truly educate the voters about how wrong Garrett is on many issues.
As more my belief that Garrett is morally/ethically unfit for office; I hold that belief based on his votes against SCHIP (what kind of a POS do you have to be to deny children health care?) and his stance that women who choose to have abortions are all murderous criminals. We can bail out Bear Sterns and private investors who bought worthless paper but we can't supply New Jersey's children with health care? Bullshit!!!
Garrett is an extremist fundamentalis fanatic; most of the good people in the 5th CD are not like him. The more light shed on Garrett, the uglier he becomes. He can only win if he keeps a relatively low profile and relies on the demographics and prior voting patterns to carry him.
Keep in mind that in every single one of the important votes itemized above, Garrett has been the ONLY member of the NJ delegation to vote the way he did. That means that he's radically/extremely out of step with the other six NJ House REPUBLICANS!!!
I've provided informative links to information about the fanatical/extremist/unAmerican dominionist movement. If Scott Garrett is prepared to openly condemn these religious extremists and to eschew any support from them and to return any funds he's received from these people; then I will be more than happy to admit that I'm in error about that aspect of where he's at and I will gladly apologize to him for calling him a supporter of dominionist ideology/theology....................................The silence, so far, is deafening eh?
Yes , Cincinnatus, I understand and acknowlege the obvious fact that Shulman is a long shot, based on past history and his current funding levels. However, if the money shows up for Shulman (and it is properly spent)...all bets are off.
From Frederick Douglass
"Dear" Demsanddonts
I'm not going to bother "ripping you a new one" again because you're not worth the time or the bother. I routinely dismember/destroy your posts and you stupidly come back for more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
You're either a troll or someone who is mentally handicapped.
If the former is true; then all you want is attention.
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
If the latter is true, then I can only pray for you and wish you well.
Either way, feel free to stupidly "insult" me and to totally distort what I've said. From you it's either a compliment or the ravings of a demented/disabled individual...if the former, I thank you...and if the latter you're forgiven.
Just remember to keep on reading everything I write and to spell my name correctly. :-)
From Frederick Douglass
Insulting the voters intellegence
Mr Lento, The reason that Garrett gets the votes is because he is PRO AMERICAN and pro Constitution. Many items listed in your progressive wish list that Garrett voted NO on are policies that Real Americans believe in. Schulmann does not represent basic American Values. The proof in in the DNC pudding. Even they do not believe in him enough to fund him.
Broy, Try Reading Before You Speak....
If you're trying to imply that people who disagreed with Garrett's votes are somehow "un-American" or against the constituition, consider the FACT that in most of the votes cited above Scott Garrett was ALONE!!!!!! Not one of the other 6 NJ Republicans were with him on many of these votes!
So, unless you're prepared to claim that the other six NJ Republicans in Congress are left wingers...then you have some word swallowing to do.
The guy is an extremist, thanks for helping me to clarify that reality for you.
Will he likely win? Yes; but only because the case hasn't been full/properly made to the people in the 5th. Most folks are too busy and pre-occupied trying to survive to become engaged in the details of how Garrett votes. All they know is that he's "for cutting taxes".
The sick joke is that the Bush years will have been the most liberal in the history of the human race in terms of how he has put our nation in debt to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars that will accrue to the profits of contractors, oil companies and the "investors" who own that debt....most of whom are not even Americans.
Your Bush boy and Garrett have sold us out.
It's not so much about ideology these days as it is about raw theft.....that has been legalized for the most part.
Here's another fact from Shulman's site:http://shulmanforcongress.com/garretts-record/
By the end of 2006, the American Conservatives Union had only given a “perfect” score of 100 to two members Congress for their lifetime voting record.
Scott Garrett was one of them.
From Frederick Douglass
Lento the fool.
Just when I thought Lento could not sink any further in his lack of political experience, he seems to find a trap door to sink even below the usual pond scum of liberal thought and action!
His personal attacks on me are pretty much "cookie cutter" of all liberals - can't win on the merits, so you emotionally attack!
That laundry list of liberal criticisms was very original!
Don't you get it? Scott Garrett, unlike you and your comrades Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, Rangel, et al believe there's a government solution for EVERYTHING!
Garrett supports new oil drilling as does Dick Durbin of Illinois, Obama's #1 supporter!
Garrett is pro-life, like a majority of most Americans!
Garrett believes in home schooling as a legitimate alternative to the failed public schools that Lento supports in places like Jersey City, Newark and Camden, with a dropout rate of nearly 50%!
What Lento fails to mention is that the surge is working in Iraq and that Obama will probably follow the same course of action as Bush for the most part! That's the lie Lento and the liberals will try to keep a secret until after November should Obama win the election.
But let's talk about Congress.
The "least liked" unit of government of the land with approval ratings in the teens, Lento praises Pelosi's incompetence and her inability to get ANYTHING DONE!
Why doesn't Lento list the accomplishments of the Democratic majority in the House?
I can hear the crickets roar!
Nick, keep to your whining ways! Delude yourself into think Shulman will receive more that 35%! I urge to write checks and continue to support this impending train wreck!
Finally, as to debating this challenger is just silly. Why would Garrett give him the time of day?
But you don't live in reality. You think if Shulman had $5 million dollars he would win and if a dog had wings it would be a bird and if a monkey wore a suit he be a person!
Game. set. match.
Now go crawl back into your cave!
Vote Column - All the way!
Enough nonsense already!
"The guy is an extremist, thanks for helping me to clarify that reality for you," stated Nick Lento above. Calling a sitting US Congressman "an extremist" is an extreme in itself. Blaming everything on President Bush is another "extreme" statement "Your Bush boy and Garrett have sold us out." As a matter of fact, I already stated above that the Democrat-run Congress is to be blamed for all the failures in last two years, as it rubber stamps President Bush's policies that are so bad in Nick Lento's judgment. However, he does not seem to blame the Democrat-run Congress, but the Congressman Garrett in particular. Garrett is just one of the guys up there. He is in minority! It is the Democrat majority that has been selling us out in Nick Lento's words.
Extreem Marxist theology
to enter "Club Shulman" one can't believe that we are all endowed by our creator. Rabbi Schulmans warped anti American nihilist philosophy has been made even worse, by dipping his feet into Ferrieros Bergen cesspool of corruption
Response To D&D
Ad hominem from you is music to my ears. :-)
I'm still waitying for you to say something worthy of more than 37 seconds of my time.....feel free keep trying.
Meanwhile,read it and weep....
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/21980/dccc-monitoring-shulman-...
From Frederick Douglass
Wiel is Wielding....
...when he should be yielding.
Wiel says (quoting me)...."The guy is an extremist,"
Here's the definition,
1.a person who goes to extremes, esp. in political matters. 2.a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices. –adjective 3.belonging or pertaining to extremists.
Garrett meets all the criteria, his votes are consistently against even his own NJ Republican delegation....he's all alone out there. See the documentation above, ignoring the facts doesn't change them Wiel. Further, he is only one ot TWO congressman to have "earned" 100% ratings by a radical right wing group.....that's extremism, on it's ugly face.
Wiel says, "Calling a sitting US Congressman "an extremist" is an extreme in itself."
That's true. And, if you check my thousands of comments on the web over the years you'll not find many that call out individual congressman as extreme. In this case that Garrett is indeed an extremist is demonstrably true. And the more you deny that obvious truth, the deeper is the hole you dig yourself into.
Wiel says, "Blaming everything on President Bush is another "extreme" statement"
Ahem, Bush is responsible for a hell of a lot of what's wrong with America today, but if you can find me claiming that he's at fault for "everything" I'll admit that that's hyperbolic and false.
Meanwhile, it is you who are being both hyperbolic and false to mischaracterize/distort my words. Then again, defending Scott Garrett is a tough and dirty job, eh?
Wiel quotes a phrase from me.....
"Your Bush boy and Garrett have sold us out."
And Wiel goes on to say...
As a matter of fact, I already stated above that the Democrat-run Congress is to be blamed for all the failures in last two years, as it rubber stamps President Bush's policies that are so bad in Nick Lento's judgment.
Actually, there is no "rubber stamping" going on. Bush lied about Iraq. He lied us into that war. Some Democrats fell for the lie, many did not. Garrett bought into the lie.
It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass bills (since Republicans routinely abuse the filibuster)...and it takes 67 to over ride Bush's veto. The Democrats are far from in charge in the Senate. In the House, we are burdened wth the "Blue Dog" democrats who often vote with Bush....so you're implicit assertion that there is no distinction between the parties is self serving bullshit.
By the way, Wiel, you can't have it both ways. On one hand you admit that there have been failures, then you blame them "all" on the Democrats for "rubber stamping" Bush's policies. With friends like you Garrett/Bush don't need enemies. lol
Wiel says, "However, he does not seem to blame the Democrat-run Congress,"
On the contrary, I frequently criticize Democrats for all manner of malfeasance and corruption and incompetence; my loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people; not to any party. You on the other hand seem to have a political crush on Scott Garrett, and that's you're burden to bear.
Wiel says,
"Garrett is just one of the guys up there. He is in minority!"
Yes, he's a minority within his own party and within his own NJ Republican delegation he's a mnority of one! Thanks for sharpening my point! Scott Garrett is clearly an extremist! Not just "one of the guys", lol. Every time you try to say that it falls flat.
Wiel says,
It is the Democrat majority that has been selling us out in Nick Lento's words.
Another blatant distortion of the truth. This is the only way it's possible to "defend" Scott Garrett, so I suppose we should be somewhat sorry for Wiel, after all what else can he do? Garrett's actual record is not defensible.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Scott Garrett to deny that he is sympathetic to (or an adherent of) the Dominionist religious theology, I'm waiting for Scott Garrett to refuse any support from these, essentially, un-American fanatics who would put their particular interpretation of their Bible above the US Constitution as we've come to know it.
Scott Garrett is indeed vulnerable. The only reason he "wins" is because he operated in the dark. He's the classic "stealth candidate".
The 5th district was a place where Marge Roukema was a well respected moderate Republican; she was a good and decent Representative, Scott Garrett is no Marge Roukema. Again, if/when Shulman can effectively shed the bright spotlight of truth onto the political pathogen that is Scott Garrett; we will see Garrett shrivel up and politically die like a vampire in the sun.
From Frederick Douglass
Lento a delusional nutcase
Listen, Shulman, Aronsohn, Abate, Tomate or any other have baked liberal crackpot vegetable will lose against Scott Garrett. So just get over it. Its all about GAS this year. Drill here, drill now and save your job.
Hey dummy.
Will you ever respond to any of the factual challenges made by me and others as it comes to Shulman's impending doom? How about Pelosi's incompetece?
Like I said earlier, left-wingers just whine, they can't debate. Lento is an elitist who think's he's better then the rest of us. An egghead Democrat in the Stevenson tradition!
God forbid he answer any of the questions posed. God forbid he believe in God!
Vote Column "A" - All the way!
strange
Strangely, the Garrett apologists on this thread either make personal invective part of their argumentative repertoire (calling their opponent "dummy," "elitist," etc.), make patently false statements (the "majority" of Americans are anti-choice?!), or ignore factual information presented fairly and with documentation. One wonders whether these apologists are proffering straw man arguments in favor of Garrett and his indefensible policies or whether they suffer from selective amnesia.
Nice purse
At least we don't wear a purse. Seriously, Alice you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the butt. You continue make up "facts" to massage your inflated ego, yet when called on it, cry that people are making ad hominem attacks against you. So until you cease with the attacks yourself, expect them back.
Internet Tough Guy
There is a big internet tough guy in this forum. http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Itg_quarterly.jpg
the oc/the cowardly lion
The oc: Ever wonder why it's hard to take you seriously?
It's hard to answer the challenge to "meet me for a drink" or a debate when one's opponent is too afraid to do anything but post anonymously, then hide. I openly challenge you to a public debate anytime, anywhere, cowardly one. Let me know if you're up to it by posting some contact info.
Nice message Alice
Not sure what the hell that cut and paste job was but whatever floats your boat Dorothy. As the resident coward on this board, my purse wearing non-friend, why do you think no one takes me seriously? Have you read the hundreds of posts directed towards you and your left wing bs? Have you actually read your own posts? Have you caught a wiff of reality and realized that the vast majority of what you have said on this board is made up? Have you realized that clicking your ruby slippers three times will allow you to go back to Kansas - or San Fransicsco? Come on, be truthful for once. You have a pair don't you? For Saturday night Ladies' Night?? Maybe that is why you were too gutless to meet me for a drink. I should have known. Remember - there's no place like home. Say hi to Auntie Em for me.
In the closet, out of the closet
First you are in, then you are out. You have a revolving door on your closet - thank you B-1 Bob. Jeez Dorothy. For months I attempted to get you to meet. That would have revealed who I was to you and then you could have posted it to all who cared. But alas, you were "afraid" (your word, not mine) to meet for a simple drink because you thought it was wrong and that it violated the intent of the forum. You are flip flopping worse than Obama on the drilling issue. But as I said, where were you for the last two years when I made it clear that I was willing to pay for your favorite drink? Did Toto finally give you your testicles back? So if you are so eager to meet - finally - why don't you put down your home number and I will give you a call.
PS
PS Dorothy - the lion had courage. Or did you stop watching the movie or reading the story when the monkeys showed up because you were too scared and did not get to the end?? Click your heels Dorothy three times...
Couldn't quite force myself
Couldn't quite force myself to wade through all the gunk above, but this one stood out as demanding a response:
Yes, that's a fair assessment, and Garrett himself has verged a bit too close to the left with his pro-one-world war votes. I leave you to your rhetorical sport gentlemen.
Double Post: See Below n/t
Bottom Line: Garrett Remains An Exremist
The facts as conveyed in my comments above remain facts. The links to Shulman's site and the specific Garrett votes/positions posted above have not been defended or addressed by the Garrett supporters here.
The fact that there a dozens of instances in which he voted in a way that left him all alone AMONG NJ REPUBLICANS is, on its face, proof positive that his positions are extreme.
The fact that Scott Garrett was only one of two people in congress to get a 100% rating by conservatives is another indication that he is in the extreme percentile of his own party!!!
The fact that Scott Garrett has not come forward to condemn or even to distance himself from the culture of those who advocate Dominionist theology tells us that Garrett is either himself a dedicated Dominionist or just loves their support too much to offend them.
Folk, go up and try reading through all the data I linked to above. If anyone can make intelligent substantive arguments in defense of Scott Garrett; please do so.
Calling me names only succeeds in helping me make my point. And that is that Garrett's record is so indefensible that the only thing his fans can do is to clumsily attack his critics personally. On one level it's kind of pathetic.
Garrett thrives in the dark. My sincere thanks to all his inept "defenders" who have assisted me in my quest to bring some rays of light to Scott Garrett's dark and demented world.
If Shulman has the chutzpah to get creatively/positively aggressive with Garrett and the good fortune to be funded to the tune of a couple of million bucks....Garrett is substantially vulnerable.
From Frederick Douglass
So Nick
So Nick. Because Garrett does not agree with the rest of the delegation makes him an extremist? If we use your rationale on the definition of extremist, then you must consider Raoul Wallenberg an extremist? He certainly did not agree with the "majority" view in Nazi Germany. My point first of all is not to compare the heroic acts of Mr. Wallenberg to Congressman Garrett. I am merely using your example of extremism to illustrate that just because someone does not follow the leader, that alone makes him an extremist. There is an old saying that goes: dare to be different. because if you follow the crowd, you only get as far as the crowd. Learn to lead.
From Frederick Douglass
I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.
interested in helping out?
hey nick, you seem very passionate about these issues. are you interested in helping out the campaign at all? www.shulmanforcongress.com is the place to go to sign up or contact us.
Involutionary Extremism vs. Evolutionary Courageous Profiles
>>>>>>So Nick. Because Garrett does not agree with the rest of the delegation makes him an extremist?<<<<<<<
What we have with Garrett is a consistent pattern in which he is the lone dissenter amongst his own party. The pattern is not just a mathematical anomaly but ideologically driven.
<i>If we lived in an America in which Scott Garrett had all his "'druthers" it would be an EXTREMELY different kind of country, and one in which the vast majority of Americans would not wish to live. That's both a qualitative and quantitative measure of extremism...and Garrett meets both tests.</i>
>>>>>>>>If we use your rationale on the definition of extremist, then you must consider Raoul Wallenberg an extremist? He certainly did not agree with the "majority" view in Nazi Germany.<<<<<<
If the status quo in today's America were as pathological and outrageoulsy evil as they were in Nazi Germany, then your analogy would hold some water.
Wallenberg saved thousands of lives by going against the grain of an extremist establishment, he was a good human being....the Nazis were the extremists.
Now, of course, from Garrett's pov (and the Dominionists'), he lives in a state something like Nazi Germany in that we (the majority of Americans) are "secular humanists" who allow women to choose abortion.
These fundamentalist still believe in Biblical Creationism for God's sake! In the 21st century that's pretty extreme. Ask Garrett point blank if he thinks we should be teaching some kind of pseudo-scientific creationism in our public schools and he'll be hard pressed to deny it.
Garrett is the proto-typical stealth candidate with all manner of hidden agendas.....and he is NOT like most of the people of the 5th.
If the Republicans were smart they would primary him out of his seat with a Roukema type who really would be fairly invulnerable to a Democratic opponent.
>>>>>>My point first of all is not to compare the heroic acts of Mr. Wallenberg to Congressman Garrett.<<<<<<
Then why did you just do that?
>>>>>I am merely using your example of extremism to illustrate that just because someone does not follow the leader, that alone makes him an extremist.<<<<<
Being willing to stand up against the crowd (when the crowd is wrong) is an objective act of courage. It could, perhops, be characterized as "extreme" in the mathematical sense.....but there is extremely good....and extremely bad. Garrett's believes are, in my opinion, extremely bad for this nation and for humanity in general.
I say this as one who believes in the precepts of Christianity and loves Christ. The Dominionist fundamentalist model of Christianity is a per-version of Christs' message.
>>>>There is an old saying that goes: dare to be different. because if you follow the crowd, you only get as far as the crowd. Learn to lead.<<<<<
If Scott Garrett is a "leader"; then I say he would lead us all to hell.
>>>>>>From Frederick Douglass
I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.<<<<<
At the time Douglass wrote those words the Republican party was the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln. Today's Republican party is the Republican party of Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" and you know it. (I am assuming you are nit an ignorant person). I am 100% certain that Douglass would not be voting for Scott Garrett or John McCain for that matter.
The Douglass quote that I use is reflective of Douglass's timeless wisdom.
In any event, OC, I thank you for refraining from attacking me personally!!! This last was a (fairly) civil exchange!!! Cool!!!
From Frederick Douglass
Thanks For The Invite GoShulman!!!
I've already signed up on their supporter email list and receive their routine messages; but, you're right! I shall contact them directly and offer my assistance. (Though it's not my district.)
On the other hand, I dare say, shedding a little light/attention on Scott Garrett's record, in this forum, can only help/encourage Dennis Shulman.
From Frederick Douglass
No Nick
No Nick. You are taking my words and spinning them to fit your argument. As I clearly stated, I was not equating Wallenberg to Garrett in their deeds or in their footnotes in history. I was using Mr. Wallenberg to illustrate the point that just because a person is not in agreement with the majority of a selected group, does not make him or her an extremist. I will argue that the majority of Garrett's colleagues in the State on the Republican side would be labeled extremists using your criteria: The fact that there a dozens of instances in which he voted in a way that left him all alone AMONG NJ REPUBLICANS is, on its face, proof positive that his positions are extreme. The other four members of the delegation often vote in stark contrast to the majority of their party in the House. Does that make them extremists?
And thank you for being honest when you state: Garrett's beliefs (sic) are, in my opinion, extremely bad for this nation and for humanity in general. Those are YOUR views and do not necessarily match up with the majority of people. Does that make YOU extreme? (By the way, that will be the meanest thing I call you in this post, so don't worry.) But in the end it is the voters of his District who will determine if he is an extremist, not you or me. And for the past several elections, they have determined he is not an extremist but a principled individual who is fighting for them.
And I will take issue with you telling me or anyone for whom Douglass would vote. The quote is factually accurate today as we are the party that continues to fight for freedom.
Yes, OC
>>>>>No Nick. You are taking my words and spinning them to fit your argument. As I clearly stated, I was not equating Wallenberg to Garrett in their deeds or in their footnotes in history. I was using Mr. Wallenberg to illustrate the point that just because a person is not in agreement with the majority of a selected group, does not make him or her an extremist.<<<<<<
You chose the loaded Wallenerg/Nazi analogy to make your point; I called you on it....and it's good that you're now explicitly conceding that Garrett is no Wallenberg. As to the underlying "logic" you claim to have intended, that was dealt with above. (And I'm quoting all your words in my responses.....they do help strengthen my own case, thank you.)
>>>>I will argue that the majority of Garrett's colleagues in the State on the Republican side would be labeled extremists using your criteria:<<<<
http://shulmanforcongress.com/garretts-record/
By the end of 2006, the American Conservatives Union had only given a “perfect” score of 100 to two members Congress for their lifetime voting record.
Scott Garrett was one of them.
>>>>>>The fact that there a dozens of instances in which he voted in a way that left him all alone AMONG NJ REPUBLICANS is, on its face, proof positive that his positions are extreme.<<<<<
I agree with that sentence when it includes the full context of what the votes were and his political history/careerr on the whole.
>>>>>The other four members of the delegation often vote in stark contrast to the majority of their party in the House. Does that make them extremists?<<<
Not neccesarily, it depends on the individual votes. Garrett is an etremely extra-ordinary fellow.
>>>>>>And thank you for being honest when you state: Garrett's beliefs (sic) are, in my opinion, extremely bad for this nation and for humanity in general. Those are YOUR views and do not necessarily match up with the majority of people.<<<<
I dare say that my pro choice position, pro SCHIP position and belief in biological evolution put me in with the mainstream/majority of Americans.
>>>>>Does that make YOU extreme? (By the way, that will be the meanest thing I call you in this post, so don't worry.)<<<<<<
No, obviously it doesn't. (You do yourself a favor when you refrain from ad homiem, my appreciation is by the way.)
>>>>But in the end it is the voters of his District who will determine if he is an extremist, not you or me.<<<<<<
Yes, I agree with you there. Ultimately, it's the job of Dennis Shulman and his supporters to shed lots of light on Scott Garrett's record, beliefs, positions and associations. If the voters of the 5th become fully aware of all of that, and they still choose to vote for Garrett; then I'll humbly eat crow and admit that I was mistaken in my assumptions about that electorate.
As it stands now, however, Garrett is still not fully exposed to all the voters (registered and potential) of the 5th. That's why I'm calling upon the DCCC to reconsider and to make this race a priority.
>>>>And for the past several elections, they have determined he is not an extremist but a principled individual who is fighting for them.<<<<<
Garrett has never had a well funded, aggressive opponent willing/able to expose him and to get their own message accross.
>>>>And I will take issue with you telling me or anyone for whom Douglass would vote. The quote is factually accurate today as we are the party that continues to fight for freedom.<<<<<
LOL I didn't expect you to agree with my take on your Douglass quote. As for the Republican party standing for "freedom"; I do believe that's true in the abstract. But when you get down to cases, that's a questionable assertion.
Bush surely did not invade and occupy Iraq in the cause of defending their (or our) freedom. The more time passes and the more truth comes out, the more revelations, the more books, the more history.....the more it becomesagonizingly obvious that the disaster of Bush's Iraq misadventure was based on lies and was/is maintained through corruption. Trillions of dollars worth of cash flow has a way of distorting policy.
It's a shame that the Republican Party has chosen to cast it's fate to the tender mercies of Bush/Rove/Cheney and company.
This isn't the time/place to begin a debate on Iraq; but I believe it's even becoming clear to the conservative folks in the 5th district that Bush/Garrett's Iraq war was a couterproductive waste of treasure and of blood.
I would love to see Garrett come out of hiding and debate Shulman on the war and on all the other issues where they disagree.
If you are right, OC, then such a debate would only increase Garrett's margin of victory. Eh?
Meanwhile, Scott Garrett himself remains in the darkness/isolation where he "thrives" best.
From Frederick Douglass
Nice spin
Once again Nick, nice spin. You for the second time have spun my words to meet your needs. I am not conceeding to you, just coming to the realization that you will never admit to the fact that I was not comparing the two men, just using Mr. Wallenberg as a an example of your definition of extremism. It had NOTHING to do with his acts or Scott Garrett's work in Congress. Would the example of Al Gore being the only person on the planet to think he invented the internet be a better one? He is certainly not in the majority in that case. Does that make him an extremist? As for your ACU information, would you consider an individual who earned a 100% rating from a progressive group to be an extremist? Let's be consitent here. Despite us not agreeing on much, I expected a little better of you. I will beg to differ with you on your belief that your pro-choice, pro-SCHIP views put you in the mainstream of public opinion. But it is obvious we will not agree on these seemingly simple issues. As for the crow, it is best served with a little dressing as it may get dry during cooking. Bon Appetit!
Additionally Nick
"What we have with Garrett is a consistent pattern in which he is the lone dissenter amongst his own party." If you would like to knitpick my words, I have the ability to do the same. Your quote above is factually wrong. Garrett is not "the lone dissenter amongst his own party." Scott is usually in the majority of the Republican caucus. I will admit, there are times when he is at odds with his republican delegation's views but your statement is wrong.
No Spin Required
Your words are what they are, and I quoted them in toto. The analogy you used was indeed "loaded". (Perhaps not intentionally/consciously so, but loaded none the less.)
The irony is that, from the Garrett/Fundamentalist perspective those of us who believe that is should be a woman's choice to have abortions are indeed (again from THEIR perspective) guilty of "killing babies". I dare say that is NOT a majority view in the USA or even in the 5th CD. Comparing pro-choice individuals to all manner of horrible history is par for the course for Garrett & Co.
I know of no other NJ REPUBLICAN who has so often been in a minority of one in his own delegation. That's extreme (and we won't even get into the actual issues here/now).
His rating, of 100% is one of only two! That puts him at the extreme end of the curve, eh?
Now, there are those who believe that he's extremely good! I think the opposite is true.
I bet that if all the people of the 5th district were thoroughly educated as to the full range and depth of his fundamentalist beliefs and associations and the agendas attached to those....that they would reject him on election day.
I hope Dennis Shulman is given the money required for my hypothesis to be proven or disproven.
If you and Garrett are correct, a fully informed electorate would still give Garrett the nod because they are in step with him. I don't buy that line.
The fact that Garrett avoids all these deep issues and questions like the plague and maintains a stealthy presence is an indication that he is afraid to be 100% honest with his constituents, at best, and ashamed at worst.
Garrett might not be too extreme for the deepest nether regions of the bible belt; but yes....he's too extreme for NJ and for the 5th CD.
As for your quote of me leaving out the qualifier that he was alone in the STATE delegation....you got me. I made an structural error; but given the whole thread it's obvious what I meant....and THAT remains 100% factual.
If the best thing you have to hang your argument on is to pick at that kind of obvious nit; then I'm content to own the error and point out that I've said it right many times in the lengthy thread. :-)
When I quote you, I'm not parsing the words looking for trivial errors; I'm digging into the meaning and that underlies them......and I don't envy you the task of defending Garrett; it's a tough job!!!
From Frederick Douglass
PS Re Gore and the Web...
http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
(this is a small extract from a larger article, please read the whole thing if you need additional convincing)
By Scott Rosenberg
Oct. 5, 2000 | That Al Gore once claimed to have "invented the Internet" is now part of electoral folklore -- one item in a litany of Gore "exaggerations" or "lies" that his opponents trot out to discredit him. At Tuesday's debate the line became the basis for a flatfooted one-liner George W. Bush lobbed to deflect Gore's onslaught of statistics: "This is a man who has great numbers -- I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, he invented the calculator."
The sheer cheek of Gore's purported claim invites mockery. Everybody knows the Internet is an extraordinarily complex piece of engineering that only incredibly smart scientists could have "invented." Politicians need not apply.
But things that "everybody knows" are always worth examining for defects. And the "Gore claims he invented the Net" trope is so full of holes that it makes you wish there were product recalls for bad information.
Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. What he said was:
As my colleague Jake Tapper carefully reported here last year, at worst that statement is a minor exaggeration of Gore's legislative record -- and miles away from the "I built it from scratch!" lie into which it has been twisted.
From Frederick Douglass