That time is now, as Warren County resident Tod Theise has answered the call and announced his candidacy against Garrett. In his statement to the press, Thiese noted the following contrast between him and Garrett:
"I don't think he represents working families in the district," Theise said. "He voted against extending unemployment benefits ... he voted for every [George W.] Bush budget."
A former Republican, Theise became an independent in the early part of the last decade and then migrated to the Democratic Party. He said his reasons for the leaving the Republicans were the spending policies and lack of Wall Street regulation under Bush.
His criticisms of Garrett are similar.
"What I find lacking is that he gives the people on Wall Street a complete and utter pass," Theise said. "He is basically bought and sold by Wall Street."
Now, I've met Tod and spoken to him numerous times over the past few months as he has been moving towards a run at Garrett. There are a few things about this candidacy that I like personally - for starters, it will be interesting to see how a non-Bergen County challenger plays out - especially in the current climate where being associated with the BCDO isn't the best of associations right around now. Additionally, I've always thought that lowering the 60%+ of the vote that Garrett routinely gets in Warren and Sussex counties is imperative - that this race cannot be won in Bergen alone. I also like the views and approach that Tod is taking on a number of issues - but this will come out over the next few months as the campaign gets under way.
Of course, this is one of the most uphill battles in general, as Garrett has never gotten less than 55% of the vote in his 4 previous races. But you never know what can happen in an election, and there has been unprecedented focus on Garrett by a number of grassroots organizations in the District (ahem....).
Eagleton polled 886 registered voters, but the main differences is they did not push leaners, and they also gathered the results by who controlled each district by asking if they'd vote for the current Congressman or "challenger running against him." Note that this gave two (or three) sub-samples. So the results are:
In the statewide generic ballot by party, Democrats are at 33% and Republicans at 31%.
In the five Republican districts, Republicans are at 40% and Democrats at 25%.
In the eight Democratic districts, Democrats are at 41% and Republicans at 22%.
As the pollster notes, "Nearly 20 percent do not know how they will vote, and 10 percent say they do not plan to vote at all." Of course, a lot more than 10% of registered voters will skip the election.
You might think 47-39 doesn't seem much like 33-31, but going back to the FDU poll, without leaners Democrats led 39-34. I don't think it is really too different from Eagleton. I personally suspect the "with leaners" sample gives a better view, because I don't believe so many voters are really persuadable.
Anyway, I think Professor Redlawsk has a pretty good quote summing it up:
"The overall picture statewide seems to suggest that Republicans are at parity with Democrats in 2010, but this is misleading," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. "While the statewide vote may be close, it is less likely to be so in most congressional districts. We did not poll at the district level, and in the 3rd district Democrat John Adler is likely to face a very difficult challenge. Still, at the aggregate level incumbents of both parties start the year with an advantage over potential general election challengers."
It would be really interesting to get a poll of Adler's NJ3 district, but in truth it's too early to be definitive.
Quick Update: President Obama has 57-37 approve-disapprove on his job, and 56-31 for "general impression." Democrats in Congress are at 35-42 and Republicans at an even worse 25-48. 52% says Obama's change is happening "too slowly."
The sample has 55% claiming they voted for Obama and 31% claiming McCain which might argue some Republicans are missing. On the other hand, maybe they are in the 6% who claim they voted for someone else (Palin?), and furthermore, the sample also claims they voted 42-31 for Christie over Corzine which is a better margin for Republicans than reality. So it's probably just difficult to get people to say they voted for the unpopular loser.
On Wednesday, February 3 the NAACP released its annual Congressional Legislative Report Card, an evaluation of the voting records of Congressional members on NAACP agenda issues. The NAACP has graded the U.S. Congress on the "bread and butter" civil rights agenda since 1914. The report card provides a non-partisan assessment of the first session of the 111th Congress, and is designed to provide NAACP members with insight into the general voting patterns of congressional representatives and state delegations.
Both Senators Lautenberg and Menendez scored 100% for an A grade. Here are our Representatives, sorted by score:
Andrews 100% A
Rothman 100% A
Payne 100% A
Pallone 96% A
Pascrell 96% A
Holt 96% A
Sires 96% A
Adler 84% B
Smith 64% D
LoBiondo 56% F
Lance 48% F
Frelinghuysen 32% F
Garrett 8% F
Obviously there's a big difference between Frank LoBiondo's 56% and Scott Garrett's astonishing 8%. The grades are probably also a good general ranking of progressives. If you are wondering, Holt missed a vote to get 96%, while the other three 96% scores are due to not voting for an alternative Congressional Black Caucus budget resolution. Adler's B is due to the same vote plus his votes against health care reform.
One thing I enjoy reading and writing about is how government and candidates for office are using technology. A story in the NY Times says that Republicans in the House are kicking some serious Democrat donkey butt:
It may have been sort of a counterintuitive thought at one time, but it's become pretty well-established that Republicans on Capitol Hill have embraced Twitter more than Democrats.
But just how much congressional Republicans are out-Tweeting the Democrats may be a bit of a surprise. According to a new study from the public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard, House Republicans have pecked away on Twitter more than five times more frequently than their Democratic counterparts - sending out 29,162 tweets all told through Jan. 3, compared to 5,503 for Democrats.
In New Jersey, @Rep_Albio_Sires and @FrankPallone are our lone members on twitter in the House. @SenatorMenendez uses twitter from our Senate delegation, but the GOP clearly has more members utilizing the medium to communicate:
The study also found that about two-thirds of Congress' 132 active Tweeters are Republicans.
But what type of communicating they are doing offers the caveat to these numbers:
Many congressional Twitter users don't follow others or reTweet items, Mr. Senak said in an interview. "It can be more like one-way communication, which is not really what Twitter was designed for," he said. Mr. Senak, who writes a blog about the F.D.A., said curiosity about how lawmakers were discussing health care was a major reason he started the Twitter study.
If they're not utilizing the medium to create a dialogue, they're not getting the complete potential. See Cory Booker for an example of how you can harness the power of social media. But on top of that, it's troubling that our leaders aren't embracing new opportunities to interact with their consituents. I know it's hard to convey public policy in 140 characters, but if you use more words no one listens, are you better off passing up the opportunity at a captive audience? If you are on twitter, even though your member of Congress may not be, you can find and follow us @BlueJersey
The U.S. population increased by just under 1% and grew to 307 million in 2009 according to USA Today, experiencing the slowest growth rate for the past decade.
In many areas, births drove population growth, rather than the arrival of new residents. A demographer quoted in the USA Today story said this was a sign of the economy:
"People are staying put. They're just not moving,"
With all the talk of doom and gloom with people moving out of state, New Jersey saw an increase in population of 3.5% over last year giving us a population of just over 8.7 million people.
That would increase the size of each district from 647,258 in 2002 to 725,645 in 2012. Unless someone retires, New Jersey will either see an incumbent vs. incumbent general election, or an incumbent vs. incumbent primary.
That would bring us to 12 seats in Congress, down from 15 since 1982:
In 1992, when New Jersey went from 14 seats to 13, two incumbents were put in the same district. A primary was avoided when Bernard Dwyer (D-Edison) retired instead of facing Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch) in the Democratic primary. New Jersey went from 15 seats to 14 in 1982, but the district represented by Millicent Fenwick (R-Bernardsville) was eliminated when she entered the race for U.S. Senator.
This doesn't mean we will definitely lose a seat, but if things continue on this course we will. There are many scenarios that could come into play if that happens. You can view the full population estimates from the Census bureau here.
The table below lists the minimum value of the assets and liabilities of Members of the House of Representatives as reported on their 2009 financial disclosure forms (covering calendar year 2008). Assets include stocks, bank accounts, rental properties and other income-producing holdings; liabilities are most frequently mortgages and other bank loans. Assets and liabilites are reported in broad ranges; this table uses the minimum of all reported ranges and subtracts liabilities from assets to produce a minimum net worth. See story for details.
Seniority is each Member's ranking in the House, as reported by the Clerk of the House.
Frelinghuysen, who belongs to a political dynasty that dates back more than two centuries, has nine times the minimum net worth of the next richest member from New Jersey, Steve Rothman (D-Englewood).
Rothman has a minimum net worth of $2.1 million, followed by Bill Pascrell (D-Parterson) with $1.85 million, Leonard Lance (R-Clinton) with $1.59 million, Rush Holt (D-Princeton) with $899,000, John Adler (D-Cherry Hill) with $702,000, Donald Payne (D-Newark) with $346,000, Frank LoBiondo (R-Vineland) at $270,000, Chris Smith (R-Hamilton) with $113,000, Albio Sires (D-West New York) with $87,000, Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch) with $88,000, Scott Garrett (R-Wantage) with $80,000 and Rob Andrews (D-Haddon Heights) with $31,000.
President Obama took a trip to Capitol Hill on Saturday afternoon before the healthcare vote to rally hesitant House democrats to support the bill and according to Congressman Andrews, it worked:
Many in the room credited Obama with swaying the last of the fence sitters. "A few members that were leaning no told me afterward that they'd been moved to vote yes," Representative Rob Andrews, a New Jersey Democrat, told reporters after the meeting.
With how close the vote was, they needed every pep talk they could get. If those few that were leaning no remained in opposition, we would have had a completely different story. The President may want to pencil in time to motivate and hold hands when the reconciled bill comes back to the House eventually.
Here's a link to the video of the thumping Keith Olbermann gave gutless lawmakers on both sides of the aisle this week, the one carolh refers to. Frankly, I got chills watching it. - - promoted by Rosi Efthim
Keith Olbermann last night gave a good and long needed thumping to those Congressmen and Senators who routinely accept money from Big Pharma and the Healthcare industry. As I watched, I started thinking closer to home.
These guys are probably hoping that the NJ corruption story takes over the news so folks aren't paying attention to the Quid Pro Quo going on in DC.
We won't get a single payer plan or a public option because of men and women who individually accepted literally MILLIONS of $$$$$$ for THEIR campaigns to squash real reform. The ethics problems are the same. It's just that in NJ, Mayors can get bought cheap. In, DC you need a lot more grease because the palms are bigger.
Why are we NOT as outraged by the goings on in Congress and the US Senate as we are by a Mayor selling his office for a measly $5,000 bucks?
Where is our sense of proportion??
Pay to Play is literally LEGAL in Washington too. Compared to the millions changing hands in DC though, NJ corruption is small potatoes.
Acting as a representative for the pharmaceutical industry or smalltime developer who pays for your campaign instead of those that elected you to office, is wrong no matter who does it, what letter they have after their names, and whether they sell their local elected office, or their place in Congress. It's simply a matter of scale, and the corruption in Congress is simply epic when it comes to the Health Care debate.
Where, I ask you, is the proportionate epic outrage on the part of progressives to go along with the epic scale of corruption in Washington? Where are the DC perp walks we dearly need to see real reform in this country?
The only outrage I see is mock outrage used by those with ulterior motives as a weapon to derail our town halls and any logical, rational discussion. Their goal - simply helping the corrupt officials in DC promote the agenda of THEIR campaign contributors.
Where are the voters calling on folks like Thune to resign for the good of the country? The mostly Republican Congressmen and Senators accepting millions from the Healhcare industry and voting against the wishes of the citizens of the US, are no less guilty than the three Mayors arrested in NJ recently. In fact, if the amounts involved are any indication of guilt, those in Congress taking money and fighting healthcare reform are MORE greedy, MORE unethical and MORE guilty of betraying the public's trust than any of those arrested in NJ.
I went through the FEC filings to see how our House members are fairing with their fundraising efforts. First here are some observations
Congressman Adler raised the most money in the 2nd quarter with over $518K, followed by Congressman Pallone and then Garrett.
Congressman Pallone has the most Cash on Hand by far and away with over $3.7 million. He has twice as much as the next member, Congressman Rothman who is followed by Pascrell and then Lobiondo.
Congressman Adler raised the most form individuals at over $267K, followed by Pallone, Garrett and then Rothman.
Congressman Adler raised the most from PAC's at over 250K, followed by Pallone, Lance and Frelinghuysen.
The members of the NJ delegation that raised more from PAC's than individuals were Congressmen Andrews, Payne, LoBiondo, Frelinghuysen, Pallone and Lance.
We're going to do what we can do to keep this issue up top, and we're going to ask your help to do that. Stay tuned .... promoted back up by Rosi
For those of you who missed the Blue Jersey Radio interview with Congressman Rush Holt a couple of weeks back, the good folks at FireDogLake took notice of the fact that he "took the pledge" to not just support a bill with a public option, but also to vote against a bill that did not have a public option.
If you didn't know, FireDogLake has been doing an outstanding job of whipping Democrats in Congress on the public option, and sadly, only two NJ Democrats are on the list of those who have committed to NOT SUPPORT a bill that did not have a public option. Those two are Holt and Donald Payne (NJ-10). Now, that is not to say that the other 6 NJ House Democrats (or the 5 House republicans - HAH!) would not only support a public option but would vote against a bill without one, but you can never be too careful or sure.
That is why we here at Blue Jersey are going to ask you - the Blue Jersey community - to help whip our fine Representatives into shape.
Stay tuned - we will be focusing on each of the six other NJ House Democrats but feel free to contact your Representative if he is a republican (other than myself, who knows that Garrett is beyond a lost cause) and let us know how you make out. We will be posting contact information for the Representatives, as well as information as to their comments and responses.
What we are looking for, as so eloquently stated on FDL, is as follows:
Progressive members of Congress need to draw a line in the sand and demand a public health insurance option -- something 76% of Americans want.
They need to Take the Pledge to vote against any health care bill that doesn't have a public plan which is:
available nationwide;
on day one
and accountable to Congress and the voters
Please call progressive members of Congress and ask them to Take the Pledge now.
At the link above ( this link), there is a space to input what you hear from the staffer or whoever else when you call.
We think this is a great way for the Blue Jersey community to come together and really take action for something that is so very important. Hopefully, we can do some great things here.
When Accountability Now - a new national PAC - rolled out a couple of weeks ago, there were some dustups about what its purpose was. Were founders like Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and the high-octane groups aligning with them really going flat out after moderate electeds of their own party? That's the kind of thing some of the headlines suggested.
But Accountability Now's new Executive Director Jeff Hauser, who ran Dennis Shulman's interesting but ultimately unsuccessful challenge to Rep. Scott Garrett last year, has it clear:
He talks about watching Democrats, the new power, being showered with lobbyist attention, and the risk that incumbents of his own party might begin to toe K Street's line or succumb to D.C. groupthink, just like Republicans did. The rationale makes sense. Incumbency is a cushy advantage; reelection almost a reflexive privilege. That leaves incumbents vulnerable to losing touch with their own districts, and caving to the demands of corporate interests. The organizational support AN hopes to provide - to challengers - is designed to making it more likely that if incumbents get out of touch they'll have a serious primary challenge. It's designed to get them looking over their shoulder and not too comfortably. Incumbents doing right by their districts, he says, have little to fear from AN.
How will AN zero in on their targets? Watershed votes on issues like economic recovery, the budget, healthcare, Employee Free Choice, energy/climate change and immigration reform will be watched. And polling will study the districts.
Hauser sat down for an on line chat with Blue Jersey yesterday. He calls the current system dysfunctional:
[snip] Unlike you or I, who are reviewed in our work constantly, members of Congress too often get a free pass.
AN wants to connect prospective candidates - viable candidates with fundraising mojo or the clear ability to attract resources - with national, people-powered movements, like MoveOn, SEIU, DailyKos, ColorOfChange.org, 21st Century Democrats and BlogPAC. And Democracy for America (DFA).
DFA Chair Jim Dean called in on Blue Jersey Radio last night, to underscore DFA's enthusiasm for the way vigorous primaries empower voters. Dean:
If this party embraces that, we're going to be around end prosper for a long time. But if it reverts to the power of incumbency we saw during the Clinton administration we're going to be out on our ass.
Rep. Bruce Braley, an Iowa Democrat, will officially announce the formation of the caucus later this week, with 21 founding members -- all Democrats. The initial purpose will be to influence legislation from within the Democratic caucus, but Braley did not rule out opening the group to Republicans.
"The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
- Vice President Hubert Humphrey
In Washington, Congressman Frank Pallone (NJ-6) is fighting for the progressive agenda. On Wednesday the House of Representatives approved, by a 289 to 139 margin, a record expansion of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Capitol Hill watchers expect the bill to easily pass through the Senate and reach President-Elect Obama's desk within days of his inauguration. In addition to reauthorizing a program that presently covers seven million children, yesterday's expansion will provide four million more with access to basic medical care.
This victory has been long coming. Both Democrats and a minority of Republicans attempted in the previous Congress to pass similar legislation, only to have their work vetoed twice by a President more interested in providing corporate welfare than extending health care to the children of the poor.
New Jerseyans should take pride in the knowledge that Congressman Pallone has led the House's efforts toward passage of the expansion. As Chair of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, he helped draft the legislation and went to the floor to shepherd it through to final approval. Pallone's work is consistent with his progressive principles and a reflection of his long held commitment to providing access to health care for all Americans.
The child health bill provides $32 billion to insure a total of 11 million children whose families lack the resources to pay for preventative and emergency care. Moreover, the legislation removes the discriminatory clause that excluded the children of legal immigrants - first generation Americans - from coverage.
With the economy entering recession, more than 2.6 million people lost their job last year alone - the highest one year loss since 1945. Experts estimate that for every 1 percent increase in the number of jobless, 1.5 million people lose health coverage. 47 million Americans are uninsured. Sadly, 9 million are children, and according to a recent report, 273,000 of them are from New Jersey.
Thanks in large measure to the work of Congressman Pallone, our country is one step closer to reducing that number. In doing so, we guarantee access to basic medical care for those who need it the most: our children.
"I think Washington could be rightly described as a fairly mean place these days," Saxton said. The partisan rancor has persisted since Republicans took the House of Representatives in 1994, he said, and it upended an established system of 40 years. "The Republicans didn't know their place anymore and the Democrats didn't like their place, and so both sides tried very hard to make the other look bad."
Saxton was always more of the moderate type Republican, so it doesn't surprise me he didn't like the rabidness of the 1994 GOP takeover. The question is, can this train return to the station?
If you aren't a big behind-the-scenes political person, you might not recognize the name "David Frum". But I'm sure you'll recognize his work - as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, he's credited with coining the term "axis of evil" (whatever happened to that, anyway?). He's worked previously as an editor at the Wall Street Journal and was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and has now landed at the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-con think tank. He's a major opinion-maker on the right.
The reason I bring him up is because of his Washington Post op-ed article. While New Jersey has largely been forgotten this election cycle - we aren't a swing state and the GOP retread for the Senate is a massive yawn - Frum has some things to say that we should take to heart. And put to practice.
Dennis Shulman is running for Congress in the 5th District of New Jersey and I want to tell you how to get involved:
Look what Esquire Magazine said about the 5th District Congressional Race in this month's issue!: "A moralist and antitax evangelist, Garrett would happily do away with government entirely, unless a woman who is impregnated by a rapist seeks an abortion. Then he'd send in the feds to arrest her. Esquire endorses: Shulman."
Things are really heating up here in the Haworth, NJ (Bergen County) Shulman For Congress office with the election only 3 weeks away. There are a ton of activities going on. This Thursday night, October 16th, is our Campaign Rally Party at the Haworth Office (167 Terrace St., off of Haworth Ave.) from 7 PM until 8:30 PM. There is going to be food and entertainment provided, with an appearance by Dennis as well! It is a great opportunity to have a good time and find out about how to get involved with the campaign in the final 2 and a half weeks.
Two additionally exciting events that we want you all to be a part of are the Debates: Dennis and Congressman Garrett will be facing off against each other and we want to show our support! The first debate is Sunday, October 19th from 7 PM to 9 PM at Temple Emanuel, 87 Overlook Drive, Woodcliff Lake, NJ. The second debate is on Wednesday, October 22 at the Sussex County Community College, Performing Arts Center from 7 PM to 8 PM. It is going to be crucial to have a large and supportive crowd behind Dennis at the debates, because it will give him the help he needs to debate Garrett and to show the District how popular he truly is.
If you have any questions call me at 201-338-4072, and just ask for Mike, or e-mail me at this address. Listed below is the complete field events schedule for this week, as well as further contact information:
Tuesday, October, 14: Glen Rock Street Fair in Glen Rock *Rock Road
*2 pm - 5 pm
*We will be campaigning and handing out literature, as well as demonstrating against Congressman Garrett's ties to lobbysists
House Party in Emerson *24 John St. in Emerson
*6 PM - 7 PM
*Food will be served and Dennis will be in attendance!
Wednesday, October, 15: Phone Bank in Haworth *Haworth Shulman Office (167 Terrace St., off Haworth Ave.)
*6 PM until 8:30 PM
Thursday, October 16: Rally Party in Haworth *Haworth Shulman Office (167 Terrace St., off Haworth Ave.)
*7 PM until 8:30 PM
Saturday, October 18: Canvass in Haworth *Haworth Shulman Office (167 Terrace St., off Haworth Ave.)
*12 PM - 2:30 PM
Sunday, October 19: Debate in Woodcliff Lake
*Temple Emanuel (87 Overlook Drive, Woodcliff Lake, NJ)
*7 PM - 9 PM
Wednesday, October 22: Debate in Sussex County *Sussex County Community College, Performing Arts Center
*7 PM to 8 PM
Parsippany, September 2, 2008-Tom Wyka is asking the New Jersey Congressional delegation to support a moratorium on "earmark" spending. "Earmarking has become an industry, with campaign contributions being viewed as 'investments.' Last March, the Senate failed to pass an amendment banning earmark spending for a year. I suggest that the New Jersey Congressional delegation support a moratorium on earmarks. Dick Zimmer, John McCain, and Barack Obama have already expressed support."
An "earmark" is a provision in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Typically, legislators use it to direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district. Earmarking is different from the appropriation of money to a particular government agency, because the appropriate executive department can exercise discretion as to where and how those funds are spent. The use of earmarks in the House of Representatives and the Senate has has expanded significantly over the past few decades, but it is becoming increasingly controversial. Some nonprofit organizations, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the nation's top universities, refuse to accept grants and contracts funded by earmarks.
"I'm all for getting funding for worthy projects in your district. But what bothers me is the process," explained Wyka. "Earmarks undergo little or no debate in Congress, they are not subject to competitive bidding or administrative review, and they are seldom reported on by the press. Earmarks are usually added at a late phase to large bills that fund the federal government. If you are a Congressperson or a Senator, you then can't oppose the earmark without voting against the whole bill. So there's no easy way to stop it. Then there's log-rolling, which means that members support bills with another member's earmarks, in hope that the other member will support theirs. It gets out of control quickly. It's also unfair, because it doesn't direct funds to the most-deserving projects. Whether an earmark makes its way into a bill depends on the seniority and power of the member supporting it, not on the worthiness of the cause."
According to Wyka, "Not only is the earmark process often unfair, but it often leads to corruption. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham of California pled guilty to taking bribes in exchange for earmarks and was sent to prison. That was an extreme case, but it is also common for earmarks to go to a member's campaign contributors. For example, according the Seattle Times' report titled 'The Favor Factory,' my opponent Rodney Frelinghuysen had $83 million in defense earmarks in 2007. From 2001 to 2007, he had received $327,100 in contributions from the earmark recipients. It doesn't look good."
Wyka explains, "We will eventually solve part of this problem by public funding for national political campaigns. Americans for Campaign Reform estimate that we could publicly fund all races for national office-that's House of Representatives, Senate, and President-for just $6 per person. We would save far more than that per person in pork-barrel spending alone, because members of Congress would no longer have to reward their big fundraisers. In 2007, we had a successful pilot project for public funding of campaigns in three legislative districts in New Jersey. It worked. And it's the future. In the meantime, we need to think about how to deal with earmark spending. We need to stop the 'quid pro quo' one way or another."
Jeff Flake, a Republican of Arizona, gave the following speech before the House of Representatives on September 26, 2007: "Among the many downsides to earmarking, and one that we rarely talk about on the House floor, is the practice of 'circular fund-raising.' Campaign donations are given to members, members secure earmarks benefiting their contributors, and contributors in turn are able to give members more donations. This cycle is repeated over and over and over. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan practice. The media has reported on many such arrangements for members on both sides of the aisle. Legal issues aside, circular fund-raising does not pass the smell test. Whether it's fair or not, the crimes of a few of our former colleagues have cast suspicion over us all. Continued rampant fund-raising is simply not worth the trust it costs us with our constituents. I think that most of us had higher aspirations when we came here, than groveling for crumbs that fall from appropriators' tables. I hope that we, as members of Congress, will finally decide that enough is enough."
Much of the talk in New Jersey regarding contested Congressional seats this Fall has centered around District 7, where Democratic Assemblywoman Linda Stender is running against Republican State Senator Leonard Lance to fill the House seat vacated by retiring Republican Congressman Michael Ferguson (R-7). The most likely Democratic pick-up, however, is actually in District 3, where Democratic State Senator John Adler is battling Republican Christopher Myers to fill the seat of retiring Congressman James Saxton (R-3). Adler has raised approximately two million dollars for his run and as a popular State Senator from Cherry Hill who is well-respected for his policy-making abilities and breadth of knowledge regarding State and Federal issues, he is a formidable opponent of Mr. Myers, the Mayor of Medford, New Jersey and Lockheed-Martin Vice-President.
In case you've ever wondered how far a modest donation can go on a political campaign, have a look at the list below. These stats were taken from a mailing sent out from Adler Campaign , but I reckon these stats apply more or less to other campaigns in the state including Linda Stender, Shulman, et al.
It's kinda cool that even in a sky-high dollar media market like our Garden State, even a modest contribution is extremely valuable.
See for yourself!
$4 buys a lawn sign.
$11 buys a pizza for the volunteers who'll be helping out tonight. And every night until election day.
$27 gets 100 Adler for Congress bumper stickers.
$42 buys a roll of stamps to spread the good word that change is on the march all over New Jersey.
$78 affords the campaign two cases of copy paper.
$105 gets 500 Adler for Congress buttons.
$291 pays for a campaign workers healthcare premium for a month.
Of course, the only things more valuable than cash are time and passion. And since election day is only 81 days away, There's no time like the present to jump in and get involved.
Chris Myers is the GOP candidate in NJ-3rd Congressional district. Given his lackluster fundraising thus far, you can forgive him for being a little cranky. But his outright contempt for the progressive Netroots even caught me by surprise.
Myers seeks to trivialize the Netroots as:
Radical, liberal bloggers who spew angry partisan tirades from the safety of their home computer.
Myers is peeved at his Democratic rival John Adler's description of bloggers as "citizen soldiers in terms of activism" in the video below.
Myers goes on:
"These radical liberal bloggers are in no way, shape or form "soldiers," and referring to them in that way is an affront to the brave men and women in uniform fighting to defend our freedoms around the globe."
Myers singles out dKos and BlueJersey by name which is particularly rich since the founder of Daily Kos is a Veteran and BlueJersey had a Vets voice on the front page since day one!
Myers thinks we're a bunch of unpatriotic pajama warriors, huh? So much for free political speech, right Chris?
Let's all show Chris Myers what we're really about and send him a punitive shout out at the same time by donating to Adler on ActBlue.
Feel free to crosspost far and wide. I know I will!
