Senior House Democrat thinks Garrett can be beaten

"This is a winnable seat this time, and the only thing that will get in the way of me winning is people thinking that it's not winnable." Yes, like voters in District 5. If we could only get rid of these voters, Democrats would certainly win.

...maybe he should also consider investing in Edsel!

Democracy is an awful way to run a country, but it's the best system we have.- Winston Churchill

Have we not had enough of Anti American blind sheiks and clerics ?

Scott Garrett has beaten Democrats handily in the last 3 elections. This means two things:

   1). That the bulk of the folks in Garrett's district either do hold his views, or are very put off by those who politically demonize him.

   2). He provides good attentive constituent services.

   In 1992, I was one of two private citizens that testified against the Health Insurance Reform Act at a State Senate Health Committee Hearing. I wrote followup letters to members of both the Senate and Assembly Health Committees. Garrett was then an Assemblyman. He was one of the very few, Democrat or Republican, who wrote a sincere, respectful sounding reply even though we were obviously on opposite sides of the issue and even though I did not even live in his district.

   Language such as that employed above by IBEW's Richard Dressel ain't gonna do it. Democrats are going to have to find a civil, serious way of approaching the issues, explaining what Garrett's votes mean in both real dollars and cents as well as the effects of the policies he supports. Eliminate/reduce federal government? Okay, the next time a worker gets injured due to unsafe job conditions, it was Garrett's vote that resulted in gutting safety legislation and OSHA staff. Issues such as that. REAL issues that affect REAL people.

   If he keeps the high road, and convinces his campaign to go after the issues, and not the man, then maybe Shulman has a chance...

Shulman and the democrats are p*ssing in the wind if they think that this district is winnable.

I'm embarrassed that such a draconian fundamentalist as Scott Garrett, who voted against reauthorizing the Civil Rights Act, who voted against including sexual orientation for hate crimes, and who voted against financial aid to Katrina represents the state of N.J. in congress. Each week seemingly brings another wrongheaded vote by Garrett that blights the state.

Shulman has been gaining momentum and would be a much better representative than Garrett, who swings somewhere to the right of Santorum and Bush on multiple issues. I say go after Garrett with everything, win or lose, and regain some respectability in the 5th.

....rodent excrement.

If you are the typical Scott Garrett "supporter"; Shulman wins in a landslide.

In one brief "comment" (quoted below)............

>>>>>>"The blind leading the blind

Have we not had enough of Anti American blind sheiks and clerics ?  06/16/08 7:44 pm"<<<<<<<

..........you manage to be bigoted in at least three different ways.

Your remarks are the kind of crap I would expect from the Ku Klux Klan in the deep south of 1950; not from a Republican in New Jersey in 2008.

And shame on all the Garrett supporters who have not condemned your ugly un-American attempt to "divide and conquer".

Their silence, so far, is deafening!

Is it possible that the anonymous sleaze "Broy" is indeed a typical Scott Garrett supporter?

I call upon all Republicans on this board (and Scott Garrett himself) to condemn Broy's stupid ugly hateful bigoted comments.

And, conflating Dennis Shulman with a terrorist goes beyond simple bigotry; that move puts "Broy" in a category that transcends the gutter of anomymity, and the sewer of sludge.....such a horrendous libel is worthy of an investigation by homeland security as it's the kind of divisive "psyop" that I would expect from a real terrorist.

That's the kind of rhetoric that is a threat to all that is decent about being an American.....and "Broy" knows what a scumbucket she/he is; that's why she/he has to hide behind a pseudonym.

If you really believe that what you've said here is defensible; come out of the anonymous sewer "Broy" and show us who you really are......let's see if your sick pathetic "self" can stand some Sunshine.

Make our day.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

I do agree with others who have stated that a much higher profile candidate would have taken the reigns if Democrats honestly thought that they could take Garrett's seat.

I would also expect to see the kind of financial committment to the 5th District race that marquee Dem candidates are getting in the 3rd and 7th District races. As far as I know, that has not happend yet (I heard some huge numbers were being thrown at Adler and Stender, no?).

Regardless, if Democrats couldn't take out Garrett in '04 with an incredibly-unpopular Bush at the top of the ticket and '06 when anti-Republican sentiment was running wild, why would Democrats think they'd have a chance now?

It's true that Garrett has his shortcomings. But I think he's far from being the wounded animal they depict.  I still feel that it may ultimately work out in Garrett's favor.

For one thing, Bush is not running and McCain will be at the top of the ticket. He has proven to be popular enough in New Jersey. And while he's NOT popular enough to win the entire state, he's certainly popular in suburban-heavy North Bergen (not to mention North Passaic, Warren and Sussex Counties).

Its going to be hard for Shulman to chant "Change" when the Democratic lead Congress has an abyssmal approval ratings. Bush has a low approval rating, true, Congress is just as bad if not worse. It would be hard to side-step the fact that almost nothing has gotten accomplished by this Democratic Congress.

The War in Iraq is still an issue, but seems to no longer be front & center as it was in the past - we don't seem to hear as much negative news coming out of there as in '06 - and will proabably play a much lesser role in this election.  But even if did play as significant a role, the Democrats in Congress have failed to deliver on their over-arching promise to bring troops home.  A new spending bill was even approved in the last week for the war effort.  If you are an anti-war dove in the rank n' file of the Democratic party, that has to irk you a bit.  Shulman can't claim any of this as a goal since his own party - with a clear majority - has been unable to achieve it.  What will he do as a Freshman that experienced Democrats in Congress couldn't do?

The economy and energy prices will be more of an issue now that we seem to be heading into a "recession" - but the high property taxes, rising unemployment rate, and overall economic dis-satisfaction will probably not play well when mixed with Obama continually talking of raising taxes and rolling back tax cuts. North Bergen is a pretty affulent area - and even affluent moderates like to hold onto their money longer; not sure if that message will play depending on how Shulman play it.

Additionally, I'm wondering if there is any lingering bad sentiments in the BCDO that could effect this fight? I don't know if Shulman has taken a stance in the Ferriero/Weinberg battle or the Lautenberg/Andrews fight. Is there any residual "split" there that could cause dis-unity? (I'm genuinely curious).

Garrett still has a lot of work to do and he's by no means in the clear, but it seems to me that the case aganist him was much stronger in the past.

Only my opinion.

Happy Friday everyone!

Veritas vos Liberabit
"Collecting more taxes than absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." - Calvin Coolidge