Anna’s Army will caravan through the northern parts of the 6th district today with100’s of cars and trucks decorated with Anna Little for Congress paraphernalia will parade through the streets in Middlesex, Somerset and Union counties. The caravan meets at the Keyport IHOP at 11:30 this morning and will end at the American Legion in Piscataway, 840 Washington Ave, for a rally with Governor Chris Christie from 5:00 till 6:30.
If you can’t make the caravan, don’t miss the rally with the Governor. Christie has repeatedly said, “there’s nobody I want to see defeated more than Frank Pallone.”
At 7PM, Little and Pallone will face off in their only scheduled debate. This event, moderated by the League of Women Voters, will be held at Temple Shalom, 5 Arymont Lane, Aberdeen. The doors open at 6:30.
(HIGHLANDS, October 15) – Republican Congressional challenger Anna Little – continuing to highlight a report in The New York Times indicating that her opponent, 22-year incumbent Frank Pallone, worked to overturn a decision by the Food and Drug Administration after receiving campaign contributions from a medical device manufacturer whose device had been unanimously rejected on multiple occasions by FDA scientific reviewers – today called on Pallone to explain the exact nature of the transaction.
“Yesterday, The New York Times published a disturbing report about our Congressman, Frank Pallone, using his influence to get the FDA to approve a medical device after receiving campaign contributions from the device manufacturer,” said Little. “So yesterday, we challenged Rep. Pallone to tell us what OTHER federal government agencies he’s influenced on behalf of campaign contributors.
“Today, we’d like to go back to the original transaction, and get some more detail from Mr. Pallone,” said Little.
“Specifically, we’d like answers to the following questions:
“When you accepted your first contribution from an executive of the device manufacturer in December 2007, did you know then that he was hoping you would look favorably upon his request for help with the FDA? Put another way, was the campaign contribution — $2300, the maximum then allowed by law – the first you had heard of the device manufacturer and its problem with the FDA?
“If not – that is, if you knew of the device manufacturer’s problems with the FDA BEFORE you accepted the contribution – did you or anyone on your congressional or campaign staff (including fundraising consultants) indicate to the executive that his request would be far more likely to be given favorable consideration if it were accompanied by a contribution?
“If yes – that is, if you did NOT know of the device manufacturer’s problems with the FDA at the time you accepted the contribution – at what point, exactly, DID you become aware of the problems with the FDA? And at that point, did the fact that you had already accepted a contribution from an executive of the company raise any questions at all in your mind as to the propriety of offering assistance to a campaign contributor?
“The timing of the two contributions – the first, in December 2007, the second, in October 2008 – certainly seems interesting, given that the heavy lifting of the influence exerted by your office appears to have begun in December 2007. Would it be reasonable to draw the conclusion that the December 2007 contribution was an enticement to action, and the October 2008 contribution a ‘thank you’ for a job well done? If not, why not?
“We have many more questions for Mr. Pallone on this matter,” said Little. “But we don’t want to overtax him the way he overtaxes us. So we’ll just leave it here for now.
“Remember, you cannot change Washington without changing the people we send to Washington!”
Posted: October 15th, 2010 | Author:Art Gallagher | Filed under:Anna Little, Pallone | Tags:Anna Little, Frank Pallone | Comments Off on LITTLE TO PALLONE: WHAT OTHER DECISIONS DID YOU TRY TO INFLUENCE BECAUSE SOMEBODY GAVE YOU CAMPAIGN CASH?
(HIGHLANDS, October 14) – Republican Congressional challenger Anna Little – responding to a report in The New York Times indicating that her opponent, 22-year incumbent Frank Pallone, worked to overturn a decision by the Food and Drug Administration after receiving campaign contributions from a medical device manufacturer whose device had been unanimously rejected on multiple occasions by FDA scientific reviewers – today called on Pallone to tell his constituents what OTHER federal government decisions he has tried to influence on the basis of campaign contributions.
“Today The New York Times published a disturbing report about our Congressman, Frank Pallone, using his influence to get the FDA to approve a medical device after receiving campaign contributions from the device manufacturer,” said Little. “The device in question had been reviewed and rejected unanimously by FDA scientific reviewers over a number of years, according to a report issued by the FDA last year,” continued Little. “But under pressure from Frank Pallone and others, senior managers at the agency made a political decision to overturn the recommendation of their own reviewers.
“According to a report in The New York Times from last year, Rep. Pallone began making inquiries on behalf of the device manufacturer after receiving contributions to his campaign account — $2300 in December 2007 and another $1000 in October 2008 – from an executive of the device manufacturer. The inquiries began in December 2007.
“Here in New Jersey, especially, where we have long fought a corrupt political culture where ‘pay to play’ has been deeply embedded at the state and local level, it’s especially troubling to learn that our representatives in Washington apparently have been engaging in the same kind of activity.
“I don’t know which is worse – knowing that the FDA can be influenced by political pressures, or NOT knowing what other federal agency decisions Frank Pallone has tried to influence because a campaign donor asked him to. Perhaps Rep. Pallone can save us a lot of time and trouble by just telling us what other federal agency decisions he’s tried to influence based on his latest campaign needs?
“Remember, you cannot change Washington without changing the people we send to Washington!”
(HIGHLANDS, October 14) – Republican Congressional challenger Anna Little – responding to publication of an analysis by Americans for Tax Reform of the 111th Congress’ record on tax cuts v. tax hikes – today asked if her opponent, 22-year incumbent Frank Pallone, understands the difference between a tax “cut” and a tax “increase.”
“Its clear that Frank Pallone’s been in Washington too darn long,” said Little. “Apparently, he’s been there so long, voting for so many tax increases and so much more spending, that he’s now begun to confuse tax ‘cuts’ with tax ‘increases.’
“On NJN’s ‘On the Record’ broadcast over the weekend, he said the current Congress has enacted more tax cuts than any other Congress.
“Here’s his exact quote: ‘I mean, there’s been more tax cuts and efforts to try to, uh, uh, help businesses through tax credits or tax cuts in this Congress than in any other Congress.’
“But Americans for Tax Reform – the nation’s leading tax reform group – just yesterday published an analysis that essentially says Frank Pallone doesn’t know what he’s talking about. According to the ATR analysis, the 111th Congress enacted tax cuts totaling $373.6 billion, of which just $107.6 billion is permanent tax relief.
“Meanwhile, that same Congress enacted tax INCREASES totaling $725.7 billion, of which every single penny is permanent.
“That’s a net tax HIKE of $352 billion enacted by the current Congress. So Frank Pallone’s insistence that this Congress has passed more tax cuts than any other Congress leads me to ask a simple question – does Frank Pallone not understand the difference between a tax ‘cut’ and a tax ‘increase,’ or he is just willfully telling an untruth?
“Remember, you cannot change Washington without changing the people we send to Washington!”
Posted: October 14th, 2010 | Author:Art Gallagher | Filed under:Anna Little, Pallone, Press Release | Tags:Anna Little, Frank Pallone | Comments Off on LITTLE: DOES PALLONE NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TAX ‘CUT’ AND A TAX ‘HIKE?’ OR HIS HE DELIBERATELY TELLING UNTRUTHS?
Three weeks before the election and CD-6 candidate Anna Little is introducing the “Fair Tax” into the debate.
Yesterday before the Asbury Park Press editorial board and last evening before the Northern Monmouth Chamber of Commerce’s candidates forum, Little proposed eliminating the federal income tax and replacing it with a 23% sales tax. She spoke frankly of expanding the pool of taxpayers to the 50% of workers who do not now pay federal income taxes.
The state Democratic Committee and the Pallone campaign were both taping her remarks at the Northern Monmouth Chamber event. The sound quality was poor. Little should hope that it is not usable for Frank Pallone’s next commercial. She should stop talking about the fair tax and increasing taxes on people who don’t pay them now for the rest of the campaign. She should talk vaguely about reforming the tax code, if she must.
The fair tax is not necessarily a bad idea. However it is a radical change from our present system and easily demagogued. Little doesn’t have the resources to explain it and sell it to the public in the next three weeks. She has the resources to win, just barely.
45% of the voters don’t know enough about Anna Little to form an opinion, according to the Monmouth University poll, yet she is within single digits of knocking off the 22 year incumbent Pallone.
With three weeks to ago, Little can win if she addresses the voters anger over the economy and Pelosi-Pallone’s reckless spending. She can win if she returns to the empathetic and optimistic message she delivered so well early in the campaign.
Now is the time to keep it simple. Make Pallone defend himself. If Little spends the rest of the campaign defending her proposals, she looses. If she relates to voters concerns, which no one does better than she does when she is on her game, and reminds voters of the numerous reasons for vote against Pallone, she wins. Little doesn’t have the resources to convince voters to vote for her. The voters are already inclined to vote against Pallone. They just need a Little push.
Thursday 10/14: In their report issued this week http://www.sbecouncil.org/scorecard/ the Small Business Entrepreneurship Council released ratings for both the House and Senate for 2010. Both Central NJ Democratic congressional incumbents Frank Pallone and Rush Holt rated ZERO OUT OF 100. This information contradicts anything Pallone and Holt have been chirping on the campaign trail. Whatever boasts they have made about being a friend to the American small business owner are statistically laughable. To absorb the enormity (or lack thereof) of this rating, consider Tea Party favorites like congresspersons Ron Paul-Tx 95%, Michele Bachmann-MN 100% and senator Jim DeMint SC-100%.
In a slightly higher rating than Pallone’s and Holt’s dismal performance, NJ congressman Adler scored 23%
The business group itself issued the following guidelines to analyze the ratings:
Champion of the Entrepreneur: 90% – 100%
Advocate of the Entrepreneur: 80% – 89%
Friend of the Entrepreneur: 70% – 79%
Notice how the business group did not provide a scorecard key for ratings under 70%, instead leaving it to the savvy American voter to draw their own conclusion. A low rating is one thing, but ZERO? Our elected officials voted without fail against small business every and all the time? 23% for Adler? He didn’t come close to a 70%
So who exactly are these three gentlemen supporting? Who exactly are these men representing? Certainly not the heart of the American experience, our small businesses. Certainly not the constituent struggling to earn a living, raise a family and pay the bills
The Tea Party Movement and groups in NJ are careful to vet candidates before publicly releasing support. This cycle Ms. Anna Little, a staunch conservative and the THE banner person for the NJ Tea Party Movement is locked in a race with Pallone. I am comfortable in assuming Ms. Little’s congressional scorecard would be more in line with a Bachmann, a Paul or a Demint. Do we want our 6th CD congressperson on the side of American small businesses? I would hope so. It is quite apparent Pallone is not.
In the other races, Sipprelle (vs. Holt) has picked up some Tea Party support and is the product of the private sector himself and has built and operates a mid-sized financial firm. Do you see Scott voting 100% NO against small businesses, or even 23% of the time? I don’t. What is Rush Holt voting for? In the 3rd CD, challenger Runyan has opened lines of communication with local Tea Parties. Do we see Mr. Runyan improving on Adler’s 23% rating? I do.
If there was ever hard statistical data to prove the arrogance and unknown goals and aspirations of central NJ’s congressional incumbents, this is it. What are they thinking? What playbook are they following? Whose agenda are they supporting? I don’t have the answers to those questions but I do know two things;
1) American citizens yearn for a vibrant economy, energy independence, liberty friendly regulations and a government that knows its place in our lives.
2) All three of these congressmen do not share the vision of a vibrant, economically healthy America with a blossoming middle class. They do not share the vision of an realistic energy independent America. They do not share the vision of a liberty driven, business friendly atmosphere.
To return these three incumbemts to office would be an American travesty. To send Anna Little, Messrs. Sipprelle and Runyan to DC would be a Walls of Jericho trumpet blast to the detached inhabitants of congress and DC that we indeed, have had enough.
More Middlesex Musings heard it from the Pallone campaign. MoreMonmouthMusings got confirmation from the Little campaign.
Congressman Frank Pallone and Mayor Anna Little will debate on Sunday evening, 7 PM at Temple Shalom, 5 Ayrmont Lane , Aberdeen. The debate is being sponsored by the League of Women Voters.
