“Give ’em the old razzle dazzle” goes the refrain to one of the most entertaining and memorable scenes from the play “Chicago.” It seems President Obama drew inspiration from the production named after the city in which he began his political career.
Unlike many who have derided his performance as “flat,” I found it to be reasonably dynamic. It was passionately delivered and vague enough to be inoffensive. The bipartisan applause lines and sprinkle of humor were injected to create the impression that the president was humble and not asking for anything illogical. Just the good old post-partisan and centrist Obama from the campaign days. As the song “Razzle Dazzle” continues, “when you’re in trouble go into your dance.”
At points, I felt as if the President had become a subscriber to our paper and was reading my editorials. A few “Did he really say that?” moments include his calls to: eliminate the 1099 penalty from the health care law, cut the corporate tax rate, reduce frivolous lawsuits, simplify the tax code, and scale back burdensome and archaic regulations on business. If this was his State of the Union two years ago, it may have been remotely believable.
It didn’t take long to realize that the speech was to serve mostly as a distraction from the reality of the president’s agenda for the past two years, and his designs to do more of the same in the next two: more spending, bigger government and completely ignore entitlement reform.
During a meeting with business executives I attended last year, the consensus in the room was that President Obama was smart to jam and ram through the most unpopular and controversial aspects of his agenda in his first two years in order to focus on getting re-elected over the next two. While most opposed the policies, they recognized the virtues of the tactics. The “ram it through” strategy was made even more appealing considering the overwhelming majorities the president’s political party held in Congress.
But that strategy has consequences when the agenda does not represent the “will of the governed,” and primary among the casualties is the president’s desire to be viewed as either a centrist or post-partisan. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, his speech was undermined by the lack of his own credibility on the most critical issues he mentioned; job creation, deficit reduction and tax reform. That tension showed up in the speech itself. Even liberal columnist Paul Krugman commented in the New York Times on the speech: “We’re going to invest in the future — but we’re also going to freeze domestic spending. …I have no idea what the vision here was.”
Anticipating Republican charges that “investments” he promoted in his address were merely code for new federal spending we can’t afford, the president fashioned a pithy defense: “To borrow an analogy, cutting the deficit by cutting investments in areas like education, areas like innovation — that’s like trying to reduce the weight of an overloaded aircraft by removing its engine,” Mr. Obama said in a December speech at a community college in North Carolina. “It’s not a good idea.”
But in this defense lays the principle difference between Republicans and Democrats. The president and his Party believe the “engine” is the government and its bureaucracy, while Republicans believe the driving force comes from private enterprise and the American entrepreneur.
The unemployment problem facing our nation has made a sustainable and meaningful economic recovery very difficult. However, identifying the greatest impediment to resolving it is far clearer; it’s the uncertainty created by new government policies and burdensome regulations. In a two year period, private industry has endured the prospect of new health care mandates, attempts to regulate energy usage through a carbon tax, counter-intuitive financial regulations and the probability of the largest tax increase in American history in two short years.
Is it a wonder that corporate America is sitting on nearly $2 trillion in earnings, rather than investing in their own expansion? Without knowing what to expect over the next two years, the risk takers and job creators have had to assume a more defensive posture, relegating them unable to do what our economic system and workforce needs them to do, which is to grow and create jobs.
Rhetoric cannot replace a record of real achievement. After two years of “razzle dazzle,” the American people must demand more from this president.
When I learned of the tragic shootings in Tucson this past weekend, I was immediately taken back to a hot summer day just months ago, when I was standing at the Korean War Memorial in Washington DC reading the words “Freedom is not free.” Like most, I had viewed that phrase in the context of war. However, the horrific events of this past Saturday remind us that all too often civilians, public servants and occasionally political leaders are casualties in defense of our freedom, too.Promoting freedom is not something we only do in combat, but in living our lives in the American spirit and traditions so many fought to preserve, protect and defend. That is what Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was doing by hosting a “Congress on your Corner” event at a local grocery store. That’s what dozens of her constituents exemplified with their participation. That is the quintessential American political ideal in its most basic form.
Having lost my brother Paul in the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, I chose to believe that the lives of almost three thousand Americans that day were not lost in vain; that in some way, their loss helped our nation grow stronger and more resilient. As we try to understand what happened in Tucson, the focus should remain on mourning the tragic losses, which includes a nine-year-old girl interested in civics and government, by helping their families and community know that the death of their loved ones will bring us closer as a nation, not exacerbate our divisions.
Every tragedy invites an inevitable pursuit of blame and accountability beyond the obvious culprit. But the reality is that this crime came at the hands of a lone gunman who needed no more provocation than his own demons and delusions. The unpredictable, senseless and evil tendencies of a madman should not connect dots that need not be connected.
The shootings that occurred in Tucson are tragic on so many levels; but have little to do with a partisan agenda or volatile political discourse. As Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times, “There is no faction in American politics that actually wants its opponents dead. That may seem like a small blessing, amid so much tragedy and loss. But it is a blessing worth remembering nonetheless.” That should be our starting point while searching for the “teachable moment” that can emerge from this horror.
We know the shooter showed signs of being troubled, and like most assassins in modern American history, was likely mentally ill. Reports indicate that he suffered from isolation, paranoia and schizophrenia. It is our mental health system, not simply gun laws, that failed to protect society from such a dangerous character.
During my work on behalf of pediatric acquired brain injury, I have been shocked to discover how far behind we are in scientifically understanding and medically treating brain disease and injuries, even minor ones. What we do know is that there is a direct correlation between these issues in youth and adolescence leading to mental health and behavioral problems in adults. The fact that brain research remains grossly under-funded and treatment so poorly developed, means we are not addressing such a pervasive and devastating problem. Our society pays the price.
I was back in Washington DC last week, participating in many events marking the start of the 112th Congress. In my meetings with several members of Congress, I sensed universal optimism and excitement to begin doing the work the people sent them to do. Congresswoman Giffords clearly exemplified that spirit, and was quickly back to work meeting with constituents just a day after returning from the capital. What a great work ethic and testament to her respect for the office she holds.
In the wake of this tragedy, let’s allow her example to reign and not those of the political opportunists who seek to define this tragedy as a point of division in our nation. Those who died that day will not have done so in vain if we remain a nation unified in mourning and determined to move together past this devastating event.
.
I can imagine Menendez and Frank Pallone sharing a laugh over a latte about this one.
Also mentioned on what D’Aprile described as the NJ GOP’s “thin bench” are Monmouth County Senators Joe Kyrillos and Jennifer Beck, Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno, NJ Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean, Jr, and former Senator Bill Baroni, now a Port Authority executive.
Scott Sipprelle and Diane Gooch should be on the list of potential Menendez challengers, especially given the NJ GOP’s historical preference for U.S. Senate candidates with the ability to self-fund their campaigns.
Sipprelle should be on the top of the list, if he would do it. His temperment and policy ambitions are more suited for the Senate than the House. Politically, Sipprelle could compete well with Menendez in Bergen County, Western Essex and much of Passaic. Menendez’s stategy would be to dominate Hudson, Bergen, Essex and Passiac, according to Democratic strategist Tony Bawidamann as quoted by D’Aprile. Sipprelle, who lived in Bergen prior to moving to Princeton, is better suited to suppress Menendez’s support in the north than the other names on the list. With a strong showing in Monmouth and Ocean combined with a competitive north, Sipprelle might actually win.
A lot can, and probably will, change in two years. If President Obama’s popularity recovers with the economy and he’s poised to win New Jersey by 15% again, Little could be the GOP nominee because no one else on the bench would want the slot and if there are no millionaires like Gooch or John Crowley willing to wage a vanity campaign.
Like many of you, I had hoped for victory in our two local Congressional races on November 2nd. I thought that we had captured lightning in a bottle, with the Tea Party carrying Anna to success over Frank Pallone and Scott’s millions carrying him to success over Rush Holt. Like many of you, I was sorely disappointed.
However, that disappointment has now been replaced by bewilderment.
Who are these people?
It all started on Election Night, when Anna announced the creation of not one, not two, but three new Political Action Committees. Really, three PACs? How will she raise money for three new PACs? What purpose will they serve? That same night, her Campaign Manager told a reporter for the Two River Times, owned by Diane Gooch, that Anna was running again “Whether your boss plans on running or not”. This comment has sparked a “cold War” between Anna’s camp and Diane’s camp. Just plain dumb.
But perhaps it really started with Anna prior to Election Night, during the waning days of the campaign, when she alienated many of Anna’s Army by cozying up to the establishment hacks that began courting her only when it looked like she had a chance. Some thought she had abandoned the Tea Party supporters that had put her in the position to have a chance. There was talk of the Tea Party supporters “crashing” the stage when she claimed victory and had only establishment types on stage with her.
Meanwhile, back in Highlands, the Borough that has had “Little Government” for a few years, is in a fiscal nosedive. A massive budget deficit, layoffs, and talk of simply giving up and merging with Middletown or Atlantic Highlands are issues that have been left in the bag being held by the new Mayor. Is it any wonder that her hometown broke for Pallone?
Scott Sipprelle on the other hand, has now found someone besides Jamestown Associates and demographics to blame for his loss. He has been sourced as the writer of a letter sent to Mercer County GOP Chair Roy Wesley advising of a “no confidence” vote by the Mercer County Committee. (Let’s get one thing straight: Roy Wesley may very well be an incompetent Chairman. But that’s not the point)
You may recall that last Spring, Roy Wesley was the only one of five County Chairs that came out prior to any conventions and endorsed Scott Sipprelle over his opponents. Dale Florio in Somerset, Henry Kuhl in Hunterdon, Joe Leo in Middlesex and Joe Oxley in Monmouth all at least pretended to be neutral. It was only Roy Wesley, Chair in Mercer that publicly stuck his neck out for his hometown candidate.
How is he thanked? By Scott Sipprelle authoring a letter and airing Mercer County GOP dirty laundry all over the Trentonian and Politickernj. The letter clearly lays out an undercurrent of fault for Scott Sipprelle’s embarrassment in Mercer County. What the letter doesn’t mention is whether Roy Wesley was responsible for the decision to have Scott spend the last two weeks of the campaign defending himself from Rush Holt’s use of the property tax issue, instead of attacking Holt, or whether Roy Wesley was responsible for the “How do you pronounce my name” media campaign, or whether Roy Wesley was the one who told Scott to spend significant time and resources in Trenton, when he should have been increasing his lead in the suburbs.
Who are these people?
Is Scott Sipprelle a self-made millionaire with loyal Republican convictions? Or is he an ungrateful child who blames others for his short-comings?
Is Anna Little a Tea Party darling with all the right moves? Or is she an at-best average Mayor who believes her own press releases?
After a detente that lasted through the general election, the battle between CD-6 GOP rivals Anna Little and Diane Gooch seems to be heating up again. Little bested Gooch by 83 votes in the 6th district Republican primary last spring and went on to lose to incumbent Congressman Frank Pallone by 11%, which is the closest any Republican has come to Pallone since 1994.
Gooch didn’t exactly fade into the background after the primary, as is the custom for defeated primary candidates not named Lonegan. She stepped up her editorial writing in the TwoRiversTimes, the weekly newspaper she and her husband Mickey own. She formed Strong New Jersey, an issue advocacy organization that ran ads against John Adler in CD-3 and she funded an anti-Pallone ad for Voice for My Child.
Gooch returned the volley during this week’s edition of NJN’s On The Record with Michael Aron. She told Aron that if she felt she was the best candidate against Frank Pallone after the congressional districts are redrawn that she would run for the seat again. While praising the Tea Parties for the energy they brought to the campaign, Gooch said they made mistakes in some of the candidates they choose. She mentioned Delaware’s “I’m not a witch” Christine O’Donnell and Little as two of those mistakes.
Gooch’s appearance On the Record was broadcast this morning at 9 and 11. It will be broadcast again tomorrow at 6:30 am. As of this posting the program has not been posted on NJN’s website. If NJN’s webmaster follows the usual schedule, it will be posted here tomorrow after the final broadcast.
By Diane Gooch