The hopes of Middlesex and Monmouth County mayors, freeholders and legislators hoping to move to Washington in early 2015 as the newly elected representive of the 6th Congressional district were set back a bit this morning by a new FDU Public Mind Poll that shows Newark Mayor Cory Booker dominating the Democratic field to replace Senator Frank Lautenberg.
Congressman Frank Pallone has been considered Booker’s main competition for the 2014 Democratic U.S. Senate nomination among the media and political establishment. However, 12th District Congressman Rush Holt has almost twice the support among self identified Democrats than Pallone does, according the FDU survey.
FDU surveyed its respondents cable news viewing habits, polling the trustworthiness of CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC. Given Holt’s surprising showing, they should have surveyed how many of their respondents are Jeopardy fans. Holt is famous for being a five time Jeopardy winner and beating IBM’s supercomputer, “Watson,” on the TV trivia game show.
Booker leads the Democratic U.S. Senate field with 50% support. Pallone got only 4% and Holt 7%. 32% of the respondents are unsure and are probably Wheel of Fortune fans.
Frank Pallone aged 30 years
Unless Booker becomes incapacitated running into fire, shoveling snow, or leaping a tall building in a single bound, Pallone is likely to remain in the House of Representatives until he’s Launtenberg’s age.
Monmouth Democratic Chairman Vin Gopal, Marlboro Mayor Jon Hornik, former Edison Mayor Jun Choi and Carteret Mayor Dan Reiman best hopes for becoming a congressman is if Gerald Rivera manages to beat Booker next year in the general election and then Pallone beating Rivera in 2020. But that is not much of a hope, as FDU says Booker will beat Geraldo 52%-21%.
Posted: March 13th, 2013 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: 2014 U.S. Senate race, Cory Booker, FDU Public Mind Poll, Frank Lautenberg, Frank Pallone, Geraldo Rivera, Pallone, Rush Holt | Tags: Cory Booker, Dan Reiman, FDU Public Mind Poll, Frank Pallone, Geraldo Rivera, Jon Hornik, Jun Choi, Rush Holt, Vin Gopal | 2 Comments »
Our friends at Politickernj have gone old school in the new media age. They are using a long abandoned journalistic tool to find out what their subjects are really thinking: Alcohol.
Last week Max Pizarro got some tipsy Democrats to reveal what they really think of President Obama:
“But I’m at the point with Barack Obama where I don’t like him,” the source added – then whispering under the bar buzz – “I hate him.”
“He’s not a leader,” a second high-powered Democrat groaned. “Say what you want about Christie, but he knows how to wield power. Barack doesn’t.”
“He’s very thin-skinned,” said the source. “He can’t deal with criticism, that’s why he’s going to Africa with his family on a safari. Is he nuts? A safari in this economy?”
The Democrats Pizarro drank with think Obama is still a lock to win New Jersey’s 14 electoral college votes handily next year. That is the conventional thinking. However, I bet those same Democrats thought in 2008 that the equally disliked Jon Corzine was a lock for reelection.
Turning their attention to New Jersey gubernatorial politics, Politickernj’s Back Room got blank stares from two “Democratic Party bigshots” drinking on condition of anonymity when asked to speculate who would challenge Governor Christie in 2013.
Newark Mayor Corey Booker? “Newark is too much of a wreck,” and “his time has come and gone.” Congressman Bill Pascrell? Would have been great “ten years ago.” Senator Barbara Buono? “We need someone outside of Trenton,” like Christie was in 2009.
Looking outside of Trenton, the drinking Democrats see Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rush Holt:
“If Frank gets banged up in redistrcting he may be the best guy to do it,” said the first source. “He’d be ticked enough, angry enough, he could easily unite the progressive wing of the party. He’s got the money. Obviously, he has no strong friends among the bosses. That could be a problem. The question goes to whether he would want to be governor. I’ve always heard his primary interest is senator.”
MMM hereby throws its unequivocal support behind Pallone for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2013. We’d love to see him get “banged up” in redistricting….like putting Long Branch into Chris Smith’s district…setting up a race between the two most senior members of the New Jersey congressional delegation that Smith would win easily, assuming Pallone chose to compete. Given the choice of running against Smith for congress or retiring and launching a gubernatorial bid, we think Pallone would challenge Christie. After losing his first statewide race against Christie, Pallone could launch his 2014 U.S. Senate campaign, assuming Frank Lautenberg retires again.
Holt for Governor? We hope those guys had a designated driver.
“Yes, I admit he’s not the world’s greatest speaker, but he’s gotten better,” said the second source. “Plus, he’s a good campaigner. Rolls up his sleeves. He gets it. He realized he had a legitimate challenge from Scott Sipprelle (last year), and he rose to the occasion.”
Posted: July 12th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics, 2013 Gubernatorial Politics, Chris Christie, Chris Smith, Congressional Redistricting, Cory Booker, Frank Lautenberg, NJ Democrats, Pallone, Rush Holt | Tags: Barack Obama, Barbara Buono, Bill Pascrell, Chris Christie, Chris Smith, Corey Booker, Drinking with Democrats, Frank Pallone, Rush Holt | 1 Comment »
By Art Gallagher
The Star Ledger’s Auditor is raising the question.
The members of the Redistricting Commission must be appointed by June 15. The Auditor says he/she was told that Democratic State Chairman John Wisniewski plans to void the appointment of Belmar resident Maggie Moran to the commission. Moran, former Governor Corzine’s deputy chief of staff and campaign manager, was appointed to the commission by former Chairman Joe Cryan, at Pallone’s urging, as one of Cryan’s last acts before turning the chairmanship over to Wisniewski.
Moran, who is the wife of Belmar Mayor Matt Doherty, is supposed to be Pallone’s eyes and ears on the commission. Her removal would be a blow to Pallone, according to The Auditor, this year in particular as New Jersey is losing a congressional district. One incumbent congressman will lose his job regardless of the electoral outcome. The Auditor implies that Democratic boss George Norcross and Republican Governor Chris Christie would like that incumbent to be Pallone.
How would that work?
Pallone’s 6th district borders the 4th, 7th, 12th and 13th districts. He resides in Long Branch which is in the south east coastal part of the district.
While it is entirely possible in New Jersey that a gerrymandered district that includes Long Branch of Monmouth County could be combined with Clinton Township in Hunterdon County, home of 7th district Republican Congressman Leonard Lance or West New York, Hudson County, home of 13th district Democratic Congressman Albio Sires, neither scenario is likely.
Combining Pallone’s 6th with Rush Holt’s 12th would make sense based on geography as the 12th shares the largest border with the 6th. Even though neither Pallone or Holt is particularly well liked by Democratic leaders in New Jersey or Washington, it is unlikely that the Democrats would surrender a district without a fight.
Which would leave a match up between New Jersey’s two most senior congressmen, Pallone who has been in Congress since 1988 and 4th district Congressman Republican Chris Smith who has served since 1981. While it would be unusual that seniority be discarded as an incumbent protection consideration during a redistricting battle, an argument could be made along the lines of “continuity of representation.” Pallone first went to Congress as the representative of the 3rd district after the death of Congressman James Howard. Much of the pre-1992 3rd district is now part of the 4th.
Even with his $4 million war chest, it is hard to imagine Pallone beating Smith in a combined district that includes southeast Monmouth and portions of Republican Ocean and Burlington counties. Smith would dominate in his Mercer home turf.
Pallone vs. Smith would be a great race. It probably won’t happen. I’ll explain why at the end of this piece. But first let’s have some fun speculating about the fallout of such a district.
If Long Branch and Pallone are moved south into a district combined with portions of Smith’s (of Hamilton in Mercer County) 4th district, it would make sense that the Northern Monmouth portions of the present 6th district would be folded into the Rush Holt’s 12th district.
That would create an interesting race for the GOP nomination in the 12th. Diane Gooch, Mike Halfacre, Anna Little, and Scott Sipprelle could all be contenders for that nomination.
Little beat Gooch for the 6th district nomination primary by 83 votes before losing to Pallone by 11% in the 2010 general election. She declared that a loss of only 11% was a victory and launched her 2012 race against Pallone in the weirdest election night concession speech ever. Since election night 2010 Little has alienated herself from both her local Tea Party and establishment GOP supporters. She’s chomping at the bit for a rematch with both Gooch and Pallone, but she’s referred to as a “coo coo bird” by former supporters. A Pallone-Smith match up would wreck havoc on her delusions. Only Little, her family and Larry Cirignano, her escort/handler/manager/driver/tenant, believe Anna Little will ever be nominated for congress again.
Halfacre, the Mayor of Fair Haven, has been kicking himself for bowing out of the race for the 12th district nomination since Tea Party candidate David Corsi beat Sipprelle in Monmouth County in the 2010 primary. Sipprelle won the nomination by virtue of his margin of victory in Mercer, Middlesex, Somerset and Hunterdon before losing to Holt by 7% in the general.
Halfacre was the Tea Party favorite during his contentious race against Sipprelle for the party lines in 2010. Sipprelle won all the county party lines and Halfacre correctly concluded that a primary against Sipprelle without at least the Monmouth or Middlesex lines was not winnable. Corsi’s Monmouth victory naturally lead to “what ifs?” Little’s narrow victory over Gooch created additional “what ifs?”
But the self funding Sipprelle did not spend any money to defeat Corsi. Gooch took victory over Little for granted in the primary. Given how contentious the Sipprelle-Halfacre county conventions/screenings were, it is likely that a primary between to two would have been bloody and expensive. Halfacre couldn’t have matched Sipprelle’s money.
Halfacre would have a heavy lift to regain his Tea Party support. If either Gooch or Sipprelle seek the nomination, he would have a heavier lift to raise the money necessary to compete. After Little’s victory in the 2010 primary, it will be a long time before any candidate or county party organization takes a Tea Party challenge for granted. Halfacre’s best hope for a nomination against Holt is for both Gooch and Sipprelle to conclude that 2012, a presidential year with Obama leading the ticket, is not the year to take on Holt.
Both Gooch and Sipprelle are staying in front of the party faithful. Gooch with Strong New Jersey and Sipprelle with the Lincoln Club of New Jersey, organizations each has founded since losing their respective races. Gooch has been open about wanting to run for congress again, depending on how the districts are drawn. Sipprelle has been coy about a future candidacy.
A Gooch-Sipprelle primary defies imagination. Given the money both could spend on such a race, a deal would likely be brokered by the state and county party chairmen before it would occur. But if ego got the better of either of them, it would be quite a race. A more sensible sceanario would be for one of the millionaires to take on U.S . Senator Robert Menendez while the other takes on Holt.
So while redistricting Pallone and Smith into the same district could make the Republican nomination contest in the Holt’s district more interesting, a Pallone-Smith battle is unlikely even should a district be drawn that way. Should such a district be drawn look for Pallone to retire from the House and use his hefty war chest as a down payment for a statewide race for Governor in 2013.
Pallone’s $4 million war chest would clear the field of Democratic candidates for Governor, unless Chris Christie isn’t a candidate or has anemic poll numbers, neither of which is likely. Christie would love to defeat Pallone, which he would but it would probably be a close race. Pallone would then run for U.S. Senate in 2014, assuming Frank Lautenberg finally retires.
Posted: June 5th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Anna Little, Chris Christie, Chris Smith, Diane Gooch, Frank Pallone, Lincoln Club, Mike Halfacre, Pallone, Redistricting, Robert Menendez, Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle, Strong New Jersey, Tea Party | Tags: Albio Sires, Anna Little, Chris Christie, Chris Smith, Diane Gooch, Frank Lautenberg, Frank Pallone, Lenard Lance, Mike Halfacre, Robert Menendez, Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | 8 Comments »
By Art Gallagher
The Kansas City Star thinks it’s newsworthy that New Jersey Congressmen Frank Pallone and Steve Rothman, along with Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez were found to have exerted pressure on the FDA to approve a knee patch that had insufficient scientific backing to be approved for patient care, prompting the FDA to rescind its approval of the project.
The Bergen Record covered the story. So did phillyburbs.com , who ran the Associate Press coverage.
Nothing from the Asbury Park Press or MyCentralJersey.
Someone(s) from Gannett visited MMM 16 times today. They read my story about the lack of coverage and the Little campaign’s press releases about it. At least we know that someone at Gannett knows about it. Maybe they’ll cover it tomorrow.
They’ve been busy writing about the fact that someone started a website to draft Governor Christie to run for President, even though Christie repeatedly says he’s not running. What’s newsworthy about that? Anyone can start a website. I even did it!
They’ve also been busy writing about a few people (28 out of 40,000) who complained about getting Gerry Scharfenberger’s reverse 9-11 call too late in the evening.
I can understand how the fact that a 22 year incumbent congressman who is up for reelection was found to have inappropriately influenced the federal agency that is charge with guarding our food, and assuring the safety of our medicine and medical devices, in exchange for campaign cash, might slipped by them. Now that we know that they know, I’m sure they’ll cover it. Don’t you think?
The Gannett papers wouldn’t let their bias influence what news to report, would they? Especially after writing a scathing editorial earlier this year about Rupert Murdoch donating $1 million to conservative causes. The wrote so eloquently about how hard legitimate journalists work to be unbiased.
I’m sure they just haven’t gotten to Pallone’s graft and putting the health of thousands of Americans at risk yet. Now that they know about it, I’m sure they’ll cover it. Don’t you think?
Posted: October 15th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Pallone | Tags: Asbury Park Press, FDA, Gannett, MyCentralJersey, Pallone, RGen | 1 Comment »
(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!”
Yesterday’s New York Times report: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/health/policy/15fda.html?_r=2
Last year’s New York Times report: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/policy/25knee.html
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?
Like clockwork, Greg Kelly has the calendar here.
Sunday evening is jam packed for the 6th congressional district:
At 5PM Governor Chris Christie, “America’s Governor” who is not running for President, will rally with Anna Little and her supporters at the American Legion in Piscataway.
Then at 7PM, Little will debate Frank Pallone at Temple Shalom in Aberdeen.
Do you think the announcement of the Christie rally had anything to do with Pallone agreeing to debate Little 2 hours later? I do.
Do you think Governor Christie will attend the debate? I hope he does, doubt he will, but it wouldn’t shock me.
Posted: October 14th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Anna Little, Chris Christie, Greg Kelly, Monmouth County Life, Pallone, Weekend @ Monmouth | Tags: Anna Little, Chris Christie, Frank Pallone, Weekend @ Monmouth | Comments Off on Weekend@Monmouth
By Art Gallagher
The FDA made an extraordinary and unprecedented move today when it announced that it was rescinding its 2008 approval of a medical device. The FDA said that the approval was made in error, after the product had already been rejected, based upon political pressure made by Congressman Frank Pallone and Steve Rothman as well as Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez. All four knee jerks waged their campaign for the product’s approval by the FDA after receiving significant campaign contributions from the product’s manufacturer.
It’s pretty big news when a federal agency reverses itself and cites the inappropriate, if not illegal, actions of four federal legislators from the same state as the reason for their errant decision. Don’t you think? Some might say it is something of a scandal. No?
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, Fox, The LA Times, TIME and many others thought it was newsworthy today.
Not so the NJ Media outlets. The Star Ledger’s NJ.com has a difficult to find article on the matter, but their piece doesn’t mention Pallone, Rothman, Lautenberg or Menendez.
The APP and MyCentralJersey have nothing on it. The Associated Press, the news syndicate the APP and MyCentralJersey(the website for the Courier News and the Home News Tribute) get much of their news from, published a the story, with the knee jerks named, at 4:30 this afternoon.
The Little Campaign issued at press release on the matter, questioning what else Pallone has sold his office for, at 5:05 this afternoon.
Maybe the story broke too late in the day for the Neptune Nudniks and their MyCentralJersey brethren and they will cover it tomorrow. What’s the Star Ledger’s excuse from editing out Pallone, Rothman, Lautenberg and Menedez from the story? The Star Ledger subscribes to the Associated Press too.
My guess is that they are unfair and biased, i.e biased and pretending not to be.
UPDATE: It has come to our attention that the APP has a reporter working on a story about Gerry Scharfenberger’s reverse 9-11 call about recycling, with a political rather than budgetary or environmental slant. That’s a higher priority than Pallone selling his office and putting patients’ health at risk.
Posted: October 14th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: FDA, Pallone | Tags: Fair and Biased, FDA, Frank Pallone, Main Stream Media, RGen, Unfair and Biased | 10 Comments »
(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!”
Today’s New York Times report: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/health/policy/15fda.html?_r=2
Last year’s New York Times report: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/policy/25knee.html
Posted: October 14th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Anna Little, Pallone | Tags: Anna Little, Frank Pallone | 1 Comment »
(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!”
You can read the ATR analysis here: http://www.atr.org/final-tally-th-congress-obama-democrat-a5482
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?
