Could Pallone Be A Redistricting Target?

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.

• Tweet

Abbott Ruling Prolongs The Insanity

By Diane Gooch

When the New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that the state must increase funding to 31 school districts in the amount of $500 million, it was both a gross display of judicial activism and worse, it perpetuated a bad public policy.

The Governor and Legislature, not the courts, should be deciding spending priorities, and while it is tempting to oppose this ruling on that fact alone, it is not the ruling’s most fatal flaw. That is why you see the Governor avoiding a confrontation with the legitimacy of the court’s action. Turning this into a battle over “separation of powers” will divert too much attention from the main event, which is how to change the state’s arcane and ineffective school funding formula to maximize the benefit to our students. Abbott districts were created by a court ruling in 1985 to mitigate the inequity in school funding between urban districts with higher poverty and suburban districts with more wealth. Subsequent court rulings and governmental actions have followed, all in an effort to equalize funding discrepancies. Since wealthier districts were able to benefit from significant stronger property tax revenue base, the Abbotts needed the state to compensate for their lack of funding with more education aid. In the mid-90s, attempts to equalize the districts included things like capping how much wealthier districts can spend on education and changing the spending ratio based on student population. Eventually, equalization in spending was achieved by the latter part of the decade. However, the inertia behind increasing funding to the Abbotts and limiting spending by wealthier districts became uncontrollable.

A tectonic shift occurred in the completely opposite direction. The more urban districts began spending more than the suburban districts at a growing and alarming rate.

For example, the average per child expenditure on education in New Jersey is roughly $12,000. Looking at Monmouth County, a wealthier school like Rumson spends roughly the average of $13,188. In Asbury Park, an Abbott district, it is $24,428.

We don’t ever think of public policy as having an expiration date, but it seems as if our funding formula is far past its optimal effectiveness. Included in that should be the notion that money solves the problem when it comes to education. This is evidenced by the continually poor performance of the Abbott school districts, despite sharp increases in education spending and a virtual monopoly of state education aid. That is why the most recent ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court is so flawed. It props up a system that not only fails the state’s taxpayers, but more importantly our public school students. Real education reform has to be student-centered and get greater accountability for the millions of dollars invested in our schools.

Unfortunately, it seems the New Jersey Supreme Court has come down on the side of those who believe foolishly that we can just throw more money to ‘at risk’ districts to get results. In short, this court action is best defined by Albert Einstein’s description of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

• Tweet

Diane Gooch Statement on Usama Bin Laden’s Death

“The world’s most notorious terrorist died as he lived his life; as a coward.  Our brave soldiers and intelligence officers deserve our eternal gratitude for their sacrifice and devotion to their mission of protecting America from those who wish to destroy us.  I thank Presidents Bush and Obama for pursuing justice to its conclusion and hope that this achievement will reunite Americans behind the global War on terror that our incredible military and intelligence personnel fight for our protection every day.  My family has worked to move beyond the tragedy that Bin Laden brought to us on September 11th, 2001.  He took my brother and countless friends that day, and it is on their behalf that I feel a measure of satisfaction in Bin Laden’s demise.”

• Tweet

A Drop Of Water In A Bucket Of Hope: My Trip To The South Sudan

By Diane Gooch

The elegant lobby of the Jefferson Hotel in Washington D.C. is about as far from the South Sudan as you can get, literally and figuratively. Yet this is exactly where my journey to one of the world’s poorest and newest countries began.    

Having been in Washington this past January to celebrate the success of fellow Republicans in the 2010 elections, it was actually my encounter with liberal political commentator Ellen Ratner at The Jefferson that would shortly lead to one of the most meaningful experiences of my life.  After being introduced by a mutual friend, we sat for hours talking about a range of issues, most of which we naturally disagreed on.  Our opinions intersected when it came to delivering humanitarian aide to the South Sudan, which was on the verge of voting for its independence from the rest of Africa’s largest country later in the month. 

This independence came at great expense, after more than two decades of civil war led to the slaughter of millions and the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Christian and traditionalist South Sudanese by the ruling Arab-Muslims in the North. The fighting was described to me as so intense and brutal, that even the animals fled the country. The war also institutionalized poverty to such tragic proportion that according to a recent World Bank report, approximately 85 percent of the people there live under a poverty line drawn at slightly more than $1 a day.

The referendum on secession prevailed by a 99 percent margin marking a significant political victory for the South Sudan and its international supporters, The United States most prominent among them. It was now time to address the human rights crisis, especially the unfinished business of returning an estimated 50,000 slaves back from the North.

Ellen has spent years working with the organization Christian Solidarity International (CSI), which has focused on the South Sudan well before the rest of the world took interest.  Through their efforts, more than 100,000 slaves have been liberated. Now, with a new nation secured, repatriation to their proper homeland has begun. 

I experienced two slave liberations on my trip with Ellen and CSI. Our delegation included several leaders in business and philanthropy, film-makers, a rabbi, a musician, a registered nurse and political commentators from the Democratic and Republican parties. 

Together, we witnessed the most deplorable human living conditions and at the same time the most uplifting testimony to hope and the human spirit. What the South Sudanese lacked in material comforts, they compensated for with kindness, openness and affection. We didn’t speak the same language, so our contact was often limited to a handshake, hug or understanding glance. But their embrace of us was real, and with hardly a word exchanged, they knew we were there to help.  

We visited a village that housed a polio clinic. We watched ladies without legs craft crosses that CSI would then sell to raise money to rebuild a school that burned down. I saw children who could not have been older than six years of age caring for infants and toddlers from the village.  Their sense of community and reliance on each other for support was awe-inspiring. The simplest act of recognition from our group elicited squeals of delight from the kids, especially when we would take their picture and show them the digital image.

Days felt as if they had no end, and every person and place began to blend together. Everyone we met needed the same basic things: clean water, proper nutrition, access to health care, etc. But there seemed to be this unexplainable abundance of hope everywhere we went. When we talked to villagers and slaves alike, all were so proud to have their own country and eager to restart their new lives.  

The emotional and spiritual climax came when we attended our first slave liberation. Hundreds of freed slaves walked for weeks in the dark of night and deep into the brush to avoid recapture. This has been a regular occurrence for two decades thanks to CSI, and it was clear that they had this process down.

What made this liberation ceremony unique was that Ellen had arranged for Rabbi Joseph Polak, of Boston University’s Hillel House, to celebrate the Passover story with the slaves. Having grown up on Long Island, I enjoyed the privilege of attending many seders with friends, but never did it occur to me that people in this century would endure a similar struggle.

Until the United States involved itself with the Sudan issue in 2005, the entire world seemed content to allow the first genocide of our century to remain unconfronted. It is impossible to fathom that slavery can continue to exist in the modern world.   

As I sit to write this column, weeks after our trip, I find it hard to transport myself back. Human nature helps us build walls to cope with what we can’t handle or understand, and my defense mechanism has kicked into to high gear.  I think about the slaves still in captivity and the kids we saw who had illnesses that will never be addressed.  “Will they live until their next birthday?” I would ask.  “Probably not” the region’s only doctor casually replied. I wonder if our being there really made a difference, or was it just a little drop of water in an ocean? 

Then I think of a boy named Kier. He was freed last year and now joins CSI at the liberations to reassure the slaves that they are safe.  His mother is still in captivity, and before his own release, his slave-master blinded him in both eyes.  Ellen has arranged for him to receive potentially life changing eye surgery in the United States, but he will need to be approved for a health visa first. 

Ellen was telling me the story when I suggested that I speak with Congressman Chris Smith who represents the Fourth Congressional District here in New Jersey, and is a good friend.  A true humanitarian, he serves as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa. My liberal friend turned to me and said, “Diane, he is exactly the one we need to help Kier.” 

I still think of our being there as representing only a little drop of water in the effort to help the people of Southern Sudan, but instead of being a drop into the ocean, I like to think of it as being one small drop into a great bucket of hope.

• Tweet

Standing Up To The Public Employee Union Bullies

By Diane Gooch 

If politics were a schoolyard fight, the most notorious bullies would be the leaders of the influential public sector unions. Their weapon of choice: the power to collectively bargain on behalf of their members, with absolutely no consideration for the taxpayers who actually pay the bills. The expedient alliance between the union leadership and politicians of both parties has built and enabled a system that has always been unfair, but today is unsustainable. Taxpayers have been beaten up for too long, with little to no help from the elected leaders whose job it is to protect the money used to finance government functions and services.

At the end of President Obama’s first year in office, the White House released a visitor’s log that identified a prominent union leader as its most frequent visitor. Andrew Stern, the president of the Services Employee Union International (SEIU) represented one of the country’s largest public employee unions. After his organization spent nearly $28 million to elect Barack Obama president in 2008, it was clear he would have a prominent voice inside the White House at a critical time.

Stern’s 22 listed visits came as the President was considering an auto bail-out that paid for the bad deals car companies made with the unions, the stimulus package that included payments to states to fulfill their obligations to public employees and a health care overhaul that ultimately exempted the unions’ “Cadillac health insurance plans” from the same mandates and scrutiny that every other American was subjected to.

In fact, of the over 200 entities that received temporary waivers from provisions in the new healthcare law, 45 were granted to union organizations. It is no wonder that the SEIU spent $44 million in the midterm elections in 2010, exclusively on behalf of congressional Democrats. Including spending by two other labor behemoths, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State Counties and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), big labor spent nearly $150 million dollars to preserve the Democrats majority in Congress. The taxpayers and an overwhelming majority of the American people had a different idea. With the results of the 2010 elections came a realization that the American people understood the challenges facing our states and nation better than most of the politicians and special interests that have dominated the political discourse for far too long. Newly elected reform minded governors, such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio, also benefited from the example of a fellow reformer elected a full year ahead of them, and who had made a decade’s worth of progress in addressing his own state’s challenges; Chris Christie. 

These leaders are doing their part to change the way their states do business and are making the tough choices that can come with a significant political risk. The unions are doing their job fighting them every step of the way, attempting to use the bullying tactics and threats that have worked for them for so many decades. For example, the New Jersey Education Association collected roughly $100 million of dues from about 200,000 members last year. How are they spending this money? In a $300,000 per week radio campaign encouraging higher taxes instead of budget cuts. Luckily, the old rhetoric of unions is lost amid the greater noise coming from the taxpayer revolt. It’s that noise that has to continue and convert into a sustained campaign among the taxpayers to counter the voices of a very vocal, and frankly better organized, minority of union interests who have never been faced with the sort of political opposition we are seeing today. When we find political leaders with the courage to do what is right, we have an obligation to back them up, not just stand on the sideline watching them fight the fight for us. We all learn in school that the only way to discourage a bully is to stand up to him. We’ve all seen that Chris Christie has the will and the backbone to endure $300,000 a week of name-calling and taunts from the teachers unions. If we see the same from like-minded reformers in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere, and “we the people” stand with them, we will see the fundamental change we voted for in November, become a reality. If we stand by and allow these leaders to get overwhelmed by an opposition who believes that union workers should remain a privileged class, exempt from sharing the pain of a nation suffering a genuine crisis, than we would have no one to blame for our high taxes and dysfunctional government that ourselves.

• Tweet

SOTU = The Old Razzle Dazzle. “When you’re in trouble go into your dance.”

By Diane Gooch

“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.

• Tweet

Freedom Isn’t Free

By Diane Gooch

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.
.

• Tweet

Little mentioned as U.S. Senate candidate

Maybe that explains her irrational behavior in Highlands

By Art Gallagher

Hat tip to InTheLobby for this tidbit.

TheHill.com’s Shane D’Aprile mentioned Anna Little as a possible challenger to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez in his article, New Jersey GOP lacking a name to face a more vulnerable Menedez.

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.

• Tweet

Scott and Anna have jumped the shark

By Fred Lehlbach

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?

I remain bewildered.

“Fred Lehlbach” is a pseudonym for Central Jersey Republican

• Tweet

Little-Gooch Battle Continues

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.

After announcing her 2012 candidacy for Congress in her concession speech  on Noveber 2, Little tossed the first post election volley at Gooch when her campaign manager told a TwoRiverTimes reporter, “We’re planning on running whether your boss decides to run or not.”

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.

• Tweet