Rush Holt’s Shameless Manipulation Of the Bean Family
By Art Gallagher
It is sad to watch a highly esteemed member of our community be so easily manipulated by a heartless politician shamelessly fighting to save his career.
Make now mistake about it. Rush Holt is, and has been, manipulating Greg and Linda Bean, the former editor of the Greater Media Newspapers and his wife, for his own desperate political purposes.
Back in September, Greg accused this blog of conspiring with the Sipprelle campaign to play “dirty tricks” on the Holt campaign. Bean said he was convinced that the Sipprelle camp had put me up to posting “Abram Spangel’s” Rush Holt Champions Infanticide post and that Spangel is a pseudonym of mine. The truth is that the Sipprelle campaign wanted to distance themselves from Spangel’s posts before Greg reacted to that one. I am not Spangel. Bean milked the controversy he created for a couple of weeks in his column in the Greater Media newspapers and on their website. I maintain that Bean was looking to attack Sipprelle and used this blog as his excuse to get started.
In case your unaware, Greg and his wife Linda lost their son Coleman to suicide in September of 2008. Coleman had served two tours in Iraq and was seeking treatment from the VA for post-traumatic stress syndrome. Holt and Bean blame Coleman’s suicide on a “gap in the system” that doesn’t serve members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), reservists who are not assigned to a unit. Greg wrote:
“He fell through the cracks. He had no advocate, no Army machinery to help him find his way through the system. He felt he was literally on his own. He made appointments with the VA to have an ulcer treated and to obtain treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Those appointments were postponed. He was still waiting when he took his own life.”
Holt reached out to console the Beans after their loss. Whether his initial gesture was genuine or political only he and God know. Since then, Holt has obviously been exploiting his relationship with the Beans for political purposes. During the spring of this year Holt promoted the legislation he introduced “to close the gap” in mental health care available to members of the IRR with great emotion and fanfare. He had the Beans testify in Washington and “earned” a lot of free media in the central jersey papers.
In his closing remarks at the Rider University debate with Sipprelle, Holt brought up the Bean legislation–“out of nowhere”–it had not been a topic during the debate–as a reason to reelect him.
Now the Holt campaign has an ad featuring the Beans tugging on the heart strings of 12th district voters, as if Holt’s efforts on their behalf are a reason to give the congressman another term:
In the ad, Greg Bean says Rush Holt has “worked on this (legislation) tirelessly.” Holt hasn’t work on it tirelessly.
Linda Bean says, “what we are talking about is legislation that will save someone’s life.” The legislation will not save anyone’s life.
Greg says, “Congressman Holt has actually been better than his word.” He hasn’t.
Holt approved the message and he has orchestrated the manipulation of the Beans.
Holt’s Congressional website, the one we taxpayers pay for, says the legislation he introduced in memory of Sgt. Coleman Bean has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. It has not passed the House. It is buried in the Military Personnel sub-committee of the House Armed Forces Committee. Holt lied to the Beans and he is lying to his constituents on the website they are paying for.
Holt’s Congressional site, the one we pay for, goes on to say that on July 28 the House unanimously passed his amendment to allocate $20 million into the Fiscal Year 2011 Department of Veterans Affairs budget for direct advertising and the use of online social media for suicide prevention outreach. The House passed the funding bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it awaits Senate passage.
Amendment to what bill Holt doesn’t say. But that it awaits passage in the Senate means it hasn’t happened.
If Rush Holt actually has worked tirelessly on his Bean legislation, he is incompetent. The legislation is not law. It is a campaign piece. It will not save any lives. If Rush Holt has been “better than his word” that is because his word has never been any good.
There is a strong argument to be made that Holt is incompetent. In the current Congress he has introduced 38 pieces of legislation. None became law. In the 110th Congress he introduced 52 bills. None became law. In the 109th Congress Holt introduced 50 bills. One, a resolution (not a law) passed the House and the Senate. That resolution recognised the 40th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s promulgation of Noestra Aetate. None of them became law. And so it goes.
Holt knows that the legislation he introduced for the Beans will never become law. He’s just using them for his campaign.
Hopefully the Beans will not be too bitter, or embarrassed, when they smell the coffee.
And hopefully Greg’s involvement in Holt’s campaign hasn’t cost him his column at Greater Media. His byline has been removed from their websites. Maybe that is just temporary until the election is over. If not, my offer to Greg to be published here stands.
Posted: October 22nd, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Greg Bean, Rush Holt | Tags: Coleman Bean, Greg Bean, Linda Bean, Rush Holt | 7 Comments »Sipprelle responds to the Neptune Nudniks
By Scott Sipprelle (Published in today’s Asbury Park Press)
The Asbury Park Press’ recent editorial endorsement in the 12th Congressional District race correctly described the contest between 12-year incumbent Rep. Rush Holt and me as providing voters a stark choice between two very different candidates with different visions about the future direction of our country.
Beyond that, the editorial read more like one of Rush Holt’s negative campaign attacks against me – nasty in tone and short on facts. I thank the editorial board for allowing me the opportunity to respond and set the record straight.
First, I encourage everyone reading this to visit my website at www.supportscott2010.com and read my comprehensive “Blueprint for Renewal.” I am confident they will find it to be the most detailed and thoughtful series of position papers put forth by any congressional candidate in the country this year.
I set out to run a positive campaign of ideas and I am proud to have done just that.
Now, on to the specific issues:
The editorial board falsely accused me of opposing insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. This is a completely fabricated claim that has been promulgated by Holt. In fact, my website lays out a novel plan for large national insurance pools of “uninsureds,” grouped by medical specialty that would be subsidized by federal dollars.
The editorial board also parroted one of Holt’s misleading attacks against me regarding unemployment benefits, quoting a statement they claim was extracted from my campaign website. My campaign website has never had any reference whatsoever to unemployment benefits, another mistake that indicates a sloppy research effort by the Press or an excessive reliance on talking points distributed by Holt.
The truth is that while congressional Democrats have offered to extend benefits indefinitely and congressional Republicans have called for cutting them off immediately, I have discussed a sensible compromise that is both compassionate and fiscally responsible, while focusing on the critical task of rebuilding America’s economic engine.
The best social welfare net is a job. Holt has no plan to create private sector jobs; he is offering just more of the status quo.
The board’s most ridiculous attack against me was regarding partisan politics. The fact of the matter is Holt votes with his party nearly 99 percent of the time and believes any idea offered by a Democrat is good and any idea offered by Republican is bad. He’s part of the problem in Washington and has contributed mightily to the toxic environment there.
On the other hand, I have supported a reform Democrat for mayor in my hometown of Princeton against an entrenched political machine, and I took considerable flak during the Republican primary for my financial donations to Democrats with whom I agreed on certain issues. There is only one candidate in this race who has demonstrated a willingness to reach across the aisle to solve problems – and it is me.
Less than two weeks from today, voters will go to the polls to make a historic decision. I would like them to believe I am the candidate who can make America work again.
Posted: October 22nd, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Asbury Park Press, Neptune Nudniks, Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Tags: Asbury Park Press, Neptune Nudniks, Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | 6 Comments »Sipprelle – Holt Debate
In case you missed it, last night’s debate between NJ-12 Congressional Candidates Scott Sipprelle and Rush Holt can be heard in six segments at statehousesteps.com
Posted: October 19th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Tags: Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Comments Off on Sipprelle – Holt DebateSipprelle – Holt Debate Tonight
Rush Holt, fresh off his visit with the crazed sex poodle , refused to appear with Scott Sipprelle last evening at Temple Shalom in Aberdeen. MMM was busy editing video of the Little-Pallone debate. Politickernj has summaries of Holt’s and Sipprelle’s appearance at the temple.
Holt won’t be able to avoid Scott this evening as they face off in their second debate, 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m, at Young Israel of East Brunswick 193 Dunham’s Corner Road, East Brunswick . The debate is co-sponsored by the Middlesex County Jewish Federation and the Monmouth County Jewish Federation and will be moderated by NJ101.5’s Eric Scott.
Posted: October 18th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Tags: Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Comments Off on Sipprelle – Holt Debate TonightRush Holt Outed in Newly Released Book
I recently read Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception by New York University Professor Charles Seife. On the jacket cover, Professor Seife writes, ”Bogus mathematical arguments are being used to undermine our system of justice, to implement shortsighted policies that threaten our security, to dismantle our social institutions, and to undermine our voting system.”
Much of Proofiness was slanted against Republicans. And Professor Seife seems to have bona fida liberal credentials and supporters as his work has been praised by The New York Times, The Washington Post and Salon.com.
Thus, I found it shocking that the one sitting US Representative outed for his deception and chicanery was none other than our very own Rush Holt. In hundreds of pages of well-researched narrative, Professor Seife documents how the politician’s policies—such as Voter ID, voter suppression, redistricting and manipulation of census results—subvert elections and cheat the electorate of its right to have its views fairly represented in elections. (Perhaps this isn’t surprising given Holt’s refusal to even issue a statement critical of the New Black Panthers’ intimidation of voters at a polling station in Philadelphia in 2008.)
Further, Professor Seife provides the reader with insight into Holt’s history of using seemingly compelling statistics for his own interests at taxpayer expense. Professor Seife writes:
“In 1992, future New Jersey congressman Rush Holt was the spokesperson for the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, a high-tech facility devoted to fusion research. Unfortunately, the future of fusion in the United States was getting increasingly grim. As spokesperson, Holt had to try to justify to the public—and to legislators in charge of the budget—why the laboratory should consume tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in the quest for fusion energy.
Holt bolstered his case with several dramatic slides, scatter plots of data…showing that the more energy a society consumes, the longer its citizens live. The message was that taxpayers should pour money into the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory to research future sources of energy. (Fund us if you want your children to live.)
Holt’s graphs showed that there was a tight relationship—a “correlation”—between power consumption and life expectancy; the higher the power consumption, the higher the life expectancy. However, it’s a classic mistake to say that you can increase life expectancy by increasing power consumption. Power plants don’t lead to long life any more than garbage, Internet usage, newspapers, fast food, or edible underwear do. Holt’s presentation, in fact, was a vehicle for a kind of proofiness that I like to call causuisitry.”
Rush Holt has been an embarrassment for central New Jersey for the past twelve years. However, with explosive revelations like these, Rush Holt is on the verge of becoming a national disgrace. If he is re-elected, he might well be indicted for vote tampering before the next session of Congress convenes.
Postscript: I thought the wackadoos supporting Holt were in favor of reducing energy consumption. I suppose drive-by values can’t get in the way of gorging at the taxpayer-funded trough.
Rush Holt’s Arrogance is Astounding
By now, we have all seen the video of Junior grabbing the microphone away from Rhoda, linked here.
We have all heard Junior lecture us at Town Hall meetings. I say “lecture” because Junior doesn’t hold Town Halls to listen to you, his constituents, he holds them to tell us why he knows better. Remember, he believes he is smarter than we are, and therefore, doesn’t care what we think.
The following hand written notes from Rush that have been forwarded to me illustrate the basic arrogance of Rush Holt. The first one says:
“I hope you now see that the bill would make healthcare more affordable for your business and employees. I know that at the town meeting (you)(sic) did not want to believe me.”
I should tell you that the hand-written portion was at the end of a three page form letter where Junior simply repeats all of the talking points that were trotted out to support the healthcare bill, and which we now know to be falsehoods. But Rush Holt is so sure he is right, that, like a four year old, he is incapable of reason. You are not smart enough to understand.
Look at the second note:
“You may think this is a form letter, as you say my climate bill letter to you, but this is my reply to you- although I must say, it is difficult for me to figure out what you are really thinking amid your angry, insulting ravings”
Unfortunately, it was exactly the same letter that the first note was written on. So it was a form letter. See, Rush doesn’t believe his opponents are smart enough to compare notes.
But look at the tone and language of the note, calling his constituent, who was voicing his opinion, angry, insulting and raving. I will tell you what is insulting, Junior, and that’s your tone and language toward your constituents.
But even more fascinating is what some amateur handwriting analysis tells us about the notes. I am paraphrasing a report on his handwriting here:
Because Rush has sharp needle pointed ‘m’ and ‘n’ humps, he has a very sharp mind. He instantly sizes up situations, making instant decisions…he may be seen as highly intelligent. Rush is often irritated by slow talkers or slow thinkers.
His handwriting tells us that Rush is moderately outgoing, and that his emotions are stirred by sympathy and heart rendering stories. (Like a typical liberal). His handwriting tells us that he will be somewhat moody, with highs and lows. Sometimes he will be happy, the next day he might be sad. Or insulting, like in the notes.
The handwriting is that of someone who will demand respect and will expect others to treat him with honor and dignity. Rush believes in his ideas and will expect other people to also respect them. He has a lot of pride.
Rush can be defiant. He sometimes has the attitude that if someone doesn’t like it the way he is doing it, then they can just “go to hell!” (This is actually a direct quote from the handwriting analysis report, and is borne out by the tone and language of the notes themselves.)
Rush is sarcastic. This is a defense mechanism designed to protect his ego when he feels hurt. He pokes people harder than he gets poked. These sarcastic remarks can be harsh, bitter, and caustic.
Rush has a tendency to put things off, Rush procrastinates. He sometimes pretends to be busy, so he will not have to do whatever he is putting off. He is often late to appointments or deadlines.
Anyone who has been to an event with Junior knows he is often late.
I think this analysis pretty much sums up Rush Holt: harsh, bitter, defiant, prideful, demanding of respect, irritated if he thinks he is smarter than you.
Not exactly the kind of guy you want in Congress, is it?
The Sipprelle-Holt Debate, #1
A replay of the debate between Scott Sipprelle and Rush Holt which was held yesterday at Rider University can be view by clicking here.
Posted: October 15th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Tags: Debate, Rider University, Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Comments Off on The Sipprelle-Holt Debate, #1CD 12 Debate
Scott Sipprelle and Rush Holt will debate this morning, 11:45-12:45 at Rider University.
The debate will be webcast live and can be viewed by clicking here.
Posted: October 14th, 2010 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Tags: NJ-12 debate, Rush Holt, Scott Sipprelle | Comments Off on CD 12 DebatePallone and Holt Rated ZERO By Small Business Council (Adler Not Far Behind)
By Mark Falzon, VP Jersey Shore Tea Party
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.