Across The Delaware May 30 2008
Over in Jersey, the Dems have wracked themselves in another intercene primary, but this one seems to have gotten dirty fast. Examine this site:
You’ve had a good run, but we can’t afford the status quo.
You’ve voted against saving American jobs. As we lost jobs here in New Jersey, your company added jobs overseas. The facts.
New Jersey has lost ground since you went to Washington in 1982.
You’ve been in Washington since the early 1980s, but our situation has gotten worse. In fact, New Jersey now ranks dead last in the amount of money it gets back from the federal government. We need a Senator who will fight for our fair share. The facts.You haven’t been straight with us on Iraq.
Both before and after the Bush administration sent U.S. troops into Iraq, you said you unequivocally favored the military invasion. You even said you were “on the President’s train” regarding the War. The facts.
It goes on.
A response? You betcha:
In his first primary debate last night, Senate candidate Rob Andrews ran away from Rep. Rob Andrews’ 18 year record of voting against the interests of New Jersey families.
Andrews said he opposes the war in Iraq – but failed to mention that he bragged about working with Bush and co-authoring the resolution getting us in. [Congressman Rob Andrews Press Release, September 29, 2002, Op-Ed Submitted to the Gloucester County Times]
Andrews said he supports a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq – but failed to mention that he voted three times again withdrawing the troops. [HR 1815, Woolsey amendment, Vote #220, 5/25/05; HR 2601, Ros-Lehtinen amendment, Vote #397, 7/20/01; HRes 612, Vote #648, 12/16/05]
Andrews said he supported a short-term energy policy to alleviate the suffering Americans are facing at the gas pump – but failed to mention that he once said: “I think the best short-term energy policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” [Fox News Channel, April, 2002]
Andrews said he opposes a border fence with Mexico – but failed to mention that he voted with the Republicans to fund it. [HR 6061, Vote #446, 9/14/06; CQ Today, 9/13/06]
Andrews said he supports repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – but failed to mention that he voted to provide a $185 billion tax break to multi-millionaires. [HR 8, Vote #84, 4/04/01; Dallas Morning News, 4/5/01]
Congressman Rob Andrews is running against incumbent Frank Lautenburg. The whole situation is wrought with irony – the type of irony that brings me joy. Andrews is using the age issue, the one which Lautenburg used against Millicent Fenwick, who was much younger than Lautenburg is now. The state Democratic party has admonished Andrews for his temerity, but most of the Congressmen are ambitious Democrats like Andrews. Further, this election is for Toricelli’s seat, the same Torricelli who accepted illegal donations and was hounded out of office by desperate Democrats in 2002. The likely GOP nominee, Dick Zimmer, ran against Torricelli in 1996, and can run as a vindicated opponent.
If the issue of corruption is distant in the mind of New Jersey voters, this story should serve to make it clear:
After a protracted legal battle, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Paul Innes today ordered Gov. Jon Corzine to release about 740 pages of email correspondences between him and union leader/ex-girlfriend Karla Katz.
Katz, of course, was the woman who benefited from a forgiven loan/payment/bribe of about $500,000. No explanation has been given for this obvious conflict of interest.
Am I the only one who finds the entire situation completely and obscenely ironic?
Possibly Related...
Comments, compliments or complaints?