Rahm Emanuel Is Sending Rich, Dumb Dems To Christie

Frank Lautenberg died Sunday night. He was, at 89 the oldest member of the Senate, had been ill for a long time and his death doesn't surprise many. Now Obama's BBF, Gov. Chris Christie gets to appoint a successor. Lautenberg was a dependable progressive across the board. His ProgressivePunch crucial vote score was 94.05, just between Barbara Boxer and Tammy Baldwin. Although, like many of his wealthy liberal colleagues, he sometimes joined with the Republicans to pass corporate-friendly policies, there were no issues he wasn't one of the best in the Senate on. Christie is not likely to pick someone nearly as good-- on any issues.

Today is primary day in New Jersey, although neither Republican incumbent Christie nor Democratic challenger Barbara Buono has any real competition. Buono's problem is that-- largely thanks to Obama and a superficial media-- Christie has an undeserved reputation as a moderate. His record is that of a hard core right-winger, far out of step with most New Jersey voters. Buono has been having a hard time raising money and Christie is busy defining her before she can define herself. So far Christie has raised $6.6 million and Buono has raised $2.3 million. The Newark Star-Ledger reported yesterday that Christie has been reaping a great deal of money from Democrats, many sent his way by Rahm Emanuel, a conservative with many of the same pro-Wall Street policy agendas as Christie. I know it isn't politically correct to say "retarded," but that's probably the best way to describe the "Democrats" writing big checks to Christie.

Christie’s partnership with New Jersey [super-corrupt] Democratic leaders and his warm relationship with Obama after Hurricane Sandy could be enticing donors who don’t often give to GOP candidates, even if they are closer ideologically to Democrat Barbara Buono, Christie’s lesser-known challenger, political scientists and Democratic fundraisers say.

"While I do not agree with his stance on every issue, he is one of the best political leaders I have talked to in a long time," said Ken Rosen, a UC-Berkeley professor who cut a $3,800 check to Christie after chatting with him at two events. "He is willing to take on tough issues such as pension reform, education reform, mental-health issues, even if his views are not politically correct."

...Tim Mullen, a Chicago investor who gave more than $100,000 to Emanuel’s campaign for mayor in 2011 and bundled from $200,000 to $500,000 for Obama in 2008, has also sent Christie a maximum donation, as has his wife Alice. Mullen was already a Christie donor in 2009, state records show.

...Brigid Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University, said much of Christie’s Democratic support stems from a recent fundraiser in California with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. If those West Coast donors knew more about Christie’s conservative record inside the Statehouse-- vetoing a same-sex marriage bill and minimum-wage increase, for example-- they might not be so eager to open their wallets, she said.

"These are exactly the type of donors (Buono) would need in order to put a chink in Christie’s armor," Harrison said. "For people who do not live in the state of New Jersey, Christie’s bipartisan rhetoric is wildly appealing, particularly for those who don’t scratch beneath the surface."

This blog has endorsed Buono and you can contribute to her campaign here. Maximum contribution is $3,800. And there is no minimum. Do you hate Chris Matthews? Add an extra $5 to what you want to contribute to Buono.

Frank Lautenberg (1924-2013)

The senator in 2010

by Ken

I know it's in terrible taste, but instead of paying tribute to New Jersey's senior senator, who died today of viral pneumonia at 89, I'm going to jump to the political aftermath. I'm afraid I can offer only two justifications:

(1) I don't know quite what to say about the senator -- at least nothing that DWT readers don't all know. At a time when it becomes harder and harder to identify authentic liberals in the U.S. Senate, I think he's as close as they come. For some prompting regarding his Senate legacy, ThinkProgress's Igor Volsky offers a nice appreciation, noting:

Throughout his long career in the Senate — he held two different Senate seats — Lautenberg championed a long list of progressive causes from women’s health to gun safety, LGBT rights, and anti-tobacco laws, making him one of the loudest and most effective lawmakers of his time.

And Igor offers "just a short list of some of Lauten berg's most progressive causes and accomplishments."

(2) Then there's the practical reality that the senator's health had deteriorated to the point where discussions of "what comes next" have already become commonplace. As Salon's Steve Kornacki writes:

The New Jersey political world – and that most certainly includes Chris Christie and his inner circle – was well aware of Frank Lautenberg’s failing health long before he succumbed to viral pneumonia Monday morning at age 89. The senator’s rapid decline had fueled months of quiet and uncomfortably morbid conversations between and among members of both parties, who sought to balance basic good taste with the very practical questions that Lautenberg’s passing would raise.

Kornacki also offers detailed political comment on the likely players in the succession drama, but he had to update his own partial misreading of the legal situation under New Jersey law, since separate laws envision different outcomes: a special election this year, or a special election next year. So I'm going to go instead with Sean Sullivan's washingtonpost.com take:

Christie faces key decision over appointment to Lautenberg seat

The popular first-term governor could, as is often the case in situations like these, choose to select a close ally from his own party as a replacement for Lautenberg. State law says the governor “may” appoint a replacement, and it’s hard to see Christie leaving the seat vacant. A few obvious possibilities are state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., the party’s 2006 Senate nominee; Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno; and Joe Kyrillos, a close Christie ally whom the GOP nominated for the Senate in 2012.

Of course, it’s possible — though less likely — that Christie would appoint a Democrat to the seat. He is campaigning as a bipartisan governor in a very blue state, after all. Tapping a Democrat would be seen as a major stroke of bipartisanship. Replacing a Democrat with a Democrat and then saying the voters should decide what happens next in November would no doubt be very well received by Democrats and moderates.

But such a move would be politically perilous for Christie and would run the risk of angering Republicans, the last thing Christie needs if he has any designs on running for president in 2016. He has already stoked some concern among conservatives by embracing President Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

Because Lautenberg had already announced he was not running for reelection in 2014, the Democratic race to replace him has been in full swing. Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) has been actively exploring a bid and has been viewed as the clear frontrunner ahead of the regularly scheduled 2014 election. Rep. Frank Pallone (D) also has been considering a bid.

Booker had long been seen as a potential Christie opponent leading up to this year, but he opted to run for the Senate instead. Christie and Booker have a good relationship, which they have poked fun at over the years. If there is a Democrat whom Christie might be tempted to appoint, Booker would be that Democrat.

Christie will also have broad authority to set a special election for the seat. But when that will happen is unclear. Because of the high costs associated with holding an election, setting an election to fill the seat for Nov. 5, 2013 seems like the natural choice. New Jersey is already holding its off-year state elections at that time. Christie is running for his second term this year, and polls show he is a substantial favorite.

But New Jersey special election law is a somewhat murky, with two provisions that are difficult to square up. One rule states that if the vacancy occurs more than 70 days before the next general election (as it does in this case), then it will be filled in the next general election. Simple enough.

Another, however, reads that if the vacancy occurs less than 70 days before the primary — this year’s primary is set for June 4, so were are within that window – the election wouldn’t be held until 2014, unless Christie calls for an earlier special election.

On one hand, appointing a Republican replacement this year and affording that person more than a year to build a Senate record and a base would seem to work to the GOP’s advantage. But running a GOP candidate alongside a popular Christie in 2013 might also represent Republicans’ best chance at an unlikely win.

If there is a special election this year, it seems likely that Booker will be on the ballot, one way or the other. Even if Christie doesn’t appoint him, he’s already begun laying the groundwork for a Senate bid and would be an obvious choice for Democrats to nominate for the special election.

There is also the question of what a 2013 Senate election would do to Christie’s own odds. If Booker is running for the Senate this fall, he will fire up a Democratic base that Christie’s opponent, state Sen. Barbara Buono (D), could try to tap into herself.

In short, there are many variables at play.

This much is clear: Whoever wins the Senate seat this year (if there is an election) will have to turn around and immediately run for election again in 2014.

With Christie considered a strong favorite for reelection, it was looking to be a quiet year in New Jersey politics, at least in statewide races. But not now.

Does Gov. Chris "Tub o' Slime" Christie at least get a coupla points deducted for lying his putrid guts out?

Do the three fingers mean that the governor plans to tell only three lies, or that he's only telling three lies at this exact moment?

carte blanche n. Unrestricted power to act at one's own discretion; unconditional authority. [Fr.: carte, document + blanche, blank]

-- The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition

"Canceling the tunnel, then the largest public works project in the nation, helped shape Mr. Christie’s profile as a rising Republican star, an enforcer of fiscal discipline in a country drunk on debt. But the report is likely to revive criticism that his decision, which he said was about 'hard choices' in tough economic times, was more about avoiding the need to raise the state's gasoline tax, which would have violated a campaign promise."

-- from "Report Disputes Christie's Basis for
Halting Tunnel" by the NYT's Kate Zernike

by Ken

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey exaggerated when he declared that unforeseen costs to the state were forcing him to cancel the new train tunnel planned to relieve congested routes across the Hudson River, according to a long-awaited report by independent Congressional investigators.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.

Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey's share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.

-- from Kate Zernike's NYT report (see above)

Well, now, I think Kate is just being polite when she says that Governor Blimpo "exaggerated." The appropriate word here would be "lied." When you yammer about unforeseen costs, and all the known costs were already on the table, that's not an exaggeration, it's a lie, especially when you make up numbers that don't actually exist anywhere. "Misstated," in the third paragraph, seems more accurate -- a merely politer way of saying "lied."

What's more, it should be clear to anyone who recalls the brouhaha when the Blimp That Talks announced his astonishing reversal of the tunnel project, a potentially vital piece of additonal New York-New Jersey transport infrastructure, that those things that he exaggerated/misstated/lied about were in fact the pillars of his case for taking the drastic step.

Man, I could just spit!

It was just yesterday that I was talking, yet again, about the right-wing extremists' now-official unlimited License to LIe, drawing on testimony from Paul Krugman and James Surowiecki about the basic lyingness of Paul "You Don't Have to Choose Between a Crackpot and a Liar" Ryan's phony-baloney "deficit reduction" budget.

As Surowiecki pointed out in a New Yorker "Financial Page" column, "Call That a Budget?," "[T]he simple truth is that [Ryan's budget] plan is not an evenhanded attempt to solve America’s long-term budget problems. It’s a profoundly radical document, its proposals skewed by ideological biases."

Krugman, meanwhile, was exploring (in his NYT column "The Gullible Center") what he called "the Ryan phenomenon," curious not about the man ("a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class") but about "the cult that has grown up around Mr. Ryan -- and in particular the way self-proclaimed centrists elevated him into an icon of fiscal responsibility, and even now can't seem to let go of their fantasy."

Well, our Paul (Paul K, that is) could with a minimum of effort produce a parallel column about "the Christie phenomenon," about the cult that has grown around the Karl Rove collaborator who, after just barely getting himself elected governor of New Jersey in a three-way race that included a deeply unpopular Democratic incumbent, quickly wangled his way into the political spotlight "as a rising Republican star, an enforcer of fiscal discipline in a country drunk on debt," as Kate Zernike puts it in her NYT report on the impending GAO report.

Between them, Ryan and Christie demonstrate how large an opening there is at present for a make-believe "icon of fiscal responsibility," engaging in the masquerade because (a) it plays well to gullible voters, and (b) it provides such fine cover for their actual radical right-wing agendas. Let's not forget how much mileage the Gasbag Governor got out of demonizing the public-employee unions he so cleverly and lyingly portrayed as What's Wrong With the Country -- a pack of lies that has been coming apart for the equally mendacious and extremist governors of Ohio and Wisconsin.

I don't think it's any stretch at all to apply to Governor Christie the logic that Krugman laid out yesterday for approval for Paul Ryan among the new wave of fake "centrists," who aren't really in the center of anything but have merely staked out some political turf as above-the-fray brokers between the unacceptable extremes. Krugman argued that their reason for existing depended on the possibility of, you know, responsibly splitting the difference.

The "centrists" needed to pretend that there are reasonable Republicans, so they nominated [Mr. Ryan, "an ordinary G.O.P. extremist, but a mild-mannered one"] for the role, crediting him with virtues he has never shown any sign of possessing. Indeed, back in 2010 Mr. Ryan, who has never once produced a credible deficit-reduction plan, received an award for fiscal responsibility from a committee representing several prominent centrist organizations."]

It's worth noting that the GAO report that brands Governor Gasbag as a liar was requested by NJ Sen. Frank Lautenberg. I think we need to give him credit for not simply accepting the heaps of bullshit the governor was dumping on an otherwise alarmingly acquiescent public. And on the basis of what we know about the report, please understand that we're not talking about a "difference of opinion," or even a "difference of emphasis." On the most basic issues solemnly thrust at us to defend his decision, he was simply lying. We know this now with 100 percent certainty.

Blimpo just assumed that the people, in the media as well as the general public, he was talking down to are low-grade morons who could be hornswoggled with his phony posture of fiscal rectitude, the pretense of being the Man Who Blew the Whistle on Decades of Left-Wing Largesse. If anyone can figure a way he didn't know that his entire announced rationale for pulling the plug on the tunnel was a tissue of fabrications, I'd love to hear it.

I suppose it's just a matter of time now before the overstuffed tool of the 1% (and its tools; I think he thinks of his "constituency" as being the white-collar criminal class that looks to fatten up on the trickled-down crumbs of the economic elites) pulls on those jumbo super-flame-retardant pants for a press conference at which he announces his resignation, on the ground that he's simply too dishonest to hold public office.


AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR
PHONY ICONS OF "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY" . . .

Can we at least hope that, for example, when the Washington Post runs a story under the game-changingly dramatic-sounding headline "Health-care law will add $340 billion to deficit, new study finds," that a growing number of readers will take it for granted that with a minimum amount of knowledgeable poking around the new "study" -- by reality-based pokers, of course -- it will be revealed to be 99.9 percent lying bullshit?

Ah, it won't matter. By then all the licensed-to-lie lying liars of the Right-Wing Noise Machine will have adopted it as a fact that there's a "new study" that shows that the health-care law will add $340 billion to the deficit.

#

YESTERDAY'S PRIMARIES

Turnout was strong in South Dakota and Montana today. But these last two presidential primaries are by no means the end of the primary season, not when there are hot races from New York to Alaska. I think the last one is Massachusetts, where the Republicans have redder faces than usual, on September 16. From the progressive point of view, we have important campaigns culminating in Georgia on July 15 (pitting "Voice of the Voiceless" state Senator Regina Thomas against corporate shill and Bush Dog John Barrow), Alaska on August 26 (where progressive grassroots candidate Diane Benson is contending with 2 establishment insiders, Ethan Berkowitz and Jake Metcalfe for the seat the voters will be taking away from Republicrook Don Young), and Virginia (where a week from today Leslie Byrne is battling corrupt war profiteer associate Gerry Connolly).

Early today South Dakota's Secretary of State was estimating a 40-45% turnout among Democrats (normal is 15-40%) and a 25% turnout among dishearted and discouraged Republicans. In Montana they were expecting close to half of the state's Democrats to vote, a 10% increase over 2004. Obama had already clinched the nomination before today's voting was halfway over.

As for Blue America we had some wins and some losses today. Although reactionary Dem Leonard Boswell had a close call, he managed to retain his seat; big disappointment! Our other candidates won today: Martin Heinrich in New Mexico, Dennis Shulman in New Jersey. We'll update on California later, although I was delighted to see L.A.absentee voters decisively turned down racist loon Bill Johnson despite concentrated support from the Paulista camp in an abysmally low turnout election. We were also happy to see NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg, one of the most progressive members of the Senate, win decisively against right-leaning, Bush-supporting Democratic Congressman Robert Andrews. All the New Jersey primary votes are here.


UPDATE: MORE RESULTS

James Bianco beat racist maniac Bill Johnson 346,510 (73.87%) to 122,548 (26.13%). Hard to imagine that many people could have voted for someone with Johnson's views, although it's likely they didn't know what he was all about.

Also in California, Russ Warner took 70% of the vote in CA-26 and will face ultimaqte Republican rubber stamp David Dreier. On the right, California Republicans in the extreme north of the state had to pick between a mainstream conservative, Doug Ose, and off-the-cliff extremist, Tom McClintock. They picked the fanatic loon (of course) giving him 54% of the vote-- and making it easier for Charlie Brown to win in November.

NEW JERSEY SENATE PRIMARY: PASS THE POPCORN

Jersey mishmash

This has got to be one of the craziest contests in the country. The New Jersey GOP has been trying to find a challenger for popular progressive Frank Lautenberg all year. And everyone they come up with turns out to be a dud. After all the first and second tier candidates turned them down flat, they started rooting around for something to stick on the ballot. One of the early disasters was someone's chatty right-wing dentist, Joey Pennacchio, who turned out to be so extremist that he had taken out his crayons and written a kooky 94 page manifesto calling for the Nationalist Party to replace the GOP (which wasn't far right enough for him). It is, basically, a blueprint for a new American Nazi Party made up of the less mainstream two-thirds of the GOP and some Confederates who still hate the Republicans because Lincoln took away their great grandparents' slaves. He turned out to be a bit much even for the whackos and wingnuts who run the state Republican Party. So they moved on to a slick, drunken, sleazy-- and most important, wealthy-- New York nightclub owner (who claims he will move to New Jersey), Andy Unanue. After his trial records came to the public's attention he did move-- but to Colorado, where he went into hiding and eventually, withdrew from the race.

Part of the reason he withdrew was because the same party leaders who talked him into running and then introduced him to the public in glowing terms asked him to take a walk when they started reading more about him. John McCain had also read about him and he went berserk and demanded the Jersey GOP get someone in there who wouldn't depress Republican turnout. He then personally talked a biotech executive, John Crowley, into running. Like many Republican businessmen interested in politics, one doesn't have to scratch too deeply beneath the surface to see that Crowley has some serious ethics problems and many people predicted that he would soon join the other New Jersey rejects.

This morning PolitickerNJ is reporting that Crowley-- McCain or no McCain-- is out of the race already. And what's worse (for the GOP) is that Unanue is threatening to jump back in. I have a suggestion. Why don't the Republicans just get behind right-of-center Democrat Robert Andrews, who is challenging Lautenberg in the primary? He may not be as extremist as what they normally like but he has been a dependable rubber stamp for Bush on the war and on several other important GOP issues.

CONSERVATIVE, PRO-WAR NEW JERSEY DEMOCRAT TAKES ON SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG

In 3 days it will be the one year anniversary of my lunch with Frank Lautenberg. I'm quite certain that it had nothing whatsoever to do with me, but in the time since we met he's been the single most progressive member of the U.S. Although Durbin, Whitehouse and Menendez are close behind him, Frank ranks #1. Right wing media and simplistic media will tell you Obama is the most liberal (or Hillary is the most liberal, depending on who their target is) but ordered by their comprehensive voting scores from 2007-08, Frank gets a 99.38. For the sake of comparison, Barbara Boxer has a 97.09, John Kerry has a 94.57, and Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold are all clustered around 93. Frank is strong in every single area and is 100% on the 40-some-odd roll calls regarding Iraq since he was elected.

Today one of New Jersey's least progressive and most ambitious Democrats, Rep. Robert Andrews, announced he would challenge Senator Lautenberg in a primary. Still smarting from being bypassed when Jon Corzine was elected Governor and then appointed the far more progressive Menendez to his former Senate seat, Andrews is going up against much of the Democratic state establishment to make this bid.

The mere prospect of their battle has already exposed geographical and demographic rifts that party leaders have long tried to play down. Most of the party’s leaders in South Jersey, led by George E. Norcross III, a Commerce Bank executive, are supporting Mr. Andrews as an agent of change, while most of the party’s leaders in North Jersey, led by Mr. Corzine, are favoring Mr. Lautenberg’s bid for a fifth term.

Andrews is trying to play down the ideological differences between them but the fact of the matter is that if he replaces Lautenberg, the Senate will be a bit more conservative, especially on the war in Iraq where Andrews has been far more of a rubber stamp for the Bush-Cheney agenda than any other member of the New Jersey delegation. In fact on international and military matters in general, Andrews is often on the wrong side. His Iraq War voting record is abysmal. starting with 100% support for the 4 resolutions on October 10, 2002 authorizing Bush to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq. Those 4 crucial votes alone, that saw Andrews cross part lines and vote with the GOP, should be enough to persuade progressives to flee from his campaign. Since then, he has frequently rubber stamped some of the worst aspects of the Bush Iraq agenda. And he's always so proud of himself for being a Benedict Arnold. After his disgraceful vote he wrote an OpEd urging war and joined Bush to celebrate: "Yesterday, I joined with President Bush and a bipartisan coalition of Senators and House members to announce that we have approved the final text of the Iraq Resolution… I am honored to have worked closely with the President to develop this bipartisan proposal because I believe that Saddam Hussein poses a very clear and present threat to the entire world." If nothing else, it shows him to have very poor judgment.

And aside from voting with Bush on Iraq again and again, Andrews is the New Jersey Democrat most eager to betray progressive values and idea on a wide range of issues. Recently (August 2, 2007) he voted with the Republicans against pharmaceutical reimportation (after taking over half a million dollars from Big Pharma and health care industries since coming to Congress). Earlier that summer (June 27, 2007) he abandoned Democrats to vote for anti-union legislation in trade agreements. The month before that he joined the Republicans to vote against abolishing defense contractor sweetheart deals for retiring military officers. One year ago supported Bush when Democrats tried rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. In September, 2006 he joined the GOP to vote for the pointless and ineffective boondoggle border fence. In 2005 he voted for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag burning. He also joined the GOP in 2005 to vote for their heinous lobbyist-written bankruptcy bill that penalizes working and middle class families while letting corporate criminals skip off scott free.

Robert Andrews would make a wretched replacement for Frank Lautenberg. If you have friend or family in New Jersey, please tell them. Juan Melli at Blue Jersey has a very detailed comparison of the two candidates based on issues. There are 7 Democratic congressmen from New Jersey and all six of Andrews' colleagues have endorsed Frank Lautenberg and have pledged to run on his line in the June 3rd primary. Frank Pallone, Donald Payne, Bill Pascrell, Steve Rothman, Rush Holt, and Albio Sires, none of whom are Republican shills like Andrews, made a joint statement he probably didn't want to hear: "Frank Lautenberg is New Jersey's senator and we stand with him. He delivers for New Jersey in the U.S. Senate and is invaluable to our state. That is why we will run in our home counties on the same line with Senator Lautenberg in the Democratic primary."

NEW JERSEY REPUBLICAN PARTY FALLING APART?

Sen. Frank Lautenberg needs some popcorn

The New Jersey Republican Party has been unable to attract any first or second tier candidates to defend red House seats let alone challenge Democratic incumbents. The most startling failure has been in finding anyone remotely credible to run against Frank Lautenberg. They finally settled on an extreme right wing dentist, a Joey Pennacchio. Unfortunately, only days after being embraced by the Republican Establishment, Murray Sabrin, a Libertarian who also would like Republican voters to consider him, distributed a 94-page manifesto the dentist had written calling for replacing the GOP with a more hard right political entity called the Nationalist Party which bears a strong resemblance to the Nazi Party. At that point the NJ GOP soured on the dentist and dug up an alcoholic night club owner, Andy Unanue.

The latest entrant in the race in New Jersey for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, Andy Unanue, said he would bring to the post his business experience as former chief operating officer of Goya Foods.

But Unanue's tenure as a top executive at the company his grandparents founded was short-lived. He and his father were ousted by other family members in 2004, and his management skills were sharply questioned.

During a trial on a lawsuit about the firings, a company vice-president testified Unanue came to work drunk at least five times, possibly more. Unanue denied that, but admitted he had come to work hung over and drank a lot at company parties. "Work hard, play hard. That was my motto," Unanue testified.

Republicans are trying to hype Unanue as a successful and legitimate businessman who could help improve the economy. Imagine McCain's reactionary agenda... but on booze. The Republican response is to whine that Lautenberg's campaign snitched out Unanue, although all his drunken escapades are part of court records from when he was kicked out of his family-owned food company (for acting like a dick and coming to work too drunk to work). Unanue calls himself a "financial consultant." His NYC Meatpacking District shady nightclub is the Kiss and Fly. Seeking to embarrass Unanue, who is a political novice, Murray Sabrin challenged him to a debate, lashing out at the State Republican Party Chair in the process: "Tom Wilson and the failed Republican Leadership are trying to hang on to their limited power by recruiting a slick playboy nightclub owner from New York City to run for the United States Senate...What's next? The manager of the Bada-Bing Club to run for Governor?" Even the dentist has pointed out that Unanue doesn't know anything about anything, taunting him by suggesting that "before he enters the race, the newly minted candidate Unanue ought to share his views on five key issues: how he plans to 'work towards victory in Iraq and execute the War on Terror,' how he would work towards achieving energy independence, how he would make health care more affordable, where he stands on lowering taxes and stopping government growth and his views on stopping illegal immigration."

The national Republicans don't care. They've written off the seat as a Democratic win and just don't want to have to spend any money there. Unanue may be a worthless drunk but he comes from a wealthy family and can finance his own hopeless campaign.

UPDATE: JUAN HAS MORE

Unanue hasn't pulled out of the race yet? BlueJersey isn't happy about the voter fraud aspect to this guy's stillborn campaign. After his staffers lied to reporters all day about his residence Unanue finally admitted that he is a legal resident of the state he actually lives in, New York. "Millionaire Andy Unanue-- who launched his first bid for public office Sunday and has since been wooing GOP leaders via conference calls while on vacation in Vail, Colo.-- said he did not know if he broke any laws or rules by continuing to vote and registering his car in New Jersey, using the Alpine address of his parents." But confusion about where he lives and whether or not he is guilty of voter fraud is just one of many problems facing Unanue's 4 day old vanity campaign for the U.S. Senate. According to the transcript of his 2004 trial, Unanue was playing around with the idea of running for Congress and had Goya Foods pay $12,000 for a political consultant. Federal campaign finance law prohibits corporate funding of candidates or prospective candidates testing the waters. Unanue admits the payment was a mistake that may have been cleaned up when the lawsuit was settled. May have been? I can't find any records at the FEC website that it was cleaned up. This is the best the Republican Party of New Jersey could come up with? What a mess!


UPDATE: MORE WOES FOR THE JERSEY GOP

After failing to attract a first or second tier candidate to run for retiring Congressman Mike Ferguson's seat (NJ-07) in north-central New Jersey, the GOP is stuck with a gaggle of brawling, squawking monkeys all vying for the honor of being decisively beaten by Union County Assemblywoman Linda Stender. Linda came within a handful of votes in 2006 of beating the incumbent and, sensing this was going to be a far worse year for Republicans than 2006 was, Ferguson cut and ran. The motley crew seeking to replace him is a pretty sad statement on what the modern Republican Party in New Jersey has turned into.

THE GOP IS STUCK WITHOUT CREDIBLE CANDIDATES-- RESORTS TO RUNNING CERTIFIABLY INSANE PEOPLE IN MONTANA & NEW JERSEY

Max Baucus, DLC

Earlier today, we pointed to South Dakota as a red state the Republicans are giving up on for the 2008 Senate race, leaving Tim Johnson, once considered to be vulnerable, without a credible opponent. They're not even running candidates in Arkansas against any of the congressional incumbents (a senator and 3 House members). And in New York, anyone with enough of their own money to self-finance gets the GOP slot. They have all third and fourth tier candidates in districts they were bragging they planned on "taking back" just a few months ago.

But few of their loser candidates are as weird as Shay Garnett one of the half dozen or so Republicans seeking to challenge Max Baucus in Montana. The 34 year old truck driver decided to enter the race because he just hates Baucus. Baucus is a DLC shill and I'm no fan either-- but Garnett has a whole other perspective. He mailed in his $1,693 candidate fee on Saturday.

“It seems like every time (Baucus) opens his mouth, he just really rubs me the wrong way,” said Shay Joshua Garnett, who’s never run for political office. “In our system, we can either accept other people’s candidates or provide our own.

“I guess this is my version of providing my own candidate.”

Garnett said he doesn’t plan to raise campaign funds or do much campaigning, beyond giving a few media interviews and showing up where he’s invited to speak.

“If there is no demand (for my campaign), I won’t do anything,” he said n although Garnett does have a 14-point list of principles he says are signs of an effective leader and someone who can provide “lasting, positive results in the world.”

The list includes items such as “giving energy to the needs of others’ lives” and “having no privacy n every action scrutinized.”

Neither the state GOP nor the Inside the Beltway Republican Establishment was able to recruit a serious challenger and the others who are running-- Kirk Bushman, a facility designer from Billings; Butte attorney Bob Kelleher; state Rep. Michael Lange of Billings, a refinery worker and pipefitter; St. Regis truck driver and rancher Anton Pearson; and Patty Lovaas of Missoula, a certified political accountant-- are all considered hopeless; no one thinks Baucus, who is a huge corporate whore and has taken in over $9 million in legalized bribes for the race, has much to worry about. And there is no populist Democrat challenging him in the primary either.

The Republicans fared no better in trying to find someone to run against Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey. Everyone they approached begged off and them someone remembered they had a far right dentist and he agreed. Currently, Joey Pennacchio, the dentist, is in a heated battle with the Libertarian candidate, Murray Sabrin. 17 years ago the dentist was running fro some other position and he proposed rounding up the homeless and warehousing them on military bases. Yesterday, the Libertarian "branded that an 'un-American' plan to 'round up' people and demanded that Pennacchio, now a state senator, abandon his bid for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination they both are seeking." The dentist called the Libertarian "a fringe candidate." Today's Newark Star-Ledger seems bemused by the ravings and ranting by the two crazies running for the honor of being buried by Lautenberg.

Thus did the rhetoric ratchet up in the race to determine which Republican will run against Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in the fall.

Sabrin called a news conference on the steps of the Statehouse in Trenton to distribute a 94-page manifesto that Pennacchio had sent in 1991 to Garabed "Chuck" Haytaian, a Warren County Republican who was then the Assembly Minority Leader.

"I find some very disturbing, hurtful and repugnant ideas," Sabrin said. He cited a proposal for "solving the homeless problem" that included this passage:

"Taking these people and separating them into various military camps would be a first step in the mainstreaming of our homeless back into society. These camps should never be considered a permanent solution to our homeless problems."

It went on to say those who are homeless because of economic problems should be separated from those who need counseling for alcoholism or drug dependency.

"It makes me very nervous," said Sabrin, whose parents survived the Holocaust. He likened the proposal to the segregation of Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II, an act for which the U.S. government later apologized.

"For anyone to round up a group of people and put them in military camps, I find repugnant," Sabrin said. "I'm asking Sen. Pennacchio to drop out of the race and resign his Senate seat."

The dentist was filling a molar and couldn't do an interview but he did say that the homeless "could come and go as they please" and that "no child should ever go without a warm bed." Hopefully he isn't Mark Foley's dentist.

But, speaking about "fringe candidates," the dentist knows more about that than most. His 94-page treatise, The Nationalist Agenda lambasted both the GOP and the Democrats and was a whacky blueprint for some crazy right wing third party, the Nationalist Party.


UPDATE: DID YOU KNOW THEY HAVE KOOKS IN IDAHO TOO?

Nick Langewis reports that one of the wingnuts seeking to replace disgraced toilet trawler Larry Craig has changed his name-- legally-- to "Pro-Life"-- from his old name, Marvin Pro-Life Richardson, which was apparently too confusing for his supporters.

MANY REPUBLICANS FEEL BUSH REGIME IS WAY OFF BASE WITH ITS VICIOUS PARTISAN ATTACK ON PELOSI'S TRIP TO SYRIA

Yesterday I had lunch with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a progressive stalwart. He told me a story about how Bush's clueless Homeland Security Department tried to force New Jersey to lower the state's strict anti-terrorism standards that protect the sprawling chemical industry. It wasn't that the Bush Regime was necessarily looking for a way to endanger the 12 millions people who could be effected by an incident; it was just the regular garden variety incompetence we have come to expect from a Regime that revels at decimating functioning government service providers like FEMA (bye-bye, New Orleans), the Food and Drug Administration (bye-bye, Fido), the IRS (bye-bye billions of dollars in lost revenues; of course, that one had less to do with incompetence than with careful planning and execution), even to the U.S. military, which has been decimated under the Bush Regime's cavalier stewardship. No, Senator Lautenberg seemed to suggest that they were just trying to enforce the same set of standards for everyone so that those states, like New Jersey, that have been most vigilant, would be forced to adhere to new standards which may bring up vigilance in Utah and Nebraska but are definitely not nearly strong enough for what is needed in high risk areas.

It's a battle Senator Lautenberg wound up winning. I asked him if, in that case and others like it, Republican congressmembers in the House, who after all, represent the same residents of New Jersey eager to not be consumed by a catastrophe caused by more National Security laxness on the part of the Bush Regime, are willing to work across the aisle for the good of the state. He told me, basically, that there are Republican congressmen who, in a case like this, do not hesitate to work with him in a bipartisan fashion for the obvious good of New Jersey. He used Rodney Frelinghuysen as an example of a New Jersey congressman who will put the welfare of the state's residents above narrow partisanship-- the opposite of a doctrinaire and extremist wingnut like Christopher Smith, one of the more virulently partisan of the New Jersey congressional caucus.

The Bush Regime, on the other hand, makes Christopher Smith come off almost like a model of bipartisanship. They only know one thing: attack, attack, attack. The Bush Regime was just engaging in more of their political gamesmanship. Even a notorious Bush apologist like Joe Klein (NO relation) has now reassessed his own ignorant and dishonest posture enough to admit, in tomorrow's Time, that Bush is "clearly unfit to lead." The Regime's disingenuous response to Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria-- not to mention the reaction of their supporters in the media-- was nothing short of contemptible. The Washington Post was simply uninformed and bending over backwards to kiss ass. President Carter has a very different perspective than the Bush Regime-- one shared by most Americans:

I was glad that she went. When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem.

"Carter said he recently wanted to visit Syria, in connection with a Palestinian election, but 'for the only time in my life, as a former president, I was ordered by the White House not to go.'"

Jim Walsh teaches at MIT, at the Security Studies Program, and he thinks that Pelosi's visit could actually be beneficial, not just to America but to the Bush Regime as well. "Every president wants to have complete control over their foreign policy," he said, "but I think in the long run it's helpful. The more information flow you have back and forth, the more contact you have back and forth, the greater the chance that you're going to be able to resolve some of these issues."

The Chicago Tribune takes the Post's moronic editorial apart and, although, they don't speculate on the Post's motives for lying about Pelosi's trip, they leave no doubt that that is exactly what they did. Now what about Republicans in Congress?

Three Republican congressmen who parted with President Bush by meeting with Syrian leaders said Wednesday it is important to maintain a dialogue with a country the White House says sponsors terrorism.

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on
Hezbollah."

..."This is an area where we would disagree with the administration," (Rep. Robert) Aderholt (of Alabama) said. "None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line.

Another Republican congressman, David Hobson (R-OH), who traveled with Speaker Pelosi to Syria also differed with the Bush Regime partisan game players.

"I think we played a useful role," Hobson said in a phone call from Saudi Arabia. "We reinforced the administration's positions and at the same time we were trying to understand and maybe getting some voice to some things people wanted to say that maybe they were not comfortable saying to the administration. The jury's out ... but this was not an anti-administration trip at all."

Hobson, who has been generally supportive of the war in Iraq, said the war was not the subject of discussions in countries that also included Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Instead, he said, Middle East leaders who have watched Pelosi criticize the war may have been surprised by her support of other Bush policies in the Middle East. He said, however, that Assad urged the United States to find a diplomatic way to get out of the war.

"I think they might've thought there was some wedge between the president's policies and the House Republican policies," he said. "But (Pelosi) enunciated and we all enunciated that we wanted them to do more."

Darrell Issa (R-CA) is generally even further to the right and at least as much of a rubber stamp as New Jersey's Christopher Smith. But he just drew a line. He's in Damascus today, meeting with Assad and also with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. He said "Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria."


UPDATE: HOBSON TELLS BOEHNER TO GO SHUT HIMSELF BACK UP IN HIS TANNING BOOTH

With House Minority Leader Boehner echoing Rove's anti-Pelosi talking points, Hobson has taken issue with his old friend and colleague. He pointed out the groundless and partisan nature of the Bush Regime's baseless attack on the Speaker and "along with rebutting those comments, Hobson, the only Republican on the trip, also dismissed complaints about the trip from Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. Hobson said the administration knew about the trip in advance and provided the delegation with a jet. 'As far as I know, they never said a word to anybody until we were in the air,' Hobson said."


UPDATE: THE REAL STORY BEHIND WHY BUSH IS HYSTERICAL OVER PELOSI'S TRIP TO SYRIA

Although Cheney, Bush, Boehner and other Regime mouthpieces-- including and even especially mass media mouthpieces-- have tried to portray the Bush Regime's argument with Speaker Pelosi in a narrow partisan frame, it is, as some honest Republican congressmen also recognize, not so much partisan as it is a very important battle between an authoritarian and secretive Executive Branch and a Legislative Branch determined to provide the checks and balances that the American public now demands. Scott Lilly did a brilliant piece on just this aspect for the Center For American Progress. I recommend it highly.