Friday, February 26, 2010

Holt Ranked Most Liberal Member Of The House

Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ 6) was ranked the most liberal member of the House of Representatives in 2009 by The National Journal.

Holt's left field ranking is only slightly more surprising than Mercer County GOP Chairman Roy Wesley's favorite son endorsement of Scott Sipprelle for the GOP nomination to challenge Holt in November. Wesley announced the endorsement on Wednesday.

I say "only slightly more surprising" because Holt's ranking was covered by a mainstream news source, US News & World Report's blog, according to google news.

Wesley's endorsement of Sipprelle was not covered by the mainstream media, according to google.

That's because it is not newsworthy. There will be no front page or back page stories about Alex Rodriquez starting at third base for the Yankees in Opening Day either. It is an "of course." Like the sun rising.

If you knew about Wesley's endorsement before reading it here, that because you read it on a blog, either Save Jersey, CWA, or Politickernj, that got the info from the Sipprelle campaign, or it is because you signed up for Sipprelle's email list or facebook page and heard it directly from his campaign.

Holt's liberal ranking raises the stakes in the GOP primary race. It is essential that we select the best candidate to beat Holt, because he can be beat. His #1 liberal ranking makes him even more vulnerable.

All of the above is why it is so troubling that Sipprelle won't talk to the blogs, and/or won't talk to us now.

The mainstream media is not going to cover the primary until late May. They will not cover the contests for the party endorsement, conventions and screenings, until after they happen, if at all. That's because they don't understand the process. Rarely does anyone other than the party endorsed candidate win a primary.

In all likelihood, the nominee will be selected at the conventions in Middlesex, Mercer, Somerset and Hunterdon, and the screening committee meeting in Monmouth. The people who vote in those conventions and the screening read the blogs.

Scott Sipprelle might be the best candidate to beat Rush Holt. I don't know and neither do you. The money he brings to the race is important, but it is not the most important.

Remember Anne Estabrook and Andy the Goya guy? Neither of them were U.S Senate material. The GOP establishment knew that but didn't care. They didn't care because it didn't matter, in their minds, and probably rightly so. Frank Lautenberg was going to get re-elected no matter who ran against him. Estabrook and the Goya guy knew it too. But they were willing to spend some of their own fortunes in a vanity campaign and donate to the state and county organizations in return for some unannounced gratitude.

I'm not saying that Sipprelle is an Estabrook or a Goya guy. I'm saying I don't know and neither do you.

He might not believe that Holt can be beat. A lot of people don't. He might be spending $1.2 million, plus his donations to the county and local party organizations for vanity and/or another unannounced gratuity. I don't know and neither do you. I don't know if he can handle the physical and emotional rigors of a campaign. Neither do you. I don't know if he can withstand the opposition research that Holt and the DNC will do if he is the nominee. Neither do you.

I do know that he is running out the clock till the conventions and screening. That is a good strategy for winning the party lines, unless a blogger or three screw it up. It is a great strategy for the chairmen who need his money for local races. It is not necessarily the best strategy to beat Rush Holt.

Voters at the conventions and screenings who don't think Holt can be beat should vote for Sipprelle and take his money. Voters at the conventions and the screening who think Holt can be beat should keep digging and make sure they are selecting the right candidate. Scott Sipprelle might be the right candidate. I don't know. Neither do you. He actions say he doesn't want us look very hard. That concerns me.

I don't know if Mike Halfacre is the right candidate either. Neither do you.

If he can't raise money, he isn't.

I do know that Mike Halfacre believes Rush Holt can be beat. He believes he can beat Holt. He believed it a year ago before Chris Christie was elected governor and before Scott Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate. He has a plan and he's been executing it. It would have been easy to quit when Sipprelle got in the race, like the Toms River Councilman who bowed out of the CD-3 race in favor of Runyan's money and celebrity. I told him he should. He's undaunted.

Halfacre believes he can beat Holt and he believes he will beat Sipprelle. That's why I will interview him next week. Is he out of his mind or is he making something unpredictable happen?

I don't know. Neither do you. Next week we'll know better.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Keep drinking the kool aid art. Halfacre can't even handle questions from people at town mtgs in fair haven without losing his cool.

Anonymous said...

In a perfect political world we should require all candidates to be elected to something before they ran for congress. We also should require them to have worked up from the bottom of the organization serving the Republican Party as some sort of worker bee.Lastly in the perfect political world we should require the candidate to demonstrate they can raise money.
If this were the case Art ,Kim Guadagno would have never qualified as our Sheriff now our Lieutenant Governor.
Picking the right candidate is like asking a parent who his or her favorite child is.
There are candidates and there are elections,none stand the test of a perfection.Once you have decided a candidate is credible,the next question for any seasoned politician is"What do they do for the top of the Republican ticket?"
Rush Holt has close to $600,000 in his war chest.Do you think he rolls over in his liberal bed and dies??
Why is it Art when the Tea Bag's endorse someone you like it is huge news and when a party chair endorses a candidate you don't like its some how not news???I will guarantee you a year from now the tea baggers will have joined the Schundler right wingers and the Hands Across NJ folks at their annual reunion held at Bachstadts Tavern(food extra)My point,splinter groups do not last nor do they form any type of lasting enduring political base.

Art Gallagher said...

Why is it Art when the Tea Bag's endorse someone you like it is huge news and when a party chair endorses a candidate you don't like its some how not news???

It's not that I like or dislike either. Actually, I think the Tea Party endorsement was poorly timed.

My point was to emphasize the role of the blogs have in this process, which Sipprelle knows but wants to use on his terms. It is not going to happen on this blog.

Art Gallagher said...

Keep drinking the kool aid art. Halfacre can't even handle questions from people at town mtgs in fair haven without losing his cool.

If that is true, he will probably lose his cool with me. He won't have a gavel.

Anonymous said...

"I will guarantee you a year from now the tea baggers will have joined the Schundler right wingers and the Hands Across NJ folks at their annual reunion held at Bachstadts Tavern(food extra)My point,splinter groups do not last nor do they form any type of lasting enduring political base."

I resent this. As a Schundler supporter, I support Sipprelle.

Your argument's message, which I agreed with up until this statement, is seriously discounted because of this erroneous analogy and assumption.

Anonymous said...

"If that is true, he will probably lose his cool with me. He won't have a gavel."

He won't lose his cool with you.

You are not objective. You are admittedly one of his supporters.

Nah, he will do whatever you want. You're free press. And if he has to, he will drag you down with him.

Anonymous said...

Wow, quite a lot of Democrats here lately. It's only the slimiest of the liberals who use the "tea baggers" phrase. That usually identifies you as a regular watcher of Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper.

Give us the best said...

that's right,4:08: whatever they've done or not done, do they HELP the ticket,are they electable for that office, at that point in time??..timing is really the largest factor: 2 yrs.ago, it didn't mean so much that Holt's the most liberal: it sure does this year..it didn't matter Guadagno had little experience or party service, she had the creds, and was different than the usual cop..names do help,too.. ethnicities, though maybe they shouldn't, matter,as well.. it's what makes each race unique: the combined dynamics of it,all things considered..when it all shakes out, I just hope we capitalize on the voters' disgust, and get the whole slate that we have to carry this year,elected, to try and improve the disastrous messes at all levels..

Anonymous said...

Come on Art, you are supposed to blindly endorse Sipprelle because of his record in Princeton...Oh wait, he has NEVER been an elected official. But that's OK Art, you have to support him because he has money! UGH! Will NJ Republicans ever learn?

Anonymous said...

Art is right that money is never enough to win a general election. However, not having enough money to run a complete and competitive campaign in the general election means that you will ALWAYS lose.

Spadea raised about $340,000 and got crushed by Holt last time. Halfacre is on track to raise LESS. Unless he can clearly get over the funding hurdle, anything else about Halfacre is pretty irrelevant because he can't win the general election.

The second issue about money, if you can raise it, is where does it come from? We already have the best Congress money can buy and the results are terrible for average Americans.

What I like about Sipprelle's money is he made it himself, which I thought Republicans used to like. With your own money, nobody owns you.

Then, I ask myself, who is more likely to have the guts to challenge the corruption in BOTH parties in Congress?.... a guy with his own money who said he would only serve three terms, or Halfacre who needs to raise dough from special interests and wants to be a career politician, or Holt, who takes money from Hamas, among others?

If you think the system is corrupt and needs to be reformed from the ground up, there is only one Republican candidate who DOESN'T fit the politics as usual mold -- and it isn't Halfacre.

Anonymous said...

Character is what you do when no one else is looking.

When no one politically was looking, Sipprelle was championing reform of the corrupt hierarchy at Morgan Stanley. He was diligent, ethical, with no ax to grind other than to do what was right .... and he won. The bosses were toppled, thanks to this brave man. That's a proven track record that supercedes any prior political officeholding in my book and in the eyes of independent voters, he is a hero.

It is less about money and more about the man. And the man is Sipprelle.

Art Gallagher said...

When no one politically was looking, Sipprelle was championing reform of the corrupt hierarchy at Morgan Stanley

When no one else was looking?

He advertised what he was doing in the Wall Street Journal!

I'm only part of the way through the book, but so far it seems to me that what Sipprelle, and others did to Morgan Stanley was about shareholder value, not about ethics or corruption, and about the culture of the organization for which he once worked.

None of that is bad. It is just not what you say it was.

Anonymous said...

Art, you may not know but I went to one of Sipprelle's events so I do know. He is bright ,articulate and seems to be a desent human being. I would note that he has not gone negative even though his opponent did. I do not agree with him on every issue but he strikes me as a man of principle and character. Of course there is an argument to be made that this will not serve him well in the general election. Halfacre has more of the killer instinct.
that being said I think he is making a mistake not talking to you.

To the posters, Holding prior elected office does not make you a better candidate. I have known plenty of elected officials who do not deserve the office they have never mind a higher one. At most it can sometimes give them the tactical advantage of knowing how to run for office a skill not everyone can learn.

I think each of the two candidates have different stremgths. Either one could beat Holt. They are similiar on the issues.

I have met both and I happen to like Sipperelle better. I will probably vote for him.

This constant trashing of the two candidates on blogs by their partisan supporters is counterproductive.

We should stop it.

Anonymous said...

Not being a career politician and public employee is an asset this year, not a liability.

Anonymous said...

Art,

You have really missed the point here. "Shareholder value" is how capitalism is supposed to work.
Management makes the tough decisions to run a successful business and the benefits flow down to the shareholder. In a modern economy, the shareholder is the fireman, teacher, average American, whose savings are pooled in pension funds, insurance annuities and 401(k)s.

Too often big business, like big government, insulates itself and channels the money flowing through the system for the benefit of its corrupt leadership and to entrench itself. It's just the private sector version of what goes on in government.

When you sucessfully wage war for "shareholder value" you are taking on the "elites" for the benefit of the average American. The stock price goes up and shareholders benefit but so do all the other constituencies of the company, including its customers and employees because the company eliminates self-interested management and becomes more successful.

In Sipprelle's case, he put his reputation, his money, his investor's money and his firm on the line to battle Morgan Stanley's board of directors and the CEO. Morgan Stanley was a $70 BILLION company at the time.

Eventually, the board caved and the CEO got booted. Sipprelle bucked tremendous pressure and HE WON. Isn't that the guts to take on the system we want in Congress? Mike Halfacre ever done anything remotely comparable?heac

Art Gallagher said...

You have really missed the point here

I didn't miss the point. I made the point.

Here's what I said:

I'm only part of the way through the book, but so far it seems to me that what Sipprelle, and others did to Morgan Stanley was about shareholder value, not about ethics or corruption, and about the culture of the organization for which he once worked.

None of that is bad. It is just not what you say it was.

Anonymous said...

I was at a Young Republicans meeting today, and a candidates night event was discussed. Candidates name to be invited were mentioned, someone said that Sipprelle doesn't usually like to come to public forums, to which the response was a general "duuuuuh". So you see, any kid in the district now knows that Sipprelle is afraid of facing the public. But well, it was also mentioned that he reached out to the Young Republicans to invite them to one of his private events. That's the only place where he feels comfortable. This may be enough to buy him the nomination, but won't get him elected.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 2:50. I think you are wrong that Sipprelle doesn't appear at public events. He has appeared at at least one Tea Party event with Halfacre and several Lincoln Day events among others. If you are who you say you are, encourage the Young Republicans to extend him an invitation. Let's see what happens.

Throw the bums out said...

it'll be simple to re-run films of the arrogance of Pallone bragging in public that he "helped write" the monstrosity of a bill, and the arrogance of Holt grabbing the mike from Rhoda.. the total audacity of the liberal elites everywhere, that only THEY get to run our lives, take our money, and re-distribute it as only THEY see fit: it's our candidates', and our job, once primaries are over,to get rid of as many of these tyrannical libs as possible, in one fell-swoop, and send a message that we've all had enough!, and want/deserve better!!

Anonymous said...

Many tea baggers are at the Young Republican meetings, and it was a tea bagger trying to knock Sipprelle. It is poor behavior by any member of the Young Republicans, and it is not fair to the many members of the Young Republican club who support Sipprelle , to spread lies about a candidate they support. Some tea baggers remind me of the past Lonegan supporters, and act just as rudely and they lost. Many Halfacre supporters are the losing Lonegan supporters acting poorly again.

Anonymous said...

"who is more likely to have the guts to challenge the corruption in BOTH parties in Congress?.... a guy with his own money who said he would only serve three terms, or Halfacre who needs to raise dough from special interests and wants to be a career politician, or Holt, who takes money from Hamas, among others?

If you think the system is corrupt and needs to be reformed from the ground up, there is only one Republican candidate who DOESN'T fit the politics as usual mold -- and it isn't Halfacre."

This analysis is absolutely spot-on.

You have to ask who is beholden, and who isn't. Halfacre rode the Chamber train last year and STILL has not reaped a big-enough harvest. Imagine how desperate he is becoming for funds now and what his pledges and promises to those with money to give could be ...especially since he is obsessed with staying in this race, even if it means throwing his party under the bus. Seriously, your commentary is excellent.

Anonymous said...

"When no one politically was looking, Sipprelle was championing reform of the corrupt hierarchy at Morgan Stanley"....Anonymous

"When no one else was looking?"...Art

No, when no one POLITICALLY was looking, Art; those are my words. When no one was considering him as a nominee in the political arena, in other words. When no one could say he was doing a 'dog and pony show' to be considered as the Republican candidate for CD-12. When no one could compare him to someone who has been feeding out of the publicly funded political trough for a good part of the last 20 years. Read closely and read on, but wipe off those bifocals.

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, it is common practice to hold "Meet & Greets" rather than public internal party debates before a primary. I think that is what Sipprelle is leaning to do. I don't think he is afraid of the public at all. Has anyone offered to host a "Meet & Greet" where he has declined? That would be interesting to know...

Art Gallagher said...

No, when no one POLITICALLY was looking, Art;

I saw it the first time, but was more stuck with this line:

Character is what you do when no one else is looking.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were really trying to make a character statement. Your qualifier kills your argument.

How do you know no one "politically" was looking? According to the book I'm reading, Eliot Spitzer was looking. I bet Chuck Schumer was looking.

You don't think politicians read the Wall Street Journal?

When no one could compare him to someone who has been feeding out of the publicly funded political trough for a good part of the last 20 years.

You mean like the majority of the people who will be participating at the conventions and the screening?

I'm not criticising Sipprelle's character. I don't know enough about it yet to do so. I'm killing your argument.

Anonymous said...

Sipprelle risked much to take down a powerful entity that could have hurt him and other shareholders disastrously.

He is not a career politician. To imply that his actions were for political positioning at this point in time convinces me that you should change this blog's name to MoreHalfacreMusings.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who says that Scott Sipprelle trying to get Phil Purcell fired from Morgan Stanley was some noble gesture undertaken to unlock shareholder value is either hopelessly naive or lying (again).

This was just another Wall Street pissing match between rich guys. Sipprelle and a bunch of people left Morgan because the didnt like Purcell and they couldnt outmaneuver him while they were employed at the firm. in addition,Purcell essentially fired Sipprelle's brother after he was responsible for losses in the hundreds of million in junk bonds. So he waited for his chance and got his man when the time came. Usually a move like that comes with a nice reward somewhere down the line...be interesting if Scott ever got any payback for his efforts.

The Sipprelle campaign has been one disaster after another right from the word go, so nothing would surprise me...but can they really be that stupid to think this story will win them points with voters, instead of reminding them that Sipprelle is just another Wall Street guy like the one we just fired in November?

Art Gallagher said...

Anonymous 7:58 am (post rejected)

I don't know that what you say is true. If you can prove to me that it is, I'll ask the question.

Anonymous said...

Read more about Sipprelle from the NYPost nearly five years ago:

http://www.nypost.com/p/morgan_stanley_dreads_scott_eT14cuS6Sic6toKu3kSd8Kead:

Anonymous said...

Anyone comparing Sipprelle to Corzine is an ignorant idiot. Corzine's problem was not being a Wall Streeter, it was his involvement with Carla Katz, and his ties to the NJEA & the Unions and every tax dollar Corzine spent was to reward the NJEA & Unions for their vote.

Anonymous said...

Glad to see one of Halfacre's campaign hacks resurfaced in Anon 1:09am. Your ignorance about business is really compelling but just answer one simple question.

Nobody can honestly deny that Sipprelle took enormous personal risks when he took on Morgan Stanley. He bet his reputation, his money and his firm to challenge a CEO at one of the world's largest firms.

HAS HALFACRE EVER DONE ANYTHING COMPARABLE, EVER?

You know the answer to that question is NO so your campaign is all slur and deceit and attacking Sipprelle because you don't have anything positive to say about Halfacre. Traditional politics, in other words.

But, I think voters are tired of the corrupt political system that you represent and they are tired of guys like you who will say anything to get elected.

Voters want DISRUPTIVE change.

They want folks who will not play by the rules dictated by the party bosses, who will hold press conferences on the steps of the capitol building to call attention to the corruption in the system.

Tea Party folks want someone to represent them who will throw the tea overboard to create change and who will take personal risks to do it.

Is that Sipprelle, who has shown that he can take great personal risk or is it a lawyer like Halfacre slowly working his way up through the system?

We know that you can't do it, but the voters will make the right call.

Anonymous said...

This is now the second time someone (Dwight Sipprelle) has said that “Nobody can honestly deny that Sipprelle took enormous personal risks when he took on Morgan Stanley”. Well, let me deny it.

You see Dwight, only in the la-la land that you and your brother and your friends at the club live in would taking on a management team at a publicly traded corporation-something which is hardly uncommon- be considered the equivalent of charging a terrorist stronghold or killing a lion with your bare hands.

If Scott had somehow failed to take down Purcell, would he have been in some physical danger? Would he have been living like Louis Winthorpe in Trading Places after the Duke brothers set him up? No, he would’ve been mildly embarrassed, his firm would’ve been just fine and he’d still be rich. The fact that you, and people like you are ready to make him a knight of the roundtable over the whole thing is just one more indication of the complete and total disconnect between the people who live in your world and the people who you are trying to get to vote for Scott.

Another indication is your condescending lecture on what it is voters want, especially Tea Party folks. It would seem to me that considering the Tea Party folks have unanimously embraced Halfacre and rejected Scott, you don’t have the foggiest friggin’ clue what voters want. Of course, like Barack Obama, you’re convinced that it’s not the wrong message…you just need to do a better job of explaining it.

So by all means, please keep talking about Scott’s Wall Street career…I’m sure any day now that will start to resonate with voters.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure who these guys are but the Halfacre suporter seems to be unable to answer the question that was asked,

What has Halfacre ever done that's shows he can/will risk challenging the system on behalf of voters?

NOTHING!

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Anon: 8:38am

To Bill Fitzimmons:

Look, I understand that you are frustrated to be saddled with a candidate who is a lawyer and a professional politician and seems to get mean when he is challenged.

It certainly doesn't help that Halfacre can't support either tort reform or term limits, either.
But then, hey, he's a lawyer.

We know those are all big impediments to winning a primary, much less, a general election where folks want REAL change.

You are a good attack dog, but sooner or later you are going to have to tell folks something substantive Halfacre has accomplished. Your silence here is deafening.

Keep guessing buddy.

Anonymous said...

Halfacre has done absolutely nothing. He never even ever had to run in a contested primary, and barely beat out an unfunded feeble old man for the mayorship. He has had a cakewalk in lovely Republican Fair Haven all his life.... so HE is the spoiled brat, and now he is throwing everything at the wall to see what will stick because he cares about nothing but himself and padding up his taxpayer-funded pension with all his politically appointed jobs.
He could care less about the Tea Party people and is just using these well-intentioned patriotic souls. I have faith, though, that some of them will see through him very soon....

Anonymous said...

He never even ever had to run in a contested primary

Neither did Sipprelle

He has had a cakewalk in lovely Republican Fair Haven all his life....

Sipprelle had the same in Princeton

so HE is the spoiled brat

So is Sipprelle. What's more spoiled than leaving in Grover Cleveland's mansion?

Anonymous said...

read the title of this post: and please focus: either guy's GOT to be a step up from HOLT: another one voting 100% of the time with Pelosi: show HIM the door!

Joe the Plumber said...

"What's more spoiled than leaving in Grover Cleveland's mansion?"

Being a career politician who thinks he deserves a nomination for a congressional seat simply because he is a career politician....that's more spoiled.

And btw, your comment about what Sipprelle has earned not through patronage but through his own hard work and efforts, namely his home, smacks of socialism. I thought being a Republican meant appreciating and rewarding hard work? Guess Obama's socialist agenda is safe with Halfacre. Thanks for letting us know how he feels about people who have worked hard and rightfully earned things.

Anonymous said...

excellent points, "Joe,"..personal jealousies and class-warfare are also ruining our party..the short-sightedness of what I'm hearing from the Halfacre supporters is astounding for supposedly smart, young politicians.. it's late-shows and reality tv culture run amok and spells disaster for the GOP, which is supposed to be closer to our founding principles,character, and standards..12's becoming a big loser in the making, I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

"Sipprelle is a spoiled brat"?

Only an extremely inexperienced, very immature, young man with very limited life experience could conceivably call a 46 year old man who is a successful entrepreneur, has been married 22 years and raised 3 children a "spoiled brat".

Glad you are a Halfacre supporter. That says it all.

Anonymous said...

The Halfacre people have reached a new low in their most recent efforts to trash Scott Sipprelle on this blog. Whoever posted these comments about Sipprelle is pretty despicable. If Halfacre had any decency, he would tell his thugs to cut it out. The fact that he hasn't speaks volumes about the man's character.

Anonymous said...

"Sipprelle is a spoiled brat"?
Only an extremely inexperienced, very immature, young man with very limited life experience could conceivably call a 46 year old man who is a successful entrepreneur, has been married 22 years and raised 3 children a "spoiled brat".


Don't forget YOU called Halfacre a spoiled brat first. He's also a 40-something successful entrepreneur, married, 3 children.

Being a career politician who thinks he deserves a nomination for a congressional seat simply because he is a career politician....that's more spoiled.

No, that's being consistent in your career. Being a non-politician who think he deserves a nomination simply because he has the money to buy it - that is spoiled.

Joe the Plumber said...

"Being a career politician who thinks he deserves a nomination for a congressional seat simply because he is a career politician....that's more spoiled."...'Joe the Plumber'

"No, that's being consistent in your career. Being a non-politician who think he deserves a nomination simply because he has the money to buy it - that is spoiled."...'Anonymous'

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is erroneous. Sipprelle does not think he "deserves the nomination because he has the money to buy it". Sipprelle thinks he deserves the nomination because he is an American first and cares about people other than himself, and happens to possess the right skill set to topple the Obama-nomics and Pelosi gang warfare that is ruining all of our lives.

But, then again, you have enlightened us with your core belief that only a career politician deserves to be in Congress because that "is consistent with his career". I'm sure my fellow Tea Party patriots will find that very interesting. Thanks indeed.