So someone in the GOP really wants Garrett to lose next year?

So someone in the GOP really wants Garrett to lose next year?

By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog

Scott Garrett (R, NJ-05) has no shortage of enemies on Capitol Hill, Save Jerseyans. It’s not hard to see why; he has a history of casting rogue votes including, back in January, a vote against re-upping John Boehner as Speaker of the House. Most of the time I’m glad he does. 

Independence comes with a price.

garrettToday, as you may’ve already seen/heard, POLITICO ran a piece alleging that Garrett is holding out on customary NRCC membership contributions, in part, over the campaign organization having “actively recruited gay candidates and supported homosexuals in primaries.” (quoting the story, not Garrett)

The exchange is reported to have happened during a closed committee meeting when Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) directed a party-discipline lecture in Garrett’s perceived direction. 

I find it hard to believe Garrett cited gay candidates as a reason for withholding support. His position on gay marriage is plain; “I firmly believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman,” the veteran federal legislation has explained in the past. “Any effort to fundamentally redefine marriage is not only contrary to public opinion, but also wrong.” Now, you may thing Garrett is dead wrong and doesn’t deserve support himself for that particular position, granted, but it ain’t the same thing as saying you won’t donate to a gay Republican.

Rep. Garrett’s office didn’t respond for comment according to the reporters. We’ll see what he has to say. I’m not piling on until we hear his side of story that, at least at the moment, is 100% hearsay.

What interests me? Since this is a political blog?

A Republican staffer (or member) clearly leaked this information since it came out of a close meeting. I AM NOT defending Garrett if he said it. Note the caps. But it’s no secret that Garrett’s seat is a possible target next year. The Democrats would never deal with a member of this caucus this way with a seat on the line…. just sayin’. So what it demonstrates for me is that the Hill GOP is as dysfunctional than ever heading into a critical election cycle, and the dysfunction isn’t strictly a “tea party” or establishment thing. There’s plenty of stupid to go around. Apparently.


13 thoughts on “So someone in the GOP really wants Garrett to lose next year?

  1. it’s not gay marriage it is anything perceived to be positive for women or LGBT people along with everyone else … he voted no on anti bullying, anti violence against women, hate crimes … plus the vote against Sandy money…. way too reactionary.

  2. I know Scott as well and anyone and he would never use that kind of language , hey his is a serious conservative that wins by landslides in liberal land . he bucks the loser GOP leadership and since they offer no help when he runs he is his own man .

  3. We have laws that cover violence (against women and everyone else) and crime which includes all crime. We do not need to protect LGBT any more than anyone else. Anti bullying? Are you serious? Many things are not nice and/or down right mean. That does not mean those actions can be controlled by laws. Next it will be a law because someone hurt someone’s feelings.

  4. God Bless Scott Garrett!! He’s the only Real Conservative in the entire NJ delegation (I exclude Chris Smith who is a reliable supporter of morality and values, but is too cozy with organized thuggery – oops, I meant “labor”). Garrett has nothing to fear from his constituents, the only ones who have to fear are RINOs and closet liberals like Len Lance and Tom MacMillions, who will be primaried and defeated next year by Dave Larsen and Steve Lonegan.

  5. We have a federal law that Garrett voted against if you read what I wrote. Anti-bullying laws… yeah you talk to the parents of kids who are targeted and those who are bullied who commit suicide. Hey, maybe you are a Darwinist and believe in survival of the fittest, but you also may be a taxpayer and expect the schools to provide some safety for your child or expect your school not to be the bully. Time to get real!

  6. I believe you mean he voted against a BILL that passed and then became a law. How does one enforce an Anti-bullying Laws? If it is a LAW, it is a legal matter for the police and courts. What, precisely do you expect a teacher or school to do?
    I do not think we should have laws that apply specifically to certain groups of people. That is normally considered racist, sexist, ageist … Why should LGBT be more protected than heterosexuals? Why is violence against women more important than violence against anyone else? Why is a crime committed against whites because you hate them because they are white any worse than for any other reason? Crime is crime and special status is racist, sexist, anti religious persuasion, etc.
    Sandy Money- another opportunity to grow government and corruption from the D.C. top down.

Comments are closed.