What the Positions of High-Profile Republicans Says About Scott Garrett
Todd Akin’s position on abortion (separating “legitimate” and “forcible” rape from your run-of -the-mill rape) will probably cost Republicans a seat in the Senate that they otherwise would have won. Indiana Republican Senate nominee, Richard Mourdock’s statement that a rape pregnancy “is something that God intended to happen” is jeopardizing a seat that Republicans have easily held since 1977.
During the Vice Presidential Debate, Paul Ryan’s position on abortion was cited as the biggest reason undecided voters thought Joe Biden won the debate. Ryan has co-sponsored 38 anti-choice pieces of legislation including the now infamous H.R. 3 which originally contained language about “forcible” rape. Further, as a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Ryan actually proposed an amendment that included the term “forcible rape.”
When polled on the issue of abortion, American citizens strongly support exemptions for rape, life and health of the mother. Candidates staking out these far from mainstream positions have found themselves rejected by their constituents once the media shines a spotlight on the position of these candidates when it comes to their extreme stances.
Scott Garrett has practically an identical voting record as Todd Akin. His voting record is even closer to that of Paul Ryan’s. Scott Garrett votes the same way as Michelle Bachmann 93% of the time. Steve King (R-IA) who has compared immigrants to dogs has voted the same way as Scott Garrett 92% of the time. My point here is that these far-right Members of Congress pay a political price when people start paying attention to what they say and how they vote. Successfully calling out these Representatives has caused some serious back-peddling. Have a look at Paul Ryan’s attempt to distance himself on his own statements on “forcible” rape.
Scott Garrett is right out there on the fringe with these other elected Republicans. He hasn’t had to defend his extremist positions or heaven for bid disavow any of them because the media and his constituents haven’t made a strong enough issue out of how far out of step Scott Garrett is with the people who live here in the 5th.
Given that Garrett never makes public comments about anything — other than, perhaps, the renaming of a post office — it’s difficult to condemn him for outlandish positions. Well, okay, it’s difficult to condemn him for outlandish comments. To understand his extreme positions on any topic, one has to follow how Garrett votes. Speaking as a self-appointed committee of one representing Sussex and Warren Counties, no one here has any idea how Garrett votes. He’s a hometown hero. Nobody cares what he thinks or does as long the sun continues to rise on a regular basis. Even if Garrett DID make overt, outrageous comments … how would (Sussex and Warren) residents of the 5th find out? Through the NJ Herald? Not likely. On WSUS? Nope. There is no viable media here in Hooterville that reaches a wide swath of the electorate; especially not media that would report negatively on the only candidate who spends more than $35 on ad buys during elections.
Lacking media coverage of Garrett’s comment-free campaigns, and stymied by Garrett’s refusal to participate in debates, Sussex/Warren residents essentially rely on the “newsletters” and other propaganda Garrett’s spinmasters publish and mail with astonishing frequency. (I’d love to know if any member of Congress spends more on printing and franking / postage than Garrett.)
Garrett got 55% of the vote in 2012, running against an invisible candidate. He is beatable in 2014, but not by traditional means. Bill, you are 100% accurate in what you say. He is coasting, and answers only to the financial people who back him.