Busting Myths about Scott Sipprelle

He is not a Republican, just a RINO
Scott Sipprelle has been a registered Republican for over 20 years. He interned for Sen. Pete Wilson after college. His family has been deeply involved in the local Republican Party in Mercer County with both his parents currently holding leadership positions with the local party organization. His issue papers available on his website (http://www.supportscott2010.com/issues/) all strongly push for limited government, free markets, and strong preference to the private sector over the government solving our problems. His proposals on Healthcare are clearly closely aligned with the Republican Party platform. He is a Republican.

Okay fine, he is a Republican, but he is just a moderate that will compromise with liberal democrats rather than fight on principle
Anyone who has listened to Scott Sipprelle speak gets the clear impression he is not interested in making friends in Congress. His rhetoric is confrontational, grounded in principle, and fiercely independent. He likes to tout that he cannot be bought. He wants to work with people in Congress that are like-minded and principled, not negotiate with "all parties at the table". He has explained he wants to build a caucus or coalition in Congress to further his policies. These are not the words or strategies of a negotiator or pragmatist. Scott Sipprelle wants to be Congressmen that takes the initiative and leads a voting bloc that will push hard for major policy changes in Washington, not just give the Republican Party as a whole, one more seat in the House. He is a candidate of principle.

He is just a wealthy Wall Street fat cat that has been part of the problem over the past few years
There is absolutely no truth to this. Scott Sipprelle is in financial services, that is no secret. But he was never been part of the problem, he spoke out against the problem. He openly criticized Wall Street leaders, particularly those at Morgan Stanley, for reckless behavior, mismanagement, and cronyism. this was in 2004-2005, LONG before the financial meltdown. Sipprelle has never implemented any of the practices that were responsible for the catastrophe that occurred almost two years ago. He left Wall Street a while ago to start his own venture fund that invests in small businesses such as a microbrewery and a small bank in Princeton, which actually creates jobs. Sipprelle's career is one that is a polar opposite to the type of behavior and practices of the reckless Wall Street we are now all slamming today. He argued for a solution before we even noticed there was a problem.

He is just trying to buy a seat in Congress to further his power and influence
If that were true, he picked the absolute worst race to enter. If one wanted to "buy" a seat in Congress (silly concept but for argument sake lets follow this through), one would pick a race that was easy to win, not one with a firmly entrenched incumbent with a 2-to-1 party registration advantage and powerful committee appointments in the House (Rush Holt). If Scott Sipprelle just wanted to be a Congressman for the power and luxury of being a politician, he would've entered the race in the 3rd District, which is very competitive or challenged one of the incumbent Republicans in the primary, rather than taking on a very safe Democrat. If he were buying a seat in Congress, he picked the most expensive and most difficult to obtain in New Jersey. Does that sound like the decision-making of a savvy business man?

He has no experience in politics, no track record
We slam career politicians and the current Congress all the time. We want change, and yet we are hesitant to support individuals with no experience. If we want change in Washington DC, new leadership and new Congressmen are needed. We can't just keep recycling the same candidates, politicians, and party leaders. That is precisely why Washington is as defective as it is. New names, new faces, and new ideas need to be injected. That means finding quality candidates with NO EXPERIENCE or very little experience.

Scott Sipprelle is the right candidate for the 12th District and the right candidate for the Republican Party. He should win the primary in June, but he faces a big hill to climb in November. It is time for Republicans in New Jersey and in the 12th District to shed their apathy, pessimism, and cynicim about politics and elections. They need to show up in massive numbers in November to give Sipprelle the win and flip a district that everyone assumes is safe. In 2010, no district is safe and if we want to take back the House and Senate, we need to target districts that most would say are not competitive or are indeed "safe".

If we were to just focus on the "low lying fruit" of competitive swing districts, that number is much smaller and we are basically thinking small. Yes, we will win most of these races but it may not be enough to retake the House and definitely will not be enough to retake the Senate. We need to open up as many competitive districts as possible. That means uphill battles, and grassroots efforts in areas long thought politically dormant due to one party's dominance. It won't be easy, and some of the incumbents will win anyway, but some will not. It is that number of safe seats that surprisingly flip, that will give us the margin needed to retake the House and pad our majority.

I will be writing similar posts on Jon Runyan, Anna Little, and other candidates in the future. Hopefully they are just as high quality as Sipprelle is. I will have to learn that for myself.

Interesting Week: Tea Party and Steve Forbes

It was an interesting week. Tea Party protests went on in every city and some in the media decided the story was that some of them were not as big as last year. Nevermind the fact that there were probably more protests than last year. I got to attend the Chicago Protest in Daley Plaza the epicenter of the Democratic Party Machine.

It was a group that likely exceeded one thousand, filling most, if not all of the plaza. All this in probably one of the five most liberal democratic cities in the country. There were tons of posters, flags, colonial hats, and of course a couple party crashers. An anti-war protest tried to butt in with a banner indicating war is the biggest wasteful spending. In another oddity, a professionally printed and distributed sign said war makes up 57% of the budget, something that is VERY off. Defense spending is roughly $600 billion (less than 20% of the budget). Just goes to show that liberal protestors feel that any and all strategms, including blatant lies, are morally justified as long as the ends are just. It includes infiltrating non-liberal protests with inflammatory and idiotic signs and chants. The ends justify the means. Truly sad.

Others said No to war, and there were a couple signs that were anti-semitic, blaming Israel for all the problems of the world. Tea Party organizers and fellow protestors confronted these people asking them why they were there and arguing that the protest had nothing to do with either issue. Instead of physical confrontation, which is a common result of battles with left wing protestors and "anti-war" activists, a couple of people made signs indicating "plant" or "liberal" or "NOT part of the Tea Party". They stood next to these infiltrators with their own signs so that any idiot CNN or MSNBC camera would catch both the silly sign and the sign indicating the Tea Party Movement has nothing to do with it.

Earlier, a man was walking around with a giant swastika on a poster. The sight disgusted many, Chicago Police asked him to leave, at least I believe that is what happened. I had to leave to meet friends at the train station and bring them back to the Plaza. Either way, that guy was not there when we returned.

The speakers included a former gubanatorial candidate, five candidates for Congress, a couple activists, a doctor, a health insurance salesman, and the two individuals that were accosted by a CNN reporter over a year ago at a similar protest. That incident probably did more for the Tea Party than any other of these major BS media stories.

There were posters responding "we are NOT racist" or "I don't give a ___ that Obama is Black, it scares me to death that he is RED". The speeches were about government spending, taxes, corruption, greed, and the various offenses to the Constitution that President Obama and other Democratic leaders are responsible for.

There were no Neo-Nazis, no Klan members, no one advocating that all illegals should be rounded up and kicked out, no one calling Obama a fascist but plenty calling him a socialist, this was a regular political protest with nothing radical to speak of. No one called for revolution or violent overthrow of the government, much to the disappointment of Bill Clinton. His "fear" of these anti-government protests is really just fear that Democrats will lose power in November.

One of the speakers had an interesting comment: When asked by a reporter what the Tea Party was, where is its website, and who is its' leader, this woman laughed answering "we are not some top-down movement with some sort of demi-god at its head. This is as grassroots as you can get, decentralized, spread out, and very large. No professionally made signs, no corporate or political money bringing us together. In fact, if any insurance companies were paying these protestors, she feinted anger that she didn't get a check."

Later in the week, I attended the Republican Association of Princeton's Lincoln Day Dinner, rescheduled due to a snow storm in early March. The lead speaker was Steve Forbes. Forbes, a former Presidential candidate, and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Forbes Magazine, spoke strongly against the constant painting of corporations, corporate leaders, and the free market as evil, fat, greedy, with hands rubbing-together trying to kill puppies and destroy the environment. Capitalism seems to get rewarded in some areas but blamed in others.

Forbes continued: No one seems to mind the development of laptop computers, the internet, iPods, the iPad, and cellular phones - even when prices are quite high. People pay ridiculous amounts of money for designer jeans as well. These products all exist because someone somewhere saw a need or a market and made something people wanted, then brought it to the marketplace where people bought it! MY GOD THOSE EVIL BASTARDS!

Yet, when it comes to electricity, gas, oil, or health insurance - we expect it to be almost free. When prices go up or some new treatment comes around, we expect to be available immediately at no additional cost. When rent goes up, the tenant is very angry, yet when a new computer or Ipod has a similar high cost, they gladly pay it.

Capitalism and free market principles is about turning scarcity into abundance, according to Forbes. Scarcity is not something to be feared or bring us to rationing, it is opportunity. In almost every other area of the economy, scarcity brings opportunity for innovators to find something that can fill the void, provide a product or service, and essentially create new wealth and jobs in the process. Yet, when it comes to healthcare, that same scarcity has pushed us to horde what little we have and ration it out, completely controlling the marketplace, discouraging innovation, and eliminating opportunity for anyone to make money by filling that void.

A smart man, a funny man, Forbes is truly a gem. When asked who were his heroes or exemplary public figures, he shamelessly listed his wife first. Being single myself, it seems like a cheap brown-nosing compliment, but what do I know. :)

Scott Sipprelle also gave a speech about Lincoln's role during a period of economic crisis, political division, and deep national debt (sound familiar?). Sipprelle is an excellent speaker, even if mechanical and dry at times, but clearly has energy and determination. After he is done, you begin to believe he can and will win in November against the heavily favored Rush Holt.

Overall, interesting week that makes me feel more hopeful about November and later 2012.

Withdraw Mr. Halfacre

Mr. Halfacre,

With your defeat with the Monmouth County Screening Committee, I think it is clear your campaign for the Republican nomination is a lost cause. You failed to secure the backing of a single county committee, you lack the grassroots support many have been touting, and its becoming more clear in panels, debates, and speeches that Sipprelle is simply the better candidate.

From what I can tell you have been a quality mayor, a solid conservative, and a decent guy. Your campaign manager is clearly a tool that gave you horrible advice concerning the constant barrage of attacks against Sipprelle and the outright lie regarding his party registration. I think you can go a long way by ending your bid for the Republican nomination and chalking the whole thing up to being overly competitive, or whatever. Besides, there are plenty of political positions you can still seek in the future. But U.S. Congress appears to be a bit over your head.

You don't need to endorse or back Sipprelle, in fact you can probably back out with a quick press release indicating you simply could not raise sufficient funds to continue the campaign, or compete, etc., etc.

Whatever path you choose, it must be abundantly clear you will NOT win the Republican primary. Drawing this out any longer exposes you to potential damage to your reputation, something that is extremely important to you I am sure. There is nothing to be gained by remaining in the race.

Defeating Rush Holt in the general election is a long shot at best. To do it will require a top-notch campaign and plenty of financial resources. It is going to take a ton of effort on the part of Sipprelle to build up name-recognition, meet Republicans and independents in the district, and convince them he is the man for the job. It will be difficult. The District is fairly liberal and Democrats outnumber Republicans here about 2-to-1.

However, it is possible. Christie defeated Corzine in this district just six months ago. The key is to drive down Holt's approval numbers to where Corzine's were. Democratic enthusiasm must also be pushed down which won't be too hard considering the horrible economy. You also need very high turnout from Republicans, in fact that is likely a necessary condition for victory.

So, in order to get high Republican turnout, the Party must be undivided, enthusiastic, and strongly behind the candidate. This is made very difficult if a primary challenger is still hanging around making all sorts of attacks. We all want Rush Holt out. Lets give it our best shot.

Withdraw Mr. Halfacre.

The New Jersey Republican Party: a flawed organization

Lately, I have learned more about the primary process for the Republican Party here in New Jersey. Counties apparently have screening committees or conventions of local Party leaders, municipal chairs and a few community delegates that choose who gets "the line" in that county's ballot. From what I am told, it means you are on a list of Republican Party candidates that I guess are preferred while the rest are just listed below that individually.

Essentially, if you are a primary voter and don't know a whole lot about the candidates, you could just pick the Party line candidates and move on. So really, it is the local party leadership that is really making the decisions.

Who are these local party leaders? From what I can tell they are municipal chairs, freeholders, mayors, county assemblymen and chairmen. Basically they are local politicians and party loyalists. They trade in clout and influence at the local level so much that they really feel it is more valuable than money. They probably trade in money and "favors" too. They have egos, special interests, and their own agendas when they make decisions on who gets the line. It is not fair and it is not open.

To sum up, Republican candidates that are mostly likely to win get the line, or they get the backing of local party leaders. Where are the people in this? Where are the Republicans out there that aren't directly involved in local party politics? The only way to break through this is to become familiar with the candidates and decide for yourself if the County "line" has the best person for the nomination or if there is someone better. How many Republicans do that? How often does the person with the County line lose, I wonder???

Here, you get nominated if you have the most buddies at the local level. Do they care if you win the general election? Maybe, maybe not. For federal elections in particular, they probably don't see much value in a Republican winning the general election. Their interests are at the state level. And it appears Republicans try to establish their own little fiefdoms within State and Local Government while Democrats have their own. They gerrymander district lines and cut deals so that incumbents and party leaders are protected, minimizing competition and minimizing the influence of the people. The people really don't have much influence unless they learn for themselves about the people on the ballot.

This is a sad state of affairs for a Party trying to make progress, regain a couple House seats, challenge for a Senate seat, or maybe even retake the State Legislature. Their strategy protects their 40 or 45% but minimizes the potential growth. Sure they are now all safe, but unless some miracle happens they aren't going to get 55% or 60% of anything.

If you want to move up to the majority and play with the big boys, I suggest the Republican Party eliminate the heavy hand of Local and County Party bosses. Get rid of "the line" and have county committees and conventions only make endorsements.

From what I have seen, I certainly understand why Republicans are demoralized and made physically ill by the process and getting involved in politics. It is why good people don't get involved in general. If you are all happy with your little fiefdoms, by all means keep hijacking the primary nomination process and protect yourselves. If you want to win, you will have to try something else.

Campaign For Liberty: Meet the candidates of the 12th

Campaign for Liberty held a event to meet the candidates running in the Republican Primary in the 12th Congressional District.

The candidates there were Scott Sipprelle, Mike Halfacre, and David Corsi. I don't know of any others.

Sipprelle came off as the most serious of the three. He gave detailed answers to many questions and tried to answer the questions directly rather than shift to his preferred talking points. He was clearly irritated at the bringing up of his donations to five House democrats and Chuck Schumer in 2002. He said he was offended and explained his donations were to Blue Dogs in hopes of swaying them to vote against Obamacare. Four of them ended up voting against it. He explained his positions on the Federal Reserve, taxes, the economy which does not include abolishing it. He is a "to-the point guy", with a less than poetic delivery, being blunt at times, and as I said serious. The other candidates were unwilling to challenge him on policy.

Mike Halfacre is probably the most likable of the three. He smiled alot, spoke directly to the person asking the question, tried to be funny, and gave Republican talking points as answers. But he gave the least amount of detail of the three. His personal story is nice but he repeated it three times. And claiming he was "from the streets" made me cringe. His answer on abortion was awful, demonstrating he seems to think the issue is more political rather than moral. His answers on taxes and spending were better. He was the more realistic and practical one. He also elaborated the least during rebuttal, satisfied with his first round answers.

David Corsi was the most entertaining. He has unique positions on the Fair Tax, on the Federal Reserve, and other government programs. He wants to abolish the Medicare and Medicaid programs (not sure how that is possible). He demonstrated strong knowledge in these areas but his solutions seemed not only unrealistic, but I am not convinced they would work. He had a spat with a tax attorney (or accountant I don't remember) regarding the 16th Amendment which was mystifying. It is unclear why, but the debate on the 16th Amendment got very fiery and delayed the whole event for a good 8-10 minutes. Corsi held his ground and did not get angry or visibly shaken by the man. On the other hand, it was difficult to take Corsi seriously with his very ambitious and radical plans. While Halfacre was more realistic, Corsi was the radical idealist. Corsi also stayed out of the spat between Sipprelle and Halfacre, which was most wise.

Sipprelle is the serious answer man, Halfacre reminds me of the high school captain of the football team, and Corsi the entertainer. I could imagine Sipprelle getting up in front of the class giving complete answers while Halfacre poked fun at him trying to make the class laugh and ignore his presentation. Corsi meanwhile is the class clown, getting plenty of positive attention, but with no one really taking him seriously.

As a matter of disclosure, I was a mix of class clown and slacker that never tried in high school.

Overall, I think no one is served by a drawn out personal battle between two Republicans. Sipprelle was pushed off his positive and substantive message for a brief time. If he stays on it, he has the policy expertise and seriousness to carry on. He cannot allow these silly attacks (which are fairly weak even if all true), to drag him into a personal battle. Corsi will likely run as the libertarian candidate which is a horrible fit for the district.

Halfacre clearly knows how to deflect attacks and remain likable while his website and campaign aides are constantly on the offensive, attacking Sipprelle week-after-week. A personal battle will push out the policy differences, intelligence, and capability in exchange for a decision on who is most bearable and most believable. Halfacre could convince them he is the safe, bearable one. If the decision shifts more to the issues, Sipprelle has the advantage.

My choice is Sipprelle. I have always preferred the "smart" ones rather than the "clever" ones.

Congressional Races: No competition in 2010

Every analyst both online and in the print media seems to believe 10 out of the 13 Congressional races are not competitive and the incumbent is safe. Garrett, Lance, and Adler appear to be the only realistic competitive races. And recent developments suggest Garrett and Lance are probably going to win with only minor trouble.

Have things changed so little in New Jersey? With Christie's victory, the unpopularity of the democratic agenda, and a recession only 1 Congressional seat is going to change hands? It seems that on the federal level, New Jersey has not changed.

The reason is simple, gerrymandering. The State Legislature and Governor draw the district lines and have intentionally drawn them so that each one encloses the ardent supporters of each Congressmen. Every look at a map of the districts? Its bizarre to say the least. As long as this practice is continued, the state government working with the Congressmen of the state will continue to draw districts to protect incumbents and minimize the number of competitive districts or "swing districts". That means that even if people start voting differently or start shifting, in the end, there will be only one new Congressmen out of thirteen.

Want to change this? The focus of the New Jersey Republican Party should be on the State Legislature in hopes of ending gerrymandering and increasing competition. Democrats still control both houses in the legislature and will certainly attempt to re-draw the districts for 2012 to favor their incumbents and minimize chances for Republican pickups. I am unfamiliar with New Jersey law so I am not sure Christie can veto the legislature's drawing of the districts or what the process would be for that. Gerrymandering can only favor Republicans if they won majorities in the two houses in 2009 or can in 2019. Not exactly good chances there. This state does lean-left and so generally democrats will have the edge in absolute terms year in-year out.

Until then, any progress in increasing Republican support and membership in the state will all be for nought. The Democrats will simply look at the election results and then will determine how best to hide the new Republican gains in already Republican Congressional districts, keeping their party buddies safe.