Posted on 05/21/2002 6:03:18 PM PDT by Coleus
Matheussen's Message and Proven Record of Accomplishment
Much More Important than Money
Values and Experience that Money Can’t Buy
Endorsed by the Political Action Committee of the NJ Right to Life organization. Please Pass this on, thank you. As a State Senator he was endorsed by the NRA.
Senator John Matheussen continues to demonstrate that he is the only candidate with the proven record of accomplishment needed to defeat the incumbent.
This campaign, from the start, has been about issues. One of the things I always point out is that it is not enough to merely run against Bob Torricelli’s record. We must present the voters with clear reasons to vote for our nominee,” said John Matheussen.
I will go to Washington and work with President Bush to end the Death Tax, cut the income tax, strengthen our homeland security, end partial birth abortion, provide our seniors with affordable prescription drugs, and revitalize our economy, said Matheussen. The voters should trust that I would accomplish these things, not because I say so, but because my record proves I have done so.
As I have traveled this great state these past few months, I have talked about issues that I feel deserve to be addressed. My record of accomplishment on issues like cutting taxes, improving health care, standing up for family values, and protecting our families and children from crime make me the best candidate to defeat the incumbent. This primary campaign is about nominating the candidate who will defeat Bob Torricelli. I have the record, and the proven ability to do just that, Matheussen added.
Not one of John's opponents has cut more taxes, done more to improve health care, fought harder for seniors and families, or done more to protect our children from crime,” said Sean Kennedy, campaign manager. Republicans need to nominate a candidate with a proven record of accomplishment who can go head to head with Torricelli on the issues. The fact that John Matheussen has won 4 tough elections indicates that he is the candidate who can defeat Bob Torricelli. At the end of the day, that is what matters to Republicans.
This primary is not about who has the ability to spend the most money, it’s about who can actually defeat the Democrat in November. I am confident we are not going to nominate a candidate simply because they have more money. The fact of the matter is that our GOP candidate is going to be severely outspent in the fall. We better be able to talk about issues and have a real record of accomplishment.
I think that Republicans will look at the fact that one of our opponents has a record of raising taxes and does not have the experience to go head to head with the Democratic Incumbent in November. John Matheussen has the proven ability to bring this party together and win a tough election in November,Kennedy continued.
The Republican Party needs to nominate a candidate who can defeat Bob Torricelli. I have won 4 hard fought elections by talking about issues. I have cut taxes 53 times. I have sponsored legislation that allows a woman and her new baby the right to stay in a hospital for at least 48 hours and I wrote the Patients Bill of Rights.
I have worked for the passage of Parental Notification and I have worked to end the heinous procedure known as partial birth abortion. I will stand with President Bush on the economy, on National Defense, and on Family Values. I will defeat Bob Torricelli,concluded Matheussen.
In addition, I have heard him speak at other functions during the Q&A period, he is pro-2nd amendment, in favor of pilots having stun guns, against vouchers (afraid of more govt. interference of parochial School Curriculum) but in favor of school choice and tuition tax credits.
For Further Information:
Sean Kennedy, Campaign Manager (908)872-1357
Sean M. Kennedy
HQ:856-228-4473 Fax:856-228-4033
Matheussen For Senate
1510 Blackwood Clementon Road
Blackwood NJ 08012
Umm, while he's guilty of signing it, President Bush is not the one who created that mess of a bill.
I'm wrong? President Bush didn't sign it? Or he did create the bill?
No, I'm not wrong. The problem here is that you don't come across as particularly bright. I'll try not to be so subtle in future comments.
Ronald Reagan showed leadership, he had a Democrat house for 8 years and a Democrat Senate for 6. He VETOed many bills, he wasn't afraid, he wasn't a wimp like both Bush's. Bill Clinton too, scumbag that he is, had an entire Congress which was Republican for 6 yrs. He too, VETOed bills, he vetoed the Welfare Reform Bill twice only to give in by the advice of Bill Morris so he could be viewed more conservative to the voters in the election coming up.
Presidents have two choices, to sign a bill into law or to VETO it.
In the farm bill, Bush gave in and SIGNED the bill into LAW, he did not VETO it. Nobody forced him to do anything, he is just like his father. Weak. Remember Bush 41, Read my lips...and a yr. later a republican trained by Reagan, RAISED taxes, he SIGNED the budget. He did not VETO it. Your statement was incorrect.
Duh, gee. That might explain why I said:
President Bush is not the one who created that mess of a bill.
My statement was in no measure incorrect.
Umm, while he's guilty of signing it, President Bush is not the one who created that mess of a bill.
Golly gee, Wally. There's absolutely nothing incorrect in that statement. Not one single thing. Even a 4th grader could figure that out, unless he/she was completely focused on one word/subject.
First, Reagan had a Repub Senate for 6 years, not 2.
Second, I'm not sure why Sen. Matheusen needs anyone's help. If he's going to permanently repeal the estate tax, cut income taxes, and provide affordable prescription drugs for seniors, he obviously has access to a money-creating magic wand!
It's call supply-side economics.
Bush, as the chief executive, does have choices given to him by the Constitution and vetoing the farm bill was one choice he could have made.
I did have the pleasure of hearing Steven Moore speak 2 weeks ago at a financial planning seminar, he was very interesting.
THE BIG-GOV'T GOP
IT is quickly becoming one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington: Republicans are no longer an anti-government party.
The new $170 billion farm-welfare law - $1 million per subsidized farmer - is only the latest and most tragic example of the GOP's surrender.
Only a few years ago, then-President Bill Clinton was famously declaring that "the era of big government is over." Newly triumphant congressional Republicans were promising a fiscal revolution that would make government in Washington "smaller and smarter."
Clinton partially foiled those plans for terminating hundreds of obsolete and counterproductive federal agencies, for Cabinet agency consolidations and for a leaner federal bureaucracy. But GOP leaders reassured taxpayers not to lose heart: The real downsizing would come once we had a Republican in the White House.
Well, we've got one now. And rather than the pace of federal spending slowing to a crawl, we're now in the midst of one of the most fiscally reckless federal spending binges since LBJ was launching the Great Society in the mid-'60s.
At the current rate, the federal budget will have mushroomed by nearly $250 billion in the less than two years since Clinton left office. For all of the right's moaning about the spendthrift Clinton years, that era now seems like the good old days of fiscal belt-tightening.
Each year since the Republicans took over the reins of power on Capitol Hill back in 1995, the budget has grown at an increasingly reckless pace. Pre-existing budget roadblocks and speed bumps, meant to prevent runaway spending bills, were all but ignored as minor nuicances. The chart nearby shows the extent of the spending spree.
There is no question that the Tom Daschle-led Democrats are a major contributor to the build-up. Daschle exacts a toll that typically adds billions of dollars to nearly every spending bill before he allows it to clear the Democrat-controlled Senate.
But make no mistake: This is a bipartisan spending spree. The budget-busting on Capitol Hill is happening not over the objections of the congressional Republicans, but more often at their insistence.
How much of this is President Bush's fault? His first-year budget was laudatory: It would have trimmed federal spending to a reasonable 4 percent spending path, and it called for eliminations of dozens of turkey agencies that long ago ceased having a plausible mission. But Congress hiked the spending to 8 percent, and the Bush team reluctantly signed the bills. That whole procedure is being repeated this year.
There's only one near-term solution: the veto pen.
Fiscal discipline is ultimately the responsibility of the White House. If we are to return to financial sanity anytime soon in Washington, Bush is going to have to stop making nice with his adversaries and instead adopt a Harry Truman-style philosophy: "The buck stops here." Congress can't appropriate a single penny without the president's signature.
In the weeks and months ahead, President Bush will have plenty of opportunity to use the veto. He will soon be confronted with a pork-ridden supplemental spending bill, a '70s-style energy bill that only Jimmy Carter could love, and a $200 billion Medicare prescription-drug-benefit bill - the biggest expansion in entitlement spending in some 20 years.
Republicans in Washington appear to have lost their fiscal conscience. With a few notable exceptions, they've morphed into precisely what they once railed against: a gang of fat, happy, fiscally-amoral legislators who act as though the taxpayers have gladly given them a blank check.
"I have been in Congress for nearly 18 months now, and I'm still waiting for an opportunity to vote on a bill that makes government smaller, not bigger," complains Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of the few genuine fiscal conservatives left in the House.
Just 18 months ago, when Washington was predicting $5 trillion of budget surpluses over the next decade, it seemed that no matter how fiscally reckless Congress became, there was no way that the surplus could be squandered. Wrong. With federal expenditures soaring to the $2.2 trillion level, the hopes of surpluses now seem as glossy-eyed as the predictions that the Chicago Cubs were destined for this year's World Series.
All of this is to say that we now have two big-government parties in Washington. In my book, that's at least one too many.
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.