The Stinky Inky’s Senatorial Garden State Gaffe

So the august Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board believes that Rob Andrews would be a better Democratic alternative in the U.S. Senate than incumbent Frank Lautenberg, do they?

As noted here…

In 24 years in the Senate, Lautenberg has been a reliably progressive vote on issues ranging from the environment to children's health insurance. However, Andrews has built a solid record in the House as a thoughtful legislator, and he would bring a fresh approach to the challenges facing New Jersey. For the Democratic nomination for Senate, The Inquirer endorses ROBERT E. ANDREWS.

In 20 years in the House, Andrews has proved himself to be an independent voice for South Jersey. He has been a deficit hawk in a Congress that allowed the national debt to increase more than 60 percent, to $9.4 trillion, under President Bush. He led the fight to stop the Army from dumping remnants of VX nerve gas in the Delaware River.

Lautenberg has criticized Andrews for his role in support of the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Not only did Andrews vote to authorize military force, he even co-wrote the measure and lobbied fellow Democrats.

But Lautenberg also supported the vote for war in 2002. He wasn't serving in the Senate at the time, but was campaigning again - after a brief retirement - because incumbent Bob Torricelli had self-destructed.

To your humble narrator, there’s a big difference between being hoodwinked on the AUMF Senate vote and trying to line up your peers in support of Dubya’s catastrophe in Mesopotamia.

And as noted here, Andrews voted for the Military Commissions Act and the idiotic Secure Fence Act (number one, it won’t keep out those trying to get in illegally since they’ll keep finding places to break through it, and besides, there are plenty of “good corporate citizens” who don’t want to turn off that “tap” of cheap human labor; and number two, it’s creating dangers to the surrounding ecosystem).

I also did some digging into Andrews’ votes over the last two years, and while I found a good, solid record of voting on behalf of typically Democratic issues (workers rights, children’s health, environmental issues, etc.), I also found the following…

He voted against improving mine safety regulations (admittedly something that's not a big deal in NJ, but his was the only “No” vote here).

He voted with the Repugs to give Dubya the line-item veto here.

He voted to sell nuclear supplies to India despite their rejection of the non-proliferation treaty here (and I know other Dems did as well, and I'll remind them also if the occasion warrants it).

I also discovered a lot of missed votes by Andrews, more so than any other House member from this area. At the very least, he should provide an explanation for that and tell us why that would not hold true were he in the Senate.

The Inquirer isn’t happy with Lautenberg because he apparently has not agreed to debate Andrews. Why should he when, according to this poll, he has a 35-point lead (maybe not good government, but practical politics - and here's something else in Lautenberg's favor that I'm sure the Inky will ignore).

Also, as noted from this kos link, Andrews recently unveiled a T.V. ad taking Lautenberg to task over his age, since Lautenberg did the same thing years ago when he ran for his Senate seat the first time against Millicent Fenwick in 1982. To be fair, though, Fenwick was a Republican, and it was the general election; we’re not talking about a primary. Also, I somehow think there are weightier issues to consider at this moment.

As I said previously, I believe Lautenberg is a better man for the job at any age than Andrews. The latter should try to reclaim his House seat if he can at this point, since that’s where he can do the most good.