The Trouble With Endorsements

2012-election1

There was a photo making the rounds on Facebook. It shows two smiling politicians: Former United States Senator Rick Santorum, a candidate for President, and David Larsen, a candidate for Congress.


Unfortunately for both men, just days before, David Larsen announced his support for Newt Gingrich for President.


That was the same day he told reporters that he was running against Congressman Leonard Lance “for initially supporting the cap and trade formula for limiting carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.” For the record, Congressman Lance has since opposed Cap and Trade.


Larsen went on to tell the Reporter newspapers’ Phil Garber that such legislation “would be unnecessary because carbon dioxide emissions have little effect on the environment”. Larsen added: I believe (global warming) can’t be true. It’s just part of the cycle. That’s the way earth does things. It could be accelerated a little bit (by carbon dioxide emissions) but earth has a way of cleaning itself.”


Too bad Larsen didn’t look into Newt Gingrich’s record before endorsing him for President of the United States.


David Larsen’s candidate for President was a co-sponsor of the Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which stated that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” and that “global warming imperils human health and well-being.” Gingrich’s legislation called for regulations “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” This legislation stated that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.”


Gingrich did something rare as Speaker of the House of Representatives, and co-sponsored legislation – H. Con. Res. 151 – which stated that carbon dioxide is a “major greenhouse gas” that comes from “products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels” and calls on the United States to “manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”


In a 2007 interview on Frontline, Gingrich made his support clear for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean energy. Gingrich said: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”


A couple months later, in a joint appearance with liberal Democrat Senator John Kerry, Gingrich said: The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere,” and that we should “do it urgently.”


And who could forget (apparently David Larsen did) Newt Gingrich’s love fest with Leftist Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a 2008 advertisement made for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, Gingrich sat with Pelosi and said that “we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.” (Video Below)


If David Larsen wants to run as a conservative he needs to be a consistent conservative. It’s no good attacking your opponent for something that the candidate you endorsed for President has done in spades.

Tweet This Post!

54 Comments

  1. Not Leonard Lance says:

    Therefore anyone who supports Romney supports Government Healthcare?

    All the GOP presidential options are awash; I’d say Larsen’s preference is likely Newt, but I doubt Larsen is going to lose sleep helping Newt to win the nomination.

    We need to get behind Larsen in NJ-07 and send a conservative republican to Washington. Send Lance the pink slip.

  2. Wally says:

    It is certain that anybody who supports Romney has to answer that question and I’ve heard Larsen ask it.

    Since day one of his 2010 campaign for Congress, Larsen has made cap & trade his number one issue. Now he endorses Mr. Cap & Trade for President. What’s the deal?

    Larsen endorsed Gingrich for President in print. It was in the newspaper on February 7, 2012. Nothing “likely” about it. Stop playing politics.

    Until Larsen can stand like a man and take responsibility for his actions, I say we stay away from him.

  3. Not Leonard Lance says:

    Wally, you’re full of elephant dung. Larsen is running for congress; he’s not a Newt surrogate. He’s got personality and you may take a liking to him if you didn’t fear the establishment. Cheers.

  4. Wally says:

    Larsen stepped in elephant dung when he made the choice to be a Gingrich surrogate when he, as a candidate for Congress, decided to endorse Gingrich in print.

    The fact that Larsen endorsed wannabe President Cap & Trade while making it his main issue against Lance just shows how stupid he is.

    As for personality, have you ever met him? He has the personality of a toad. You better find someone fast who will turn him into a prince.

  5. Corpus Christie says:

    It doesn’t matter who Larsen endorses because he’s political dog meat and Len Lance will chew him up and spit him out like a mid-afternoon snack. Lance already has the endorsement of Mike Doherty, and will be running on the same organization line as Joe Kyrillos, who is unopposed, and Mitt Romney. Larsen will be in the political garveyard on his own ticket and nobody else to keep him company.

  6. Barrett Stover says:

    Lance already has the endorsement of Mike Doherty

    Really? Care to provide a link to verify this claim?

  7. Barrett Stover says:

    Nevermind. I found the link. I knew that Doherty was a weasel…I never imagined it was this profound.

    His claim that Lonegan chose not to run for Congress is both laughable and lamentable, as is the following - which bears quoting:

    Look, we have a Republican governor, a great victory last year, and I’m sitting on the budget committee in the senate.

    God, what a sell-out phony political hack he is. Shall I hold my breath waiting to see if CNJ distances itself from this political whore?

  8. Wally says:

    Are you that fella Hoya who is always attacking conservatives like Ron Paul? I remember now that you attacked Lonegan too. Now you are working for Larsen. That’s not going to help him.

    Weren’t you all for Barbara and Bob who run the Bayshore Tea Party? What do you think of them backing Joe Kyrillos? Are they “political whores” in your eyes too?

  9. Barrett Stover says:

    Are you that fella Hoya who is always attacking conservatives like Ron Paul?

    Ron Paul is a deluded libertarian - not a conservative.

    I remember now that you attacked Lonegan too.

    Lonegan is a phony and a self-aggrandizing blowhard.

    Now you are working for Larsen. That’s not going to help him.

    Although I support Dave Larsen, I am not affiliated in any way with his campaign.

    Weren’t you all for Barbara and Bob who run the Bayshore Tea Party?

    They and their organization are good people.

    What do you think of them backing Joe Kyrillos? Are they “political whores” in your eyes too?

    Can you direct me to any formal endorsement of Joe Kyrillos on the part of the BTPG?

  10. Wally says:

    Thanks for confirming who you are. Same style.

    Thanks for letting us know how much you hate Ron Paul, Steve Lonegan, and Mike Doherty. Aside from you, I don’t think there’s another conservative in this state who doesn’t like one of them a whole lot.

    You do work for Larsen. He said you did. He said he paid you. Maybe he meant that website you ran for him, but I’m sure he said the campaign. Did you work on any of his campaigns?

    Barbara is supporting Joe Kyrillos. Why don’t you ask her? Bob’s wife is on his finance committee, so I’ll direct you to them.

  11. Barrett Stover says:

    Thanks for letting us know how much you hate Ron Paul, Steve Lonegan, and Mike Doherty.

    Hate? Hardly. I merely assessed each of them for what they truly are: Paul is insane; Lonegan is a self-aggrandizing blowhard and Doherty is a sell-out weasel.

    Aside from you, I don’t think there’s another conservative in this state who doesn’t like one of them a whole lot.

    You need to get out of Mom’s basement some more.

    You do work for Larsen. He said you did. He said he paid you. Maybe he meant that website you ran for him, but I’m sure he said the campaign. Did you work on any of his campaigns?

    DID is not the same as DO. I worked on Dave’s first campaign against Lance, but have no involvement with his present campaign. If you can offer proof to the contrary, please do so.

    Barbara is supporting Joe Kyrillos. Why don’t you ask her? Bob’s wife is on his finance committee, so I’ll direct you to them.

    I’d rather you provide verifiable evidence of your claims.

  12. Roland Hosey says:

    Larsen is either getting very bad advice or has pathetic political instincts.

    Barrett appears to be an unstable eunuch unable to take responsibility for his various, lame, and very weak attempts at justifying his past and continuing support for faux conservatives and disdain for those with conservative records, while he picks and chooses those that are worthy of his praise. Who the hell are you? Who the hell do you think you are? Has your name ever appeared on a ballot? Of course not, you have no fortitude.

    Wally seems to know his stuff. Looking over his previous comments, he is always able to support his position with facts. This time is no different.

    Larsen endorsed Gingrich, in print. The video above says enough and then some on his position regarding global warming. Larsen’s only stated reason for running is Lance’s cap and trade vote, which he has regretted and apologized for.

    Larsen Is either stupid, inept, or incompetent. Nothing else explains that endorsement when compared to his inept campaign.

  13. Barrett Stover says:

    Roland Hosey on February 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM

    *YAWN*

  14. Gotcha says:

    Face it Gene, you got played. Bayshore’s leaders always supported Joe. They were signed up over a year ago.

    You defended them as pure but the joke was on you. Everyone could see that. You made war on every conservative leader in the state. You played Don Quixote.

    When Joe Kyrillos is elected to the United States Senate, you will have our thanks for the role you played. It was a role I am sure you didn’t intend to play, but it is one you played nevertheless.

    Gene, the Republican establishment is in your debt.

  15. Gotcha says:

    That didn’t take long, Gene. For those of you who don’t follow the website of the former Colonel Manly Rash, Gene just had a meltdown.

    Whose henchmen, Gene? You still believe that?

    It’s tough to admit that you’ve been firing on your own troops all this time. Guess that’s what happens when your Colonel didn’t go to West Point.

    Don’t worry Gene, the Republican establishment isn’t mad at you. They appreciate you trashing Steve Lonegan. Why wouldn’t they?

    They also appreciate you posting a statement in support of Dave Larsen on your website. I’m sure it will come up again.

    Thank you for your good work and keep at it.

  16. Bob's wife... says:

    Wally… Show me when I was put on Joe Kyrillos’ finance committee. Is it a paying position, because I haven’t received my W-2 yet. I need to add that $$ to all the checks I’ve received from the Koch Brothers.

  17. Wally says:

    You know it’s not a paid position. You volunteer.

    Are you trying to tell us that you and Bob and Barbara don’t support Senator Kyrillos?

    Please clarify.

  18. Bob's wife... says:

    You made the accusation, Wally. You prove it!

  19. Wally says:

    Wait a minute. Are you telling us that you won’t answer that question? It’s very easy. Do you, Bob, and Barbara support Senator Kyrillos? Yes or No?

    There is no “accusation” here. I think it is a good thing that you have decided to support a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. It is nothing for you to be ashamed of.

    I only mentioned it because your friend likes to call good Republicans like Mike Doherty and Joe Kyrillos some very nasty names. You do know that Senator Doherty is supporting Senator Kyrillos too.

  20. Bob's wife... says:

    Who I support is none of your business. If you want to know who my husband supports, I’d suggest you ask him (he speaks for himself). I don’t speak for Barbara.

    You inaccurately posted that I am on the Senator’s finance committee. You have no proof of that and when I asked you for proof, you changed the subject.

    So, don’t bother asking again… the answer will be the same.

    Good night Wally!

  21. Wally says:

    Wasn’t that your picture with Bob and Barbara all over facebook at Senator Kyrillos’ kickoff? Wasn’t Barbara quoted in the Star Ledger?

    Why are you so afraid of saying who it is that you obviously support? Are you afraid that your friend will start calling you names too?

    He is calling other people who support Joe Kyrillos “whores”. That’s not very helpful if you believe, as Barbara does, that the Senator is the best shot we have at defeating Bob Menendez.

    I applaud you for backing a good Republican like Senator Joe Kyrillos. I am confused by the way you hide your support out of fear over what some no count blogger will do to you. Don’t be afraid of him.

  22. Wally says:

    Let me add this, Mrs. Gordon, I didn’t mean anything bad by mentioning your support for your candidate. If you know people who can contribute to defeat Menendez and elect a Republican then it is a really generous way for you to help. It is nothing to be ashamed of and I applaud you for helping elect Joe Kyrillos to the Senate.

    I only mentioned it because your friend goes around calling other Kyrillos supporters “whores”.

  23. Barbara says:

    Gene is a good friend. If I was supporting someone for US Senate, or if the Bayshore Tea Party was supporting someone, Gene would be one of the first people to know. So, you are wrong. All of the candidates will be invited to speak to our group. Everyone will decide, on their own, who they wish to support and help campaign for.

  24. Wally says:

    Does that mean that you are not standing by the endorsement you made to the Star Ledger? This is what they reported:

    “Little was backed by the Tea Party in 2010, when she won a congressional primary. But Barbara Gonzales, who founded the Bayshore Tea Party and backed Little then, was in Middletown to support Kyrillos because ‘I feel that Joe has the best chance of beating Menendez.’

    Why are you so afraid of this Gene that you have allowed yourself to be placed in this position?

    Isn’t Senator Kyrillos a friend too? Hasn’t he supported your organization? Don’t you value your relationship with him?

    Your fear shouldn’t dictate what you do. Senator Kyrillos is a good Republican and a strong candidate to defeat Bob Menendez. I believe you think so too, and you said so to the state’s biggest newspaper. Stand by your candidate. Don’t flip flop. It’s the right thing to do.

  25. Jim Killen says:

    Why is anyone caring what Eugene or Bayshore people are saying. Both are remarkably irrelevant and have been exposed for the violent and racist people they are.

    Kyrillos wouldn’t want either of them supporting him. Even Larsen is unlikely to make a mistake like that, and he is making a lot of mistakes.

  26. Di Marco says:

    There are four Republicans currently running to defeat Obama. All of them have baggage. None are perfect. One’s support for any particular candidate does not mean that they support every issue the presidential candidate holds.

    A couple of points to keep in mind:
    1) Gingrich has changed his position on man-made global warming since the instances cited in this article.
    2) Larsen has made clear and has never deviated that he is opposed to Cap & Trade and does not believe in Earth’s destruction as a result of man-made carbon dioxide.

    Therefore, should Gingrich become President and go back to his earlier position and suggest a Cap & Trade scheme, we can be confident that David Larsen will oppose him on this issue.

  27. Wally says:

    I have to disagree with you. When you support a candidate it follows that you support what he stands for.

    If a conservative can’t stomach Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping, how is Newt Gingrich’s flip-flopping better?

    Larsen doesn’t have a record aside from what he says he’ll do and who he does or doesn’t support. Saying he opposes cap & trade and then endorsing someone like Gingrich speaks volumes.

    Larsen is either stupid or two-faced. Pick one.

  28. Jim Killen says:

    @Di Marco,

    Lance, like Gingrich has also changed his position on man made global warming. Since that seems to be the reason that Larsen is running, why would we replace Lance, a known quantity who took a bad vote, with Larsen who we have no idea how he will vote on anything?

    What other differences are there between Lance and Larsen? What other positions does Larsen not agree with Gingrich on, yet still feels that he is the best qualified candidate to be President?

  29. Di Marco says:

    @Wally,

    As I said, all the candidates have baggage. It is impossible to pick a perfect candidate. Besides, Gingrich is not running to implement a Cap & Trade system. If he were, you might have a point. But he is not, so you don’t! If you go here, you will find a candidate comparison on other issues.

    @Jim Killen,

    I have yet to see Lance change his stance on man made global warming. He has, however, stated that he would not have voted for the Cap & Trade bill if he knew China and India would not have signed on.

    While it is true Larsen does not have a voting record in Congress, he has published some of his positions on issues prior to votes being cast. This includes being against the Budget Control Act which Lance voted for that gave Obama an additional $2.1 Trillion to play with.

    Lance has had many, many bad votes. I campaigned for him in 2008 because I was told he was a “fiscal conservative”. Having carefully watched his votes while in Congress, I know that is a lie. That is why I am backing David Larsen. This election is NOT about one bad vote. If you get Larsen’s e-mails, I am sure long before June, you will be convinced he is the better person to represent CD-07.

    Larsen is running on his views, not Gingrich’s. I am sure Lance is not running on Romney’s views even though he endorsed him. Ultimately, I am sure Larsen or Lance will support anyone that can defeat Obama. I am sure voters are smart enough to decide who is the best candidate for President and who is the best candidate for NJ’s 7th CD without anyone’s endorsement.

  30. Jim Killen says:

    @ Di Marco

    Here it is reported in the Newark Star-Ledger:

    On his reversal over a cap-and-trade bill to combat climate change:

    (Lance was among a handful of Republicans who voted “yes” last year — but says now he would vote “no.”)

    …  “There was the promise then that China and India would come on board. It was their expectation that there would be progress in Copenhagen and that didn’t happen.”

    …  “China’s air is filthy. And we can’t be placed at a competitive disadvantage with them.”

  31. Jim Killen:

    Go to the 5:30 mark to hear Liberal Lenny spin like a top on Cap and Trade. The man is a disgrace.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDve47FyccE

  32. Jim Killen says:

    @Richard,

    Lance is not one of my favorites, however if Larsen can get past Gingrich’s flip flop on this issue, what is the purpose of running against Lance for the very same flip flop?

    Larsen’s entire campaign is focused on this one issue, which Lance has changed his position on. Lance has a record of voting the right way on virtually every issue, Larsen has no record of voting on anything at all.

    Larsen supports Gingrich, a man who has many positions on many issues. That makes me very wary of Larsen. I’m not sure I want to vote for such an unknown, with no record, versus Lance who did make a mistake but has a solid record of voting correctly, in my eyes, otherwise.

  33. Wally says:

    Larsen and DiMarco are both crazy. If all the candidates “have baggage” then why endorse any of them? Nobody put a gun to your heads.

    As a candidate for Congress, Larsen probably shouldn’t have endorsed anyone. He should have focused on his own campaign, but he didn’t, and so he is on record as endorsing the candidate who proposed cap and trade.

    I also disagree with your argument that Gingrich isn’t running to implement cap and trade. He was one of the earliest supporters of cap and trade and supported it as late as couple years ago. We really don’t know what he would do as President, do we?

    The Larsen campaign can’t say that Lance isn’t a “true conservative” because he once supported cap and trade and then tell us that it doesn’t matter that Gingrich once supported it too. You can’t have it both ways.

    Larsen can’t say that Romney is untrustworthy because he flips back and forth on the issues, and then tell us that it doesn’t matter when Larsen’s candidate does it. That makes Larsen a hypocrite.

    Larsen screwed up by endorsing Gingrich. Santorum or Paul would have been better choices. It says a lot about Larsen that he endorsed the number two establishment candidate and an accomplished flip-flopper.

    It says a lot about Larsen, who calls Lance a career politician, that he endorsed a career politician for President. He didn’t have to, but he did, so face the consequences like a man.

  34. Wally says:

    Larsen is running on his views, not Gingrich’s.

    I guess Anna Little didn’t get the memo when she linked Pallone to Obama. This is a stupid statement coming from a campaign that made an endorsement for President when they didn’t have to.

    Larsen endorsed Gingrich for one reason: He approves of his policies. Now you are stuck with them. All of them.

    You are not even in Congress and already you are getting a questionable record. Think next time!

  35. Di Marco says:

    @ Jim Killen:

    Thank you for making my point.

    @ Wally:

    Larsen was asked by a reporter who of the current candidates would he vote for if the election were held now. Frankly, I totally disagree with your conclusions and think you are a little nuts to so emphatically make the claims you are making. Only a Lance supporter would apply such pretzel logic to attack Larsen.

  36. Wally says:

    Of course reporters are going to ask candidates for Congress who they support for President. It is the job of candidates for Congress to have an answer that makes sense. In other words, an answer that doesn’t conflict with the main message of their campaign.

    Somehow Dave Larsen couldn’t pull this off.

    It’s not that he didn’t give it a lot of thought. Larsen met with Gingrich in New York before endorsing him, so it wasn’t something he said to the reporter but didn’t mean to (as you, in your sneaky political way, are trying to imply).

    As for “pretzel logic”, I’ve heard you criticize people because they support Obama, Romney, Christie, and others. Like the rest of us, you equate supporting these politicians with supporting their policies.

    Only when Dave Larsen does it, it doesn’t, right?

    That is more than “a little nuts”.

  37. Wally:

    Both DeMarco and David Larsen are friends of mine. I don’t mind your comments here, but don’t deride either one of them or you will have to find another place to express your thoughts.

  38. Di Marco says:

    @ Rich,

    Thanks for the defense but couldn’t you at least spell my name properly.

    @ Wally,

    Really???!!! Obviously, by focusing only on Cap & Trade, you have no idea what is the main message of Dave’s campaign.

    You seem to present yourself as an expert on all things political. How would you attack Lance?

  39. DiMarco:

    Sorry, did it from my Ipad on the run.

  40. Wally says:

    Richard, your friend did say of me: “You are a little nuts.” I was only responding in kind.

    Larsen a friend? When you and I were working our tails off for Steve Lonegan for Governor in 2009. Where was Dave Larsen?

    DiMarco, please go back and read Larsen’s campaign literature of 2010 and it will become very obvious to you that cap and trade was the centerpiece of Larsen’s campaign for Congress.

    Larsen spent a couple hundred thousand dollars talking about cap and trade. If something else had been his “main message” I assume he would have spent a couple hundred thousand talking about that.

  41. Wally:

    I am nuts, but I don’t like the term “little man” being used to describe either Di Marco or Larsen.

    I don’t know what Dave was doing in 2009 in regards to Steve’s campaign, but I do know that I worked on Dave’s campaign committee in 2010. I also know that Cap and Trade became the pivot point on the campaign since it reflected just what type of schmuck Lance is and presented the best chance to show the difference between Dave and Liberal Lenny.

    Dave Larsen has been working with Steve on the RGGI problem, Courts Gone Wild and other causes. He is a frequent participant in AFP events.

    Dave is more than a “Cap and Trade” candidate. He is a fiscal conservative pro-family and pro-life person. He might have endorsed Gingrich, but I would accept it as a rookie mistake.

    I will have more on endorsements and the stupidity of making them in a post I am preparing for later this week.

    By the way, I am also crazy along with being nuts. It must be a trait that all conservatives have.

  42. FriendOfLen says:

    Regarding cap&trade, Lance voted for the Energy Tax Prevention Act to stop the EPA from moving ahead with the current and planned climate change regulations.

    Sen. Jim Inhofe called the bill, “….the only legislation that puts an end to the EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda, once and for all.”

    you can read about it here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42561

    That should put this issue to bed once and for all.

  43. FriendOfLen:

    You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Inhofe is talking about the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. Liberal Lenny voted for the:

    H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

    Next time do your homework, something that Liberal Lenny doesn’t do. What he does do is spend all of his time coming up with excuses

  44. Wally says:

    Thank you Richard, at least somebody finally called it for what it was: A mistake.

    The Larsen people have spent many hundreds of words trying to defend something that clearly was a mistake. They remind me of those people at Bayshore, when they spent even more words trying to defend their socialist.

    It was good of you to have worked for Larsen in 2010, but Larsen hadn’t earned it. He didn’t help Lonegan in 2009. He didn’t do a thing for anyone until he decided that he wanted to be in politics. If he had helped somebody before helping himself I would be less suspicious of him.

    It makes me even more suspicious when he hangs around with people who trash talk Lonegan, Mike Doherty, and CNJ. I think you know who I’m talking about.

  45. Wally:

    He doesn’t hang out with you know who from what I hear. As far as Doherty this might be of interest to you.

    http://rightdirection.com/2012/01/26/open-letter-to-nj-sen-michael-doherty/

  46. Wally says:

    Are you sure you know all his friends?

  47. Roland Hosey says:

    @Richard,

    Two different bills. The one you cite was his bad vote. The one Friendoflen cites was after he saw the error of his ways. His first vote is one he regrets and would never make again. He has had the same conversion that Larsen’s endorsed presidential candidate has had.

  48. Roland:

    Liberal Lenny is a RINO to the core. What really sucks is that he gave his word to vote no on the first bill and he lied. Screw him and the RINOs from New Jersey who promised one thing and did another. I don’t trust him or Gingrich either.

  49. Roland Hosey says:

    No argument. Do you trust Larsen though? Afterall, he trusts Gingrich.

  50. Roland:

    I have no reason to not trust David, he has not promised one thing and done another. I also look at an endorsement not as broken promise. I have the same feeling with Michael Doherty and his endorsement of Ron Paul. I don’t agree with it, but Michael has not promised something and then turned around and did something else.

    Endorsements do not mean broken promises, they mean support for a person who might have some but not all of the principles you feel represent yours.

    Like I said, I will address this whole subject in a post in the near future. That said I would urge all candidates not to endorse any particular person for president. It will only bite you in the ass in the end (pun intended).

  51. Roland Hosey says:

    Maybe Hosford will run again and none of this will matter.

    I find it troubling that the single issue Larsen has based both campaigns on is cap and trade then he endorses Gingrich who not only touted it, but sat on the couch with Pelosi to do so.

    Doesn’t smell right to me.

    I didn’t give Hosford enough of a look last time. I would like to see him run again.

  52. Roland:

    Hosford will run if he can find enough aluminum foil to make his new hat with. He is a nut job, not doubt about it.

    David is the real thing, I know.

  53. Wally says:

    Then where was Larsen in 2009? His literature claims he lived in New Jersey since 1995.

    Where was he in the big battles fought by conservatives like Lonegan v Christie and Doherty v Karrow? I question the motives of someone who didn’t care enough to get into the fight and help anyone.

    Now Larsen is helping himself because he wants to be in politics. He is taking the career path of every RINO we know. Never helped conservatives until it served his purpose to do so. Now he tells us how conservative he is because he wants our votes.

    Once elected will he ignore us like he did before 2010?

  54. Wally says:

    Then where was Larsen in 2009? His literature claims he lived in New Jersey since 1997.

    Where was he in the big battles fought by conservatives like Lonegan v Christie and Doherty v Karrow? I question the motives of someone who didn’t care enough to get into the fight and help anyone.

    Now Larsen is helping himself because he wants to be in politics. He is taking the career path of every RINO we know. Never helped conservatives until it served his purpose to do so, he tells us how conservative he is because he wants our votes.

    Once elected will he ignore us like he did before 2010?