[Revolutionary]

It sounded like his mind was going, going, gone, in the race with senility.

If his poles drop like a rock, expect the Torch to resign with less than 30 days to go. That puts the Rat Govenor in the driver seat.

[W505]

OK here is Forrester's problems:

He was TOO focused and TOO successful. He made "I'm not Bob Torricelli" and "Let's get rid of Bob Torricelli" his campaign themes. He is one for two. And no one cares about #1, because the other guy isn't Bob Torricelli either.

Forrester COULD have been talking about solid issues that would make him a credible candidate REGARDLESS of who the Democrats picked. He didn't do this, and as a result, he is at a significant disadvantage, since now he is running against another incumbent with an objectively solid record over three terms in Congress.

I am not for crybabying in the Republican Party. Fact is, if you are a good candidate, you are a good candidate against ANY challenger. The talk about "unfair" seems to be coming from the paid consultants---and I guess for them, it is unfair. Their product had a big flaw in it, and that was it was predicated on Torricelli surviving the autumn campaign season. Where is Plan B? ("I'm not Frank Lautenberg??" (well, who else aren't you?))

I simply haven't been impressed with Forrester. His primary commercial was "we haven't elected a Republican Senator since 1972 (Clifford Case)", and now "vote for me, I'm not Torri-cell-i." Forrester has about a week to get his act together and stop sounding like a whining crybaby whose underlying message is "I deserve to have!", (and everyone is picking up on that undertone), and actually fight a senatorial race.

Lautenberg won 52%, 54%, and 53%, I believe, in the three times he ran. The reason Bradley didn't run is that his last victory (1990) was one of those 50.5% ones, against Freeholder Christie Whitman of Somerville. And he lost a bunch of primaries to Al Gore in 2000, so he doesn't want to smell like a loser.

So let's have a real race.