Posted on 03/28/2002 6:55:06 AM PST by Son of Soprano
It strikes me as odd that there isn't a continuing string of discussion re: the GOP nomination contest to choose the Party's standard-bearer for the fall campaign against Bob Torricelli. So, as a service to NJ Freepers -- and those who pay attention to NJ politics -- I offer the following analysis of the state of play in the nomination contest as it currently stands, and would love to read comments:
1) Essex County Executive Jim Treffinger is the current front-runner (just ask him), by virtue of the fact that he's already run once before for the U.S. Senate AND the fact that he's rolled up the most endorsements of local elected officials and GOP party leaders. He's winning county lines up and down the state, and that favorable ballot position will help him on June 4.
But Treffinger has at least two GLARING problems with his candidacy, in terms of convincing GOP primary voters that he's the best nominee to face off against the Torch in the fall: a) his OWN history of campaign finance violations, which he's already admitted to (the FEC says he spent $163,000 that he shouldn't have spent on his 2000 Senate race, and has to pay it back from current campaign funds), which means that he and he alone of the GOP contenders cannot hit the Torch for his own campaign law violations; b) his own history of broken promises (i.e., he promised when he first ran for County Executive in 1994 that he would never solicit County employees or vendors for contributions, and then immediately broke that promise; he promised that he would only serve one term, and then broke that promise; and, perhaps most importantly for NJ Freepers who worked their butts off for Bret Schundler last year, he broke his promises to Bret not once, not twice, but SEVERAL times during the course of last year's campaign).
2) Diane Allen, a State Senator from Burlington Co., is wooing female Republicans with a pitch aimed solely at them -- I'm a woman, you're a woman, you should therefore vote for me. Her second line of argument is that she's best-positioned, according to the polls, to take him on.
I'll skip her first line of argument just because it's so silly. But as to her second line of argument, it, too, is silly -- she's citing polls that show her running 1-5 points better against Torch than any of the other GOPers, but she still loses substantially to him. Worse, in terms of her argument, her numbers are a function of her high name ID in South Jersey -- and even there, where she's got virtually the same name ID as the Torch, she loses to him by dougle digits. So she's really got no room to grow, as opposed to the other GOP candidates who have yet to establish themselves.
Moreover, she's far too liberal for the average GOP primary voter, let alone conservative GOP primary voters. She's pro-choice (actually voted to uphold a veto of a partial-birth abortion prohibition), and anti-death penalty. Further, she's not just in favor of McCain-Feingold, she actually supports FULL PUBLIC FINANCING of campaigns!
3) Robert Ray, the former Whitewater Independent Counsel, is raising questions -- such as, what the heck does he think he's doing?! He's gotten in WAY late, he's got no personal money to speak of, he's got no base, no organization. If you're going to run for the Senate under those conditions, there's only one thing left -- a compelling message, and the ability to deliver it in a compelling style. Which he clearly doesn't have. I've seen him on the stump several times now, and he's a bore.
More importantly, as other discussion threads indicate, the one thing he brings to the race is his status as the former IC. But that doesn't help him with liberals (who remember him to the extent they do as the guy who went after their beloved Slickmeister), nor with conservatives (who remember him to the extent they do as the guy who let Slickmeister skate). Sean Hannity hammered him last night along the latter lines -- if he REALLY believed he had the goods on Clinton (as his final report indicates), then why didn't he prosecute?!
4) Doug Forrester. Finally, a guy who can appeal to the GOP base AND work the moderate center so crucial to winning in NJ. He's got local and state government experience (former Mayor of West Windsor, former State Pension Director -- in which position he fought attempts to raid pension funds of state retirees, including teachers, cops, firemen, etc.) AND he's a successful self-made multimillionaire businessman (the kind of bio that really appeals to GOP primary voters).
Forrester is pro-choice in the first trimester, but supports parental notification and a ban on partial birth abortion, and will vote to confirm pro-life justices. His position on the 2nd Amendment is firm -- no new laws, just enforce the laws on the books. He supports Bush on tax cuts, and opposes increasing debt.
And he's got his own money. What's not to like about a Republican Corzine, who's willing to put his own money where his mouth is to take out the Torch? The only question about Forrester is this -- is he REALLY winning to put down in cash what it's going to take to overcome Treffinger's advantageous ballot position? Early indications are that the answer is YES, he WILL -- he's been running ads on radio since January, and went up on cable TV this week. His mail looks good, and he showed (by winning the Middlesex County Convention -- the ONLY one of the county conventions that's open to all registered Republicans) that he can appeal to the Republican grass roots. Keep your eye on him -- he's got low name ID now, but that will grow as his paid media takes effect.
5) Gregg/Matheussen. Guy Gregg, a stalwart "Mountain Man," has no money at all and should get out while the getting's good. He based his candidacy on the hope/belief that the Schundlerites would rally around him, but he's run up against a simple problem -- an awful lot of the Schundlerites went to Bret because he is pro-life, and Guy happens to be a pro-choice Catholic.
John Matheussen is running for ... Congress against Rob Andrews in 2004? Is that why he's in this race, to raise his name ID to position himself for a run in '04? Can't figure this one out.
Well, there's my two cents' worth. Would be interested to see what other NJ Freepers have to say. We've got a tremendous opportunity to get rid of Bob Torricelli this year -- but in order for that to happen, we're going to need a concerted effort, with ALL wings of NJ GOP working together (unlike LAST year, when the Donnie feather of the Party, which controls a LOT of the money, took a pass on the fall campaign).
|
|
Hmmmm . . . hi Bill! |
John Matheussen, Republican Candidate for United States Senate will appear on News 12 New Jersey's Power and Politics this weekend. Please take a few minutes to tune in and see for yourself why John Matheussen is the best candidate in the Republican Primary to defeat Bob Torricelli.
The show can be seen on Saturday at 11am, 3pm, 10:30pm and on Easter Sunday at 11am and 3pm
If you have any questions about the Matheussen for Senate campaign please contact the HQ at 856-228-4473
They preserved the corrupt bipartisan machine that is NJ politics.
It really doesn't matter anymore whether the political insider on the take carries a D or an R after his name.
Like the Sopranos, they're all family now.
I'll whistle past the graveyard and vote Libertarian.
Does The Torch have the primary to himself?
The issue in the fall campaign is going to be a simple one -- do the voters believe Torricelli deserves another term, or not? Forrester appears to be the only one positioned to make that argument with clean hands. He's got a strong Republican Party history, is a successful businessman willing to put his money where his mouth is, and he's personally disgusted by the Torch, and wants to take him out.
What more could you ask for?
He's a businessman, and it's a small business, so it's probably incorporated as an S Corporation, which means he's paying 40 percent off the top before he gets to see the fruits of his own labor. He doesn't like taxes any more than the next guy, and wants them cut. He supported the Bush tax cut proposal, but doesn't think it goes far enough.
But he's also quick to point out that -- especially given the experience of New Jersey under Christie Whitman -- it is irresponsible to cut taxes with one hand while increasing debt with the other. The key is to get a handle on government SPENDING -- if you don't turn off the spigot, it doesn't make any difference whether the water is hot or cold, you're still WET.
So he wants to take a big whack at federal government spending, and reorder priorities along more market-oriented lines.
As for "special rights," it's my understanding that he believes no one should be granted "special rights" on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, he's a known strong supporter of the Boy Scouts -- he's a former Eagle Scout himself, and at some of his campaign events, he's even had Boy Scout Color Guards present the flag.
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.