FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/03/2002 5:33:00 PM PDT by greydog
The real question in the New Jersey Senate race is this: What will Doug Forrester and the Republicans do? If I were Forrester, I'd get out of court right now. Let the party fight it if they want to, but don't give the Democrats a chance to taunt, "What are you afraid of, Douggie?"
Focus on stuff like millionaire businessman Lautenberg demanding a tax hike on hard-working Americans by bashing the Bush tax cut - the tax cut 12 Democrats voted for in the Senate. Focus on him wanting you to work longer so he can afford to buy more votes.
I have a feeling that the Supreme Court of the United States won't want to get involved in this state matter – especially Kennedy and O'Connor. It takes four votes to get the issue taken up, and Monday when they open is their busiest day of the year anyway. No votes have been cast in New Jersey, as opposed to Florida 2000. Fighting this in court will be like beating a dead horse. Instead, Forrester should beat his dead opponent.
Focus on Lautencadaver's radical record. I have an advanced copy of old buddy Joel Rosenberg's latest piece, "Lautenberg's Radical Record is a GOP Challenger's Dream!" in JewishWorldReview.com. Joel is a former contributor to the Limbaugh Letter – which is now publishing our largest-ever, 26-page, 10-year anniversary issue. You can listen to me summarize Lautenberg's record in the audio link below, but here are some highlights:
"In 1991 Lautenberg voted against authorizing military force against Saddam during the Gulf War." Really good timing here, you Democrats. "He predicted tens of thousands of American casualties, a new U.S. draft, and war in the U.S. could end up destroying Kuwait in the process of trying to liberate it." Wrong!
"He voted for the intelligence oversight act of 1988 to restrict the conduct of foreign covert operations."
"He voted in 1992 to cut the U.S. intelligence budget by $1 billion."
"He has consistently voted against building missile defenses to protect the homeland or U.S. troops and allies, and in '91 supported an amendment that would have cut defense spending by $80 billion."
"In October 1989, the Senate voted on a bill introduced by Arlen Specter to impose the death penalty for terrorists who kill U.S. citizens in foreign countries. The bill passed 79-20. Lautenberg voted against it!"
He voted against marriage tax relief a dozen times, against abolishing the death tax five times, against reducing capital gains and gasoline taxes. Then he voted FOR the Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security and dozens of other items. He's the one cutting Social Security! Forrester should cut a commercial about that right this minute.
With this record behind him, Lautencadaver is out there talking about "choice?" He thinks he's talking about abortion! I mean, I know we shouldn't make fun of the infirm, but isn't it possible that "choice" is simply a word he remembers because liberals like to throw it out there all the time, and he really doesn't even know what it means anymore?
Lautenberg's toast.
Take him!
Rush is right, but Forrester should proceed on two tracks. Take the offensive against Lautenberg and hit 'em between the eyes on National Security and his Gulf War vote. Then hit 'em with the NJ rate of return of Federal dollars. Also proceed on the legal track just to keep the Rats in Ratland on the defensive.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I can see it now "The Demonrats think they need only 7 votes to steal this election. I put my trust in the good people of New Joisy to say different."
I wish I knew how to post a link...but, since I don't...here's information from a new post. (I think you'll like it.)
"Fox news just reported, Ashcroft is asking NJ officials to explain why they are not following federal election laws in regards to military ballots in the switch and bait ruling."
Our fundamental problem is that our judiciary is way out of control. Things would get better if the judiciary had to live under the same laws (whatever those may be) under which they force us to live. Repeal judicial immunity now!
Forrester should just get out there and campaign and campaign HARD. He should stress honesty and integrity. He should say that there is no sense in having laws if they are not going to be upheld.
Why not, indeed. He'd be a fine candidate and of more value to the GOP as a vote caster, attention getting Senate floor speeches, etc., than a potential future cabinet position.
Exactly - Forrester should not fight this battle, but the Republican party must. Why? Because it opens a can of worms that needn't be opened. Losing is no excuse for changing candidates illegally and that must not go unanswered.
Like Pennsylvania, where Fisher (R) is losing big time against Rendall (D) for governor.
Put the current gov. Mark Schweiker in, the hero of the mining disaster, but not running and say, "Hey, we want to switch."
Sometimes, no, make that most of the time, Demodicks outsmart Republidiots.
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.