Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Doug Forrester, R-NJ, LOST and LOST Badly
11.07.02 | Rick Shaftan

Posted on 11/07/2002 4:19:30 PM PST by Coleus

WHY FORRESTER LOST - AND LOST BADLY…

Rick Shaftan

Liberal “experts” attempt to alibi Doug Forrester’s humiliating defeat saying it was because he was “too” conservative even though across the nation, conservatives like Norm Coleman, Jim Talent, Saxby Chambliss, Wayne Allard and of course Scott Garrett won unexpected or larger than expected victories.

Forrester lost badly because he never connected with New Jersey’s largest group of swing voters - “Reagan Democrats” - conservative Catholics who live along Routes 3, 17, 46 and the Parkway. And Republicans will continue to lose as long as they believe that being pro-abortion is the only way to win these voters.

Instead, judging by the campaigns and candidates Republicans have nominated over the past decade, one would think that the “swing” voter in New Jersey is a liberal woman whose can trace her ancestry to the Mayflower. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

No Republican has won a vote majority in this state since George Bush got 55 percent against Michael Dukakis in 1988. And in that time, conservative Catholic towns like Secaucus, Bloomfield, Lyndhurst and Clifton have gone from producing 3-2 Republican majorities in statewide elections to 3-2 Democratic majorities.

Now if you listen to the “experts” who have blown election after election in this state, you would think that the way to bring back Republican victories in these towns is for Republicans to move even farther to the left. To the contrary, for Republicans to win in politically marginal areas like New Jersey, they must move back to the conservative base, embrace conservative issues - not run from them - and energize the base. Consider this.

1. While Republicans around the country were making the case for GOP Senate control by attacking liberal judges, Doug Forrester actually said he would vote against conservative judges supported by President Bush - and never once attacked Lautenberg for supporting a host of leftist jurists, including those who took “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Republican Party bosses and academic “experts” like David Rebovich say that conservative pro-Life voters “have no place to go” and therefore can be ignored by Republicans. But many pro-Life voters are Democrats (ditto for gun owners). Forrester, ignoring reality, got into a well-publicized spat with New Jersey Right to Life and saw his lead among pro-Life voters drop from 56-32 to 46-38 in two weeks, without any increase among pro-abortion voters. No Republican should win less than 80 percent of the pro-Life vote. If Forrester had won 80 percent of the pro-Life vote, he would be Senator-Elect today.

3. No one has yet explained how “right-wing extremist” Scott Garrett won a higher percentage than Forrester in the allegedly “socially moderate” 5th Congressional District. And don’t look for the answer in the press or from Dr. Rebovich, who always seems to be wrong - they’re still in shock.

4. Inexplicably, Forrester not once referred to Lautenberg as a liberal (neither did Haytaian in 1994 - another losing race in spite of a massive national GOP trend), even though the former and future Senator had among the highest liberal ratings in the Senate - always in the 95-100 percent range. Polling indicates that conservatives outnumber liberals in New Jersey by 2-1. But the Forrester campaign seems to have foolishly believed those numbers were reversed and that they, in fact, were really running in Greenwich Village.

5. Our polling in a variety of towns indicated a carefully targeted Democratic campaign to identify Forrester as a “right-wing conservative” among liberals. Forrester’s defensive response was to tell conservatives that he was in fact a liberal, rather than to tell conservatives that Lautenberg was one. If you’re going to be attacked as a conservative, you might as well get the upside. And that didn’t happen because Forrester was more afraid of being attacked than energizing the conservative Republican base that, outside of the 5th CD, stayed home.

6. Forrester was the only Senate candidate targeted for defeat by Sarah Brady who lost - coincidentally also the only one who never filled out an NRA questionnaire and therefore was not on the little orange postcard that the NRA sent out in other states (or the one sent promoting Scott Garrett).

7. Forrester focused his message on “integrity” (whatever that means - we are dealing with politicians here) and the “debate on debates.” By highlighting Lautenberg’s supposedly being afraid to debate they only lowered expectations. When Lautenberg held his own (all he had to do was not drool on TV) Forrester lost any remaining rationale for his candidacy.

8. The centerpiece of the post-Torricelli campaign was an endorsement by “Uncle Tom” Kean, who has not endorsed a winning candidate in a competitive race since 1985 (unless you count Bill Clinton in 1996 or Rush Holt in 1998). The Forrester campaign should have looked at Kean’s record back in 1987 at the height of his “popularity” when he endorsed 10 GOP State Senate candidates in tight races and all 10 lost (he also “un-endorsed” 3 GOP Senators, all of whom won).

Republicans continue to lose because of the leftward drift, not in spite of it. And an even bigger problem is the perception that the party is anti-Catholic. Running “Republicans” who continue to emphasize how pro-abortion they are doesn’t help. Even non-pro-Life Catholics perceive “pro-choice” Republicans as having latent anti-Catholic prejudices. The election returns back that up.

It’s been 30 years since Republicans ran a Roman Catholic in a state that is majority Catholic - that’s just dumb. And the drop in GOP percentages is not just a New Jersey problem - with “pro-choice Republicans” at the helm, Republicans have taken a major nosedive in Catholic suburbs from Boston to St. Paul in the last decade. And this will continue as long as the party is controlled by a small group of elitist rich (and of course non-Catholic) liberals who fit the stereotype of what Democrats say Republicans are.

With another great Republican election night passing New Jersey by, maybe it is time for New Jersey Republicans to follow the rest of the nation’s lead rather than defy it and move back to the right. Again and again we are told that some liberal “Republican” is the new Golden Boy, only to see them lose on Election Day. It’s time for a change and the first step should be a total housecleaning at the Republican State Committee, starting with Joe Kyrillos.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rick Shaftan (who is not Catholic) is a political consultant for “conservatives with the guts to win.” The president of Neighborhood Research, a polling company and Mountaintop Media, which produces TV, radio and direct mail, his clients were 12-0 on Tuesday, with one race still in doubt. Among his successful clients this year were conservative Democrat Russ Pitman, who defeated 20-year liberal Republican incumbent Len Kaiser for North Arlington Mayor, conservative freshman Virginia Republican State Senator Ken Cuccinelli, and the Coalition Against the Tax Referendum which defeated a proposed Northern Virginia Sales Tax increase by a 55-45 margin.


TOPICS: Free Republic; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: abortionlist; catholiclist; editorial; election; forrester; gobretgo; mountaintopmedia; newjersey; nj; prolife; senator; shaftan; sprint
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-138 next last
To: Salvation; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; annalex; AmericanGirl329; ...
Yes, the Catholic and pro-life vote is very important.

Key Factor in Tuesday's Election

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/784844/posts

http://www.catholicvote.org
61 posted on 11/07/2002 9:47:55 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
...will never win in a state dominated by overeducated elitist upper class liberal snobs, ex-Manhattanites, union goons, ghetto blacks and immigrants.

I agree, and no one's mentioned crooked businesses, Atlantic City for example, machine dominated cities like Newark, Trenton and Camden, and a major portion of the media.

Curious: most of the newspapers endorsed the Lout. I heard talk that the Times of Trenton had planned to endorse Forrester. Their endorsement of Lout came as a shock. I heard that they changed their endorsement after meeting the candidates; they were so impressed with Lout, they said.

No, I don't buy it either. I keep turning it over in my mind:
Now, I know that the Times is part of a conglomerate owned by Newhouse.The Star-Ledger is part of that conglomerate too.
I wonder...

62 posted on 11/07/2002 9:48:05 PM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I totally disagree with all of that pundit fodder.

Here's the real reason Forrester lost: New Jersey voters are stupid! Brain dead! Morons! Corrupt! Unionized idiots! Paid off, selfish jerks! Slavic hold overs!

But I'd hate to sound extreme! (not)
63 posted on 11/07/2002 9:50:53 PM PST by Fledermaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Forrester should have run ads right after Louse was picked by McGreevey stating that Lousenberg was too "extreme" for New Jersey. The word "extremist" or "risky" tend to work well with the braindead suburban women who live in North Jersey.

Every picture I see of Lautenberg lately makes him seem like the bastard lovechild of Leslie Nielsen and Frankenstein.

64 posted on 11/07/2002 9:57:30 PM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb
It's a matter of who runs the organization. You gotta get the right guys running in the primaries and keep voting conservatives and not RINOs.
65 posted on 11/07/2002 10:05:41 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: Coleus
Click here to sign POST-ELECTION, Bring back Pickering PETITION !!

David C. Osborne

67 posted on 11/08/2002 2:47:13 AM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
Manifestly, the NJ Republican Party should not nominate guys like Forrester in the future.

You're right, they shouldn't. But they will, because too many of the more influential NJ Republicans are apolitical Wall Streeters who only vote Republican in anticipation of the tax benefits and who are otherwise preoccupied with re-creating the rock star lifestyle for themselves.

68 posted on 11/08/2002 4:57:22 AM PST by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I think Forrester, while not slick and sexy in the modern sense, was an excellent candidate and in the end I was proud of him. In some ways, his candidacy was a success. Had he not stood up for decency in NJ, we might have Sen. Torricelli today.

Ultimately, there was little Doug Forrester could do about the switcharoo that played out in the courts. Hopefully we haven't heard the last of Doug Forrester. He was a total unknown, and even among NJ conservatives did not at the outset generate the kind of enthusiasm Schundler generated. I was definitely impressed with the way Forrester conducted himself.

We've got work to do here in NJ. No question. The NJ GOP needs to first of all learn to work together as a team and decide what they stand for. We need a msg crafted for the particularities of NJ, so that we can win, and slowly but surely move this state to the right. MHO.

69 posted on 11/08/2002 4:58:09 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
They do now, Roukema retired and Conservative Scott Garrett won the 5th-Congressional race.

Yep. He's my congressman, I'm happy to say.

70 posted on 11/08/2002 4:59:21 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
While Republicans around the country were making the case for GOP Senate control by attacking liberal judges, Doug Forrester actually said he would vote against conservative judges supported by President Bush

Then the party is better off without him. As far as I'm concerned, getting conservative judges confirmed is the MOST important duty of the Republicans between now and the next election.

71 posted on 11/08/2002 5:06:26 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mmmike
Thanks for that insight.
72 posted on 11/08/2002 6:40:59 AM PST by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I now wonder if maybe New Jersey is a decent place after all and it is the New Jersey Republican Party that is the pack of scumbag little pissants...

Now you're catching on. Look at what happened last year. The grassroots Republican voters chose Schundler for their gubernatorial nominee. The NJ Repub Party establishment then proceeded to work against the Republican candidate. Conservatives in NJ should dump the NJ RINO party and build up a NJ Conservative party. I'm tired of getting dumped on by the NJ RINO party.

73 posted on 11/08/2002 8:27:37 AM PST by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
...Here's the real reason Forrester lost: New Jersey voters are stupid! Brain dead! Morons! Corrupt! Unionized idiots! Paid off, selfish jerks!...

I think you could apply that comment to Californians too! And add "selfish" and "immoral" to that rant on the abortion issue.

74 posted on 11/08/2002 8:38:57 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Yes. You can read Congressman Billybob's explanation in Forrester Case Still Live in the Supreme Court. There were actually two petitions filed with the USSC.
75 posted on 11/08/2002 8:38:57 AM PST by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exit82; Antoninus
Bret Schundler got 914,713 votes in Nov. 2001

And that was with the NJ Repub party working against him.

76 posted on 11/08/2002 8:40:32 AM PST by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Huck
As Bob Grant said, "He was a gentleman and no match for that Lause." He was just too nice. I never heard him say left-wing liberal, he seemed afraid to attack the old man.
77 posted on 11/08/2002 9:16:18 AM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb
RINO Marge Retired, Scott Garrett a pro life, pro 2nd amendment conservative won with around 63% of the vote in an open seat the rats poured money into against a pro abortion rat female.

Whoever ranhis campaign did a terrific job.

78 posted on 11/08/2002 10:03:50 AM PST by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Lautenberg is one creepy dude.
79 posted on 11/08/2002 10:05:26 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ELS
Thanks to you and Congressman Billy Bob. I actually tried a similar case involving Ted Kennedy's 1982 primary election, in which the law was violated clearly and the Courts went to astonishing lengths in collusion with the famed Kennedy damage control apparatus to make sure that the law was not applied.
80 posted on 11/08/2002 10:24:02 AM PST by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson