Why Doug Forrester, R-NJ, LOST and LOST Badly

11.07.02 | Rick Shaftan

[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.

[Leto]

Both Rick's article and montag813's replies we absolutely on target. Pascoe and his RINO ampaign's are the kiss of death for Republicans in NJ.

Poor campaign's killed both Schlundler and Forrester, both races that could have been won.

We need a candidate like to win the govenor's race and clean out the current RINO establishment, they are a bunch of losers. Whitman is the only republican to win a statewide race since the 80's.... Why well she went against her RINO instincts and listened to Larry Kudlow and Steve Forbes and ran as a anti big goverment candidate (great bs job by Christy!)

The crime is we have some potental candidates who could give us the best set of Senators in the US, Murry Sabrin, Forbes, Schlundler. And look at what we end up with.... the Louse and Corzine and MC Greedy as govenor.

<ost Freepers don't realize, when Whitman won the Republicans also swept both houses in the State with over 2/3 majorities!!!!! Why she pretended to be aa anto tax fiscal conservative (and avoided saying she was rabidly pro abortion), so the republicans took that mandate and ...... threw it away.

[Coleus]

You sure it was Pasco's fault? I am not too sure, remember the campaign manager's boss is the candidate himself. And remember, the candidate does have many "advisors". From what I can recall after reading his resume in the Star Ledger last year, Pasco is a right winger like most of us.

I think the common denominator in BOTH elections is NJ GOP chaiman Senator Joe Kyrillos and Tom Kean.

Also, you have to realize that in Both elections, the State GOP hired most of the staff from the campaigns. I think the State GOP has more influence, $$$ and support, than we think.

Oh, Pasco is a freeper.

[Coleus]

The pro life candidates won
The NRA candiates won, and
The private social security account candidates won.

http://socialsecurity.org/

Social Security Reform Wins Big on Election Day
WASHINGTON—Tueday night's election was a resounding victory for proponents of Social Security Reform. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, chances have dramatically improved for passing a plan to allow younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in individual accounts. But candidates favoring individual accounts were also big winners. Consider:

Campaign for America's Future, a labor-backed umbrella group opposing individual accounts, has called the Senate campaigns in North and South Carolina "bellwethers" on the issue. But the pro-account candidate won both races. In North Carolina, Erskine Bowles made his opposition to "privatization" a centerpiece of his attack on Elizabeth Dole, featuring a barrage of commercials warning that Dole wants to "gamble" Social Security money in the stock market. Dole not only didn't back off, she attacked Bowles for not having a plan of his own to save Social Security, frequently showing a blank piece of paper as the "Bowles Social Security Plan." Despite being outspent by Bowles, Dole won 54 percent of the vote. In South Carolina, the Democratic candidate, Alex Sanders, ran ads equating individual accounts with Enron. But Lindsay Graham, a strong proponent of individual accounts, won by more than 10 percent.


In the night's biggest upset, Georgia Representative Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Senator Max Cleland. Although the race turned largely on national security issues, Cleland had attacked Chambliss for wanting to turn "the Social Security benefits of people on Main Street over to Wall Street to play Russian roulette with." Chambliss, in contrast, signed a pledge, circulated by SocialSecurityChoice.org, promising to support individual accounts if he was elected. In Minnesota, Norm Coleman was another upset winner who signed the SocialSecurityChoice pledge.


Pro-account candidates also won close Senate races in Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas and Colorado.


House supporters of individual accounts also did well. Few congressmen have been as outspoken in their support for individual accounts as Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), despite the fact that his Democratic-leaning district has high concentrations of both senior citizens and union workers. Opponents of individual accounts poured money and manpower into the district trying to defeat Toomey. Yet he won by a larger margin this year than he had in 2000.


Representatives Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) also won by larger margins than in 2000 in campaigns where Social Security was a major issue. Former Representative Jill Long Thompson may have been the first candidate in the country to air an ad attacking her opponent, Chris Chocola, for supporting "privatization." Chocola won, however, picking up an open seat previously held by Democrats. In New Mexico, Steve Pearce, another strong supporter of individual accounts, won a newly created seat in a competitive district.

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt in September said, "This election is a referendum on Social Security."

Responding today to that comment, Michael Tanner, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice said, "The third rail of politics has lost its juice. If this was a referendum on Social Security reform…reform won."

Forrester had a great strategy with the lock box legislation but he forgot to mention a "bullet point" private/indiviual social security accounts for the younger workers in the USA.

It would have been great to mention that when he appeard on the Howard Stern Show!! Oh, that's right he didn't appear on the show instead he talked on Imus by phone as the loser Bob Dole did.

http://www.forrester2002.com/issues/display_issue.cfm?ID=1

[Leto]

I thought Pasco was involved with Schlundler as well, that campaign seemed to have the same problems as Forrester's campaign.

If I am wrong my apologies, but both times we have had very poorly run general election campaign's that both has candidates try to run as liberials. With the same disasterous results ( I give Schlundler more of a break here due to the GOP active campaign to destroy him and deliver us to McGreevy).

Why did it take Forrester so long to get on ads against the Louse and why were his ads so soft? The ones run by the RNSCC committee were much better.

[Coleus]

Why did it take Forrester so long to get on ads against the Louse and why were his ads so soft? The ones run by the RNSCC committee were much better.>>>>

He had bad advice, Tom Kean and Senator Joe Kyrillos. You had a liberal running against a liberal, the more liberal, Lautenberg, won. It's happend for 20 yrs. in NJ.

And as Bob Grant said, Forrester was a gentleman.
He just didn't fight hard. He never called the Louse a left-wing liberal and on all the Lauses commercials, they called Forrester right wing, extemist,etc.

Let's face it, from the links I posted and saw on the FR, the pro lifers, pro gun, pro private SS accounts, won. The liberals lost, Forrester and Schundler should have hired Rick Shaftan, a conservative, to be their consultant. They refused.

[Tymesup]

Forrester ran an ad on WOR 710 AM at 7:55 on Tuesday night.

[peter the great]

You are correct about the name recognition of our canidate, however New Jersey is unique in the sense that the major media outlets serving our state are located in Philadelphia and New York. Also what was said in this article about running a Catholic is god advice.

[peter the great]

One thing about this State is that it is unique in a lot of ways. There is a mix of people here that make this state a completely diferent animal than most other states. One thing for sure is that I do not believe that the Republican message got out to the people who needed to hear it most and somehow I got the sense that the Democrats ran the same old tired play they boxed Forrester in on some key issues and will most likely do it again in the next election. Medical savings accounts and school vouchers would have been an issue that would have turned some heads.

[Coleus]

Yep, it cost double to run because of the PA/NYC connection, are you a NJ Freeper?

[JCG]

Polling indicates that conservatives outnumber liberals in New Jersey by 2-1.

Surely that can't be right. (Or, did they move Princeton and Rutgers to another state?)

America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[MadIvan]

Considering how loose the rules are, and given I'm looking for work, I wonder if I could run to be a New Jersey Senator. ;)

Hmmm.

Regards, Ivan

Campaign Motto: Better to have a Foreigner as a Senator, than a Senator who will sell you out to Foreigners

[afuturegovernor]

That all might be true - I would like to believe that a strong conservative can win New Jersey - but how does Schundler's landslide loss faction in. Schundler was a staunch conservative. Just saying he didn't get Rino support is a cop-out. I don't know the answers. It's just a problem that smarter people than I haven't been able to figure out.

[Coleus]

It's not a cop out, it is a fact. The republican establishment in NJ campaigned for Democrat McGreevey for revenge of not having their chosen one, DiFrancesco, run unopposed.

You actually had sitting Senators mailing out literature to their constituents telling them to vote the Bergen county line only and not vote for governor.

[jocon307]

"I can tell you this analysis is spot on"

Yes, it is, and I would recommend everyone to read the linked previous story on Schundler. I work in JC, and I can tell you all that his analysis of Schundler's mistakes was 100% correct. I think he's even better on Forrester, because Forrester made more errors (although Schundler may have lost more badly than Forrester did, not sure).

This man seems to have a great grasp of the mindset of Jersey voters. If I were running in this state, I'd hire him immediately. I especially like his part about the need to run a Catholic candidate. Here's an ideal candidate for the NJ Republicans: one of those feisty, Italian women, about 50-60 years old, the kind that take no crap from nobody, and have those ageless good looks (a la Sophia Loren, altho' she needn't be THAT beautiful), let her be totally pro-life and "kitchen sense" fiscally conservative and not a person to be over-awed by the NY metro area media, a person who's a mom, and maybe a grandmom too, someone's who's seen real life and knows that BS walks whether there is any money involved or not. Are there any such women involved in repub politics in NJ? If so, find her now, so she can start prepping with Mr. Shaftan!

[mrustow]

Forrester lost because THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE They BROKE THE LAW, and the poor pathetic residents felt it didn't matter & elected Lousenberg. There is NO OTHER REASON. Everything AFTER the fact means NOTHING.

Yes and no. Yes, Frank Lautenberg's candidacy was illegal. According to New Jersey State Election Law, Lautenberg was much too late to be the Dem candidate. But that still does not explain the whuppin' Lautenberg put on Forrester, or the similar beating Bret Schundler took at Jim McGreevey's hands in the last gubernatorial race (2000?). Forrester may be a bit on the dull side, but Schundler is as likable and smart a candidate as the Jersey GOP has had in my lifetime. Face it -- beyond limited jurisdictions (municipalities, congressional districts, etc.) Jersey is a tough sell for Republicans.

[mrustow]

P.S. Note that the last two "Republican" N.J. governors, Tom Kean and Christie Whitman, would have been seen as moderates within the Democratic Party.

[Coleus]

Also, the republicans pulled the same subterfuge last year by having Acting Governor Don DiFrancesco step down, they APPOINTED Bob Franks, then, in order to have him fundraise and campaign, THEY ILLEGALLY PUSHED BACK THE PRIMARY ELECTION DATE 3 FULL WEEKS!! Their illegal plan backfired because it gave BRET more time to campaign and won!! After he won, the republican establishment dumped him and supported McGreevey behind the scenes.

[Coleus]

From Dr. Murray Sabrin

For a Real GOP in NJ

"We must use time wisely and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right".
Nelson Mandela

"In simplest terms, a leader is a one who knows where he wants to go, and gets up, and goes". John Erskine, author

Doug Forrester defeated Senator Torricelli for the U.S Senate seat by the end of September, only to lose to Frank Lautenberg, the Democrats' DH on Election Day, courtesy of the lawless New Jersey Supreme Court.

On the one hand, Doug was the victim of his own success, hammering Torricelli on the ethics charges, which lead to the senator's withdrawal 39 days before the election. Rather than upholding the rules of the game, the Supreme Court allowed the Democrats to replace their corrupt candidate after the legal deadline.

Nevertheless, Doug had the opportunity to solidify the GOP base (nearly 900,000 registered voters) after Lautenberg entered the race, and attract both Reagan Democrats and conservative independents to his campaign. Instead, Doug was unwilling or unable to campaign as a "real" Republican against Lautenberg.

Why? His staff and the GOP establishment probably told Doug that he had to campaign as a "moderate" in "Democrat" New Jersey. He also was told to make "homeland defense" the cornerstone of his campaign, even though this issue was not a high priority on voters' minds. In addition, his flip-flop on the abortion issue at the end of the campaign undoubtedly lost him votes.

From numerous conversations with people throughout state in the fall, Doug's candidacy did not catch fire with grassroots GOP voters who need a reason to vote for a real Republican instead of a RINO.

Now we come to the bottom line.

Will all the real Republicans in Trenton and around the state please stand up and be counted?

What do real Republicans stand for? See the Republican National Committee for a list of President Bush's initiatives. The ones that stand out are: tax cuts and reducing unnecessary government spending.

How much unnecessary spending is there in the federal government? This is what we need to debate. If you are a Ron Paul Republican, who won reelection with 68% of the vote in his Texas CD, voting no on most spending bills is right because most federal spending is unauthorized by the constitution. This has earned him the name Dr. No.

Although Dr. Paul voted no on the Iraq resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein, his unwavering support for the rule of law, free enterprise, the constitution and a noninterventionist foreign policy makes him a fearless leader of the limited government cause.

Ron is an unequivocal and unapologetic defender of the Bill of Rights.

Meanwhile, how many Republicans in New Jersey have the commitment and courage to defend the founding principles of our nations? How many Republicans in Trenton think the welfare state--in other words, all current state government spending--is untouchable? How many Republicans are satisfied with the status quo and just want to be elected because of their ego, the lust for power, and the opportunity to feed their cronies at the public trough?

Republicans in Trenton need to have an agenda, a statement of principles that they believe in and will defend unabashedly to the their constituents, the media, and the pundits.

In short, the GOP needs a platform that will differentiate our party from the Democrats.

Republicans need to reaffirm the principles in our state constitution, beginning with Article I, paragraph 1:

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

If the GOP leadership stands tall, beginning with their commitment to the rule of law, ending special privileges for anyone or group, reining in a lawless Supreme Court, lowering taxes, abolishing unnecessary regulations, protecting our constitutional rights, and creating a lean state government budget, they will be successful next November.

However, if the GOP leaders in the Senate and Assembly just bash McGreevey and do not offer substantive proposals to end the massive redistribution of wealth from the suburbs to the cities, they will be the problem, not the Democrats.

Republicans also need to stand up for law-abiding citizens who want exercise their right to self-defense. If they do not, they turn their back on the oath they have taken to uphold.

In addition, the Republicans need to offer a real school choice alternative for parents who send their children to nonpublic schools. Families pay income taxes and property taxes to fund public education. If they send their children to a parochial or independent school, parents have to pay again. This is grossly unfair. Parents should get a state income tax credit to help pay for their children's education. Fairness demands nothing less.

So the ball is now in the Republican leadership's court. They can play ball with the Democrats or they can stand up for their constituents who care crying out for leadership, not lip service.

Time will tell what Senators Bennett, Kyrillos, Cardinale, Gormley, Lance, Littell, Matheussen, and others as well as Assemblyman DiGatenao, DeCroce, Bodine, Bateman, Wolfe, and their colleagues will do in the months ahead. If they rise to the occasion, we will applaud them--and New Jersey will be a better place to live and do business for all our citizens. If they drop the ball, it will be time to clean house.

Have a restful weekend,
Murray

[alrea]

He lost because New Jersey is a socialist, urban, big government, mafia run state.

[Coleus]

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/A0023202.html

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/A0023200.html