Forrester: Lying AGAIN to New Jersey Republican Voters

“I deny all those things,” says tax-hiking, drunken-sailor-spending, salary-doubling liberal

(MOUNTAINSIDE, NJ) – Schundler for Governor communications director Bill Pascoe – responding to Doug Forrester’s audacious denial of his tax-hiking, drunken-sailor-spending record while serving in the one elected office he’s ever held – today issued the following statement:

“Last week, Doug Forrester said ‘You can call me mistaken. You can call me misinformed. You can even call me a fool. But if you call me a liar, I will go after you.’ We took Mr. Forrester up on his offer, and called him mistaken, misinformed, and foolish. After what he said today during the WCBS/New York Times debate, however, we will add one more – Mr. Forrester, you ARE a liar, sir, and the problem for you is that THIS time, you chose to lie in front of a television audience.

“At about 38 minutes into today’s debate, Bret Schundler, responding to a question, said that Doug Forrester has never denied any of the things Bret has said about Forrester’s record in West Windsor – where, in just four short years, Mr. Forrester voted to double spending, triple property taxes, and sextuple debt service, and where, in his second meeting as a township committeeman, after just two weeks on the job, he voted to double his own salary. Bret pointed out that Mr. Forrester had tried to JUSTIFY the explosion of spending, taxes, and debt service by arguing that the expenditures all were justified by the need to install new sewer lines – but that Mr. Forrester’s own hometown newspaper said that just wasn’t true, and said Forrester and his township committee had spent money ‘like drunken sailors.’ The key, Bret said, was that Mr. Forrester had NEVER DENIED ANYTHING Bret said about him. (And why would he? These things are, after all, a matter of public record, available for inspection in the West Windsor municipal building.)

“And then the remarkable happened – in the middle of Bret’s exposition, Mr. Forrester, clearly feeling the pressure, cracked: ‘I deny all those things,’ he said, ‘my official response, I deny all those things.’

“We’ve said it before – when you say something that’s not true, and you don’t know it’s not true, that’s a mistake. But when you say something that’s not true, and you DO know it’s not true, that’s a LIE.

“For the record: in the West Windsor fiscal year 1979 budget – the last budget Doug Forrester did NOT vote for (he was not yet a member of the township committee) – the tax levy was $628,289; total spending was $2,652,427; and debt service was $227,593. Mr. Forrester voted for four budgets for West Windsor – fiscal years 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983. In the last budget he voted for (for fiscal year 1983), the tax levy was $1,915,755; total spending was $5,466,992; and debt service was $1,368,386.

“The spending increase between the 1979 and 1983 budgets was 106 percent. The tax increase between the 1979 and 1983 budgets was 205 percent. The debt service increase between the 1979 and 1983 budgets was 501 percent. Thus, it is TRUTHFUL to say ‘spending doubled, taxes tripled, and debt service sextupled’ – and it is a LIE to say those things never happened.

(NOTE: We use 1979, the last year before Doug Forrester started voting on budgets, as the reference year to properly document CHANGES: If, for example, the budget in 1979 had set the levy at $100,000, and then the budget in 1980 had set the levy at $200,000, it would be proper to say ‘Doug Forrester voted to double the budget.’ It would also be proper to say ‘Doug Forrester voted to increase the budget by 100 percent.’)

“For the record: in the minutes of the West Windsor Township Committee meeting of November 26, 1979 – Mr. Forrester’s second meeting as a member of the township committee (he was installed two weeks earlier, on November 12, 1979) – Mr. Forrester is on record as an ‘aye’ vote on the question of whether or not to double the pay of the members of the township committee. Of note: according to the minutes of the meeting – which have been circulated to members of the New Jersey press corps by this campaign – there were two kinds of comments made at the November 26, 1979 meeting: comments in favor of increasing the salary, and comments opposed to increasing the salary. EVERY COMMENT IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE SALARY CAME FROM MEMBERS OF THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. EVERY COMMENT OPPOSED TO INCREASING THE SALARY CAME FROM RESIDENTS OF WEST WINDSOR WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE – BUT WHO WOULD HAVE TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR THAT SALARY INCREASE.

“For the record: on March 25, 1982, the West Windsor-Plainsboro Chronicle published a lead editorial entitled, ‘A Budget Without Honor …’ NOTE: The ellipse shown there is not an indication of editing by the author of this release; the ellipse is included in the original title, and the title is reproduced in its entirety.

‘We were almost ‘lulled’ into believing what West Windsor officials apparently want the public to believe – that the basic reason West Windsor’s municipal tax is slated to go up 104 percent is because of increases – expected and otherwise – in the cost of the township’s participation in the Stony Brook Regional Sewer Project.

‘According to the township’s budget, Stony Brook is charging the township $303,705 more this year than it charged last year. And the township’s share of the Stony Brook debt service will go up by $78,417.

‘On the other hand, the budget says that revenues to be paid into the township by users of the sewer system will go up by $232,293.

‘The net increase is just $149,829 – far short of the $1,262,768.64 increase shown in the township’s entire 1982 budget.

‘So – while the sewer project contributed to West Windsor’s plight – there were other major causes. Let’s look at some of them:

‘Reserve for uncollected taxes – up $119,683 to a total of $507,683 because the township failed to promptly collect one out of every twenty tax dollars owed it last year. And the less a township collects, the more it must place in reserve for the following year, according to state law.

‘Sanitary landfill – up $106,627 to a total of $202,962 in spite of the township’s announced intentions of closing the landfill before the close of the year.

‘Salaries and fringe benefits – up $169,305. Although the budget message admits that salaries are slated to go up $122,000 in 1982, the actual figure is $169,305, once you add fringe benefits such as retirement and group insurance.

‘Interest to be paid in 1982 on bonds and bond anticipation notes – up $246,668.50 to a total of $836,362.50.

‘Surely, the township committee can’t sweep away years of bad management in one year.

‘As we’ve said before – it’s time the township committee and its administrator stop spending money like drunken sailors … and take seriously their stewardship of the public funds we’ve entrusted to them.’

“This morning, Doug Forrester, in response to Bret Schundler’s accurate declaration that Doug Forrester ‘has never denied anything I’ve said’ about his record in West Windsor, said ‘I deny all those things. My official response, I deny all those things.’ Yet, as documented above, West Windsor’s spending DID double, taxes DID triple, and debt service DID sextuple; as documented above, Mr. Forrester DID vote to double his own salary; and, as documented above, Mr. Forrester’s hometown newspaper DID say his justification that the massive spending spree was caused by the need for new sewer lines wasn’t true, and his hometown newspaper DID say he and his township committee were ‘spending money like drunken sailors.’

“There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this exchange: Mr. Forrester is a liar.”

STICK IT TO HIM, SCHUNDLER!!!

Forrester has been asking for this kind of retaliatory incendiary behavior since the start of his campaign. It's about time that he start to taste some of his own medicine. I'd have preferred things not to get so vitriolic, but Forrester is the guy who started this. I should know, considering I've closely followed both campaigns in the past few months- and only recently decided on Schundler after Forrester's immaturity (oh, and lack of a plan. He's like John Kerry)

LETS GO SCHUNDLER!!!

Your post wasn't directed to me, but as someone who would have voted for Lonegan, I'll tell you why I'm sticking with Schundler:

Lonegan's got no chance tomorrow, neither do any of the other minor 5. Sure, some people may want to make "a statement" by voting Lonegan tomorrow, but it will be as useless of a statement in the long run as those who voted for, say, Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader back in the 2000 Presidential election, or those who voted for Peroutka or Badnarik this time around. Lonegan's got the best views on the issues- hell, the guy would even remove some gun control and make us more like Florida- but he's got no chance, and a vote for him just makes Schundler's gap even wider against Forrester.

Therefore, by my "anyone but Forrester for the GOP nomination" line of thought, I'm going with Schundler- he's not as good on the issues as Lonegan, but he's close, and he's got a better personality. He might have a shot at Corzine, as opposed to Forrester who practically IS Corzine.

You don't SERIOUSLY think Lonegan has a chance tomorrow. If you do, there's a bridge I want to sell you. Do they allow people to place bets on elections in Atlantic City? If so, I'd be willing to throw some pretty large amounts of cash down on Lonegan not even coming close tomorrow.

Like I said, Lonegan is right on the issues. But he's got no chance in hell- not in this primary, and CERTAINLY not in the election itself. Reagan may have won twice in this state, but this was a different state back then. Recall that this state also once voted for Bush 41, and once had a Republican governor for 16 out of 20 years. That New Jersey is gone, and you know it.

This is now a liberal state with people who are inclined to vote Democrat. The ONLY thing that will change that is if somebody who can be perceived as moderate (but not liberal) lights a fire under their asses on an issue like property taxes. Bret Schundler can do that, because he's already set up the legislation card- we know his legislation won't pass by November, and he can play that into "Change is needed." Forrester's plan stinks, and he's a flat out liberal, so he's out of the question.

That leaves Lonegan, and like I just said, he's got 0 chance. Schundler could have competed against McGreevey 4 years ago if our party had actually, you know, supported him. Schundler can play both the moderate and conservative cards, which will give him a good opportunity here. Plus, this is an election that's based on entirely different issues than the one in 2000.

Lonegan, should he win, would immediately be shredded apart by the media as being a right wing crackpot, and Corzine would jump all over him in an instant. It's just not practical.

"Schundler can play both the moderate and conservative cards"

You mean like Christie Whitman? Maybe we can have our very own John McCain!

"Lonegan, should he win, would immediately be shredded apart by the media as being a right wing crackpot, and Corzine would jump all over him in an instant."

You seriously think this won't happen regardless of who the nominee is?

"It's just not practical."

Neither is nominating a "triangulator". I believe voters respect someone more who takes a position and sticks to it than someone who sticks his finger in the air in order to decide whether or not to be a "moderate" that day.

I can accept voting on pragmatism in a general election, but not in a primary. No way, no how. We have to get our party in order, and actually have it represent what we believe, before we can expect it to start winning any voters over. "Faking it" is a losing proposition, and always has been.

Qwinn

They are all a bunch of losers Forrester's saying he's going to cut property taxes 30%, he thinks we're a bunch of idiots.

Lonnegan says he wants to make it so senior citizens don't pay property taxes, so I guess I'll have to pay theirs! Lonnegan is no Ronald Reagan! Also running around saying I'm a conservative in your adds in NJ is a sure fire way to lose. Which he should.

Schundler's wishy, washy I really don't know what he stands for. No reason to take time out of my day to go to the poll. With these three clowns Corzine is a shoe in. Sorry but I calls them as I see them.

As Lonegan has slipped from third to fourth in the polls, the reality is that formula remains: A vote for Lonegan=A Vote for Forrester=A Vote for Corzine.

As what's most important to me is that Conservative ideas are clearly communicated, earlier in the race I was watching Lonegan. But, I was extremely disappointed when he usedDr. Martin Luther King's birthday in a manner certain to alienate African-Americans.

Bret Schundler is firmly against abortion. His public policy statement is to work to build consensus for parental notification and against later-term abortion. For that he was savaged in the last election. It's not reasonable for anyone to claim that a candidate with a stronger position has a better chance of winning.

A number of people claiming to be Lonegan supporters have made many bizarre claims -- BIG LIES -- about Bret Schundler. The strangest -- echoing Amiri Baraka -- is that Bret Schundler had some involvement with 9/11. Also, these same people have parroted McGreevey campaign lies and distortions. This all reminds me very much of the Republicans for McGreevey in 2001. A vote for Lonegan=A Vote for Forrester=A Vote for Corzine.

With Forrester you get a candidate who thinks that abortion is OK. With Corzine you get a governor who considers abortion not just a right, but one that not only can't be regulated, but that government must support without measure.

You mean like Christie Whitman? Maybe we can have our very own John McCain!

I don't have all that much of a problem with John McCain. If you take a look at his voting record, he's actually quite conservative. Christie Whitman can be more accurately compared to Doug Forrester, not John McCain.

You seriously think this won't happen regardless of who the nominee is?

Odds are that we lose to Corzine- but there is still plenty of time until November. If we play our cards right and rile up this state enough, a semi-moderate candidate CAN beat Corzine- and it's got to be Schundler or Forrester, because they're the only ones with both the name recognition and the moderate leans (liberal for Forrester) that can win in this state. Lonegan is a hardcore conservative- he'd stand 0 chance from the start. Better with a 10% chance than a 0% one.

I can accept voting on pragmatism in a general election, but not in a primary. No way, no how. We have to get our party in order, and actually have it represent what we believe, before we can expect it to start winning any voters over. "Faking it" is a losing proposition, and always has been.

Pragmatism in the primary sets up pragmatism in the general election. If the Democrats had nominated Howard Dean last year, they would have been assassinated instead of just losing by a few points with John Kerry in their candidacy. The last thing we need is an even bigger setback in November when Corzine shreds our party apart, blasting a guy like Lonegan on his conservatism (which Corzine will play as "far right Bushism"). It'll just make our party look even worse.

We do need to get our party in order, but voting for a candidate who has no chance- thus handing a bigger margin of victory to the most liberal candidate in the GOP field- is not any way to get this party into order.

Right on, man. A vote for Lonegan IS a vote for Forrester. I don't know why so many people aren't getting it, because it seems rather obvious to me.

Besides, you're absolutely right on with Lonegan supporters throwing around lies. Hell, they made a post a while back accusing Schundler of having connections to terrorists, because he went to a Sikh temple dressed in Sikh clothing- Sikh, mind you, not Muslim. Some Lonegan supporters are just unbelievably ignorant.

The way they talk, you'd think Schundler was Karl Marx. Hell, Lonegan himself called Schundler a socialist at the debate yesterday. Yet, I just got an e-mail in my inbox saying that BRET SCHUNDLER got the endorsement from National Right to Life, or whatever their name is. Lonegan supporters just aren't telling the truth. I understand why they support the most conservative candidate, but lying to do it, and voting for a guy who has no chance, thus empowering the most liberal guy to get to victory just is not practical or prudent.

"Besides, you're absolutely right on with Lonegan supporters throwing around lies. Hell, they made a post a while back accusing Schundler of having connections to terrorists, because he went to a Sikh temple dressed in Sikh clothing- Sikh, mind you, not Muslim. Some Lonegan supporters are just unbelievably ignorant."

I've seen exactly ONE poster make charges of this nature (implicitly conceded by your admission that it was "a post") - and I saw every other Lonegan supporter blast that ONE poster for making silly and outrageous attacks. For you to attempt to slander all Lonegan supporters for something that all but one of them washed their hands of (and I never even saw that ONE poster say anything in support of Lonegan, only attacking Schundler) is reprehensible, and makes you guilty of precisely what you are attacking them for.

Qwinn

I've seen more than one person on here pass that link around and promote that charge. I'm sure you have as well.

Note additionally that I said "SOME Lonegan supporters are just unbelievably ignorant." I don't see anywhere in that any mention of ALL Lonegan supporters. I mention SOME because I know there are plenty of exceptions- but generalities hold true, and the general trend I've seen is that the Lonegan folks are every bit as incendiary as Lonegan himself is.

Corzine wins the Gov race by 15 points or more. As for Republicans up there -- all 11 of them -- if you vote for someone who has previously held elective office in New Jersey, you are wasting your time.

The problem in Jersey is its system breeds corruption and political patronage. Those in the system have already bought and sold their principles to get elected.

It is a crying shame what has transpired in my home state. In the end, it is a blue state now -- because most Republicans have filtered out, leaving party hacks and Rhinos in charge. The Dems have a huge numerical and organizational superiority.

Sorry -- but the fight is lost is Jersey. That is a state that is never going back to the GOP.

"But, I was extremely disappointed when he usedDr. Martin Luther King's birthday in a manner certain to alienate African-Americans."

Gee, you mean he told them that they should be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and thus he would oppose affirmative action?! Scandalous! Outrageous! How dare he not feed the meme of entitlement and government-sanctioned bigotry?!

This is the problem I have with the Lonegan-bashers - your active insistence that we need to lie or misrepresent our positions in order to be elected. Screw that! Affirmative action -is- rank bigotry, plain and simple, and if Lonegan had the courage to go into the lion's den to make that clear point where it needed to be made the most, more power to him. If we -can't- win by being honest and principled in our positions, then we seriously shouldn't win at all, and New Jersey should get what it deserves.

You guys want to "win" by attacking our own for standing up for our principles. We should "win" by conceding half the battle before the general election even begins. Screw that. Conservative principles -can- and -should- (and do, elsewhere) win without having to be watered down or supported only in a mealy-mouthed "I'm ashamed of what I stand for so I'll lie about it" manner.

Yeah, New Jersey is liberal right now. Wotta genius you guys are for figuring it out. The thing is, though, that we're not going to win anyone over by being mealy mouthed and lying about where we stand. That just feeds into the "hidden agenda" smear that the Liberals in Canada are using to successfully maintain power even in the face of scandals that actually make corruption in NJ look tame by comparison. The worst thing we can do is "hide" our agenda... our agenda is correct and we can only convince others of that by being open about it and making strong, confident arguments in their favor, not by acting like we're just trying to sneak our way into office and then enact our agenda against the voter's wishes.

The biggest problem in NJ government is dishonest politicans. We want to solve the problem. You're doing so by attacking the one honest politician on this ballot and supporting instead those who will be "properly" apologetic for conservative positions. If you're that ashamed of conservatism, go ahead and vote Schundler, but leave me out of it, thank you.

Qwinn

"But, I was extremely disappointed when he usedDr. Martin Luther King's birthday in a manner certain to alienate African-Americans."

"Gee, you mean he told them that they should be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and thus he would oppose affirmative action?! Scandalous! Outrageous! How dare he not feed the meme of entitlement and government-sanctioned bigotry?!"

The tact that Lonegan took to "communicate" this idea was meant to alienate. Lonegan either wanted to chase moderates and minorities from the GOP, or he is too dense to realize that was what he was doing.

Anyhow -- as Lonegan sinks from THIRD TO FIFTH in the polls, Lonegan did not manage to chase people away from the GOP. He just chased people AWAY FROM HIM!

Blabbering in a crude, rude, and offensive manner is NOT a strong statement of Conservative values. It's just CRUDE, RUDE, and OFFENSIVE BLABBER!

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.