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.”

So opposing affirmative action is "CRUDE RUDE AND OFFENSIVE"?

Why?

Are you saying that you'd be okay with opposing affirmative action in front of a white audience, but it's not okay in front of a black audience? Why?

Please explain. In detail.

Qwinn

If an atheist wanted to give a lecture on why they doubted the existence of God, they have every right to do so. It would be CRUDE, RUDE, AND OFFENSIVE for them to try to deliver a speech like that on the steps of a church on Christmas Day!

Discussing a controversial subject in a way to deepen everybody's understanding is good thing. Running around the state looking for hornet nests to kick is just plain dumb!

A candidate wants to create support, not erode it.

"If an atheist wanted to give a lecture on why they doubted the existence of God, they have every right to do so. It would be CRUDE, RUDE, AND OFFENSIVE for them to try to deliver a speech like that on the steps of a church on Christmas Day!"

"Atheism" is to "Christmas" as "Affirmative Action" is to "Martin Luther King"? How absurd!

MLK's message was that men should be judged by the content of their character, NOT the color of their skin. Affirmative action is based on the premise that judging on the color of their skin is a good and noble thing.

A far more appropriate analogy would be if he'd gotten up on the steps of the Church and delivered a speech about how Christmas is about the birth of Christ, -not- a secular gift-giving festival steeped in commercialization. Lonegan was upholding the -true- spirit of MLK's legacy, instead of buying into the entitlement meme promulgated by race-baiters like Jesse Jackson. And you're screaming "CRUDE, RUDE AND OFFENSIVE!" over it. Quite the opposite, it's Jackson and his ilk who tortured and completely reversed MLK's message that have been "CRUDE, RUDE AND OFFENSIVE", and Lonegan who has shown both MLK and the voters he spoke to far more respect than you are.

Qwinn

Do you really think that Steve Lonegan is the person to teach African-Americans about Dr. Martin Luther King?

My one grandmother was Irish. If Steve Lonegan started lecturing me about the Irish experience in America, I don't know how long I'd listen.

I think that ANY AND EVERY holiday is a time for -- at the very least -- respect, if not reflection.

If I remember correctly, in a speech President Bush mentioned that in Florida, the top percentage of the graduating class of each high school qualifies for a scholarship to a state university. In something like this, an assistance program becomes merit-based without limiting minority access.

"I think that ANY AND EVERY holiday is a time for -- at the very least -- respect, if not reflection."

I agree entirely. Completely. Totally.

What I'm trying to figure out is why you believe that supporting affirmative action is the only way to show respect to MLK's legacy, given that his most memorable statements ran expressly counter to the idea.

What I'm contending is that Lonegan -did- show respect toward MLK and to those voters he was speaking to, that those who support affirmative action are expressly showing disrespect for the color blind society MLK worked towards and disrespect to those black voters who are expressly condescended to by the notion that they -need- everyone else to be handicapped in order to succeed, and those who are claiming that Lonegan was "rude" and "offensive" for actually listening to what MLK said and applying it today, are the ones failing to show respect.

Qwinn

Did Lonegan communicate to one and all what you claim are his insights into and respect for the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King? Did large segments of Essex and Hudson County switch Party affiliation after hearing of the sayings of this sage of Bogota?

"Did Lonegan communicate to one and all what you claim are his insights into and respect for the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King?"

I would assume so, given the venue. Why would any conservative -not- rely on MLK in advocating a color-blind society? It's the standard conservative position.

"Did large segments of Essex and Hudson County switch Party affiliation after hearing of the sayings of this sage of Bogota?"

I don't know... but you certainly seem to be under the assumption that blacks will -reject-, out of hand, someone who reiterates MLK's ideal of a color blind society. Why is that? And do you believe that the way for conservatives to get "large segments of Essex and Hudson County to switch party affiliation" is to patronize and condescend to them the way liberals do?

Qwinn

I really do not look at Steve Lonnegan as the equivalent of a Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan and I will tell you why. Unlike Nader or Buchanan, Steve Lonnegan is actually a public office holder. Also, you must remember that Jim McGreevey, like Brett Schundler were also Mayor's. .

You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Lonegan is a 3rd party candidate that very clearly stands no chance. He's not even remotely close- the only 3rd party candidate to ever get close to anything was Perot back in 1992. Lonegan will get 5% at best, and all of those votes would be more than enough to get Schundler the win, so Forrester doesn't take the nomination.

Lonegan is right on the issues- but so was Pat Buchanan back in 2000 or 1996. He didn't stand a chance then, Lonegan doesn't stand a chance now. If this was Schundler vs. Lonegan, or everyone was running except Forrester, I can see the logic in a Lonegan vote, as one wouldn't exactly be putting a liberal into office by voting for Lonegan over, say, Schundler. But since Forrester is in this race- and worse yet, has the lead- any vote for a no-chance candidate is a wasted vote, one which hands even more power to Doug Forrester.

Yes, a breath of fresh air to those of us who understand him on the issues, but by the time Corzine gets through with Lonegan, he will have ended up branding the NJ GOP an out of touch party that has no idea what this state wants.

Compared to this state's voting base, Lonegan is a right wing crackpot. Now, that would be fine, if you had the personality and charisma to go with it, but Lonegan doesn't. He came off as an obnoxious abrasive dork during yesterday's debate- a total bomb-thrower. He needs to clean up his act if he ever thinks he's going to stand a chance in politics in this state.

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.