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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last
To: Lancey Howard
The same can be said for Cali. Lots of conservatives but the Pubbies keep running losers. It is really hard to win Presidential elections when you start out automatically losing the biggest bloc of electoral votes.
41 posted on 11/07/2002 7:08:12 PM PST by willyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: montag813
bump--I do not know about you or your group--BUT YOU ARE RIGHT ON -We SHOULD HAVE WON!!
42 posted on 11/07/2002 7:18:14 PM PST by BobFromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
WHY FORRESTER LOST - AND LOST BADLY…

Because there was no Torecelli memorial service?

43 posted on 11/07/2002 7:18:47 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Do you know if Forrester or the NJ Pubbies have an ongoing lawsuit in federal court still, after the denial of emergency preliminary relief?
44 posted on 11/07/2002 7:19:34 PM PST by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Thanks for posting this Coleus. I found it very informative. Will put it to use right away.

~n
45 posted on 11/07/2002 7:19:34 PM PST by navigator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barkeep
Once he had no Torch to run against, from what I saw of Forrester, he had NOTHING to run on, no platform of what he supported, and zero ability to shift gears from anti-Torch to pro-Forrester.

That's what your campaign team is for. Do you know who they were?

46 posted on 11/07/2002 7:22:42 PM PST by navigator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I lived in Northern Sussux for about 10 years, it was very republican /conservative ..much more so than where I live now in CT. I always wondered why the NJ repubs seemed so RINOish. If they ran some real conservative canidates I'm convinced they'd have done a lot better than they have over the last decade. Instead we got the likes of Witless Whitman and Marge Roukema so nobody thinks theres any difference between the 2 parties.
47 posted on 11/07/2002 7:28:04 PM PST by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Antoninus, Bret Schundler got 914,713 votes in Nov. 2001. Source is found on www.voterzview.com/Weekly/33_111701htm.

48 posted on 11/07/2002 7:28:54 PM PST by exit82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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

http://www.garrettforcongress.com
49 posted on 11/07/2002 7:31:11 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Remember, his main advisor was Tom Kean, RINO extraordinaire!! Tom Kean was nothing great.
50 posted on 11/07/2002 7:34:23 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: exit82
So...

Schundler got 914,713 running state-wide as an out-and-out conservative.

Meanwhile, Forrester got 882,292 (almost 30,000 less) running as a "moderate".

Does that say anything?
51 posted on 11/07/2002 7:56:23 PM PST by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Bump---You are right!!
52 posted on 11/07/2002 7:58:31 PM PST by BobFromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Speaks volumes to me. While the Demon party examines its failures nationwide, a similar introspection is sorely needed in NJ's Republican Party. They have lost their way.

Schundler got over 30,000 votes more than Forrester in spite of opposition to Schundler from within his own party! Our Republican party tries to stand for everything thinking this will win elections. The truth is, its stands for nothing. And accomplishes the same thing.
53 posted on 11/07/2002 8:26:22 PM PST by exit82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
If all this is true, then why did Schundler lose so badly? Why didn't these Reagan Democrats vote for him? I respectfully disagree with you, I think NJ is a lost cause for conservativism.
54 posted on 11/07/2002 8:37:47 PM PST by Keme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Sorry, just read the NRO article. I really thought Schundler could've done it. He was literally the greatest thing to happen to Jersey City in 100 years. I saw it myself having grown up there.

Its just so hard to stomach the fact that he lost to someone like mcgreedy.
55 posted on 11/07/2002 8:56:56 PM PST by Keme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I usually agree with you Coleus but this piece is BS!!!

First of all, most of the "Reagan Democrats" who supported the Great One are now DEAD! Besides, they supported Reagan largely out of support of his stance on "affirmative blacktion" (as they would call it) and his muscular anticommunism, more than any stance on abortion.

You should also know that the children of these Reagan Democrats have left the "blue collar belt" Of Essex/Union/Middlesex to enter into the white collar upper and middle class. These people (my parents, for example) are much more liberal on social issues than their parents and are "Catholics in name only." There is NO "Conservative Catholic majority" in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut or anywhere else in the northeast. States that are "Catholic" tend to be liberal.

Let's also not forget that those "Reagan Democrats" NEVER voted for a Conservative Senator or Governor. I believe Bill Bradly won a landslide for his reelection in 1984, even though Reagan carried the state. The only Republican elected from the mid-50s on to the Senate was Uber-RINO Clifford Case, by the way.

Lautenberg won an overwhelming margin of the women's vote. Why? BECAUSE WOMEN IN THE NORTHEAST ARE LARGELY ANTI-GUN, PRO-ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKO AND FOR SOCIALIZED EDUCATION! That's reality in New Jersey. A conservative, whether pro-life or pro-death, will never win in a state dominated by overeducated elitist upper class liberal snobs, ex-Manhattanites, union goons, ghetto blacks and immigrants.

56 posted on 11/07/2002 9:15:36 PM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
We'll talk about it over lunch some time :^)

Anyway, the campaign, once again, failed the white, middle- to-upper, middle-class male, whose main concern is keeping his earnings, ie. tax issues, and the campaign, as I explained in other posts, failed to elicit any kind of tax plan, i.e. capital gains cuts (short and long term), tuition tax credits, reducing airline taxes and gas taxes, lowering the marginal rate and making Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Did he ever call the Louse a LEFT WING LIBERAL?? RADICAL??? OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE NJ VOTER???? ANTI-FAMILY???? etc.
57 posted on 11/07/2002 9:32:56 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Wowza! This guy Rick Shaftan sounds like somebody you hire if you are a conservative who wants to win.

He is. He is also a friend of mine who has been to a FReeper meeting a couple of years ago at Kessler's house.

58 posted on 11/07/2002 9:33:38 PM PST by Ziva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
BTTT! Very interesting!
59 posted on 11/07/2002 9:36:28 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Paul Mulshine

Republicans can blame this one on Whitman

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1036577846230504.xml


Republicans let a losing issue beat them again


http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/103666425878660.xml
60 posted on 11/07/2002 9:43:41 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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