[Puppage]

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.

[Coleus]

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE>>>

I can agree with that and what happened is criminal. But is was a Republican Chief Justice, Deborah Poritz, Whitman appointee, who heard the case and all the rupublicans on the court voted for the Lause to run.

Here is where the criminal activity began, all lead by a republican.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/index.htm

[Afronaut]

The Demo win because they OWN the Unions! Any other questions?

[the_doc]

It still sounds like Forrester was not a very good candidate. From down here in Texas, I assumed that Forrester would have gotten a bigger "outrage bump" from conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats after the Democrats' switcheroo.

Based on the article, however, it appears that conservatives didn't seem to care a whole lot about Forrester after the Torch was gone. Evidently he wasn't a very inspiring candidate. He sounds kind of RINOish, actually.

(Anyone could have beaten Torch. And it really does sound like a better candidate would have beaten a liberal old crank like Lautenberg. After all, Coleman beat Mondale.

Hopefully, we Republicans have learned something here. Manifestly, the NJ Republican Party should not nominate guys like Forrester in the future. [Come to think of it, the California guys need to do a better job in the primaries, too. Simon got close, but a better candidate would have creamed Gray Davis.])

[watchwoman]

I think Lautenberg won mostly due to simple name recognition. "The Poor Pathetic Residents" of NJ knew his name from somewhere, probably thought he was the incumbent.
Gotta love 'em - they're too busy fighting traffic and attending their union meetings to pay much attention to politics.

[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.