Free Republic

Webber may be on to something here. He's jumped on an issue that's already going national -- see Cal Thomas's column in this morning's Star-Ledger, it takes up half the op-ed page!

NJ Freepers have a candidate they can focus on this cycle -- Webber is a true conservative, running against an 18-year RINO incumbent, Bob Martin. We need to do everything we can to help this young guy!

To those who wonder if Forrester's people are going to use Lautenberg's wimpy national security and horrible tax record against him, go to his web site at http://www.forrester2002.com/ and check out the recent releases on Forrester's comments.

Start with the release from October 7, the night that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the GOP appeal of the NJ Supreme Court ruling. Forrester had a rally in Monmouth County and gave a stump speech that laid out EXACTLY the case you all want him to make -- that, in a few words, returning Frank Lautenberg to the U.S. Senate would be dangerous for New Jersey.

Start here, with this link:

http://www.forrester2002.com/news/display_release.cfm?ID=184

Then you can go to:

http://www.forrester2002.com/news/display_release.cfm?ID=188

and then follow that up with:

http://www.forrester2002.com/news/display_release.cfm?ID=189

and:

http://www.forrester2002.com/news/display_release.cfm?ID=193

Those communications products all went out last week. Forrester has kept up the pressure on Lautenberg -- yesterday, he campaigned in Ridgewood with John McCain and once again focused on Lautenberg's weak record on national security.

See this article in today's Bergen Record:

http://www.forrester2002.com/news/display_article.cfm?ID=557

This is going to get very, very ugly, very, very soon. Torricelli has absolutely nothing to lose, and has millions of dollars to spend on television trashing Forrester with outright fabrications, just like the ones documented in this press release from last night.

Forrester needs money. Just because he's a successful entrepreneur doesn't mean we should count on him to fund his entire campaign. Go to Forrester's website at www.forrester2002.com and contribute NOW!!!

Good news for you -- the guy running Forrester's campaign, Bill Pascoe, was ALREADY at the RNC in a previous life. In the 2000 election cycle, he was the RNC Press Secretary. He came to New Jersey in the immediate aftermath of the 2000 elections to manage Bret Schundler's campaign for Governor.

From Forrester's website:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Tom Rubino September 28, 2002 (609) 890-4699

Did The Democrats ACTUALLY Choose Mr. Torricelli To Respond to President?

With Little Credibility, Mr. Torricelli Was The Wrong Choice

(HAMILTON, SEPTEMBER 28) – Forrester for Senate campaign manager Bill Pascoe – responding to the Democrats’ pick of Robert Torricelli (who has NO credibility remaining) to respond to President Bush’s weekly national radio address – today issued the following statement:

”This morning, Mr. Torricelli gave the Democrats’ response to the President’s radio address. Forget the fact that Mr. Torricelli’s credibility has been destroyed by the latest revelations in the Chang affair; the Democrats had him speaking about issues where Mr. Torricelli had no credibility to begin with.

“Mr. Torricelli started his response by saying, ‘Americans today are focused on the issue of security.’ That’s true. National security is the number one issue among New Jersey voters, and Mr. Torricelli has the worst record on national security in the Senate. He has consistently voted to cut defense and intelligence budgets. He’s voted to make intelligence budgets public – letting our enemies know our strengths and our weaknesses, by revealing to them what we know and what we do NOT know – and he has even leaked classified information.

“The Torricelli Principle – restrictions put in place in the mid-1990s, at the direct urging of Mr. Torricelli, that prevented CIA case officers from recruiting agents with ‘unsavory backgrounds’ without first obtaining approval from Washington bureaucrats – decimated our nation’s intelligence gathering capabilities. Moreover, Mr. Torricelli has lobbied on behalf of the MEK – a terrorist group based in Baghdad, funded by Saddam Hussein, and involved in the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Iran – to have them removed the State Department’s terrorist list! And the Democrats chose Mr. Torricelli to speak to Americans about national security?

“Mr. Torricelli then went on to speak about ‘mounting threats to our economic security,’ blaming the Bush Administration for our nation’s economic troubles, ignoring the impact of the terrorist attacks and corporate scandals that began in a previous Administration. Considering Mr. Torricelli’s record in decimating our nation’s intelligence capabilities and his questionable record of one-day, insider stock trading, is it wise for him to be making such an argument?

“Mr. Torricelli then continued, criticizing raiding the Social Security Trust Fund – but failed to mention that he has voted to raid the Social Security Trust Fund TEN times. He voted against a Social Security Lock Box SEVEN times, and he even voted to RAISE taxes on Social Security benefits.

“Lastly, Mr. Torricelli spoke about the crushing cost of prescription drugs. He failed to mention that he has been in Congress for 20 years and has failed to pass a prescription drug plan. He also failed to mention his only legacy on prescription drugs is taking $50,000 from the maker of Claritin and the very next day proposing patent extension legislation that one consumer group estimated would have cost Americans $11 billion in HIGHER drug prices.

“The fact of the matter is that Mr. Torricelli has NO credibility when it comes to ethics OR issues. After 20 years of Mr. Torricelli in Washington, at least ONE verdict is in – Mr. Torricelli has failed New Jersey. Today’s address is just another example of why New Jersey deserves better. There are just 38 more days – Help is on the way!”

-- 30 --

Paid for by Forrester 2002, Inc.

Have no fear, Forrester is a solid Republican. His campaign manager, Bill Pascoe, is known for press releases that work on several levels, and I've got it on good authority that the one in question -- which lists a laundry list of "typically" Dem "issues" -- abortion, guns, environment, prescription drugs -- is Pascoe's way of drawing the media into an interesting colloquy -- to wit, WHICH candidate is ACTUALLY in the mainstream in NJ, and which one is NOT?

Example: Forrester is pro-choice early in the pregnancy, but supports parental notification, opposes partial birth abortion, and opposes taxpayer funding of abortion. On each of those sub-issues, he rests with a majority of NJ voters, while Torch can only make that claim on the first of the four sub-issues. So it is TORCH who is TRULY "outside the mainstream," and the Forrester camp is playing defense by playing offense.

Besides which, Torch is notoriously thin-skinned (as is his campaign manager, Ken Snyder, who is ALMOST as well known for yelling at reporters as Torch is for dating other men's wives). And putting out release after release charging HIM with being "out of the mainstream" -- and using EXACTLY the same language that Torch is using to say that about Forrester -- COULD just be another way of trying to provoke the Torch into doing something he'd regret later.

Of course, when you have the morals of a snake, there's not much that you actually regret. But maybe it'll work anyway.

Haven't yet read the book -- it's on order already from Amazon.com -- but this interview provides a good overview.

For those following the argument in New Jersey, the "Deutch Rules" referred to by Gertz are also perhaps better known as "The Torricelli Principle." Doug Forrester, the GOP challenger to Dem incumbent Bob Torricelli, has been hitting the Torch hard for gutting the intelligence community's ability to penetrate international terrorist cells -- and with good reason. Torch is the one guy MOST responsible for the breakdown of the CIA's ability to infiltrate foreign terrorist cells.

Forrester is a conservative -- a quick trip to his website (at www.forrester2002.com) and a glance at his press releases reveals the following:

1) Yes, Bill Pascoe is managing his campaign. Hopefully, he's putting to good use the lessons he learned the hard way last year, as Bret's campaign manager.

2) Forrester has focused from the beginning on taking on Bob Torricelli. His releases go after the Torch, not the other GOP candidates. That may be evidence that Pascoe is trying to win the primary a new way -- without leaving so many bruised feelings among the Party regulars, for whatever they're worth.

3) Forrester's mail says he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut middle class tax rates, eliminate the death tax, and even reduce the capital gains tax (!). And here's a stunner -- the mail says that reducing the capital gains tax rate would automatically increase the value of every home in America, and thereby enrich everyone who owns a home. When was the last time you saw a Republican actually make the cut-the-cap-gains-rate argument based on appealing to MIDDLE CLASS HOMEOWNERS? A stroke of brilliance!

4) Forrester is also focusing on immigration -- the polling must be off the charts on that issue in this state. So he wants stricter enforcement, INS reform, tougher background checks for employment at nuclear plants, etc.

Diane Allen is a liberal -- so liberal she probably couldn't even win a Democrat primary in NJ. Today's Quinnipiac University survey has an interesting surprise buried in the internal numbers -- Diane's favorable ratings are being driven by her support among DEMOCRATS (her fav/unfav among GOPers is 6% fav/3% unfav, but among Dems her fav/unfav is 15% fav/1% unfav). Hard to win a GOP primary with numbers like that.

And John Matheussen is aptly described in yesterday's Paul Mulshine column as a "pro-life Democrat." Far worse, though -- he didn't just run away from Bret last year, he actually put out a campaign mail piece that implied he had been endorsed by JIM MCGREEVEY. Matheussen is no conservative, and he stabbed Bret in the back. He deserves to be punished.

This is an easy one. Forrester's the guy.

In fact, Treffinger WAS cited for FEC violations -- FOURTEEN SEPARARE CATEGORIES of violations, no less! They range from the mundane (failing to get prior approval of a new computer format for filing) to the very serious (accepting corporate contributions, failing to report individual contributions, spending money in the primary that was earmarked for the general, accepting excessive contributions, etc.).

What Treffinger's FEC violations do is make it impossible for him to compare his record favorably with Torricelli's. The two are in the same boat, as machine pols with sleazy lawbreaking records when it comes to funding their campaigns -- which means, essentially, that Treffinger can't use against the Torch one of the biggest weapons a Republican has.

That ALONE should disqualify him from serious consideration. What in the world could all those county GOP chairmen be thinking?! Oh, that's right, I forgot -- they don't care about putting forth the strongest possible candidate against the Torch, all they care about is their own little fiefdoms.

Schundler was right -- we should have taken a flamethrower to the party organization hacks last year.

So Forrester is for real, and Treffinger is sucking wind -- not to mention Diane Allen and John Matheussen. It's now crystal clear this is a two-man race for the GOP nomination, and Freepers will have to decide between Treffinger and Forrester.

For me, that choice is easy. Treffinger can't be trusted farther than you can throw him. He's a typical machine pol, the kind who cuts deals all day long to get what he wants. Unfortunately for Essex County taxpayers, it seems a lot of those deals are being paid for with THEIR tax dollars, which Treffinger seems to view as his personal political slush fund.

Forrester, on the other hand, isn't a career pol, doesn't owe anybody ANYTHING -- not even any donors, it appears -- and is clean on the ethics front (if he weren't, Treffinger would have leaked it by now). Forrester is also ready to spend serious bucks to defeat the Torch, and comes across as a thoughtful, committed, honorable mainstream conservative.

I'm with Forrester. Any takers?

Oops, forgot taxes and "special rights" for homosexuals.

He's a businessman, and it's a small business, so it's probably incorporated as an S Corporation, which means he's paying 40 percent off the top before he gets to see the fruits of his own labor. He doesn't like taxes any more than the next guy, and wants them cut. He supported the Bush tax cut proposal, but doesn't think it goes far enough.

But he's also quick to point out that -- especially given the experience of New Jersey under Christie Whitman -- it is irresponsible to cut taxes with one hand while increasing debt with the other. The key is to get a handle on government SPENDING -- if you don't turn off the spigot, it doesn't make any difference whether the water is hot or cold, you're still WET.

So he wants to take a big whack at federal government spending, and reorder priorities along more market-oriented lines.

As for "special rights," it's my understanding that he believes no one should be granted "special rights" on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, he's a known strong supporter of the Boy Scouts -- he's a former Eagle Scout himself, and at some of his campaign events, he's even had Boy Scout Color Guards present the flag.

Forrester is a conservative. He supports a ban on partial-birth abortion, parental notification, and will vote to confirm pro-life justices. His position on the 2nd Amendment is simple -- he recognizes the individual right to self-defense contained therein, and believes there is no need for new gun laws; rather, we should enforce the laws already on the books. He vehemently opposes McCain-Feingold campaign "reform" as an assault on the First Amendment (he's especially irked, he said on NJN back in February, by the provisions banning issue ads within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary election, noting (correctly) that this is EXACTLY the time when an electorate begins to pay serious attention; and, therefore, incumbents' attempts to prohibit such discussion can only be interpreted as an incumbent protection measure). For similar reasons, he opposes public financing of campaigns, and he whacked Diane Allen at the same NJN appearance for her support for public financing.

The issue in the fall campaign is going to be a simple one -- do the voters believe Torricelli deserves another term, or not? Forrester appears to be the only one positioned to make that argument with clean hands. He's got a strong Republican Party history, is a successful businessman willing to put his money where his mouth is, and he's personally disgusted by the Torch, and wants to take him out.

What more could you ask for?

What is Ray thinking? He keeps telling people he had the goods on Clinton, and let him off. What voter group does he think that helps him with, for goodness' sake? Liberals will never vote for him because he's the one who went after Clinton; conservatives SHOULDN'T vote for him, because he's now proudly telling the world he could have convicted a man who committed perjury, but chose instead to cut a deal.

Worse, I hate to say it, but ... John Conyers and Pat Leahy are right. The very fact that Ray was even CONTEMPLATING a run for the Senate while still serving as Independent Counsel -- and while preparing his final report -- means that the report IS tainted.

And that, quite frankly, is very disappointing. He simply cannot credibly claim that he could prepare the report with an absolutely impartial prosecutor's eye, if he was at the same time "considering" and "exploring" a Senate run. The one infects the other, and vice versa.

Which is another way of saying he's just validated every ridiculous claim Carville, Begala, et. al. have ever made about the IC -- that it was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.

Ray should go home to Rumson and wait until 2006, when it might -- MIGHT -- be appropriate for him to challenge Jon Corzine.