Forrester Statement On New Jersey Supreme Court Decision

Forrester 2002 | 10/2/2002 | Forrester 2002

[#3Fan]

"Who's the democratic candidate today?" "I encourage my opponent, whoever he happens to be today, to a discussion of the issues." "This has been a good week. I already beat several Democrats: first Torricelli, then Menendez, then Pallone, and now it's Lautenberg. Am I forgetting anyone?" "I apologize I took an evening off the campaign trail for a quite evening with my wife. Do the Democrats have a new candidate again?" And next week he can add: "This has been a slow week - only one Democrat to campaign against."

Very good!

[hchutch]

I agree.

Particularly with two major weaknesses on the part of the Dems:

1. The war on Iraq and homeland security.
2. Ethical conduct - NJ, HI, and IA all have Democrat sleaze, be it "bait and switch", running a dead candidate, or bugging an opponents campaign.

The RNC needs to run both of those ads, and to work up a turnout machine. And they have 32 days to do it in.

[katana]

I wouldn't bring the Sopranos into this. There are a lot of conservative Italian voters in Jersey who are understandably touchy about that show and the entire mob reputation of their state. Meanwhile, like lots of the rest of us, they "get off" on the show in much the same way people in the '80s enjoyed Dallas.

Ethnic loyalty being what it is, many of those voters would have held their noses and voted for Torricelli. Lautenberg won't benefit from that. The Forrester campaign should do everything possible to attract the Italian-American vote in Jersey and running the Soprano theme song under their ads would, I think, have the opposite effect.

[Dave S]

Little bit of pragmatism over idiotic idealism in politics might be just what the pubbies need, you know.

I agree, however, I wonder if the more conservative Republicans will bother to vote for Forrester if he doesnt provide "red meat" for the ideologues.

[gridlock]

At the end of the day the court decided that the public value of changing the ballot outweighed the law, fairness, and the interests of the voters and the Republicans. This was not a reasoned decision. They just weighed one against all the others and made the choice.

I happen to disagree. I think high-handed decisions like this do irreperable damage to the electoral system and destroy people's faith in representative democracy. The faith of the people in representative democracy is the one thing that keeps them from walking away from the process and relying on other means of organizing and identifying themselves.

For instance, I think the breakdown of secular democracy in India is a direct result of Indira Gandhi's "Emergency" policies of the late 1970s. Prior to that time, racial politics was an anathma on the Indian scene. After the people saw that democracy was a sham, that the fix was in and certain people would not be allowed to lose, they stopped participating in secular institutions and relied on the tried and true organizing structure of race and clan. The resulting conflagration, which we are currently witnessing unfolding in slow-motion, is a direct result of the lack of faith people have in representative democracy. If they can't get what they want with the ballot, they will get what they want with the gun, the club, and the mob.

Now, I don't suggest that this decision alone will lead to mob violence in the Garden State. But this decision, combined with the shameless activities of the Democrats in Florida 2000 and whatever stunt they will pull the next time around, will have the effect of eroding people's faith in the democratic institutions of this country. Once people begin to reflexively assume that the fix is in and that participation in the political process is meaningless, they will begin to rely on the people they trust, the people who look like them and the people who agree with them. And then the multicultural egalitarian society that has been the envy of the world will break down into camps divided by race and clan and we are one step away from the brink.

When courts mess with the process of representative democracy, they are playing with fire. But the courts don't care about that. They are just interested in the short term.

[Alberta's Child]

I agree with the point about "return on tax dollars," but those numbers are very deceptive. I'm quite certain that Social Security taxes and outlays are included in those figures, which means that much of the "negative return" can be attributed to the fact that a state like New Jersey has a large number of workers relative to the retirees who officially reside there.

[sam_paine]

I agree, however, I wonder if the more conservative Republicans will bother to vote for Forrester if he doesnt provide "red meat" for the ideologues.

I dunno. I think the Republican idealogues are not generally helpful in government. Take Privatizing Social Security. Republican idealogues favor investment of taxed dollars in the stock market, rather than merely cutting taxes and letting people choose. Maybe that's not a good example, but idealogues are to me those that strive to enact their attempts to achieve ideals into law, which to me, is the opposite of conservatism.

[Alberta's Child]

Better yet, Bush should travel to New Jersey and explain how disgraceful it is for the Democrats to run a 78 year-old corpse who opposed the original Persian Gulf War resolution in 1991.

[WSGilcrest]

[Question_Assumptions]

There are a lot of social security recipients in New Jersey. The Monroe/Cranbury area and Toms River are filled with retirement villages. Of course many of those in the Monroe/Cranbury area are ex-New Yorkers who are turning the area into a Democrat wonderland. They ruined New York. I wish they'd stay there or retire someplace else where they can't do any harm.