Torricelli-Forrester Fight Grows Fiercer by the Day

New York Times ^ | 9/07/02 | DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

[kattracks]

AYWOOD, N.J., Sept. 6 — The day after the first debate in New Jersey's United States Senate race, the campaigns of Senator Robert G. Torricelli and his Republican opponent, Douglas R. Forrester, were acting as if the heated encounter had never ended.

In a Sears parking lot next to a toxic waste site here, Mr. Forrester held a news conference to unveil his proposal for retooling the Superfund cleanup program and remind residents that Mr. Torricelli promised in 1983 that the site would be cleaned up. Ten minutes after Mr. Forrester left, Mr. Torricelli's campaign set up a podium 15 feet away, presenting a hastily assembled group of municipal officials who extolled Mr. Torricelli's record on the environment and questioned Mr. Forrester's understanding of the issue.

Later, Forrester officials accused Mr. Torricelli of breaking campaign finance laws by using money from his campaign and legal defense funds to reimburse a supporter for improper gifts he gave the senator.

In July, when the Senate Ethics Committee issued a letter that "severely admonished" Mr. Torricelli, the panel also ordered him to reimburse the supporter, David Chang, for some of the gifts he had received from Mr. Chang. But the check delivered to Mr. Chang's lawyer this morning, for $4,327.88, was drawn from a bank account of a law firm that has received tens of thousands of dollars to advise the senator's campaign and defend him before the ethics committee. Elected officials are not permitted to use their campaign funds or legal defense funds for personal expenditures.

"Bob Torricelli assured New Jersey voters that he has learned his lesson and they don't have to worry about him violating more ethics rules," said Bill Pascoe, Mr. Forrester's campaign manager. "But here he is, up to the same old tricks — having someone else pay his bills."

Mr. Torricelli's spokeswoman, Debra DeShong, said the money paid to Mr. Chang came from Mr. Torricelli's personal funds, but was paid through the law firm, Perkins Coie. Ms. DeShong said she was unable to provide documents to show the money came from Mr. Torricelli's own funds, but said the transaction had been approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. Phone calls to the committee were not returned.

Thursday's fiery debate and today's exchanges suggested that the race, which has already featured blistering attacks, is entering a more combative phase.

Mr. Torricelli clearly appeared to be the more polished debater during the 90-minute encounter on Thursday night. But Mr. Forrester, who has not run for office in 20 years and is still unknown to many New Jerseyans, made no major gaffes and rebuffed many of Mr. Torricelli's attempts to cast him as a conservative extremist on social issues.

But the debate was dominated by the issue Mr. Forrester's campaign believes is its most potent weapon: Mr. Torricelli's ethical lapses.

The senator's campaign claimed victory, however, and many Democrats said he had effectively shifted the focus of the race to issues like Social Security, the environment and gun control. Mr. Torricelli has argued that Mr. Forrester's views are too conservative for a moderate state like New Jersey.

"He laid out a vision of the future and detailed his many accomplishments that benefited our state," said Ken Snyder, Mr. Torricelli's campaign manager.

Mr. Torricelli also sought to raise questions about Mr. Forrester's business career as co-owner of BeneCard Services Inc., which manages prescription benefit programs. During the debate, Mr. Torricelli accused Mr. Forrester of making millions in profits by gouging clients, and today his campaign followed up that argument by issuing a news release that referred to Mr. Forrester as "Greedy Doug." Mr. Forrester's campaign said it was absurd for Mr. Torricelli, who has benefited from private stock offerings from business associates and was reprimanded for accepting improper gifts, to accuse anyone else of being greedy.

Mr. Forester's appearance at the waste site was also an attempt to take the offensive on an issue important to many New Jerseyans: the environment. In 1983 Mr. Torricelli, then a United States representative for Bergen County, became involved in the effort to clean up the site, which was contaminated with thorium from a chemical plant. Today it still poses a health hazard, Mr. Forrester said.

Mr. Torricelli has proposed legislation that would force companies responsible for pollution to pay for cleaning it up, but Mr. Forrester said that plan would produce only more legal delays. He advocates using money from the government's general operating budget to clean up Superfund sites and seeking reimbursement from the polluters later.

"The issue here is 20 years," Forrester said. "The taxpayer always pays the bill, one way or another."

Shortly after Mr. Forrester left, Mr. Torricelli's campaign staff held a news conference featuring a member of the Maywood Town Council and the town's former mayor.

"I seriously doubt Mr. Forrester had ever been in Maywood before today," said Tom Murphy, the former mayor. "He came from nowhere, he never fought for us like Bob Torricelli did, and walking in here saying he has a simple solution for this problem is naïve and cynical."

[backhoe]

For more on the Torch- and a whole Rogue's Gallery of corrupt, criminal clowns- look here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/723210/posts

Liars-- and Sleaze, Incorporated... ( my files on the clintons and friends )

various links | 7-27-02 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

[San Jacinto]

If New Jersey reelects this clown, they should be put on the list for a regime change just like Iraq.

[Dahoser]

If New Jersey reelects this clown, they should be put on the list for a regime change just like Iraq.

Good thing I'm moving to the People's Republic of New York just before the election.

[Antoninus]

Mr. Torricelli clearly appeared to be the more polished debater during the 90-minute encounter on Thursday night. ...The senator's campaign claimed victory, however, and many Democrats said he had effectively shifted the focus of the race to issues like Social Security, the environment and gun control.

No surprise coming from the NY Slimes. Has any Republican EVER won a debate, according to them? The poll on www.politicsnj.com shows that by a margin of 62% to 38%, Forrester won the debate. Of course, it's just an internet poll, but good news, nonetheless.

We're going to snuff out the Torch! Get on the bandwagon now!

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

If New Jersey reelects this clown, they should be put on the list for a regime change just like Iraq.

I live in New Jersey, but if The Torch should get re-elected, I'm calling in airstrikes on my own position.

[Antoninus]

Here's a much better, more detailed, and balanced article than that junk from the "Old Gay Lady:"

Senate candidates go to battle in  first Torricelli-Forrester debate

  By STEVE KORNACKI
PoliticsNJ.com  

EDISON, September 6 - 'It may only have been round one, but the two candidates for the U.S. Senate came out swinging last night in their first head-to-head encounter of the fall campaign.

Republican Douglas Forrester used the 90-minutes to press his case that Senator Robert Torricelli’s ethical woes have made New Jersey “the butt of national jokes," while Torricelli, in turn, drilled Forrester for his stand on environmental clean-up, gun control and abortion.

But as he addressed voters for the first time in the evening, Torricelli ignored his opponent’s harsh words, instead positioning himself as an aggressive advocate for the Garden State on Capitol Hill.

“I’ve fought your battles, I’ve defended this state, and frankly, I’ve worked my heart out.”  The senator cited what he called one of his “proudest moments," the passage of legislation providing for a college tuition tax deduction. 

Torricelli then took his opponent to task on the issues of gun control, environmental clean-up and abortion, lines of attack he would return to repeatedly throughout the night.

The somewhat unconventional format of the encounter, which allowed for both questioning by a panel of reporters and a Lincoln/Douglass-style exchange between the two candidates, produced some heated moments, though both candidates refrained from interrupting one another and kept their voices in check.

Making his opening statement first, Forrester wasted little time in putting before voters what he said he feels is the most important issue of the campaign: Bob Torricelli.

“He has not put New Jersey first,” Forrester told viewers, “he’s put himself first.”  The Republican businessman attacked Torricelli for the actions that led to a severe admonishment of him by the Senate Ethics Committee last summer. 

Saying the committee’s findings indicated that Torricelli’s actions were “not a momentary lapse in judgment,” Forrester said of his opponent, “He’s not been telling the truth for years.”

Forrester argued that Torricelli’s actions were far more serious than the senator has admitted, and that they had implications all voters should be concerned with.  “As a father,” he said,  “I know when government officials don’t tell the truth, it harms our society.”

As the questioning was opened up to the panel of reporters, it didn’t take long for the topic of Torricelli’s ethics to come up.

New 12 New Jersey reporter Cynthia Scott pointed to the Senate Ethics Committee letter and asked Torricelli why voters should look beyond it’s damning findings.

“I made a mistake,” Torricelli said, “There’s nothing anyone can say critical of me that I haven’t already said myself.”  He said he should have been aware of Senate rules involving taking gifts, and that his failure to be aware of them was his responsibility.

But he urged voters to “look at the totality of all that I’ve done," and pointed to his record on issues ranging from affordable housing and gun control to clean air and fresh sand on beaches.  “I’ve given my life to this state, and to public service, and I’m proud of what I’ve done,” he said.  “I think people on balance find that I’ve been a good Senator and I’ve done good things.”

But Torricelli’s explanation did not go over well with his opponent.

Forrester took issue with Torricelli’s account of the committee’s report, saying that Torricelli was attempting to dismiss it as matter of technicality. “What the Senate committee found has not been reflected in what he has said,” Forrester asserted. “This is a pattern of misbehavior that is far more serious than he is letting on.”

But Torricelli shrugged off Forrester’s account.  “Is Mr. Forrester upset about this incident?” he asked. ‘I think he may be, but that’s not what’s really going on here.”  He accused Forrester of using the ethics issue as a way of avoiding other issues.  “This is an issue to be discussed,” Torricelli said of his ethics, “but it can not dominate this race.”

Forrester was able to get the last word in the exchange, and used it accuse Torricelli of hurting the state’s reputation.  “New Jersey can not forget that we’ve become the butt of national jokes because of the behavior of our senator.”   

The question of Forrester’s experience for the U.S. Senate was raised by News 12 reporter Christopher King.

Forrester sought to allay any voters concerns, contending that his experience “can be stacked up against anyone in terms of what it means to serve New Jersey.

Torricelli used the question to rip into Forrester, saying that Forrester’s lack of national experience was a point of concern in light of the current situation in Iraq.  But he also pointed to Forrester’s tenure as the Mayor of West Windsor, saying that in just two years, property taxes rose by 100 percent.

“I don’t know if it’s the inexperience or the experience,” Torricelli said, “But Mr. Forrester represents a troubling picture for our state.”

In a later exchange, Torricelli attempted to turn the ethics issue, and one of the Forrester campaigns favorite lines of attack on the senator, against his challenger.

Responding to Forrester’s assertion that Torricelli is the only member of Congress in history ever to be brought before both the House and Senate Ethics Committees, Torricelli offered a moral justification for one of his appearances.

Calling it an “item of conscience," Torricelli claimed he was called before the House Ethics Committee because of his role in helping the family of a murdered woman who had sought his assistance.  He said Democrats and Republicans from the committee agreed with his actions.  “Mr. Forrester,” he said, “you owe me an apology.”

Forrester ignored the request, and said that the fact of the matter is that Torricelli was called before the committee for concealing information.

When the format allowed for direct questioning between the candidates, Forrester once again wasted no time in bringing up Torricelli’s ethics. 

Saying he was “deeply concerned,” the challenger accused Torricelli of “another ethical lapse," this time due to his involvement in the publicly-traded company Compare Generics.  He charged that Torricelli had made $50,000 from a one-day investment in the company, whose principal was later sent to jail for what Torricelli called “stock swindling” and because he “funneled” $20,000 into the Torricelli campaign.  He challenged Torricelli to return the money.

Torricelli responded that he had been unaware of the investment because he had placed his assets in a blind trust. 

In his questioning, Torricelli sought to turn the spotlight on Forrester’s record as the head of BeneCard, Inc.

He asked Forrester specifically about providing insurance for his employees that would cover the costs of medicine for HIV-positive workers.

Forrester appeared initially to think the question was about the coverage plans his company sets up for other businesses, but Torricelli informed him he was talking about Forrester’s company.

“To save a dime,” he said of his multimillionaire opponent, “you wouldn’t give that kind of coverage to your employees.” 

After the debate, Forrester said the issue of coverage for HIV-positive employees had not come up before and that none of his employees are HIV-positive.  But, when questioned, he said he would provide the coverage in the future if any employee needed it.

Forrester also used the one-on-one portion to bring up Torricelli’s notoriously aggressive style.  He told the senator that he read that one of Torricelli’s campaign officials said that no one was afraid of the senator anymore.

Torricelli said he wasn’t aware of what Forrester was referring to, and accused him of engaging in a "negative and personal” campaign.  He again mentioned the pending war in Iraq, prescription drugs and gun control and said to Forrester, “No matter what you do,” I am not going to allow you to make this a campaign where you can divert attention from all these other issues.”

But the talk returned to Torricelli’s personality when the panel of reporters returned to the discussion.

John Farmer of The Star-Ledger asked the senator about his brief flirtation with the governor’s race two summers ago.

Torricelli said that at the time, his primary concern was “that New Jersey have a Democratic governor.  He said that both he and now-Governor James E. McGreevey were interested in running, and that after all parties discussed the matter for several weeks, it was decided McGreevey would be the best candidate. 

But Forrester seized the issue, openly mocking Torricelli’s account of the events leading to his exit from the race.  Of Torricelli’s explanation, Forrester said, “No one believes that.”  He then tied the matter into his assertion that Torricelli is no longer a feared man, claiming that Torricelli’s reach for the governorship was “his own power-play, and his loss in doing so is one of the reasons people don’t fear him anymore.”

During a question on urban decay later in the debate, Torricelli may have scored points when Forrester seemed unaware of a federal housing program.

Torricelli proclaimed his support of the Hope-6 program as way of providing housing.  In response, Forrester said he was more interested in promoting home ownership than in supporting public housing.

Torricelli then pointed out that the Hope-6 program was designed for just that purpose, asking Forrester, “How are you going to fight for these programs if you don’t even know them?”

The duo used their closing statements to press the issues they’d trumpeted all night.

“I used to worry about what he might say or do, but I don’t anymore,” Forrester said of Torricelli.  “One, his facts are wrong and his attacks are not true.  And two, I’ve learned that nobody believes Bob anymore.”

Torricelli drew on the issues of the environment, gun control, prescription drugs and abortion rights, saying that on each issue Forrester is out of step with his home state. “This is not a debate between Doug Forrester and me,” he said, “It’s a debate between Doug Forrester and everyone else.”

Afterwards, Ingrid Reed, Director of the Eagleton Project at Rutgers University, said each candidate could be pleased with his performance.

“Forrester showed that he was ready for prime-time, and Torricelli showed that he’s also ready for prime-time,” she said.  “I think voters have gotten a good introduction to these people and a chance to see who they really are.”

The candidates will meet again next week in a forum sponsored by the New Jersey Network.

Steve Kornacki can be reached at KornackiNJ@aol.com 

[monocle]

Mr. Torricelli has argued that Mr. Forrester's views are too conservative for a moderate state like New Jersey.

Mr. Torricelli, are you saying Mr. Forrester's views on ethics are too conservative for New Jersey?

[Black Agnes]

Torch ping. Have you guys seen the torch add that accuses Forrester of wanting to outlaw abortion & sell guns to kids! (he didn't say it but he meant it!).

[OldFriend]

It is my understanding that Forrester is pro-choice.......

[Black Agnes]

Yes, your understanding is correct. However, as Torch mentions in his nasty little ad, Torch supports choice 100%, that mean old Forrester person wants to eliminate taxpayer funding for abortion. Mean old man! (100% means he supports partial birth infanticide, right?)

[Howlin]

presenting a hastily assembled group of municipal officials who extolled Mr. Torricelli's record on the environment and questioned Mr. Forrester's understanding of the issue.

Is that legal?

[oldironsides]

Democrats "deep six" Judge Owens and back Torricelli. That speaks volumes. God help America.

[Black Agnes]

This is NJ. Torch wants taxpayer money used for cleanup so corrupt officials can pay off their buddies with it and have cost overruns of 200% or more. Forrester wants the businesses themselves to do the cleanup. Guess who is supported by the Unions?

[Black Agnes]

Yes, it does speak volumes. Owens wasn't '100% choice!', Torch is. That's all they need or want to know.

[Shooter 2.5]

Just remind your friends that Torricelli didn't even bother to vote for or against the Armed Pilots Bill. It was the most important Bill in months and he didn't bother to press a button.

[Moby Grape]

Yes, by democrat definitions it is legal...or is it a "private matter"....no wait...a youthful indiscretion...Oh, no...it was an innocent snafu...okay, there was not controlling legal authority...well, what I mean is I had a "lapse in judgement"...

[Howlin]

First of all, it's not true at all; and if it is true, it's not a lie; but if it is a lie, it's not lying under oath; but if it is lying under oath, it's not perjury; but if it is perjuy, it's not material; but if it is material, it's not high crimes; but if it is high crimes, it's not impeachable; and if it is impeachable, it will be horrible for the country: and if it is impeachable, well, it's the politics of personal destruction; and if it's not that, then nobody really cares about this anyway.

[okie01]

"Mr. Torricelli clearly appeared to be the more polished debater during the 90-minute encounter on Thursday night. But Mr. Forrester, who has not run for office in 20 years and is still unknown to many New Jerseyans, made no major gaffes and rebuffed many of Mr. Torricelli's attempts to cast him as a conservative extremist on social issues."

Doesn't this sound suspiciously like a re-play of the first Gore-Bush debate?

E.g., "Gore was the more polished debater"...but "surprisingly, the inexperienced and incompetent Bush didn't trip over his shoelaces".

[doug from upland]

Will the NJ FReepers please serenade the Torch with THIS.