The state of New Jersey is one of the few in this collection which is large and urban.  At first glance, it might not strike one as the sort of state sympathetic to ARP's message of fiscal restraint, good government, fair trade.  In 1992, for example, it only gave Ross Perot 16%, which is LESS than the 19% he received nationwide.

    Yet changes have been afoot here in the past seven years.  In 1996, this state gave third-party/independent presidential candidates 11% of its vote, which is slightly LARGER than the national average that year.  In addition, it now boasts one of the largest percentages in the nation of voters registered as unaffiliated or in third parties, -- an incredible 55%!  Considering such factors, I feel that this state  should be an ARP priority.

    Liberal Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg has announced his retirement.  He will not be running for re-election in 2000.

    There are two possibilities in this race from the point of view of ARP, as I see it, and they are both moderate Republican women.  The two major possibilities are the incumbent Republican governor, Christine Todd Whitman, and Marge Roukema, Republican Representative.  In addition, I believe there is a slim possibility that Richard Zimmer, who gave Torricelli quite a run for his money in 96, may not have given up yet on his hopes to serve in the Senate; Zimmer too is a moderate Republican in the ARP Shays-Campbell-type image, and might be deserving of our support.  On the other hand, after his defeat at the hands of Torricelli he might not have the winner image we need.  That's a matter for folks closer to the ground in New Jersey to assess.  Personally, I feel the most appropriate course of action would be to endorse Whitman and work for her election to the Senate in 2000.

    Robert Torricelli, Democrat, is a boring traditional liberal Democrat.  He has been an entrenched official in the Democratic party for years, and is not a viable possibility for an ARP endorsement.  His seat is up in 2002.

    He won his last race with some difficulty, though his victory was not a squeaker; the final figures were 53%-43% over Richard Zimmer.  In a state like this, which seems fairly closely balanced between Democrats, Republicans, and independent/third parties, Torricelli's seat can never be counted safe.  Again, the three chief possibilities all appear to be Republicrats, Whitman, Roukema, and Zimmer.  I recommend we prepare to endorse one of the three above-mentioned.  My strongest preference would be to endorse Whitman in 2000 and Roukema in 2000.  We need more women as potential leaders of our party (the Gang of Eight are all male) and we need more women in the Senate.
 

    We should support the incumbent, Rob Andrews(D).  I would put him in my so-called Trojan horse category.  This particular Representative is a nice unusual combination of Blue Dog supporter and opponent of NAFTA.

    At this time, the word on the street is that he is interested in running only one more time, in 2000.  After that, he may run for Governor in 2001, when Whitman is term-limited.  While I believe Andrews is more valuable to us in the House than in the New Jersey Governor's mansion, if that is what he wants we cannot prevent him from so doing.  I would go further; if he is unalterably committed to running for Governor in that year, we should support him.
 

    We need to challenge incumbent Jim Saxton(R), whose last victory figure was 62%.  We should do what we can to see that we make a credible showing.  Our goal should be to win a minimum of 12% of the vote.
 

    We need to challenge incumbent Christopher H. Smith(R), who received 62% in the last election.  Our goal, as in the Third District, should be to win 12% of the vote.
 

Should Congresswoman Roukema(R) choose to run again I feel we would be better off ceding the field without a candidate and endorsing her re-election bid.  We should give her support because she is a potential Trojan horse.  She is a Shays/Meehan co-sponsor, she supported Kasich's Medicare entitlement reform bill, and supported the Blue Dog budget.  Moreover, her support has shrunk somewhat lately, from 71% in 96 to 64% in 98.  Of all the Republican moderates, she was one of the most vocal in support of impeachment.  She was granted an almost permanent guest spot from which to air her pro-impeachment views on the conservative Fox News Channel during the final week of the House's impeachment debate.  Now if, as a result, there is an anti-impeachment backlash, Roukema would probably welcome our endorsement.  Of course, it is possible she will go for Lautenberg's open Senate seat instead in 2000.  If that is the case,  then we should run our own candidate, with the goal of making a credible showing, on the order of 10% to 20%.
 

    We should challenge Frank Pallone, Jr.(D), who won his last race with 57%.  Pallone represents a lost opportunity for us, unfortunately.  He was a potential Trojan horse, Blue Dog budget supporter, NAFTA opponent, congressional pay raise opponent, disliked by his own state Democratic party, and very much his own person.  But it now appears he has decided to sell himself out; he is actively campaigning for a DCCC post, and appears ready to start on a new career as a party hack.  This is a district tailor-made for our message, based on its past voting record.  Since there is no clearly visible figure on the political horizon here in our image, I suggest we run a flag-planting campaign, the goal of which should be to win a percentage sufficient to deprive Pallone of a majority in 2000, which would be, assuming Pallone's support holds steady till then, a total of 7% of the vote.
 

    This is another district with ARP promise.  It's not a third-party district, but the Representative here, Bob Franks(R), just might be a Trojan horse; he's a moderate Republican, probably a member of the Tuesday Club, supports Shays/Meehan, environmentalist, minimum wage, etc. etc.  HOWEVER, he is a free trader, and a tax cut supply sider, so my gut tells me he could be a hard sell.  The bottom line, however, is that he is close enough that the odds are more in our favor that he would form an alliance with us than that we could run a candidate here who could even run a successful flag-planting effort.  Remember that this district is not typically sympathetic to third parties and therefore our options here may be limited.  And there is another factor in our favor:  Franks' totals seem to shrink with each election.  In 96 he won 55%, in 98 he won 52%, and in 00 I believe, because of his vote for impeachment, that he will be flirting with 50% -- or less.  Under such circumstances, he will probably welcome and be appropriately grateful for any help he can get.