Torricelli's woes set fuse for fireworks

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 8/12/02 | Tom Turcol

[dyed_in_the_wool]

To hear his allies tell it, New Jersey Sen. Robert G. Torricelli has bottomed out.

Their view: After being rocked by disclosures that he violated Senate ethics rules - and that his months of public denials had been misleading at best - the Democrat is going through a period of sustained public criticism and dismal poll results and has nowhere to go but up.

His Republican opponents, however, say Torricelli hasn't seen anything yet.

Their view: Once Senate candidate Douglas Forrester launches his barrage of television ads highlighting the ethics controversy, Torricelli will continue losing support, and voters will be ready to cast him out of office after only one term.

Two things are certain: An incumbent who once seemed a good bet for reelection is on the ropes, and this fall's contest between Torricelli and Forrester could be the nastiest campaign ever in a state notorious for political mud fights.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

It seems like the Philadelphia Inquirer shares your optimism.

[alloysteel]

Don't count Torricelli out just yet. There is a large reservoir of sympathy for the "underdog" in the state of New Jersey, because, after all, there, but for the grace of God, go I. Or so the thinking goes. A large portion of the voters in that benighted state hold this sort of behavior in high esteem. They see nothing wrong with holding that point of view. But worse, there is another portion of the electorate who will sit home on Election Day, because the alternative candidate offered is not sufficiently "pure", and allows the election of the less satisfactory candidate, by default.

But hasn't just that been the problem everywhere?

[Fixit]

[Fixit]

(Picture made it, text didn't.)

The Torch walks free and Traficant rots in jail -- Where's the justice?

[MattinNJ]

I heard that Forrester's ads are going to nail torch's hide to the wall on the "Torecelli principles" and the breaking of his campaign promise on the balanced budget amendment.

[Go Gordon]

I heard that Forrester's ads are going to nail torch's hide to the wall on the "Torecelli principles" and the breaking of his campaign promise on the balanced budget amendment.

I was down the shore (Long Beach Island) this past week. I got a big chuckle out of seeing a huge banner flown behind a prop plane up and down the coast for all beach goers to see. It read something like: Senator Torricelli has betrayed the people of New Jersey, Vote Forrester.

I would have really LMAO if The Torch was seen on the stump, while the banner was flown behind him. Would have made for a great picture to post on FR.

[Coop]

It seems like the Philadelphia Inquirer shares your optimism.

What optimism? I spend most of my time smacking down all the eternal pessimists who defy numbers right in their faces. I call that realism. I think Torricelli's gonna be a vicious pitbull from here on out. But he's also a severely wounded vicious pit bull with almost $2 million less to harm Forrester with.

[Coop]

A silver lining in the Quinnipiac poll, Torricelli supporters say, is that a significant number of voters now inclined to vote against the incumbent said they were not ready to support Forrester

Well, the article fails to mention that a full 72% said they don't know much about Forrester. Yet he's still tied with the incumbent.

That's why I personally would let the RNC and others attack Torricelli's misconduct, while Forrester spends his money telling everyone what a great guy he is and what he'll do for NJ. But they never ask me.

[Ann Archy]

Wasn't Toricelli CHASTISED by the HOUSE for Un-Ethical activities when he was a House Member? So he would have the Distinction of being slapped for ethical problems by BOTH Houses of Congress.

[Coop]

Wasn't Toricelli CHASTISED by the HOUSE for Un-Ethical activities when he was a House Member? So he would have the Distinction of being slapped for ethical problems by BOTH Houses of Congress.

Which will make for a lovely commercial! :-)

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Wasn't Toricelli CHASTISED by the HOUSE for Un-Ethical activities when he was a House Member?

Yup. He released information about CIA activity in Guatamala and he STILL was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Sure the voters will hold the antique clock against him, eh, Coop?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

What optimism? I spend most of my time smacking down all the eternal pessimists who defy numbers right in their faces.

Slowly now...
We're talking about New Jersey, here.
We're talking about a State that elected this man to the Senate even though he had been severely reprimanded by the House.
The polls are nice, but remember, clinton had GREAT polls. Didn't make him a great President.
You might think you're being realistic, but you're in for a surprise this fall.
You're working under the assumption that once Doug starts talking, people are going to think, "Wow, what a great guy."
Realistically, they're going to be thinking "Who's this guy? Why should I trust him? What's his agenda?"
I've got a hunch that Doug is going to get smoked for no other reason than opening his mouth.
The Republican Party keeps running on issues and not on image.
But keep it up. Call it realism. Whatever you need to do. Keep citing them polls, Sparky. But I'm telling you, that dog won't hunt.

[Coop]

You might think you're being realistic, but you're in for a surprise this fall.

No, no I'm not. You maintain that there is absolutely no way that Forrester can win. I maintain that he CAN win. Not that he will - he can. So whether Forrester wins or loses, I betcha I won't be surprised at all.

You, however, are setting yourself up for some serious egg on your face.