Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Torricelli News Conference 5 pm EST LIVE THREAD

Posted on 09/30/2002 9:20:19 AM PDT by alisasny

Opine away : )


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: cheesewithwhine; dontcry; idlke2thnktheacademy; imabigbaby; imacrookshhh; imaproudcrook; myeulogy; notmyfault; opuslist; walkitoffson; whatwouldwilliedo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 2,041-2,043 next last
To: Howlin
I still don't believe that low poll numbers are forcing him out. If there's nothing coming out, why not just stay and exit gracefully?

So they can try to hold the seat and occupy the 'moral high ground' at the same time. Fat chance of the latter.

621 posted on 09/30/2002 1:24:03 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: tip of the sword
yes, but don't worry too much. the NJ Supreme court hates politics no matter which side is pushing it. it should be interesting to see how this plays out.
622 posted on 09/30/2002 1:24:29 PM PDT by SternTrek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
IMHO, this is all happening because something big is coming. Torch will read whatever script they hand him in exchange for them burying whatever legal thing that finally pushed him over the edge into quitting.

Who's them? Don't the Republicans now control the Justice Department? Are you saying the DNC is threatening Torch with a state prosecution?

623 posted on 09/30/2002 1:24:29 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
So, this will go to the Supremes, then. Well, how interesting.

I thnk we can talk about how the COURTS and the JUDGES should be IMPARTIAL.

I am so ticked off by this!

624 posted on 09/30/2002 1:25:07 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
If McGreevey appoints someone AND calls a special election, and the guy wins, what's the problem?

The problem is, the 'Rats nominated Torricelli, and now they should be stuck with him. Otherwise they get at least two swings at every ball. If they're losing, just line up another candidate and see if he does better. Meanwhile, the honorable Republican has spent his time campaigning against one candidate, only to be faced with another.

The problem is that it is sneaky, underhanded and unfair. Not to mention the fact that it disenfranchises all of those 'Rat primary voters. (Not that I spend a lot of time worrying about 'Rats, mind you)

625 posted on 09/30/2002 1:25:35 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: tip of the sword; Howlin
They issued the UNANIMOUS Boy Scout ruling the SCOTUS overturned.
626 posted on 09/30/2002 1:25:39 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"...then the governor can CANCEL the election (per said bad law) and wait as long as two years before anyone gets to vote (at which point, the trick can be repeated 1 day prior to the new election)."

Sorry.....but with all due respect, I don't buy it. Maybe, just maybe, this could be feasible if there two years or more left in the current sitting Senator's term. Otherwise.....that would be so patently and obviously crooked/illegal/un-Constitutional as to be beyond belief. If that was possible, then a Party could legally ensure that they NEVER have to face a public election, period.

No, I think someone passed on a terribly inaccurate reading of the law.

627 posted on 09/30/2002 1:26:09 PM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
'COURSE not. I'd be surprised if he did resign...thus splitting the Senate down the middle, thus making life a little tough for the Democratic Obstruction Machine in the Senate.

No, if he does resign there would be a Dem appointed to replace him, the Senate remains status quo.

628 posted on 09/30/2002 1:26:13 PM PDT by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Yikes! This is all making me very nervous although we saw how the US Supremes finally reeled in a runaway state court in 2000.
629 posted on 09/30/2002 1:26:18 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
If they are just wanting to replace the names on the ballot, the SCOTUS likely won't get involved.
630 posted on 09/30/2002 1:26:41 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: LisaFab
That was a different case than this-- replacing a name on the ballot.

I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS stays out.
631 posted on 09/30/2002 1:27:56 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Time for Chief Justice Rehinquist to start dry cleaning the robe with the gold bars on it!
632 posted on 09/30/2002 1:28:24 PM PDT by tip of the sword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
End of story.

Yes, and no. This red herring is a bait and switch. The real story is can the Rats substitute a new name for a losing candidate ?

633 posted on 09/30/2002 1:28:34 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
"Rumor has it that DNC officials have had no luck in trying to contact Murray Mom."

ROFLOL! cocktail time for me too...

634 posted on 09/30/2002 1:28:59 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Isnt this involving a bunch on federal issues here, I'm sure the GOP will argue that in court tomorrow.

Are the Dims angling to keep this one out of federal court, learning from Gore's errors??

635 posted on 09/30/2002 1:30:39 PM PDT by tip of the sword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
She doesn't 'interview' like a Rat......but I have no idea.
636 posted on 09/30/2002 1:30:43 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Are you saying the DNC is threatening Torch with a state prosecution?

Not "saying" -- guessing is the proper term.

Torch had been holding firm up to now. Something has pushed him over the edge. I'm guessing that there are state charges hanging out there, and that the NJ Dems are giving him a choice of what to do about them. The DNC would obviously support such a move, since it increases their chances from zero to something close to even (depending on the replacement).

637 posted on 09/30/2002 1:30:53 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The real story is can the Rats substitute a new name for a losing candidate ?

Why stop with Torricelli? Why not substitute Carnahan in MO and Johnson in SD while they're at it?

-PJ

638 posted on 09/30/2002 1:31:23 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Torch had been holding firm up to now. Something has pushed him over the edge. I'm guessing that there are state charges hanging out there, and that the NJ Dems are giving him a choice of what to do about them.

But if the Dems were holding something on him, why didn't they do this before the deadline? I did hear that his polls dropped like a stone after the memo last week. So maybe that was it. They thought he could pull it out. He can't so we go with plan B and really muddy things up?

639 posted on 09/30/2002 1:33:50 PM PDT by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Quoting Shakepeare, "Ah, that's the rub..."

See, watch for Toricelli waiting until it is within 30 days of the election to ACTUALLY RESIGN ... "Announcements" to resign don't count as a "resignation."

Then the (democrat) governor gets to APPOINT a (democratic) fill-in (since the WITHDRAWAL is within 30 days of the election) ... who gets to STAY in the office until the next general election....

.... which is two years from Nov 5, of course.

See Carnahan's example: She didn't get elected, she got appointed to the Senate AFTER her husband "lost" the election by being VOTED IN as a dead man. (Ashcroft failed to fight....and was tossed out out.)

JUST LIKE ZELL MILLER. Appointed to the Senate by a democratic governor after Paul Coverdell's (sp) death.

Daschole NEVER GOT ELECTED Senate Majority Leader ... HE GOT HIMSELF APPOINTED by democratic governors, and after Jefford's changed sides by being bribed to get a committee chairmanship.

Only problem I see, other than the moral issue which the democrats don't care about, is that one could protest in court that the annoucnement of withdrawal (coming today - 36 days prior) means the official withdrawal (next week, within 30 days of the election) is a sham and cannot be "accepted".


640 posted on 09/30/2002 1:34:16 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 2,041-2,043 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson