NJ race shakes up battle for Senate
Posted on 10/02/2002 4:28:41 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
NJ race shakes up battle for Senate
Democrats jittery as Lautenberg aims to replace Torricelli
10/02/2002
WASHINGTON - Sen. Robert Torricelli's stunning decision to drop his re-election bid has added new volatility to the battle for control of the Senate, with eight races now considered too close to call and Democrats in a fierce struggle to hang onto their precarious one-seat majority.
Republican and Democratic leaders say it is possible for one side or the other to pick up several seats in the midterm elections. More likely, they say, is a narrow one-seat edge that reflects a nation every bit as divided as it was after the 2000 election.
But in recent weeks, Democrats have become jittery. Party leaders had counted on the shaky economy and the issue of corporate responsibility to give them a lift, but they now complain that the issue of Iraq has made it harder to press domestic issues that could best help their candidates.
Asked to assess his party's chance of keeping its bare majority, Sen. John Breaux, D-La., said Tuesday, "It's certainly not as good as the day before yesterday," though he added that could change if Democrats get a new candidate on the ballot in New Jersey.
Still, Mr. Breaux said: "This is a rock in the road. It's something that no one expected. We didn't even think this seat would be contested."
With five weeks to go before the election, Republicans are more optimistic but still cautious.
"If the elections were today we would win," said Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "We would net one seat up. But the elections are not today, and I expect there to be continual swings over the next 40 days depending on the local issues as well as the larger environment."
In a sign of that uncertainty, Republicans were fighting hard against the Democrats' attempt to put a new candidate on the New Jersey ballot.
Democrats settled on former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to replace Mr. Torricelli, Gov. James McGreevey said late Tuesday. But it's unclear whether Mr. Lautenberg will be on the ballot against Republican Douglas Forrester.
New Jersey law requires that a candidate drop out 51 days before an election to be replaced on the ballot. The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the Democrats' attempt to remove Mr. Torricelli, and Republicans said they would consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the state court sides with Democrats.
Democrats control the Senate, 50-49, with one independent. So a one-seat switch in the Senate would carry enormous implications: Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking Senate vote would give the GOP control of the Senate and give President Bush more power to push his domestic program and judicial nominees.
Beyond New Jersey, at least seven other Senate races, including Texas' race, are considered tossups by politicians and strategists in both parties. Four - in Texas, Arkansas, Colorado and New Hampshire - are currently held by Republicans. Democrats control the seats in Minnesota, South Dakota and Missouri.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/index.htm
|
I hope the Republicans make this argument so the world can see some more of the Dem duplicity...
The other doomsday scenario is that if on the slim chance that the court upholds the law, then Torch has 1 week to resign, McGreedy then gets to appoint his successor and he has the right to cancel the electon for 2 years.
Forget NJ folks, it will remain in Dimocratic hands and as liberal as ever. The only slim chance is that the people of NJ see what's going on and vote Republican, we know that aint happining.
There is more than one party represented on the NJ ballot even without Torricelli. Just because the Dems don't have a valid candidate doesn't mean that someone couldn't vote for an independent or a Green or a national socialist or another party's candidate.
Or the Dems could run a write-in campaign, which apparently worked successfully in DC and is a legitimate ooption, which NO ONE even mentions.
My only concern is that even if the NJ court agrees to put a Dem on the ballot, when would the USSC make any decisions about this? January? Also, the whole scenario of what would happen if Torricelli resigns and the prospect that a state governor could essentially cancel a federal election is absolutely tyrannical.
No one is talking about the situation in Hawaii, where once again, a candidate has died within the cut-off date.
Exactly. No matter how activist or far-left this court is, if these judges ever took Intro to Law 101 they will recognize this case as the proverbial "boy who killed his parents and asks the court for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan."
I know that's the spin from the papers, but it doesn't work in light of the 6 year term specified in the 17th Amendment. In this case, a valid election is already scheduled and slated. IMO (although I'm no lawyer), SCOTUS would have no choice but to smack down the NJ supremes and democrats should they try this route.
Apparently this writer, like the 'rats, can't grasp the concept of a little thing we call THE LAW?
Lautenberg may be a former Senator, and he may be the most favorable choice at this time, but still and all, the Democrat party is denying due process to all other propspective candidates and to the electorate.
There is no "primary" that was held that ceded control of the ballot to the Democrat "party".
The primary voted Torricelli onto the ballot. No one else. And it did not cede "control" of the nomination to Torricelli. It nominated Torricelli to run.
I still believe that nothing would galvanize the courts to deliver a proper ruling on this more quickly than the arrival of 3 or more petitioners to have their names entered onto the ballot.
It would be just too much for the Court to rule on the primacy of the Democrat party as to the control of the name in nomination.
At this time, Torricelli has the right to his place on the ballot due to the fact that he won the primary. Nothing else.
His seat is not "vacant" so the Governor has no authority to appoint anyone to fill a "vacant" seat. (The seat, in any case, would be vacant only until January 2003.)
Using the Carnahan election as some kind of precedent, Torricelli should have to remain on the ballot, and if he won, he could then vacate the seat, and the Governor could appoint Torricelli's mistress to the seat until a special election could be held.
I am still trying to figure out where, in that preceding paragraph, the Democrat party or Frank Lautenberg were mentioned.
Not a chance. I sense a spine growing in the Republican party, thanks GW.
As for the voters not having a choice, of course, that's bogus. The Democrats chose a quitter to represent them on the ballot.
I think this article helps straighten this out:
20 years' service net Torricelli a $74.4K pension
Trenton Times
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
If he serves out the rest of his term, U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., will have logged in two decades as a member of Congress.
He spent 14 years, or seven terms, in the House of Representatives and six years, or one term, in the Senate.
Torricelli's 20 years in office, which followed a three-year stint on the federal payroll as legal counsel to former Vice President Walter Mondale, from 1978 to 1981, entitle him to an annual pension of $74,443 upon retirement, according to the National Taxpayers Union, a Washington-based group that tracks the salaries of public officials.
Factoring in a yearly cost-of-living raise of 4 percent, the Taxpayers Union calculates that Torricelli will receive about $4.5 million in pension payments over the next 30 years, said Peter Sepp, a spokesman for the group.
Sepp said there is a slight penalty for retiring before the age of 60 of just over 10 percent of a retiree's pension.
If Torricelli, 51, resigns before his term ends, he would not draw an annuity until he is 60, said Mary Ellen Wilson, chief of the retirement policy center at the Office of Personnel Management, the federal agency that administers pensions.
Eventhough you and I know it's about a switch, the Dems will argue that it would be appropriate too not switch but ADD Lautenberg to the ballot.
Dirty, Dastardly, and Daffy Duck DISPICABLE!
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.