Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: TonyInOhio
Thanks for the link!
2 posted on
10/02/2002 7:08:05 AM PDT by
RCW2001
To: TonyInOhio
What time does it start?
To: TonyInOhio
Thanks for the link! So far, all I see is a bunch of empty desks & some background noise.
I expect things to heat up very shortly.
4 posted on
10/02/2002 7:10:42 AM PDT by
Catspaw
To: TonyInOhio
Some of my best arguments for supporting a deadline have to do with an orderly election.
1. Advance time gives the electorate and critics time to properly evaluate a candidate and ferret out information that is hidden.
2. Advance time gives the towns to prepare proper ballots.
3. Advance time also gives the candidates and the electorate time to compare and contrast their posistions on issues.
4. Finally, a deadline provides a cutoff from allowing mass chaos on who is to be a candidate. If this deadline doesn't apply to the Democrats than by extension every other citizen who wishes to be placed on the ballot should have that right up until the day of the election.After all, the people have the right to a choice, don't they ?
To: TonyInOhio
Thanks for the link. Anybody watching the two traitors on FNC? barf
6 posted on
10/02/2002 7:13:35 AM PDT by
katykelly
To: TonyInOhio
These justices obviously don't believe in punctuality. Either that or they are caucusing to decide if the two judges that contributed to Torrecelli's campaign should recuse themselves (she thinks hopefully)
7 posted on
10/02/2002 7:13:40 AM PDT by
justshe
To: TonyInOhio
Surprise outcome: They will rule Lousenberg "incompetent" and unfit for office. Sheesh, I lstened to his announcement speech and was astounded by his incoherency. Did anyone even tell him about the potential war in IRAQ? One would think that a person living in N.J. would have been aware of the terrorist attacks as well.All he said, and he didn't do a good job, is that he is against pollution, for a women's right ro have unfettered abortions, and that Republicans are evil and only New Jersey can prevent the GOP takeover of the Senate.
10 posted on
10/02/2002 7:15:10 AM PDT by
1Old Pro
To: TonyInOhio
Pray.
13 posted on
10/02/2002 7:17:17 AM PDT by
Huck
To: TonyInOhio
The justices have entered the chamber...
18 posted on
10/02/2002 7:19:59 AM PDT by
Lyford
To: TonyInOhio
Here's a thought that's been bugging me. The Torch as much admitted that he's not going to win. How did the Dems determine that? By a poll of course. How big was the poll sample? In other words a poll sample on a day other than election day seems to be more important than election day itself. Polls can be wrong. Doesn't anybody remember "DEWEY WINS!" ?
22 posted on
10/02/2002 7:21:13 AM PDT by
Utopia
To: TonyInOhio
I just can't believe that anyone could get up and argue that a candidate, on the basis of polling information, can just up and quit because he believes he will lose, and the party can simply pop in another candidate. This will create chaos, especailly after all the campaign money they have raised. Then there is the issue of the money and effort Forrester has spent up to this point will all be for naught, which is patently unfair. The primary process is supposed to weed out the chaff like Torricelli. They went with him, now they have to stay with him.
Maybe Gore should have quit after the first debate and let Nader have the ball!! LOL!
To: TonyInOhio
Dims up first.
-Need for "competitive" election
-"vacancy created by his [T's] withdrawl"
-Plenty of time for replacement
25 posted on
10/02/2002 7:22:38 AM PDT by
Stultis
To: TonyInOhio
This is airing live on C-SPAN, at least while the House of Representatives is in the middle of votes.
27 posted on
10/02/2002 7:23:40 AM PDT by
Timesink
To: TonyInOhio
-statutory 51 day limit is not a "qualifying event," but just goes to allowing for the "mechanics of the election" to be accomodated
30 posted on
10/02/2002 7:24:42 AM PDT by
Stultis
To: TonyInOhio
q-What about absentee ballots?
33 posted on
10/02/2002 7:25:32 AM PDT by
Stultis
To: TonyInOhio
a- only 1700 absentee ballots out of 18,0000 have been sent. court can order reprinting and resending of those sent. judge helpfully adds that a clarifying letter can be sent.
39 posted on
10/02/2002 7:27:13 AM PDT by
Stultis
To: TonyInOhio
42 posted on
10/02/2002 7:27:47 AM PDT by
TheDon
To: TonyInOhio
q- If not following statute, where do we draw the line?
a- What matters is the "overall objective" of the election laws. (IOW, you judges decide)
46 posted on
10/02/2002 7:28:23 AM PDT by
Stultis
To: TonyInOhio
DNC lawyer is getting HAMMERED ...
To: TonyInOhio
Too bad we can't loan New Jersey that great American, Judge Sauls... he wouldn't show up late and he's the type to serve his country instead of serving the Party...
50 posted on
10/02/2002 7:29:53 AM PDT by
piasa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson