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

Skip to comments.

Lautenberg's radical record is a GOP challenger's dream
Wall St Journal ^ | 10-3-02 | Joel C. Rosenberg

Posted on 10/03/2002 6:27:52 AM PDT by SJackson

In a closed-door Democratic strategy meeting in 1999, New Jersey's then-senior Sen. Frank Lautenberg criticized Sen. Bob Torricelli, his junior colleague, for openly "dissing" him in a state newspaper and speaking well of Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who at the time seemed to be preparing to challenge Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2000.

Lautenberg wasn't happy. But never one to take correction well, Torricelli went ballistic. "You're a [expletive deleted] piece of [expletive deleted]!" he raged, "and I'm going to cut your [genitalia] off!"

Needless to say, Lautenberg wasn't the Torch's choice to replace him. He was Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's.

A U.S. Supreme Court battle could still be ahead. But if the 78-year old multi-millionaire does get on the ballot legally, the Forrester team could have a field day with Lautenberg's radical liberal record.

With a war against Iraq looming, for example, Lautenberg is vulnerable to the charge that he's a wimp on national security.

In 1991, he voted against authorizing military force against Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. He predicted "tens of thousands of American casualties," a new U.S. draft and warned the U.S. could end up destroying Kuwait in the process of trying to liberate it.

In 1984 -- at the height of the Cold War -- he voted for Ted Kennedy's "nuclear freeze" proposal.

He voted for the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1988 to restrict the conduct of foreign covert operations, and voted in 1992 to cut the U.S. intelligence budget by $1 billion.

He's consistently voted against building missile defenses to protect the homeland or U.S. troops and allies, and in 1991 supported an amendment that would have cut defense spending by a whopping $80 billion.

Lautenberg is also vulnerable to the charge he's soft on terrorism.

On October 26, 1989, for example, the Senate voted on a bill introduced by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to impose the death penalty for terrorists who kill U.S. citizens in foreign countries. The bill passed 79-20. But Lautenberg actually voted against it.

Then, on February 20, 1991, Lautenberg voted for an amendment to rescind the death penalty for terrorists who murder Americans in the U.S. or abroad and instead impose life in prison.

That amendment was defeated 25 to 72, but joining Lautenberg against the death penalty for terrorists was none other than Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin, John Kerry and Al Gore.

Imagine for a moment that bill had passed with the help of Lautenberg, Wellstone and Gore. Imagine then that we catch Osama bin Laden alive. Imagine then that instead of electrocuting bin Laden to death -- or giving him a lethal injection -- for masterminding the death of thousands of innocent Americans, we instead were required to put him in a Holiday Inn-style prison where he could watch cable television, write a bestselling book, and be interviewed on "60 Minutes."

In 1988, Lautenberg voted against the death penalty for "drug kingpins" who commit murders or order the murder of others.

Click for Complete Article

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2002 6:27:52 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Excellent. Go, Forrester!
2 posted on 10/03/2002 6:30:29 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

3 posted on 10/03/2002 6:32:21 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The Torricelli-Lautenberg machine will sputter and die in New Jersey.
4 posted on 10/03/2002 6:32:32 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Torricelli and the democrats are the lying jerks.

Lautenberg's just an old man -- a dupe. The fact democrats would use this old man in such a shameless way is the story. He's old, he's tired and he doesn't need to be used and used badly by power hungry democrats. Have they no shame?

Democrats talk the talk of traitors and exploiters.

5 posted on 10/03/2002 6:32:44 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Wow! Thanks for posting... Looks like a ready-made media plan for Doug Forrester and the GOP. I hope Forrester stiff-arms early Demo calls for debates -- why should he provide free air-time for an illegal candidate. Forrester has already followed every legal requirement of the election process in NJ -- now the Demos want a clean-slate, fresh start... It's like running a marathon, seeing that they are helplessly behind at the 20-mile mark and insisting that a new runner be allow to enter the raise at a new, even starting point with the leader. Amazing bunch of criminals, these Demos are!
6 posted on 10/03/2002 6:36:20 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I was just going to send this to you! I think Forrester will win, but the principle of what happened yesterday still grates and is all the more reason the GOP must take control of the Senate in order to get President Bush's judges seated.
7 posted on 10/03/2002 6:36:47 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Many NJ democrats are sick of this entire mess...who knows how many will stay home?
8 posted on 10/03/2002 6:36:59 AM PDT by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Drug kingpins may be a big voting bloc in NJ. Watch out!
9 posted on 10/03/2002 6:38:14 AM PDT by FlameThrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under CFR, nobody can write ANYTHING attacking a candidate unless they're part of 'The Press' (the Press being whatever the liberal judges call it.)
Once we get 30 days from the election, I wouldn't write this kind of stuff anymore.
Of course, we don't really NEED an election in NJ, do we?
10 posted on 10/03/2002 6:38:31 AM PDT by dyed_in_the_wool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Many NJ democrats are sick of this entire mess...who knows how many will stay home?

I fear, while hoping otherwise, that the fix is in.

11 posted on 10/03/2002 6:39:02 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Torricelli was beating Forrester handily until he got nailed as a crook so it wasn't his political opinions that were the problem. Labeling Lautenberg as a liberal isn't going to do anything. People know he's a liberal and they may not care.
12 posted on 10/03/2002 6:41:48 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dyed_in_the_wool
I think CFR goes into effect NEXT election cycle. Write away.
13 posted on 10/03/2002 6:42:55 AM PDT by Tuscaloosa Goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Great post. Do the Repubs have the (expletive) to use this info?
14 posted on 10/03/2002 6:44:45 AM PDT by WestPoint90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
He voted for the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1988 to restrict the conduct of foreign covert operations, and voted in 1992 to cut the U.S. intelligence budget by $1 billion.

Sweet.

15 posted on 10/03/2002 6:45:11 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
When Lautenberg voted against Desert Storm , he said he did so because his son was against it. A real deep thinker!
16 posted on 10/03/2002 6:45:30 AM PDT by wilmington2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
Or just debate Glick.
17 posted on 10/03/2002 6:49:21 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Labeling Lautenberg as a liberal isn't going to do anything. People know he's a liberal and they may not care."

I agree. Why should it be a hindrance to Lautenberg to be a flaming lib in a liberal state? Forrester has to continue to tie Lautenberg to Toricelli as tight as he can.

18 posted on 10/03/2002 6:50:33 AM PDT by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dyed_in_the_wool
Once we get 30 days from the election,

In NJ, time limits have no meaning. 51 days, 30 days--Bah!

19 posted on 10/03/2002 6:53:35 AM PDT by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Irene Adler
Why should it be a hindrance to Lautenberg to be a flaming lib in a liberal state?

That's right...most of our Republicans are left of Zell Miller.

20 posted on 10/03/2002 7:03:58 AM PDT by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 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