Skip to comments.
George F. Will: Rule-bending trend
The Sacramento Bee ^
| Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, October 3, 2002
| George F. Will
Posted on 10/03/2002 4:57:39 PM PDT by greydog
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:45:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Torricelli is not dead (being terminally ill, politically, does not count). He is not incapacitated (being ethically challenged does not count). He is not in jail (with his contributor David Chang, one of seven people who pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to Torricelli). Were he any of those three there might be grounds for waiving the 51-day limit. But poll results that sadden Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle are not grounds.
Well said.
1
posted on
10/03/2002 4:57:39 PM PDT
by
greydog
To: greydog
![](http://www.freerepublic.com/images/demo.gif)
This is easy to add to all New Jersey threads. Cut out
<img src="http://www.freerepublic.com/images/demo.gif">
and paste it in you posts.
To: greydog
For 36 days in Florida in 2000, Democrats displayed ferocious contempt for any rules under which they do not win. Next month, voters everywhere should consider the New Jersey spectacle when weighing how much power Democrats deserve.Bravo!
3
posted on
10/03/2002 5:02:41 PM PDT
by
tet68
To: SubMareener
We don't have free elections anymore. We have selection by paid-off attorneys - state Supreme Court Justices.
4
posted on
10/03/2002 5:06:24 PM PDT
by
Peach
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
If you're mad and you know it ......PLEDGE A BUCK ! ! (or FIVE!)
If you're mad and you know it......then the '"THON" will surely show it....
If you're mad and you know it..... PLEDGE A BUCK ! ! (or FIVE!)
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
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
6
posted on
10/03/2002 5:10:03 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: greydog
Democrats said the silence of the law -- it cannot anticipate all the ploys that knaves can imagine -- about the deliberate creation of a ballot vacancy for transparent political reasons leaves them free to do anything that is not explicitly proscribed.![](http://www.freerepublic.com/images/demo.gif)
Also well said.
To: greydog
bump
8
posted on
10/03/2002 5:15:24 PM PDT
by
Vinomori
To: tet68
Bravo, yes. But I, for one, have so little faith in the general public. There will be little, if any, outrage except among those few of us who care enough to pay attention. And I believe that those New Jesery residents who bother to rouse themselves to vote this November will do what most people do. Vote blindly for party and/or familiar name. I hope I'm wrong.
9
posted on
10/03/2002 5:17:19 PM PDT
by
Wolfstar
To: Jonathon Spectre
Democrats said the silence of the law -- it cannot anticipate all the ploys that knaves can imagine -- about the deliberate creation of a ballot vacancy for transparent political reasons leaves them free to do anything that is not explicitly proscribed. I disagree that the law is silent. When a law states you can replace a candidate on the ballot if it is before 51 days before an election, that explicitly implies that you MAY NOT replace a candidate on the ballot after the 51 day mark.
For anyone to accept the Dems arguement that the law is silent, is foolishness.
10
posted on
10/03/2002 5:18:19 PM PDT
by
copycat
To: greydog
ANY ONE HAVE A CONTACT WITH RALPH NADER??? LET'S ASK HIM TO DECLARE TOMORROW THAT HE IS A CANDIDATE FOR TORRICELLI'S VACATED SEAT.
If the law can be disregarded for the benefit of dempcracy when the mafioso in the New Jersey democrat party think it is their best interests to do so, wouldn't be in democracy's best interests if a white knight now stepped forward? Who better than Nader? Residency? Sure, it is in the law but, hey, for democray's sake, the court would have to rule otherwise. How about Springstein? Can we get him to step forward?
Do the Republicans in New Jersey have a surrogate who will step forward who would draw votes from Lautenberg while running on a third party ticket? Is there a leftist or green maverick who, with some Republican financial backing, will step forward to showcase the democrat criminality?
11
posted on
10/03/2002 5:21:14 PM PDT
by
Tacis
To: greydog; Freee-dame
bump
12
posted on
10/03/2002 5:23:12 PM PDT
by
maica
To: greydog
The fundamental reason why there is no corruption the Democrats won't employ is because, up 'til now, the voters haven't held them accountable. Seriously, why should Democrats and other liberals act as though there are rules tha govern civilized behavior? Why should they not behave as though decent ethics are for others?
No one holds them accountable. No one. The majority of voters don't seem to care. Businesses and taxpayers don't care.
Until thinking Democrats (the quintissential oxymoron) hold their party accountable, this won't change. Fact is, it will get worse. The question is, are there any limits? Not yet.
13
posted on
10/03/2002 5:25:21 PM PDT
by
stevem
To: copycat
Every person who has been through the first year of law school knows where a law conatins the word "shall" its meaning is that no other option is available. This type of condition appears in the same context throughout all legislation.
The law is not silent and the people who are claiming it is know better. They are intentionally trying to distort the meaning of the law.
To: greydog
It was a Torricellian twist on an old joke: A child kills his parents and demands mercy because he is an orphan. I like this one too.
15
posted on
10/03/2002 5:45:38 PM PDT
by
Ronin
To: stevem
The fundamental reason why there is no corruption the Democrats won't employ is because, up 'til now, the voters haven't held them accountable.
The founding fathers gave extraordinary power to what is often called the fourth branch of government. Newspapers, or as they evolved into the major media, as we know it now. They have choosen to take sides rather than act as a watchdog, and they are paying a price.
Corruption could not exist if it was exposed as it really exist, and not glossed over as occurs now. One reason for this, is that those in the media today strongly believe in the same goals as the Democrats, and tend to wink at their corruption.
On the other side, the media will destroy someone they do not like.
I do not believe Republicans are less capable of corruption, they just have a more difficult time hiding it, add to that fact that the conservative base of the Republican party will vote a crook out of office (or at the very least stay home and not vote at all)it is hard for a Republican to become too corrupt before they are gone.
So the Democrats get a pass on the minor stuff, and then graduate to more and more corruption until it is too blantant for even the media to ignore.
Times are changing. The Democrats have had over 70 years to turn this country into a social paradise, and have failed. (Socialism is still rampant, but I firmly believe we have reached its peak, and we are at the begining of the swing the other way.)
The smart Democrats know this, and it scares them. That is the reason for these desparate measures. If the Republicans do not win the Senate this election, then it will be the next. Soon we will have a majority in the House, the Senate and have the Presidency.
The Democratic party will go the way of the Whigs.
To: CIB-173RDABN
The "new" Democratic Party!
17
posted on
10/03/2002 6:06:47 PM PDT
by
texson66
To: Tacis
If the law can be disregarded for the benefit of dempcracy when the mafioso in the New Jersey democrat party think it is their best interests to do so, wouldn't be in democracy's best interests if a white knight now stepped forward? I've been all over the NJ Election websites the last few hours. I was thinking of trying to join the race myself, just to show the hypocricy of the court's ruling (yes, I'm a NJ resident). There is a June 4th deadline for Independents to file for running. However, there is no other restriction stated. I could run on another party ticket, assuming there is not already a candidate there, and I didn't find any restrictions. The problem is, I don't know whether the party has obligations to be registered, sanctioned or whatever.
What is appalling is the financial disclosure requirements; all of which I'm sure have been violated by Lautenberg for their lateness. I'm surprised, since this is not an appointment to a vacant office situation, that a totally new candidate can come on the scene so late, and even more surprised that nobody has challenged Lautenberg even being qualified under the requirements for disclosures, financial statements etc. I thought all candidates had to be vetted.
To: Go Gordon
bump
19
posted on
10/03/2002 6:53:44 PM PDT
by
jackbill
To: greydog
WAIT A flash of brilliance has overcome me. Any freepers from Jersey should immediately - and I mean NOW, call the NEW JERSEY State election commission and demand to be put on the ballot as it is not too late to enter the race and the normal rules don't apply. States generally require that a petitioner receive an adequate number of signatures to run for office in that state, when did this quack meet that requirement on entering the race?! This is your opportunity to Stir the mudstorm. Protest and demand your right to compete for the open slot on the ballot. New Jersey deserves a choice!
20
posted on
10/03/2002 7:10:22 PM PDT
by
Havoc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson