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.
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]
WASHINGTON -- About two hours after Sen. Robert Torricelli's weepy press conference, in which he -- a liberal, hence nimble at victim-mongering -- proclaimed himself a victim of America's defect ("When did we become such an unforgiving people?"), the presses of the Democratic Party's newsletter, The New York Times, were printing an editorial exercise in situational ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Well said.
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.
Bravo!
Also well said.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I like this one too.
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.
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.
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.