Skip to comments.
Ex-Senator (Lautenberg) to Replace Torricelli
AP via Yahoo ^
| 10/01/02
| JOHN P. McALPIN
Posted on 10/01/2002 6:03:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 481-484 next last
To: MileHi
Maybe they will because of the unjustice of it.
To: marajade
Geeeee ... a smart democrat!!
To: Howlin
We need to make a total farce of this. Let's have Forrester drop out and have Tom Selleck stand in for him.
(Surely a technicality like residency is not as important as giving Republicans a more viable choice.)
To: MileHi
Naw, SCOTUS won't get into a "local" race.
It's more than that. The GOP Appeal goes to the SCOTUS
164
posted on
10/01/2002 6:51:24 PM PDT
by
cmsgop
To: Howlin
Then I'll need a valium-drip (or a really good defense attorney)
To: marajade
I wonder how many Dems can spell Lautenberg correctly :)
To: Wphile
. She also said the SCOTUS will not take the case. This is a state issue. I have been pi$$ed since I listened to Hugh Hewitt tonight. He said just that and I fear that is corrct. Now it is down to RICO politics. The fix is in.
167
posted on
10/01/2002 6:52:25 PM PDT
by
MileHi
To: Howlin
They have just picked a candidate for U.S. Senate BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and without the will of the people of the State of New Jersey.Yes, I also noticed the similarity between the way that the Dems are operating and the way that the Commies used to operate in the "good old days" of the Soviet Union...
To: kcvl
OK....you've convinced me.
I won't vote for Lautenberg. : )
To: mystery-ak
On Hardball, Clarence Page is saying that for the Democrats to take such a roll of the dice they must KNOW how the SC is going to vote.
And he said that the GOP was going to look bad going in there, even if they were right on the law.
This was planned, calculated...and it's gonna work, IMO. If the court rules against the DNC, the GOP will look like they've won yet another seat through a court ruling.
170
posted on
10/01/2002 6:52:38 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: putupon
Thats their out. If they could pull off this sham, then Lautenberg resigns for health reasons in February, and NJ Guv. appoints another RAT. I'd almost be willing to bet you just nailed it. Are there any Kennedy's living in NJ?
To: Ronin
Here's what kills me about this: All of Torch's sleaze was already known and the "new" information wasn't much more specific or much more credible than what we already knew. But while he had the mantle of "incumbent" and polled well, it didn't matter. If the Democrats didn't want him on the ballot, they could have run Lautenberg against him in the primary.
To: cmsgop
I think the SCOTUS would take the case. This is an equal protection violation, just like Bush v. Gore.
173
posted on
10/01/2002 6:53:05 PM PDT
by
tellw
To: shrinkermd
dittos.
174
posted on
10/01/2002 6:53:07 PM PDT
by
WOSG
To: byteback
Well I don't know about the geographic make up of NJ. But if you are talking about South Florida I could certainly make a guess.
To: nutmeg
Lautenberg is stumbling and bumbling all over the place in his acceptance speech right now. Did Lautenberg have a stroke at one time?
To: byteback
The Governor looked like he was guessing on the middle initial. I was afraid he was going to have to buy a vowel.
To: eddie willers
When will the Beast weigh in?
178
posted on
10/01/2002 6:53:21 PM PDT
by
putupon
To: MileHi
Naw, SCOTUS won't get into a "local" race. Can you say "disenfranchised military and absentee voters" or "equal protection?"
To: eddie willers
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said that by objecting to Torricelli's request, Republicans were "denying the people of New Jersey a choice" in the election. Once again, Little Tommy has it bass-ackwards! When The Torch decided to run again, there could have been Dems who wanted to run against him, but decided not to spend the money on a losing proposition. So the Dem voters have had to content themselves with the Torch; either they hold their nose and vote for him, vote for Forrester, or don't vote at all. Those are their choices.
By throwing someone in now, they are STILL thwarting the voters. The Dems voters are STILL not going to have any choice in the matter. The powers that be in the Dem party will decide for them. Crap happens sometimes and your party's choice, or the inbumbent of your party is not who you would choose. You can still vote or not, it's up to you, but you still have a choice.
I cannot see how the courts in NJ would allow this!
180
posted on
10/01/2002 6:53:27 PM PDT
by
SuziQ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 481-484 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