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

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

Ex-Senator to Replace Torricelli
Tue Oct 1, 8:52 PM ET

By JOHN P. McALPIN, Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Desperate to keep their single-seat majority in the Senate, Democrats have chosen former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to replace scandal-tainted Sen. Robert Torricelli ( news, bio, voting record) on the November ballot, The Associated Press has learned.

Photo
AP Photo


Slideshow


(AP Video)
Related Links
Sen. Robert Torricelli (U.S. Senate)

The decision was reached Tuesday evening after a full day of meetings among top state Democrats, according to a party source familiar with the discussions.

An announcement was expected later Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, the 78-year-old Lautenberg indicated he was ready to run.

"I was there (in the Senate) 18 years, and I enjoyed virtually every day," Lautenberg said in a telephone interview from his car as he headed to the governor's mansion for meetings with top state Democrats. "I didn't like raising the money, but I'm not going to mind it as much this time, because it's kind of fresh start."

Whether Lautenberg's name will actually appear the ballot with Republican Douglas Forrester will be decided in court. Republicans say it is too late to replace Torricelli, who dropped out Monday as his poll numbers continued to fall amid questions about his ethics.

The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case Wednesday.

Sen. William Frist, chairman of the Senate GOP campaign committee, said Republicans would consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) if the New Jersey court rules in favor of the Democrats.

"This is a desperate grasp at getting around the law and the people of New Jersey are tired of having their leaders go around the law," he said.

Frist said some absentee ballots have already been cast and that other ballots have been distributed to military personnel overseas; the New Jersey Association of County Clerks said about 1,600 absentee ballots were mailed out.

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.

Five months ago, Torricelli's Senate seat was considered relatively safe. But support plummeted after he was admonished by the Senate ethics committee for his relationship with a 1996 campaign supporter, and he soon became the most vulnerable incumbent in the country.

Few, however, expected a court fight five weeks before Election Day.

"This is one for the books," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "It will long be remembered."

Under New Jersey law, a party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 51 days before the election. Torricelli missed the deadline by 15 days.

However, Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.

Attorney General David Samson argued in papers filed with the court Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline to withdraw and allow Democrats to post another candidate. Samson, who was appointed to his job by Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey, said election laws have long been interpreted liberally to allow voters every opportunity.

Legal experts agreed.

"In a substantial number of those cases, the courts have ruled on the side of being inclusive," said Richard Perr, an election law professor at Rutgers University Law School.

Six of the seven justices on the state's highest court were appointed by a former Republican governor.

Lautenberg's selection as the potential Democratic savior is replete with irony. He and Torricelli feuded openly while serving together.

"I'm not in a gloating mode," Lautenberg said. "I don't want to be smug about this. It was unfortunate for him and an unfortunate thing for all of us."

Lautenberg is a supporter of abortion rights and staunch opponent of the death penalty. He brings two major strengths to the difficult bid: statewide name recognition and a huge reserve of personal wealth he can use in the campaign. Also, unlike the House members who were also considered as substitute candidates, he does not have anything to lose by running and losing.

Lautenberg was a business executive before serving three terms in the Senate, deciding against a re-election bid in 2000. He counted among his accomplishments a law requiring companies to disclose chemicals they release into the environment, a law banning smoking on domestic flights and a law banning gun ownership by those convicted of domestic violence.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: lautenberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 481-484 next last
To: eddie willers
Italics </i>off!
281 posted on 10/01/2002 7:36:47 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #282 Removed by Moderator

To: pray4liberty
Even though I'm a die hard Republican I can tell you for a fact I would never accept the party leaders in AZ deciding for me who my senatorial candidate would be...
283 posted on 10/01/2002 7:37:12 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: umgud
.... can they replace him too..... Of course, Laws never apply to democrats. billy, hillary, daschle, kennedy,... will tell you that.
284 posted on 10/01/2002 7:38:11 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: byteback
I was rather proud of that. It is my response to when we are called "Nazis."
285 posted on 10/01/2002 7:38:12 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: heidizeta
"I'm sorry, but what happened to free elections?"

They are now done in backrooms with whiskey and cigars...
286 posted on 10/01/2002 7:38:42 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
The Democrats just overturned an election! Their primary election.

Deserves repeating.

287 posted on 10/01/2002 7:38:43 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
If this court votes in favor of the Dems it loses all credibility.

And I am banking on the fact that the SCONJ enjoys a high level of credibility among other state Supreme Courts, and would not jeopardize that credibility by saving the Democratic Party from the results of its own primary election.

288 posted on 10/01/2002 7:39:18 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: dodger
throw new BarfAlertException("Daschle");

:)

289 posted on 10/01/2002 7:39:35 PM PDT by Noslrac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Torie; marajade
Oh, I suppose it is a coincidence, Torie. I mean DU wouldn't have people here trying to divide us. They aren't smart enough for that.
290 posted on 10/01/2002 7:39:44 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

Comment #291 Removed by Moderator

To: Asclepius
Consider the source: rotten university law professor.
292 posted on 10/01/2002 7:41:52 PM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Attorney General David Samson argued in papers filed with the court Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline to withdraw and allow Democrats to post another candidate. The AG arguing AGAINST THE LAW OF THE STATE. Grounds for impeachment, if you ask me.

Great point. The next time I'm in Jersey, should I ask the traffic cop to "relax" the speed limit so that I can get to my destination quicker?

293 posted on 10/01/2002 7:41:58 PM PDT by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Jonathon Spectre
Ah, so it was just his relationship. No illegalities, no crimes, no bribes, no manipulation of the highest level governments in exchange for cash and gifts. Just a relationship.

"It was an inappropriate relationship. And it was wrong."

294 posted on 10/01/2002 7:42:58 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: samantha
"Lets all try to stay upbeat,and work like hell for GOP candidates."

Agreed on one condition: that if we choose, we can be upbeat whilst POUNDING the Democrat party for the dirty, underhanded, and at least in the cases of NJ and Hawaii, downright ILLEGAL tricks in this years election cycle.

295 posted on 10/01/2002 7:43:37 PM PDT by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: heidizeta
Sure I guess as long as the DNC is willing to pay for it...
296 posted on 10/01/2002 7:44:36 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: steelie
Door#3,maybe one of the candidates has an obedient dog,people could vote for him.Hey it might not be in the rules but they could fight it.Vote for Buddy,my dog,and your best friend.
297 posted on 10/01/2002 7:45:40 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
"I'm a liberal Democrat. I started in Florida politics. I worked for George McGovern. I worked for Jimmy Carter. I've worked for Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo. Nobody can question, I think, my credentials and my convictions. But I have to tell you, at this point it's hard to believe, but my party, the party that [my family has] belonged to since my great-great-grandfather, ... has become no longer a party of principles, but has been hijacked by a CONFEDERACY OF GANGSTERS who need to take power by whatever means and whatever canards they can."

These words were spoken by Patrick Caddell on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show on Nov. 27, 2000.

THANK YOU for posting this quote! It immediately came to my mind as I started reading this thread tonight! I feel like this is Florida redux.

I agree with those that say this is not going to work for the Democrats. They are trying to pull this one out of their asses and it is blowing up in their faces. I feel certain none of the NJ powers nor Tiny Tom Daschle had any idea that absentee ballots had already been mailed, especially to the military. I doubt seriously that they really want a repeat of the Marc Racicot speech in December 2000 about the disenfranchisement of the military! I sure hope Racicot is dusting that one off.

This may be the most blatant power grab of my lifetime. Woe is us if we let them get away with it.

298 posted on 10/01/2002 7:45:56 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
"I think the Dems are doing this one on the fly. No one thought the memo would be released before the election. Once that happened, this race started falling apart."

Agree. The 711 video probably caused some panic also. There must have been a calculation that the damage we are seeing was more acceptable than the potential damage of evidence that is yet unseen.
299 posted on 10/01/2002 7:46:19 PM PDT by Ben Hecks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
The court that ordered the release of the memo was the Third Circuit. The court that would judge any federal case on violations of federal law in letting Lautenberg onto the ballot would be the same Third Circuit.
300 posted on 10/01/2002 7:46:42 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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.

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