 AP Photo
|
||||||
|
|
||
|
Posted on 10/01/2002 6:03:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
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.
|
||||||||||||
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.
The power of self denial, even in the face of plummeting poll numbers, is an amazing thing.
Then the 7-11 video was released, and things went from bad to horrrible. You could SEE The Torch acting like a crook, instead of just reading about it. (Visuals are ALWAYS important, and we should take a lesson from this.)
Their behavior sounds to me like a scramble thought up by the Head Weasel, Bill Clinton, and to me the best thing is to go to the court, then drop it if we lose and run against Lautenberg, because he is very beatable.
But didn't he state that he intended to serve out his term? He'll have to call another press conference and shed more tears for the party's sake. Are you sure he's up to that? Are you up to watching it?
But then maybe it will work out that way. Fine. Two has-beens joined at the hip. If you add flat beer to snot you pretty much have this situation: neither does much to improve the other. It should be fun to watch as the public slowly figures this out.
Here's my take: the Dems apply for their "remedy" to the supreme court, and get it. Then the Pubs appeal and win with SCOTUS. This becomes the rallying cry for the Dems, who, using Nattering Public Radio as their loudspeaker, decry this assault freedom and charge that the Republicans are conspiring to load the courts with Taliban-style theocrats. This is what gets the Democrats to get their voters to the poles.
Thus the Dems' strategy: sacrifice New Jersey to motivate voters elsewhere.
This is so stupid it hardly merits a response. Of course they have a choice. That's why you all are trying to pull these shinanigans, because they were going to choose Forrester over Toricelli.
Please rephrase this to:
If the Democrats of New Jersey allow this, they are lower than pond scum.
-PJ
Democrats. Here they go again, trying to change the rules to suit themselves. They say it's all about giving the voters of New Jersey a choice, but then why didn't they think of that when they didn't have anyone run against Torricelli in their primary election. They knew what he was then, but they thought New Jersey voters would hold their nose and vote for Torricelli anyways. Then just when the voters of New Jersey were about to send the Democrats a message by voting out the ethically challenged Torrecelli, the Democratic say, "Timeout, we were just joking. We really want this other guy instead." Well it's time to send another message to the Democrats... to stop playing games with the voters of New Jersey, to stop twisting the rules to their own advantage and start respecting the rule of law, our democracy and the voters of New Jersey by voting for Doug Forrester.
Actually, if you would care to show me where you can find the authority to provide for a single one of your fanciful proposals, e.g., how such a special election as you propose wouldn't violate the Constitution as well as established Federal law and NJ state law on this issue.
Just for your edification, Amendment XVII of the Constitution states in part "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
The SCONJ cannot impose the NJ constitution or case law to circumvent the plain language of a statute without running afoul of the Constitution, but what are the odds that the SCONJ will be as stupid as the SCOFLA?
By the way, petty sniping doesn't phase me much. Lying does, but your posts come off as naive, not the product of dishonesty. No offense.
Let him run.
Thanks, but I've read and parsed this several times. The appropriate action, should Torrecelli resign, is a temporary appointment by the NJ governor.
Further, this statute doesn't address ballots.
I'm begining to think that this whole thing is just a way for the democrats to find an issue to galvanize the troups. We are already hearing that the republicans are trying to stop the democrats from having a vote in this election. They are in trouble and just came out of a disastrous week. They are grasping at straws to find anything that will change the subject.
So, this is a win/win for them.. They were going to lose anyway, so if they get some mileage out of this by losing in court and then placing blame on the republicans for winning in court, again, which it looks like we will, the D's at least gain something. The media is already playing along with this, such as: Republicans are trying to block the new cadidate, etc.
I'm so sick of this crap.
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.