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 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 481-484 next last
To: formerliberal_nowconservative
Lautenberg was just shown on FOX and he seemed confused. At 78, I think they have selected someone that appears confused. Not a problem for the dims. There will be no debates. Just a mega-financed ad campaign degrading Forrester and pumping up Lautenberg. And that's partially what sold him (Lautenberg) -- he will not have to spend his own cash. The only thing that will save NJ 'pubs is a vigorous campaign by Forrester and a healthy Republican turnout in Nov.
To: Smedley
It does mandate an election no, and one coincident with this general election no? Counselor, yes or no, the judge said with an edge to his voice, his eyes flashing as he went for the throat?
422
posted on
10/01/2002 9:23:20 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Miss Marple
Clinton's stink is all over this. Still trying to run the RATS, Slick Willy? Pathetic.
423
posted on
10/01/2002 9:23:43 PM PDT
by
jrlc
To: eddie willers
Lautenberg's speech was awful. He sounds waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too old to be running for office. Does he have early Alzheimer's or what?
424
posted on
10/01/2002 9:26:37 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
To: Semper911
They have now chosen the crappiest candidate they could find so that after Torrecelli is forced to stay on the ballot, the voters will flood the polls to vote him in. I disagree. many have decided that Toricelli is a bad guy. I don't see how this gambit favors HIM. The dims recognized this, and that is why they forced him to bow out -- to have him replaced on the ballot. Not a well-orchestrated scheme, IMO, but carefully managed damage control.
To: tsomer
I do not think we will appeal. Furthermore, I think that if Lautenberg is on the ballot, we can still win. Plus, it will energize OUR voters (as it already has) and we will look noble and law-abiding as we CRUSH THEM nationally!!
That's MY take, although I really liked your flat beer-snot analogy. VERY descriptive!
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. 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.
The people of New Jersey made their choice. These allegations were out there 5 months ago. This was no "October surprise". His continuing poll slump was a surprise for the Rats. That is all.
427
posted on
10/01/2002 9:32:58 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: montag813
To be fair, there are conservative C^2 Sore Losermans like those Smith supporters in New Hampshire as well that deserve heat from us, too.
428
posted on
10/01/2002 9:35:08 PM PDT
by
hchutch
To: Chuzzlewit
Lets play the game. Use this to gain support outside NJ. or perhaps a few press leaks about the pubies replacing some losing candidates in other states with some (R) hollywierd types.
429
posted on
10/01/2002 9:35:11 PM PDT
by
krizzy
To: Torie
It does mandate an election no, and one coincident with this general election no? Counselor, yes or no, the judge said with an edge to his voice, his eyes flashing as he went for the throat? No, the statute provides for an opportunity for a governor to make a temporary appointment, then makes provisions for an election (general or special) to fill in the Senate seat for the remainder of the term.
Here, however, the term at issue ends in January and since the only possible general election is two years from now and it would take at least six months to conduct a special election, there is no way any election could timely fill Torricelli's Senate seat.
Even if Torricelli resigned tomorrow and McGreevy called for a special election within minutes, such a special election requires public notice, an opportunity to determine who should be on the ballot, dissemination of the ballot and an opportunity for absentee voters to receive and respond. Thirty days? I could keep this in the courts for thirty days just on motions.
430
posted on
10/01/2002 9:35:45 PM PDT
by
Smedley
To: Chuzzlewit
The demonRats think that an election ballot is a living document.
431
posted on
10/01/2002 9:35:46 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: Wphile
Linda Chavez said on Sean Hannity that of course it is a done deal. She said there is no way that Torricelli would have withdrawn unless they knew they would get a favorable ruling from the NJSC. She also said the SCOTUS will not take the case. This is a state issue. It's still a gamble. As Gore found in 2000, it is difficult to predict a judicial decision (unless you are talking about the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco). But this is their (dims) least risk scenario, as the polls had indicated that they were surely to lose the November election. Thus, if the election went forward,they lose. If the courts allow Lautenberg on the ballot, and he wins, they win. If the courts refuse to allow Lautenberg on the ballot, they cry havoc, defering attention from other issues, and initiate a write-in campaign. If Lautenberg wins, they win, and they have an "issue". If Lautenberg loses, they have an "issue", and in a perverse way, they win. It's painful, but yuo have to learn to think like a lowlife dim.
To: Smedley
You lose counselor. Motion denied. I am not going to rewrite the statute. Election officials will just have to work there asses off, including weekends. And I see no reason why if we are going to reprint the ballots, we can't get it right for that other election for the next six year term. Bang.
433
posted on
10/01/2002 9:42:13 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Torie
There = their
434
posted on
10/01/2002 9:43:11 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Scott from the Left Coast
Not in the Clinton Democrat Party. The Clintonista Rats create messes like this on purpose. These messes give them the ability to demagogue. Demagoguery leads to the ability to convince society that you can take what you cannot win. When you own the media, this becomes possible. It is the Clinton formula: When you lose, create a conflict (a mess), make it as messy as you can, chip away at institutions that won't do your bidding, and create the plausible impression that you are the wronged party -- the impression that your opponent has done to you what you have actually done to them. With a tuned-out, cynical and checked-out society, the meaning of the action is lost in the clutter of noise: It is a revolution, a coup-de-tat, in a different form. Very cynically true. But credit goes to Marx/Engles, not the (rather ignonomous) sudent, Clinton.
To: Miss Marple; Jim Robinson
Besides, we've already caught the Dems doing a "bait and switch" on the people of NJ, and a fair number of Democrats there think it's sleazy. Lautenberg is going down as a sacrificial lamb in this one.
Everyone knows it. But they could try to reignite the FL 2000 wounds. From now on, the term "bait and switch" ought to preface the word "Democrats" until a better label comes up. Can we make it a rule?
436
posted on
10/01/2002 9:44:24 PM PDT
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
"bait and switch" ought to preface the word "Democrats" Well, while we're at it we ought to insist that the RATS change their mascot from the donkey to Benedict Arnold.
To: hchutch
Sure. As long as we make it those "evil" bait and switch Democrats.
To: eddie willers
And the DemonRat's message to the Military voters (whose absentee ballots have already been sent out) again is:
"Go to Hell!"
To: Torie
You lose counselor. Motion denied. I am not going to rewrite the statute. Election officials will just have to work there asses off, including weekends. And I see no reason why if we are going to reprint the ballots, we can't get it right for that other election for the next six year term. Bang. You could have the election officials work their boney butts to death, but that won't obviate the basic Constitutional requirements, federal statutes and state statutes.
Regardless, a special election commensurate with a general election is absurd. A special election refers to any election that occurs at a time not coincident with a general election. What you ask for is adding another ballot to a general election, and that's not possible under any legal theory that I am aware of in light of NJ statutes and the 17th amendment. The SCONJ cannot sua sponte create an entire election process as that would usurp the NJ legislative power provided by the U.S. Constitution.
440
posted on
10/01/2002 10:03:28 PM PDT
by
Smedley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 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