Skip to comments.
THE GREAT ELECTION HEIST
New York Post ^
| 10/03/02
| ERIC FETTMANN
Posted on 10/03/2002 1:24:58 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:09:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
October 3, 2002 -- FRANK Hague would have loved it.
Somewhere, the ghost of the longtime Jersey City Democratic boss - who famously declared, "I am the law!" - is looking down (or, more likely, up) with a huge grin at the goings on in his state's U.S. Senate race.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS:
1
posted on
10/03/2002 1:24:58 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Baroni, one of Forrester's lawyers at the oral arguments in NJ yesterday, said that federal law requires military ballots to be sent out 35 days before the election. Can somebody find the source of this legal requirement? The NJ Justices claimed yesterday not to be able to find it. It's probably not in the statute, but in something (regulation? ruling?) issued by the federal executive branch.
To: kattracks
"But can Lautenberg win?" Even now, as I write this, truckloads of dead bodies are on their way from Chicago to New Jersey . . .
3
posted on
10/03/2002 4:27:46 AM PDT
by
KeyBored
To: KeyBored
You can bet your life the ballot boxes are already stuffed with ballots with Frank Lautenberg's name on them. It will a miracle if Doug Forrester wins in as corrupt a state as New Jersey in November.
To: kattracks
Still, Lautenberg does rob Forrester of his prime issue: the need to replace New Jersey's sleazy senior senator. And, in effect, the NJ Supreme Court has robbed Forrester of a great deal of time, effort, and campaign money which he spent defining his prior sleazy opponent.
Has anybody seen a poll of Forrester vs. Lautenberg?
To: TheEngineer
How about a declaration by the courts that the "Torch's" 5 million campaign war chest is to be divided amongst the other party candidates, based on primary vote counts, to offset and reimburse for already spent campaign ads, etc.??
takes the money away from the Dems. and if the Torch is out of politics, he shouldn't be able to keep it; and since it is the Dems that did this "bait and switch", why should they keep the money??!
Mike
6
posted on
10/03/2002 9:38:27 AM PDT
by
Vineyard
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