Just broke on Fox - Ashcroft questioning NJSC Rule

Fox News Television | 10/03/02 | Brytani

[Brytani]

Fox news just reported, Ashcroft is asking NJ officials to explain why they are not following federal election laws in regards to military ballots in the switch and bait ruling.

This might get interesting

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The GOP does not do itself a favor by not standing up for our troops, that's the dems job.

Well said. Hillary for example. It's her job to get terrorists pardoned. That is what New York elected her for. It is not her job to worry about how much 'Bush knew'. New York knows darn well that Hillary is a terrorist lover. She should stick to her base. That's what got her elected, after all.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Still obsessing with Clinton while some of us are trying to forget him.

Hillary and her Chief Terrorist Pardoner are still fixtures in the DNC. Even after he was condemned by 95 senators for pardoning bomb terrorists, the man is welcomed to New York with open arms.

If you expect FReepers to forget the political gold mine those two creeps offer: pardoning bomb terrorists for votes, pardoning a crack dealer so her brother gets a nice hefty service fee, suing tobacco companies with the Justice Department so her brother gets the largest slice of the pie, murdering thousands by selling tainted prison blood to Canada, Waco, the Foster-Parks connection, et cetera, you are going to be one disappointed puppy for the rest of your life. Until the DNC kicks those two pieces of slime out of their party, we are going to find any excuse to remind people, even if there is no excuse.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Maybe we ought to just give them so much to "spin" that their heads just twist off. Keep them busy.

Excellent point. We have the ability to cover a hundred issues a day. Conservative media has more air time than liberal media. The internet is 24-7. Talk radio starts getting political around here from 10 am straight until 5 pm. The liberal media has listeners falling asleep in 15 minutes.

[Iwo Jima]

The United States Supreme Court is the final say on whether the Democrats or the NJ court can violate the Constitution or federal law. The DOJ can make inquiries to determine if it should bring a suit challenging this illegal and unconsitutional action. Hopefully, Ted Olson as Soliciter General would argue that case before the Supreme Court.

[Iwo Jima]

"A big bump for Ashcroft for coming out on this issue! "

Better late than never. Of course, if he had insisted that the laws be followed in his own Senate race, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Iwo Jima]

You are clueless. The Constitution AS ORIGINALLY written and federal law on military ballots prohibit the NJ court from doing what they did.

[Iwo Jima]

"Forrester should make an address stating that he is not challenging the ruling and he will rely on the people of New Jersey to determine whether the tactic was lawful and ethical at the ballot box in November.

Mere words cannot express how violently I disagree with what you have said. The law and justice are more important than this or any senate race. John Ashcroft took the "high road" and where did it get him? Disgust, total lack of respect, and distrust from not just his enemies but people like me. I would never vote for a candidate who did what you are so foolishly counseling.

No one has any respect for the millquetoast who lets the bully take his lunch money without a fight, especially one who proclaims his moral superiority by celebrating his victimhood.

Real men fight for what's theirs. They fight to correct injustice. They fight to correct illegal acts.

Once we have caved in on this outrage, there will be no limit to what we will be expected to take. It is not mangnanimous to take the position that the rules apply to me but not to my opponent. It's stupid, suicidial, counterproductive. Why would the electorate vote for such a coward to represent them? How could he be expected to fight for their interests when he won't fight for his own?

It is not whining to insist that the rules and the laws be followed. Have you ever played any sports? What would you say if in a football game the underdog is winning by a wide margin in the 4th quarter, and the losing side sends in a totally different team (not just different players) and demands additional time? And the referree allows it? Should the winning team protest, or should it just accept the situation and play as best they can?

The fans of BOTH sides would universally condemn such a loser mentality. The harm done to the sport would be incalculable. Whether the first team won the game or not, they would be despised as the losers that they are and for proving that they really care nothing for the sport.

[Iwo Jima]

I'm with you. I despise Ashcroft intensely (for totally different reasons than the media do), but he is just doing his job now. It has to be done, and by him. Any fallout will be weak, temporary, and unavoiable.

[Iwo Jima]

"Fighting against this ruling can be done in other ways besides changing your whole campaign strategy to make it your prime issue."

Now you're setting up a straw man. No one has even suggested doing such a thing. You originally stated that Forrester should announce that he would not contest the ruling. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

You act as thought there is no intelligent way to contest the ruling. Again, straw man. There are good ways and bad ways to do anything. Bush did it the right way in Florida. Have you read the brief the Repub filed with the USSC? I thought not. Again, the right way. You're comment linking a court fight with running into a brick wall shows that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

[steveegg]

Given that (a) the RATs have in the past abused the Congressional power to be the final judge of Congressional elections (it last happened in the Senate in 1975, in the House in 1985; thanks John Fund) and (b) Cave-A-Lott is already futzing around with tradition in order to remain Head RINO, I'm not confident on anyone other than the RATs pulling this.

Indeed, I'm expecting two things with regards to the RATs. First, if Jim Talent wins, they'll use their 50-49 advantage (while Jumpin' Jim Jeffords is technically independent, he is for all intents and purposes a card-carrying RAT) to ensure that Talent is not seated prior to Jan. 3. Second, should the elections of Nov. 5 bring about an elected Republican majority, the RATs will simply refuse to seat whatever number of Pubbies elected (possibly even re-elected) to maintain their ill-gotten majority. After all, they'll be returning at least 36 Senators (plus Jumpin' Jim and possibly Ma Carnahan) as opposed to the Pubbies' 29 (included in the 29 are notable RINOs such as Minority Leader Trent Cave-A-Lott, Arlen Specter of a Man, John McShame, George Voinovich, Lincoln (please don't use my first name) Chafee dish, Orrin (closed) Hatch, and Olympia Snowe job).

[husky ed]

The problem with to many Republicans is their cowtoweling(sp) to the media, instead of standing up for what they believe in and what is right.

They want everyone to like them, which is never going to happen.

When Torricelli gave his speech, he clearly stated that he was a partisan Dem. That is what we need the limp wristed Republicans to do. Come out a say they are Republicans. Say what they stand for and don't back down just to get along with the Dems.

I did not vote Rep. just to get a watereddown Democrat

[Iwo Jima]

I agree. (FYI - it's kowtowing (just a little friendly assistnaceid).

It is a false dichotomy to say that you have to choose between doing what's right and winning elections. Sometimes, maybe, but not often. You can usually poisition the moral issues so that they are also winning issues.

Case in point: integrity and ethics is the winning issue which put Forrester in the lead in the first place, causing Torricelli to withdraw. Why should he turn away from that that winning strategy now when the Dems have handed him another example of corruption on a silver platter?

Forrester should be strong and vigorous that he's not going to turn the other cheek on this. The other guy threw the first punch -- a sucker punch -- and he's going to fight back. That he's the kind of man you can respect and who can be counted on to fight for what's right.

He doesn't have to say this too often, just once or twice to make sure the voters know where he stands, with more subtle allusions worked into other speeches.

[Grampa Dave]

[mwl1]

Hutch I agree that the military ballot matter is a win-win for the GOP. My only reservation is the messenger. If it needs to be Ashcroft, so be it. He can certainly speak from personal experience how he has screwed by the nasty widow of a dead man!

[mwl1]

Then the USSC will overturn entire NJSC ruling and Torch remains on ballot. Another B-Slap for another renegade state supreme court. Will these hacks never learn?

They know perfectly well what they are doing. Part of their strategy -- and I mean this sincerely -- is to give Rehnquist a heart attack.

[Brytani]

I also have to wonder about something else in the NJSC scheme. We all know that ballots have been returned with votes on them to various counties in NJ. We all also know it is illegal for a voter to vote twice in the same election. If the state resends out ballots to people who have already voted, aren't they in effect telling these people to break the law?

[A CA Guy]

But.....Ashcroft is coming out to protect the military ballots!!!!
So when they interview him over and over and over about this, he will repeat the military who is fighting the war on terror are losing their right to vote and that he is protecting their interest in the election.
Puts what was done here in the lap of the Democrats (as a whole) in the news now for this election and is again bringing home the fact that in two elections now, Democrats are trying to negate the vote of the military.

That won't sit well with the public, no matter what they think of Ashcroft.
BRILLIANT MOVE!!!

[Brytani]

I'm amazed that the good democrat voters in NJ are not up in arms over their primary pick resigning and the party selecting another candidate.

We all remember how our President was said to be "selected not elected" after the 2000 votes, but as is typical with democrats, as long as they do the selecting it's ok.

[Arkinsaw]

The way to contest the ruling is to let the Civil Rights division do it quietly and professionally and thoroughly under adult leadership. I said that before even though you say I am advocating doing nothing. Read again.

As for the rest, we are talking campaign strategy here and lawsuits do not get you elected or make voters want to vote for you. We had a good two months with the strategy we have and having a media circus on the way to the USSC drowning that out is not a good horse to switch to.

[Brytani]

Someone brought up in another thread about the NJ decision how Hillary when asked after 9-11 if Rudy Guilliani should be allowed to extend him time in office since the people were depending on his leadership. Hillary's response was a big fat no, that the law comes first and if they don't follow existing election law then everyone will want to extend their time in office. Now, how does she explain her opinion that Republicans needs to follow the law, but Democrats do not.

Oh that's right, I forgot, Hillary doesn't have to explain herself, she and democrats in general are special.