Just broke on Fox - Ashcroft questioning NJSC Rule

Fox News Television | 10/03/02 | Brytani

[r9etb]

the media was already calling Lautenberg the Democratic Candidate

There's no problem with calling him the Democrat candidate. The party has every right to make the switch.

The problem lies in putting him on the ballot. That violates the written law, prior to the NJSC ruling.

They could have handled this as a write-in campaign -- though Torch would have split to vote then, and it probably increases Forrester's chances. So they went to court instead.

It's the ballot thing, not the candidacy, that's illegal. And the NJSC decision probably does violate the U.S. Constitution on 14th and 17th Amendment grounds. (Among others.)

[Salvation]

How can this affect the NJSC's ruling, which is the final say on if the Dems can break the law?

It was my understanding that it was the ballots to military that are protected by federal law.............................hence, the federal lawsuit.

Is this correct?? Anyone out there??

[BuddhaBoy]

Let me tell you the ONE thing that the Democrats can UNITE on is an attack campaign against John Ashcroft. If you think thats a better strategy to switch to then we are in some trouble already.

So what? Let them unite!

If Republicans are going to run every time the Democrats get mean spirited, then the whimps deserve to lose every time.

You dont run from a bully, you punch him in the face!

[hchutch]

But the fact is, this intervention is NOT a good rallying point for the Dems. Not after 2000. In an ironic way, yeah, they could try to rally their base with an attack on Ashcroft for getting involved, but they will LOSE a lot more swing votes than they gain, and might not even win the NJ seat over this.

Why?

Ashcroft is questioning over the military absentee ballots and THAT specific deadline.

Juts a reminder, folks, the effort to disqualify military absentee was what made the Dems look VERY bad in the Florida race and helped us win the PR battle that was, IMHO, crucial.

And the Dems are shafting military absentee ballots AGAIN. In the middle of a war, no less. This is combined with the fact that the Dems are already seen as somewhat less than completely supportive of the military. Why else would Little Tommy Daschle whining on the Senate floor not so long ago? It's because the truth stung him - and he had to defend against it.

Focusing our efforts on the military ballots question will not only reverse the NJSC activism, but it will also mute the Dems efforts. This was well-thought out, IMHO. It still will have elements of the left fighting among themselves.

The Lieberman/Gephardt Dems will say, "We'd best pack it in - or they'll pound us for being anti-military and we'll lose the swing voters."

But the Wellstone-type Dems will DEMAND an attack on Ashcroft for poking his nose in. And that's when we paint this as another Dem effort to screw military personnel currently fighting a war on terror.

No, this is NOT a big risk - it's a well-calculated risk that will f--- the Dems over BIG TIME.

[Brytani]

The feds in the voters rights act of 1965 set up laws for military ballots for overseas troops (as well as citizens living abroad), it's been amended a few times, once in 1972 and again in the 1980's.

Basically the states have to follow federal law when it comes to those two types of ballots and have to be within the guidelines set forth within the law. That is why the military/overseas ballots are not a state issue, but a federal one.

[Arkinsaw]

I don't see where Ashcroft has a choice. The NJSC went on national TV with a scheme that could disenfranchise military votes. They themselves knew they would invite federal scrutiny.

Well, in my opinion 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. I think that many people in New Jersey would do just that if he rolls up his sleeves and battles in the facec of the unfairness.

Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Dept. should quietly and effectively investigate and monitor every aspect and do it as privately and professionally as possible.

And the Republican Party should get back to focusing on the Senate obstruction of the Homeland Security Bill, the Senate obstruction of the Iraq Resolution, the words of Bonior and McDermott in Baghdad, etc. The same things that have had the Democrats on the run since Labor Day with the Toricelli thing added in as a small brick in the wall rather than a prime focus. This should be a Daschle/Bonior/McDermott/Toricelli election just like it was Gingrich/Helms election a few years ago. We should not make it an Ashcroft/Toricelli election, thats a loser.

[teletech]

Yes, but Ashcroft need to be real careful here. The media will pick this up as Bush Adm interfering with state politics and "playing party politics". Frankly, I could careless what the media or Dems think though. But I'm not a NJ voter. They broke the law and someone needs to call them on it. If the US Supreme Ct doesn't do anything then Forrester is on his own and needs to beat the old geezer on his liberal issues.

I have a hunch that most New Jersey voters will have been educated as to the scam that was perpetrated by the NJSC and the DNC come election day. That said, AG Ashcroft has a sworn duty to uphold Federal law and he must investigate and punish these law breakers no matter what the press thinks. I believe most of the good people of New Jersey will understand why this must be done.

[Peach]

Wish one of our NJ Freepers knew a military person, preferably stationed in Afghanistan, who has voted by abstentee ballot in the NJ election. Letter to the editor would be great. Even an internet letter given the boost with wide circulation among all Freeper friends and contacts.

[LasVegasMac]

Think how irresponsible and cowardly it would be was for the U.S. Attorney General to just ignore such an issue when it has been officially brought to his her attention.

That would be from the dark days of the past.

Thank you, Mr. AG!

LVM

[rwfromkansas]

The media is too preoccupied with other things to cause them to change focus and start attacking Ashcroft.........even after this letter.

[calvin sun]

I have an intriguing if morbid possibility: what if a serviceperson voted the "old" ballot, but then, before getting the new one, leaves us? What happens then?

[Ken H]

But what can Ashcroft do? It's a state court.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

The SCONJ unconstitutionally exercised a legislative function.

[jwalsh07]

Ashcroft is doing exactly what the Attorney General of the United States should be doing in this situation, protecting the rights of military voters.

You're crticism here is unwarranted and since Ashcroft already knows he faces demonization from the corrupt parties propaganda wing, the media, you're starintg to look unappeaseable.

No matter what they do is never enough, too much, or not good enough. Getting old Rooster.

[cactusSharp]

brilliant...you are hired...is what I'd say

[Inkie]

Your solution would be good if only the new campaign finance rules were clear. Can those who supported Toric. now send another thousand to Lautenberg? Does Forrester get to double up, since he now faces a new opponent? What a mess. As soon as you mess with the rules, it is a nightmare. This is why I am against giving ANY leeway to ANY candidate that does not follow the stated law. This would include, sadly, Katherine Harris in Florida, who missed the deadline by two weeks that required her to resign before running for office. She should have been disqualified.

[concerned about politics]

If you all remember, right after 9/11..... Hillary.... was interviewed about Gulianni staying on as mayor a little longer to help NY.
Hillary said no, because there are deadlines in the law. If we were to ignore those legal deadlines as they are written, everyone would be doing it. We have to obey the election laws as they are written. We can't change them.

[Arkinsaw]

If we weren't already doing so well in a midterm election with a poor economy and more seats up than the dems then I would probably support you. But the political reality is that we really should be losing seats this year and we are not.

I like the way this campaign has been run and how the Democrats are running all over the place with no consistent message. Hate to change it.

But your view will probably prevail and we will see how it goes.

[Peach]

Ashcroft bringing attention to the DNC trying to disenfranchise the military vote AGAIN is a great issue for the GOP. It was a good issue in the presidential election and an even better issue in a post 9/11 world.

Can you see the backdrop - a soldier in Afghanistan, holding a rifle, face dirty and sweaty, sitting near a can of Spam for dinner, while reading his mail - big letters underneath "one of the very men fighting for our right to vote has been denied his". Put it to music.

[jwalsh07]

Well, in my opinion 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. I think that many people in New Jersey would do just that if he rolls up his sleeves and battles in the facec of the unfairness.

Exactly the wrong thing to do when faced by bully. The right thing to do is spit in his eye and do your best to beat the living crap at of him. The democrats are out of control and appeasement never works, in politics or elsewhere.

Peace through strength or the corollary, justice through strength is the only viable option.