WOULD YOU HELP ME TAKE BACK THE SENATE??
Posted on 10/04/2002 6:20:22 AM PDT by southernnorthcarolina
New Jersey [10/3/02]
OUTLOOK:
Leans Democrat (change from leans Republican) (Highly competitive)
CRYSTAL BALL SAYS:
Wow. Move aside South Dakota Senate, Florida governor, and all the rest. The nation has a new headline race for the midterm madness of 2002. The New Jersey Senate race was knocked into a cocked hat by the stunning and totally out-of-character decision by the ambitious one-term Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli to throw in the towel on September 30. Faced with nearly inevitable defeat--projected weeks ago by the Crystal Ball--Torricelli finally acknowledged that the damage to his career by the corruption charges leveled at him by businessman David Chang and the Senate Ethics Committee was irreparable. The final nail in Torricelli's coffin was the hour-long interview with Chang in prison--conducted by New York's WNBC on September 26--and an equally savage lengthy report on NBC Nightly News by political correspondent Lisa Meyers.
The problem for Democrats, though, was that state law prohibited the replacement of the candidate on the ballot this close to the election. This was remedied quickly, when the Democrats took their request for a substitute candidate to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court unanimously ruled on October 2 that the people of New Jersey deserve to have a choice on the printed ballot. This came as an enormous relief to Democrats, who had been faced with having to mount a write-in campaign or seeking Torricelli's resignation in order to facilitate a gubernatorial appointment to the U.S. Senate, or some other scheme that would have left Torricelli's name on the Democratic ballot line. Republicans were outraged, and immediately pledged to appeal the decision to the federal courts. The Crystal Ball believes the state court decision will stand.
Next problem: who will run? In an embarassing performance better suited to the Keystone cops than the governing party of New Jersey, Governor Jim McGreevey was forced to go back and forth on the different possibilities--being rejected first by former Senator Bill Bradley, Congressman Bob Menendez, Congressman Frank Pallone (who first accepted the honor, then rejected it after his wife said no), and others. At long last, a candidate emerged: former Senator Frank Lautenberg, who served in the Senate for three terms from 1983-2001. Fabulously wealthy and retaining considerable name identification in New Jersey, Lautenberg was the answer to Democratic prayers, especially as they had feared millions of dollars from the national party coffers would have to be spent in an attempt to salvage the Garden State seat. Ironically, Lautenberg and Torricelli were and are bitter enemies, speaking only of each other in obscenities--and so this succession must increase Torricelli's pain and sorrow many fold.
The Republicans, understandably, are not taking this turn of events lying down. Their little-known nominee, businessman Doug Forrester, was so close to the Senate floor that he could practically smell Ted Kennedy's breath. But now the outlook has changed radically. Forrester's reason for being was Torricelli. His issue was Torricelli. His lead in the polls was due to the fact that he was not Torricelli. Torricelli is no more, and Forrester will have to scramble, define himself and some useful issues, and get some big breaks in order to smell Ted Kennedy's breath for real.
Does Forrester have some darts to throw at Lautenberg? Of course. Lautenberg has 18 years worth of Senate votes that can be attacked. He is 78 years old seeking another Senate term, after saying as he was retiring in 2000 that serving in the Senate was a "major inconvenience" for him. Now it's Forrester vs. Lautenberg--the former Senator versus the almost-Senator. It is bound to be a tough, nasty race, because both sides now have a sense of entitlement.
Most importantly, Lautenberg has been chosen not by the people of New Jersey in a party primary, but by the party bosses--which gives Forrester the opportunity to continue his corruption issue. Yet, Lautenberg's well-known feud with Torricelli makes the transition difficult, and Lautenberg's quasi-incumbency and great wealth have given the Democrats a better-than-even shot to hold a seat that was essentially gone. This enormous psychological boost for Democrats in their attempt to hold the U.S. Senate may have implications far beyond the boundaries of New Jersey. Assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not take Lautenberg off the ballot as the Democratic nominee, this contest now LEANS DEMOCRAT.
(updated 10-3-02)
It will go hard one way or the other.
Regards, Ivan
Let's hope so. If it even takes this case, which is a 50-50 proposition in my view, I don't think removing Lautenberg will be because the NJ court shredded NJ law. I think any ruling by the US Supreme Court will be because of the disenfranchisement of the military. The NJ court essentially said "try your best" to get the new ballots to them. If I were a Supreme Court justice, that wouldn't cut much ice with me.
After this election is over, if the Republicans finally have control of the Senate and House I hope they'll enact some laws for Federal elections that put some time limits and rules on replacement candidates. It's clear that relying on state courts to uphold the law is foolhardy in some states.
Oh yeah, I bet the suspense was unbearable as the Dems awaited the "objective" court's decision! [wink]
I am getting so sick of hearing this...the people of New Jersey had a choice...Forrester or Torricelli...The Torch dropped out on his own - nobody forced him. If I were a democrat, I would be totally ashemed of these actions of the democratic party....
This is as close to your request as I've seen:
'Course, since when did "the law" mean anything to a democRAT?
N.J. Democrats dump loser
The New Jersey Supreme Court has allowed the Democratic Party to run another candidate in place of U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli, whose ethical misbehavior had caused him to sink in public opinion to about the level of Enron stock.
The high court's ruling means the party may switch candidates just 35 days before the election, although state law seems to set a mid-September deadline for such changes.
We don't pretend to be experts in New Jersey law or politics, but it seems to us the parties have plenty of time and ample opportunity to figure out who their candidates should be well in advance of the general election. Allowing the Democrats to dump Sen. Torricelli because he looks like a sure loser seems a bit like allowing a jockey whose nag is running last to jump to a better horse near the finish.
|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
This is the best analogy I have seen yet...
Shame on them for going for a Lautenberg-but people do choose their representatives, and that's not bad for us, that's good, BECAUSE:
Bush won thirty states in 2000. From those states, there are at least FOURTEEN RAT Senators. From states that Bush won handily (>54%), there are eleven.
By contrast, from states that Gore won handily, there are only two Republicans, one of who (Chaffee) shouldn't count in our long-term strategy.
Since 1981, the Democrats have eliminated 11/13 Republican Senators from their base states (defined as states that Gore won). Good for them. They play to win.
Since 1981, the Republicans have eliminated zero Democrats from their base states. ZERO.
That's why Daschle is majority leader. He's majority leader because the RATs recognized the importance of the Senate, got rid of Republicans in their base, and stole seats from heavily Republican states like Montana and the Dakotas.
If the RAT candidates (whoever they are) can be beaten in core RAT states like NJ, fine, beat 'em.
But if we can't win the Senate seats where Bush got 2/3 of the vote (SD), then you can forget about EVER controlling the Senate. We were headed for a win in NJ, but that was a fluke, an accident, and the RATs have corrected their mistake.
It's time to move on. There's no future for the GOP if they have to go to court to win.
I think they won't.
What do you think we win, if we win at the USSC? What candidates will it help (other than Forrester, obviously)?
What candidates will it hurt?
What do you think it mans in terms of the big picture if we need a court to win an election? Is that good?
If Torricelli remains on the ballot and wins the election, the governor of NJ (Dem) gets to apppoint someone to serve out the remainder of Torricelli term (or 2 years until a special election). So, if the voters want to vote "not a republican" into office, they vote for Torricelli and then a "Democrat-to-be-named-later" is handed to them.
That's not too different from what we've got here, right? So why is leaving Torricelli on the ballot not an option?
OK, the answer's obvious -- the Dems will lose. But from a legal standpoint, I would think that there is no reason why Torricelli's name has to come off the ballot.
So then what happened to Chuck Robb? How about that feller from Nevada?
It is a great issue, and it is at stake.
Litigate after the election-I'm fine with that.
The transformation of the Democrats into a Leninist party, however, will not be stopped in the courthouse.
However, every GOP win has been matched by a loss elsewhere (Georgia, for example)-so the net is zero.
You could look it up.
what the hell does this mean? 'Cocked hat'...yeh, like Joe Six Pack uses that phrase EVERY day.
knock into a cocked hat:
Debunk, render useless or unbelievable. For example, His findings knocked our theory into a cocked hat. This expression alludes to a style of hat with the brim turned up on three sides - the three-cornered (tricorne) hat worn by officers in the American Revolution - giving it a distorted look. [Early 1800s]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust
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.