Skip to comments.Dems to Torch: Only crooks who can win
Posted on 10/02/2002 10:58:38 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Dems to Torch: Only crooks who can win
Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli's announcement that he was pulling out of the New Jersey Senate race this week looked like a confession of guilt in a Soviet show trial. In the reflection of his dewy eyes, you could almost see Terry McAuliffe mouthing the words to him from the audience. Especially the part where he paid tribute to the great Bill Clinton, to whom Torricelli evidently owes his deeply ingrained sense of ethics.
Torricelli will leave public office with just the clothes on his back, a Rolex watch and other assorted jewelry, a TV set, a couple of racks of Italian suits, some Jets tickets, a grandfather clock and three paper sacks filled with small, unmarked bills.
But the Democrats had no qualms with the gifted senator (get it?) until he fell behind in the polls. Only then did the call come for Torricelli to withdraw. It had to be done. A woman's right to kill a child is on the line! If Torricelli loses, the Senate could tip to the Republicans, which would be a disaster of unspeakable consequence.
Specifically, Democrats will not be able to obstruct the president in performing his constitutional duty to appoint judges. A vacancy on the Supreme Court could materialize and, against overwhelming historical odds, Bush's appointee might be one of five votes to strike down Roe v. Wade. Then God forbid the public would be allowed to vote on an important issue! In some of the less- enlightened states, the public might not recognize the fundamental human right to suck the brains out of little babies.
Apart from treason, this is all the Democratic Party stands for anymore.
Republicans can only marvel at the Democrats' gall and Stalinist party discipline. Vernon Jordan is probably on the phone to Revlon right now trying to get Torricelli that nice job once designated for Monica. If Republicans played like Democrats, President Bush would have offered Torricelli an ambassadorship not to withdraw from the race.
The Democrats' 11th-hour switch is in violation of state election law, which puts a 51-day limit on withdrawing from an election. This is not a random filing requirement. Torricelli's Republican opponent, Douglas R. Forrester, has designed an entire campaign polls, advertisements, issues on the assumption that he was running against a specific candidate. As soon as his campaign against that candidate began to work and he pulled ahead, Democrats switched the candidate.
One may assume that violating the law did not even break the Democrats' stride. The nettlesome part must have been explaining to Torricelli that he was to be replaced by former Sen. Frank Lautenberg whom Torricelli famously, and not without justice, despises.
This entire spectacle is a sham. If Lautenberg is elected, he will resign so that the Democratic governor can appoint a replacement. Torricelli was a place-holder for the campaign, and now Lautenberg will be a place-holder for the election.
Democrats wail about every vote counting when they need to steal votes after an election. But in New Jersey they won't even tell the voters who the candidate is. If Democrats could get away with it, they'd claim to be running "Ronald Reagan" in all elections and then fill the seats with the equivalent of James Carville.
(Perhaps the Democratic governor could recycle another of his appointees, New Jersey's poet laureate Amiri Baraka, who has been causing a stir lately with poems about how the Jews bombed the World Trade Center.)
When Strom Thurmond was approximately 150 years old, the Republicans couldn't get him to resign just two years early to ensure that a Republican governor would appoint his successor. Republicans couldn't even get all Republican senators on board to remove a Democratic president who was a known felon and probable rapist. Meanwhile, not one Democratic senator diverged from the party line on Clinton.
Democrats insist that their losing candidates be taken off the ballot 38 days before an election if that will help them win a majority in Congress. They keep dead candidates on the ballot if that will help them win a majority in Congress. They put conservative candidates on the ballot in the South and Midwest if that will help Democrats win a majority in Congress.
Two days before Torricelli "decided" to pull out of the New Jersey race, Pasty Mink, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, died of pneumonia. Unlike Torricelli, Mink is evidently irreplaceable. The Democrats have insisted that her name remain on the ballot. It will cost the taxpayers of Hawaii millions of dollars to run a special election if she wins.
When Democratic Senate candidate Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash just three weeks before the 2000 election, his wife, Jean, volunteered to be appointed to the seat if he won. Carnahan was behind in the polls before the plane went down, but in an outpouring of sympathy for the grieving widow, the dead man won an upset victory.
Now, two years later, the widow is again campaigning on the slogan: "Keep the flame alive." That's considered a good issue in a Senate campaign. Talking about the war is a dirty campaign trick.
While Democrats encourage voters to ignore the Democrats' position on the war in the upcoming congressional elections and instead to concentrate on tiny local issues such as sympathy for the candidate's deceased husband it is they who have nationalized all congressional elections. As the New Jersey scam proves, it's all about control of Congress.
In a gallant statement celebrated as The New York Times' Quote of the Day, Torricelli said: "I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate." He also won't end up on the Clinton death list now either. Nor will Saddam Hussein if Democrats have their way. The only items remaining on the Democrats' death list are honest elections and a million unborn babies.
Hillary Clinton and the Radical Left***If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.
That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.
That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.
If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty-then or now-to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.
Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual-both of which you despise.
It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem.
. No matter how opportunistically the left's agendas have been modified, however, no matter how circumspectly its goals have been set, no matter how generous its concessions to political reality, the faithful have not given up their self-justifying belief that they can bring about a social redemption. In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which "social justice" prevails.
Because the transformation progressives seek is ultimately total, the power they seek must be total as well. In the end, the redemption they envision cannot be achieved as a political compromise, even though compromises may be struck along the way. Their brave new world can ultimately be secured only by the complete surrender of the resisting force. In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them.***
Sounds eerily similiar to the Clintons' departure, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Gore - "I believe that the Constitution is a living document."
Bush - "The Constitution is a sacred document."
How plain and simple can it get? We all see that the 'rats care only about the laws that are convenient to them and those that aren't are to be either ignored or changed to suit their needs. The second amendment debate is an excellent example of this. They say that there are people who shouldn't own guns if they've committed felonies. I say that if people have committed felonies, their rights are then terminated and they don't get them back; the second amendment wouldn't apply. But the 'rats are suggesting that felons should be able to vote?! Are they that desperate of losing their power -and isn't power what it's all about- that they must rely on cheating, lawbreaking and pandering to criminals and illegals?
I'm an American first. Conservative Republican second. I know where I stand and I truly believe that I am in the majority. We voting citizens of our great land must remember who our allies are and back them. Especially on election days.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Note it doesn't state that "the State's Supreme Court may at any time by law make or alter such regulations"
Also, the "51 day" law being broken by the 'rats was passed by legislature, not by judges. Therefore, to assume that judges have the power to ignore laws that they didn't have any part in passing is absurd.
This is exactly why I think the Torch bowed out. "Don" Clinton made him an offer he couldn't refuse. ;-)
His Royal Podness
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.