As court considers N.J. ballot challenge, Forrester challenges Lautenberg to debates

nj.com/The Associated Press ^ | 10/5/02 6:56 PM | By ELIZABETH A. KENNEDY

[krodriguesdc]

OLD BRIDGE, N.J. (AP) -- Even as Republicans contested Frank N. Lautenberg's effort to get his name on the ballot in a bid for the Senate, the GOP candidate challenged the Democrat Saturday to a series of debates.

Approaching Lautenberg at a street fair, Douglas Forrester borrowed a page from the former senator's first campaign in 1978 in challenging him to 21 debates -- one for each county. "Are you willing?" he asked.

[Larry Lucido]

"The two major parties have politicized the New Jersey Supreme Court,"

How does Nader think the Republicans politicized anything?

[meyer]

Approaching Lautenberg at a street fair, Douglas Forrester borrowed a page from the former senator's first campaign in 1978 in challenging him to 21 debates -- one for each county. "Are you willing?" he asked.

Yeeessss!!! Good move. I think that Forrester can whip the Laut on the issues, primarily due to his actually knowing them.

[Jaidyn]

The two major parties didn't politicize this but the democrats certainly did it all by themselves until now. Evidently, the Green party is politicizing it now. They are playing serious games with our country and dont seem to give a darn about anything but themselves. NJ is such a narcissistic state that they might just pull it off.

[bybybill]

Go GREENIES, get a lot of Rat votes and then,GO GREENIES,GO

[nothingnew]

How does Nader think the Republicans politicized anything?

Because Nader is a nabob nitwit nincompoop?

Spiro

FMCDH

[Anti-Bubba182]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[stndngathwrthistry]

How does Nader think the Republicans politicized anything?

Sanity has never been Nader's strong point.

[Cicero]

"said Lautenberg, 78."

:-)

[Larry Lucido]

I think it was "nattering nabobs of negativism," but that's just as good...

[Rome2000]

"It would be better for the country if the Democrats lost."

Thats about as honest a statement from a politician you will ever hear.

[LasVegasMac]

Approaching Lautenberg at a street fair, Douglas Forrester borrowed a page from the former senator's first campaign in 1978 in challenging him to 21 debates -- one for each county. "Are you willing?" he asked.

Good move. Let the court thing be a seperate issue. Hammer him on current stuff - from what I've heard the big L say so far, he is in dire need of a ticket for the clue bus.

The tie in of the Torch is also good - keep it up.

LVM

[southernnorthcarolina]

"said Lautenberg, 78."

:-)

Actually, 78.7. If, God forbid, he wins, he turns 79 a few days after his inauguration.

I would hasten to add that some people are alert and competent at that age. But clearly, Frank Lautenberg isn't one of them.

[NJJ]

Get Lautenberg to promise not to resign his seat before his six year term is over, should he win.

[for-q-clinton]

"said Lautenberg, 78."

Yep, we should scour the net and records for speeches by the RATs where they put down Strom Thurman for being out of it. That way we can attack Lautenberg without a direct attack on his age.

[Chesterbelloc]

How does Nader think the Republicans politicized anything?

Ralph Nader, he's unsafe at any speed.

[gridlock]

During Lautenberg's first campaign for the Senate (about 100 years ago), he made a quite a big deal about how his opponent, the beloved and eccentric Millicent Fenwick, was too old to be in the US Senate. She was 80 at the time.

If Lautenberg wins, by the time his term in the Senate ends, he will be 86.

Not that hypocrisy ever was a problem for a 'Rat.

[Tall_Texan]

"The two major parties have politicized the New Jersey Supreme Court," Nader said. "In its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court basically said its highest priority is to preserve the exclusionary two-party duopoly."

Nader is correct. The law is not supposed to assume that one or two political parties are more important than everyone else. That's not their role, no matter how much Democrats and Republicans monopolize elective office.

It's blatant discrimination and, frankly, I'd be disturbed at the ruling if the parties in this scenario were reversed. It screams hypocrisy in the face of equality and justice.

[Post Toasties]

Thought she was 72 at the time. But you're right. 'Rats dote on hypocrisy.