http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/nyregion/31AP-TORR.html If this happens, look for Frank Pallone to take the ballot slot. And if it's Pallone vs. Forrester, the only real question is whether or not the Dems can get enough people to know who Pallone is in time. Given the political tendencies of the state, Pallone would destroy Forrester in a "normal" race.
agreed obie, and well torecelli needs to go...he is a crook...i dont care if the courts didnt go after him, he took money and it was wrong...so replace him even if it is with another republician
Pushed back to 5pm Monday. Interesting that he is reported to be quiting both the re-election bid and Congress. NJ gov will appoint a new person to Congress and that person would be allowed to run in his place? PAC money? Granted, he is behind in the polls, but the GOP is looking to take this to court saying that if he drops out, nobody should replace him on the ballot. If he does drop it, he will get to keep all the money he raised?
quitting congress would be a self indictment, no...and your right that way mcgreevey can appoint someone to the hill therefore increasing exposure. as for PAC money and the like...intresting issue...not clear on the laws on a general election canididate dropping out.
The answer to all of the NJ Democrats' problems: Bill Bradley. If they replace Torricelli with Bradley, the election is over. No need to raise a dime. If the US Dems decide that they need NJ badly enough to hold control, Bradley could come in like a white knight and save the national party. For Bill, it sets him up perfectly for a Presidential run in either '04 or '08 when the party will owe him. It almost makes too much sense for everyone involved.
Word is hitting the wires in the last hour or so that Lautenberg is feverishly making phone calls to see how much cash he could raise short term. Also, reports are now that Torricelli will resign within 24 hours. The Democrats are begging him not to but his lawyers are saying it's better for his legal position.
"Democrats are begging him not to"? Try the other way around. Provided that there's no legal challenge to getting someone else on the ballot, all of the Dems I know would like to run Torricelli out of town ASAP.
As he will not resign his post, the ability to place another person on the ballot will be up to non-elected judge(s). Then Dems could say this is Florida 2000 all over again. I don't see the reason behind his leaving now even if he is way behind. If you aren't going to win, don't spend the money, lose and retire. His leaving now is part of some deal with Republicans having spared him the real punishment he could have received. Now, he pays them back by screwing his own party and quite possibly the balance in DC. Just an idea because this makes no sense. If he did quit would that affect his retirement package? I know that these guys have some sweet deals after they leave office and I would guess that they would have to have left on good terms. Talk about your lame ducks, this cat can't even quit properly, so he lays an egg.
Remember, though, NJ has some very recent precedent for this case. It's going to be an interesting month.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Now, see, this is what I love about Liberals; they can get morally outraged over the possibility of something happening to them when they positively APPLAUDED the "courage" of someone who, just months ago "screwed his party" and DEFINITELY the balance in DC. His name, in case you have a typically short memory, is "Jumpin Jim" Jeffords. You guys just kill me.
AP is making it official: Torricelli is out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23975-2002Sep30.html According to NJ law, the candidate can only be replaced if he quits more than 48 days before the election. It is nown 36 days before the election. However, in the tradition of Al Gore in Florida, Democrats have no intenton of even CONSIDERING following the law, and will attempt to replace him on the ballot. Bradley is unlikely. Lautenberg reportedly would take it if asked. I just LOVE a good political bare knuckles brawl. Strap 'em on, it's gonna get ugly. Control of the US Senate is the prize.
Again, before you all get your panties in bunches, there is some significant precedent for what Torricelli is trying to do. 2001 Governor's race, Republican primary, acting gov DiFrancesco changed the primary date so that the 48-day rule could be observed while he quit the race and Bob Franks took over. It would have been easier if Torricelli resigned, because then McGreevey could in effect do whatever he wanted, including call a "special election" or appoint a new candidate. But right now that's not what's happening. If the NJ Supremes rule against the Democrats, I'll bet that Torricelli will quit the Senate.
Does New Jersey allow write-in candidates? If the Dems could push someone like Bradley as a write-in, perhaps they could have a chance even without changing the ballot. That's what they would have to do if this happened in California, since we have no provision for changing the ballot, even if the candidate dies. The Libertarians here rescinded their endorsement of their gubernatorial candidate because he punched a reporter or something, but he's still on the ballot and the party is pushing a write-in candidate. Why does it make a difference to the election if Torricelli resigns? The governor could appoint a replacement and/or call a special election to complete the last three months of his term, but the November election is for a brand new term, and whoever happens to occupy the seat between now and Jan. 3 shouldn't have any legal bearing on who can be on the ballot for the next term, right? Or is there some weird New Jersey thing that I don't know about? I'm pretty sure that federal law requires every state that is electing a senator for a new term to hold the election on the same day, so the precedent of a governor who changed the date of a primary doesn't seem to fit.
The other obvious option is for Torricelli to stay on the ballot, tell everyone that if elected he will not take the office, and the governor gets to replace him with Bradley or Lautenberg or whoever. Totally legal.
whichever guy gets me a Soccer Stadium in Harrison, I back that guy and his moral right crap to the NJ Senate seat. Also, didn't Bradley quit that job once already? He would now want it back?
Boy, these Democrats are a shameless bunch. The law apparently means nothing to them and they're basically going to try and steal another election thru parsing or stretching the language. Geez, what kind of precedent would this set? Any party could then dump their losing candidate in the final weeks of a campaign, if the Dems are successful in their shameless shenanigans. What a pathetic, corrupt bunch of people running the Democratic Party these days.
What a political and moral MORON!!! Do you have any scruples or do you advocate the "win at all costs" school of politics?
What part of 48 is difficult to understand? Apparently the same part as of "count, recount, tally the overseas votes and certify at ten days." Geez, why don't I just move to North Korea? At least there they don't make pretense of having a rule of law. Over the past five years, the Democrats have made their respect for the law perfectly clear. If they try to pull the "vote for Torricelli and he'll resign after the election" then that may be counterproductive. It'll let the Republican candidate ask what guarantee there is that he will resign, once elected. That will allow him to continue to run against Torricelli's record and credibility. If they try to have a write-in vote, then that's a problem, because Democratic voters have problems with reading and spelling. That's a cheap shot, a darn funny one in my opinion, but it also has truth. How many of the senior citizens that the Dems bus in and vote straight ticket Democrat are going to have the time, patience, or remaining lucidity to write-in their vote?
If allowed to, the Democrats are likely to try to put Congressman Menendez on the ticket, a Cuban-American.
Pot, kettle, black, hypocricy, double standard, etc., etc. Republicans are really pissed not because Torricelli is trying to circumvent the political process, but because their candidate became a multi-millionaire by running an HMO and has no memorable platform other than "I'm not Bob Torricelli". If this was, say, Wyoming and the tables were turned, politcal party roles would be reversed, including the "moral outrage". The Dems got over it when the NJ GOP moved the primary date last year to get Bob Franks on the ballot, and the GOP will get over it, too.
Right. Like the Reeps were slaves to principle when they pushed for illegally including undated and late overseas ballots. 1. I find it interesting that Bill doesn't really care about fairness...I mean, it's obviously not to the Dems' advantage to get into the race so late. To me, Bill's attitude is sort of like when Kanu scored in the FA Cup match a few years ago, after Arsenal was supposed to give the ball back after it was kicked out for a player's injury. If the shoe were on the other foot, I, for one, wouldn't want the Dems to try to keep a Reep off the ballot. Not in these circumstances. I wouldn't want to win control of the Senate if that was contravening the clear will of the people. I'm more interested in democracy than the Democrats. But that's just me; I'm not a crypto-fascist Republican. 2. Here's where the Supremes' decision in 2000 comes into play. Bill, you can prattle on all you want about the law in New Jersey, but the bottom line is, the 45 day law has been rendered irrelevant. The precedent has been set. The Supremes will decide if the Dems can put a new candidate on the ballot. And since the Supremes are highminded, impartial arbiters of our basic principles, I'm sure the Dems will have no problem.
If this would be such an awful, awful thing, then I'm sure the voters (sovereign under our system of government) would punish the offending party. I am finding it utterly fascinating how the Reeps on this thread are completely uninterested in letting voters, you know, vote. A cynic might think that Reeps are closet fascists, with disdain for voters. With all of this pseudo-fealty to legality, I find it amazing that the Reeps are unconcerned about the blatantly illegal removal of the precinct at FAMU, or the "scrubbing" of the voter rolls that illegally denied hundreds their right to vote. A cynic might think that these people get their "news" from Rush and are unaware of the things their OWN side did. Bottom line is, Al Gore would have won a legal election in Florida. Everybody knows it.
First of all, I don't believe you for one second. If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be in here spouting election law like a madman. Second, I think Mickey Kaus says it best: Where does it say New Jersey voters have a right, not just to a choice of candidates, but to "a competitive race" -- a right so important it must override trivial concerns like state laws about when names can be removed from a ballot? Is an election like a basketball game that has to be kept close in order to keep it exciting?
Interesting ad hominem attack. I believe that 1. Al Gore would have won a completely legal election. 2. I believe Al Gore would have won a comprehensive recount. 3. I believe the Florida Supremes effed up. But it was their right to do so. 4. I believe the US Supremes effed up. But they did so in a way that was not really their right. Given all that, if you're the kind of person you think I am, I would be calling for armed revolution. I mean, you're saying that I'm the kind of person who puts the interests of the Democrats ahead of the process. I am not calling for armed revolution. How Bush got into the White House is wrong. But that's the process we have, peopled by flawed (I'm looking at you Judge "I wanna retire" Rehnquist) individuals. Let it be. Let it be. Whispered words of wisdom, let it be.