Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/30/2002 10:40:47 AM EDT
[url=http://www.wnbc.com/news/1693980/detail.html]Torricelli Tells Colleagues He'll Drop Out If Replacement Found[/url]
Former Sens. Frank Lautenberg, Bill Bradley Potential Replacements WASHINGTON -- Sen. Robert Torricelli, a prolific fund-raiser whose re-election hopes were severely damaged by an ethics controversy, told colleagues Monday he will drop out of the race if a suitable replacement is found for the Nov. 5 ballot, two Democrats said. The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said Torricelli informed New Jersey Democratic leaders and Senate colleagues of his plan. The sources cautioned Torricelli had not finalized his decision as discussions about a replacement continued. The senator planned an afternoon news conference in New Jersey. With the election just a little over a month away, Democratic officials were negotiating with Torricelli and discussing possible replacements, including former Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Bradley, the sources said. [red]Torricelli's woes have troubled Democratic strategists, who are struggling to maintain the party's single-seat majority in the Senate in the midterm elections. [/red] Republicans said they would contest any effort to have a substitute candidate take his place. "This is a cynical attempt by party bosses to manipulate democracy," said Mitch Bainwol, executive director of the Senate GOP campaign committee. . . . [red]A withdrawal would leave the Democrats in an uncertain position. The deadline for candidates to file for the race has passed, although the party presumably would seek permission, from the courts if necessary, to fill a vacancy on the ballot. Under New Jersey law, a political party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 48 days before the election. But only 36 days remain until the Nov. 5 election, meaning Democrats would have to seek approval from the state attorney general. That would likely result in a court challenge from Republicans. Under state law, if a candidate resigns his office or dies with more than 30 days to the election, the governor can appoint a new candidate. If it happens with less than 30 days before the election, the race can be canceled and the governor can set a new date for a special election. [/red]
View Quote
Gee, NJ Governor Jim McGreevey is a Democ[b]rat[/b]. Now what do you suppose he'll wanna do?? [>:/]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 10:51:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2002 10:51:58 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Food for thought: If Torch resigns, the Dems lose control of the Senate (Cheney is tie-breaking vote) giving Republicans Senate control (WHOOHOO!) at bare minimum until Torch's Democrat replacement is elected and sworn in - several months away at the earliest. If Torch stays and loses (most likely given polls), again Dems lose the Senate. Either way, the Republicans CAN get control of the Senate VERY QUICKLY!! Now, what about all those Federal Judge nominees that Dasshole put on ice for the last two years??? [bounce]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 11:05:29 AM EDT
I know...I've been following this on the web and Rush Limbaugh all afternoon. It will be interesting to see how the Dems handle this. I think Torch will stay until his term runs out...but who are the Dems going to get to run now? A couple of guys have been mentioned, like Bradley and Lautenberg...but I really think the Republicans can beat either one. Chalk this one up for us. The libs are also in trouble in several other races...and I think they are going to be in more trouble come election day. Of more interest will be McGreevy's actions, and how they replace Torch..if they can. You are right on about the judges too. That would be MY first task...renominate the two who went down unfairly...and then watch those liberal partisans say the same stupid arguments as they try to kill their nominations in committee again. Power...SWEET! I can wait...this is going to be like 1994 all over again!!! [BEER]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 11:10:14 AM EDT
........ and the AW ban happened in 1994.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 11:15:25 AM EDT
I hate to say it, but the Republican's have not shown that they know how to handle control of the house and the senate. I hope they will do things differently, but I ain't holding my breath. [:(]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 11:20:24 AM EDT
Hate to say this but NJ is such a Dem bastion that they'd elect scum like Al Sharpton if he was NJ resident.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 11:28:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: It will be interesting to see how the Dems handle this. I think Torch will stay until his term runs out...but who are the Dems going to get to run now?
View Quote
I'm not an expert on this but it doesn't seem the Dems can replace the Torch AFTER he loses an election, and they can't replace him BEFORE the election without him RESIGNING first. So... If he stays - he loses the election and the Dems lose the Senate. WHOOHOO! If he resigns now (making room for the Dems to replace him on the ballot) - the Dems STILL lose the Senate until his replacement is sworn in in Jan. 2003 (assuming his replacement doesn't also lose). WHOOHOO!
Originally Posted By Strag: ........ and the AW ban happened in 1994.
View Quote
That was passed (by just ONE vote) BEFORE the Republicans swept the Congress in the election of 1994.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 11:34:37 AM EDT
Manchurian McCain and Turncoat Jeffords need to reevaluate their respective futures, if any. The hourglass is empty.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 12:13:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 12:48:34 PM EDT
[b]Torch news conference set for 5:00 PM Eastern.[/b]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 12:50:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: I can wait...this is going to be like 1994 all over again!!! [BEER]
View Quote
Hee-hee! I agree! Ain't it great! [:D]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 1:06:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WofWof: Hate to say this but NJ is such a Dem bastion that they'd elect scum like Al Sharpton if he was NJ resident.
View Quote
Give that man a cheroot! As things stand now, the only thing the Republican, Douglas Forrester, has going for him is the stink of corruption on Torricelli. No one here really knows who Forrester is. As of now, he would win because there are actually some Democrats in this state with enough integrity to refuse to vote for a crook and would either vote for Forrester or abstain. Remove Torricelli from the equation and any Democrat with even minimal name recognition will win because Torricelli's lost voters would immediately return to the Democratic fold.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 2:43:03 PM EDT
Folks, I think we are in the weeds here. We are all missing an essential point about this upcoming election: The Democrats are out of touch right now with the majority of the electorate. We are worried about national security and they have no agenda. They haven't put forth a SINGLE issue for the Dems to latch onto and vote for. The Dem leaders simply go out and bitch...bitch...bitch. It ain't working and they KNOW it. That is why they are melting down. The Dems are DESPERATELY hanging on to their illegally gotten power in the Senate with every fiber of their beings. They are frantically working every angle to keep that one single part of the power structure in Washington. Lose that...and they are OUT...and in DC...being OUT is like being marooned on a desert isle with Janet Reno, Rosie O'Donnel, and Alec Baldwin. This is HARDBALL politics and the Dems are about to try and pull a fast one by naming another candidate. Problem is that NJ law stipulates that other than for the death of the candidate, no subs may be made. Not that a little thing like the LAW ever stopped a partisan Dem from anything...but they MUST do this because they are also about to lose another three or four seats in the senate...and maybe pick up one...or perhaps two...if they can lie enough. Do the numbers. That means the Republicans win back the senate. The status will remain quo in the House so...Bush and the Good Guys win BIG in Novemember unless the Dems get lucky and unless they can pick somebody to replace Torch...AND if the COURTS decide in the Dems favor. Think Florida 2000. This is WAR.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 2:59:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: Problem is that NJ law stipulates that other than for the death of the candidate, no subs may be made. Not that a little thing like the LAW ever stopped a partisan Dem from anything
View Quote
What we all learned from the "Battle of the Chads" is that the Law stipulates whatever the COURTS decide. Control the courts, you control the Law.
Originally Posted By LWilde: This is WAR.
View Quote
Yes. It is. More precisely, this war will decide who will be the next two (or three) people to get on the Supreme Court. The Dems knew it in Nov 2000, that's why the fought so hard then. They didn't expect Jumping Jim Jeffords to hand them the Senate so at that time the Presidency was their only hope. With the obvious exception of Clinton's impeachment, think of all the fiercest political battles in the last 20 years: Bork Thomas Gore vs. Bush ALL have one common theme - controlling who decides the makeup of the SCOTUS. THAT is the ultimate prize in this WAR.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 3:04:32 PM EDT
Did you guys see his press conference? The sniveling little rat said how much he [b]admired[/b] clinton. Then the filth started to break down! We have pussies leading this country, no wonder it's having trouble.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 3:10:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Strag: ........ and the AW ban happened in 1994.
View Quote
Yes, on August 28, 1994, the AWB was passed by both Chambers and signed into law on September 13, 1994. Less than two months [u]before[/u] the Republican sweep in November, 1994! Please, guys, get your chronology straight on this very, very crucial matter! [size=4]Clinton Blames Losses On NRA[/size=4] Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 14, 1995 "The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House," the President told reporters and editors of Ohio's largest newspaper. "The fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress," he said during a break from a trade conference. Do you guys remember [u]that[/u] story at all? Although columnist Bob Novak had earlier quoted a Congressman who said the President had told him substantially the same thing, it was the first time Clinton had made such a statement on the record. The newspaper's lead paragraph succinctly summed up: [b]"the historic Republican takeover of the House was made possible because the National Rifle Association targeted Democrats who supported his crime bill."[/b] NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa responded: "For once the President and I agree." She told the newspaper that Congress had passed the crime bill "last fall amid Democratic boasts that the power of the NRA had been broken," but that the gun ban in the crime bill proved to be the "crux of the election," and the "main problem for the administration." The Plain Dealer wrote that Rep. Eric Fingerhut "has said he was one congressman who paid for his support of the crime bill, which banned so-called assault weapons capable of firing many bullets." C'mon guys, quit arguing over the small shit and remember that the Republicans are the ones who put the skids on any further gun control measures! Now it's time to beat the crap outta the DEMOS! Eric The(HistoricallyAccurate)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 3:12:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DFBonnett: Remove Torricelli from the equation and any Democrat with even minimal name recognition will win because Torricelli's lost voters would immediately return to the Democratic fold.
View Quote
The Republicans best chance might be with the independent voters. The fallout from the Dem's putting in a pinch runner at the last moment could sway enough independents to vote Repub out of disgust... especially if the court upholds the lame duck replacement approved by the Democratic Governor. Probably wouldn't hurt the Dem's as much as if Torricelli hadn't dropped out but, it might still be enough for a Forrester win.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 3:52:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: If he resigns now (making room for the Dems to replace him on the ballot) - the Dems STILL lose the Senate until his replacement is sworn in in Jan. 2003 (assuming his replacement doesn't also lose). WHOOHOO!
View Quote
Don't break out the champagne quite yet. There was a discussion a few weeks ago (on NPR, I believe) about just this situation cropping up if Carnahan were to lose her election in MO--she would lose her seat immediately, giving the republicans control of the senate--at least in THEORY. The problem is, the democrats don't exactly HAVE to give it up--it is, after all, the majority leader who sets the agenda, and Dashcle could simply hold the republicans off until January--when the current congress ends. Remember, the republicans did something quite similar when Jeffords went over to the dark side--it took time before they _allowed_ the democrats to take control.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 3:56:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Food for thought: If Torch resigns, the Dems lose control of the Senate (Cheney is tie-breaking vote) giving Republicans Senate control (WHOOHOO!) at bare minimum until Torch's Democrat replacement is elected and sworn in - several months away at the earliest.
View Quote
Not quite. If the Torch resigns, the gov. of New Jersey (a democrat) will appoint someone (a democrat) immediately to take his place. No shift in power. [b]HOWEVER......[/b] The race to watch is the Talent-Carnahan race in Missouri. This is a special election, as Jean Carnahan is just filling in for her dead husband, whom the hillbillys in Missouri elected without a pulse in 2000. (apologies to all MO members, but hell, you guys elected a corpse, y'know?) According to Missouri law, if the challenger Talent wins, he may immediately be sworn in and assume office, without the usual lame duck period. New power structure in Washington as of Nov. 6th.
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 4:13:38 PM EDT
[url]http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3775&forum=DCForumID61[/url] It's more than a little sickening. The basic thread is "If he holds out until next week, and then resigns, we get a free senate seat for two years." Under NJ law, this seems to be actually legal, though certainly not moral.
Top Top