lautenberg/torricelli

F

footy3

#1
#1
please try to forget the partisanship, if you can't please don't respond. I am just wondering, and forget that its a dem that dropped out and was replaced, and a repub, that is seeking to have him kept out of the election, do you guys think its fair to replace a candidate this late?

my .02. i think it is unfair and torricelli should have been forced to remain on the ballot, and if he won, he could have resigned immediately. I believe the governor then is allowed to pick a replacement util the next election.

my rationale is that forrester plans a campaign against torricelli, mud is slung in all directions, more sticks to torricelli and he drops out. now it is unfair to allow him to be replaced with a clean candidate at this late time. if this is allowed, maybe it is a great strategy for the future, throw in a candidate you plan to have drop out, make the campaign us ugly and shitty as possible, then quit and leave the other candiate with all the stink still on him.

I am not significantly persuaded by the argument that if you don't allow a replacement, then one party has no choice, in this instance it is not forrester's fault, but he is punished. think the better solution would be to allow torricelli to resign after the election, as i said above.

what do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Slinky Bender

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
#2
#2
I'm a big "rules" person. I don't like when rules are broken "for good reasons", because everyone always has a good reason. I don't like this for that reason alone. Pick a "cut off date" and stick to it. But I really think this lies at the feet of the Senate Ethics Committee.
 
R

Reel Deal

#3
#3
I'm not from NJ, so it does not directly affect me.

But I think it establishes a really shitty precedent: If your guy is behind in the polls on the eve of the election, just replace him. That changes the argument, and gives a party another chance to win.

Just as Florida2000 established an "if you lose, sue" precedent.

A date is a date. Run the right guy, then stick with it. Let the chips fall where they may.
 
I

Intown

#4
#4
I agree with Slinky. Rules are made to be obeyed until they're changed. If Torricelli is allowed to be replaced even though the legal replacement period has expired, it will set a precedent that may create havoc in future elections, both federal and state.

Of course, who am I to say? Am I not breaking rules every time I hobby?
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#6
#6
This situation is even more pernicious than the precedent it sets. Due to his age and other factors, Lautenberg is clearly just a "placeholder" with a high name recognition quotient to help him get elected. He has no intention of serving a full term. If he wins, we will resign and then the NJ governor will name someone else to serve out his term. Bottom line, the NJ voters have no idea who they are voting for here. Of course, given the quality of the people we normally have running for public office in this country, I’m not sure that makes any difference.

I think rules is rules. Stick with them or change them in advance per the law.
 
F

footy3

#8
#8
IMHO i'd like to see voters try to send a message to the parties that they are fe up with this kind of b.s. and go vote for someone on the green party or whatever other party is on the bottom of the ballot.
 
T

TheNextBigThing

#9
#9
The Dems knew Torricelli was no damn good and he should have been given the boot from the Senate. They chose to go with a corrupt loser and they should suffer the consequences.

Speaking of which... Was does a corrupt member of Congress or the Senate have to do to get kicked out by their peers? murder someone on video tape? That's a whole other topic, but there should be a separate neutral entity who decides these lying, stealing c-suckers fates when they are caught.
 
J

JackStraw

#10
#10
Originally posted by TheNextBigThing

Speaking of which... Was does a corrupt member of Congress or the Senate have to do to get kicked out by their peers? murder someone on video tape? That's a whole other topic, but there should be a separate neutral entity who decides these lying, stealing c-suckers fates when they are caught.
Click to expand...
Trafficant would probably say you have to piss off your own party leaders. The other side will always go after you, but as we saw with torricelli, as long as you tow the party line and raise the big bucks, they won't touch you.

On the main subject, add me to the list of posters who see the dem ploy for what it is. Its not like any new facts came out, just a new poll. Of course, the republicns would sound better if they hadn't tried to pull a fast one to keep schundler off the ticket.
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#11
#11
Originally posted by JackStraw
Of course, the republicns would sound better if they hadn't tried to pull a fast one to keep schundler off the ticket.
Click to expand...
What was the deal with Schundler. I don't normally follow NJ politics.
 
P

pjorourke

Thinks he's Caesar's Wife
#14
#14
Originally posted by slinkybender


Are you sure you're not a NJ voter ?
Click to expand...
Apparently I am. According to RD, we all get to vote there.

I just want to thank the people of NJ for taking the spotlight off us Floridians.
 
O

One Eyed Trouser Trout

#1 Cowboys Fan
#15
#15
Another aspect that seems unfair......

...is that Forrester has probably spent unknown sums of money generating ads focused on Torch which are now worthless.

How does he recover this loss? What about the additional costs of re-tooling the strategy?

I agree with the majority sentiment thus far. The state had a 50-some day cut off point which was violated and ignored by the State Supreme Court.

I believe I'd feel the same way if the parties were reversed, too.
 
V

vegasjim

#16
#16
Re: Another aspect that seems unfair......

Originally posted by One Eyed Trouser Trout
...is that Forrester has probably spent unknown sums of money generating ads focused on Torch which are now worthless.

How does he recover this loss? What about the additional costs of re-tooling the strategy?

I agree with the majority sentiment thus far. The state had a 50-some day cut off point which was violated and ignored by the State Supreme Court.

I believe I'd feel the same way if the parties were reversed, too.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is not a party issue even thought many are trying to make it out to be.
 
B

bear

#17
#17
Agree with all that has been said. I believe the deal with Schundler was the Republican primary. They moved the date back 3 weeks so Bob Franks could take a crack at Schundler because he was going to tow the party line. Ah, politics, such a noble profession!
 
B

bear

#20
#20
Thanks, guys! I feel like I've joined an exclusive club. Yeah, right! Sorry the silver post wasn't earth shattering, but I'll make a good visit soon somewhere and post. I'm interested in doing something "outside the box" instead of the usual suspects. I've just got to get my shit together first.

Happy hunting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top