There has been a lot of flak in the news about the New Jersey Senate campaign ... about all of the unlawful ballot maneuverings being contemplated by New Jersey's Democratic party and its Democratic Governor, Jim McGreevey. Torricelli quit the race when it was obvious he was going to lose big. (If only Bill Simon had done the same thing in the California governor's race.)

Now, NJ Dems are trying to get the NJ Supreme Court to ignore the law and get the ballot changed to put a new candidate - former NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg on the ballot, even though the law says the ballot cannot be changed within 51 days of an election (a deadline that long since passed) AND absentee voting already has begun, especially with overseas military personnel, a group known to be more likely to vote Republican than the public at learge (the same group, you will recall, that the Gore campaign and Florida Dems desperately tried to disenfranchise during the 2000 Florida recount debacle).

Should that maneuver fail, the talk is that NJ Dems will pressure Torricelli to resign (in the period of less tha 30 days before the election) and that McGreevey WILL CANCEL THE ELECTION and let his appointed successor (Lautenberg?) remain in office either for one to two years. I'm sorry ... not CANCEL the election ... but merely postpone it ... apparently on the grounds that a Republican is winning and the Dems need to hold on to a majority in the Senate.

I'm sorry ... wasn't ethics the only issue in the NJ Senate campaign so far?

New Jersey is turning into a Banana Republic that makes Florida look like Switzerland.

Contrast New Jersey with Hawaii. Hawaii is scrambling to find a replacement candidate for the late Rep. Patsy Mink (who was one Democrat who was most definitely NOT at risk of losing the election), who sadly died recently of pneumonia. Mink is still on the ballot and it's too close to the election to lawfully remove her name from the ballot. A dilemma.

Hawaii politics is controlled by a Democratic machine. This is a year where the Republican stand a very good chance of making some inroads. Yet the Hawaiian Democratically-controlled government is doing the right thing ... and it may work to the detriment of some of the leading Democratic candidates for Mink's seat: Hawaii to Elect Temporary Successor to Mink

Mink's name stays on the ballot, because, by law, it's too late to change the ballot. (And death of the candidate would be a much more legitimate reason for circumventing the law than, merely, the candidate was down 13 points in the polls.) There will be a quick special election to fill out her term and another special election if Mink wins (despite the fact she is deceased.)

Following the letter of the law: what a novel concept, huh New Jersey? In Hawaii, without any questions or legal maneuverings, the Democratic-controlled state government is doing the right thing. Hawaii could teach New Jersey's politicians some important lessons on the rule of law.

NJ should see if that could get Katherine Harris to come up and settle this matter.
She is so good at following the letter of her law, wooops, I mean the letter of THE law.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:

New Jersey is turning into a Banana Republic that makes Florida look like Switzerland.

---

Maybe not the best analogy.

FIFA's Head man is Swiss Sepp Blatter who is about as corrupt as they come.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Should that maneuver fail, the talk is that NJ Dems will pressure Torricelli to resign (in the period of less tha 30 days before the election) and that McGreevey WILL CANCEL THE ELECTION and let his appointed successor (Lautenberg?) remain in office either for one to two years. I'm sorry ... not CANCEL the election ... but merely postpone it ...

---

Which is, from what I've read, completely LEGAL (not to mention what Torricelli should have done in the first place).

It may be legal, but it's ultrasleazy. Oops, that's right, this is politics.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
Which is, from what I've read, completely LEGAL (not to mention what Torricelli should have done in the first place).

---

There does seem to be some serious disagreement as to whether it is legal ... especially for a FEDERAL election (six year terms for senators being in the U.S. Constitution and all that). You can pretty much determine which side various "legal scholars" are taking by checking their voter registration cards.

raze: your suggestion about Katherine Harris is too damn funny!! That gave me a chuckle this morning. She would be just perfect for the job up there wouldn't she though??

Had to make a trip to the store. On my way I forced myself to listen to a few minutes of Sean Hannity. As I expected, he is having a field day with this New Jersey stuff. I hope he doesn't have a stroke before the day is done. He was really going off on the Dems. I kinda expected this, but today he is really full of himself, saying the Dems are trying to "steal" the election. Geez, imagine that? I wonder which party tought them to do this????? Saying the Dems are doing this and doing that. After about 4 minutes, I had to turn him off. The only thing more full of hot air is a balloon. Sean, get a life, pleeze????

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

First, New Jersey has a long history of electoral shenanigans, so this recent turn of events is hardly anything new.

Second, Hawaii also has had its own machine political shenanigans, but the histories of the two states are so different that to compare them is ludicrous. Missouri in its last Senate race had a similar situation to Hawai'i's, and the deceased individual, late Gov. Mel Carnahan, was elected over the current attorney General, John Ashcroft. The Democratic governor then appointed Carnahan's widow, who is now is a close race to retain her seat. I believe a Democrat will succeed Mink in both races.

In terms of the Democratic "maneuverings" being "unlawful," does anyone know exactly what New Jersey's constitution says about the election of federal senators? How much leeway does the State Supreme Court have? I ask because while the Democrats' actions may possibly be unlawful, no one has yet demonstrated this, given that the state *mandates* that voters have a choice between the two major parties.

Torricelli's actions were and are disgraceful. He should have resigned as soon as McGreevey was elected, which would have allowed the governor to appoint someone less ethically-tainted in his place. I still remember his politicking and maverick actions while Clinton was president; this little sleazebag FINALLY is getting his due.

Now, poor Frank Lautenberg--whom Torricelli loathes like Satan or the Republicans--is being hoisted up to be the fall guy in this debacle. The Democrats have a far better chance cutting their losses and working their asses off to get Shaheen, Prior, Kirk, and Strickland elected. That would balance out the loss of sleazeball.

Also, given the recent trending in New Jersey, if Forrester votes too frequently with the extremist wing of the Republican Party, he'll be out and whichever moderate Republican or liberal Democrat wants his seat will get it in 2008.

Just a thought: we pay lip service to democracy all the time in the U.S., yet as the 2000 election debacle showed, we could do a lot better.

If the New Jersey Supreme Court rules that Lautenberg's name cannot appear on the ballot, I don't think it'll be a total loss. Forrester probably will be elected, but this might allow New Jersey voters the opportunity to look more closely at the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, who so far have gotten zero attention. I mentioned in a post a while back that there are *always* people from minor parties on New Jersey's ballot, and while I doubt the Green candidate has a chance in hell of winning, what a strike that would be if s/he did get the post!

It would cause both the Republicans and Democrats fits, but our Congress needs to become more diverse, because far too often voters have little choice with representatives who are far too eager to represent corporate or extremist interests (or both, where they intersect) at the expense of majority of voters and citizens.

Good thought Fantomas. There's a good chance I will be voting for a third party here.

As a Democratic voter in New Jersey, I'm embarrased by the whole Torricelli mess. He should have resigned earlier this year so McGreevey could have appointed a successor. Frankly, I hope the Supreme Court does not allow the change. The law is clear that it can't be done within 51 days of the election, so I don't know what the arguement is. I will not vote for Forrester, so the Green Party is looking pretty good.

So the New Jersey Supreme Court is letting the Democrats change Senate candidates in complete and utter disregard for New Jersey law. Yet another example of a state supreme court writing new election law so its party of choice wins.

Here's the new Jersey statute that was at issue:

[quote] § 19:13-20. Vacancy procedure
In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:

a. (1) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of the entire State, the candidate shall be selected by the State committee of the political party wherein such vacancy has occurred.

(2) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a single and entire county, the candidate shall be selected by the county committee in such county of the political party wherein such vacancy has occurred.

(3) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a portion of the State comprising all or part of two or more counties, the candidate shall be selected by those members of the county committees of the party wherein the vacancy has occurred who represent those portions of the respective counties which are comprised in the district from which the candidate is to be elected.

(4) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of a portion of a single county, the candidate shall be selected by those members of the county committee of the party wherein the vacancy has occurred who represent those portions of the county which are comprised in the district from which the candidate is to be elected.

At any meeting held for the selection of a candidate under this subsection, a majority of the persons eligible to vote thereat shall be required to be present for the conduct of any business, and no person shall be entitled to vote at that meeting who is appointed to the State committee or county committee after the seventh day preceding the date of the meeting.

In the case of a meeting held to select a candidate for other than a Statewide office, the chairman of the meeting shall be chosen by majority vote of the persons present and entitled to vote thereat. The chairman so chosen may propose rules to govern the determination of credentials and the procedures under which the meeting shall be conducted, and those rules shall be adopted upon a majority vote of the persons entitled to vote upon the selection. If a majority vote is not obtained for those rules, the delegates shall determine credentials and conduct the business of the meeting under such other rules as may be adopted by a majority vote. All contested votes taken at the selection meeting shall be by secret ballot.

b. (1) Whenever in accordance with subsection a. of this section members of two or more county committees are empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairmen of said county committees, acting jointly not later in any case than the seventh day following the occurrence of the vacancy, to give notice to each of the members of their respective committees who are so empowered of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.

(2) Whenever in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of this section members of a county committee are empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of such county committee, not later in any case than the seventh day following the occurrence of the vacancy, to give notice to each of the members of the committee who are so empowered of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.

(3) A county committee chairman or chairmen who call a meeting pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection shall not be entitled to vote upon the selection of a candidate at such meeting unless he or they are so entitled pursuant to subsection a.

(4) Whenever in accordance with the provisions of subsection a. of this section the State committee of a political party is empowered to select a candidate to fill a vacancy, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of that State committee to give notice to each of the members of the committee of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the selection will be made, that meeting to be held at least one day following the date on which the notice is given.

c. Whenever a selection is to be made pursuant to this section to fill a vacancy resulting from inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at a primary election, the selection shall be made from among those who have thus received the same number of votes at the primary.

d. A selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than said 48th day[.]

---

The vacancy must have occurred more than 51 days before the election. The vacancy must be filled within 48 days of the election. The key section uses the word "shall." Shall means no discretion. No discretion, I guess, unless it's necessary to keep the Democratic party's candidate competitive in a Senate race. What a disgrace.

Republicans in California should use the same logic & law used by the NJ court to get a different candidate for governor here. William (Bill) Simon just can't help shooting himself in the foot--repeatedly. If ever there was a Dem ripe for the picking, it's Gray Davis this year (and I'm a liberal Dem who voted for Davis four years ago) but the Reps blew it big time.

~Adam

[quote]Originally posted by Rob:
As a Democratic voter in New Jersey, I'm embarrased by the whole Torricelli mess. He should have resigned earlier this year so McGreevey could have appointed a successor. Frankly, I hope the Supreme Court does not allow the change. The law is clear that it can't be done within 51 days of the election, so I don't know what the arguement is. I will not vote for Forrester, so the Green Party is looking pretty good.

---

Rob, I hear you and Pat. One issue is that New Jersey, like many states, also places a premium on voters' options to exercise their democratic right to vote. So sometimes that might outweigh the statutory requirement of 51 days. I disagree with the decision, but it was unanimous, and not a majority Democratic vote (there are 4 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 independent on the New Jersey Supreme Court). I believe the U.S. Constitution delegates to the legislatures the power to change electoral laws, which the Republican legislature did a few years ago to allow Bob Franks to be the Reupblican primary choice once acting-governor Donald DiFrancesco (embroiled in his own scandals) stepped down. Bret Schundler, an ultraconservaiive Republican, protested vehemently, but there was little he could do. HE still won the primary, but lost horribly to the present governor, Democrat James McGreevey. If Torricelli had any good sense, he would resign from his Senate seat immediately, which would allow McGreevey to appoint a Democrat and call a special election. But he is too craven to do that--he wants sympathy, even though even more details continue to emerge about his unethical behavior. What a creep of the highest order!

charlie, you've misread the law in exactly the places you highlighted. in the first instance, the law doesn't REQUIRE the vacancy to take place more than 51 days before the election, rather it says IF the vacancy takes place more than 51 days prior. Given that condition is met, the rest of the law kicks in and forces a replacement to be named within 48 days to prevent any shenanigans on the part of the political parties (i'd be shocked!).

in this case, however, the initial condition of the vacancy occuring more than 51 days from the election is not met, and the law is silent on what to do, and that is what the new jersey supreme court was asked to clarify.

given their ruling was 7-0, across democrat, republican, and independent party lines, there doesn't seem to be any partisanship at work -- just as there shouldn't be in the judiciary.

The Dems. are, of course, pointing out that 6 of the 7 justices on the NJ court were appointed by GOP Gov. Christine T. Whitman ... although my Reaganite pals have always held suspect the true Republican nature of any Northeastern GOPer such as Whitman (Jeffords' defection was proof positive.) ...

this includes the Bushes, even the ones pretending to be from Texas or Florida .. places like Yale and Kennebunkport are where their true souls lie.

[quote]Originally posted by thersis:
charlie, you've misread the law in exactly the places you highlighted. in the first instance, the law doesn't REQUIRE the vacancy to take place more than 51 days before the election, rather it says IF the vacancy takes place more than 51 days prior. Given that condition is met, the rest of the law kicks in and forces a replacement to be named within 48 days to prevent any shenanigans on the part of the political parties (i'd be shocked!).

in this case, however, the initial condition of the vacancy occuring more than 51 days from the election is not met, and the law is silent on what to do, and that is what the new jersey supreme court was asked to clarify.

given their ruling was 7-0, across democrat, republican, and independent party lines, there doesn't seem to be any partisanship at work -- just as there shouldn't be in the judiciary.

---

And from what I saw on TV last night, the court made no mention of the US Constitution or any federal laws or court rulings in justifying their decision. They cited strictly New Jersey decisions. In cases such as this it's apparently standard procedure for the US Supreme Court not to step in, seeing it as strictly a state issue.

Of course, the current US Supreme Court may see it differently.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
And from what I saw on TV last night, the court made no mention of the US Constitution or any federal laws or court rulings in justifying their decision. They cited strictly New Jersey decisions. In cases such as this it's apparently standard procedure for the US Supreme Court not to step in, seeing it as strictly a state issue.

---

There is no grounds for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on this one. From my reading of the statute, the New Jersey Supreme Court misapplied NEW JERSEY law. And if it is only New Jersey law that has been erroneously applied, ordinarily, there's no (real) basis for appealing to the U.S. Supremes. States are the final arbiter of matters that are purely state law.

(Believe it or not, I actually think the Scalia decision in the Gore v. Bush case wrongly applied the law. Because I don't want to veer this thread into that direction, I'll just say someone can private me if they care enough to really want to know why I think this way.)

I think there would have been a serious U.S. constitutional issue had McGreevey tried to cancel the election after making an appointment to a vacancy (a scenario that was discussed in the media). However, they did not get that far as the N.J. Supreme Court bought the argument about putting Lautenberg on the ballot. Torricelli has not resigned and therefore there is no vacancy and no discussion of cancelling the election until a special election would be held a year later.

Forrester is making a serious tactical mistake in threatening to appeal this to the U.S. Supreme Court. From what I'm reading, they want to claim violations of the federal Voting Rights Act. That's not just a stretch ... it's a contortion, a goofier reading of a statute than the N.J. Supremes just did.

And going to the U.S. Supremes on this is stupid politics. Not only does this dredge up memories of the Florida debacle, but I think Forrester is better off getting back on the campaign trail and using this an example of Democratic party corruption, keeping his one issue (Torricelli corruption) alive against Lautenberg.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
There is no grounds for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on this one.

---

Looks like you're right -- but with this SCOTUS, ya never know.

Linda Greenhouse in the NY Times writes -- [OK conservatives, deep breath -- she does report for not only the liberal bastion the Times but also NPR -- but she is terrific in doing so IMHO ...] "Most creatively, the Republicans borrowed a concept from the three-justice plurality opinion in Bush v. Gore to the effect that a state legislature's word on the conduct of federal elections is final and cannot be supplanted or perhaps even supplemented by the state's courts.

The argument was more than a little audacious because, while in Bush v. Gore it had the support of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, it was pointedly not embraced by the other six justices — neither by the four dissenters who wanted the Florida recount to continue nor by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Those two justices said the recount, ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, violated the guarantee of equal protection. The Rehnquist three reluctantly endorsed that conclusion to have a majority rationale for stopping the recount, but at the same time insisted that the equal-protection rationale would not apply to any other case beyond "the present circumstances."

Does that mean, Bush v. Gore applied only to the Presidential election?

Furthermore, I read that it doesn't help the GOP that this appeal is filed with Justice Souter (I realize that Souter isn't necessarily their friend, but I don't understand how he himself could harm the appeal).

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
Does that mean, Bush v. Gore applied only to the Presidential election?

---

Bush v. Gore applied only to equal protection guarantees for the COUNTING of votes.

That decision dealt with different standards for the counting of the votes being applied retroactively, after the vote took place, and knowing which standard would result in which candidate winning. In effect, once you chose which standard (how dangling can a dangling chad dangle?), you would have chosen which candidate won.

There was an argument (how good of an argument depends on whether you favored Bush or Gore) that the Democratic-controlled Florida Supreme Court was fishing around for an appropriate standard that would result in a Gore victory and would then, retroactively, would have applied that as the mandatory standard. If that had been true, both parties would agree that is wrong.

Counting votes is not an issue here. The Forrester campaign should lose this appeal.

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
Furthermore, I read that it doesn't help the GOP that this appeal is filed with Justice Souter (I realize that Souter isn't necessarily their friend, but I don't understand how he himself could harm the appeal).

---

This an "emergency" appeal ... one not filed in the ordinary course. There is a lot more discretion for the Justice with whom an emergency appeal is lodged. It was filed with Justice Souter because he is the Justice "allotted" responsibility for the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey (as well as Pennsylvania and, I believe, Delaware). Justice Souter, you may recall, was the only justice who apparently read his copy of the constitution before issuing his decision in Bush v. Gore.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

http://www.dailykos.com/images/ta021002.gif

CITT: I agree with you about the Forrester situation. A New Jersey-based political commentator on WNYC noted yesterday that many New Jersey voters really are upset now that the national Republican party has insinuated itself into this issue; supposedly (though no polls were cited) voters consider the State Supreme court as fairly impartial, given that Whitman appointed most (6 out of 7) of the justices, who are considered to be moderate Democrats or Republicans), and they would rather have a choice between Forrester and some Democrat than no choice at all. McGreevey probably saved his neck by *not* pressing Torricelli to drop out now, which would have allowed him to appoint a successor and postpone (but not cancel) the election.

A question: when exactly does the concept of states' rights, which is often championed by the Right, come into play, if, in two major cases, Republicans have pushed to have the rulings of state *Supreme* courts invalidated by the federal Supreme court?

Also, is it true that the last Republican elected to the U.S. Senate by New Jersey was Clifford P. Case in 1972? Former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady was appointed in 1982, if I recall correctly, by then-governor Kean (of the Hamilton Fish Kean-John Kean family) after Harrison Williams resigned in a political scandal (wasn't it?) but he didn't run again, and Frank Lautenberg won the seat.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


Also, is it true that the last Republican elected to the U.S. Senate by New Jersey was Clifford P. Case in 1972? Former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady was appointed in 1982, if I recall correctly, by then-governor Kean (of the Hamilton Fish Kean-John Kean family) after Harrison Williams resigned in a political scandal (wasn't it?) but he didn't run again, and Frank Lautenberg won the seat.[/QB]

---

Yes, it's true. Some Republicans came close, like Millicent Fenwick against Lauternberg, Christie Whitman against Bradley, and Bob Franks against Corzine, but Democrats won the last ten elections.

I think Williams had to resign, because he had to go to jail for his role in Abscam. Supposedly he accepted bribes from people posed as Arab businessmen.

One has to love American history! New Jersey was *not* the first state to endure last-minute shenanigans such as we've just witnessed: I reproduce Joe Conason's 10.3.02 SALON blog on Minnesota's "Republican" switchover a few years, which the Democrats went along with (thus bringing on the demise of their candidate for the governor's office.)

"Crybabies in court
Two indignant readers ask whether Minnesota had a law permitting the substitution of Arne Carlson for Jon Grunseth in 1990, thus making the comparison with New Jersey invalid. The law at the time was rather vague, as the Democratic secretary of state admitted when she said at the time, "There's no precedent for any of the decisions I've made."

That explained why she held up the printing of new ballots, while the state Supreme Court decided who should run for lieutenant governor on the new Republican ticket. The GOP state executive committee was unsure whether its members could lawfully select a candidate to fill Grunseth's vacancy, so they didn't -- but the secretary of state then ruled that Carlson, as the primary runner-up, could step in as the nominee. (Incidentally, the Minnesota Legislature later tightened the election laws somewhat, to prevent another stunt like the last-minute Grunseth/Carlson switch. No candidate for constitutional office there can now withdraw less than 16 days before the election, except in cases of catastrophic illness.)

Anyway, my main point remains unchanged. Minnesota's election law was sufficiently vague to permit a challenge by the Democrats to keep Grunseth on the ballot. Certainly, eight days before the election, the Democrats could have gone to federal court and argued -- as Forrester's GOP lawyers will now -- that absentee voters were being disenfranchised. But they didn't.

[snipped]

Or as another witty reader points out, Torricelli could simply have backdated his resignation to the 51-day deadline. What kind of precedent would permit such a cheeky maneuver? Exactly the same one that inspired Katherine Harris to backdate her resignation as Florida's secretary of state two months ago.

Today, we're hearing a lot of phony outrage about this situation from Republican senators like Pete Domenici, who care far less for the rule of law or democratic elections than getting back their committee chairmanships. What happened to state's rights? And why not abide by the unanimous decision by Jersey's Supreme Court? Republican governors chose six of the seven justices on that court; two of them, including the chief justice, served as chief counsels to Republican governors.

The Democrats in New Jersey didn't try to steal this election. They're ready to fight it on the issues for the next four weeks. Doug Forrester and the Republicans have run an empty, entirely negative campaign against Torricelli. (The moronic "issues" page on Forrester's Web site must be seen to be believed.) Now that they've gotten what they said they wanted, they have nothing to say except "Waaaah."
[3:33 p.m. PDT, Oct. 3, 2002]

Whining weenies run to Washington
Why don't those Republicans in New Jersey just stop bitching, suck it up and fight the Senate election on the issues? That's what the Democrats did in the 1990 Minnesota governor's race, when the discredited Republican nominee Jon Grunseth dropped out only eight days before the election. It was a memorable case, because what undid the conservative Grunseth were colorful allegations of personal misconduct: not mere adultery, which was only the tamest part of the Grunseth résumé, but drinking and nude swimming with female friends of his teenage daughter. (One girl testified that the moralistic right-winger had pulled her top down.)

(More juicy tidbits on the Salon site.)

Also, according to Salon and AP, recent polls show Frank Lautenberg leading Doug Forrester 46 to 40 percent, and 49 to 45 percent, with 3-4 percent undecided, meaning that after only a week, the race is in an almost statistical dead heat.

Although he's 78 years old, Lautenberg has been electrifying voters on the campaign trail; he's a seasoned campaigner, he lacks Torricelli's ethical baggage and, since Torricelli loathes him, he's benefitting from being seen as the "Anti-Torricelli." I think this race is going to be very tight, but Lautenberg will win, especially if Forrester keeps whining and the U.S. Supreme Court makes any action on Forrester's part (such as a stay, which would lead to voter outrage).

I didn't particularly like the choice of Lautenberg to replace Torricelli. I would have preferred a lesser known as an alternate choice to Forrester. But it looks like the strategy will probably work as voters still seem to prefer the same old stuff. Forrester or a 3rd party candidate is looking better for me though.

Also, I don't think of this as Democrats trying to steal the election anymore than another party trying to steal another election two years ago. But frankly, I don't agree with the decision of the NJ Supreme Court. If their reasoning is that it is better to have a "choice" in an election, I don't buy it. When the law was passed, I'm sure that the lawmakers were aware of the possibly of a resignation within the 51 days. Democrats could have organized a write-in campaign. If they argued that it would be difficult and voters wouldn't be able to understand it, too bad. Anyway, courts make incorrect and inappropriate decisions all the time. Unfortunately, that is part of the process.

But the decision didn't surprise me either. As much as New Jersey is becoming a three-ring circus with politics, filled with a cast of clowns, I'm sure most states' supreme courts would have made a similar decision.

I suggest that the legislature reexamine the law, decide an appropriate date for when no candidate can be replaced for resignation and death, and insert language so that games such as backdating resignations are not allowed.


Update: Just saw that the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the case. They did not provide a reason though. I would like to have known their reasoning.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

My guess is that they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because of the message it would send. The democrats in NJ have stated that the ballots can be re-printed and distributed in time for the election, they're also promising to pay for all the changes. So essentially, a court would have to say that in spite of all this, they still cann't have the option of putting someone on the ballot that is actually in the running just because of a 51 day rule.

The fact that should come out of this is how short a notice is "too short" and the ballots really cannot be changed. It does sort of suck for those people that cast absentee ballots for Torricelli, but as we all learned two years ago, there's never been an election when every single vote was counted.

Should be interesting, it sounds to me like this Lautenberg person should be able to carry it considering the fact that Forrester doesn't have a campaign platform to speak of. What are the polls saying now?

[quote]Update: Just saw that the U.S. Supreme will not hear the case. They did not provide a reason though. I would like to have known their reasoning.

---

the court never gives reasons for not hearing cases. there is no reason TO hear the case, and there is a de facto approval of all that has gone on before in the lower courts.

there is still a challenge in federal court that faces longer odds than the challenge put before the supremes, but, as we've seen, anything can happen!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Although he's 78 years old, Lautenberg has been electrifying voters on the campaign trail; he's a seasoned campaigner, he lacks Torricelli's ethical baggage and, since Torricelli loathes him.....

---

I keep seeing in the press that there is incredible personal animus between these two, but nobody has said why. Anybody know what's happened to make them despise each other so much?

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Although he's 78 years old, Lautenberg has been electrifying voters on the campaign trail[.]

---

Although I agree with much of your analysis ... electrifying? Lautenberg?

When he was a Senator, Lautenberg used to win his elections by tiny percentages against marginal opponents. In 1994, he won by only three percentage points (50-47) against Chuck Haytaian. "Chuck who?", you may ask. My point exactly. Six years earlier, he won only 54-46 percent against a terrible candidate, Peter Dawkins, who was something of a pathological liar. I don't know why, at age 78, he suddenly would become electrifying, when he was quite pedestrian at age 70 and, prior to that, age 64.

In several TV clips and press accounts that I've seen or read, Lautenberg, who for much of his Senate tenure, was in the shadow of whoever held the other senate seat from New Jersey, is really exciting voters. At one campaign stop he launched into a litany of what he stood for and what Forrester did, and the voters' cheers grew louder and louder--the enthusiasm was palpable, which is a surprise for Lautenberg. Yes, he won by close margins in the past, but he *won*--he has never lost a U.S. senate race. I think the deal that McGreevey, Menendez and the other Dem bosses cut with him was this: if you win, serve for a year or two till you're 80, resign, then McGreevey will appoint another, younger, vibrant candidate whom we've all vetted. It sucks for the Republicans, who really should find a livelier person to challenge the Democrats. They *are* challenging Torricelli's ability to transfer his $5 million warchest to Lautenberg or anyone else.

As for the animus between the two men, I think a lot of it had to do with Torricelli's arrogance and egotism. Supposedly at a meeting a few years ago on the capital, I believe, Torricelli threated to rip Lautenberg's balls off, and may have had to be physically restrained. Most of the accounts of Lautenberg don't paint him in a bad light--he did once say that his previous stint in the Senate was a waste of time, but this time, I think he'll see that his presence may be crucial.

Before taking the opportunity to run, Lautenberg publicly promised to serve all 6 years of the term. I know that promise is as good as the paper it's printed on, but it would be pretty bold to make that straightforward statement and then quit.

[quote]Originally posted by DC_guy:
Before taking the opportunity to run, Lautenberg publicly promised to serve all 6 years of the term.

---

EVEN IF HE DIES????

There are a lot of stiffs in the Senate now, so why shouldn't a deceased Frank Lautenberg still be our Senator. By the way, has anyone checked the pulse of Strom Thurmond lately?

They're pulling a "torch" up in Montana. (btw, there was no insinuation he was a gay hairdresser -- only that he ran a beauty college that misused federal student loans ... (the ad is funny using footage of Taylor's own ad from the 80's, bad clothing, bad hair as in "The Wedding Singer" ...)

"Mike Taylor, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, will withdraw from the race this afternoon, saying a Montana Democratic Party television ad has destroyed his campaign.

Taylor, who has scheduled a press conference in Helena for 2 p.m., said the ad, which he said insinuated that he was a gay hairdresser, had pushed his poll numbers through the floor.

Unconfirmed rumors have Taylor being replaced by former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who is now chairman of the Republican National Committee."

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Rob,

I graduated college with Strom's son, and I'm 26, so he was kicking it into his 70s anyway.

No joke, his son was at a night class with my old roommate and Strom was in the newspaper that someone was reading aloud to friends. Someone made the quote "Why doesn't he just go ahead and die?" I'd hate for my father to be 96 years old and in the papers right now.

I'm trying to find a link to the "gay" Montana hairdresser ad so I can post it here -- and you can judge for yourselves.

From an article in the Billings paper, looks like the Montana HRC complained too ... "

What incensed Taylor was the film clip accompanying the ad. Taylor had a twice weekly segment in the early 1980s on a Denver television station. The clip shows Taylor applying lotions to the face of a man siting in the barber chair and discussing techniques. The ad shows Taylor, then slender, sporting a full beard. He is wearing a tight-fitting, three piece suit, with a big-collared open shirt ala John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever." Taylor's top two or three shirt buttons are unbuttoned, exposing some bare chest and a number of gold chains.

"I cannot believe they would stoop to that level," Taylor said.

State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, said Thursday morning the ad "is an overt and obvious appeal to the homophobic (voter) that is playing to that stereotypic imagery."

Toole, who has fought for homosexual rights for years in the Montana Legislature, said he had complained to the state Democratic Party.

Toole said the Democratic response was that the image was not intended to imply that Taylor was gay.

"It is hard to believe their advertising firm did not see it," Toole said. "Bottom line is it is obvious and it ought to be pulled.

"Once you play these cards, inject this crap into a campaign - race, gay - nobody controls it," Toole said.

Dan DuBray, a former Montana television journalist who did campaign ads for former U.S. Rep. Ron Marlenee, R-Mont., said Thursday the ad was as subtle as "a 2x4 across the forehead. The video was clearly designed to send a subliminal message about Mike Taylor's sexuality."

"It is bizarre," DuBray said. "I can't believe the senator would embrace this type of ad. The process is out of control. This is far below the floor of any TV ads in the past."

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Sorry, but male hairdresser=gay, especially to some of our less enlightened countrymen. The Dems knew exactly what they were doing. Of course they won't admit it - that's part of the strategy.

Except that the Dems. used footage from Taylor's own ad -- sure the ad's dated -- but can't he proudly defend the work that he's done for the past 20-odd years?

He should have just said: "Yes, I ran a beauty college"
"Yes, I was a male hairdresser / barber"
"Yes, back in the eighties I dressed like Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer -- but so did everyone else"

and leave it at that .. he's the one pulling the gay card ...

btw -- male hairdresser=gay? He looks more like a poorly dressed and poorly coifed barber -- in every little town in middle America, there's a barber shop -- no gay assumptions there.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

The clip is from a TV show, not an ad. The Dem. ad manipulates a TV appearance, not his own political ad.

Though playing the homophobia card is disgusting, equally repellant is the assumption that all Republicans are virulent homophobes and would be turned off by this. Surely a few are out there but playing towards it is disgusting, as is equating Taylor's criminal transgression with homosexuality (all Scalia-style).

That said, dropping out is total bullshit. It's no more right here than it was in NJ for the Torch.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: MCMikeNamara ]

According to AP: "It was not immediately clear whether the GOP would seek to have Taylor replaced on the ballot less than a month before Election Day. Democrats recently won a court battle in New Jersey to replace scandal-tainted Sen. Robert Torricelli on the ballot with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

Jason Thielman, chief deputy secretary of state, said Montana law bars such a move if a candidate withdraws within 85 days of the election. Write-in candidates can file up to 15 days before the Nov. 5 election."

For some reason, I suspect they're sticklers for law in Montana. I doubt Racicot would do it, anyway.

Re: New Jersey

I'm amazed that the Democratic candidate could bail under a cloud of suspicion just weeks before the election, the party then recycles some old has-been on short notice, and in a week he's leading in the polls. The other candidate must be terrible.

Re: Montana

So, is he gay or not?

[quote]Originally posted by Torgauer:
[QB]Re: New Jersey

I'm amazed that the Democratic candidate could bail under a cloud of suspicion just weeks before the election, the party then recycles some old has-been on short notice, and in a week he's leading in the polls. The other candidate must be terrible.
QB]

---

Lautenberg was definitely not my choice, but I'm not surprised and the Democrats and Republicans, I gather, are not surprised that he is leading. Problem is that Lautenberg is a known entity, and Forrester isn't. Frankly, I did not know who the Republican candidate was until the Torricelli resignation. For some reason, candidates who are more visible and/or spend more campaign money tend to rank higher in the polls, while at the same time we, as voters, complain about campaign finance and the politics as usual crap. Go figure. Anyway, by Election Day, I will find out more about Forrester and see if he's worthy of a vote or decide on a third party candidate.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Sorry, but male hairdresser=gay, especially to some of our less enlightened countrymen. The Dems knew exactly what they were doing. Of course they won't admit it - that's part of the strategy.

---

It's pretty awful. Even the Democrats can crawl in the gutter...oops, Torch was already THERE!

BTW, I'd love to have a flamboyantly gay man or butch lesbian as a Senator. There are openly queer house members (Frank, Kolbe, Baldwin, etc.) There really ought to be at least one gay senator--and a flaming one would really be fun! The only states I can see electing such a person would be Rhode Island, Maine (if the politics were right), Hawaii, Vermont, and possibly New Jersey (Senator Rip Taylor, anyone?). Oops--Maryland is almost there with Mom, I mean, Barbara Mikulski, though as far as I know she's not out, is she? There are several other candidates--Hilary, of course; and that Maria Cantwell of Washington, who's kind of butch. (Who is the woman running for governor in Michigan? She radiates a Sharon Gless-Laceyesque lesbian aura.)

Among the male senators, I think Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott of that Devo-esque helmet hair, scarily enough, have leanings to be on the gay ole team. The Democratic male senators, as a whole, don't really set off my gaydar (Pat Leahy? Joe Biden? Herb Kohl? Jay Rockefeller? ). Maybe Evan Bayh.

Come on, one of you 50 states, give us a flamer. If he had great fashion sense and loved to decorate like Christopher Lowell...oops, he's supposed to be straight too, isn't he?