View Full Version : 180,000 Democratic voters betrayed byTorricelli

10-01-02, 03:10 PM
I wish I lived in New Jersey!, I would file an interest opinion with the state supreme court, change party affliation and run for the US Senate just to spoil their stupid silly little game.


Senate battle goes to court

Democrats ask for exemption to replace Torricelli on ballot

The withdrawal of Sen. Robert Torricelli from the November election sets off a storm of activity, as New Jersey Democrats attempt to get a new candidate on the ballot.

The battle for New Jersey’s Senate seat — and perhaps for control of the Senate — will be decided in court, as the state Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments over whether Democrats can remove Robert Torricelli’s name from the Nov. 5 ballot and replace him with a new candidate — two weeks after the legal deadline.

THE COURT issued an order saying it would hear the case directly instead of waiting for a lower court to act and scheduled oral arguments for Wednesday morning.


In an uncontested primary election on June 4, more than 180,000 Democratic voters chose Torricelli as their Senate candidate, but in a dramatic announcement Monday he said he would seek to have his name erased from the ballot. </b>

<b> It seems to me that Torricelli here betrayed those that voted for him in the primary, and if I'm correct, state law should say that if a candidate runs in the primary he cannot bow out, because those that voted for him, their vote is rejected by the candidate of their choosing.

What would prevent any individual who supports someone who is running but not liked by some in his own party to run to oppose that candidate only to drop out before the primary to assure the candidate he suppoerts wins?

This is stupid!</b>


Under New Jersey law, a party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 51 days before the election. But that deadline passed two weeks ago.

As soon as Torricelli finished speaking, Democratic Gov. James McGreevey stepped to the microphone and said the party’s lawyers had already filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to put a new name on the ballot.

He said deciding on a candidate would be worked out by consensus among party leaders.

But how , can a new Democratic candidate be chosen by a few behind closed doors? Don't those 180,000 citizens of New Jersey have a voice in the process as to who should replace their candidate?

I hope the new jersey Supreme Court has some common sense

10-01-02, 03:27 PM
Cook, Jersey wouldn't be able to handle you.....LOL....

Posted on Tue, Oct. 01, 2002

Successor wish list led by Bradley
By Angela Couloumbis and James Kuhnhenn
Inquirer Staff Writers

TRENTON - As U.S. Sen. Robert G. Torricelli was quitting his reelection battle yesterday, Democratic leaders in New Jersey and Washington were scrambling to find a successor in hopes of salvaging the seat.

Topping the list was Bill Bradley, the former three-term senator who ran against then-Vice President Al Gore in the Democratic presidential primary in 2000.

Bradley could not be reached for comment. But a Democratic official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a Bradley candidacy was unlikely, and state Democratic sources said last night that Bradley had told party leaders that he would rather not run.

Others on the list included Frank Lautenberg, who served three terms in the U.S. Senate before retiring two years ago, and three members of the U.S. House: Robert E. Andrews of Haddon Heights, Frank Pallone Jr. of Long Branch, and Robert Menendez of Union City.

Bonnie Watson Coleman, chairwoman of the state Democratic Committee, said a replacement would be named by tomorrow, but would not elaborate.

She did, however, say New Jersey had two former U.S. senators - Lautenberg and Bradley - and several House members who would be "capable, eligible and qualified" to serve.

While most Democrats said yesterday that putting Bradley on the ballot would surely damage the prospects of Republican Douglas Forrester, they were preparing other options.

Lautenberg said in a statement that he would "seriously consider running again if asked."

But Lautenberg, 78, who could draw on his name recognition and personal wealth, would prove an ironic replacement to Torricelli, given their past - and very public - feuds.

One U.S. Senate aide said a Lautenberg candidacy could occur only over Torricelli's "dead body." A party strategist said: "Torricelli is not in a position to be making that decision."

Democratic insiders said Menendez was also appealing because his district would likely remain in Democratic hands and he is considered a powerful fund-raiser.

The talk of Andrews was also intriguing. Though he has established his popularity with South Jersey voters, he alienated many Democrats after his unsuccessful campaign for the 1997 gubernatorial nomination.

Another name that surfaced was State Sen. John Adler of Cherry Hill, who was elected to the Senate in 1991.

The cochairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an outspoken proponent of property-tax reform, Adler is considered a good campaigner who has gained recognition in Trenton. But some Democrats said he would have to struggle for statewide name recognition.

Adler would say only that "this Senate race is critical to New Jersey and to America, and I am sure they will choose the best candidate to run for the seat."

Contact Angela Couloumbis at 609-989-9016 or acouloumbis@phillynews.com.




10-02-02, 06:13 AM
Torricelli is just another example of what a corrupt politician is all about. He's nothing but a crook. And now the Demon-rats are going to the Supreme Court to overturn a law they instated years ago to prevent exactly what's happening now. He's trying to bow out because the numbers in the polls aren't favorable for his re-election. Well, I say that's too bad. The voters voted for him, so he should have to continue his re-election campaign. Then, when he fails to get re-elected, he should be move in with Chang and be his butt, er, bunk-buddy!:banana:

10-02-02, 06:48 AM
Poor, poor Robert Torricelli: New Jersey's wacky Democrat establishment tonight chose his longtime enemy Frank Lautenberg as his illegal replacement.

In quitting his re-election campaign in disgrace, Torch insisted he be replaced with Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Bob Menendez or former Sen. Bill Bradley, not former Sen. Lautenberg, Fox News Channel and other news media reported. The first three, however, were apparently not corrupt enough to join the sleazy attempt to undermine state law, or else they had more to lose than the 78-year-old retiree Lautenberg.

"This is a desperate grasp at getting around the law, and the people of New Jersey are tired of having their leaders go around the law," said Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate GOP campaign committee.

If Lautenberg's rambling, disjointed "acceptance" speech tonight was any indication, the Dems are in bigger trouble than they thought. Even his fellow party hacks, apparently too busy being appalled, could muster only scattered applause.

FNC commentator Dick Morris mocked the speech as "the world's worst."

The Democrat-run state Supreme Court will first have to decide if it's OK for their party to break the law as usual.

Only a "biased, crooked Democratic judge" would go along with the criminal scheme, Morris told offended FNC co-host Alan Colmes, "but New Jersey's full of them."

Republicans will consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the New Jersey court rules for the Democrats, Frist said.

What's next for Joisey's Dems: Will Al Gore give tips from his failed coup attempt after the 2000 presidential election?

- Newsmax.com -

10-08-02, 10:11 PM
It actually was the republicans (jeese, they sure use lawyers alot for a party that, in theory, hates em) that took the case to the NJ Supreme Court.

By the way, the NJ Supreme Ct was appointed by Republican Govenors.

Agin, the Repulicans went to their buddies in the US Supreme Ct (ala Florida, 2000).

See where the US Supremes were shamed enough by the Florida decision to stay away from the NJ issue.

10-09-02, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by ivalis
It actually was the republicans (jeese, they sure use lawyers alot for a party that, in theory, hates em) that took the case to the NJ Supreme Court.

By the way, the NJ Supreme Ct was appointed by Republican Govenors.

Agin, the Repulicans went to their buddies in the US Supreme Ct (ala Florida, 2000).

See where the US Supremes were shamed enough by the Florida decision to stay away from the NJ issue.

It's a shame that the NJ court now looks like the Florida court all because of Democrats.

Robert Torricelli: New Jersey's wacky Democrat as Kegler300 failed to uphold his duties and responsibilities. He's a criminal and now you blame the Republicans for taking it to court?

The NJ voted in favor of the Democrats to maintain the two party system.

What a system here you can have a democrat,

You can still hear what the Democrat leader said.

"Pick any democrat, vote for the democrat. Vote for the party not the individual. Not who will better serve NJ, vote for Jesses Jackson he's a democrat!

Pick one, you can't? You say? Then, we'll pick one. The Democratic Party leaders from Washington D.C. will tell you who is best for you.

You have no say so. Why you won't even have a choice, we'll do it for you. Because you picked a loser the last time around. So we'll do it for you."

NJ is looking a lot like Florida and its not the water.

Shows you how blind people are that will only vote for their party, no matter what.

We saw it again last night as Democrat after Democrat with no substance to their speeches said they would not support BUSH, would not support the president because he is a Republican in the war against Iraq.

Because everyone of them, almost immediately said, but if you find evidence that he is right, then I'll support the war effort.

10-10-02, 08:13 AM