Join 3,432 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Torricelli Considers Dropping Out Of His Re-Election Bid
September 30, 2002 12:18 PM   Subscribe

Torricelli Considers Dropping Out Of His Re-Election Bid ...and Republicans' hopes to reclaim the Senate brighten. Why drop out now, with only 5 weeks left? Is Torricelli guilty of even more ethics violations than previously thought? (more inside...)
posted by jennak (67 comments total)

 
Why didn't he drop out 2 weeks ago, when the party could have replaced him without having to go through the state attorney general?

And who do you think will win the Senate?
posted by jennak at 12:20 PM on September 30, 2002


he's holding a news conference at 5pm (eastern time) so we'll find out then...(and I think they were pressuring him for a while to drop out but his ego was in the way)

I don't think the Senate will go Republican myself, but if voter turnout is low in Nov., it's more and more likely.
posted by amberglow at 12:27 PM on September 30, 2002


I hope that the republicans don't win the senate. I'd hate to see how bad the economy will get f**ked up if they control the house, senate, supreme court and the white house.
posted by MaddCutty at 12:30 PM on September 30, 2002


This just moved on the wires:

SEN. TORRICELLI TO END SENATE REELECTION BID--DEMOCRATIC SOURCE
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:33 PM on September 30, 2002


If anything Toricelli being replaced by another candidate would decrease the chances of the republicans winning the seat. It's hard to imagine that they could pick someone with less of a chance of winning than the incumbent.

This is a rather odd development considering he delivered the democratic response to Bush's saturday radio address.
posted by revbrian at 12:41 PM on September 30, 2002


According to the article: "Among the possible successors being discussed today by party officials are former Sen. Bill Bradley and three congressmen, Rep. Robert Menendez, Frank Pallone Jr. and Robert E. Andrews."

I would absolutely love to see Bradley back in the Senate, if he feels up for it. He always struck me as having a very high character, and he's not a Demo-centrist, to boot. Too bad he didn't win the presidency back in 2000.
posted by UKnowForKids at 12:44 PM on September 30, 2002


I think it's more that the Torch (Toricelli) saw the handwriting on the wall. The ads have been brutal in the Philadelphia media market, slamming Toricelli. The uptick, if you're a Democrat, is that these types of ads don't really say much to highlight his opponent. To put it bluntly, the best-known candidate for good or ill is now out of the race. So get a high profile candidate in there, and chances improve considerably.
posted by krewson at 12:47 PM on September 30, 2002


... I'd hasten to add that Toricelli probably should have made this determination months ago, but still. It's not like the Democratic Party has had its shit together recently; the only reason they control the Senate now is because Jeffords defected from the GOP, complaining of mistreatment.
posted by krewson at 12:48 PM on September 30, 2002


I would absolutely love to see Bradley back in the Senate, if he feels up for it.

Here, here! Bradley was the only Dem presidential candidate I actually liked in '00. Both major parties could stand to have more people like him (in terms of character, not necessarily politics).
posted by mkultra at 12:51 PM on September 30, 2002


If anything Toricelli being replaced by another candidate would decrease the chances of the republicans winning the seat.

But I think the point that is being missed is that anybody the Dems pick is going to be squashed by the Republicans, since this is within the 48 window that allows them to scrutinize any new candidates. NJ Democrats' money is going to be spent in court instead of on the campaign.

Furthermore, since this almost delivers NJ to the Repubs, they're going to spend that money on other states; so this could potentially shake up a few states and be enough to deliver the Senate to them.
posted by jennak at 12:54 PM on September 30, 2002


The Post article states:

New Jersey has a 48-day deadline for replacing a state-wide nominee on the ballot, and it's only 36 days until the election. But party officials are hopeful that the state Supreme Court would allow Democrats to replace Torricelli on the ballot with a new nominee.

What basis would the NJ Supreme Court have to allow Torricelli to be replaced?
posted by Durwood at 1:16 PM on September 30, 2002


Couldn't Torricelli's name stay on the ballot, but someone else could be the real candidate and step in (like with Carnahan in OK?)
posted by amberglow at 1:20 PM on September 30, 2002


What basis would the NJ Supreme Court have to allow Torricelli to be replaced?

Katherine Harris retroactively resigned from her post, so why not?
posted by machaus at 1:21 PM on September 30, 2002


Here's what I've been hearing: under state law, if Torricelli resigns within 30 days of the election (he could announce it today and make it effective on Oct. 6), the governor has the ability to cancel the Senate election and appoint a successor (presumably a Democrat). The governor would then schedule a special election either next year (NJ has statewide elections in odd-numbered years) or in 2004, since a 2-year Senate term is common for appointees (see Jean Carnahan of Missouri).
posted by thescoop at 1:29 PM on September 30, 2002


Wow. If they just appoint another Senator and postpone the election, I'd be mightily impressed with the Democratic machine in NJ.
The ballots are supposedly printed up and everything, so changing candidates would be problematic, to say the least (not touching on the legal ramifications, obviously).

I didn't see this coming.
posted by Busithoth at 1:57 PM on September 30, 2002


FYI, here are the hot races. I'm hoping Ron Kirk can embarrass GWB in Texas.
posted by owillis at 1:59 PM on September 30, 2002


Furthermore, since this almost delivers NJ to the Repubs, they're going to spend that money on other states; so this could potentially shake up a few states and be enough to deliver the Senate to them.

I don't think it does. If a new candidate is actually allowed into the race -- certainly not out of the question given that the Democrats seem to think it's worth the trouble -- and he's already a popular NJ figure, I figure he's a shoo-in against a Republican who has never bothered to define himself. All the money Forrester has spent on attack ads has now been wasted with one speech.

If the Republicans try hard to disqualify a new candidate on technical grounds, they aren't going to muster a lot of goodwill in a Democrat-leaning state.
posted by Epenthesis at 2:19 PM on September 30, 2002


I would absolutely love to see Bradley back in the Senate, if he feels up for it. He always struck me as having a very high character, and he's not a Demo-centrist, to boot.

The only real guage of Bradley's character is how much he's earned since he left office.
posted by Fupped Duck at 2:30 PM on September 30, 2002


the governor has the ability to cancel the Senate election and appoint a successor (presumably a Democrat). The governor would then schedule a special election either next year (NJ has statewide elections in odd-numbered years) or in 2004, since a 2-year Senate term is common for appointees (see Jean Carnahan of Missouri).

Gee, isn't anybody concerned about the fact that this perverts, if not the letter, than the spirit of voting rights law? Or is ensuring a Democratic seat really that important?
posted by nobody_knose at 2:33 PM on September 30, 2002


If Bradley's Web site is telling, it is that he is available for the job.

According to this article, Bradley and former Sen. Frank Lautenberg are rumored replacements.
posted by quam at 2:36 PM on September 30, 2002


nobody_knose: Plenty of Democrats in New Jersey and elsewhere believe that it really is that important. It certainly would be unusual, but hey, this is New Jersey politics we're talking about here. fwiw, I doubt it will be Bob Menendez (he and Torch don't get along) or Bradley (since he was pretty soured on the Senate, not to mention the centrist wing of the Democratic Party). And Torch wasn't buddy-buddy with Lautenberg, either. So perhaps Frank Pallone...
posted by thescoop at 2:38 PM on September 30, 2002


Gee, isn't anybody concerned about the fact that this perverts, if not the letter, than the spirit of voting rights law? Or is ensuring a Democratic seat really that important?

Yes, it does. But then, I'm a conservative who usually votes republican and my view could be tainted. I try not to be, but I'm only human.

I'm curious if this annoys folks who usually vote for a democrat. Anyone?
posted by Plunge at 2:39 PM on September 30, 2002


Gee, isn't anybody concerned about the fact that this perverts, if not the letter, than the spirit of voting rights law?

I don't think it does. The current candidate drops out. Anyone stepping in is already behind the 8 ball with only 4 weeks until election day. Wouldn't a postponement be the wisest course of action? Allowing all parties an equal chance in the process. Yes, a Democrat will serve in the interim, but that's what you get when you elect a Democratic Governor.

I love this idea. I give the republicans 6 days to allow a new candidate, and if they don't...drop this bomb on them. Provided Torch goes peacefully.
posted by pejamo at 2:42 PM on September 30, 2002


I'm curious if this annoys folks who usually vote for a democrat. Anyone?

Nah-Let the Governor do what he can (if the situation was reversed the same thing would be happening)....now Florida-that was annoying, to put it mildly
posted by amberglow at 2:44 PM on September 30, 2002


So, Democrats, is thescoop correct?

Are y'all willing to happily trash the voting rights act just to keep your party in power?

Does democracy really mean that little to you?
posted by nobody_knose at 2:45 PM on September 30, 2002


How is this trashing the Voting Rights Act?
The election isn't until Nov.
posted by amberglow at 2:47 PM on September 30, 2002


So, Democrats, is thescoop correct?

Are y'all willing to happily trash the voting rights act just to keep your party in power?

Does democracy really mean that little to you?
posted by nobody_knose at 2:45 PM PST on September 30


(Not a dem)
I don't think there's really a happy solution here. The icky "appointment" process detailed above at least minimizes the damage, by having another election in 1-2 years. This is a senate seat we're talking about: I don't want someone from ANY party serving a full term when they essentially "won by default".
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:49 PM on September 30, 2002


To be clear, there will be an election for the Senate seat in New Jersey. It may be Nov. 5, 2002, or it may happen in 2003 or 2004. Appointed senators serving temporary terms is nothing new for the Senate, and indeed it doesn't always mean that the temporary incumbent is guaranteed to stay in the seat. Just look at the Missouri race, where Democrat Jean Carnahan is trying to hold on against a strong challenge by Republican Jim Talent.
posted by thescoop at 2:55 PM on September 30, 2002


Again...no one seems to know what happens if Torricelli simply decides not to run again, but does not resign his Senate seat. If the law really provides that a party cannot name a replacement if the a candidate drops out of a race within 48 days of the election, it seems that Toricelli's resignation (and replacement by another Democrat) is the only option.

I suppose that a Democrat could wage a write-in campaign, but has one ever been successful in a state-wide race?

In any event, I am sure that the Democrats will complain about the unfairness of it all, and that the Republicans are wrong to seek enforcement of the law.
posted by Durwood at 3:01 PM on September 30, 2002


Are y'all willing to happily trash the voting rights act just to keep your party in power?

Does democracy really mean that little to you?


Yes and yes.

But although thescoop may be correct, it appears (from the press conference) that the NJ governor and the Dems will appeal to the NJ Supreme Court to remove Torricelli from the ballot and replace him with another candidate. So there would be no replacement, no Democratic appointee.
posted by jennak at 3:07 PM on September 30, 2002


thescoop: The six-year terms of Senators are fixed. The states can't arbitrarily designate length of term. If the scenario outlined happened, the follow-on election would only be to fill the pro-rated remainder of the upcoming 2003-2009 term. When states are added, their Senate terms are staggered, to keep each election at roughly 1/3 of the Senate. See the 17th and 20th Amendments, and USC 36.

This does not violate voting rights law. The first gubernatorial appointment to the Senate took place in 1794 and there has been a long tradition since then of filling unexpired terms this way. The only problem here is the timing and the limited options.

(And the Voting Rights Act, famous from the Civil Rights era, refers specifically to unconstitutional hurdles placed on voters, such as tests and taxes. Sheesh.)

What could happen, also, is a replay of Missouri's 2000 race, where the late Jim Carnahan remained on the ballot, and his wife "ran" as the person the governor would appoint to fill the seat unless Ashcroft won the election.

To return to Torch's problems, it does appear that new evidence may have at least made him unelectable, but it doesn't mean new charges.
posted by dhartung at 3:09 PM on September 30, 2002


Durwood, Torricelli is finish out his term in the Senate; he is simply dropping out of the re-election race.
posted by jennak at 3:09 PM on September 30, 2002


Jennak: I know that he is not resigning. Wasn't there some discussion that if he resigned, the governor could cancel the November election and appoint his successor, who would not face election for another two years?

How are the Democrats going to replace him on the ballot if the law does not permit it?
posted by Durwood at 3:15 PM on September 30, 2002


How are the Democrats going to replace him on the ballot if the law does not permit it?

And why would the governor be able to appoint someone to the seat if he is planning on finishing his term in office?


dhartung: oops. meant to say election law in both instances. sorry.
posted by nobody_knose at 3:29 PM on September 30, 2002


Are y'all willing to happily trash the voting rights act just to keep your party in power?

Seeing as how the Bush administration trashes every election law that they come into contact with, it seems that our choices are: democracy trashed and Republicans dominating all branches of gov't, or democracy trashed and have a few Democrats in the mix.

Does democracy really mean that little to you?

It does now.
posted by goethean at 3:31 PM on September 30, 2002


If the Supreme Court will not allow his name to be removed, it just means that his name will stay on the ballot and the vote will continue as already constituted.
posted by Plunge at 3:33 PM on September 30, 2002


Another thing that could work for the Dems: Torricelli's opponent has depleted his war chest running attack ads about a candidate who's not running anymore.
posted by kindall at 3:51 PM on September 30, 2002


There was a primary election that Torricelli won. Does this mean that your party can pressure the candidate that won to quit if he/she isn't doing well? What does that say about the meaning (or lack thereof) of votes cast in the primary?

This certainly will make future elections interesting if it works. I mean, wouldn't most republicans want to replace Bill Simon in california if they could?
posted by revbrian at 4:03 PM on September 30, 2002


The issue here is going to be spin. The Democrats can pretty much TRY to do anything they want, from replacing a candidate to insisting that this turn of events mandates a horse is now Senator. In all cases, the GOP will challenge, and it will go to the Supreme Court, where they will, most likely, side with the Republicans.

That said, it's an issue of how badly the GOP wants to risk this. In other words, which will be potentially worse: allowing Torecelli to be replaced mid-election, or to have nationwide coverage of the Republican Party winning an electoral court case with the help of the Supreme Court... again? Something like that might not go as well over average Americans as many think.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:29 PM on September 30, 2002


Seeing as how the Bush administration trashes every election law that they come into contact with, it seems that our choices are: democracy trashed and Republicans dominating all branches of gov't, or democracy trashed and have a few Democrats in the mix.

Tell ya what. You guys get to manipulate this election as long as there are no more (now quite hypocritical, even if they were correct) daily "Bush Inc is corrupt" posts around here.

Worthwhile trade for the peace and quiet.
posted by tirade at 4:30 PM on September 30, 2002


Subvert the election? Wow! It looks like the Democrats in the senate are so worried about losing control of the senate that they asked The Touch to bow out of the race. Ohh boy, good thing I'm an independent and no longer a Democrat. Boy would I be embarrassed of the party. It's too bad the Florida Democratic Party isn't trying to pull this stunt to replace McBride on the ballot in November. Jeb spanked McBride in the last debate last Friday. If a candidate is not doing well is this going to pave the way for the replacement of candidates weeks before an election. If the people wanted The Touch out wouldn't of they voted for a different candidate in the primaries?

-Z
posted by ZupanGOD at 4:32 PM on September 30, 2002


Many seem to think this somehow turns NJ into a Republican state.NJ is still heavily Democratic.

Many of them were willing to hold their nose and vote for Torricelli, but apparently most were not.

The ONLY chance the Repubs had was to keep Torricelli in the race and get the crossover vote.If it plays out, there will be someone ALL of the Democrats (and others) will vote for. Also, Forrester's ENTIRE campaign has been about why not to vote for Torricelli and nothing about why anyone should vote for him.Now, what's he going to talk about?

They can laugh at Torricelli today, but the Democrats will probably have the last laugh in NJ.This was never about getting rid of a crooked politician, it was about getting a Republican into that Senate seat any way they could. You're right, that's obvious.

Anyway, what was that about being careful what you ask for?Oh yeah, you just might get it.The Republicans just overplayed their hand.That's what happens when you get greedy, you get outplayed.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 4:34 PM on September 30, 2002


In other words, which will be potentially worse: allowing Torecelli to be replaced mid-election, or to have nationwide coverage of the Republican Party winning an electoral court case with the help of the Supreme Court... again?

I think the best thing the Repubs can do is allow the substitution and then try to make something out of it on the campaign trail.

Ah, the crooked, bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court. Nothing fires non-Bush (majority) voters up like that bunch.They better keep them as low profile as possible.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 4:45 PM on September 30, 2002


And why would the governor be able to appoint someone to the seat if he is planning on finishing his term in office

That's an easy one...Torricelli remains in the Senate until his term ends. I thought that one of the amendments to the US Constitution allows a governor to appoint senators when there is a vacancy. If Torricelli stays in office, there will be no appointment. There is no such provision for appointment of House vacancies, which is why Jim Traficant's and Pasty Mink's seats (and several others) will remain vacant until after the election.

They can laugh at Torricelli today, but the Democrats will probably have the last laugh in NJ.This was never about getting rid of a crooked politician, it was about getting a Republican into that Senate seat any way they could. You're right, that's obvious.

....and the Democrats wouldn't do anything to hang on to that seat? Did any of them demand that Torricelli step down when the polls suggested that his ethics problems were not going to cost him the election?

I think we are going to continue to see some hardball politics on this issue because so much power is at stake.
posted by Durwood at 4:54 PM on September 30, 2002


ZupanGOD - the Touch?
posted by GriffX at 5:26 PM on September 30, 2002


Did any of them demand that Torricelli step down when the polls suggested that his ethics problems were not going to cost him the election?

Uh, apparently, that just happened.

....and the Democrats wouldn't do anything to hang on to that seat?

Sure, but the Democrat in the race didn't claim to be morally superior, unlike the Republican.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 5:28 PM on September 30, 2002


Meanwhile, Bill Clinton enthusiatically proclaimed that he's always been a huge New Jersey Devils fan...
posted by swell at 5:33 PM on September 30, 2002


What happens if Torricelli's name stays on the ballot... and he wins?
posted by owillis at 6:58 PM on September 30, 2002


dhartung: Yes, I'm aware of how long Senate terms are (you pick that up covering Congress). But you miss my point: if in this case, like that of Carnahan in 2000, the governor did get to appoint a replacement (it doesn't seem likely now), that person would serve until the next statewide general election - in most cases, that's two years. But since New Jersey holds statewide (governor, cabinet, legislative) elections in odd-numbered years, the governor could schedule a special election in 2003. That's not arbitrarily setting the length of a Senate term; it's filling a full term as quickly as possible. See, for example, the special election in Missouri this year, which is to fill a full term. Jean Carnahan is not serving a six-year term that started in 2001; she is serving until Missouri's next statewide general election, which is Nov. 5, 2002. It's probably a moot point now, but I've checked with election lawyers and governors have the power to call special elections to fill congressional seats and temporary Senate seats. I swear.

Oh, and owillis: If that were to happen, and Torricelli did not accept the win, then the governor would have to nominate a temporary successor and (see above) hold a special election at the next earliest opportunity.
posted by thescoop at 7:19 PM on September 30, 2002


here's a possible strategy:
Democrats said that one provision of New Jersey election law allows the party to replace any candidate who dies or leaves office within 30 days of the election, leaving open the possibility that Mr. Torricelli might be asked to step down from his Senate seat before the election. from the NYT (bold mine)
posted by amberglow at 8:01 PM on September 30, 2002


....and the Democrats wouldn't do anything to hang on to that seat?

Sure, but the Democrat in the race didn't claim to be morally superior, unlike the Republican.


Uhm...I don't think that I claimed that the Republicans were morally superior...just that the Democrats were not.
posted by Durwood at 8:31 PM on September 30, 2002


thescoop: I think we both mean the same thing, I just mistook your wording. Frex, Carnahan is serving only for the term of her appointment, which is the first part of a six-year term; the current election is to decide who will hold it in the remainder of the same six years from 2001-07.

revbrian: A primary election is an intraparty election. The US is one of the few countries in which these are publicly financed and run. The party could hold a caucus if they liked and put that person on the ballot.

Durwood: There's a lot of that going around. And God, is it annoying as hell.
posted by dhartung at 8:49 PM on September 30, 2002


Gee, isn't anybody concerned about the fact that this perverts, if not the letter, than the spirit of voting rights law?

OK, here's something I don't think anyone's mentioned here yet: what is the spirit of this "voting rights law"? In other words, why is it illegal to step down late in the race? Something is clearly being perverted when you racially profile potential voters for their criminal records. What is being perverted in this case? Is there a good reason for this law, or is it the equivalent of old bylaws specifying every car must have a horse in front of it? If the latter, well, go perversion!
posted by ramakrishna at 9:51 PM on September 30, 2002


Uhm...I don't think that I claimed that the Republicans were morally superior...just that the Democrats were not.

I didn't say you did. I said the Republicans.

You said ....and the Democrats wouldn't do anything to hang on to that seat?

Sure they would, and so would the Republicans even though they claim they're just trying to get rid of a bad guy.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:08 PM on September 30, 2002


This certainly will make future elections interesting if it works. I mean, wouldn't most republicans want to replace Bill Simon in california if they could?

If the party can pull it off, bully for them. The only day that matters is Election Day. If the Republicans or the Democrats want to play musical chairs with their own candidates prior to the vote, using any legislative or judicial procedure available to them, how is this a violation of the "spirit" of voting? If the voters don't like what the Democrats are doing, they can deal with this directly in the voting booth next month.

There's no law that stipulates that if your candidate is losing in the polls a month before the election, he has an obligation to stay on the ballot.
posted by rcade at 5:54 AM on October 1, 2002


I read that the Republican candidate was calling for this bloke to step down every day for the past three weeks. He must be shitting himself now. Be careful what you wish for.
posted by riviera at 6:08 AM on October 1, 2002


ramakrishna: At least one consideration with the laws in question is surely the printing of ballots. It's a pretty massive expense to have to reprint ballots at the last minute; depending on how late it gets distribution of the new ballots could be a tremendous hassle as well. All of which is funded by the taxpayers, of course.
posted by nickmark at 6:23 AM on October 1, 2002


Well, if it makes anyone feel better, the bastions of logic and fairness over at Free Republic are now suggesting that Torecelli just kills himself to make everything legal. Remember- they just want to defend the order of the law.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:55 AM on October 1, 2002


And rcade: you're right, there's no law forcing a candidate to stay on the ballot. There is, however, a law stating a time limit to be placed on one; that's what the Republican Party is going to use in their challenge to this maneuver. The logic is that if a candidate is allowed to enter the race past the time limit, say 30, or 14, or even 1 day before the election, it makes it near impossible to debate or formally campaign for or against the candidate. Election based only on temporary popularity is destructive to Democracy.

My personal belief is that the GOP is trying to streamline this into their candidate running basically unopposed: Toricelli stays on the ballot, but Democrats wouldn't vote for him en masse anymore. The result: stupifyingly low voter turnout in New Jersey. In a heavily Democratic state, the less voters show up, the more likely the Republicans will win.

And on a final note... I can't WAIT to see what the Green Party's going to do in New Jersey to capitalize on this.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:03 AM on October 1, 2002


My problem is that stunts like this turn elections even more into votes for a party rather than votes for an individual.

"Don't worry which candidate is actually on the ballot, just vote Democrat/Republican and we'll put someone in that office."

But, if the NJ dems can find a way to do this within the existing rules, then bully for them.

One highly unlikely scenario, I would like to ask about:

Toricelli resigns in three weeks, governor appoints a successor, the election is cancelled and rescheduled. The successor is the candidate in that election; but prior to the election it is clear that the Republican candidate (somehow) is going to win.

So, could the replacement resign his office two weeks before the election, allowing the governor to appoint a new successor and rescheduling the election for two years later.

After all, if the most important thing is maintaining the party in possession of that Senate slot, wouldn't it be worth it?
posted by obfusciatrist at 7:53 AM on October 1, 2002


TNR's blog, "&c.", has a good post on the flame out.
posted by goethean at 8:38 AM on October 1, 2002


I can't WAIT to see what the Green Party's going to do in New Jersey to capitalize on this.

Me either. If it's OK for the big parties to swap candidates in and out, why do we have a system that makes it damn near impossible for smaller parties to even get on the ballot, let alone change candidates midstream?
posted by nobody_knose at 10:20 AM on October 1, 2002


Because the big parties are writing the rules...
posted by nickmark at 10:49 AM on October 1, 2002


Subvert the election? Wow! It looks like the Democrats in the senate are so worried about losing control of the senate that they asked The Touch to bow out of the race.

I guarantee you that this wasn't the case. The Dems were caught off guard, and furthermore, they were pretty pissed the Torricelli "gave up" after the deadline to change the ballot. Whoever is picked to replace him will have very little money on which to run, not to mention the legal battle to get on the ballot.

I concur that Torricelli was scum, but couldn't he have come to this revelation months (or at least 2 weeks) ago?
posted by jennak at 8:08 PM on October 1, 2002


Well, it's Lautenberg...Ex-Senator, kinda old, and rich so he can dig into his own deep pockets...

And I cannot believe that the Republicans are going to take it to the Supremes!
posted by amberglow at 8:15 PM on October 1, 2002


So what does everyone think of Lautenberg as the Democratic pick?
posted by jennak at 10:59 AM on October 2, 2002


It's sad so many people here on Mefi care almost nothing about the rule of law but yet they support the idea of mob rule. If the Democrats are able to fix this election I'm sorry but this will go down in history as an attempt on the behalf of Democrats to subvert election law just like they did in the 2000 Presidential Election.

-Z
posted by ZupanGOD at 11:23 AM on October 2, 2002


« Older Testimony of Teens Kidnapped w/ authorization of p...  |  Student arrested with boxcutte... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments