October 1, 2002
JUST ONE MORE BITE AT THE APPLE....:
Senator Torricelli Bows Out (NY Times, 10/01/02)The task now is to find a way to give New Jersey's voters the choice they deserve.Much of the speculation yesterday focused on the implications of Mr. Torricelli's decision for the New Jersey Democratic Party and for the balance of power in the United States Senate, where Democrats hold a one-vote margin. These are intriguing questions. But they are secondary to the larger issue of how to give New Jersey's voters a competitive race. Several things must happen to make that possible. The Democrats, led by Gov. James McGreevey, must move quickly to find a credible replacement. The courts must then expeditiously approve the ballot substitution, which in turn will clear the way for an energetic one-month campaign that, with Senator Torricelli out of the picture, can focus tightly on loftier issues than his seamy behavior.
In his emotional announcement, Mr. Torricelli said he would file a court petition to remove his name from the ballot and clear the way for another candidate, to be named in coming days from a short list being considered by Governor McGreevey. The Republicans are likely to argue that under New Jersey election law, it is too late to put another name on the ballot. But legal wrangling over ballot access cannot be allowed to obscure the central issue, which is one of democracy. The guiding principle should be the voters' basic right to a genuine election.
The guiding principle, as the Times would know if it had any principles, should be the law, which exists in order to prevent precisely this kind of gamesmanship. The idea that the Democrats should be allowed to benefit from the corruption of their own member is simply repulsive. Paul Wellstone, a bad Senator but a decent enough man, is headed to defeat in MN. Shouldn't the Democrats of MN get to have him resign so they can appoint a better candidate? Or are the Democrats of MN to be penalized because Mr. Wellstone isn't a thief and a liar? Suppose he were to take an illegal gratuity tomorrow and then resign? Would that improve the case for his replacement in the cocked eyes of the Times?
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2002 12:55 AM
This is much more serious than you suppose. The decision was made, not by Da Torch, but by Democrat Party big wigs in the McAuliff (read Clinton) offices in Manhattan. The guy was only seven points behind in the polls. He still could have pulled it out in the corrupt New Jersey political climate.
No, this is an attempt to rig the election by the DNC, but even worse, an ex-president who was himself as corrupt as one can imagine. A national election. Remember the last attempt? Of course when a Republican does it the wolves howl fast.
Well, I used to wonder why Reagan said that he never left the Dem party - the Dem party left him. This party has turned logic on its head. The Ends don't Justify the Means, unless it means Democrats maintaining their power. Being a born and raised New Jerseyian, I am horrified that, once again, the Democrat Party will break the law to maintain power. Seriously Disturbing....
Posted by: Black & Gold Brad at October 1, 2002 7:41 AMI think you give the "Post" too much credit. It's not at all clear to me that they don't favor a court decision that would allow "New Jersey the competitive race it deserves."
Posted by: d goodman at October 1, 2002 8:29 AMOK. How long before we hear the word "disenfranchised"? How much longer before an analysis proves it would disproportionaly affect minorities? And how much longer before Al and Jesee....?
Posted by: MG at October 1, 2002 9:18 AMI have to say that this stalking horse election strategy is brilliant. Nominate someone with one big flaw. Allow the election to be just about that flaw, with the opponent hitting and hitting and hitting at it for the whole campaign. If the flawed candidate's in the lead, great. If he's not, bring in a last minute replacement about whom all people need to know is that he fixes that flaw. Can anyone say "Reardon for Governor?"
Posted by: David Cohen at October 1, 2002 10:29 AMOn top of the legal and ethical issues, Torricelli's performance yesterday wasn't even good theater. The words and tears rang phony -- well, at least he's consistent -- and what? No mention of the requisite prayer meeting with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson? C'mon. Just think what Tom Hanks or even Nathan Lane could have done with this material.
The Nixon original (and for that matter his own sequels) is still the standard for self-serving losers who get what they deserve.