Torecelli

[Ripsnort]

What a slime ball...pats himself on the back for 30 min. and doesn't say one thing about his corruption...guess the lawyers rehearsed him well.

Torricelli was always a powerhouse fund-raiser: He helped raise more than $100 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as its chairman in the last election cycle. He was awarded a seat on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, and helped defend President Bill Clinton against impeachment.

But Torricelli's career began to unravel as the public learned more about his relationship with Chang, who told investigators he gave the senator Italian suits and a $8,100 Rolex watch, among other gifts, in return for Torricelli's  intervention in business deals in North and South Korea.

Seven people pleaded guilty to making illegal donations to Torricelli's campaign in 1996.

Torricelli denied any illegality or violations of Senate rules but was admonished anyway. Federal prosecutors investigated but decided against filing charges against him.

The incumbent launched an effort to apologize to the state's voters, but last week a memo in the Chang case was released publicly. In it, prosecutors said Chang's efforts had "greatly advanced" the investigation into the senator's  actions, despite Chang's "credibility problems."

Forrester has harped on ethics throughout the campaign and it worked: A poll released over the weekend showed him with a 13-point lead over Torricelli. The same poll showed the incumbent with a 14-point lead in June.

"I pride myself on a strong voice. My colleagues in the Senate would tell you that it is often heard above all others but it doesn't matter if you can't be heard at all in a campaign," Torricelli said. "I'm in a debate with a faceless foe that I cannot find, minds I cannot change."

Seems Dem Senators love business men as well

[Eagler]

yep

now the question is how far will the dems be allowed to bend the law

they missed the deadline for their replacement -  the Republican, who was leading in the polls & caused the dems to pressure their latest crook out - should win by default

[Ripsnort]

Hehe, they're desparate for power, can't lose that one seat in the Senate that turned the tide and was "given" to them 2 years ago.

Desperate measures for desperate times, Dems do funny things when the pressure is on, this one should be interesting to follow...

[Fatty]

I don't know, I hope they lose the seat, but I don't see a problem if this is deemed special circumstances and they are allowed to field a candidate.

Senate control isn't as important to me as multi-party elections are.

[LePaul]

Rip..

You have to remember something very very important in the way the two parties view a rule...

Republican:  A rule is a rule, and is to be obliged.  If it says no walking on the grass, you must not walk on the grass

Democrats:  They view not the rule, but the "spirit" of the rule.  Clearly whoever made the rule didn't fore see untold circumstances.  So the rule is challenged and put under the microscope.  So, you may not walk on the lawn...but, perhaps its ok to do so on Wednesdays, from 11am to 6pm....its all about hair splitting and how low do you want to go

Such an analogy was told to me years ago and made complete sense to me during Clinton's impeachment, when the evidence and proof of guilt were so overwhleming, it was literally nauseating listen to Democrats pat each other on the back, trying to talk down such serious transgressions.

[Ripsnort]

Good point LePaul.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Fatty
I don't know, I hope they lose the seat, but I don't see a problem if this is deemed special circumstances and they are allowed to field a candidate.

Senate control isn't as important to me as multi-party elections are.

 Toricelli clearly stated that the only reason he is withdrawing is because he does not expect to win and does not want democrats to lose majority - so he obviously expects another democrat to replace him.

 How special a circumstance is that when one or more candidates do not feel they are winning? Last time I checked, in every election there were some losers.

 Would it be fair to substitute another candidate after the lost election and re-play the elections untill the democrat won? After all, the voters deserve to have a choice and elect the right democrate. If they did not elect one, that means they were not given a choice to vote for the righ democrat. Choice is always good, so why deny it at any time?

 If we can field a senate candidate on such a short notice, how come it takes longet than that for a qualified candidate to obtain a teaching license in order to start working?

 The legislature makes rules and fights for spoils. If the rules become completely meaningless, what the heck do we have left?

 miko

[Fatty]

Special circumstances being promted by the release of hearing notes on what amounts to bribery.  I'd hope that's less than common, and I still say as a registered republican I'd rather lose a chance at senate majority than support a 1 party race.

[Udie]

Well if the senate had done it's job a few weeks ago this would not even be an issue becuase the torch would be gone by now.  They should have booted his sorry bellybutton out.  Then they would have had time to field another candidate.

 We'll see, but isn't in the constitution that you can't change the rules of the election durring the election?  Or was that just for president and once the actual voting has started?

 I fully expect the democrats to try and bend the law past it's breaking point,  yet again.  Making hypocrites of themselves and half the country, yet again.

 But honestly I think any/most Republican polititians would do the same thing, only I don't think they would be supported by the base.  Don't know though.  Who was it that said campains are won in the middle?  Those are the ones you gotta convense,  the spineless ones

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Fatty
Special circumstances being promted by the release of hearing notes on what amounts to bribery.  I'd hope that's less than common, and I still say as a registered republican I'd rather lose a chance at senate majority than support a 1 party race.

 The content of the notes was known to me a few weeks ago from listening to the talk radio. I bet the Senate commitee investigating Toricelli could have accessed the notes. It was Torricelli himself who sued against their release and delayed it past the election deadline.

 Since the Toricelli is still alive, the democrats could have just asked him if he was taking bribes - he knows as much about it as that Chang does, being one of the people involved in transaction. Otherwise every time some piece of news comes up, the party will claim that something "came up" they did not know about and request a re-run.

 I understand your feelings about elections with choices, but instead of allowing democrats to break the law, I would rather see all other candidates withdraw from the ballot causing elections to be postponed and done all over.
 BTW, is there no third party or independent candidates in NJ elections?

 miko

[Fatty]

Breaking the law would be commiting some sort of election fraud.  Asking for a court ruling for an exception to the deadline hardly qualifies as such.

[Eagler]

the arse wipe should be in jail - does he still get to collect his pension???

[miko2d]

Fatty: Breaking the law would be commiting some sort of election fraud.  Asking for a court ruling for an exception to the deadline hardly qualifies as such.
 Asking is not. The court would be breaking the law it it granted their request.

 miko