The 'Torch' may be extinguished!

B

Bruzilla

Guest
I loved this guy's I Quit speech yesterday. He spends the first ten minutes saying what a great guy he is and how much he has done for the people of New Jersey, then goes on to say how this is not about him. :biggrin: He went on about himself for so long that Fox 5 cut away from the speech! I also loved how he said that he was innocent of the charges against him, but then asked for forgiveness for what he had done and criticized the US for being less forgiving. Ummmm... if you did nothing wrong, why do you need to be forgiven? And what politician EVER quits unless he's really guilty and knows he's about to go down.

The big question is if the Dems will get to replace him. They're trying to use a precedent from a while ago where the state allowed a new challenger after a candidate had died just before the election. The Torch's comments made it clear that he was bailing because he felt he was going to lose, and I think his comments will come back to haunt the DNC. Of course the Dems will just cry foul and claim that the GOP is trying to deny people their chance to vote. No dignity at all in that group.
 

Otter

Nothing to see here
Originally posted by Bruzilla
The Torch's comments made it clear that he was bailing because he felt he was going to lose, and I think his comments will come back to haunt the DNC.......No dignity at all in that group.

That ran thru my mind when I heard his speech yesterday..I would think any court that the Dems go to would take those comments into consideration. I think the Dems have cornered the market on self-serving speeches, seems that Jersey would have ceased to exist if it wasn't for Torricelli.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Bruzilla
... Of course the Dems will just cry foul and claim that the GOP is trying to deny people their chance to vote....
You may be right on the money with that statement. It gives them a soundbite to have CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN run every 30 minutes for the next five weeks to beat the drum of election fraud.

Sad thing is the Democrats wrote the book on the subject and the GOP has been too damn whimpy, since Newt left, to jump back at them over things like this.

If anyone is guilty of fraud it's the Democrats who had a primary... Chose the Torch... And now that he's 16 points down they want to change horses. UFB.

This morning they were batting names and dropped Bruce Springsteen onto the field.
 
Last edited:

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Originally posted by BchBns


You mean he is a dem? I just lost all respect for the Boss :frown:
Well... I still like the music. I'll just make sure I don't actually pay for it from now on! :lmao:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruce Springsteen in the Senate! No kidding! It's a pipe dream because he's a fairly private person but wouldn't that be cool? Maybe he could join the Singing Senators!

The Dems should get Torch's wife in there - isn't that the drill? Get the inexperienced wife to replace the husband, then cheat like hell to make sure she's elected?
 

wildcat

New Member
Kennedys, Sinatra, or Lautenberg

A possible opening for a Senate seat in Jersey! Bring on the Kennedys. Maybe KKT and Mark Shriver will leave Maryland to go for the open New Jersey Senate seat. Maybe they can run as a team in place of the Torch.

It has been hard sleeping at night knowing the Kennedys have set up political shop in my own state of Maryland. Let me know when it safe to go outside again.

I think Sinatra has a chance as a write-in.

:smile:

As of tonight, the word is that Frank Lautenberg will be the Torch's replacement. He had that Senate spot before, so I guess he is a viable candidate. His age may hurt him (78), but he has the name recognition and experience.
 
Last edited:
B

Bruzilla

Guest
The crying from the left has begun. I heard several "Moderates" on TV last night talking about how the Republicans are trying to deny Americans their right to vote. I hate to say it but I think the Republicans are nuts if they believe they'll ever be able to make their case that the issue is following the law.

I would suggest that the Republicans should drop their challenges to the NJ Supreme Court decision. The reason that Torecelli was getting creamed in the polls was due to questions about his morals, honesty, credibility, etc. I think that the Republicans should let Lautenberg run and paint him and the Democrats with the same brush that they used on the Torch. Show the Democrats as the party of cheats and law breakers, and beat them into the ground. Fighting the Dems on this issue will just give the Dems an issue to run on, and plenty of fodder for the media to debate.

Americans can relate to denying voters their rights and the problems of illegal campaigns. The Republicans should make sure that the later of theser two is the issue that is debated.
 

wildcat

New Member
Republicans - Fight Decision or Not

I am torn about this issue. Bruzzila makes some good points. I think the Republicans can get hurt by fighting this issue. If they take a pass, I believe Forrestor will win the Jersey senate seat.

But, I have a problem with the fact that the courts are allowing this to happen. The only reason that the Torch is stepping down is because he knows he is going to lose. The laws in New Jersey say that it is too late to change the ballots.

After what happened in the Presidential Elections in 2000, I had hoped that each state would have reviewed their election laws and made sure all the laws were valid and solid.

There is a law in Jersey stating that it is too late for a change on the ballots - why can't that law be respected? If the law is bad then change the law.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Re: Republicans - Fight Decision or Not

Originally posted by wildcat
... After what happened in the Presidential Elections in 2000, I had hoped that each state would have reviewed their election laws and made sure all the laws were valid and solid.

There is a law in Jersey stating that it is too late for a change on the ballots - why can't that law be respected? If the law is bad then change the law.
The law is valid and solid. It just conflicts with what the democraps need at this particular moment, and as we all know... Laws are meant for others to obey... Not them.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I agree with you Wildcat, but the points that you bring up are exactly what the Republicans should use as ammunition against the Democrats. They can cite violations of law, violations of due process, trying to change the rules during the game, gambling on Torricelli and wanting to change things when they lost, etc. They should also bring up conspiracy charges since there's no way the Dems would have given Torricelli the ok to quit if they didn't know for certain that they would eb able to get around the rules.

I think that Daschle is facing a win/win situation. If the NJ Dems win they get rid of some dead weight (Torricelli) and stand a good chance of keeping the seat. If the Republicans win by fighting this tooth and nail in the courts he wins because he will make them look like they're denying a fair vote.

The Republicans need to back down and hammer the Dems with all of the negative press that this situation offers.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by Bruzilla
The Republicans need to back down and hammer the Dems with all of the negative press that this situation offers.

That is probably the best strategy and then if the Democrat’s new candidate wins they can take the battle to court for the violations of the law and have the Republican candidate declared the victor.
 

smcdem

New Member
why woud they do that? If he won he won. Please tell me you republicans respect the people's choice!
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by smcdem
why woud they do that? If he won he won. Please tell me you republicans respect the people's choice!

As much as the Democrats respect the choice made legally by the Electoral College.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
We do respect the people's choice, we just don't respect the choice of the DNC. The Democratic voters of NJ voted for Torricelli in the primaries over his challengers. He was the people's choice. Then, when it becomes obvious that he can't win he works with the DNC and Daschle to bail out of the race.

I think that if Torricelli had fallen or or died, no one would have any issues with a new candidate. I think that if Torricelli had gone before the cameras as said "I feel that I can no longer serve as a senator for you because I have done things that I feel are unbefitting a Senator", or words to that effect, that there may have been some grumbling but nothing major. Instead, he gets up sand repeatedly says his reason for quitting is that he's afraid of losing, and losing the Senate for the Dems. This makes his actions 100% political, and warrants a political response.

The voters and the DNC knew about Torricellis issues long before the primaries, and they opted to gamble on him anyway. Now that they've lost their bet they want to get another free play at the table. That doesn't play in Atlantic City and it shouldn't play in their politics either.
 

demsformd

New Member
Now that the New Jersey Supreme Court has said that Torch can be taken off the ticket, let me say that this is not the corruption that you anti-Democrats say it is. The state court is composed of six Republican appointees while the Supreme Court has seven Republican appointees. So if we are that corrupt, why don't ur GOP appointees stop us?
 

The Finman

New Member
I suspect because they have been either bought off or threatened by the New Jersey Democrats which are considered even by Democrats to be one of the most corrupt political machines since Tammany Hall!

The justices were twitching like crack addicts to get this decision out by last night, and the opinion reflects their "deliberative" state of mind. The opinion consists of seven pages, double-spaced. The caption is two pages in length, the order is two pages in length, the recitation of facts consists of one page, and the entirety of the court's legal reasoning takes up all of two pages. They could at least have thrown in a couple of recipes to give their opinion more weight.

The next case in the court's two-case arsenal is Catania v. Haberle. The justices cite this case for the proposition that the law should be liberally construed "to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day."

But the voters did have a choice on Election Day. They could vote for the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee, or any of the other, minor party candidates on the ballot; or they could write in whomever they wished. Moreover, in Catania, the Republicans did not have a nominee. In the present case, the Democrats sought to replace their nominee. And they could only do so with the help of the court.

The New Jersey supreme court has now joined Florida's high court in its willingness to rewrite election law for partisan political purposes. I fear that the precedent set by Al Gore during the 2000 election, in which he sought judicial help in securing the presidency, will now plague the electoral process for decades to come. And when considered along with the spectacle now taking place in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee — in which highly qualified conservative judicial candidates are being summarily denied appointment — the Democratic party's politicization of the judiciary can be counted as yet another step in undermining the rule of law.

- Mark R. Levin

Full Article Here

cagle00.gif


cagle00.gif


walthandelsman.gif


summers.gif


stantis.gif


signe.gif


breen2.gif
 
Top