Take your marbles and go home, if you can't win

[SINthysist]

That's what I've been saying.

You look at the threads from a year and a half ago to two years ago and where is the snakepit that I was daily in as a conservative...

Cowards. Yes. That is what they are.

Laurel, defend your party. Your words...

 

[Ishmael]

I have my couple of billboard chart toppers right here.... You and SIN. I need no one else to keep my company. ~smiling~

Like minded people seem to seek each other out fairly quickly.

However, RED does have a few fires going on this board it appears so he may not pay as much attention to this thread as the others.

Yah, well I just semi-stomped on one of them. The pity is, there is a valid point to his rant.

Ishmael

 

[A Desert Rose]

Ishmael, You make it real hard to respond to you...... ~smiling~

 

[Ishmael]

Good tongue in cheek article

Mona Charen

October 4, 2002

Goodbye (sniff) St. Bob

O what a hero we have lost this day! What a patriot! What a self-denying battler for noble causes! But don't take my word for it, read it yourself in New Jersey Sen. Bob Torricelli's withdrawal announcement.

Embark with him on the emotional journey back to his first political race. Chuckle as he recalls that his mother put him on the ballot for county committeeman when he was a mere college tyke -- and revel in how he won "two to nothing." Our knight is modest and self-deprecatory.

Not for Bob Torricelli the selfish pursuit of riches. No, he cared too much about other people. "I have witnessed friends build families and businesses, sometimes fortunes, and I never had any regret." It was that love of the people, and not ambition, that propelled him to "get here first ... leave last" when he got an internship in
the governor's office. Yes, and he told the governor just that, explaining, "I'm going to do good things." It was the same when, traveling with then-Vice President Walter Mondale, he met Egypt's President Sadat, and proclaimed, "I'm going to be a member of the United States Congress." It sends a chill down your spine, does
it not?

He achieved his goal and "fought" tirelessly for things he believes in. Not only that, but he doesn't ask for credit. "I think about the trophies of my life with a great and quiet satisfaction. ... If you actually seek more than satisfaction for yourself in the things you achieve, you will always be frustrated."

Well, perhaps the Torch's satisfaction isn't all that "quiet." He elaborated: "Somewhere today in one of the several hospitals in New Jersey, some woman's life is going to be changed because of the mammography centers that I created for thousands of women. ... Some child in Bergen County will play in a park that I funded, in land that I saved. Somewhere all over New Jersey, some senior citizen who doesn't even know my name and nothing about what we're doing today will live in a senior
center that I helped to build."

That's what we need to remember -- that St. Bob "fought" to spend other people's money (ours) on projects he thought worthy. Let's not dwell on smaller matters. Let's not recall, for example, that in a meeting with Muslim extremists, Torricelli said that "America has little to teach and much to learn." Or his grandstanding stunt in
1997 when he proclaimed that his sensitivity to ethnic profiling began in his youth when he watched Sen. Estes Kefauver's senate committee traffic in Italian-American stereotypes: "It is among the first memories I have of government of the United States, and probably the first hearing of the United States Senate I ever witnessed. It
was only a flickering television screen, but I will never forget it, and even if I tried, my family would never allow me."

Turns out that little St. Bob was 5 days old when the Kefauver hearings ended. What more evidence of precocious political sensitivity do people need?

Above all, we must not be distracted by the senator's receipt of an $8,100 Rolex watch, a $4,000 grandfather clock, 12 handmade Italian suits, a stereo, a big-screen TV, three sets of diamond earrings and $53,700 in illegal campaign contributions from a favor-seeking businessman -- nor the rebuke from the Senate Ethics Committee. We mustn't even consider the 2001 surveillance tape from a convenience store that caught the Torch meeting with a solid-waste contractor and
David Chang, his Rolex benefactor. Don't most sensitive senators hold meetings at 7-Eleven?

No, the nation has lost an irreplaceable man. Well, that is, except on the New Jersey ballot, where -- Torricelli and the Democrats insist -- he is eminently replaceable. A tame New Jersey Supreme Court has permitted this sleight of hand, despite the clear wording of the law that forbids it. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., assures us that this switch in time is the only way to assure New Jersey voters of a choice. But it was Torricelli who denied them the Torricelli/Forrester choice,
wasn't it? Presumably, the New Jersey Supreme Court will approve if Forrester drops in the polls and then pulls out in favor of someone else.

In his farewell address, Torricelli apologized to Bill Clinton, saying, "I did not have his strength." Maybe not. But he had his morals.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Good tongue in cheek article

We mustn't even consider the 2001 surveillance tape from a convenience store that caught the Torch meeting with a solid-waste contractor and
David Chang, his Rolex benefactor. Don't most sensitive senators hold meetings at 7-Eleven?

This is a scene right out of The Sopranos. LMAO. Why can't I write like this? Or even think like this? Life imitating Art....

Was that a MtDew slurppie with shared straws, do you think? Kind of like pigs eating from the same trough..... ?

 

[REDWAVE]

The planets must be in alignment or something

It's scary when Ish & I actually agree about something. In the thread he's talking about, he agreed that criminal conspiracy laws are unconstitutional. The basic reason being, in my mind, because they punish people before they act. They punish people for thinking about committing a crime (actually, sometimes it's even vaguer than that, just having "any criminal purpose"), for agreeing to commit a crime, for planning to commit a crime, for intending to commit a crime. They don't have to actually DO anything illegal. To me, that's just too close to punishing "thoughtcrime"-- unconstitutionally close.

And I agree that Torricelli's speech, which I watched live on TV, was a disgustingly hypocritical, mealy-mouthed performance. Here's a corrupt, slimy member of the elite pretending to be an unjustly persecuted champion of the common man! Bullshit! He made it clear himself that the only reason he was bowing out was so the Democrats wouldn't lose control of the Senate.

Not that the big time Republicans politicians don't have their own hypocrisies . . .

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: The planets must be in alignment or something

And I agree that Torricelli's speech, which I watched live on TV, was a disgustingly hypocritical, mealy-mouthed performance. Here's a corrupt, slimy member of the elite pretending to be an unjustly persecuted champion of the common man! Bullshit! He made it clear himself that the only reason he was bowing out was so the Democrats wouldn't lose control of the Senate.

Not that the big time Republicans politicians don't have their own hypocrisies . . .

And I too, watched it live. I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. ~smiling~

 

[SINthysist]

RED - I would like to see the list, the Republican Hypocrites.

Bet it's shorter than the list of actually proven Democrat law-breakers and gets overwhelmed by the number of suspected Democratic law-breakers...

Like the ones Mary Jo White just can't seem to find.

I would like to see her written explanation of what she thought was going on on the surveillance tape.


Not that I'm fond of Republicans nor do I think much of Harry Browne anymore because he's one of the "C-C-C-C-an't we all just get along" types too. But the Democrats did not learn the lesson of the Post Office Scandal and the Republican take-over. They have to De-Clintonize the party before they marginalize themselves. Then, who will speak of for their constituents?

The Nader/McKinney Green Party?

 

[Manhunter]

Gee I'm glad I dropped in to see this thread
I get tired of reading posts bashing Republicans

Thanks for the smiles

 

[Ishmael]

Another good article with a different perspective

Debra Saunders (back to story)

October 7, 2002

Joisey-style justice

Remember "Let every vote count," the Democratic mantra of 2000? Forget it.

Now it's "votes don't count" -- at least when New Jersey Democratic primary winner Sen. Robert Torricelli's likely loss to Republican Doug Forrester stands to hurt the Democrats' hold of the U.S. Senate.

Don't ask me what the New Jersey Supreme Court justices -- four Dems, two Repubs and an independent -- were thinking when they issued their unanimous ruling. (Clearly, they weren't.) State law allows for the replacement of candidates 51 or more days before an election. Torricelli withdrew 35 days before Nov. 5.

While the justices wrote that replacing Torricelli would serve "the dual interests of full voter choice and the orderly administration of an election" -- their decision to allow
Torricelli's name to be replaced with a new candidate's name on the November ballot violates both interests. New Jersey voters, after all, supported Torricelli in the primary. The court is allowing the state Democratic Party -- not the voters it says it champions -- to choose his replacement.

Why was Torricelli in trouble?

Gee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Senate Ethics Committee slapped Torricelli on the wrist for accepting jewelry, an $8,200 Rolex watch, 12 Italian suits and more from businessman David Chang. Maybe it's the inequity in the fact that Chang is serving an 18-month-prison sentence for giving lavish gifts to Torricelli -- and Torricelli was primed to serve his second term in the Senate.

As Chang told the New York Post, "I'm in jail, why shouldn't he be?" The Democratic Party is supposed to be better than this. Democratic Party leaders, who were well aware of the Chang saga, could have appealed -- or pressured -- Torricelli not to seek re-election. Or state Democratic suits could have mounted a campaign for a primary challenger. Or D.C. Dem biggies could have made sure that the Senate Ethics Committee acted sooner and more appropriately with Torricelli. They didn't. If the
Torch could win re-election, they were happy to take let him pocket Chang's goodies and get away with it.

And the only new piece of knowledge that led to their decision that he had to go was: Torricelli started slipping in the polls. I know what it's like to not like your party's nominee. After a jury found GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Simon liable for fraud -- that was a new development, since overturned by a judge -- I called Secretary of State Bill Jones' office to find out if Simon could resign and be replaced by a more forthcoming Republican -- to wit, Jones.

Under California law, Simon won the primary and Simon would remain on the ballot, even if he resigned, I was told. Any GOP challenger would have to register and run as a write-in. It didn't occur to the Jones people to ask the court to undermine the rules.

Now Jones is thinking of filing an amicus brief against the New Jersey decision. Secretary of State counsel Bill Wood explained, if the court could overlook the 51-day deadline, 35 days out, "next time it might be 30 days." The worst of it is, the Joisey court didn't care that there was no extraordinary reason for the switch -- no death, no legal revelation. The court, Wood noted, OK'd overturning the primary vote "for any reason."

One GOP operative posed the question principled Democrats ought to be asking, but aren't: "What's to stop the Republican Party from looking at races around the country, and determining where candidates are weak and just replacing them with a strong one?"

The answer should be: respect for the rule of law. But if the New Jersey Supreme Court feels no such respect, why would partisan politicians?

--------------------------------------------------

 

[REDWAVE]

You lost this one, elephants!

Ah, there is no joy in Mudville today. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the New Jersey election. I guess coming so soon after shutting down the democratic process in the 2000 Presidential election and installing Bush in office against the will of the people, they figured that if they intervened again to give New Jersey voters no choice of Senatorial candidates, they would just piss way too many people off and make themselves look bad. And you know how big the Supremes are on preserving their institutional mystique-- it's all they got.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: You lost this one, elephants!

Ah, there is no joy in Mudville today. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the New Jersey election. I guess coming so soon after shutting down the democratic process in the 2000 Presidential election and installing Bush in office against the will of the people, they figured that if they intervened again to give New Jersey voters no choice of Senatorial candidates, they would just piss way too many people off and make themselves look bad. And you know how big the Supremes are on preserving their institutional mystique-- it's all they got.

Oh my God..... you have got to be kidding me? I guess I had better get busy reading. Where did you see this. RED?

 

[REDWAVE]

On the front page of the New York Times, hon-- although I'm sure it's available from a lot of other sources also.

 

[LordLucan74]

Re: You lost this one, elephants!

Ah, there is no joy in Mudville today. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the New Jersey election. I guess coming so soon after shutting down the democratic process in the 2000 Presidential election and installing Bush in office against the will of the people, they figured that if they intervened again to give New Jersey voters no choice of Senatorial candidates, they would just piss way too many people off and make themselves look bad. And you know how big the Supremes are on preserving their institutional mystique-- it's all they got.

I would point these things out to you:

1] The Supreme Court did not shut down the "democratic process" it facilitated the process of ensuring the Contitutional integrity of a Federal Election. The election of a President is not democratic. The country is not a democracy. The President is elected by Electors. The USA is a Federal Republic, not a democracy.

2] New Jersey Election Law was at issue in the Torricelli resignation, not Federal Election Law. The Supreme Court really would have been on weak constitutional ground to take the case.

3] By doing what has been done in NJ, not only have the Democrats disenfranchised absentee voters, they also disenfranchised all of the members of their party who voted in their own primary election and elected Mr Torricelli in the first place. And remember, Torricelli was the Party's choice, until the tracking polls showed him at least 15% down in the standings.

4] Finally, the people of NJ had many choices left after Torricelli stepped down. There are, I believe, 4 other candidates for the office other than the Republican candidate. The US Constitution does not mention a two party system, nor guarantee one. There are numerous uncontested races (ie races where there is only a Democrat or a Republican on the ballot) this year and in every election cycle. Maybe someone should sue over this fact???

 

[A Desert Rose]

Mr.PORN CZAR,
It is hard to read your post without giggling, when I look at that AV you have. But I will go back to reading it and being serious.

 

[LordLucan74]

Mr.PORN CZAR,
It is hard to read your post without giggling, when I look at that AV you have. But I will go back to reading it and being serious.

I too was laughing as I wrote about the US Constitution while dressed as Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Thanks to the NJ Coup, we are now less free than Imperial Germany.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: You lost this one, elephants!

By doing what has been done in NJ, not only have the Democrats disenfranchised absentee voters, they also disenfranchised all of the members of their party who voted in their own primary election and elected Mr Torricelli in the first place. And remember, Torricelli was the Party's choice, until the tracking polls showed him at least 15% down in the standings.

This seems to bother me the most out of the entire debaucle. (REDWAVE did spell that right?)

Votes are a sacred thing to me and the thought of this happening is very disheartening.

 

[LordLucan74]

Re: Re: Re: You lost this one, elephants!

This seems to bother me the most out of the entire debaucle. (REDWAVE did spell that right?)

Votes are a sacred thing to me and the thought of this happening is very disheartening.

Debacle..... and indeed it is a debacle

If the country is to remain a representative federal republic, then votes must be sacred.

Clearly, the country is moving toward an oligarchic republic, and the oligarchs will be Judges. This sits fine with the democrats who have put so many liberal activist judges on benches throughout the country. That is why they are using unconstitutional methods to hold up the President's Judicial appointments and the reason they are determined to hold the Senate, no matter how they have to do it. Their agenda and determination to hold on to some power is more important than the law, the constitution and national security.