I absolutely and forever refuse to apologize for calling Pat Fucking Buchanan a name.
Anne Coulter? Anne of Green Goebbels?
Me neither.
Nah, jump lampooning the other folks advocating cranial fragmentation. 
oops, ‘just’ lampooning
HUH? Let’s see… Torricelli takes bribes. People go to jail for giving him the bribes. The Democrats give him a slap on the wrist and keep him around, simply because they think he’s their best shot to win. The primary voters vote for him, even though they all know exactly what kind of man he is. But I guess he’s good at bringing home the swag. He becomes Democratic nominee.
Then, for no other reason than that the guy is now trailing in the polls, the Democrats pull a fast one and get him to resign so that they can throw the election into the courts and try to put a more desirable candidate into the race.
And you’re blaming Republicans. Figures.
Incidentally, the new candidate gets all of Torricelli’s campaign contributions. Isn’t that nice? Torricelli takes bribes and lets it known he can be bought. He raises huge stacks of money. Then he bails, and all those people who donated to his campaign see it transferred to someone who has made no commitments to them. Betcha there’s a few pissed off ‘donators’ in New Jersey right now.
The Democrats may get away with this one. But I think it’s going to hurt them. This is just so blatantly manipulative and sleazy all around that some of the crap has to rub off onto the party.
You forgot to use the word “blowjob.”
Where in Minty’s paragraph was the word Republican? He was jabbing at SCOTUS, not the GOP.
Sam Stone said:
and
Aside from the tone in which this was stated, is it substantively accurate? Are these pretty much the facts of the matter?
If they are, how are they defensible?
If not, can somebody explain to me the innacuracies?
Scylla -
I wouldn’t dare defend Torricelli, he’s a scumbag.
As far as the above, I’d wonder about the characterizations of ‘The democrats [meaning the party, no?] kept him around’ and ‘the Democrats [party?] pull a fast one and get him to resign’.
I don’t see that the party can control what Torricelli does – if he runs and wins the nomination, or decides to quit, the party didn’t do that, he did. The national Dems can (and did, yech) lend support, but they aren’t in the driver’s seat unless Torricelli allows them to be. He’s the incumbent. Short of having him killed, how could any Democrat affect his actions?. Please tell me how you disagree.
In any case, I don’t think this issue would have interested very many people (save the voters in NJ) if the Senate wasn’t at stake. If this were just another Senate race but the GOP/Dem split were, say 60-40 either direction, it would be an interesting but obscure local skirmish on page 8.
But, oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth (on both sides of the aisle), once the contest becomes of national scope. And, oh, how hypocritical it is to pretend to a Greater Cause only when in reality it’s all self-interest. I don’t single out the GOP for this at all.
In that spirit, and in the spirit of the OP, I think most (certainly not all, of course) of the posters of late have been more interested in the legal angles of how the NJSC and SCOTUS will work this out, rather than the above partisan ranting (which got old on page 1, IMO).
Merely spin, friend Scylla. A partisan explanation of unsettled truth, though I am personally happy to know that Torricelli will not be returning to the Senate.
squeegee, I strongly resent the implication that I have been arguing a greater cause. (Well, except on the legal points, where I have been completely serious and have taken pains to also be completely accurate since my stupid goof on the first page.) In fact, it is the self-rigteous indignation of many of the Republicans in this thread–when really, they don’t care even in the slightest what day the legislature chooses as a putative deadline, as long as their enemy missed it–that inspires me to the rhetorical excesses that they understand so well.
No, there are no deep principles at work here. The Republicans and the Democrats are merely invoking great principles to justify their political prospects. I’m at least as good as that as they are, and I find it amusing to play the game, so here we are, watching partisan heads explode. Wheeee! Isn’t this fun? And how come the 'Pubbies can’t admit the same thing?
Vote Democrat: At Least We Concede Our Motives, Plus We’ll Probably Count Your Ballot.
The Democratic Party had control of this whole thing. They could have acted against him in the ethics committee. I followed those hearings closely, and the pundits pretty much agreed - the Democrats hated the guy, and would have been happy to be rid of him. Except for the fact that they would have lost control of the Senate had he been forced to resign. And plus, back then he still looked like a shoe-in for re-election. So the Democrats held their noses, and gave him a mild slap on the wrist and hoped the whole thing would go away.
But what about his quitting the race? That also appears to be Democratic manoevering. Once he started dropping in the polls, the Democrats lost all patience with him, and the hammer fell down. Torricelli was privately reamed by Bill Clinton and other Democratic leaders, and it seems clear that he was told that the party wanted him gone, and now. Hence the resignation.
You think Torricelli would have resigned on his own without being pushed? Not a chance. The man is like a bulldog. He’s gone through an awful lot more humiliation than this without resigning (like, when it looked like he might go to jail for bribery, for God’s sake).
This mess is directly at the hands of Democratic party.
You still forgot to say “blowjob.”
squeegee:
I’m not sure I disagree. I’m trying to figure this out myself.
You seem to suggest that Torriceli is basically dodging his duty, and leaving the Democrats in a lurch at the worst possible moment, and they are trying to make the best of this bad situation, and get another guy in there to take his place, and that the Republican party is being unreasonable about it, and trying to use it as an opportunity to deny Democratic voters of a candidate so that they can win and gain control of the Senate.
Is this substantially what you are saying?
If it is, then that is indeed a different spin on it than what I’ve seen represented in the news.
My impression was that the Democratic party prevailed upon Torricelli to step down so that they could get somebody else in there, and Torricelli pretty much complied for this purpose since it looked like he was going to lose.
In the case as you described it, I think I would sympathize with the Democrats position, and agree that getting another candidate in there would be the best solution to a bad problem and would give the voters a fair choice.
In the latter scenario, I would have little sympathy and should think either Torricelli should remain on the ballot, or else he could be removed without replacement, as such 11th hour machinations are fundamentally damaging to the process, the voters, and the candidates.
But, your scenario is a new one (to me at least (and if I’ve interpreted it correctly.) It seemed that the Democrats were pretty upfront about wanting to get Torricelli out of there, and why they wanted it, and the whole thing appears pretty transparent to my eyes.
I could be wrong though, and missing something. Or maybe (and I mean this without sarcasm,) as a Republican I’m seeing it through somewhat partisan eyes clouded with cynicism.
The conspiracy theory is silly. Why would the Democratic Party Establishment (controlled by the Illuminati and/or the Jews, of course) compel the guy to step down even though[ul][]He’s a political hardass who loves his job.[]He’s still an incumbent who’s well-known and widely supported by NJ voters and donors.Resigning now creates a strong risk that the party will have no candidate whatsoever on the ballot?[/ul]I know you think Democrats are stupid, but believe me, we’re not that stupid. If the fix were in, we would have lined up Bradley and canned Torrecelli a month ago.
for every mess
spin spin spin
it’s all the Dems fault
spin spin spin
and the GOP is never wrooong
ever ever!
Nice spin, Sam. Hearty applause.
I take it that you don’t think that the Senate reprimand, which was done under a Democratic-controlled Senate, might have had some effect on Torricelli’s polling? Naaaah.
Sure, the Senate could have (and probably should have) expelled him, but it requires a 2/3 majority, which I doubt would have happened without a conviction by the Justice Department. An expulsion has happened only 4 times in the entire history of the Senate, fer chrissakes.
As for the resignation: sure, he was probably leaned on and pressured, but it’s irrelevant: if he’d refused to resign, what could anyone have done, short of shooting him?
Scylla: no, I don’t know that mine is the correct scenario. I’m still figuring it out as well. However, a combination of the ‘nefarious plan’ promulgated by Sam, v. Torricelli screwing the party seems like a intersection of the facts. Saying that the Democratic Party engineered the whole thing seems foolish – Torricelli is a obviously madman, not entirely under anyone’s control.
In any case, can we all lay off the partisan chest-thumping? It will be interesting to see how this plays out, without demonizing everyone in sight.
Minty:
I might agree with you it was ridiculous, except didn’t Torricelli say in his speech Monday that he was resigning because he “did not want to be the reason if Democrats lost their one-seat advantage over Republicans in the Senate?”
That seems to pretty much come out and say it, doesn’t it?
If he was doing it for the party’s benefit, it stands to reason that he had consulted with party members and they at least endorsed the decision.
I have not heard any Democratic reaction that Torricelli is screwing them at the last minute. Quite the contrary, the Democrats seem pretty upfront that he has their blessings in stepping down like this at this time. I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, because it seems to be right out in the open. Nobody’s making any bones about it.
What am I missing?
Great, so he resigned it part for the benefit of the party whose political ideals he supports. So what?
The outcome that most empowers the electorate is best. regardless of the technicalities or manuevers involved. Clearly, that solution would involve two candidates from the major parties.
If the people of NJ are outraged by this shameless partisan manuevering, they are empowered to vote for the Republican candidate and thus rebuke the Dem’s in the most earnest and meaningful way. Conversely, if they think the Pubbies have cravenly tried to undermine the process…
Who best but the people?
Squeegee:
Well, you and I seem to be doing a decent job of it.
The other problem I have trying to understand the Torricelli-as-rogue scenario wherein he quits at the 11th hour to the dismay of his party, is that that is not at all how it seemed at the time. I mean, there was Torricelli’s speech, and the fact that Lautenberg was all ready to fill in. To all appearances it looks like a concerted team effort to save the seat.
It also looks to me like everybody is being quite open about the motivation. I applaud the honesty, but at the same time I think that it’s wrong to try to switch candidates at this late juncture simply because the results seem unfavorable. I can understand the Democrats’ desire to do this, but at the same time I don’t think it should be allowed.
That is of course if I’m interpreting what happened correctly.