Open Threads

The Democratic Party cites Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435 as dispositive of the issue. In Kilmurray, this Court noted the relationship between N.J.S.A. 19:13-19 (nominations by petition) and N.J.S.A. 19:13-20 (nomination by primary). In that particular case, this Court found that while the vacancy was not filled by the 37-day deadline of N.J.S.A. 19:13-20, the more lenient deadline required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-19 had been met. A candidate had been selected within the 34-day deadline that would apply to candidates nominated by petition. The Kilmurray decision treated the earlier deadline liberally while upholding the law equally for all candidates on the ballot. In this case before this Court, today, plaintiff has missed both deadlines and they have yet to present a nomination for the vacancy.

The Democratic Party says it acted in good faith. They have to show their own clean hands before they can ask the Court to bend the law on principles of equity. They say that the fifty-one day statutory requirement is a mere technicality. They call it a non-material requirement and argue that no harm is done if new Ballots can be printed and distributed in time. The harm they ignore is the harm that results from allowing a party machine to circumvent the law for political reasons. The plaintiffs have, thus far, been permitted to completely flaunt the law. They have filed procedurally deficient papers, without consequence. They have skirted the notice requirements of the court rules in bringing this matter before the court. They have obtained Injunctive Relief against parties not properly notified. They have filed a Verified Complaint that is not properly verified, thus calling into question the jurisdiction of the court. (Rule 1:4-7 and State v. One Datsun, 189 N.J. Super. 209 (App. Div. 1983)
What sort of precedent is set by permitting party machines to add and subtract candidates at will–without regard to the Rules of court, the Election Law or any of the ballot access rules and procedures? The plaintiffs seem to think that the “very purpose” of the election law is to insure the dominance of the two existing major parties. Why should that be so? The purpose of the election laws is to permit the citizens to vote for whomever they choose. Not whomever the party machine chooses.

Voter choice will not be impaired in the slightest by denial of plaintiff’s application. Mr. Genova says on page 12 of his brief that voter choice is compromised when ballot access is denied to any candidate and “in particular candidates of the major parties”. He cites page 441 of the Kilmurray decision as authority for this claim. Kilmurray says no such thing. The decision says:

Liz Macron Responds: Liz Macron,Post + Comments

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled this evening that the state Democratic Party can replace the name of Robert G. Torricelli on the Nov. 5 ballot for United States senator.

“It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups,” the court ruled.

Laws are for lesser mortals, not Democrats and Supreme Court Justices. It appears that the price of an election in New Jersey has now increased from the 65 million spent by the Junior Senator, John Corzine, by $800,000, which is how much the New Jersey Supreme Court is ordering the Democrats to pay in order to print new ballots.

Like the old joke:

A man asks an attractive girl he has met in a posh bar: ”If I give you $ 1000, will you go to bed with me?” After briefly considering this, she replies: ”Yes, for $ 1000 I think I will.”
So he continues: ”But I don’t have that much money; so will you go to bed with me for $ 20 ?” ”Of course not!” she replies. ”Who do you think I am? What kind of girl do you take me for?” He coolly returns: ”We have already established what kind of girl you are. We are now just haggling over the price.”

We now know what future elections in New Jersey (or anywhere Democrats are losing) will look like. In the future, all they will have to do is haggle for the price.

Sopranos or the Supreme Court?Post + Comments

Scrappleface sums it up nicely:

The Bush administration has reportedly struck a deal with Congressional Democrats over the Iraq resolution.

“Here’s the deal,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, “President Bush will do the right thing, and Democrats get to go along with it as if it were their idea.”

Go read the whole thing.

As I stated the otherPost + Comments

Compare these lines, and try to figure out which came from the movie Dumb and Dumber, and which came from Rep. Bonior (D-MI) and Rep. McDermott (D-WA):

A.) “I thought the Rocky Mountains would be a little bit rockier than this. That John Denver is full of shit.”

B.) “I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value — at their face value.”

C.) “That’s as good as money, sir. Those are I.O.U.’s. ”

D.) “War destroys lives in such a profound way.”

E.) “Now we don’t even know who these guys are, you don’t kill people you don’t know, that’s a rule.”

Without the hyperlinks, that might have been harder than you first thought. As the Instapundit noted, this continued behavior on the part of Saddam’s useful idiots ought to dominate the Sunday morning shows for another week. I bet Gephardt is ready to choke the life out of these nitwits.

Dumb and Dumber? Compare thesePost + Comments (1)

“We are saying that the [deadline] is nothing more than administrative convenience,” Genova said. “It’s not intended to give the Republican candidate a right to run unopposed. Voters are to be given a choice in a competitive race. What the Republicans are seeking to do is to obfuscate that choice.” -Angelo Genova, counsel to the New Jersey Democratic Party

According to the Cape May County Clerk’s Office, ((609) 465-1010), voters DO have a clear set of choices in the 2002 New Jersey Senate election. Here are the candidates on the ballot that the Democrats claim provides no choice:

1.) Democrat, Robert Torricelli. Some might argue that this is not a choice, since he has withdrawn. Regardless, he is on the ballot.

2.) Republican, Douglas Forrester, who is still actively seeking the office.

3.) Libertarian, Liz Macron, who is still actively seeking the office.

4.) Green Party, Ted Glick, who is also still actively seeking the office.

5.) Socialist Party, Gregory Pason, who is still actively seeking the office.

6.) Norman E. Wahner, New Jersey Conservative Party, who is still actively seeking the office.

That would be six people on the ballot, 5 of whom are still running. All of this is verifiable with a simple phone call, or by visiting this website. It was so simple, I did it in about 10 minutes. So why is it that the NY Times can write a 28 paragraph, 1269 word puff piece on Lautenberg without mentioning any of these candidates or noting that the Democrats are lying once again about there being no choice? Is it fair to all of those candidates, all of their campaigns, all of their supporters, and the people of New Jersey to stop the vote or halt the election because the Democrats are afraid of the outcome?

As I stated last night, the New Jersey voters have plenty of choices on election day. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it just isn’t who they want it to be RIGHT NOW, but that is not the law’s fault, that is not the other candidates fault, and it most certainly is not the Republican Party’s fault. The Democrats loved Torricelli and were perfectly willing to look past his ethical transgressions when he was winning. They need to look in the mirror to accurately assign the blame for this, but what are the odds of that?

Just an end note- NJ voters actually have 5 candidates for office. If the Democrats are so concerned about choice, I would like them to come down here to WV and tell Jay Rockefeller to quit buying elections. Sen. Rockefeller is running virtually unopposed by Republican Jay Wolfe. Maybe the WV Republicans should pull him and try to nominate someone else because Wolfe has bad poll numbers?

Lies, Damned Lies, and DemocratsPost + Comments

Engaging in politics with Democrats is a lot like playing Hide-N-Seek with little children. If you have ever played the game with a young child, one of the funny aspects of their immaturity and inborn self-centered thought processes is how they just do not get the game. They think if they do not see you, you can’t see them, and just like that they are hidden. I have seen little kids stand behind a pole, with a shoulder sticking out on each side, but because their eyes are blocked and they can not see me, they think they are hidden. Kinda cute, when you are dealing with wee ones. Maddening when you are dealing with adult Democrats.

To complete the analogy, they think if they can fool themselves into believing what they are doing is right and just, well, then, it just must be so. Who cares if it is legal- we have friends in the court and know a LOT of trial lawyers. The most recent line is that evil mean Republicans are trying to deny the voters a choice. I heard it on the radio earlier, and Sully now has the links up.

If it were not so annoying, it would be funny. Democrats nominate a crook, and then when it is clear he can not win, he withdraws. Because he has withdrawn so late, by law it is too late to put a new candidate on the ballot. Thus, evil mean Republicans are denying us a vote. Watch them say it with straight faces- just like the little kid in the game, they can’t see us, or the truth, so they think they are winning.

All of which brings me back to Ted Glick and Liz Macron, and why they are relevant. If you do not know who they are, click on the links and go meet them- they are Green Party and Libertarian Party Candidates for the U.S. Senate in the year 2002. In New Jersey, no less. I can not verify if they are on the ballot, as I could not find a sample ballot anywhere, but I called the numbers on the websites, and I got answering machines that announced they were indeed campaign HQ’s. Maybe they will be able to respond via email tomorrow.

So now the Democrats are lying about not having a choice for New Jersey voters, but voters do have a choice. It just is not the one Tom Daschle and Terry McAuliffe want. New Jersey voters can vote for the Democrat, Robert Toricelli and piss their vote away on a corrupt politico with a persecution complex, they can vote for Mr. Forrester, the Republican candidate, or they can vote for Mr. Glick or Ms. Macron.

That is four choices, which is about three more than I have every couple of years here in West Virginia when Senators Rockefeller and Byrd run generally unopposed. So what the Donks really want is for all three of the candidates who played by the rules to be punished by creative law making in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and you just know they will do anything to get their way. They still think they were cheated in 2000, so this is their payback. How long before they drag the ‘disenfranchisement’ mantra out of the closet and ram that down our throats again? How long before Rev. Jesse whips up the overt racism?

Although I want the rule of law to win, I am kinda hoping the Dems manage to manipulate this and the Hawaii scandal to a win. The backlash will be tremendous and so terribly delicious to witness.

Who knows what will happen. But voters in New Jersey do have a choice. It’s just that the Democrats don’t care- that is their seat, damnit, by hook or by crook.

Who in the World arePost + Comments

A mistake would have had absentee voters in rural northwest Missouri are choosing between Republican Jean Carnahan and Democrat Jim Talent in a US Senate race. How’s that again? Yes, officials confirmed Monday that the party affiliation of the two Senate candidates was reversed on thousands of ballots printed for Holt County. Carnahan, of course, is a Democrat now serving in the Senate, and Talent is her Republican challenger.

Fortunately, the mistake has been caught in time, otherwise a friendly judge in St. Louis might have had to keep the polls open later so that the dead could figure out who to vote for. Don’t want anyone ‘disenfranchised,’ now, do we? Except for living voters who vote for candidates other than Democrats.

How are the Dead VotersPost + Comments