Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (2020)	10/3/2002 10:48:48 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

Lead editorial from today's Wall Street Journal: REVIEW & OUTLOOK The Palm Beach Democrats There aren't any palm trees in Trenton, but the spirit of Florida 2000 is alive and well among Democrats in New Jersey. They're now trying to pull a Palm Beach by changing election rules in the middle of the game to retain a Senate seat and maintain their last hold on Washington power. New Jersey law clearly states that changes can be made to a ballot "not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election." We are now 33 days from this year's Election Day of November 5, military ballots have already gone out and some absentee ballots are already on their way in. But Democrats want voters and the courts to ignore all of this so they can substitute a candidate for Bob Torricelli who actually has a chance to win. This certainly qualifies as a democratic innovation. Perhaps every state should make primary elections irrelevant. Or maybe we should all adopt a new 13% rule (the margin Mr. Torricelli was trailing by when he "dropped out"): If a candidate is losing in the polls by that much or more on October 1, the party can toss him off the ballot and find somebody else, anybody else. The Democrats are even going back to their old reliable, a liberal state Supreme Court, to justify this election law rewrite. Even these notoriously activist judges couldn't help but notice the bizarre nature of the Democratic request at their hearing yesterday morning. Justice Barry Albin asked, "If not the 48-day limit, where do you draw the line?" And Judge Deborah Poritz wondered if the legislature hadn't set that time limit because "there is less likely to be manipulation at that point?" Well, yes. But somehow the judges had managed to overcome their qualms by yesterday evening, allowing former Senator Frank Lautenberg on the ballot. All of which raises a broader point about the length today's Democrats are willing to go to keep their hold on power. Because Al Gore ultimately lost, Democrats have persuaded some Americans that they were the victims in 2000. But keep in mind that George W. Bush won Florida every time the votes were counted. Democrats started the legal fight by flying a fleet of lawyers into Palm Beach the day after election night to exploit hapless voters who couldn't figure out how to punch a butterfly ballot. They had hoped to steal the election in three heavily Democratic counties by recounting hanging and dimpled chads. Only the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to this creative theft. This year it is the Democrats' single-vote majority in the U.S. Senate that is in jeopardy. They have that control only by virtue of James Jeffords's lie to Vermont voters when he ran as a Republican in 2000. And as the election nears two years later, there are at least eight close Senate races, five of them involving Democratic incumbents. So the party is doing whatever it takes, ethical or not, to prevail. In Iowa, incumbent Tom Harkin has already had to fire two campaign aides after a mole acting on his behalf recorded a strategy session of GOP challenger Greg Ganske. Harkin campaign manager Jeff Link initially denied having anything to do with taping the meeting, but he resigned last week anyway. Mr. Harkin dismisses this as "just politics," but it fits his history of last-minute campaign rabbit punches. In New Jersey, Democrats now want to nominate Mr. Lautenberg, a 78-year-old Senate retread whose promise to serve a complete term has to be doubted. Once he wins, and serves a decent interval, he can profess health problems and resign, allowing Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey to name a much younger replacement. We're beginning to think that maybe Republican John Ashcroft's decision in 2000 to concede his Senate defeat to Mel Carnahan's widow was a mistake. A Missouri judge kept the polls open well past the normal close, and reports of election fraud have since been proven in spades, but Mr. Ashcroft stepped aside rather than precipitate an ugly legal battle. Rather than respond in kind, however, Democrats seem to have concluded that Republicans are patsies who can be rolled if they're simply brazen enough. Democrats will say that New Jersey voters will now get a real "choice." But what they're really getting is ballot manipulation foisted on them by political insiders who are demonstrating contempt for the rule of law. Updated October 3, 2002