|
Democrats: Law and Order
By George Washington, Barkhamsted
Once again the Democrats have proven that they will not allow the law to interfere with their objectives. Even though the law in New Jersey clearly states that a candidate cannot be replaced on the ballot with less than 51 days before the election, Democrats in that state have succeeding in replacing Senator Robert Torricelli with former three-term senator Frank Lautenberg. Torricelli’s ethics violations are numerous and well known.
Once again Democrats have found a state supreme court that is willing to circumvent the law and rewrite it. Once again unethical and illegal means to secure an election are being promoted in order to change the results of an election.
In their ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court—consisting of four Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent—stated that plugging in a new Democratic candidate would serve the goal of "full voter choice." Perhaps the justices should have weighed the broad implications of their decision before they ruled. I wonder if they were aware of the fact that in this election there are 36 House and Senate seats where there is only one candidate from a major party on the ballot. (Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts, is one of them!)
If, in fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court was truly trying to present a "full voter choice," the courts in whose jurisdiction these other uncontested "races" occur should also rule that an opposing candidate must be placed on the ballot. Apparently the New Jersey court is ignorant to the fact that voters in other states have voted for and, indeed, elected dead people. One case familiar to many people would be when John Ashcroft (now U.S. Attorney General) was running for re-election to the U.S. Senate from Missouri. His opponent was killed in a plane crash three weeks before the election. The Democrats saw no need to replace his name on the ballot to give the voters of Missouri "full voter choice." By the way, did I mention that the Democratic candidate was ahead in the polls at the time of his death? After the election, the winning candidate's wife replaced her husband and was sworn in as U.S. Senator even though she had never campaigned for the position.
Apparently Democrats feel that a candidate can and should be replaced to give "full voter choice" only when that candidate is behind in the polls. This move by New Jersey Democratic Party bosses is not for the purpose of promoting a fair election in which people have a choice of major party candidates. No, it is much more basic then that. It is for the purpose of retaining the majority position in the U.S. Senate—a majority, by the way, that was won by default and not caused by the will of the voters. When Jim Jeffords changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent, he caused an illegitimate power shift to occur.
Democrats are always proclaiming that the Republican Party is the party of the elite. Think about it. Who in New Jersey had a voice in changing the "party-endorsed" candidate except the party elite, i.e. the party bosses? The New Jersey debacle is politics at its worst—but something I'd come to expect from Democrats in general.
I laugh when I see old Perry Mason reruns. Mason would consistently state to the court the phrase: "Your honor, in the interest of justice …" in his pleas for fairness. Obviously "fairness" has nothing to do with justice; it is all about winning and losing. The election in New Jersey has less to do with fairness than it has to do with retention of power.
| 
