Crap! The Democrat primary was the only way to get rid of Lautenberg. There is no way a Republican wins this year in NJ. My fellow New Jerseyians complain about higher taxes yet keep voting for the Democrats, not the brightest bulbs in the pack. He shouldn’t have much trouble against Zimmer, he’s lost a Senate and a House race before. That’s what NJ Republicans do best, lose. Yeah, the NJ Republicans aren’t the brightest bulbs either, we keep nominating losers instead of looking for fresh blood to throw to the wolves 
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the chamber’s third-oldest member at 84, easily won nomination for a new term Tuesday over a challenger who sought to make an issue of his age.
Lautenberg defeated Democratic Rep. Rob Andrews as voters in seven states picked congressional candidates for the fall, and residents of one South Dakota county voted to allow construction of the nation’s first new oil refinery in more than 30 years.
Andrews, a 50-year-old lawmaker who has served in the House since 1990, repeatedly reminded voters that Lautenberg would be nearly 91 by the end of a fifth term. He recalled in one television ad how Lautenberg himself raised the age issue when campaigning in 1982 against Rep. Millicent Fenwick, who was 72.
“It’s hard when your own words come back to haunt you, isn’t it?” the ad asked.
Lovely, now we can have a doddering old man just like West Virginia. And good for South Dakota! We need more oil refineries so the cost of gas will drop.
posted June 4, 2008 at 8:41 am
Don’t forget that Alaska has a pretty old senator. I share in your misery. We might have Al Franken as senator. He wasn’t even funny on SNL.
posted June 4, 2008 at 8:50 am
I didn’t have a car yesterday … so I couldn’t vote (against him).
posted June 4, 2008 at 11:37 am
Millicent Fenwick! Of Doonesbury fame! Well, it shows that NJ goes for vintage rather than the next new thing.
posted June 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Well, he’s 84 and with any luck nature will soon solve your problem for you. On the other hand, looking at how old these senators are, I start to regret my decision not to go into politics when I was young. Nothing like hot air and graft to keep the body going it seems.
posted June 4, 2008 at 12:22 pm
With no dog in this fight, I have to ask — what does this have to do with faith and politics? If it does, could you make it more explicit instead of assuming we’re all on the same page as you? I don’t share your political views, but I’m impressed by your passion and would appreciate knowing more about their connection to your religious views, since this is a blog about religion and politics.
posted June 4, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Lautenberg doesn’t represent my views. He believes in big government solutions to problems but I do not. I’m interested in getting someone into the Senate who would vote the way I would instead of voting the complete opposite from me.
Now, what about faith? Well, I’m being in the world not of it. Doing the best job I can to make sure that I don’t give those who can’t handle it power. Trying to be as wise as serpents but innocent as doves and using the discernment that God has given me to make the right decision who to vote for.
Also, Romans 13, might be helpful for you to read to understand how I view government.
But of course you know this, right?
I suggest if you really want my thoughts on politics and religion then check out the post linked to in the sidebar. I blog politics because I see the truth of Calvinism writ large all over the political spectrum
posted June 4, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Romans 13? You don’t say?
Thanks, Michelle. I’ve read the Bible. More than once! And I’m pretty familiar w/ Romans 13. I appreciate your evidently nuanced reading of it, since the Christian conservatives I write about take it so literally I don’t think they’d challenge Lautenberg.
I’ll check out the blog. Your response — essentially, “Calvinism” — is fair enough, but since this is a blog by and for people all over the theological spectrum, it seems to me a more explicit connection would be useful. For instance, most people assume the big government/small government debate is entirely secular. I gather you don’t. Why assume we’re with you and preach only to the converted? Better to give a few lines on the theological rationale behind small government? I’m genuinely interested in that.