To nobody's great surprise. As I have pointed out, this situation does not, and never did, have anything to do with voter "choice."

I cannot believe the Times thinks anyone is going to buy this transparent line of horseshit. Who are they writing for?

Notice that nobody has yet seen fit to explain what Torricelli remaining in the race would have done to reduce the "choice" of the voters. If fielding a crappy candidate is reason enough to replace him on the fly, I can see this happening all over the country.

...After all, it was Mr. Torricelli's belated acknowledgment of voter disgust with his unethical conduct that threw the
election into such disarray.

Voter choice? They were choosing. The Democrats didn't like the choice they were making.