A recurring complaint in my political commentaries here is that our "leaders" (note the quotes) are way too willing to place politics over principles, forgiving behavior they would condemn as illegal and immoral in the opposition party. A good example is the recent bait-and-switch, bringing in Frank Lautenberg to run as the Democratic nominee in New Jersey. The Democrats defending it today remind me of the Republicans who argued that Bush won Florida fair-and-square. I not only don't believe the tactics were Kosher, I don't believe (in either case), the folks who have so argued really, deep down, believe it.
Oddly, if I understand the law correctly, there was a way to get Robert Torricelli off the ballot that would have been completely, by-the-book legal and more injurious to the Republicans. That would have been if Torricelli had resigned, thereby allowing the Democratic governor of New Jersey to cancel the election for that slot and appoint an interim senator. Unfortunately, Torricelli refused to resign, reportedly saying that was just too much of a humiliation.
Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or Republican, wouldn't you have at least a slightly higher opinion of Bob Torricelli if he had resigned? Suppose he'd come out and said, "I feel so strongly about saving the Senate from G.O.P. control that I have to do whatever I can to make that happen. Also, it will be completely legal this way and, since Republicans kept calling on me to resign, it should make them happy, too." Whether you wanted him to help his party or not, I'll bet you'd have respected the man a wee bit more if he'd done that.
But he didn't because it would have been too "humiliating." I guess I'll never understand politicians.