Monday afternoon, I ran into a former congressional colleague of Robert Torricelli’s and told him what was then only a rumor: that the New Jersey senator had decided to abandon his scandal-plagued quest for re-election.

The colleague did a quick double take, then said there had to be some mistake. The Bob Torricelli he knew would never walk away from a fight, not when something as dear to him as his own neck was on the line.

And yet, sniffling back tears, Torricelli pulled the plug on his candidacy in Trenton Monday evening, at times sounding as if he were delivering his own eulogy. His reason, he said, was his fear that he could not hold on to his Senate seat and that the Democrats would lose control of the body as a result.

Given his natural combativeness, his withdrawal might have come across as selfless, had he not declared it so himself.

While he admitted to mistakes in his financial relationship with a now-imprisoned businessman, David Chang, he portrayed himself not so much as the author of his own demise as the victim of an injustice.

In his speech, much of which was explicitly self-reverential, Torricelli went so far as to suggest that there was something fundamentally wrong with a country that would not accept his initial apology and move on. “When did we become such an unforgiving people?” he asked.

He didn’t mention the severe admonishment he received from the Senate Ethics Committee for having received illegal gifts from Chang. Or the scathing memo by federal prosecutors in New York, released last week, that largely backed up Chang’s claims that the gifts were intended to secure Torricelli’s help with overseas business deals. Or the polls showing his support plummeting.

Now, the Republican in the race, Douglas Forrester, is left to wonder whether he is the luckiest man in American politics or the unluckiest. You’d think the former, but you never know. Keep in mind that the people of Missouri elected a dead man to the Senate two years ago.

The plus side for Forrester, which looks huge at the moment, is that he’ll now be running against a candidate who’s still to be named and will have only a month to campaign. In addition, that individual will have to win a court fight just to get on the ballot. And the law does not appear to be on the Democrats’ side.

On the other hand, Forrester has been deprived of the dream opponent. Forrester has often introduced himself as “the guy running against Bob Torricelli.” That’s who Forrester’s been in this race.

His media campaign as well as the one mounted on his behalf by the national Republican Party has consisted almost entirely of commercials about Torricelli’s ethics. Those spots were powerful. They’re now irrelevant.

Forrester hasn’t told the voters of New Jersey much about who he is or where he stands. He hasn’t had to. He’s acted as if his being the major-party alternative to Torricelli was reason enough for people to give him their votes. Thanks to the continuing revelations about Torricelli, that strategy had been working.

Now, it’s conceivable that Forrester will have to confront the sort of issue-oriented campaign that Torricelli tried to wage, and failed. In such a campaign, the stands Forrester has taken against federal funding of abortions, additional gun control legislation, and polluters’ paying the cost of cleaning up Superfund sites might work to his disadvantage.

It’s been 30 years since New Jersey elected a Republican to the Senate. So if the Democrats can somehow secure a ballot position, the race may not be over and done. But the Republicans have to like their chances, both of taking the seat and winning back the Senate.

As for what all of this does for the state’s image, that’s so obvious it’s scarcely worth discussing.

Larry Eichel is a columnist and member of the editorial board for the Philadelphia Inquirer. His e-mail address is leichel@phillynews.com.