in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
| CNN | 0 | |
| Mark H’way | Update: IRS’s Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC |
0 |
| NYT | Liberal Icons: Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds |
0 |
| Buzz Feed | #FacePalm: Obama Went Off Script To Address Gay Grads Directly At Morehouse College |
0 |
| KFOR | Prayers: LIVE OKC UPDATES: Crews switch to recovery at Plaza Towers elementary |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Move Along:
""The whole issue of this - of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. The whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."
Pres. Obama on GOP demands for Benghazi answers, 5/13/2013
Acting like a Dem will doom Pirro
So says Bill Hammond, in today’s NY Daily News:
ALBANY – The biggest problem with the launch of Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s campaign against Sen. Hillary Clinton wasn’t the flubbed speeches, the balky microphones or the embarrassing revelations about campaign donors with mob connections.
It was her utter lack of substance.Pirro’s announcement speech – when she finally got it out – included a boilerplate pledge to debate ideas, not engage in personal attacks.
“Hillary Clinton is going to have to campaign on substance and the merits of the issues,” she said.
Which would be great – if only Pirro and Clinton had something to argue about. Both support the war in Iraq. Both oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions. Both like gun control and legalized abortion.
The one area of clear disagreement is taxes. Clinton opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, and Pirro said she would vote to make them permanent.
“I’m Republican red on fiscal policy … but I’ve got broad blue stripes on the social issues,” she said.
The worst thing she could find to say about Clinton last week is that the former First Lady might run for President in 2008. As if the fact that Clinton ranks among the most popular Democrats in the country should count against her.
The Republican leaders rallying behind Pirro seem to think the best way to defeat Democrats in this blue state is to act just like them. There are at least two flaws in this strategy: Their candidate will lose the Conservative Party endorsement, without which no Republican has won statewide office in recent history. And voters who gave Clinton the majority last time won’t have any good reason to jump ship.
He makes some good points, but I often wonder – as it relates to NY politics – if a truly conservative Republican ever could get elected there. I’m not a New Yorker so I don’t know their complete election history, but on the surface it seems that the only Republicans who can get elected there are moderate to liberal Republicans, so maybe someone from NY could weigh in on this and give me their thoughts?
Related Toldjah So post:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
NY’ers know what makes their city great. And its not conservatism. They also know what protects their city from terror. And again, its not conservatism.
That’s silly logic. “Conservatives” weren’t in control in NY during 9-11, were they?
” “Conservatives” weren’t in control in NY during 9-11, were they?”
Well, they controlled the executive. But I’m talking about who NYC consistently votes to put into the executive. And its not conservatives. In 2004, NYers thought it was Kerry who could protect them from terror, not Dubya. The rest of the country had other plans though.
You said this:
“They also know what protects their city from terror. And again, its not conservatism.”
Please explain.
I’m far from convinced she could beat Hillary (but I’ve been pleasantly surprised in the past, so who knows). No, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for me is that Hillary is going to be FORCED to say things on the record, in the debates, in the papers, that are going to come back and haunt her in ’08.
Yep – I still think the best thing about this race is the fact that it’ll be woman vs. woman. Lazio’s “attacks” on Hillary didn’t play well in the polls but I have a feeling that Pirro’s going after Hillary’s record won’t get the same reaction.
“Please explain.”
NYC overwhelmingly voted for Kerry to protect them from terror. Other parts of ountry, feeling the danger to NY, choose to save NY from itself and elected Dubya to fight the war on terror. So they can go there and get their I (love) NY shirts.
That still doesn’t explain your logic of how “NYers know who protects them from terrorism” – going by that logic, NY liberals should have prevented 9-11, right? Just trying to understand your logic.
“going by that logic, NY liberals should have prevented 9-11, right? ”
No. Just that NY’ers think liberals are the best bet to protect them in the war on terror. I don’t see how this leads to the idea that this protection must never fail.
Eric wrote, “In 2004, NYers thought it was Kerry who could protect them from terror, not Dubya.”
By voting against the 87 billion? By doing what? Treating it as a law enforcement action as opposed to a war? Clinton did that after the 93 bombing….
I’ve no idea where you’re going with this Eric. So I’ll leave you on your own to continue arguing it
NY City has a long history of loyalty to Democrats – all the way back to Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed in 1870. The reason?? – Honest Graft!!!
LOL!
“By voting against the 87 billion? By doing what? Treating it as a law enforcement action as opposed to a war? Clinton did that after the 93 bombing…”
Whatever your points, NYC wants a liberal to defend it. No surprise that conservatives don’t do well there.
As a fairly conservative New Yorker perhaps I can shed some light.
You mentioned that it seems that the only Republicans that can get elected up here are moderate to liberal Republicans.
As long as the qualifiers “Moderate” and “Liberal” refer ONLY to social issues, than you’re absolutely correct.
While most NYs would support the President/Admin in regard to the WOT, and even be far to the right of the Republican party in terms of domestic fiscal accountability and immigration, when it comes to social issues – as a whole, not only NY, but the northeast in general does NOT support Social Conservatives. Period.
Why? I really don’t know to be honest. But in practice even the most ardent supporter of the Republican party in NYS will also support gay rights. Those same conservative community leaders will wonder what the heck the President is thinking when he makes statements about ID, and let’s not even talk about stem cells.
Bottom line…people in the north east ( NY, VT, NH, MA, ME ) simply do not like the aspect of having morality legislated, and hence we don’t vote for leaders that have any aspirations in that regard.
Let me add that I’m am NOT looking to be argumentative, and simply stating what I have observed after being born and living here for the last 40 odd years.
No, conservative Republicans cannot be elected in statewide New York races. The reason is the usual: due to fifty years of steady expansion of state government, its mascot companies, and its clients, there now exists a preponderance of voters and activists who have a stake in the maintenance of the status quo. A genuine conservative in the Governor’s Mansion would be seen by that critical mass as absolutely hostile to its interests, despite their overall divergence!
To correct this situation, the state will have to go bankrupt or suffer civil disturbances on the order of the Rodney King riots — and those aren’t guaranteed cures, either. (Has L.A. turned conservative?) But nothing else will jolt New Yorkers back toward sanity and public restraint.
David: Thanks for your insight … it explains a lot of things. One thing about NY Republican office holders (as well as California Republican office holders) they are definitely a different kind of Republican
Francis: I take it you are a life-long New Yorker?
Eric: NYC wants a liberal to defend it.
Well, Eric, I’m not sure what NYC has to do with a Senate election (and maybe I’m misremembering the affiliation of the last two mayors), but according to the data I just looked up, (http://www.race2004.net/states.php?state=ny) and (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm) the ratios for the 2000 and 2004 votes statewide were damn near identical. I do concede that New York City itself voted more Democrat than the statewide ratio, but I would be curious as to the actual city numbers for both elections. However, I do bow to David’s statements.
Lifelong, dear. 53 years now. And what a long, strnge trip it’s been.
But ya probably wouldn’t trade it for the world though, wouldya Francis?
Au contraire, ma cherie. It’s my bleeding non-transportable career that keeps me here. I’m just waiting to retire. On that blessed day, assuming I can conquer the C.S.O.’s multitudinous objections and reservations, the Fortress of Crankitude will relocate to the farthest point from here. Say, how do I get there, anyway?