Comments on: Acting like a Dem will doom Pirro

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:20:20 +0000

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?

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:11:52 +0000

But ya probably wouldn’t trade it for the world though, wouldya Francis?

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:57:09 +0000

Lifelong, dear. 53 years now. And what a long, strnge trip it’s been.

By: ArizonaTeach

ArizonaTeach — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:54:25 +0000

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.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:43:48 +0000

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?

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:18:11 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:36:45 +0000

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.

By: eric

eric — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:25:04 +0000

“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 bombingâ€¦”

Whatever your points, NYC wants a liberal to defend it. No surprise that conservatives don’t do well there.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:30:23 +0000

LOL!

By: Ray Manus

Ray Manus — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:52:47 +0000

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!!!

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:42:34 +0000

I’ve no idea where you’re going with this Eric. So I’ll leave you on your own to continue arguing it

By: Baklava

Baklava — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:30:08 +0000

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….

By: eric

eric — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:45:29 +0000

“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.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:31:29 +0000

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.

By: eric

eric — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:26:59 +0000

“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.