PDA

View Full Version : Clinton vs. Pirro: Who would you vote for in the Senate race?



TomAuch
August 11th, 2005, 08:14 PM
While we already have a Gubernatorial thread regarding Elliot Spitzer, I feel that we should also have threads on another important race. Hillary Clinton, who is up for re-election, and has some people thinking she'll run for President in 2008 (mostly NY Post readers and the extremely cynical) is favored so far, defeating the strongest Republican candidate in the field, Jeanine Pirro. A recent Quinnipiac Poll showed Clinton defeating Pirro 63 percent to 29 percent.

Personally, I'm voting for Hillary. The Republicans have no reason to attack her other than the fact that they REALLY hate her. She has said nothing about running for President, and she has worked hard to bring money to NY (post-9/11 funds, transit improvements in the new highway bill also favor NYS.) Pirro, while doing some good in her role as Westchester County DA (helping battered woman, targeting internet pedophiles) she and her husband are horribly corrupt. Her husband has mafia connections, and served a year in jail for tax fraud. Pirro herself was aware of some of the tax problems that her husband faced, and she is kean on using patronage (her limo driver will make more money than the President of Westchester Community College because his overtime pay keeps going up while her staff have been handed pinkslips!) Another reason why I don't want Pirro to "represent" me is because she will work for the interests of Bush and "red America." I do not want her supporting a President who wants to take back post-9/11 benefits, lied to rescue workers at Ground Zero about the air quallity, and refuses to give us additional financial aid.

Jasonik
August 11th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Pirro media gaffe clip (http://asphaltjungle.com/Speechless.mov) made possible by the NYSDC

BrooklynRider
August 11th, 2005, 08:24 PM
Why no "Other" selection?

TomAuch
August 11th, 2005, 10:59 PM
This is a hypothetical matchup. I should note that Pirro is not the only Republican candidate running. Nixon son-in-law Ed Cox, and former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, are also candidates. I might do polls between them and Hillary. The reason why Pirro looks threatening is because she appears "moderate" with a pro-choice stance, and because she is known for being tough on crime (besides Spitzer, I'd say that Pirro is the second-most well known attorney in NY.) Other than this "on paper" appearance, I think that she is a repulsive bitch.

ZippyTheChimp
August 11th, 2005, 11:14 PM
Pirro media gaffe clip (http://asphaltjungle.com/Speechless.mov) made possible by the NYSDC
I'll take Famous Sound Bites for $100, Alex.

BrooklynRider
August 12th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Pirro is damaged goods. Clinton has had her background, husband and family dragged over the red hot coals (and she still won). Pirro is going to regret jumping into this race because her life (her husband and her own ethical "failures") are going to be scruitinized. It could end any further considerations of her as a candidate in the future.

I'm not a Pirro fan and I think she's going to find TV publicity less flattering than a mention on Page Six in ther NY Post.

Jasonik
August 12th, 2005, 10:20 AM
The idea of this Senate race is to drag Hillary through the mud and tarnish her image so that when the Presidential race comes around she'll have some chinks in her armor, or so hope the RNC. Pirro seems to be the pre-primary attack-(female)dog.

ZippyTheChimp
August 14th, 2005, 08:18 AM
August 14, 2005
New York, a Steppingstone, Usually Does Not Mind

By AL BAKER (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=AL BAKER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=AL BAKER&inline=nyt-per)

ALBANY, Aug. 13 - When Jeanine F. Pirro, the Republican district attorney from Westchester County, announced her decision this week to try to topple Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic senator from New York, her battle cry was this: Do not let Mrs. Clinton fool you, she really wants to be president.

Ms. Pirro was raising an issue that has come up frequently in New York - a state that has produced more than its share of presidential candidates - and one Mrs. Clinton has faced before. But if history is any guide, New Yorkers tend not to worry much about voting for politicians viewed as having grander national ambitions.

In one example, voters knew that Robert F. Kennedy had hoped to be President Lyndon B. Johnson's running mate before he chose instead, in August 1964, to seek a Senate seat from New York. Though Mr. Kennedy, like Mrs. Clinton, faced questions on the campaign trail about being a carpetbagger (he spent much of his childhood in the Bronx but had a Virginia address just weeks before announcing; Mrs. Clinton is a native of Illinois), he won the seat and seemed to suffer no backlash when he threw his hat into the presidential ring in 1968.

Still, Ms. Pirro's offensive seems to be sticking, said Kieran Mahoney, one of her political advisers. He said Democrats "clearly feel that Pirro is hitting home because of their actions," which he said included Bill Clinton's recent recital, in a television interview, of a family rule: Do not look past the next election or you might not get past the next election.

In the long run, though, several political analysts said that of all the complaints voters might have about Mrs. Clinton, her potential presidential aspirations were not likely to be high on the list. Two recent polls on whether Mrs. Clinton should pledge to fulfill the full six-year term she is seeking achieved contradictory results. Several New York governors won presidential nominations in the first half of the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin gained the White House.

Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller had ambitions to be president and never seemed hurt by them in his four terms. Later, it was former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo's decision to sit out a presidential campaign that seemed to disappoint a part of the electorate, some of whom are still angry about it.

Douglas Muzzio, a professor of political science at Baruch College, speculated on a possible strategy for the Pirro campaign against Mrs. Clinton.

"Putting yourself in Pirro's place, they need to make a strategic attack, so if they are not going to attack her performance and her programs, they will attack her character, they go right to her, 'She is ambitious, she is untrustworthy, she is just using us as a steppingstone,' " Professor Muzzio said.

"But New Yorkers don't mind carpetbaggers; in fact, they like them," he said. "They voted for Kennedy, they voted for Clinton. And certainly, New Yorkers would not see it as the worst thing for one of theirs to be considered for president or, ultimately, being president. There is a certain amount of pride in that, in a sense, she then becomes 'one of ours.' "

Psychologically, that sense of pride may feed an underlying need for confirmation of supremacy among New Yorkers, said Gerald Benjamin, a professor of political science who is dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the State University at New Paltz, though he added, "Objective measures certainly don't confirm that perception." Still, New York has always thrived on big ideas, tall buildings and expensive sports franchises.

Having politicians with ambitions for higher office "is not a liability," he said, but rather, "it is a characteristic" of the politics of the state.

As New York's political culture attracts those who want a launching pad for national or international exposure, he said, it also brings in a cottage industry of political aides and advisers "who are involved in trying to hitch their wagons to a star."

A foreign diplomat who had already sought the Democratic presidential nomination, W. Averell Harriman, was elected governor of New York, in 1954. The man who beat Mr. Harriman, Governor Rockefeller, declined to run for president in 1960, deferring to Richard Nixon, but still won re-election as governor of New York and made later unsuccessful bids for the presidency.

The biography of Gov. Thomas E. Dewey illustrates the notion that many driven people come here trying to find success and are adopted as locals. He was born in Owosso, Mich., came to New York as a young man, went to Columbia Law School and waged a successful campaign for governor in 1942, after failing to get the Republican nomination for president. He was re-elected governor after losing later presidential runs.

Still, for Mrs. Clinton, there is a Senate campaign to get through. And Mr. Mahoney said her case "is different from every one of those" historical examples "because she came to New York and she is looking to use New York to forward her ambitions, and they all came from New York and she does not."

Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said that if Mrs. Clinton was re-elected, voters were not likely to resent her for considering a presidential bid two years later. "But, as a campaign issue, it is something to think about," he said. "And she is going to have to answer it."

Howard Wolfson, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton, said, "The answer is she is resolutely focused on doing her job and the people of New York." As Mrs. Clinton's communications director in the last campaign, he recalled the attacks on her: that she was merely seeking the Senate seat as a steppingstone to higher office. "They were unsuccessful then and they will be unsuccessful now because now, as then, New Yorkers know that Mrs. Clinton is focused on their needs and their concerns, and now in fact, six years later, they know that she has delivered for the state."

Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, said Ms. Pirro seemed to be "somewhat barking up the wrong tree" with her argument about Mrs. Clinton's future prospects.

"In politics, you have to tell people something they don't know," he said. Rick Lazio, Mrs. Clinton's opponent in 2000, "learned that the hard way," he said, "when he said she was not a New Yorker, but a carpetbagger; that was a one-note song."

"So Pirro runs the risk of being a one-note song reminiscent of the Lazio carpetbagger theme."

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

BrooklynRider
August 14th, 2005, 04:19 PM
catfight, catfight, catfight

But, can someone explain to me why I, as a New Yorker, would not want Hillary to run for Senate in 2006 and be president in 2008? Wouldn't it be in my interests, as a New Yorker, to have the president-elect be from my home state?

ZippyTheChimp
August 15th, 2005, 09:39 AM
If Hillary Clinton ever becomes President, Ann Coulter would spontaneously give birth to puppies.

lofter1
August 15th, 2005, 09:51 AM
If Hillary Clinton ever becomes President, Ann Coulter would spontaneously give birth to puppies.
LMAO!!

I'm still wiping up the coffee I spit out after reading this one...

TomAuch
August 15th, 2005, 02:02 PM
If Hillary Clinton ever becomes President, Ann Coulter would spontaneously give birth to puppies.

...And afterward she would devour them whole and blame it on Hillary.

ryan
August 15th, 2005, 02:34 PM
This is a tough question. Vote for the fake republican with a shady husband who's publicly prochoice but blankly supports the Bush tax cut, or the fake republican with a shady husband who's publicly against the Bush tax cut, and uh, publicly against abortion, but pro-choice...

NYatKNIGHT
August 15th, 2005, 02:41 PM
If Hillary Clinton ever becomes President, Ann Coulter would spontaneously give birth to puppies.
...proving Ann Coulter's claim that liberals hate puppies.

ZippyTheChimp
August 16th, 2005, 08:57 AM
Glad someone caught that.

Ninjahedge
August 16th, 2005, 09:12 AM
If Hillary Clinton ever becomes President, Ann Coulter would spontaneously give birth to puppies.


I'm surprised the b**** hasn't already!


But sadly, it is true. As much as we say everything is equal blah blah blah, there is still a definite glass ceiling for women in political power. One reason being, I think, that guys know that if this power ever was given to them at any time, they would never get it back.

Women are just as capable of leading as men when all physical restrictions are lifted. AND they still have the advantage of sexual manipulation (in general) over men.

SO, if they got it, they would be the last to let it go. The table would not be turned, but flipped, and many old-boys (as well as others) would not feel comfortable with that.

We would have to have one of the most qualified women of all time to run, and even that would not do it if she was not attractive.

:P

BrooklynRider
August 16th, 2005, 09:27 AM
...We would have to have one of the most qualified women of all time to run, and even that would not do it if she was not attractive.


Do I have to start listing all of the ugly women in Congress for you?

ZippyTheChimp
August 16th, 2005, 09:42 AM
Since America is still somewhere in the Middle Ages regarding women in political office, it should be noted that Pirro gets the babe factor.

TomAuch
August 16th, 2005, 02:37 PM
I can't believe that people think she's attractive. She looks like she's had botox shot too many. Neither her nor Hillary are attractive at all (then again, very few middle-aged women are.)

BrooklynRider
August 16th, 2005, 04:08 PM
I think we are going into territory the ladies will not like....

But, judging by those big collagen lips on Pirro, her mouth is used for more than speeches.

NYatKNIGHT
August 16th, 2005, 05:30 PM
Too many connections to slime.

Pirro and Hannity:
http://www.jeaninepirro.com/photogallery/messagepage5.jpg

Pirro and Cheney:
http://www.jeaninepirro.com/photogallery/messagepage7.jpg

Pirro and Bush:
http://www.jeaninepirro.com/photogallery/jpandmonkey.jpg

Ninjahedge
August 16th, 2005, 05:32 PM
Do I have to start listing all of the ugly women in Congress for you?

How many are president?

ryan
August 16th, 2005, 06:07 PM
This is what a conversation about a woman running for political office degrades into - her appearance? I hope you make fun of Bloomberg's lips and presumed plastic surgery just as much...

lofter1
August 16th, 2005, 09:27 PM
I can't believe that people think she's attractive. She looks like she's had botox shot too many. Neither her nor Hillary are attractive at all (then again, very few middle-aged women are.)
Tom: I dare you to post your own picture.

TomAuch
August 16th, 2005, 11:10 PM
This is what a conversation about a woman running for political office degrades into - her appearance? I hope you make fun of Bloomberg's lips and presumed plastic surgery just as much...

I think it goes both ways. Bush and Kerry got made fun of a lot during last years election (ie. Bush looking like a chimp, and Kerry as "French-looking.")

Ninjahedge
August 17th, 2005, 08:54 AM
This is what a conversation about a woman running for political office degrades into - her appearance? I hope you make fun of Bloomberg's lips and presumed plastic surgery just as much...

No, Bloomberg is a man.

But he still looks like a wuss without a defined chin, a nasal voice, and a propensity for wearing things like scarves.

Dinkins also reminded me of a guy that was not used to doing any kind of physical work. A real pantywaist.


I like some of the things Bloomie has done with NYC, but I cannot say that I would like to have lunch with him.



As for women being judged on their appearance.... This has always been and will always be the case until we evolve as a species. Society can say it is wrong, but until mankind does not get sexually excited by physical appearance we cannot simply rule it out as a definite influence.

lofter1
August 17th, 2005, 09:08 AM
As for women being judged on their appearance.... This has always been and will always be the case until we evolve as a species.
Then let's try some self-evolution ... instead of blathering on with the same old tired generalizations.

BrooklynRider
August 17th, 2005, 10:00 AM
I think they should mud wrestle for the office or compete in a wet-t-shirt contest.

Ninjahedge
August 17th, 2005, 10:02 AM
Then let's try some self-evolution ... instead of blathering on with the same old tired generalizations.

It does not work that way.

And lets try not to say that it is somehow our personal fault that a beautiful woman is someone we want to be around more than an ugly one.


It is more than just mental, it is rooted in our own evolution as a species. For thousands of years we have been measuring people based on some key features that were linked to the "success" of the species. It has only been recently that society has evolved to the point where it decrees these to be "improper".

Now trying to move away from these qualifications that no longer fit our needs is something that should be persued, but denying their existance in every human being and declaring it to be somehow evil is not exactly a fair appelation. Pamela Anderson will still get more press and attension than Barbara Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Jean Snowe, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Blanche Lincoln, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Deborah Stabenow, Maria E. Cantwell, Lisa Murkowski, and Elizabeth Dole combined.


OK, maybe not Hillary. ;)


But the point of the arguement, or contention here is not the propriety of judging based on someones looks, but it is simply the fact that it DOES exist, and will CONTINE to exist even in the people that profess abstention from it.

It is impossible not to judge a book by its cover, but that does not mean you should not read it.

ryan
August 17th, 2005, 10:16 AM
Tom: I dare you to post your own picture.

I'll raise that to a doubledare... though I noticed Tom didn't even respond to the post. I think everyone in the thread making fun of appearances should do the same.

Ninjahedge
August 17th, 2005, 10:30 AM
PS, what do you find worse:

People who try to use things like physical appearance to win elections and people's approvals.

-or-

That it works.


I find the latter to be worse, because it is something we have no real way of controlling, and no-one to directly blame.

the former can always have a scapegoat, the latter is all "societies fault".

chris
August 31st, 2005, 03:05 AM
The idea of this Senate race is to drag Hillary through the mud and tarnish her image so that when the Presidential race comes around she'll have some chinks in her armor, or so hope the RNC. Pirro seems to be the pre-primary attack-(female)dog.

Exactly.

By my understanding, Jeanine Pirro doesn't stand a chance of even winning re-election to her own job as District Attorney (much less have any real shot at Hillary). So, since she is de-facto out of a job anyway, she has agreed to be the Republican attack dog in the 2006 Senate race. She will drag Hillary (and herself) through the mud in an election Hillary is sure to win, and in a quid pro quo Jeanine will get a cushy high paying appointment, possibly even at the Whitehouse, but more likely at the State level.

I disagree with Hillary on a few key points, I'm not a big fan, and don't want to see her as President... however, she's fine with me as a New York Senator. As the Junior New York Senator, she punches so far out of her weight class (for the obvious reasons), and that can be helpful to New York, which is what I care about. I expect that John McCain will be the next President (hopefully on a ticket with Giuliani, but we'll see), regardless of the outcome of this Senate race. If there is ever another Democrat in the Whitehouse in the next 10 years or so, Clinton (Bill that is) will be angling for a Supreme Court nomination. Otherwise he'll settle for Secretary General of the U.N. I think he would do fine in either role.

Consider this for a moment, John Kerry may have lost the Presidential election in 2004, but he will run again. And he did raise a whopping lot of money... and still has it, don't forget. The campaign war chest is still full. He's got something like a $20M advantage on anyone, right out of the gate. But the real point is, he recieved a larger number of votes for President than any Democratic candidate in U.S. history. It was simply the case that Bush won 1% more. Don't count Kerry out of this race. Plus, after sitting out 2004, Joe Biden has already said that he intends to run in 2008. Hillary is the candidate the Republicans are hoping to battle. But she isn't just polarizing between Democrats and Republicans, she is polarizing among members of her own party. Within the Democratic party there is going to be a huge and powerful faction of "We must stop Hillary" voters.

ZippyTheChimp
November 30th, 2005, 01:20 AM
November 30, 2005

Pirro Is Advised Not to Oppose Mrs. Clinton

By MICHAEL COOPER (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=MICHAEL COOPER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=MICHAEL COOPER&inline=nyt-per)

ALBANY, Nov. 29 - Jeanine F. Pirro's bid to unseat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) suffered an embarrassing setback on Tuesday when the State Legislature's most powerful Republican said she should call the whole thing off and run for state attorney general instead.

The remarks by the official, Joseph L. Bruno (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_l_bruno/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the majority leader of the State Senate, forced out into the open simmering concerns about Ms. Pirro's candidacy, which has been beset by gaffes and fund-raising difficulties. And it heightened the sense that the state Republican Party is nervous about its future and riven by squabbles as its de facto leader, Gov. George E. Pataki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/george_e_pataki/index.html?inline=nyt-per), prepares to step down at the end of next year.

Mr. Bruno said that Ms. Pirro, who was elected Westchester district attorney three times, would be a better fit as a candidate for attorney general. "I have said from the beginning, and I know a lot of my colleagues, and people within the party, share the thought, that she would make a great attorney general," he said. "By background, by her experience, by her prosecutorial record. And I hope that before this procedure gets too much further, that Jeanine Pirro would reconsider and run for A.G."

While Mr. Bruno's remarks echo what some Republicans have been murmuring quietly for some time now, they put him at odds with both Governor Pataki, who endorsed Ms. Pirro for the Senate last month, and the chairman of the state Republican Party, Stephen J. Minarik III, who is supporting her Senate candidacy.

And while the remarks were hardly welcomed by the Pirro for Senate campaign, Ms. Pirro tried to put the best spin on it. "Senator Bruno is a respected majority leader and I appreciate his confidence in my abilities," she said in a terse, two-sentence written statement. "However, I am a candidate for U.S. Senate."

The news that one of the most powerful Republicans in the state believes that Ms. Pirro is running for the wrong office was just the latest problem to befall her campaign. When she began it in August, a misplaced page in her inaugural speech left her tongue-tied as the cameras rolled and led Democrats to mock her. Then, campaign filings released last month showed that her early fund-raising efforts were anemic.

Governor Pataki reiterated his support for Ms. Pirro's Senate candidacy on Tuesday - but seemed to leave open the possibility that he could support her for another office. "The governor believes Jeanine Pirro would be a great candidate for any statewide office," said a spokesman for Mr. Pataki, Kevin Quinn. "She has chosen to run for the U.S. Senate and he has enthusiastically endorsed her candidacy."

Mr. Bruno's remarks exposed some of the growing factionalism as the party tries to prepare for its post-Pataki future, with battles also erupting over the Republican candidate for governor in 2006. "It's definitely a fight for control of the party, and where are we going next," said a Republican strategist who has worked in New York. "I'm buying a big bag of popcorn and a 12-pack to watch this one."

The news sent ripples through political circles. Some officials and political operatives suggested that Senator Bruno was merely speaking his mind - noting that Ms. Pirro has a law enforcement background, and that it would be easier for her to be elected attorney general in a race in which there will be no incumbent - the attorney general, Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), is running for governor - than to unseat a popular senator. They suggested he could be offering Ms. Pirro a face-saving way to switch gears and run for another office.

Others noted that Mr. Bruno has been at odds with state party leaders over their desire to unite at a Dec. 12 meeting behind the candidacy of William F. Weld, the former Massachusetts governor who is seeking to become governor of New York. While Mr. Bruno has yet to endorse a candidate, he has spoken enthusiastically of Tom Golisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times as a third-party candidate and is weighing a fourth race as a Republican. Mr. Bruno, and others, said the party should wait until all the candidates are known.

Mr. Bruno's prime concern, aides say, is keeping the State Senate in Republican hands. Senate Republicans fear that if the Republicans do not field credible candidates at the top of the ticket in 2006, when all 62 state senators are also up for re-election, it could hurt Republicans running for State Senate at the bottom of the ticket. And some Senate Republicans believe that Mr. Golisano, who has upstate roots, would drive a higher voter turnout upstate, which would benefit upstate Republican state senators.

And officials in both parties noted that Mr. Bruno has been working to persuade State Senator Michael A. L. Balboni, a Nassau County Republican who wants to run for attorney general, to seek re-election to the Senate, so as not to create an open seat that could be won by the Democrats. An aide to Mr. Bruno denied that that was a factor.

Mike Long, the chairman of the State Conservative Party, who has expressed reservations about Ms. Pirro's prospects of winning the Conservative endorsement for the Senate, said that he agreed with Mr. Bruno's assessment. "I believe she would have a much better shot at achieving the attorney general endorsement of the Conservative Party than she would of getting the endorsement running for United States Senate," he said.

Jaime King, a spokeswoman for the state Republican Party, did not return two calls for comment. But the Democrats were happy to comment. Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell Jr., the chairman of the State Democratic Party, said in a statement: "This is clearly a major blow and an obvious indication of how difficult top Republicans believe it will be to defeat Senator Clinton."


Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

TLOZ Link5
November 30th, 2005, 11:01 AM
I'll be going to the polls next year wearing a clothespin on my nose.

ZippyTheChimp
November 30th, 2005, 11:27 PM
December 1, 2005

G.O.P. Dispute Over Pirro's Bid Grows Fiercer

By PATRICK D. HEALY (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=PATRICK D. HEALY&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=PATRICK D. HEALY&inline=nyt-per) and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=RAYMOND HERNANDEZ&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=RAYMOND HERNANDEZ&inline=nyt-per)

Searing divisions among New York Republicans deepened yesterday as a growing number urged Jeanine F. Pirro to drop her bid to unseat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per). Concerns also emerged that departing Gov. George E. Pataki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/george_e_pataki/index.html?inline=nyt-per) was no longer able to unify the party.

On a day of rapidly developing events, more Republicans joined what appeared to be a mounting effort, led in part by Joseph L. Bruno (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_l_bruno/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the State Senate's majority leader, to press Ms. Pirro to run for state attorney general instead. But other Republicans warned that any switch by Ms. Pirro might alienate some county leaders who could retaliate by working against her.

United States Representative John E. Sweeney, a prominent upstate Republican, urged Ms. Pirro, the Westchester County district attorney, to consider shifting gears and seizing the Republican nomination for attorney general. "I have told her privately I think there is no doubt she could win as attorney general," Mr. Sweeney said in an interview. "I'm nudging her."

A strategist for another leading New York Republican in Congress put it more bluntly, saying many in the party thought she had been a disappointment so far as a Senate candidate. She may serve the party better by running for attorney general, the strategist said: "She has a résumé that is custom-made for attorney general."

Aides to Ms. Pirro said yesterday that she had no intention of switching races. Yet at the same time, the pressure on her has revealed the worsening warfare within the party, not only over its Senate candidate, but also over its candidate for governor in 2006. Many say the battles stem from a leadership void as Mr. Pataki prepares to leave office, contemplating a presidential bid in 2008, and Mr. Bruno, the Legislature's most powerful Republican, maneuvers for influence.

Mr. Bruno, for instance, has spoken enthusiastically about one possible candidate for governor, Tom Golisano, an archnemesis of Mr. Pataki who spent $74 million to try to unseat him in 2002. Other Republican leaders, knowing the governor privately opposes Mr. Golisano, are pressing the Pataki camp to come out strongly in favor of another candidate, William F. Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. (Mr. Weld took an important step in his campaign last night by raising an estimated $1.5 million at his first major fund-raiser.)

As for Mr. Pataki, some prominent Republicans expressed concern yesterday that he was not exerting more influence to help the party. One Republican operative who is a strong supporter of the governor said: "If the governor doesn't get engaged, Golisano will be our candidate. If he gets engaged, Weld will be the guy."

Republican Party leaders, including the state chairman, Stephen J. Minarik III, see one possible solution to the uncertainty in the governor's race in 2006: Mr. Pataki, who is finishing his third term, could try to unite Republicans behind one candidate now, as he tried to do when he endorsed Ms. Pirro this fall with mixed results. But allies of Pataki say he does not see the point of antagonizing Mr. Golisano and perhaps egging him into the race with an early Weld endorsement.

David Catalfamo, a spokesman for Mr. Pataki, said yesterday that "the governor would support whoever the Republican nominee is." Asked if that included Mr. Golisano, Mr. Catalfamo repeated the statement. He also denied that the Republican Party required some sort of intervention.
"Four months ago John Sweeney was saying, 'Hurry up, we need to choose candidates,' and now he's saying, 'We need to rethink things,' " Mr. Catalfamo said. "I just don't think this means a whole lot of anything. The governor will support the nominee to succeed him. He has endorsed Jeanine for Senate. She would be a great candidate for any office, and right now she is running for U.S. Senate."

At the core of the party's tensions, Republicans say privately, is growing animosity between Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bruno, who was once the governor's most important ally in the Legislature but who has asserted his political independence in recent years.

One flash point has been the governor's race. Mr. Bruno is privately encouraging Mr. Golisano to consider entering the race, believing that Mr. Golisano, with his money and his popularity in parts of the state, could make a strong showing that would help Republicans hold their thinning majority in the State Senate in next year's elections.

But people close to the governor have been highly critical of Mr. Golisano, in large part because of the furious attacks he waged on Mr. Pataki when Mr. Golisano was a candidate for governor on the Independence Party line.

Several Republicans say Mr. Bruno resents what he sees as the Pataki camp's efforts to close the door on a Golisano candidacy, particularly since Mr. Pataki is not running for re-election and therefore does not have to worry about the electoral consequences of that decision.

"It really comes down to a fight between the governor and Bruno over control of the party," said one high-ranking Republican official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to draw the ire of either man. "Bruno is saying, 'Why is the governor trying to make these decisions when he is not even going to run again.' "

Mr. Bruno, for example, has both praised and chided Mr. Weld. The Senate leader has also called on the 62 Republican county chairmen to postpone their vote, scheduled for Dec. 12, to choose consensus candidates for governor and the Senate in 2006.

Mr. Weld said yesterday that he hopes the vote on Dec. 12 goes forward.

"The state party wants a consensus candidate for governor who can mobilize support during all of 2006 because Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has been mobilizing support for the last seven years," Mr. Weld said in an interview yesterday. "I don't see what's so scary about the idea of the county leaders voting in December. People can vote however they want, or abstain. It will just help us move forward."

John Faso, another prospective candidate for governor, also called for the Dec. 12 votes to be held, and said he expected to win strong support. "Democracy can be messy, but consensus is a good thing," said Mr. Faso, a former assemblyman.

Mr. Minarik, the party chairman, said yesterday that the Dec. 12 meeting would be held and that he expected votes to be cast.

But several Republicans say they are troubled by party leaders' efforts to make the nominations of Ms. Pirro and Mr. Weld a foregone conclusion, despite the concerns that have been raised about them in some quarters. Bob Smith, the Republican chairman of Onondaga County, said he was worried about allegations of fraud at a Kentucky college that Mr. Weld led until October.

"I talked to Bill Weld and said, 'I have concerns,' because we have enough issues in New York that we don't need a Kentucky college as a problem," Mr. Smith said. "Weld addressed a lot of my concerns. But the chairmen may want to have a fuller discussion about Weld before a vote is taken."

Several Republicans say there is still plenty of time to determine what the party's political lineup will be for 2006. For example, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, who holds enormous influence in western New York, has told people close to him that he is open to Ms. Pirro's running for attorney general and Mr. Weld or Mr. Golisano running for governor, according to one Republican official.

But some upstate Republican county leaders said they would be furious if Ms. Pirro changed her mind, given that she first seesawed between the two races and then helped drive a respected Republican, Edward F. Cox, out of the race this fall.

One Republican county chairman from a populous upstate region, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he has to work with Ms. Pirro regularly, said "You don't burn a good candidate and good man, Ed Cox, just to clear the field, raise a few bucks, then change your mind."

In recent days, some Republicans have privately argued that Ms. Pirro could exit the Senate race with her head high if she could say that party leaders urged her to run for attorney general for the sake of the party. One senior Republican who is close to Ms. Pirro said that "there are a number of prominent Republicans and fund-raisers telling her there is still time to switch" to the attorney general's race.


Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

kz1000ps
December 1st, 2005, 12:04 AM
Interesting to see John Faso running as a candidate for governor. He lives in my hometown (Kinderhook - check out its rich Dutch history and architecture (http://www.kinderhookconnection.com/history.htm)) and I've known him, his wife and children for a dozen years, as they went to my church and I was minor friends with his son. Considering I didn't follow politics back when he was in the Assembly (I was in my early-mid teens most of the time I was in contact) I have no clue as to what he is like as a politician, only that of a family man and wholesome church-going Catholic who is always ready to say "hi" to who ever walks by - not a bad person by any means, but someone who seems to fit the mold of a typical politician with minimal resistance. Personally, this will be fun to see just who and what he shapes up to be like under the public's eye.

Edit: put in link to hometown.

TomAuch
December 1st, 2005, 03:26 AM
I'll be going to the polls next year wearing a clothespin on my nose.
Me too, but as long as I can fight to keep Pirro away from the Senate, then it is worth it. I've had to put up with her as my District Attorney and I am sick of her. Whatever corruption charges that may be leveled at the Clintons (the ones that the New York Post and NewsMax tell us about daily. The only bad thing Bill Clinton ever did was to lie about a blow job...Reagan lied about Iran Contra and never got impeached!) the corruption of Jeanine Pirro and her husband is far worse.

lofter1
December 5th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Hillary proves she's just another hack ho politico (never mind the fact that this ridiculous piece of legislation will never stand up to proper Constitutional muster) ...

Hillary Clinton Co-Sponsors Anti-Flag Burning Bill

NY 1
Dec. 05, 2005

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55396 (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55396)


Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill that would ban flag burning, but she is opposed to a constitutional ban on the act.

Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag.

A spokesperson for the Senator says Clinton supports making flag burning a crime, but is hesitant to amend the Constitution.

Clinton's move to co-sponsor the bill is seen by many observers as an apparent attempt to win over conservative voters as she preps for a possible run for the White House in 2008.

Meanwhile, Clinton is in the middle of a six-state campaign swing aimed at raising money for her Senate re-election – and possibly raising support for a potential run for the White House.

Clinton headlined a fundraiser for the Kentucky State Democratic Party in Louisville Friday night, where turnout exceeded expectations.

The ballroom at the convention center was filled to capacity, helping Clinton raise $600,000 for the party.

Kentucky is a solidly Republican state which George W. Bush easily won last year.

But Clinton supporters were buzzing about the possibility of a Clinton run in 2008.

"We're a border state and have been a red state, but I think we're really fed up with what's going on in Washington and we're ready for a candidate who will really run and really fight for the people," one supporter said.

"Do you want her to run for president? I would love her to run," said another. "I've never worked for a campaign in my life but I would work for her."

Clinton is also making stops in Chicago, Denver, Michigan and New Jersey.

She ends her tour in New York with a party in Manhattan on December 13.

ZippyTheChimp
December 13th, 2005, 08:27 AM
December 13, 2005

Republican Leaders Tell Pirro to End Senate Bid

By MICHAEL COOPER
and PATRICK D. HEALY

ALBANY, Dec. 12 - After weeks of messy public squabbling, leaders of the New York Republican Party met in a smoke-free back room here on Monday and reversed course, urging Jeanine F. Pirro to quit her bid to unseat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and run for state attorney general next year.

Ms. Pirro, the district attorney of Westchester County, immediately issued a statement rejecting the suggestion, saying, "I remain a candidate for U.S. Senate, but I greatly respect the opinion of the county chairs and their confidence in my abilities as a statewide candidate."

The shift by the party came just six months after many of the same Republican leaders recruited her for the bid, and it signaled the mounting disarray of a state party that finds itself in danger of losing the governor's mansion and its majority in the State Senate in 2006. Should Ms. Pirro ultimately pull out, as many party leaders expect, Republicans will be left without a high-profile challenger to Mrs. Clinton as she seeks a commanding re-election victory in advance of a possible presidential bid in 2008.

State and county Republican officials, meeting privately in Colonie, also voted to recommend William F. Weld as their choice to run for governor in 2006. But it was far from a clear victory for Mr. Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, who was born in New York and lives here now. While he won a plurality of the weighted vote of county leaders, an even larger portion of the vote was represented by leaders who abstained or stayed away from the meeting, with the leaders of traditional Republican strongholds like Nassau and Suffolk Counties conspicuously absent.

The vote for Mr. Weld was something of a surprise even to some in the room, because some prominent Republicans in Albany had wanted the party to wait a month for Tom Golisano, a Rochester billionaire and past candidate for governor, to decide whether he would enter the race.

By contrast, the decision to urge Ms. Pirro to withdraw from the Senate race had been in the works for days, as party leaders sought to end public bickering over her mistake-ridden campaign and give her a chance to save her career and reputation by running for state attorney general. Her statement that she was sticking with the Senate race increased the feeling among some Republicans that her political calculus is growing more unpredictable.

At a news conference after the vote, the state party chairman, Stephen J. Minarik III, was asked if Ms. Pirro was politically dead.

"Jeanine Pirro is not dead," he said to the laughter of fellow county leaders. "She is living and breathing. I think Jeanine Pirro is a great candidate for statewide office."

Other Republican leaders said after the vote that their entreaty to Ms. Pirro was not open-ended: They wanted her to switch races by the end of the year, or else they would consider other possible candidates for attorney general, such as Chauncey G. Parker, the criminal justice aide to Gov. George E. Pataki, or State Senator Michael A. L. Balboni of Long Island.

This new exit strategy for Ms. Pirro represents a stark turnabout for Republicans and a sign of their weakening condition after 11 years of dominance in Albany. As recently as June, 46 of the state's 62 Republican county leaders signed a letter pressing Ms. Pirro to run against Mrs. Clinton; Mr. Minarik endorsed her in the spring, and Mr. Pataki followed suit in October.

But with Ms. Pirro struggling to raise money in her race against Mrs. Clinton, and failing to stir policy debates that would make people forget her gaffes, Republican leaders said that they had to act if she were ever to recover her stature as a rising Republican leader.

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, are delighted that the race thus far has centered on Ms. Pirro's foibles instead of on Iraq, taxes or other substantive issues. Even if Ms. Pirro remains a candidate and improves her campaign, her party's lack of confidence in her ability to win the Senate race leaves them skeptical that she will ever have the money or the renewed credibility to pose a real threat.

In recent weeks, even Ms. Pirro and her husband, Albert, a prominent lobbyist, have spoken with Republican officials to raise the possibility of her switching races. But Ms. Pirro also just sent a direct-mail fund-raising letter to national donors and is expected to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars with that solicitation, her advisers said. Most if not all of that money could be steered toward a campaign for attorney general if she wanted.

A Republican close to Ms. Pirro said that she would consider the county leaders' request, but that she had no immediate plans to switch races.

Ms. Pirro has said that she sees Mrs. Clinton as a flawed politician who is driven by personal ambition to become president, and that she also believes New York should have at least one Republican senator who can work within the majority party in Congress. Political analysts also say that even if Ms. Pirro loses to Mrs. Clinton, she would enjoy greater visibility should she make another run for office in the state or seek a job as a television commentator, a role she now plays on occasion.

Several Republicans who attended the meeting said that there was an "overwhelming" desire for Ms. Pirro, who was elected Westchester district attorney three times, to switch to the state attorney general's race. This did not constitute an endorsement, some Republicans cautioned, but was a judgment about her criminal justice background and her struggles in the Senate race.

"I hope that she'll heed the message from the party," said Jack Casey, the chairman of the party in Rensselaer County, whose most powerful elected official, Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, was the first to publicly call on Ms. Pirro to switch races. "We put candidates up sometimes who might not be able to be victorious, we listen to the public, we read polls, we read news stories, and we always have to be open to new information."

Some Republican leaders said that they had hoped to unite the party around a candidate for governor with Monday's vote, and many left saying that it could take months for that to occur.

Mr. Weld - the favorite of the party chairman, Mr. Minarik - won 43 percent of the weighted vote of county leaders. His nearest rival, John J. Faso, a former state assemblyman and a candidate for comptroller, won 10 percent of the vote, and Randy A. Daniels, the former secretary of state, won 1 percent. But 45 percent of the weighted vote was either absent, or abstained. And Mr. Faso notes that in terms of raw numbers, it was a tie, since he and Mr. Weld each received the votes of 23 leaders.

Mr. Weld, who enjoyed fairly broad support across the state from those leaders who actually voted, said in a telephone interview that at several fund-raisers he held later in the day, his supporters were encouraged by his victory.

And some leaders who abstained said that they would still like to see if Mr. Golisano plans to enter the race. Senator Bruno, the Republican majority leader, has flirted with a Golisano candidacy, even though Mr. Golisano's numerous attacks on Mr. Pataki have made him anathema to many Pataki loyalists.

Before the Republicans convened in Colonie, Mr. Weld faced questions from reporters at a news conference about his leadership of Decker College, a vocational school in Kentucky that has filed for bankruptcy and come under investigation by the state and federal agencies. He said prosecutors told him that he was not a target of the investigation. "I was proud of the program," he said.

Michael Cooper reported from Albany for this article and Patrick D. Healy from New York.

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

NYatKNIGHT
December 22nd, 2005, 10:33 AM
Surprise, surpsrise...

Pirro Quits Senate Race to Run for Attorney General

Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22pirro.html)

TomAuch
December 22nd, 2005, 03:05 PM
Will she be able to find page 10 of her AG speech?

BrooklynRider
December 27th, 2005, 10:07 AM
Only if she withholds the collagen lip injections for a week prior, so she can see past her nose.

I never understood the appeal of this lady.

lofter1
March 15th, 2006, 12:29 PM
The past Sunday's New York Times Magazine article on a possible "Anti-Hillary" for Prez candidate, Mark Warner the former Governor of Virginia ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312bwarner.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin), displayed one of the scariest cover photos seen in a long time ...

(Imagine this full sized at 9 x 12!! :eek: ):


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/08/magazine/12cover.large.jpghttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif
Alexei Hay for The New York Times
Mark Warner

The NY Observer tells that Warner isn't too pleased with the presentation (and is offering his own photos to prove it):

Why Is This Man Laughing?

First Glimpse of Handsome Gov. Warner
Bears Slight Resemblance to Mr. Ed

http://www.observer.com/20060320/20060320_Gabriel_Sherman_pageone_featurebox.asp

... Former Virginia governor and centrist Democratic Presidential hopeful Mark Warner learned the dangers of posing for The Times Magazine this week when he landed on the cover, photographed by Alexei Hay.

A sallow Mr. Warner, his face ominously shadowed, was grinning, baring ivory-tinged, domino-sized chompers. He appeared to be wearing a maroon suit coat and a violet shirt for the occasion.

It was not the kind of national debut Mr. Warner’s political supporters were looking for—particularly not in the hometown paper of Hillary Clinton voters...

copyright © 2005 the new york observer, L.P.

BrooklynRider
March 15th, 2006, 03:34 PM
You pin a pair of donkey ears on that face and he's something out of Pinocchio.

ZippyTheChimp
March 15th, 2006, 06:16 PM
Damn! Those things are Chicklets.

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 06:41 PM
Haha, Ann Coulter is one of my favorite people. That's her nature, to be controversial and I love that. Sure she often lies and exaggerates things but she says things that many Republicans feel but are afraid of saying at the expense of being labeled _________. At least she's interesting.

Speaking of "Hillary" I don't want her to hold any public office in this country ever. Someone recently brought up an excellent point about her whole campagin. It has been decided that we would stop referring to her as "Hillary" and start calling her what she really is Mrs. Clinton. It is a simple fact that had it not been for Bill she would never be elected and being a president's wife hardly deserves a senate seat from New York. She never uses "Clinton" and her last name is only listed for legal purposes. By doing this she wants to show that she is a strong, independent woman who IMO was cheated on many many times and didn't even have the balls to stand up for herself. She has voted for some marginally good policies but a Republican candidate gets my vote.

lofter1
March 15th, 2006, 07:33 PM
Speaking of "Hillary" I don't want her to hold any public office in this country ever.
You're a little late, Jake ...

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 08:33 PM
Yes, that was unfortunate. Hopefully it won't happen again, it's obvious she hacked the election....lol (just making fun of the other thread on the forum)


Who's got some nice Ann Coulter quotes? God, I love that woman.

MidtownGuy
March 15th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Ann Coulter is a walking bucket of bile.

MidtownGuy
March 15th, 2006, 10:22 PM
To illustrate, here are some quotes:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."(Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)


"The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero."


"I love Texas Republicans!" she said. "They're these beautiful women, they're so great-looking, they're completely loaded. They're dripping in this gorgeous jewelry, they're really funny and sarcastic and smart. Americans are so cool, and they're such parochial idiots here in New York."


from a series of video clips from FOX HANNITY & COLMES, shown on June 22, 2001. :
COULTER: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.

PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): Oh, OK.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.

FENN: This is a great idea.

COULTER: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

FENN: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...

COULTER: Yes! Yes.

FENN: ... as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.



Is she evil or just stupid?

MidtownGuy
March 15th, 2006, 10:32 PM
(just making fun of the other thread on the forum)

People have historically made fun of what they can't (or won't) understand.

That's OK, those same people are almost never the ones to bring the country forward. Get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with the tough business of democracy. What do you have against fairly conducted elections? Afraid your side would never win legitimately?

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 10:40 PM
She's hilarious, you should see some of the protests that students organize against her.

The McVeigh comment was later clarified...

"Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters'.

lol


I like this one the best

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens)' creme brulee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creme_brulee). That's just a joke, for you in the media."

Now a normal person knows not to take her statements seriously, but as a person with no forseeable political career she can say this stuff and oh well what can you do. She is a tad extreme but so are liberals who make it taboo to say certain things. True freedom of speech is saying whatever you want, whether it's politically correct or not. I don't care about people's "feelings" or religion, or race, or political affiliations. If I have a problem with something I say it.

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 10:47 PM
That's OK, those same people are almost never the ones to bring the country forward. Get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with the tough business of democracy. What do you have against fairly conducted elections? Afraid your side would never win legitimately?
well if you're saying Bush hacked the election then I can claim that so did Mrs. Clinton, right?

this tough business of democracy is that some people maybe want a chimp-looking president, we voted, we saw what happened

To me the national election is a far more reliable survey than these BS online or phone surveys that either have people consider the question at hand for .3 of a second or have survery groups of 101 people.


So maybe us uneducated rednecks don't know what's "right for us" but we voted and that's what democracy is. If the country is 50.1% redneck then it's a redneck country.

YOU LOST, simple as that and now me, Ann, Chimpy, and Dick are running the show. You can have your turn in 2008 and I sooooooo hope you nominate Mrs. Clinton.

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 10:48 PM
People have historically made fun of what they can't (or won't) understand.

hmmm....those people wouldn't happen to be democrats making fun of Republicans, now would it?

MidtownGuy
March 15th, 2006, 10:52 PM
Clinton's race did not take place in a state with security-compromised Diebold vote machines. The allegations should be based on facts, as are mine. If you actually read some of the data instead of shrugging it off, you might be surprised by what you find.

MidtownGuy
March 15th, 2006, 10:55 PM
those people wouldn't happen to be democrats making fun of Republicans, now would it

No mystery there. Republicans that support this president aren't hard to understand. They're just afraid and stupid.

MidtownGuy
March 15th, 2006, 10:57 PM
True freedom of speech is saying whatever you want, whether it's politically correct or not. I don't care about people's "feelings" or religion, or race, or political affiliations. If I have a problem with something I say it.

You're right! I will defend to the death your right to make an ass out of yourself. I wouldn't have it any other way.

BrooklynRider
March 15th, 2006, 11:28 PM
...Speaking of "Hillary"...She has voted for some marginally good policies but a Republican candidate gets my vote.

Hmmm... She voted for the Iraq War.. She voted for No Child Left Behind... She supports the President's spying program... She introduced a amendment to ban flag burning... She is against enforcement of civil rights for gays... She was mum on Alito... She is mum on Censure... She is right of center on nearly every issue playing for those Christian wingnuts.

I'm a good ol' liberal progressive and I can tell you that Hillary IS a Republican. I wish a real progressive would challenge her and that slime-bucket DLC bunch she's apart of. She won't get my vote. She is one of the most conniving, calculating politicians out there. I've called her office many times advocating for different bills and votes. If you ask her office for her position, it is always "Mrs. Clinton has not issued a press release at this time" or "Mrs. Clinton would like to study the matter more closely." That crap will go on for weeks. She is staking ground in a no-man's land of "do nothing," "say nothing," "play it safe" and screw the base. She's pretty much reviled by liberals.

I don't want to see another Clinton in the White House. No way! They and the Bush's are a little too close and she's as much a corporate whore fascist as Bush.

Rant over.

Thank you.

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 11:43 PM
Glad we agree on something! :)

We are very afraid and stupid, after all none of us made it past elementary school and we hate gays and blacks because we're afraid of our own homosexual feelings and really want to be like 50 cents, got that, yo?

I mean we all saw how Brokeback Mountain proves that those Texas cowboys just wanna do each other, right?

That Tom Cruise has got some ass, I'm telling you!
And Nicole Kidman, she's just some skinny ugly bitch!

damn I think there might be a reason why since 1969 Democrats have been in office only 12 years, I think we're all just stupid redneck election hackers.

And to be honest, anyone who thinks that collectively Democrats are a smarter group than Republicans are just ignorant. You need to look at the reasons people are in each party. If you were arguing about 1930 Reps vs Dems then we'd have a good honest discussion about real issues but right now to me Democrats are nothing more than a party for the society's poor, uneducated, foreign-culture-loving rejects. Yes the bulk of the party may be smart but the reason people join is not that they give a shit about freedom of choice or foreign policy. People care about MONEY. Republicans reduce taxes while Democrats increase welfare. Think about what kind of people benefit from each.

Now you can go ahead and break down this post and cite paragraph 5 of policy 23 I don't really care, the bottom line is that I grew up in a country that I though provided me with every opportunity for a great life, and I'm not liking the changes.

I simply don't care about anyone other than my family and friends. If I can help someone without any effort or drain on services provided for me then fine but otherwise no. Since none of you are currently overseas building huts for third world children then unless you admit that you care about yourself too, then you are a liar.

2006 America is a bullshit communist country that rewards the lazy and taxes those who did something to help themselves. Everyone has this entitlement mentallity that will work just great for them when SS and Medicare run out of money. Medicare is already waaaaay in the red and the only solution that could've saved SS, privatization, was rejected. Maybe in a decade or two this whole nation will get a wake up call when the SS checks stop coming and it will be everyone for themselves. Then I'll be sitting comfortably in my Vermont home with my Exxon and GE stock certificates while the 70 year olds will be looking for work at Wal-Mart.

Mrs. Clinton wants a socialist country, and that system didn't work too well. Even Democrats from 50 years ago would be considered far right these days.

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 11:48 PM
haha, wow, how different are our opinions yet neither of us likes her.


The fact that she voted for those things just proves she's just a little, sit-quiet and nod, woman, not a leader.

I realize I went very off topic as I was mostly referring to her in a presidential bid and not an obedient little Senator (where she pisses me off too).


Let's no fight, let's talk about Ann, she's such a nice woman.

ZippyTheChimp
March 15th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Breaking down your moronic rants is a waste of time.

This thread, like others you seem to be infecting with your whining, is not about you.

Open a personal rant thread in Anything Goes. If anyone wants to hear you complain like a little baby, they can visit you there.

lofter1
March 16th, 2006, 12:12 AM
... some people maybe want a chimp-looking president ...

Be careful what you wish for ...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/jeany/JW_images/mainPage/bushmonkey.gif

http://desperatetimes.org/images/bush_monkey.jpg

http://www.38harding.com/qblog/archives/bush_monkey_face%20copy.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~ketubah/tonermishap/bush-monkeys_lg.jpg

http://www.robrogers.com/cartoons/2005/images/061805%20Bush's%20Monkey.gif

http://somagcc.blogharbor.com/_photos/bush%20monkey%202.jpg

BrooklynRider
March 16th, 2006, 10:07 AM
Breaking down your moronic rants is a waste of time.

This thread, like others you seem to be infecting with your whining, is not about you.

Open a personal rant thread in Anything Goes. If anyone wants to hear you complain like a little baby, they can visit you there.

Apparently there's a chip on your shoulder that's getting a bit wobbly. Considering my post was on topic, your reaction is over the top.

My post was about Hillary. Your post is about me. Reread your own post if your want a glimpse of a moronic rant.

lofter1
March 16th, 2006, 10:29 AM
... Maybe in a decade or two this whole nation will get a wake up call when the SS checks stop coming and it will be everyone for themselves. Then I'll be sitting comfortably in my Vermont home with my Exxon and GE stock certificates while the 70 year olds will be looking for work at Wal-Mart.

And you'll be doing what?

Using that more-likely-than-not worthless paper to keep the fire going in your rustic cabin??

(While you get ready to start YOUR shift at the local Wal-Mart?) ;)

ZippyTheChimp
March 16th, 2006, 10:41 AM
Apparently there's a chip on your shoulder that's getting a bit wobbly. Considering my post was on topic, your reaction is over the top.

My post was about Hillary. Your post is about me. Reread your own post if your want a glimpse of a moronic rant.
I think you're getting a bit paranoid in assuming I was referring to your post. My reply was directed at the two posts preceeding mine, and specifically referred to the remark:

Now you can go ahead and break down this post to which I responded:

Breaking down your moronic rants is a waste of time.

Any other complaints?

BrooklynRider
March 16th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Nope - mea culpa - I was just starting to read the thread at work from my last post (#58), got interrupted with some crap, and in the process hit a key that forwarded me to the next page headed by your post. I responded. I sent you the PM. I thought about it and it still didn't make sense. I went back to see what I wrote and saw Jake's following post. I came back to delete my response, but WNY went out of service until just moments ago.

My apologies to you (but I'm still paranoid).

So, where were we...

Jake
March 16th, 2006, 05:35 PM
We were on Mrs. Clinton vs. Ann Coulter for Senate

BrooklynRider
March 16th, 2006, 05:46 PM
Well, whereas I think Clinton as a DLC Democrat is nothing more than Republican lite, I find Ann Coulter to be offensive to the senses in every aspect and totally lacking any credibility. Even without the facts and if I were to grant her position as an "entertainer," her material is thin, not funny, and rooted in hate. Hate with a giggle and hate with a wink is still hate. I don;t think there's anyone comparable and as mean-spirited and vulgar as she is on the left. NO ONE.

She really is the face of Bush politics and his supporters.

TLOZ Link5
March 16th, 2006, 11:44 PM
"I love Texas Republicans!" she said. "They're these beautiful women, they're so great-looking, they're completely loaded. They're dripping in this gorgeous jewelry, they're really funny and sarcastic and smart. Americans are so cool, and they're such parochial idiots here in New York."

And yet she was born in New York.

BrooklynRider
March 23rd, 2006, 10:36 AM
March 23, 2006
Questions Arise About Résumé of Challenger to Clinton
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

When Kathleen Troia McFarland stepped forward as a Republican challenger to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, she was a relatively obscure figure with two intriguing claims to fame: She had worked on President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech and had been the highest-ranking woman at the Reagan Pentagon.

But interviews with former Reagan administration officials and a review of documents show her claims were not entirely accurate. Though she helped write the "Star Wars" speech, its most famous passage — the one that announced the anti-ballistic missile program — was actually written by the president himself and his top national security advisers, according to two senior advisers to Mr. Reagan and a review of the literature and news articles of the period.

And while Ms. McFarland, who is known as K. T., was a close confidante of Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger, serving as his speechwriter and spokeswoman for several years, there were two women with higher ranks in the Pentagon during virtually her entire time there, according to information provided by the Pentagon and the McFarland campaign.

Ms. McFarland's biography has already emerged as an issue in the Republican primary. Her rival, John Spencer, a former mayor of Yonkers, has asserted that she inflated her position by claiming that she held the equivalent civilian rank of a three-star general while in the Pentagon. Ms. McFarland's campaign said that she had claimed only to be the civilian equivalent of "a two-and-a-half-star general." In a recent interview, Ms. McFarland said she had never claimed authorship for the section of the "Star Wars" speech announcing the President's Strategic Defense Initiative, a passage known among Reagan advisers as "the insert." Rather, Ms. McFarland said, she had written other sections of the speech reiterating the administration's defense policy.

"I don't think I ever claimed I authored the insert," she said. As for her assertion that she was the highest-ranking woman in the Reagan Pentagon, Ms. McFarland said that she was told that that was the case upon her hiring and that she never had reason to question it. Furthermore, she said that her job — unlike the positions the two other women held — put her at the core of the defense secretary's policy team. William Howard Taft 4th, a former deputy defense secretary in the Reagan administration, buttressed that assertion in an interview.

In many ways, Ms. McFarland's assertions are typical of the résumé polishing of many politicians at election time. But her campaign has sought to use her military-related experiences — in the Pentagon and on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee — as cornerstones of her qualifications for the Senate.

In perhaps her main claim, Ms. McFarland and her campaign have highlighted what they say was her role in President Reagan's "Star Wars" speech of March 23, 1983, when she was Mr. Weinberger's speechwriter.

In a copy of her résumé, which was distributed to reporters, Ms. McFarland says simply: "Drafted President Reagan's Star Wars Speech." And in a recent interview with The New York Times, Ed Rollins, one of her chief advisers, said that Ms. McFarland's association with Mr. Reagan and work on military issues — including helping to write the "Star Wars" speech — would make her a strong challenger to Mrs. Clinton.

But a review of writings about the Reagan era do not mention that Ms. McFarland had a role in writing the speech and indicate that Mr. Reagan and a small circle of advisers closely guarded his plans to announce a missile defense initiative. Among those White House aides credited with having a direct hand in putting together the section on missile defense were George A. Keyworth II, the president's science adviser, and Robert C. McFarlane, then Mr. Reagan's deputy national security adviser.

In separate interviews, both men agreed that a small group of National Security Council advisers that did not include Ms. McFarland had direct roles in writing the insert on missile defense.

As Dr. Keyworth recalled it, President Reagan initially dictated the passage to Mr. McFarlane, who typed it on a few pages that the group worked from. The day before President Reagan was to give the speech, the passage was sent to Vice President George H. W. Bush, Secretary of State George P. Schultz and Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Mr. McFarlane and Dr. Keyworth recalled.

Dr. Keyworth and Mr. McFarlane said that the passage was inserted into a larger defense policy speech that had been drafted by the Defense Department. Dr. Keyworth called the part of the speech drafted by the department "a standard statement of the administration's national security policy." Mr. McFarlane said that Ms. McFarland was one of the "principal drafters" of that part.

Ms. McFarland has also said that she was the highest-ranking woman in the Reagan Pentagon. At a candidates' forum in Glens Falls, N.Y., earlier this month, she said: "I was the highest-ranking woman at the Pentagon, usually the only woman in most meetings."

Ms. McFarland arrived at the Pentagon in March 1982 to be a speechwriter and assistant to the secretary of defense, her campaign said. She then became deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in December 1983. Ms. McFarland says she remained in that position until about November 1984.

Personnel information provided by the Pentagon, and other documents, make clear that at least two other women held higher ranks during nearly all of Mrs. McFarland's term there. About a month after Ms. McFarland first arrived at the Pentagon as a speechwriter, Edith Martin was named deputy undersecretary of defense for research and advanced technology in April 1982 and held that post until August 1984. Information from the Pentagon also shows that Mary Ann Gilleece was appointed deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and management in April 1983 and held that position until August 1985.

Mr. Taft, the former deputy defense secretary, acknowledged that Ms. Gilleece and Ms. Martin ranked higher than Ms. McFarland. But he said that Ms. McFarland, with her access to the secretary of defense, had a more prominent role. "I don't mean to suggest that these other people weren't important," Mr. Taft said. "But the way the system worked, they weren't as important to the secretary of defense as Kathleen was."

Ms. McFarland has also said, in her résumé, that in 1981 she became the first female professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her campaign Web site credits her with "breaking historic barriers as a female professional staff member" of the committee. And at the candidates' forum in Glens Falls, she described herself as "the first woman on the Senate Armed Services Committee staff working for Senator John Tower who was the newly elected chairman."

But a review of Senate records and other documents shows that there were at least two women who attained the title of professional staff member on the Armed Services Committee before Ms. McFarland. They included Louise R. Hoppe, who left the committee four months before Ms. McFarland joined it. Ms. McFarland said Ms. Hoppe, who is a family friend, had an administrative job whereas Ms. McFarland was a policy adviser.

"At the time, I was told I was the first one with a policy portfolio," she said. "I was told by Senator Tower, who hired me."

Barclay Walsh, in Washington, contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

lofter1
March 25th, 2006, 11:17 PM
As the republican candidates crash and burn, one of their own (himself discredited -- is that a prerequisite? -- and somewhat of a joke, although still one of the bigger turds in the NY GOP cesspool) throws in his 2 cents ...

D'Amato Is Now Prophet of Doom for G.O.P. Candidates

By SAM ROBERTS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/sam_roberts/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
NY Times
March 26, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/nyregion/26damato.html

Seven years after leaving the Senate, Alfonse M. D'Amato (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/alfonse_m_damato/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has plunged back into New York Republican politics with a vengeance.

With potentially devastating effect, he has publicly challenged the choices of the party establishment, warning that its favored candidates for governor, attorney general and United States senator appear to be so freighted with political baggage that they will very likely lose to Democrats in November.

Mr. D'Amato insists that his primary objective is to salvage the party that he was instrumental in reviving by installing his top aide as Republican state chairman and promoting the candidacy of George E. Pataki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/george_e_pataki/index.html?inline=nyt-per), then little known, in the 1994 race for governor.

But, some critics, accusing him of sabotaging the party's leading prospects, contend that he is motivated by personal animus, particularly against William F. Weld (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/william_f_weld/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a candidate for governor. And, they say, as a thriving consultant and lobbyist, he may also be seeking to ingratiate himself with the Democrats, especially Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the leading candidate for governor, whom he has been praising effusively.

Last week, Mr. Weld, seeking to stanch the hemorrhaging, lashed back. He said the basis for their bad blood was Mr. D'Amato's antipathy — expressed, Mr. Weld said, in an expletive-laced personal warning to Mr. Weld a decade ago — for Mr. Weld's protégé, Robert S. Mueller III (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_s_iii_mueller/index.html?inline=nyt-per), now the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) director, who oversaw the unsuccessful prosecution of Mr. D'Amato's brother, Armand.

Mr. D'Amato, who has denied even having a private conversation with Mr. Weld before this year, has a well-deserved reputation, though, not only for carrying a grudge, but also for intemperate remarks that defined him as a swashbuckling political figure. He has deprecated Representative Jerrold Nadler (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/jerrold_nadler/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who peaked at 338 pounds, as "Congressman Waddler"; referred to his challenger for the Senate, Charles E. Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), with a Yiddish vulgarism; and used broken English to mock Lance A. Ito, the judge in O. J. Simpson's (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/o_j_simpson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) criminal trial.

"I've tried to meddle," Mr. D'Amato acknowledged in an interview last week, "to the extent that I said to party leaders that this would be the first year in modern history that we're in danger of losing every single statewide office."

In the interview, Mr. D'Amato said of Jeanine F. Pirro (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/people/p/jeanine_pirro/index.html?inline=nyt-per), his party's leading contender for attorney general: "She will be an easy target for her opponents in the general election. She has her lines down perfectly, but that's not good enough. When opponents bring up the record, she's going to be embarrassed." He declined to elaborate on her political liabilities: "I'm not supposed to mention that. I'm not bad-mouthing her."

Alluding to reports in The New York Post that Kathleen Troia McFarland, a prospective Republican challenger to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), failed to vote on numerous occasions, including the election in 1984 (when she says she recalls voting), Mr. D'Amato said: "Tell me you missed the school board elections, but not voting for president, for the man who appointed you. And you're such a great Reaganite?"

The schism evokes the class warfare that Mr. D'Amato effectively exploited in 1980, when, as the presiding supervisor of the Town of Hempstead, he unseated Senator Jacob K. Javits and vanquished the dwindling ranks of Rockefeller Republicans.

"I don't think that Bill Weld represents the hopes and aspirations of the working- middle-class families; I don't think he understands our problems," said Mr. D'Amato, 68, who grew up working class, but who recently graduated to a 5,000-square-foot house on an oceanfront lot in Lido Beach on Long Island.

Mr. D'Amato's assessment was echoed by Michael R. Long, the state's Conservative Party chairman. He said Mr. Pataki was first elected because voters were "tired of the elitist liberal attitude that prevailed in New York State (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/newyork/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) at the time."

"Weld and McFarland are not representative of the rank-and-file middle class," Mr. Long said.

Mr. D'Amato's office at the lobbying and consulting firm Park Strategies — complete with a wine cooler and treadmill and crammed with mementos including a totem pole — does not have a listed phone number. But he is not hard to find. Business has expanded exponentially and, as a frequent guest on television interview programs, he still has a platform and a following.

Still, if his only concern is to protect his party, why not impart his misgivings about Republican candidates privately?

"I'm on these talk shows," he replied. "What am I supposed to do, sit there like a dope and say nothing?"

Stephen J. Minarik III, the Republican state chairman, would prefer just that.

"I don't like to hang our laundry out in public, but he's entitled to his opinion just like anyone else," said Mr. Minarik, who is a Weld advocate and the latest party leader installed by Mr. Pataki after the decade-long reign of a D'Amato acolyte. "I can't begin to speculate on his personal motives. Al D'Amato is a lobbyist now and has to protect his interests, and that may be entering into it."

Given the new party leadership and since his own defeat in 1998, Mr. D'Amato may not be the power broker he once was within the party. "He carries the weight of an ex-United States senator," Mr. Minarik said.

But Kieran Mahoney, a political consultant who has worked for Mr. Pataki and Mr. D'Amato, said the former senator's influence should not be underestimated.

"Right now," Mr. Mahoney said, "if I were running for public office in New York and I needed money to run and I had one phone call to make, it would be to Al D'Amato."

Mr. Mahoney said that while the value of endorsements is typically exaggerated, Mr. D'Amato's embrace of Mr. Spitzer could be helpful if he wins the Democratic nomination. "If a Republican says nice things about a Democrat, it at least has a man-bites-dog quality," Mr. Mahoney said.

Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic consultant, suggested another possibility if, as Mr. D'Amato is warning, the Democrats win every statewide office for the first time since 1942.

"The Republicans will look to D'Amato," Mr. Sheinkopf said. "He rebuilt their party the last time. D'Amato will be among the last people standing."

On Thursday, in response to a question at a breakfast for business executives, Mr. Weld suggested that Mr. D'Amato's antagonism was an outgrowth of the investigation into his brother in the early 1990's. (Armand P. D'Amato's conviction was overturned on appeal; the senator branded the case "a political prosecution undertaken solely to hurt me and my family.")

Mr. D'Amato, in the interview, said he believed that Mr. Weld himself, who had already left the Justice Department by then, had "little if anything to do" with the indictment — though Mr. Mueller surely did.

But their hostility runs even deeper, to 1988, when, Mr. D'Amato said, Mr. Weld and others resigned to distance themselves from Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who was under investigation. "Is that what you do with someone who appointed you?" Mr. D'Amato asked. "You turn on him, you put a dagger in his heart and leave?"

Mr. Weld also vouched for Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the first lady, when Mr. D'Amato was investigating the Whitewater land deal.

Mr. D'Amato, who said he is focusing on helping his party retain control of the State Senate, is supporting former Assemblyman John Faso for the Republican nomination for governor. He stopped short of saying he would endorse Mr. Faso if he wins the nomination, adding, though, "He's certainly more entitled to it."

Mr. D'Amato said that while he has no intention of endorsing Mr. Spitzer — "certainly not at this time" — he considers himself an admirer. He said Mr. Spitzer has "certainly exhibited a great skill level at the job he has, he has the intellectual acumen and heart and desire to do a great job as governor."

Yes, Armand D'Amato contributed $1,000 to the Spitzer campaign last November, the former senator said, but added: "I didn't tell him to. I didn't tell him not to."

Would he vote for Mr. Spitzer? "I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to vote," Mr. D'Amato replied. "I almost always vote for Republicans. I think I would continue that position."

Mr. D'Amato insisted that his praise for Mr. Spitzer was heartfelt and not a political or professional calculation.

"They say, 'Alfonse is doing it for business reasons, he's looking to curry favor,' " Mr. D'Amato said. "Lobbying is a small part of our business. And, I've been saying it for years. Does that mean he's done everything right? Even Alfonse makes mistakes."

"Not many," he added.

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

BrooklynRider
April 30th, 2006, 11:06 PM
Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research
Support for Rodham Clinton Falls to 26% in U.S.
April 21, 2006

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Fewer American voters are enthused about a prospective presidential candidacy by former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 26 per cent of respondents say they would definitely vote for the Democratic New York senator in 2008, down three points since late March.

Rodham Clinton—a Democrat—was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, defeating Republican Rick Lazio by 12 percentage points. 58 per cent of respondents believe it is very or somewhat likely that Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

Yesterday, Rodham Clinton issued a statement in support of legislation that would forbid congressional salaries from increasing unless the minimum wage rises by the same percentage. "We should raise the federal minimum wage again so that working parents can lift their children out of poverty," the statement read.

Neither of the two major political parties in the U.S. has ever nominated a woman for president. In 1984, New York congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s vice-presidential nominee in the Democratic ticket.

Polling Data

If Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2008, would you vote for her?

Apr. 18
Mar. 21
Mar. 7

Definitely vote for her
26%
29%
29%

Definitely vote against her
41%
37%
40%

Depends on who she runs against
26%
26%
24%


How likely is it that senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008?

Apr. 18
Mar. 21
Mar. 7

Very likely
26%
30%
27%

Somewhat likely
32%
31%
34%

Not very likely
23%
22%
22%

Not at all likely
11%
9%
10%

Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Apr. 17 and Apr. 18, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

For the record, I won't vote for her. A neocon is a neocon, Republican or Democrat.

pscoln1
May 3rd, 2006, 02:34 AM
All I can say is that if Hilary Clinton becomes president Im moving out of this country!

lofter1
May 3rd, 2006, 09:32 AM
^^ Mexico is terrific -- great weather.

BrooklynRider
May 8th, 2006, 09:36 PM
Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-000077...

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the “Fox News Sunday” 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch.

lofter1
July 15th, 2006, 11:22 AM
McFarland's Brother Says She's Lying About Family Abuse

NY 1 (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=61042)
July 15, 2006

Senate candidate KT McFarland insists she's staying in the race, even though her own brother says she may have psychiatric issues.

McFarland has accused her father of physically and sexually abusing her and her siblings, but her brother strongly refuted the accusations on Friday night's edition of NY1’s “Inside City Hall.” In a phone interview, Tom Troia said his sister is lying.

Excerpts of a 1992 letter McFarland sent to her father were published Friday in the “Daily News.”

It reads in part: “All of your children bear vivid emotional scars of your brutality... Tom, Mike and Nancy are permanently damaged and will probably never fully recover…You preyed on your young; you would have done better to kill them right away instead of damning them to lifetimes of confusion, anger and hatred.'”

Tom Troia says none of it is true.

"She's lying about the abuse; that's what I'm saying,” said Tom Troia. “She accused my father of incest with all the children in the family and I could say for a fact that absolutely nothing like that ever happened to me. She mentions my dad's death about 10 times in that letter; she tried to kill him. He had a heart attack the year before. The only reason he's still alive is he never saw the letter. He doesn't know about the letter's existence. He doesn't know about my sister's accusations against him.”

McFarland also has fundraising issues to contend with. Her campaign reported the Republican candidate has just $282,000 cash on hand compared to $22 million for Senator Hillary Clinton.



Copyright © 2006 NY1 News.

BrooklynRider
July 16th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Looks like it's going to be a very tight race.

lofter1
September 1st, 2006, 10:58 AM
What some folks are saying about Hillary ...

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewforum.php?f=15

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Header_Hillary.gif (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewforum.php?f=15)


http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Hillary_Guard.gif (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewforum.php?f=15)
"I'm looking forward to Purge Season. Ahhh... the smell of fear, the sweat on the foreheads, the glaring Klieg lights, the flowing tears, the begging pleas for mercy... I don't know about you, but it gives me goose bumps and a warm fuzzy feeling that my cold blooded reptillian hypothalamus really enjoys, like a snake sunning itself on a warm, flat rock."Hillary Clinton,
People's Commissar

Assorted Hillary Forums at the LINK (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewforum.php?f=15)


And a REPLY POST (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=400) from "Hillary" in response ...
By Hillary
12/1/2005, 9:46 pm


What is this "IF" SHIT ??????!

Who is this Turdcutter?

Why hasn't this person been summarily shot?

Jeezus H. Christ, I take a couple of weeks off campaigning for true socialists, I come back to the Cube and some Goddamned insolents are using 2 letter words in FRONT OF MY NAME!

OK all you cubicle pubicals, let's get a little practice and a quick refresher in here:

There is no "if" conjunction in front of the name Hillary.

Acceptable conjunctions in front of the name Hillary include "when" and "after".


Example 1 - When Hillary becomes President (add your favorite socialist program here) etc.
Example 2 - After Hillary becomes President (add your favorite socialist program here) etc. Grease the Mark VII Kommissar Betty and sharpen that blade of justice!


http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Medal_Hillary.gif (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=14)