Lee Strong at the Gates Blog commented about the refusal of local State Assembly Democrats to meet with Monroe County Executive Brooks while she was in Albany to discuss local projects. Apparently, the snub is intended to chastise her for not being "cooperative" with Democratic leaders on many topics, most notably, the sales tax intercept and the Public Defender selection process.
Not surprisingly, the ringleader of this classy ploy is David Gantt. Gantt claims that Brooks should have intervened in the Public Defender process, which he claims has been "politicized". He's right that the process has been politicized, but he's the one who did it. You see, for David Gantt and his fellow Democrats "bipartisan cooperation" means the Republicans have to agree to do what the Democrats want.
As I noted on the Gates Blog, it always seems that the guys who yell the loudest about working together are among the first to act as partisans when it suits their needs. Mr. Gantt continues to "exceed" the lowest expectations of the proper conduct of an elected official.
A review of his "accomplishments" as an Assemblyman, reveals that his signature act is saying "no". He is generally associated with blocking things, like the request for a sales tax increase (which led to the F.A.I.R. plan) and refusing to allow the soccer stadium to be built in Gates. The Rhinos difficulties with Pae-Tec Park are due, at least in part, to its location, a location which Mr. Gantt had a large say in.
I think its fairly obvious that the fact that Gantt is the "dean" of the Rochester area legislative delegation, explains why we so often get short shrift in Albany. Gantt complaining about Brooks being "uncooperative" is simply laughable.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Rudy Strikes Out
The clock struck twelve for Rudy Giuliani tonight.
He finished a distant third and rumors are that he will endorse John McCain tomorrow.
I'm sorry to see Rudy go. I really think he had a lot to offer the country. But, the people have spoken.
Now, I have to find a new candidate and I have to buy Lee Strong a cup of coffee.
He finished a distant third and rumors are that he will endorse John McCain tomorrow.
I'm sorry to see Rudy go. I really think he had a lot to offer the country. But, the people have spoken.
Now, I have to find a new candidate and I have to buy Lee Strong a cup of coffee.
After Rudy, Where Do I Go?
The voters in Florida are deciding Rudy Giuliani's electoral fate as I write this. Unless the polls are way off again, its lights out for Rudy.
And that leaves me with a dilemma. Who will I support for the GOP nomination if Rudy calls it quits? Based on the apparent Florida results, the race is basically becoming a two-man contest between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Each of them has positives and negatives (I guess that's obvious).
McCain has great personal appeal to me due to his service and great courage as a POW in Viet Nam. Given that I view national security issues as paramount, his strength in that area gives him a lot of points. But, I can't get away from the fact that he has taken some real flyers away from many mainstream GOP/Conservative values and issues. His positions on immigration, campaign finance, and interrogation techniques, have left me scratching my head. I also think his (and his sidekick, Lindsay Graham's) actions on judicial appointments, were a mixed bag, at best.
Then there's Romney. He has a pretty good record as an administrator; very successful at salvaging the Olympics in Utah and bringing a very liberal state (Massachusetts) back to fiscal sanity. On the negative side, it seems like he changes positions like most people change their clothes. He has also been the more negative campaigner of the two.
I guess I could support either one, though I'm still holding out (faint) hope that Rudy will have a miracle finish in Florida and stay alive for the nomination. If not, I'm going to have to choose.
And the NY Primary is only a week away!
And that leaves me with a dilemma. Who will I support for the GOP nomination if Rudy calls it quits? Based on the apparent Florida results, the race is basically becoming a two-man contest between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Each of them has positives and negatives (I guess that's obvious).
McCain has great personal appeal to me due to his service and great courage as a POW in Viet Nam. Given that I view national security issues as paramount, his strength in that area gives him a lot of points. But, I can't get away from the fact that he has taken some real flyers away from many mainstream GOP/Conservative values and issues. His positions on immigration, campaign finance, and interrogation techniques, have left me scratching my head. I also think his (and his sidekick, Lindsay Graham's) actions on judicial appointments, were a mixed bag, at best.
Then there's Romney. He has a pretty good record as an administrator; very successful at salvaging the Olympics in Utah and bringing a very liberal state (Massachusetts) back to fiscal sanity. On the negative side, it seems like he changes positions like most people change their clothes. He has also been the more negative campaigner of the two.
I guess I could support either one, though I'm still holding out (faint) hope that Rudy will have a miracle finish in Florida and stay alive for the nomination. If not, I'm going to have to choose.
And the NY Primary is only a week away!
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Hanson on Target Again
I rarely tire of reading commentary by Victor Davis Hanson.
He is a conservative writer but by no means an ideologue. He is fair and pragmatic and "calls 'em as he sees 'em" no matter if its a Republican or a Democrat who is his target.
In his recent article The Moral Economy, (written for Real Clear Politics) he cuts to the chase about what's really wrong with our economy and political system. Hanson's conclusion is that as a society we have lost the ability to restrain our desire for instant gratification and our political leaders have lost the will to lead us to make difficult choices.
First he discusses America's spendthrift ways:
"American households have on average the largest houses in the world, the most cars and plentiful conveniences like big-screen televisions and DVD players. Yet there is a growing sense that we are paying the tab by borrowing trillions from the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans and South Koreans.
Some economists might argue that it is a win/win situation to have others toil to send us their cheap consumer goods, lend us the money to buy them and get little interest back on their debt. But when in history has a debtor ever felt better - in a moral, psychological or practical sense - than his lender?"
Then he considers what our courageous political leaders have to offer:
"Our candidates avoid that sort of honest tough talk. Republicans instead want an indebted government to pump up the economy by interest-rate cuts and tax rebates. And if we listen to Democrats, you would think no American could survive another maxed-out credit card without another new government bailout program."
Finally, some Hanson realism:
"First, at this late date, Republicans shouldn't vote for any candidate who promises another tax cut without first offering a matching slash in expenditures. And Democrats should reject any candidate who promises another multi-billion dollar entitlement without detailing how the additional revenue is to be raised.
Second, instead of demanding new billion-dollar programs for health care and education, we should take more responsibility for our own welfare.
Americans need to readjust their budget priorities. One might be able to believe that a $200 dollar a month private catastrophic health plan is out of the reach of most Americans - if we were also to hear that sales of video games, cell phones and plasma televisions have crashed."
Read the whole article. You will agree that he's hit the nail on the head.
He is a conservative writer but by no means an ideologue. He is fair and pragmatic and "calls 'em as he sees 'em" no matter if its a Republican or a Democrat who is his target.
In his recent article The Moral Economy, (written for Real Clear Politics) he cuts to the chase about what's really wrong with our economy and political system. Hanson's conclusion is that as a society we have lost the ability to restrain our desire for instant gratification and our political leaders have lost the will to lead us to make difficult choices.
First he discusses America's spendthrift ways:
"American households have on average the largest houses in the world, the most cars and plentiful conveniences like big-screen televisions and DVD players. Yet there is a growing sense that we are paying the tab by borrowing trillions from the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans and South Koreans.
Some economists might argue that it is a win/win situation to have others toil to send us their cheap consumer goods, lend us the money to buy them and get little interest back on their debt. But when in history has a debtor ever felt better - in a moral, psychological or practical sense - than his lender?"
Then he considers what our courageous political leaders have to offer:
"Our candidates avoid that sort of honest tough talk. Republicans instead want an indebted government to pump up the economy by interest-rate cuts and tax rebates. And if we listen to Democrats, you would think no American could survive another maxed-out credit card without another new government bailout program."
Finally, some Hanson realism:
"First, at this late date, Republicans shouldn't vote for any candidate who promises another tax cut without first offering a matching slash in expenditures. And Democrats should reject any candidate who promises another multi-billion dollar entitlement without detailing how the additional revenue is to be raised.
Second, instead of demanding new billion-dollar programs for health care and education, we should take more responsibility for our own welfare.
Americans need to readjust their budget priorities. One might be able to believe that a $200 dollar a month private catastrophic health plan is out of the reach of most Americans - if we were also to hear that sales of video games, cell phones and plasma televisions have crashed."
Read the whole article. You will agree that he's hit the nail on the head.
I Won't Have Walsh To Kick Around Anymore!
Some random thoughts on Jim Walsh's announcement that he won't be running for re-election.
First, Walsh is quoted as saying "it was time to go". He just doesn't feel the way he used to about being in Congress. My guess is his feelings were based on polls that showed that his lame effort to be a "moderate" Republican not only failed to win over the voters who were against him last time, but also cost him the support of most of those who did vote for him in the past.
Second, I think its hilarious that the liberal editorialists at the D&C are falling all over themselves with "praise" for Walsh as he bows out. When did they start to like him? When he started running away from President Bush, in his ill-fated effort to save his seat.
The only Republicans that the D&C (and the NY Times) likes are ex-officeholders or those who are willing to buck the "GOP party line". The libs know that the Republican candidates that go that route, will soon be ex-officeholders.
Bye, bye, Jim. You won't be missed by many Republicans.
First, Walsh is quoted as saying "it was time to go". He just doesn't feel the way he used to about being in Congress. My guess is his feelings were based on polls that showed that his lame effort to be a "moderate" Republican not only failed to win over the voters who were against him last time, but also cost him the support of most of those who did vote for him in the past.
Second, I think its hilarious that the liberal editorialists at the D&C are falling all over themselves with "praise" for Walsh as he bows out. When did they start to like him? When he started running away from President Bush, in his ill-fated effort to save his seat.
The only Republicans that the D&C (and the NY Times) likes are ex-officeholders or those who are willing to buck the "GOP party line". The libs know that the Republican candidates that go that route, will soon be ex-officeholders.
Bye, bye, Jim. You won't be missed by many Republicans.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Florida or Bust
Well, we are less than a week away from learning if Rudy Giuliani is a political genius or a campaign footnote.
As anyone who follows politics knows, Rudy has gone "all in" on the Florida primary. The polls show a close race. If he pulls out the win in Florida, the momentum will likely carry him to big victories in many large states on "Super Tuesday" (Feb. 5th). Thus, a Florida win may well propel him to the nomination. If he loses, he may follow Thompson out of the race. His only hope then would be a badly deadlocked convention which could turn to a compromise candidate. But that's little more than a pipe-dream.
I'm still rooting for Rudy. If he pulls it out, I will enjoy "gloating" over a couple of local "pundits" who have bashed Rudy pretty hard. If he loses, I'll take my lumps and try to figure out who I'm going to support for President.
As anyone who follows politics knows, Rudy has gone "all in" on the Florida primary. The polls show a close race. If he pulls out the win in Florida, the momentum will likely carry him to big victories in many large states on "Super Tuesday" (Feb. 5th). Thus, a Florida win may well propel him to the nomination. If he loses, he may follow Thompson out of the race. His only hope then would be a badly deadlocked convention which could turn to a compromise candidate. But that's little more than a pipe-dream.
I'm still rooting for Rudy. If he pulls it out, I will enjoy "gloating" over a couple of local "pundits" who have bashed Rudy pretty hard. If he loses, I'll take my lumps and try to figure out who I'm going to support for President.
Gantt Plays Hardball on Public Defender
Is anyone else getting tired of the faux contoversey about picking a new Public Defender?
Legislature President Wayne Zyra set out to create a fairly bi-partisan committee to screen PD candidates. David Gantt apparently smelled an opportunity to flex his political muscles and pander to his constituents at the same time.
Gantt has made totally unsubstantiated claims that GOP Chaiman Steve Minarik had a PD replacement wired. He then accused Zyra of trying to "set-up" a committee that would "rubber-stamp" Minarik's choice.
As was to be expected, the D&C jumped in and asked "why the process used to pick the outgoing PD, Ed Nowak, was not being used again"? I've heard that refrain from many quarters. Do any of these people know how it was done 33 years ago? I doubt it, because its my understanding that there was a community panel (similar to the one Zyra tried to set up) that screened candidates and recommended a certain number of candidates to a 5 member committee of County Legislators, who then made final recommendations to the entire Legislature. That set up reflects the fact that it is the Legislature that has the authority and the responsibility to make the pick.
Lucy at Mustard Street has a great post with video on the latest clash between Mr. Gantt and the County Leg. I think those GOP legislators were quite lame for not letting him get arrested for disobeying a lawful order to leave, as well as for pushing past a Sheriff's Deputy. She also has a take on a possible reason why the Monroe County Bar Association did its about-face on participation in the Zyra panel:
"Maybe Gantt brought Smith {the Bar Assoc. President} to heel by threatening to stop funding the Bar’s pet project – the Campaign for Legal Justice. Gantt funneled $150,000 of State Assembly pork to this organization. Tom Smith is a member of its board."
If true, it really makes me proud to be a member of the local bar.
Meanwhile Kudos to Philbrick and Lucy at Mustard Street. They have been all over this issue and are looking at it from a very different perspective than all of the "usual suspects" like the D&C, the City Newspaper, and the "progressive" blogs.
Legislature President Wayne Zyra set out to create a fairly bi-partisan committee to screen PD candidates. David Gantt apparently smelled an opportunity to flex his political muscles and pander to his constituents at the same time.
Gantt has made totally unsubstantiated claims that GOP Chaiman Steve Minarik had a PD replacement wired. He then accused Zyra of trying to "set-up" a committee that would "rubber-stamp" Minarik's choice.
As was to be expected, the D&C jumped in and asked "why the process used to pick the outgoing PD, Ed Nowak, was not being used again"? I've heard that refrain from many quarters. Do any of these people know how it was done 33 years ago? I doubt it, because its my understanding that there was a community panel (similar to the one Zyra tried to set up) that screened candidates and recommended a certain number of candidates to a 5 member committee of County Legislators, who then made final recommendations to the entire Legislature. That set up reflects the fact that it is the Legislature that has the authority and the responsibility to make the pick.
Lucy at Mustard Street has a great post with video on the latest clash between Mr. Gantt and the County Leg. I think those GOP legislators were quite lame for not letting him get arrested for disobeying a lawful order to leave, as well as for pushing past a Sheriff's Deputy. She also has a take on a possible reason why the Monroe County Bar Association did its about-face on participation in the Zyra panel:
"Maybe Gantt brought Smith {the Bar Assoc. President} to heel by threatening to stop funding the Bar’s pet project – the Campaign for Legal Justice. Gantt funneled $150,000 of State Assembly pork to this organization. Tom Smith is a member of its board."
If true, it really makes me proud to be a member of the local bar.
Meanwhile Kudos to Philbrick and Lucy at Mustard Street. They have been all over this issue and are looking at it from a very different perspective than all of the "usual suspects" like the D&C, the City Newspaper, and the "progressive" blogs.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Property Tax Cap...."Metro" By Any Other Name
During his State of the State Address, the Governor proposed the possibility of a cap on property taxes for School funding. Here is an outline of Spitzer's proposal.
Some have already indicated their support for a cap. I would like to see all of the details first. What happens when you reach the cap? Do you automatically cut services? How do you square a cap on spending with the taxpayer's current right to vote on school budgets? I am glad that Gov. Spitzer proposed to study the idea before going too far towards implementing it.
I am, however, bothered by the implication that it is local spending that is the "real" problem in New York and that it is local spending that should be capped. Its clear that Spitzer is among the "local government consolidation" crowd who don't think we yokels are smart enough to decide how much service or school spending we want or need. This concept ignores the reality that the State legislated S.T.A.R. program, touched off the dramatic increases in school spending by insulating some taxpayers from the cost burden.
Rather than worrying about what we pay in school taxes or other local government costs, why doesn't the Governor focus on cutting the bloated State budget and reduce State taxes? As I continue to insist, we get a far better return on our "investment" from local taxes than we do on our State taxes. If the State controlled its spending, our local government expenses would not seem like such a burden.
Where is the call for a cap on State spending? That's where the real problem lays.
Some have already indicated their support for a cap. I would like to see all of the details first. What happens when you reach the cap? Do you automatically cut services? How do you square a cap on spending with the taxpayer's current right to vote on school budgets? I am glad that Gov. Spitzer proposed to study the idea before going too far towards implementing it.
I am, however, bothered by the implication that it is local spending that is the "real" problem in New York and that it is local spending that should be capped. Its clear that Spitzer is among the "local government consolidation" crowd who don't think we yokels are smart enough to decide how much service or school spending we want or need. This concept ignores the reality that the State legislated S.T.A.R. program, touched off the dramatic increases in school spending by insulating some taxpayers from the cost burden.
Rather than worrying about what we pay in school taxes or other local government costs, why doesn't the Governor focus on cutting the bloated State budget and reduce State taxes? As I continue to insist, we get a far better return on our "investment" from local taxes than we do on our State taxes. If the State controlled its spending, our local government expenses would not seem like such a burden.
Where is the call for a cap on State spending? That's where the real problem lays.
With Friends Like That
Big political news today: 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, endorsed Barack Obama. Given Kerry's track record, I'd say that falls under the category of "good news/bad news".
I wonder when Al Gore will jump on Obama's bandwagon? I'm starting to like Hillary more and more!
Update: This post from Real Clear Politics has some links to commentary on Kerry's endorsement. Its fairly clear that many pundits find the "value" of the Kerry endorsement to be speculative.
And just how does former running mate John Edwards feel about the endorsement? Et tu, Kerry?
I wonder when Al Gore will jump on Obama's bandwagon? I'm starting to like Hillary more and more!
Update: This post from Real Clear Politics has some links to commentary on Kerry's endorsement. Its fairly clear that many pundits find the "value" of the Kerry endorsement to be speculative.
And just how does former running mate John Edwards feel about the endorsement? Et tu, Kerry?
Punditry Unabated
As you must know by now, the reports of Hillary Clinton's demise were greatly exaggerated.
Did the fact that reality smashed scores of cleverly thought-out analyses cause the pundits to take a break from further baseless prognostication? Not on your life!
In the 48 hours after Hillary's win postponed the Obama coronation, the talking heads were back at it, spinning out new scenarios for wins and losses by virtually every candidate. They were undaunted by having been completely wrong on Tuesday.
As you know, I am a Giuliani supporter and, although I don't like her, I expect Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. I'm not sure what's going to happen in the next few primaries, but I do know that the media has a very poor record of "electing" candidates. We ought to relax and let the voters tell us who they want.
Did the fact that reality smashed scores of cleverly thought-out analyses cause the pundits to take a break from further baseless prognostication? Not on your life!
In the 48 hours after Hillary's win postponed the Obama coronation, the talking heads were back at it, spinning out new scenarios for wins and losses by virtually every candidate. They were undaunted by having been completely wrong on Tuesday.
As you know, I am a Giuliani supporter and, although I don't like her, I expect Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. I'm not sure what's going to happen in the next few primaries, but I do know that the media has a very poor record of "electing" candidates. We ought to relax and let the voters tell us who they want.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Pointless Punditry: Iowa Edition
As I recently wrote here, the airwaves, newspapers, and the Internet, are full of "analysis" of the presidential nomination process, despite the fact that only a handful of delegates have been selected to date.
Iowa has been on everyone's mind. There have been many stories about the candidates whose campaigns are boosted or doomed by the results there. Interestingly, you can find stories going both ways for almost every candidate. Oddly, no delegates were selected in Iowa. The first delegates selected came from Wyoming, where Mitt Romney took 6-8 of the 12 available.
Wyoming has a caucus, you ask? I didn't realize that either until I was trying to sift through the avalanche of Iowa analysis.
Why can't the pundits just wait for a couple of weeks and see what voters do in actual voting. After February 5th, the picture will be very clear. Or it won't! Take the Giuliani campaign effort. Many have opined that his "big state" strategy is risky and may fail. They took the Iowa defeat as proof thereof. You can spin anything any way you want, but his strategy will work or fail based on results in Florida, South Carolina and Michigan, and in the many states (including New York) which vote on the 5th. Why can't we wait and see? Its only another 3-4 weeks!
I think, though, that the reason there is so much punditry now is because these commentators fear that the whole thing might be over by the 5th. Then they will have to come up with something new to talk about. Its going to be harder to run the 24/7 news cycle with only two candidates in the race.
Iowa has been on everyone's mind. There have been many stories about the candidates whose campaigns are boosted or doomed by the results there. Interestingly, you can find stories going both ways for almost every candidate. Oddly, no delegates were selected in Iowa. The first delegates selected came from Wyoming, where Mitt Romney took 6-8 of the 12 available.
Wyoming has a caucus, you ask? I didn't realize that either until I was trying to sift through the avalanche of Iowa analysis.
Why can't the pundits just wait for a couple of weeks and see what voters do in actual voting. After February 5th, the picture will be very clear. Or it won't! Take the Giuliani campaign effort. Many have opined that his "big state" strategy is risky and may fail. They took the Iowa defeat as proof thereof. You can spin anything any way you want, but his strategy will work or fail based on results in Florida, South Carolina and Michigan, and in the many states (including New York) which vote on the 5th. Why can't we wait and see? Its only another 3-4 weeks!
I think, though, that the reason there is so much punditry now is because these commentators fear that the whole thing might be over by the 5th. Then they will have to come up with something new to talk about. Its going to be harder to run the 24/7 news cycle with only two candidates in the race.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Priorities.
You have to hand it to Congress, they really have their eyes on the ball when it comes to dealing with important issues.
You may have read today that Roger Clemens will testify before a Congressional Committee regarding steroid use in sports. I just can't think of a more important issue for Congress to be spending time on. If we just solve this steroid abuse problem, we will be home free.
Thank you, Congress!
You may have read today that Roger Clemens will testify before a Congressional Committee regarding steroid use in sports. I just can't think of a more important issue for Congress to be spending time on. If we just solve this steroid abuse problem, we will be home free.
Thank you, Congress!
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Jerri We Hardly Knew Ye
Jerri Kaiser has been one of the community members of the Democrat & Chronicle Editorial Board. Her term has expired and she is being replaced (along with Alex Zapesochny) by two new community members.
While I often disagreed with Jerri, I always enjoyed the exchange of ideas she engaged in. Unlike many partisans, if she was presented with a compelling argument, she reconsidered her opinion.
I hope that she will still take part in whatever discussions get started on the D&C blog. Frankly, I am compelled to wonder if commenter "Tomt" isn't correct in his assertion that there will be far less posting on that blog with Jerri gone. She was clearly the most prolific of the posters and she elicited the lion's share of responses to posts.
Stay in touch, Jerri!
While I often disagreed with Jerri, I always enjoyed the exchange of ideas she engaged in. Unlike many partisans, if she was presented with a compelling argument, she reconsidered her opinion.
I hope that she will still take part in whatever discussions get started on the D&C blog. Frankly, I am compelled to wonder if commenter "Tomt" isn't correct in his assertion that there will be far less posting on that blog with Jerri gone. She was clearly the most prolific of the posters and she elicited the lion's share of responses to posts.
Stay in touch, Jerri!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
