"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Battle For Control of New York State Senate

It appears people of the State of New York will preserve the balance of power in state government and continue to allow checks and balance in governing. The public generally becomes uneasy when one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and it would be nice if we never had to experience that same scenario in New York State. 

Inside sources say the Serphin Maltese will likely defend and retain his seat in a close match in the 15th SD race and they are more confident Caesar Trunzo will win in the 3rd SD race. These two races and the open seat in the 61t SD now held by Republican Mary Lou Rath was the sum of the Democrat's strategy to win over the Senate. The 61st SD is close and the GOP is looking to retain that seat.

The Democrats are bleeding money having to defend too many seats such as Liz Krueger, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Suzi Oppenheimer, Craig Johnson, William Stachowski and Darrel Aubertine while some of those races are drawing closer than they prefer. The 58th SD, now occupied by William Stachowski in western New York is likely to fall into Republican hands giving them a gain, while the Democrats are fighting back strong challenges by Barbara Donno versus incumbent Craig Johnson in the 7th SD and Dave Renzi versus Darrel Aubertine in the 48th SD race.

You have not heard Darrel Aubertine using the majority - minority seat issue in the campaign much and there is a reason for the lack of that strategy. The Republicans looked poised to retain the majority.

This leads us to the 48th Senate seat and Darrel Aubertine making a big issue out of the majority status of the Assembly seat when he ran and lost for that seat in 2000 and when he won it in 2002. The question to ask the Aubertine campaign: In a state with significantly declining revenue are we better off with a seat at the table of the majority or minority?

After you sort out the rhetoric that they will answer about partisan politics, which he participated in as an Assembly majority member, the answer will clearly be the majority and it will take a person with an aggressive nature like that of Dave Renzi to protect our interest in the battle of the shrinking pocketbook.

Majority or Minority, what is your choice?

23 comments:

RWiley said...

Majority.

RWiley said...

Democrats, of course !!

Anonymous said...

You live in a dream world. Take a look at the polls. Aubertine is light years ahead of Renzi. The reality is neither deserve to get your vote. The both have ethic issues. They both fit the bill though of typical POLITICAN.

You are so slanted Republican that you cannot see through your rosey red eyes.

Anonymous said...

Wiley has it for the donkeys.
Surprise.

I can't see where one party rule is in our best interests.

Anonymous said...

Wow, now I can clearly vote for Aubertine and not have to worry as the majority as the reason I was told I had to vote for Renzi. Thanks for letting me know.

Anonymous said...

Defending Krueger and Stewart-Cousins? Seriously, where in the world do you get your information dude?

Anonymous said...

baWAhaaahahahahah

After 8 years of Rethugs robbing us blind we can't trust them with a majority of anything.

Dan Francis said...

Battle for the Senate?

How about the battle to stay in power, in the majority and further enhance one's political station (i.e., stay on the gravy train as long as possible).

As I like to say, "The more we seek change, the less that gets changed."

Anonymous said...

Did Darrel repay the money?

Dan Francis said...

Every notice how those running for office (or running away from their responsibilty while in office) always master the "create jobs, cut taxes, reduce regulation" sound bytes but never seem to deliver on any of them?

But, they are good at blaming the "other" side when those things fall short as they "extend and modify their remarks."

Why is that?

Anonymous said...

Is the Attorney General Investigation into the Renzi Law Firm over yet?

Anonymous said...

Did Dave repay the money?

Anonymous said...

continued.

Let me get this straight. You are tellin me to vote for Renzi just because he would make a majority? David Renzi is under investigation by the Attorney General's office. It has not been resolved on behalf of the people of New York State. We can't afford that to go with him in any elected office at this time. Oswego county shares in this possible disaster, too.

Anonymous said...

But be sure to read this too:

I think I read that somewhere before

Anonymous said...

Did Darrel pay the money back?

Anonymous said...

my god you people are dumb. If darrel wins and the majority stays with the repubs we are tremendous losers. Darrel will forever be handicapped by his incredible stupidity. Have you never heard him speak? Dan Francis is a genius next to him. Please go away darrel you cannot do the job.

RWiley said...

It's a stupid reason to send a lawyer under investigation to the Senate.
I am glad anon brought the subject up again about David Renzi's attempt to scam the New York State Retirement System.
Here is a direct link to the New York State Publication that explains how serious the Attorney General is about the investigation.

The Attorney General’s office urges individuals with knowledge of any questionable arrangements between any BOCES, local governments, or school districts and their outside professionals to contact the Public Integrity Bureau by telephone at 212-416-8090 or by e-mail at public.integrity@oag.state.ny.us.

No settlement has yet to be made between the Attorney General and David Renzi or David Renzi's law firm. David Renzi, as a candidate, lied about his involvement, then changed his mind saying they changed the rules, but then said he was confused, and every one was doing it.

As proved by the "public service" announcement running on TV, Darrel simply said months ago, " Yup, I did it". David however is still tying to squirm out of it.

Anonymous said...

yeah BUT HE IS ONE OF US thats not saying much about us .

Anonymous said...

Interesting back-and-forth.

But did Darrel pay back the money?

Dan Francis said...

Oh, sh*t - now I'm compared to Darrel Aubertine?

How low can you go? LOL LOL

"I know Darrel Aubertine, I've met Darrel Aubertine, I've spoken to Darrel Aubertine, I've seen Darrel Aubertine in action - I'm no Darrel Aubertine."

LOL

Anonymous said...

I thought Danny talked pretty good, for a guy with a lot of beach gravel still in his mouth.

LAY OFF DANNY. OR, like the guy said in "Stripes", it be bad for you.

Seriously, how did we get to this? The conservative in me wants to blame Clinton, where I thought dishonesty reached new levels. But maybe I'm wrong. What makes Wiley ALWAYS side with the donkeys, and others ALWAYS side with the elephants. We don't care who is lying. We don't care who's kids are out of a job, who is losing their house, terrorists, wars, avoided wars, clean air or clean water. All talk about this is bs. We only care about who is the donkey, and who has the trunk. Now it has gotten to how many of us are on the take. If we work for a school, we love school budgets. If we build roads, we want more of 'em with bridges too. If a program doesn't work, we don't care, as long as our kid gets a job doing it. It's all about US, and those superimportant political parties.
Has it always been like this? I'd love to hear what you folks have to say. But I'll bet, I'll take long odds, that even the responses will be so partisan they will carry no weight whatsoever. But please, talk away. Have the american people always been this stupid?

Anonymous said...

Anon said
What makes Wiley ALWAYS side with the donkeys, and others ALWAYS side with the elephants

If you go back and read some of the thinks lately, you would see that rwiley has agreed with your elephants on several occasions. Read about JCC. I don't say this to defend him but to say that you have to watch more carefully.

Anonymous said...

I see some of our most partisan types, wiley certainly included, show flexibility only when there is no real contest or debate. We have got to understand that there is validity to some of what our opponents are saying. Complete dismissal and ridicule is childish, stupid, and counterproductive. It is also very damaging. We're paying the price right now.

But I will take your advice and watch for some original thought. Thanks.

Live Blogging