Is this political cover, taking Governor Paterson off the hook?
Did she realize she might not have received the nomination and she wanted to preempt the negative media?
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her name for US Senator. Ironically she waited until the day Clinton was confirmed as SoS.
Read the story here
"A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
21 comments:
Pattersons no dummy and he wants to keep his seat next year so if Andy leads the polls he needs to latch onto those votes, a no brainer
I would have thought there would have been enough Kennedy pressure and pull to buy her in. It would have made a good move for gov to help guarantee support for the next election.
New York news at 12 said she's back in the running and has recinded her withdrawl. What the heck is going on.
Any ideas?
Gov to announce on Friday -- oddmakers say Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand... note: she raise and spent $9 million for two House runs... most from OUTSIDE OF NYS and the 20th CD.
Her money is officially documented here with the FECClick for Gillibrank $$$$ trail
She'll fit nicely that way ... but, don't they all [name, fame and fortune]?
whatever her reason, based on what i've seen so far, i think it's for the best that's she's bowed out. here's wishing her well.
I heard your call on hotline, Daniel. Couldn't agree more about money raised outside the district. But I guess if we have a choice between people like Gillibrand and people who evade their taxes, I'll take the Kirsten, bought and paid for by outside interests. Hell, it's all a big joke anyway.
This will be fun to watch, ya know. I think, she's like, ya know, nuts. Kinda like, a we are, for considering this fool, like in the, ya know, first place.
I like, can't wait, ya know, ta hear what the, real story, like, is.
Sheeesh.
Somebody ask hermit why the "fair" media just let Princess Foolishness withdraw her name at midnight with no questions asked. Was it taxes, illegal aliens, or maybe the fact that she just wasn't going to get the job. Whatever it was, it IS a news story, in any fair environment.
Wouldn't you say, kermit?
um, i never said the media is "fair". i just happen to think democrats and republicans get screwed pretty equally. just look at caroline -- the media ate her alive (and with good reason, i say)! i agree that the press should follow up on the story, and i hope that it does.
The media "ate her alive" my friend kermit? Oh please. Just imagine, my dear frog, what the media would have done if a conservative would have run out the back door as Princess Caroline did. As they did with Palin, they would have sent a plane load of leaches up there to dig up anything they could. For the most part, with Caroliiiine, there hasn't been much at all. Mz "Ya know" just decided she couldn't break away from the tea party to spend time learing to speak.
You say both parties "get screwed pretty equally." Sometimes, as in GW the war criminal, your own mouth says everything about you that needs to be said.
What a guy/girl.
yes i do think the media ate her alive -- not that it took much. if i'm remembering correctly, when kennedy first announced that she wanted the seat, she had the best poll numbers of all the serious contenders. but her numbers promptly cratered after her first round with the media. do you remember her little day-long get-to-know-you tour of upstate cities? the press was really ticked that she ducked taking questions at her first stop! (at least to handlers' credit, they corrected that mistake by her last stop that day.) and from thereon, i think there emerged a narrative in the media that she was was inevitably going to be foisted on us, not because she was particularly qualified, but because of her royal pedigree. not exactly flattering stuff.
i know you want to believe palin got bad press because she's a conservative, but i remain utterly unconvinced. i suspect that if it had been a republican in kennedy's place, but with a similar background, then the response would have been largely the same. that said, i agree with you that it's incumbent on the press to investigate what on earth just happened -- this woman almost waltzed into the senate!
regarding palin, is it really true that reporters went up to alaska only after the election? do you have any links? i know there certainly were reporters up there during the election -- which was quite reasonable, given that she was completely unknown on the national scene before receiving the veep slot.
yep, sorry, dems really do get screwed all the time. (just to be clear again, i don't think for a second that kennedy's treatment is an instance of this.) just because you don't pay attention to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
and finally, i thought you'd given up on this war criminal business? i'm not sure i have a lot more to say to someone who can't or won't get his head around the plain meaning of the term.
I fully understand why you would want me, and others, to forget your comments about GWB. When people, in this case you, frogman, label people a criminal, then hide by selectively citing and dealing with facts, I don't forget who they are, or what they said.
Sorry, your record stays with you. This is the case even with the people you associate with, to a point. Someday you may be man/woman enough to retract your statements. But, I doubt it.
what on earth on are you talking about? did you even read this?
Talking about you, and your comments calling GW a war criminal, then refusing to honestly debate the parallels between decisions Truman and FDR made.
So now you're attempting to act confused, frogman?
Well, it is one you haven't tried before. Kudos my brother.
In the old days you'd be a waste of ink.
sorry, but i don't think you're making any sense at all. and maybe it's just me, but i tend to find it a lot more persuasive when people actually make arguments to support their positions, rather than just hurling personal invective. so here we go.
1) it's 180 degrees wrong to think that i want people to forget what i've said. you're delusional.
2) of course my record stays with me. it's not much, but i, unlike you, have taken a screen name, because i, unlike you, take at least some account for what i write. and if you don't like that, then go ahead and take a name for yourself. it's not hard.
3) you seem to think that i know deep down i've made a mistake by calling bush a torturer and a war criminal, or that i'm secretly ashamed of what i've written. again, this is delusional. it couldn't be further from the truth. i meant what i said, and i've defended it.
4) if you didn't like my last comment about this war crimes stuff, then please explain why. all i can say is that, as i've always done, i tried to address the points you raised in a good-faith way, i really did. do you have any intention of answering the questions i raised?
Sorry lernit, but it is just you. I think most everyone else does get it. Perhaps you and Wiley can share a warm bath on this, but most others are pretty clear. I could go over it again, but that would be a sign of respect.
You can't just run your mouth, making claims about the president then fail to address facts that counter your reasoning. Disagreement is fine, but seeing things differently just to fit your simple-minded party line preconceptions is childish. When you couple that with calling people war criminals, you cross the line. I realize you lack both confidence and courage. That's why you wiggle so much, claiming confusion etc. I won't credit you with being that stupid. What you are is common. You throw words like stones, then cowardly run when people call you on your inconsistancies. I don't hate you, frog girl/man. I only hope people remember how many people sacrificed so you could play the fool.
look, i feel like i try really hard to keep my discourse honest, civil, and respectful, even when it's clear others have no intention of doing the same with me. and at this point, i just have to ask, what are you playing at? are you just goading me on, trying to drag me down to your level? i have to say, you're making progress, but i'm not there yet.
the honest truth is that every word i've said in our discussion has been in good faith. of course, there's no way for anyone to prove something like that, and if you don't want to believe it, that's your right. but it's the truth. i don't know of any way to convince you except just to say it. you and others will have to read over what i've written and make up your own minds.
the honest truth is that i feel i've fairly addressed every point you've raised. (but i'm sure others might feel differently; if you're in that boat, then please give an example.) you seem to keep harping on roosevelt and truman -- well, i addressed them in my last comment here. and you still haven't said anything in response. and i've even asked you on several occasions, quite explicitly, to please explain why you feel i've addressed the point inadequately, if that's in fact how you feel. and still, nothing. you keep running away from it. so how can you be so mind-numbingly hypocritical as to say i'm the one lacking confidence and courage? if you actually have something to say, then quit pussyfooting around and say it.
and please, what facts have you offered that counter my reasoning? do you mean to suggest that the actions of truman and roosevelt somehow prove that bush didn't torture? that he didn't violate the plain meaning of the law? i don't think you've made a single argument at all -- actually, i've done more arguing on your behalf than you have.
bush authorized systematic torture of prisoners. torture is a war crime. to those of us who believe in the rule of law, that makes bush a war criminal. if you don't like it, then go ahead -- make an argument.
No, one more time froggy. If, according to your standards, GWB is a war criminal, then so is Truman and Roosevelt. Simple as that. If you admit that, which you have failed to show the courage do, despite the evidence I've spoon fed you, then your foolishness would be at least consistant. Idiotic thought is more easily understood when it is consistant. You haven't even had the character to show that trait. So GW is a torturer. That's you simplistic and fashionable view. If you puke that stuff up, then you must begin your quest to rewrite the history books our future little minds full of mush are studying. We don't want them to grow up like you, with the entirely wrong impression of our two WWII presidents.
Basically, my dear frog man/woman, you are either a coward or a liar.
ok, before i reply, let me just make sure i've correctly extracted your argument from the muddle of your latest comment. i think it goes like this: the actions of roosevelt and truman during wwii were worse than anything bush did. so if bush is a war criminal, then they must be too. but it's absurd to say they committed war crimes, so it follows that bush can't be a war criminal either. right?
one more question for you that i think will be helpful. what, according to you, does "war criminal" mean?
one more thing: this thread will soon be moving off the front page. please don't chicken out and just give up once it does. i'll be right here.
Post a Comment