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

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Another Opinion

Last week it was written here about Obama meddling in NY politics (Omnipotent Obama) and it was stated Obama put himself in a position to help Paterson.

It of course was pooh poohed by some of the Democrat readers here, but let me share another opinion written by PolitickerNY and NY Democratic member of Congress.

Read it here: Is Obama going to do something about Paterson too?

11 comments:

Dan Francis said...

I agree with you IV and with Kason Horowitz's article.

While it's not unusual for sitting presidents to interject themselves in "local" politics, it has been controversial for many reasons and a risk if the one they "back" loses.

That could be the case with Paterson, if in fact Obama will/may back him, or not and back, say Andrew Cuomo!

We already know about Gillibrand and Obama's move ... I guess the Obama camp seeks to hold/keep 60 DEM seats so he can work his aganda?

That's why it will be important to take the race to the people... and keep hammering away that it's up to NYS and not DC...

IMHO... ~ dmf

Anonymous said...

Normally national politicians stay away from local races and issues - except when they are the most egotistical ever elected. Notice how often Obama says MY, as in my secretary of state, my treasury secretary. His minions don't even rate a description other than as his possession. What an ass!

Dan Francis said...

This may or may not fit here, but here it is nonetheless.

Colin Powell on FACE THE NATION (5/24/09):"I am still a Republican. I'd like to point out that in the course of my 50 years of voting for presidents, I have voted for the person i thought was best qualified at that time to lead the nation. Last year I thought it was President-now Barack Obama." He went on to say he thinks the GOP needs a new look if it wants to stay relevant.

"I think the Republican party has to take a hard look at itself and decide what kind of party are we? I have always felt that the Republican party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years."

He added the part I liked (paraphrased): "... the base is more like an anchor than a foundation to build on..."GOP: are you paying attention? The message is simple for them and their counterparts in the DEMS:

* People are getting sick and tired of the narrow rabid partisan views and sharp callous rhetoric that does not address and then solve our pressing problems.

— dmf

hermit thrush said...

doesn't this new article contradict your previous post, piv? your previous post claimed that obama interjected in the senate race to bolster paterson's standing; and the "pooh poohing" consisted of pointing out that all the evidence pointed to obama's actions coming at schumer's behest, with no overt connection to paterson. and now, from the new article:

The member [mentioned in iv's post] said that the delegation is extremely concerned about having the historically unpopular Paterson at the top of the ticket. They are fearful that Paterson's vulberability could be a drag on the ticket in 2010, and could result in a Republican governor who has power over congressional redistricting.

The member did not mention Andrew Cuomo by name.


isn't that speculating that obama might have to push paterson out, to give cuomo a clear shot?

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone will have to push Paterson out. The unions will use him as a scapegoat, elect Cuomo, then stop all meaningful spending cuts. In two years we will be in the same place we are now. Except our bond ratings will be lower, our taxes will be higher, and more people will have left NY.

Ooops. Sorry. Nobody leaves NY. Hermit told us so. I'm sorry. All the rest of what I said was true. But as Herm says more people will move here for the great opportunities. I get carried away sometimes. Sorry.
Brivittt.

hermit thrush said...

here's the sort of thing i've been writing recently:

* so far as i'm aware, it's completely correct that upstate has been losing population, or at least hasn't been gaining it at a rate anywhere near sufficient to keep up with the rest of the country.

* if [you] want to complain that people are leaving upstate, then please go ahead -- you'd again be right!

* i also want to reiterate that i'm not saying that everything is hunky dory and that upstate is actually faring well economically -- no, not at all.

yet anon 11:26 actually writes

Nobody leaves NY. Hermit told us so.... But as Herm says more people will move here for the great opportunities.

so tell me anon, are you lying or stupid? which is it?

Anonymous said...

I'm just a dumb ol' boy, Herm. I coulda sworn I've seen our youth and the opportunites for them leaving this state for many years. And I coulda sworn I saw companies leaving as taxes went higher and higher. The years I spent away from NY, I coulda sworn I noticed more youth staying home and enjoying opportunities to raise their families right where they grew up. Ya knows, with living wages. Up here, I see people with govment jobs and school jobs doing well, and most everyone else struggling. I guess I'm just stupid. Until you told me otherwise, I had no idea that taxation and the resulting economy had nothing to do with it. For all these years, I thought business leaving was a bad thing. I thought corrupt government was a bad thing too. If you had just taught me earlier, Frogger, I would have seen the light, and realized the benefits of chasing away all our children. If we can't abort 'em when they're young, then at least help 'em get the hell out of our state. The Empire of the old, set, inbred, and politically corrupt. That's us. And partisan to the destruction to our own children.
You're right on this one, Frog. I'm the dummy. You're the enlightened one.

Dan Francis said...

This piece is pretty good and ties right into this subject:

Selling Gillibrand - I read the piece and almost gagged.

I'm done now.

~ dmf

hermit thrush said...

i swear anon, you must have rocks in your head. my point, again, is that you either blatantly lied about or idiotically micharacterized what i've been writing. you've said nothing to address that. so again, which is it?

Anonymous said...

Firstly Frog, I am soo happy to be getting this personalizzzed attention frum you. Makes me happie.

As far as you not saying what you said. I don't know what to say. Except this happens to you a lot. You say crap then run like hell from your own words. This time, you tell us that no people are leaving NY. You said it was a "myth". I always thought a myth was something that wasn't true. I took you at your word. You say taxes and lost opportunities aren't causing anyone to leave NY. No matter how much you want to take back that claim, I think it is you who is of limited smartness.
But I guess it could be me.

All I can say is if you want this economic mess which is NY to continue, and you do seem to defend all that has donkey attached to it, you must be one vested son of a gun. You're checks must come from them taxpayers. I appreciate that. I'm with ya.

hermit thrush said...

This time, you tell us that no people are leaving NY. You said it was a "myth".here's what i actually wrote, since you can't be bothered to look it up:

while it's apparently hard to get really good data on the matter, the evidence points to "rich flight" being largely a myth.

if you think that means "no people are leaving NY," then i don't know what to tell you, other than with an imagination like that, maybe you should head for hollywood once you leave nys.

if you had actually followed the link i provided at the time (yes, i provide links!) or paid attention to the context surrounding the comment or even took the most superficial look at my subsequent comments on that thread and elsewhere, you'd know that the content of my comment was this: according to recent research, raising taxes on the affluent seems to cause only a rather small percentage of them to leave. in other words, based on current evidence, "rich flight" is largely a myth -- exactly what i wrote. that's it. the rest of it, like me saying anything remotely along the lines of "lost opportunities aren't causing anyone to leave NY" -- it's all pure imagination on your part.

and frankly, that's how it always seems to go with you. you seem to be so deeply encased in your ideological bubble that whenever (as often happens) your preconceived notions fall at odds with reality, all you can do is go into denial or just make stuff up (or both). i'm obviously far from perfect in that regard too, but i'd unhesitantly stand up my record against yours. i've learned the hard way that the best thing to do is to ignore you -- i don't really think anyone takes crackpots/trolls like you seriously -- but sometimes you slip up and call me by my proper name, or your misstatements are too ridiculous to ignore, and i feel compelled to respond.

good luck with the cardinals.

Live Blogging