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

Friday, November 20, 2009

Giuliani Out, But Still In

Rudy Giuliani is out of the race for Governor but in the hunt for the US Senate seat. Oddly enough that pits two rivals for the GOP nod - Giuliani against Pataki (take II).

In polling he leads Gillibrand by a 14 point margin - 54% to 40% and if he is to come up against Pataki, well he would crush him nearly 3 to 1 with 71% support to Pataki 24%.

Read more here: Marist Poll

This clears the way for Cuomo to crush Rick Lazio like a bug on a windshield. Oh wait, Zogby reports to not count Paterson out yet, his re-election isn't hopeless. Read more here: Forbes.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

rudy is a paper tiger. anyone remember the big lead he had in the gop primary polls? also he had made numerous statements about how wonderful bush and his policies were. i'm sure democrats will remind people of them.
and beside do we really need yet another nyc politician in state wide office?

Dan Francis said...

I'm glad you posted about this developing story ... it underscores, to me at least, the need for a long hard debate about this race that is now lacking.

Except for the shrewd political policy by the DEMS: "Keep Gillibrand out of a primary at all costs, nothing much else is happening except the Rudy Gee angle now.

So, I guess he starts his campaign in FL? ...

Having said that, Gillibrand needs a primary for a number of reasons:

#1: She never competed for this seat in the first place

#2: A host of critical issues that she doesn’t address except when a fresh press release is needed:

1. Two wars (one going badly and one still not resolved). And, the cost still rising, too.

2. Detainee issues, past torture, and the longer we stay engaged in war, the more that will increase.

3. Upcoming trials of KSM and others in NYC and public reaction. Plus Gitmo closing and issues of detainees there.

4. Health Care reform and GOP staunch opposition and Gillibrands’s silence.

5. No fixes in store for the homeless, hungry, Vet treatment (fixes), and long term solution to Social Security and Medicare.

etc. etc.

I wish I had the money. She needs a primary, and I’d love that race ... So, what are the DEMS afraid of? Competition - can't be that - they always talk about competition. What then?

Fear of an issue-oriented race about tough, real issues like war and national security and things that I bring to the table?

Read More Here

Anonymous said...

Dannie, no one who thinks would want you anywhere near that race, so I guess we're glad you don't have the money. As far as torture is concerned, the rewriting of history will likely make it where your claims are supported. I can only wish that you and yours were in a city that was saved because of the actions of the CIA in getting this information from the towelheads. And who are you to worry about costs? Costs of anything never bothered you before. But who am I to say. You were the secret agent. I only worked for a lived. I'll sign off.

You forgot, Fox News, Fox News.

Dan Francis said...

8:56 - I pledged to serve my country honorably for over 40 years and I did and over 10 of them was an Interrogator all over the world.... I know the law, the rules and the outcome... we were flat out wrong and yes, history will prove me right and it will not have any spin on it, either.

My only regret? Taking valuable to respond to pathetic nitwits like you who think they know it all ... and who obviously (based on your posts here) do not.

I feel sorry for you, really I do. Unless of course if your posting and cheap shots at me at this trough is an act ... if that is the case, then you are more pathetic than I thought previosuly.

Either way, you are flat out wrong on the torture issue.

My Torture Reference Library Page

Dan Francis said...

This motivates me to speak out and do what I can... Lest, We Forget:

* Afghanistan = Obama's Vietnam?

A summary to ponder... and I might add, an excellent summary to ponder:

"We are now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, and again we face the prospect of enlarging a different war.

"And, once again we're fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.

"Again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers failed before us.

"Again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win.

"Again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

"Again, we have a President pushing for critical change at home while being accused of dithering; to be tough; to show he's got the guts by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.

"Again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on.

"Again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.

* SUMMARY that I BASICALLY LIVE BY DAY TO DAY:

"We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war in early 1965.

"But, we know what happened because he said yes."

* U.S. over 58,000 KIA.

* U.S. over 200,000 WIA.

* About 1 million Vietnamese killed.

And, the communist won in the end.

Anonymous said...

PIV wouldn't print my response, Dannie. That's probably for the best. You got pretty excited with this one, so I'll leave it to you.
Lots of bunk, all in one place.

Anonymous said...

Krisitan really changed her tune on gun ownership, she's sponsering a new law, that would make it illegal to buy a gun for someone else, I think this is already a law.

Anonymous said...

It is, 4:52. But another gun law on top of another gun law always works for the folks guided by emotion, rather than reason.

Dan Francis said...

4:52 - I think the purpose of what she signed on to is to stop someone, anyone from buying a gun legally for someone else who is not able to buy one on their onw right - legally - for a number of reasons -- like a good citizen buying one for a felon who just got out of prison ...

I hope you don't think that's a good idea?

I'm not a fan of wish-washy crap that Gillibrand pulls, but that kind of law may be needed to reinforce the current law or close a loophole -- on the surface it sounds okay, but I'd have to review it first.

But, your point is correct: she is quite phony and flakey... that's how people like her stay in office ... the voters seem to like that sort of incumbent.

Anonymous said...

It's already illegal to buy for another, Dan. So your point is pointless. This is not phoney or flakey, this is either dishonest or misinformed. Gillibrand is only proving she is controlled by Schumer, who has always dealt dishonestly with gun issues.

Live Blogging

Loading...