Chucky Schumer and “foot in mouth disease”

by Bill Claydon

Originally posted to Liberty Ink Journal and RedState

Chucky has an easy — and most importantly, GUARANTEED — job. As of 2009, he fully became the Senior US Senator from New York. Oh yes, he had that title since 2001, but let’s face it, it was in name only. He was lost in Hillary’s shadow after she parachuted in from Arkansas by way of DC. In 2009 she finally stopped pretending to represent New York (a mere intended stepping stone to the presidency) and moved over to the State Department. Her political future has been utterly ruined by being part of the Obama Regime. But, she was replaced by someone who can stand in Chucky’s shadow and serve as his “extra vote” 95% of the time. (On the rare occasions when Chucky’s rubber stamp wants to show “independence,” she gets into that very narrow place on the ideological spectrum —- to the left of him.)

Chucky is still learning the ropes of what it’s like to be a Senior Senator. So, don’t blame him when his mouth, uh, gets the better of him. Afterall, with all of the money Obama is wasting, the United States can evidently only afford ONE teleprompter — and that goes to the empty suit at the top. (Hmm, maybe a non-government grant could be found to buy Chucky a teleprompter to keep him out of trouble? I mean, this USUALLY works for Obama, so we’ve got some data to justify the feasibility.) Anyway, Chucky hardly needs a teleprompter. His constituents are in ultra leftist New York. He just won by a landslide in 2010 so he doesn’t have to worry about another election until 2016. But even so, he’s got that magic “D” after his name. He’d win again no matter what. A majority in New York would vote for a cartoon character if it had a “D” after its name. (And considering how overhyped Obama was…)

So, anyway, after a couple of humorous paragraphs, let’s get to the main point of this post. First, Chucky ran his foul mouth on a plane, rudely insulting a flight attendant because she asked an elitist such as him to abide by the rules. These rules should only apply to the American commoners who are beneath him. Then, on national television, he flubbed up the three branches of government. But now he admits he lets others do his thinking for him. Rather than have little snafus like this, can’t the Democrats buy him a teleprompter? Look, as one who doesn’t exactly agree with the Democrats’ plans, far be it for me to give advice here to help them. But really, Democrats at least ought to make sure the reporters aren’t on the line when they say stuff like that! Just a word of advice here.

One of my favorite lines in the article is: “After apparently realizing his mistake, Schumer fell silent.” Um, what? Schumer fell silent? That’s utterly amazing. I’ve never heard of anything that could quiet Chucky!

Chucky and his big government buddies want to continue spending like there is no tomorrow. Any attempt to put the brakes on runaway government waste is called “extreme” (though remember, if a conservative uses that word to describe what Chucky and his ilk do, it’s apparently “wrong”). They have no concern about enslaving several generations into the future with debt. As the article notes, the other Democrat Senators on the call marched to Chucky’s orders (like leftist zombies).

At some point, it’s going to be time to pay the piper. We cannot continue to spend money and mortgage future generations for the unsaitiable appetites of the present generation. We hear all about how the answer is merely to “tax the rich” while Obama hangs out with all the globalist corporate elite and hands out appointments to the likes of GE’s Jeffrey Immelt. Ah, but Chucky has no need to concern himself with what will happen to future generations. He gets elected in New York…..a state addicted to big government, despite having accidentally elected a Democrat governor who seems to “see the light” about runaway spending. (Or, he at least realizes that if he cleans up New York, he would be formidable in any future presidential election.) Basically, if Chucky is going to call the Republicans extreme for trying to clean up DC, he’s also calling Andrew Cuomo “extreme” for cleaning up the disgusting mess that is New York State.

But I digress. Chucky is useful for something. As one who is guaranteed reelection because he is an incumbent in a state that will vote for anything with a “D” after its name, he gives us a window into the elitist politician’s mindset. Whether it is true contempt for working people like flight attendants, or lack of interest in knowing what is in the Constitution, or considering fiscal responsibility to be “extreme,” at least we have someone like Schumer to use as a barometer of where the elite are coming from.

Does Schumer Need a High School Civics Refresher?

by Bill Claydon

Okay, I know some believe in a “living Constitution” which means different things depending on what ends they have in mind on any given day, but this one takes the cake. Since high level big government politicians are never wrong, according to Chucky Schumer, the three branches of government now consist of the House, Senate, and the President. Silly me, I thought there was a Legislative (consisting of the House and Senate), Executive (including the President and his collection of Secretaries and continuously multiplying Czars that write regulations which ultimately reduce the power of the Legislative branch), and the Judicial branch. In Schumer’s (frightening) world, the Judicial branch no longer exists, and the House and Senate are each a separate branch. Wow.

Now, will Kirsten Gillibrand initially deny that Schumer said that, like she did with his little, um…..gaffe involving a flight attendant? I know I’ve complained about her lack of media appearances, but maybe she is the smarter of these two.

Okay, fun time is over. Let’s face it: Schumer misspoke. But doing a quick Google search reveals that the only media which gave this any attention are conservative media and blogs. Can anyone imagine the level of (liberal) mainstream media feeding frenzy if Palin or Bachmann (cue all the nasty, angry statements about these two now that I’ve mentioned their names) said anything like this? It’s amazing to see how the mainstream media is constantly lurking for any gaffe by a conservative woman who does not hold elected office on one hand, or a conservative woman who is a mere US House member from way out in Minnesota on another. Yet, a high ranking ultra liberal Senator from a state with a high population utters a gaffe which gets very little attention by the liberal mainstream media.

On the other hand, maybe Chucky really does want to forget about the Judicial Branch. Afterall, he and his minime, Kirsten Gillibrand, rubber stamped Obama’s power grab over individual rights known as ObamaCare. And now a federal judge has struck that mess down. It will ultimately wind up in the US Supreme Court. There are four liberals, four conservatives, and a lone swing vote justice who happened to be appointed by Ronald Reagan. And that justice, Anthony Kennedy, has said he will not retire in Obama’s first term. Obama’s disrespectful, petty, and totally unprofessional swipe at the Supreme Court during his 2010 State of the Union address probably did not exactly endear him to Justice Kennedy. A 5-4 decision is all it takes…

Senator Gillibrand, Tear Down This Bill

by Bill Claydon

Recently, I blogged about how Harry Reid, still leading the Senate merely due to a very slim Democrat majority, is preventing the American people from seeing a Senate vote on the measure to repeal ObamaCare as passed by a bipartisan majority in the US House. He is preventing Obama from possibly having to veto this bill since Obama must face voters in 2012. But as I noted in my previous blog, Reid is also allowing a handful of Democrat Senators up for reelection in 2012 from red or purple states to hide behind him while he, well, hides the repeal bill. Ultimately, Reid gives fodder to the opponents of both Obama and all the Democrat Senators up for reelection in vulnerable seats.

But I never bothered to mention another Senator up for reelection in 2012: New York’s own Kirsten Gillibrand. As it stands now, it is my opinion that New York would vote for anyone with a “D” after their name. If it was the clown Jimmy McMillan (if you’ve forgotten that flash in the pan already, you’ll remember this: “Rent. Is. Too. Damn. High.”) running as the Democrat nominee for a US Senate seat, he’d easily take 60% of the vote. At least right now. That may not always be the case.

Gillibrand is a chameleon. The Kirsten Gillibrand who represented New York’s 20th Congressional District was independent and outspoken. She was frequently in the media, voted against the TARP boondoggle, and let everyone know where she stood. As much as I may have disagreed with her on some issues, I admired that she would come out and make her case known. I even found a small number of areas where I agreed with her. When she was appointed Senator, I thought she would be the same person. Instead, she seems to just vote however Schumer (finally the real Senior Senator once Hillary went on to bigger things) does. When she wants to show some occasional independence, she votes to the left of Schumer, difficult as that feat is to accomplish. She almost never speaks out on why she voted. Media appearances seem to be focused more on things like spreads in Vogue.

Under current circumstances, Gillibrand has a cakewalk to reelection. But so does another Democrat in a high position in New York politics: newly minted Governor Andrew Cuomo. The funny thing is that while Gillibrand is just towing the line of Schumer and others in the Democrat hierarchy, Cuomo is at least talking about and doing some occasional things to attempt to deal with New York’s problems. Cuomo really doesn’t have to, because as it stands now in New York, he is guaranteed reelection no matter what he does. Nobody beyond the Jimmy McMillans and others who participated in the New York Gubernatorial Circus Show last year needs to bother wasting their time running. But maybe Cuomo realizes things are in a mess and does not want to have a legacy of doing nothing. Maybe he even realizes that there is (shudder) the remote possibility that unless he does something in his first term, he might not actually be returned to the governor’s office for a second term. Of course, for Cuomo, he has to worry about 2014, not 2012. Political winds can shift quite a bit by then.

While Gillibrand has an election coming up sooner, and while she is not a chief executive of a state, she should gather the courage to vote to repeal what is simply bad legislation. If, as a Senator, she lacks the backbone she once had in voting against the boondoggle known as TARP, she at least ought to push for a simple VOTE on repealing the boondoggle known as ObamaCare. She can still vote with Schumer on it and be in line with her Democrat masters.

Although 2012 might be “just around the corner,” much can happen between now and November of next year. With Reid starting things off by blocking legislation coming out of the House, the Republicans can run on a national message that Reid is disrupting progress for the American people. Should they continue to pass decent legislation that just gets Reid’s “veto,” it’s a gift on a silver platter. If unemployment continues to hover close to 10% and the economy continues to stagnate, it may not be a “cakewalk” environment, even for a Democrat in New York.

Gillibrand may have to actually fill the role of Junior Senator from New York, unlike her predecessor. But that does not mean she cannot be outspoken, actually defend each of her votes, appear more often on hard media (note: Vogue does not qualify) and show some leadership skills. She had them before being handed a “promotion” by former New York Governor David Paterson. She needs to remember them.

While 2010 was a referendum on Obama and Pelosi’s “leadership,” 2012 will be an even bigger referendum on Obama. With John Boehner basically hamstrung by Harry Reid, he has far less power than Nancy Pelosi. Should there be no progress, the focus will be on defeating the incumbent president and flipping the Senate from the limited grip of his party. Gillibrand needs to distinguish herself and stand on her own, rather than just riding coattails of Obama for better or worse. Should the road to 2012 be a messy ride without real change, her reelection may not be a given. Not even in deep blue New York.

Schumer's Advice for Obama

by Bill Claydon

A liberal commenter on another blog suggested that I salute Chuck Schumer for making sure the middle class can keep a tax credit for college tuition. And while I am not a class warrior and would prefer such a tax credit go to anyone paying for college, I can say that even if it’s got some income limit it’s still a good start. Considering the enormous expense of college what with all the six figure salary bureaucrats, some six figure salary professors, and a handful of departments offering majors that are politically correct but provide no serious job prospects (except maybe “community organizer” jobs —- which in modern times have been known to qualify at least one person for a part time US Senate position and even president) all who seem to want MORE money, poor college students are in a deep financial hole. Indeed they ought to get a tax credit for all the funding they’re giving these bureaucrats. If not for students, imagine the unemployment numbers! Besides, if the students become productive citizens who make money as college graduates, they can be demonized as part of the “evil rich” later on.

But I think it’s more important to thank Chucky for something else: being himself. He recently got some sort of new position within the Democrat Senate hierarchy (likely with a bonus of additional tax money in salary while a number of Americans don’t know where their next meal, mortgage payment, or property tax payment is coming from). This was basically a consolation prize to avoid running against a weakened Harry Reid for the position of Majority Leader. It’s something to do with communications. We know Chucky is great at communications as demonstrated with a flight attendant. Schumer likes regulations for others, but evidently didn’t react as well when a flight attendant was doing her job enforcing safety regulations that happened to inconvenience him.

But seriously, as the third ranking Democrat Senator, his um, uh, communications skills have a potential impact on other Democrat Senators facing tough reelections in red states. That ObamaCare vote did them no favors. And Schumer’s loud mouth won’t do them any either.

Still, I have to hand it to Schumer. He says what he means and means what he says. You know what you’re getting. And he’s willing to stand up and defend his views. His minime, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, started out being like that (outspoken, defended her views, meant what she said, etc.) even if a little to the right of Schumer. Now she’s a virtual clone of Schumer (albeit a bit younger) and really doesn’t get around for too many candid conversations with either her constituents or the media. Hey, if she’s going to vote almost exactly like Schumer, she ought to fulfill the rest of the picture.

But back to Schumer. He just cruised to reelection in New York. He won’t be up again until 2016, a few political epochs into the future. Besides, being in New York, anyone with a “D” after their name automatically wins in a Senate race. So, he can be as candid as he wants.

Recently, Schumer was candid about Obama, saying Congressional Democrats are “joined at the hip” with Obama. That sure sounds like a ringing endorsement of Obama’s recent (triangulating) behavior.

Schumer’s advice to Obama is not to give up his “core fundamental principles.” This is a perspective issue. See, Chucky can get away with that being a Senator from New York. He is guaranteed reelection for as long as he wants the job. He can be further left than Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. and still win 60% of the vote in New York. Obama has a totally different political landscape to deal with. While Obama may personally be ultra leftwing, that stuff is no longer in. It never was, even during the end of the Bush era. What was in at that point? Bush fatigue. Bush as a Republican president doomed most Republican candidates in 2008. But that didn’t mean people embraced Schumer/Obama extreme leftwing ideals. They just bought into the vapid “hope and change” rhetoric read from a teleprompter because they were burned out.

Still, as a conservative, I wouldn’t mind seeing Obama take Schumer’s advice. It’s far better for him to stick to the hardcore left. The country can endure it for a couple of years. Then November, 2012 can come around. The “wealth” of a good shellacking should be spread around. Pelosi got it big time. Reid got it a little bit, and Obama needs to enjoy it too. I’d like to see Obama up there with other one-term wonders like Franklin Pierce, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Jimmy Carter, and George HW Bush. Wait, forget that. Hayes voluntarily announced he would be a one termer. As to the others besides listed Carter, the rest are forgotten (HW Bush is basically remembered by virtue of being the father of #43). And Obama is making Jimmy Carter’s presidency look good by comparison.

So, I salute Schumer for his advice to Obama. Keep it coming. And if Obama could take that advice it would be great. But don’t let Republicans get complacent either. We want REAL change you can believe in, starting at noon on January 20, 2013.

Reid, Murray, Boxer, Schumer, and Gillibrand

by Bill Claydon

Would I have been happy if any or all of the first three had been defeated on Tuesday? Of course. Obviously the last two were totally out of reach with them being Democrats from New York. If Jimmy McMillan with his useless platform (which accomplished precisely what it was designed for….to launch his entertainment career) had been the Democrat nominee for either US Senate seat in New York, he’d have won by a million vote margin too.

But is it really that bad that all five of these extreme leftists managed to be reelected? Not at all. Actually, let me correct myself. The first four are leftists and the last is a rubber stamp for leftist #4. The rubber stamp was independent during her days as a Congresswoman and is now mostly a puppet.

So why is it not so bad? Boxer (CA) and Schumer (NY) are utterly obnoxious. Reid (NV) might be less obnoxious than either of these two, but he still has his own level of obnoxiousness. Being the Senate Majority Leader, he has high visibility. Murray (WA) is fairly quiet but definitely extreme, and has high seniority within the Senate. Gillibrand is quiet too, because she generally just votes with Schumer. In that sense, he may as well be speaking for both of them.

So why should we not mind obnoxious and extremist types in the Senate? With the exception of Reid, these come from states that consistently elect these types. So, it’s a given that the Senate is going to have someone like Boxer from California or Schumer from New York. Washington is also fairly liberal too. The bulk of Democrats in the Senate are holdovers from the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Both Barack AND Michelle Obama campaigned for Harry Reid. Barack Obama campaigned for Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer as well. He’s associated with them. They’re his problem. Obama is up for reelection in 2012 (unless enough people “convince” Hillary to change her mind about not running in 2012). Any attempts to seem more centrist or reasonable as we get closer to the election can easily be matched with statements from the likes of Reid, Boxer, and Murray, who personally don’t have to worry about another election for six years. Boxer, after beating back a challenge from Fiorina where the polls occasionally put Fiorina ahead, may come out with another entertaining gaffe like “Call me Senator; I worked hard for that title.” In reality, she happened to be a Democrat and get nominated for US Senator from California. It’s California. So, whenever Barbara “Call me Senator” Boxer wants to be reelected, she will be. Maybe she had to “work hard” to push her way through other Democrats to get the nod way back in 1992. But after that, Boxer will continue to retain her job for as long as she wants it. Afterall, she has a “D” after her name.

Defeat would have meant that these people would step into history and eventually be forgotten. But now they will continue to be in the spotlight. Further, had Angle and O’Donnell been elected, they could have been lightning rods for Obama to play against in his reelection campaign. (Note: I did not include Coons in my title only because he is not an incumbent. But Obama campaigned for him too and I’m sure he will provide gaffes with which Obama can be associated.)

But let’s shift focus to the US Senate for the moment. In 2012, there are several Democrat Senators from centrist or right-leaning states (or states which just elected a Republican governor and/or Senator) who will be up for reelection including:

- Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
- Bill Nelson (Florida)
- Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
- Bob Casey, Jr. (Pennsylvania)
- Jim Webb (Virginia)
- Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)
- Jon Tester (Montana)
- Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
- Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
- Joe Manchin (West Virginia)
- Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)

Barring new scandals, Republicans have potential liabilities in the following:
- Scott Brown (Massachusetts) — likely will flip since it’s Massachusetts
- Olympia Snowe (Maine)
- John Ensign (Nevada)

The eleven Democrats can be tied to Obama and Reid. Just a few turnovers among them, even if Massachusetts and Maine are lost, could amount to narrow Republican control of the Senate. I’d suggest that Ben Nelson, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Kent Conrad, Jim Webb, and possibly Claire McCaskill and Bob Casey, are ripe for defeat under current circumstances. Should Republicans keep their current seats, lose Massachusetts and Maine, and flip six of these Democrat held seats, they get narrow control of the Senate. Obviously if they keep Maine, they only need to flip five.

Reid, Boxer, Schumer, and other obnoxious Democrat Senators like Kerry, Durbin and Harkin, could be useful in this effort. They (especially Reid as Majority Leader) can be tied to these vulnerable Senators. If Al Franken wants to be loud too, that would make it even more fun. And if Coons mixes things up a bit, even better. In fact, one of the presumed “safe” Democrat seats up in 2012 could flip.

The eleven named Democrats will need to be more centrist and some would even need to be “fake conservative” to meet the leanings of their states. They will not be able to just march in lock step with the likes of Reid, Boxer, and Schumer, all of whom won reelection and don’t have to worry about another election for six years. None of these eleven want to be the next Russ Feingold (WI). And if they start to see the handwriting on the wall, they could be the next Byron Dorgan, meaning that the Democrat running in their place would likely face defeat.

But if the obnoxious colleagues of these eleven were not enough, then there is Obama. He’s not popular in most of the states represented by these eleven Senators. His name will more than likely be on the ballot in 2012….along with these Senators. He could be problematic for down ballot candidates. 2012 could indeed be another year of “change we can believe in.”

Why is the left so angry?

by Bill Claydon

I really don’t understand this. We have the Joy Behar meltdown which resulted in Sharron Angle getting $150,000 in donations. We have Bill Maher calling people who disagree with his far left extreme views “ignorant” and later going into a profanity laced rant. Finally, we have rank and file liberals having such angry tones in various blogs online.

Relax. Haven’t liberals lectured the tea party that anger is not the answer? So, why are their icons like Joy Behar going into hysterics and causing people like Sharron Angle to get so much money? And why are the rank and file liberals getting so frustrated? Don’t they take their own advice?

Liberals, don’t get so upset. Look at New York. Polls show that Status Cuomo is way up there. Rest easy. You’ll get more of the same. Big, bloated government, higher costs, more people who can afford it moving out of New York because of the out of control government waste. There are few businesses moving into New York unless they get corporate welfare, which means few reasonable private sector jobs. And now, Governor Paterson has announced a layoff of almost 900 state workers. The battle with the unions over that layoff will go beyond the end of Paterson’s time in office, so the mess will be dumped onto Cuomo. Cuomo likely has presidential ambitions. So, he’s probably going to push through on the layoffs so as to at least make it look like he tried to do something with New York’s fiscal mess. The attorney general’s office was a mere stepping stone, and Cuomo has places to go. It’s not like he would just stop at the governor’s office. That too will be a stepping stone. In fact, he’ll actually need to run for and win a second term in 2014 (not hard with those brass knuckles Eliot “the Steamroller” Spitzer says Cuomo has) so it’s not like he’s just going to do what he did in the attorney general’s seat. But then he could try for the White House in 2016.

Now, if you are concerned about state layoffs, there are two candidates that would probably stand against such things. They are Howie Hawkins of the Green Party and Charles Barron of the Freedom Party. Their solution is to just “tax the rich” and “cut tax cuts” even though “the rich” are in the best position to leave the state. I can’t tell you where Jimmy McMillan stands on this issue because his major issue is that “Rent. Is. Too. Damn. High.” And, McMillan has parlayed that into being parodied on Saturday Night Live and having a doll that looks like him. Mission accomplished for Jimmy McMillan’s “gubernatorial campaign” aka attempt at getting notoriety. Anyway, for those who want to tell Cuomo not to step all over state workers on his road to a possible future Democrat presidential nomination, I would think Hawkins or Barron would be your best bet.

Then there are the Senate races. Speaking of Joy Behar, there is another guy who likes to throw around the word she used. Unlike Behar who used it against a public figure (Sharron Angle), Schumer likes to use it on common, ordinary people such as flight attendants. See, Schumer likes big government regulation for other people, but not when it must also apply to him. He’s an elite Senator, you see. But liberals shouldn’t be too upset. Polls show New Yorkers want more of the same so they will likely be sending Schumer back. In fact, if Harry Reid does not win his seat (Nevada is not as “enlightened” as New York), Schumer could be the Democrats’ leader in the Senate.

Next we have Schumer’s rubber stamp who is great at letting Schumer do most of her thinking for her, Kirsten Gillibrand. He’s a lucky guy to get two votes in the US Senate. Polls show New Yorkers like Schumer so much that they will likely be sending his second vote back to the Senate for another two years. It’s funny how someone can change so much when they get a promotion. Kirsten Gillibrand as 20th district Congresswoman would hardly recognize Kirsten Gillibrand as Senator. People in the district she formerly represented seem to notice the difference. I’m not sure if she was a phony then or if she’s a phony now.

So, I just don’t get the level of anger from liberals, especially in New York. They’re going to get the same old. Then they can complain about the costs here in New York. They should be happy with the big government waste for which they will be voting. Better yet, they’re just going to vote for the boring nonsense Democrat candidates. But if they really want some new and seriously left leaning ideas, they have a plethora of third party candidates for whom they could vote.

Since liberals suggest that their policies have been good for America (such as the FAILED “stimulus” that was supposed to keep unemployment at or below 8%), they should have nothing to be worried about. All Democrat candidates should be running 20% ahead of their nearest opponent as the populace chants “hope and change” and “yes we can.” Oh, wait, we already had that. It was called 2008. Now the fad is over.

NY Election Projections Do Not Impact Larger Tea Party Movement

by Bill Claydon

Regardless of what is said below, tea party members and others concerned about the direction of our country must get out to vote. We have some promising congressional elections even if not such good polling in statewide elections.We might be a minority in New York, but we should show ourselves to be as large of a minority as possible.

New York is a deep blue state. The majority of people continue to vote in status quo big government politicians, and there seems to be little outrage when things like the VLT scandal are revealed. Despite the loss of 1.5 million people (according to a print only article in the Albany Times Union a few Sundays back) for states with lower costs, the majority of voters seem to just want more of the same in mediocrity, high property taxes, and an environment where chosen businesses will only relocate to the state if they get enough corporate welfare. Of course, that corporate welfare ultimately costs the middle and lower classes in higher land taxes to pay for more government services, but people don’t care. As to the 1.5 million who left for less expensive states, as New York is one of the best states for welfare and Medicaid, they can be replaced by people who will continue to vote in the status quo. The burden to pay for this will of course fall on a smaller and smaller group of people who cannot afford to move out.

There was never a question that Andrew Cuomo was going to win the governor’s race as polls show. This is New York. New Yorkers seem to want the status quo(mo). A nobody with a “D” after their name could win. Yet for some reason, due to the frustration people are feeling, Cuomo’s statements in the 90 Minute Comedy Variety Show Starring Jimmy McMillan (aka the 2010 New York Gubernatorial Debate), occasionally seemed to reflect tea party ideals. Of course, they were packaged in a polished career politician style presentation. I doubt Cuomo will actually stick to these ideals once he takes over. What will be more interesting is to see the share of the vote given to Paladino. The self-proclaimed “steamroller” won nearly 70% of the vote against John Faso in 2006. Had the uninspiring and boring Rick Lazio remained on the ticket, I suspect he would have been lucky to get 25% of the vote. Paladino could win a higher share of the votes.

In one of the US Senate races, a majority of New Yorkers will likely choose Chuck Schumer, a man who likes big government regulations but does not agree with personally following them. When he was told to turn off his cell phone by a flight attendant, he called her a filthy name. Schumer’s rubber stamp, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, was sitting next to him when he did that and did not seem to have a problem with it. But then, she defers to Schumer most of the time anyway. Despite the Democrats protecting Gillibrand from any serious primary challenge, and despite her near total change in position from her days as Congresswoman from the 20th District, a majority of New Yorkers will likely vote to give Schumer what is basically his “second vote” (the only US Senator to have one) for two more years.

In the attorney general and comptroller races, it is likely that the candidate with a “D” after their name will win.

As an uber liberal state, the tea party in New York is small compared to other states. But let’s look at what the tea party has done in NY. The favored candidates by the dysfunctional New York State Republican Party to run for the governor’s race and the Gillibrand Senate seat were beaten by tea party favored outsiders who had to gather signatures to get into the primary. At least for a time, Cuomo did not have smooth sailing to the governor’s mansion. This is a step.

While other states which are more centrist or conservative leaning may see the status quo changed in the 2010 election, things will be far more gradual in New York. We can’t expect serious change in one election cycle. Change will take several election cycles here. Some might point to Massachusetts where Scott Brown won and ask why the same can’t happen in NY. First, Brown is a RINO. Second, he won in a special election where people from all over the country could concentrate their efforts. In 2010, New York is competing with almost every other state. Even some in New York may be helping candidates who are from states where they have a better chance to win. Certainly there is very little outside help coming in.

So, while liberals might be quick to use tunnel vision and focus on New York as some sort of barometer of tea party success, it’s just wishful thinking on their part. Rather than being discouraged, we can look at what is happening in other states. Clearly, not enough people have woken up in New York. But don’t worry. Just give the projected winners time to wake more people up. Conditions in New York will get worse. Whether people become part of the “tea party” movement or not, more and more will see that there is a problem as time goes on. A few more election cycles will be needed before New York catches up to much of the rest of the country.

Scott Murphy making same mistakes as Tedisco Campaign did in 2009

by Bill Claydon

New York's 20th congressional district has a huge Republican advantage in party registrations compared to Democrats. The 2006 election season was largely a Democrat year. Combined with the fact that all sorts of negative news came out about sleazy ex-Congressman John Sweeney, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand was able to take the seat. In 2008, Gillibrand easily won reelection. In early 2009, then New York Senator Hillary Clinton was given the consolation prize of Secretary of State since she lost the Democrat primary to the so-called "hope and change" candidate. While Caroline "y'know" Kennedy was assumed to be the frontrunner to replace Hillary, ultimately the seat went to Kirsten Gillibrand. With the departure of Hillary, Chuck Schumer then TRULY became New York's senior Senator, even though he had held that title on paper since 2001. Gillibrand provided him with an extra perk in my view: she has basically given in to him for at least 90% of her voting decisions.

Anyway, in the race to fill Gillibrand's seat via special election, the Republicans nominated then New York State Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco. The Democrats had to pick through a bunch of no-name candidates. It was expected that Tedisco would handily win, and a Democrat had to run as the sacrificial lamb.

Scott Murphy, who had lived in Glens Falls for around three years by the 2009 race, happened to have a lot of money. He was chosen over nearly three dozen other candidates --- many of whom likely lived in the district far longer --- because of money.

While Tedisco spent years in the NYS Assembly and had a long record of accomplishments, the Republican National Committee came along and basically ran ads simply bashing Scott Murphy. Murphy was a nobody in the area....until the RNC gave him all sorts of free publicity. They created sympathy for the man with their attack ads. Even among conservatives, there was disappointment with these kinds of ads.

When Tedisco finally asserted control over his campaign and ran some positive ads, it was too late. The damage was done. Murphy had been given name recognition by the other side and generated sympathy.

What should have been a landslide victory in a heavily Republican district turned out to be too close to call. After seesawing for weeks, Murphy won by a few hundred votes and Tedisco conceded.

Fast forward to 2010. Despite Murphy's claims that he is a business man, cares about small business, wants to get the government out of the way, blah blah blah, he has established a record of voting nearly 90% with Nancy Pelosi to expand the federal government. District residents have felt he ignored them and instead listened to his union DC Democrat masters. His campaign war chest is loaded with donations from "safe" Democrats, Wall Street, big unions, trial lawyers, etc.

Murphy started releasing ads. Some ads were positive about himself, though they did not talk specifics about his extensive DC record supporting Pelosi's agenda. Other groups released ads touting the fact that Murphy has Sunday dinners with 52 family members as some sort of reason why he belongs in Congress. (Maybe if he is retired from Congress he could eat with those 52 family members every night of the week?) Another one touted the jobs he created, except they forgot to mention that many were in India.

But then Murphy started releasing attack ads against his opponent, Colonel Chris Gibson. One ad has a wild accusation about Gibson cutting Medicare by 75% when the Colonel has never been in Congress! Another one showed Gibson riding an alligator, gobbling things up. Murphy's ads tend to mention Gibson's name. Even in the "I approve this message" part of the ad, Murphy has been shown mentioning Gibson's name. He should have been saying "My opponent" if he had to reference Gibson at all. Strategically, it is just foolish for the incumbent to provide free publicity for the challenger.

Did Murphy learn anything from the 2009 campaign which greatly benefitted him?

Evidently not. Murphy's poll numbers are down into the final week of election season. Murphy needs to be "rescued" by Bill Clinton on the day before election day. (Bad idea to have such a high profile candidate this late into the race.) It just doesn't look good.

Should Murphy be toppled, some of this will be due to his advertising mistakes, along with ignoring many in his constituency and false statements about Colonel Gibson such as the Medicare accusation.

Gillibrand Vulernable in New York?

 Real Clear Politics thinks so. They have a new article chronicling some of the incumbent Senator's problems in her re-election bid, even though she is in one of the most blue states in the country. A former "Blue Dog" style Democrat the tacked hard to the left after being appointed to Hillary Clinton's old seat last year. She faces a tenacious challenger in Joe DioGuardi-- so it is possible that she might lose.

One poll has Gillibrand with only a one point lead. Downstate liberals distrust and look down on this Upstate-living former "moderate" Congresswoman. Furthermore, Upstaters don't like her hard-left new persona and are tired of the Democrats wrecking the state. So it looks like there's a weakness. But RCP points out:

Let's be clear up front: A straight-up Republican win would be unheard of. No Democratic senator has ever been defeated for re-election in the Empire State, and the last time a non-Democrat won an open seat in New York in a two-way race was in 1958. The typical formula for a non-Democratic win in New York is to have a Republican running on the Liberal Party line who splits the anti-Republican vote with the Democrat; this is in part how Alfonse D'Amato and James Buckley won their Senate races. This won't happen this year - there isn't even an independent Liberal Party in New York anymore.

But it appears that she is trailing big time in Upstate, which has far fewer people than Downstate. However, if enought Downstaters either don't turn out or do not pull the ballot for her she is at least theoretically vulnerable. He'd have to win at least 30% in New York City according to the article to stand a chance-- which it says is possible:

For DioGuardi to equal Pataki's 2002 vote share in New York City, two things have to happen. First, whites have to be excited about voting for him. I think that's possible for two reasons: (1) whites who didn't live on Manhattan were never crazy about Obama in the first place and are presumably ready to cast a protest vote against him today and (2) DioGuardi has an Italian surname. Having attended more than my share of the DiFranco family reunions on the maternal side of my family, I can only attest that the cultural affinity is still pretty important in the Italian-American community. This will help DioGuardi in parts of Queens and in South Brooklyn (and in Staten Island, a notable Republican bastion that is off the map). In fact, this is probably a large reason why DioGuardi is getting 35 percent in the SurveyUSA poll while the other Republican candidates polled are receiving the 25 percent a Republican customarily receives (remember, Paladino is running against a Cuomo).

The article says a DioGuardi win is unlikely. I agree. But it certainly isn't impossible.
Cross posted at Pundit Press.