Posted on 03/14/2006 2:59:05 PM PST by ncountylee
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York's state Republican chairman said Tuesday it would "probably make more sense" for the GOP to give its nomination to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer than to newly minted contender Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland.
Stephen Minarik, in an interview with The Associated Press, said given Spencer's conservative credentials, he "would be a good person on the ticket for us."
"It's less about KT McFarland and more about the strength I think that John Spencer brings to the ticket," Minarik added.
Minarik said he was not formally endorsing Spencer's candidacy, but also did not rule that out.
"He's got the Conservative Party's endorsement. I think that's important for John and adds something to his candidacy," Minarik told the AP. "I'm not officially saying anything. I'll just tell you that I think that direction would probably make more sense."
No Republican running for statewide office in New York has won without Conservative Party backing since 1974.
Have seen the mark...666?
=8-0
Did Heck just freeze over?!
ping
Plus I'm enjoying the way he's ripping into Hellary
At this point, the election is a total loss. In the event of a total loss, you want to lose in a principled manner that draws the next generation of leaders to the party, as a base for future success. The model for this would be Goldwater '64 and Reagan '76.
They need a principled conservative to ignite passion amongst the conservative faithful, and to try to reach out with ideology to the teenagers and the twenty-somethings.
Any man, even if not the best one, will defeat megalomanical feminist Hillary Clinton.
Do you live in NYS, Rodney? I do and, FWIW, I think Spencer can win :)
They need to let the people pick their candidates period.
I agree. KT McFarland is a joke. If you're going to lose, you'd might as well lose with dignity.
Correct. Otherwise, why even bother to have primaries if the state parties (and the Dems are just as guilty and the Republicans in this) are going to try and force out all but the chosen candidate? Yes, it may give a cash advantage if you don't have to spend a lot on your primary campaign. But being forced to go through a primary vets the candidate and prepares him for the challenges of the general election. The 2000 primary race for the Republican nomination is a perfect example. George W. was considered the early favorite a full 2 or even 3 years out from the general election. His campaigning early on was quite lackadaisical....until McCain shocked him in New Hampshire. It forced the President to engage in the campaign in a way that he hadn't up until that point. And it arguably helped him in the actual campaign against Gore. It is not implausible to think that without the shock of McCain's win in the early primaries/caucuses, the general election of 2000 might have gone the other way since Bush wouldn't have gotten himself fully into campaign mode by the time he really needed it.
A lot of republicans think the way to beat the democrats is to "out democrat" them. I'm not buying this game that seems to suggest that repeating democrat mistakes is the way to win.
We heard in the NJ Governor's race that Doug Forrester (who makes Arnold Schwarzenneggar look like Attila the Hun) was the only candidate who could possibly defeat Jon Corzine, because, of course, a conservative wouldn't have a chance in New Jersey. Turns out he got something like a whole 10th of a percent more in the popular vote than conservative Bret Schundler 4 years earlier and the Christie Whitman wing of the NJ GOP campaigned as hard against Schundler as did McGreevey.
In Pa. the GOP has, via intense pressure, forced out all other candidates in favor of Lynn Swann in the Governor's race. I think that was a mistake, not because I'm for or against any of the candidates. Lynn Swann might have won the primary over Bill Scranton (the other "major" contender). Not much is known about Swann or his positions. A bit more was known about Scranton. But Swann, even though he has some experience as a commentator, is a political neophyte. The primary campaign would have focussed him and allowed him to basically test-market his ideas on real voters before having to try them against Ed Rendell. Say what you will about Rendell (and I personally think he's despicable and have had the pleasure of telling him so several times!) he is a veteran campaigner who doesn't make many mistakes.
With all due respect, can I have some of what you are smoking?
Challengers to Clinton Discuss Plans and Answer Questions
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Hope she owns a flak vest -- drive-by Arkancide is very common around the Clintons...as history shows.
Call me Pollyanna, but I think Her Heinous's days representing the state of NY are numbered :)
McFarland is inept and brings nothing to the race other than being a RINO.
John Spencer is the best option available, so the NY GOP should support him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.