Posted on 03/12/2004 6:50:55 AM PST by qam1
"Meanwhile, George Pataki is running strong. Speaking without notes he delivered thunderous approval of his record, stressing such music for the ear of his audience as
Obviously this is a very old article,
hugely reduced welfare rolls, reduction in crime,
Well that is just like the Clintons who claimed the same thing, Taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.
95% of al crime in the state is in NYC so crime reduction was all Rudy.
Welfare rolls dropped throughout the country in the 1990's and New York was only 41st in % of welfare recipients dropped. Pataki has never personally cut welfare rolls in fact he has just added more and more programs or shifted them to other programs (Like these) and claimed a reduction in rolls.
and a forthcoming billion-dollar tax reduction."
Forth coming!!! Yeah right, Besides the marshmellows Pataki has raised taxes on everything!!
So I guess you're position would be that Buckley is lying and that Hillary would do those same things!
No he is reporting on what Pataki said not what he has done,
I would like to see a link to this article you quote, You seem to have a way of taking things out of context.
Buckely is NO fan of Pataki.
Quote
".....At least that summarizes the first minute or so of Buckley's remarks. After that, Buckley dropped the historiography in favor of an extended needling of the party's likely nominee for governor--incumbent George Pataki--next to whom he'd been seated for most of the evening. On and on Buckley droned, reaching back to Pataki's refusal, while an undergrad at Yale, to endorse a Buckley-sponsored resolution against civil rights at the university's political union, fast-forwarding to the governor's promiscuous spending habits, and culminating with National Review's recent observation that "the only abortion law George Pataki would ever oppose was one that threatened the rights of gays and lesbians."
The vast majority of when the Baby boomers ended and the Xers begin I've seen is 1965 (Lot of variation on when Xers end and Ys begin from 1975 to 1982). I am guessing 1965 was chosen because it would have been the first year the first (adult)baby boomers would have had children.
How can both my mother (born 1944) and myself (born 1961) be part of the same generation, hmmmm?
The Baby Boom started in 1946 so your mother is actually part of the Silent Generation
Those late Boomers you are refering to as Gen-Xers are often refered to as Generation Jones
They try to save the world but they just smoke pot and smell bad.
Yep. Can't save the world throwing up the white flag of surrender while protesting wars and smokin' dope. Today's hippies are yesterday's hippies. Much of what goes on in the world is beyond the concept of the average long haired, maggot infested, tie-dyed, dope smokin' hippie.
Interesting read, Obviously being a super Liberal site they are skewing the Ys toward them but many college kids are naturally Liberal so I think they making too much of it. Actually from what I've seen the college kids today are less Liberal than those in the past
For example
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974782/posts
I can't find the link but I also remember seeing somewhere that College kids support Bush in higher % than the rest of the population.
You might find the analysis interesting, Though remember it is from a very liberal site
It is a generation that has thus far shown itself to be disdainful of politics, cynical about political parties and more likely than any other age group to support third-party candidates. At the same time, these young people are engaged in the life of the community and expect to improve it. To write them off politically is to risk someone else mobilizing a sleeping giant.
I've written before that our best hope for the future lies in the younger generations asserting their political power, ASAP.
The Boomers (my generation, shamefully), and the older Silents, of both parties cannot remove themselves from their self-centeredness and class/group identities enough to save our republic.
The Left and the Right definitely have prospects for the Gen-Y folks, but it is just a little premature for either to count their chickens. If they appear somewhat liberal in high-school and college, the same could have been said just about every generation at those ages. I'm hoping, as Greenberg fears, that the Gen-Y and Gen-X voters turn the country away from both of the boomer-elite parties, and start their own.
The oldest Gen-Y (b. 1984) just started work/college/voting in 2002. It will take most of them a few more years to notice that 1/3 of their paycheck never reaches them, and maybe longer until they realize that over half their income goes to pay taxes of some sort when all the hidden taxes, licenses, fees, etc. are taken into account.
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.