Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defying Republicans, and Running on Principle
The New York Times ^ | May 19, 2004 | ROBIN FINN

Posted on 05/19/2004 12:59:22 AM PDT by sarcasm

Garden City, N.Y.

BEING an ophthalmologist, Dr. Marilyn F. O'Grady possibly hasn't much cause to perfect her bedside manner; a competent chairside manner is more to the point. Presumably the manner she devotes to her patients at this his-and-hers/hers-and-his medical office - she handles eyes, her husband, John, concentrates on teeth - is less antsy , and more patient, than the brisk reception in store for a reporter who has come to inquire about her selection last week as the Conservative Party's challenger to Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat.

Soothing, she is not. Nor flattered by news media attention, which in itself is almost refreshing. She is miffed that she isn't wearing makeup for her photo op, but not enough to waste time slapping any on. Her reading glasses (she self-medicates) hang from a plain lanyard. Her only jewelry is a pair of hoop earrings and a gold cross - she is a practicing Roman Catholic with Catholic school credentials right through to grad school at St. John's University. Female vanity, take a hike.

"I'm in a bit of a hurry; what can I do for you?" Dr. O'Grady tartly inquires after sending off a blurry-eyed patient, the last in a day that commenced with a couple of cataract and laser surgeries, and plopping herself on a chair in the examination room. There is an anti-abortion poster on the wall and a statuette of a religious icon, St. Lucy, the patron saint of eyes, on a side table. And in the reception area, Roger Bogstead, chairman of Nassau County's Conservative Party, is waiting to huddle with her, evidently a conversation she is more excited about than this one. Can't keep her eyes off the clock. "Fire away," she directs.

She is, understandably, raring to get her campaign headquarters set up in Brooklyn and begin denigrating Mr. Schumer - she says, with extreme huffiness, that she "would rather cut off both arms" than vote for him - and disparaging Assemblyman Howard Mills, the presumptive Republican nominee who is, in her book, not a bona fide Republican.

"The Republicans picked the wrong candidate: He's pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and has a tax-and-spend record in the Assembly," she says. "I would have to say I'm in the Ronald Reagan tradition of conservatism; I feel I'm the true Republican in the race. Without me, there's no choice for those with a more conservative ideology; voters are going to be scratching their heads between Schumer and Mills and thinking, 'What is this, a trick question?' "

This spurt of defiance by the Conservative Party - Dr. O'Grady was endorsed in Albany by Michael R. Long, its chairman - is risky. The last, and only, time the Conservatives elected a Senate candidate without help from the Republican line was in 1970. "But you have to stand on principle at some point," asserts Dr. O'Grady, whose candidacy was suggested by Conservative Party members who supported her in her 2002 Congressional race against another Democratic incumbent, Carolyn McCarthy. Dr. O'Grady won the Republican and Conservative primaries and was endorsed by the Right-to-Life faction (she got her start in politics as an anti-abortion activist, and for several years was secretary of the Long Island Coalition for Life).

"I ran on principle that time, too," she says. "I knew I was up against a huge fight: I had zero percent name recognition and was outspent five-to-one, but I still got 43 percent of the vote. I don't feel like I lost a thing. I've always been competitive. You don't get through medical school, and into an internship, and into residency, without being competitive. You could say I've taken my competitiveness to a new arena."

THE Senate candidate, 50, is bare-legged beneath her crisp brown-and-yellow skirt and credits her healthy tan to weekends spent on the golf course. She plays to a 14 handicap after electing not to become a golf widow when her husband took up the sport. They have been married 25 years and are, in her words, "simpatico" despite his lack of a political activist gene, one she possesses in spades. Raised in Bellmore, she is the first physician in her family. They are childless, but not by choice. They looked into adoption, and balked: the potential that a birth mother might reclaim her child discouraged her.

Pained by her inability to conceive - "We had planned for children, but God decided otherwise" - Dr. O'Grady is vehemently against abortion and those who perform it. "Doctors do no harm," she recites. "We should uphold the sanctity of life." She is also opposed to gay marriage: "Marriage is a basic building block of society, between a woman and a man; it needs to be upheld and strengthened, not opened up to any combination of relationships people want to put together. We tamper with that at our risk."

She supports the tax program of President Bush but differs with him by taking a harder line on immigration: tighten the borders, no amnesty for illegal aliens, more power to law enforcement officials (her father was a New York City detective). "A policeman in New York City is forbidden to ask a suspicious person about his citizenry. That is insanity!"

And how does she know her principles are the right principles? She just does. "I'm well grounded. I've seen the success of my upbringing. You look at the values that got you here, and you say, 'My parents must have known what was right.' " Her parents were Roosevelt Democrats who switched to the Republican Party in the 60's: the Democrats got too liberal for them. And lately some Republicans have gotten too liberal for her. Take that to the polls.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: conservativeparty; electionussenate; marilynogrady; schumer; thirdparty

1 posted on 05/19/2004 12:59:22 AM PDT by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sarcasm

You know, I think maybe the fact that the Republican Party as of late has been offering New York and California little in the way of an alternative to the Democrats--except for maybe being a little tougher--might explain, at least in part, how it's managed to become so ineffective in those States (plus there's the problem of illegal aliens in California, but had the Republicans been doing their jobs, that might not be such a problem today).


2 posted on 05/19/2004 1:05:35 AM PDT by MegaSilver (Training a child in red diapers is the cruelest and most unusual form of abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver

Yep, if the GOP is smart it will get behind this lady. If the "republican" is just as liberal as Schumer then why would anyone in NY vote for the "republican". This one should be a no-brainer for the GOP because un-like Specter the GOP is not protecting a republican seat.


3 posted on 05/19/2004 1:15:46 AM PDT by Texasforever (The French love John Kerry. He is their new Jerry Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm

"The Republicans picked the wrong candidate: He's pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and has a tax-and-spend record in the Assembly,"

LOL That would encompass the majority in the Republican Party today. They are so far left they squeek. But then we "extremists" (original Republicans) are kooks and troublemakers.


4 posted on 05/19/2004 1:24:18 AM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING (He is faithful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1136876/posts?page=72#72


5 posted on 05/19/2004 1:30:14 AM PDT by walford (http://utopia-unmasked.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING

I'm a registered Republican but I generally vote straight Conservative - it sends a message.


6 posted on 05/19/2004 1:32:02 AM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver

There has been some interesting reporting on local Los Angeles County tv stations lately. People are reporting immigrants being smuggled in and police/immigration officials are picking them up along with those that smuggled them in. The most recent groups picked up were in Watts and Canoga Park.

An immigration advisor, who happens to be hispanic, told reporters that the illegals misunderstood the work-visa plan and mistakenly thought they were coming here for a new amnesty plan which does not exist.

In other reports yesterday, the media showed gangs that were found to have picked up illegals with the purpose of holding them for ransom from their relatives.


7 posted on 05/19/2004 3:10:43 AM PDT by Susannah (Have you thanked a soldier lately for your freedom?- www.amillionthanks.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Agreed!!!

But recent GOP history points the other way ... Specter in PA.

8 posted on 05/19/2004 3:15:11 AM PDT by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Yep, if the GOP is smart it will get behind this lady.

Don't count on it, The NY GOP has never been accused of that condition.

9 posted on 05/19/2004 3:22:20 AM PDT by bullseye1911 (Not as good as I once was, but as good once as I ever was!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm

The NYT tells conservatives to jump and we all say "how high and can we pretty please fetch your slippers, too???"

The purpose of this article is utterly transparent and yet it serves the interests of the third party advocates so they don't question the intent at all? That's the tragedy...

It should be, Defying Republicans and Running on Stupidity. NY State is already one of the most heavily liberal states in the country... the more conservatives drop away from the right edge of the GOP, the further left the GOP candidates will continue to move looking for a majority vote.


10 posted on 05/19/2004 4:38:18 AM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey

The Conservative Party in New York State is and always has been, a bunch of feckless political parasites. They don't have the guts to run on their own so they latch onto the Republican line to run on. Yes, they once won a senate race. That was a one time thing in a three way race and that was 34 years ago. New York is a 60/ 40 rat state. Winning here is ONLY possible with candidates who don't meet the Conservative Party's "oh so sacred standards".
The only way for them to act honorably would be to always run on their on line and not on the Republican line. Nevertheless, they almost never do this. Why? Because they want the jobs the winning Republicans will give them.
In my county Richmond, they regularly endorse rats. In fact they only endorse Republicans or rats, for that matter, based purely on which side they think will win. Principles!!!!! Puleeeeze. Vote Conservative and send a message?????? Don't make me laugh. People who do that must think that some day they will get Jesse Helms to run in New York! Conservatives in New York are pitiful.


11 posted on 05/19/2004 7:15:34 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 ( Kerry's not "one of us": catholicagainstkerry.com. needs your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver

Right. If California had listened to the GOP's conservatives you know what they would have now? A Demcractic Governor.

I think you are dead wrong on this issue. It takes baby steps not big leaps. We live in a Democracy and no matter how wrong the majority may be, they still hold the poltical power.

RINOs who have make some conservative decisions are better than the complete opposite.

Giving people an "alternative" by your definition is the best way to ensure contiuning marginalization in the states with the largest populations.


12 posted on 05/19/2004 7:23:09 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax energy not labor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Right. If California had listened to the GOP's conservatives you know what they would have now? A Demcractic Governor.

I think you are dead wrong on this issue. It takes baby steps not big leaps. We live in a Democracy and no matter how wrong the majority may be, they still hold the poltical power.

RINOs who have make some conservative decisions are better than the complete opposite.

Giving people an "alternative" by your definition is the best way to ensure contiuning marginalization in the states with the largest populations.

A couple of points need to be made:

1. Arnold was/is thinking about reviving Davis' illegal driver license program--admittedly, to an apparently slightly less insane degree than Davis, but when has "apparently sane" laxity regarding illegal immigration EVER been dealt with appropriately? The 1986 amnesty?

2. We're making baby steps all right... in the wrong direction. Ronald Reagan was the Governor of California in the 1970's, California swung for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, then for Bush in 1992. Today, California is overrun by Democrats, with a liberal Republican Governor. And we have a "Compassionate Conservative" Republican President who's all but unaware of the existence of his veto pen.

3. Had the Republican Party been doing its job of being, well, a conservative party in California for the last couple of decades, I doubt it would be in its present dilemma (trying to out-lib the liberals to get elected). Reagan's misguided 1986 amnesty set the stage (immigrant citizens, especially of illegal backgrounds, tend to move toward the Democratic Party), and it's been downhill ever since.

4. You say, "Giving people an "alternative" by your definition is the best way to ensure contiuning marginalization in the states with the largest populations." That's exactly what the Eastern Establishment thought in 1964 when they backed Rockefeller over Goldwater. Goldwater may have lost, but he set the stage for dialogue to convert the party and the nation to the conservative side, and in 1980, what did we get? **REAGAN**

5. Electing a slightly-less-liberal-than-the-Democrats RINO will not move a state in the conservative direction; it will move the party in the leftward direction. Had Rockefeller won the 1964 nomination for the Presidency, he may well have won the general election, but would there have been a Ronald Reagan? It's at least debatable.

One more thing. If we give people a choice between an incumbent Democrat, and an opposition Republican who's basically like a Democrat but a bit "tougher," what's to persuade the middle voter to vote the incumbent out?

13 posted on 05/19/2004 11:58:08 PM PDT by MegaSilver (Training a child in red diapers is the cruelest and most unusual form of abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver

Your points are fair enough and well argued. Moreover, as you point out, there is the tendency to occassionally vote out the incumbent regardless. This is often the result of economic cycles beyond the control of politicians.

Thus the chances of electing a charismatic conservative always remains. But as long as that peron's social agenda deviates greatly from the opinion of the masses then there is a problem.

I am convinced that the only obstacle to total GOP domination of the entire nation is the power of the religious voters within the GOP. If Pubbies would stop talking about the most divisive social issues for a while, and concentrate of the economic ones and the GOP would soon be the only party. Of course then the religious right, being impatient, would go off and form its own party, but I think that will happen eventually anyway.


14 posted on 05/20/2004 12:25:49 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax energy not labor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Thus the chances of electing a charismatic conservative always remains. But as long as that peron's social agenda deviates greatly from the opinion of the masses then there is a problem.

I am convinced that the only obstacle to total GOP domination of the entire nation is the power of the religious voters within the GOP. If Pubbies would stop talking about the most divisive social issues for a while, and concentrate of the economic ones and the GOP would soon be the only party. Of course then the religious right, being impatient, would go off and form its own party, but I think that will happen eventually anyway.

Well, there's a problem with that: while we wait for the Democrats to fall over themselves, if the Republcian Party is not actively stopping the social engineering of the Democratic Party, it could spell disaster not only for the party but for the nation.

Maybe if we could downplay it a bit in elections while quietly toeing the hard line in the legislature... but there's no way that'll happen.

15 posted on 05/20/2004 12:36:15 AM PDT by MegaSilver (Training a child in red diapers is the cruelest and most unusual form of abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
The Conservative Party in New York State is and always has been, a bunch of feckless political parasites. They don't have the guts to run on their own so they latch onto the Republican line to run on. Yes, they once won a senate race. That was a one time thing in a three way race and that was 34 years ago. New York is a 60/ 40 rat state. Winning here is ONLY possible with candidates who don't meet the Conservative Party's "oh so sacred standards".

40 years ago the conservative and liberal party were created in NY The liberals have splintered off into the independence(oxymoron) and working families parties. So the liberal and right to life parties no longer exist. The point is,because of the way election law is in NY unless you garner so many votes in a state wide election that party ceases to exists. The conservative party has had to endorse a winner simply to survive in NY.Yes NY is a 60/40 rat state so if the liberal and rino split the 60 then the conservative could win. BTW the conservative party line consistently provides 6 to 7 percent of the vote, so the endorsement has been the deciding factor in many state wide elections.....ask King GEORGE............... Defying Republicans, and Running on Principle

16 posted on 05/22/2004 11:57:01 AM PDT by SirTaurus (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Just ranting here...but it seems something very bad has happened to our country...

I think it's pathetic that the chief issues [in the media] that "count" when electing our leader(s) are:

- Whether the candidate is "for" or "against" killing a baby BEFORE it's even born;

- Whether or not the candidate is "for" or "against" males doing it males, and females doing it with females.

- Whether or not the candidate thinks the rest of us should be FORCED to ante up our hard earned money to support those who can, but will not support themselves and their families.

- Whether or not the candidate is naive enough to think if we just try to be friends with terrorists, they'll leave us along.

- Whether or not the candidate "buys in" to the junk science theories of "Global Warming" and other Chicken Little philosophies.

- Whether or not the candidate thinks we should hand out continual foreign aid, just so socialist countries will "like us".

- Whether or not the candidate is stupid enough to believe that throwing MORE MONEY at the educational system, will "fix it".

- Whether or not the candidate believes that "minority", "homosexual" and/or "female" trumps the rights of everyone else in the world.

These and many other trivial, anal, and stupid issues are controlling this country right now, and it all...[let me say that again] it ALL, comes from the perverted left. They're a bunch of sicko's who want an alternative country where anything goes; they all tout their "intelligence", but can't see that such a society will not work...ask the Romans.
17 posted on 05/22/2004 12:22:58 PM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson