PIRRO=HILLARY SLEEPING WITH A KENNEDY

Jeanine Pirro.com ^ | www.politicsWNY.com

[stuckinNY-NJ]

From Pirro profile about her campaign website:

"On it she features photos of herself with figures as ... environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr."

There you go everyone who wants to join Pirro band wagon. When you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas

[HitmanLV]

One problem that rises consistently on FR is the tacit idea that most of the nation (even the Red States) is as conservative as we all are.

I'm very conservative (on a scale of -100 (ultimate liberal), 0 (moderate moderate), and 100 (ultimate conservative), most of us on FR are probably in the 80-100 range.

[I figure myself to be around the 75-80 mark, but who knows?)

Anyway, the rest of the country is not as conservative as we are. Never has been. Best as I can tell, the country is probably fairly moderate and nonpolitical by nature, and instinctively leans conservative on a lot of issues (I'd guess the nation on balance is a 20-25 or so).

Anyway, NYers are on the other end of the scale. It's a very liberal state, and even its republicans are liberal.

NY GOPers deserve a say just as we do. Pirro speaks for many NYers, and maybe she can build a consensus to win. We should support that.

There is no unanimity of opinion in the GOP (or on FR for that matter). Expecting Pirro to be much more conservative that her constituency is immature and unrealistic.

[KenmcG414]

As a NY'er this will be an election just as many others where you go in the voting booth and hold your nose. J Pirro is the lesser of two evils.

[txrangerette]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled PIRRO=HILLARY SLEEPING WITH A KENNEDY, stuckinNY-NJ wrote:

{{{If she wasn't looking to use the photo with Kennedy as vehicle to gain votes, why did she post it on her own campaign website? Funny but the GOPers I know would put Ronald Reagan or George Bush pics on their website}}}

This woman is in New York. She wants more than Republican votes because she understands she will have to have them.

According to Rush, she portrays herself as a big environmentalist (which tracks with this Kennedy). But also low tax and against Big Government. Interesting combination...perhaps it cannot be reconciled, but some folks think it can be, such as Newt Gingrich, for example. Let's see if she departs even slightly or occasionally from the environmentalist-wacko party line. That would interest me to know.

As for her appearance with a Kennedy, I repeat, Rush thinks it is to show her as a big environmentalist, which this particular Kennedy is known for, and this is the state of New York, for crying out loud, where strictly Republicans cannot elect anybody to anything.

[stuckinNY-NJ]

love Rush, he just doesn't know what is coming down the pike here

[cvq3842]

This thread has illuminated the predictable problem pretty well so far.

I would bet just about everyone reading and posting here would prefer a stunch conservative Republican to defeat Clinton. I doubt that will happen in New York. NYC alone has a huge population and goes, what, about 75% Democrat. Non-RINO Republicans do poorly, even if upstate is more conservative.

A united front will give us the best chance to defeat of weaken Clinton. (I don't need to repeat at this late date how dangerous I think it would be to have someone with her political ideas and character in national office.) So do conservatives go with their principles, or with the perceived "better chance" candidate? Shades of the California recall - Arnold or McClintock (sp?)

I personally think Pirro has a better chance of getting further along in this process. But it's still early, and conservatives always seem to have to swallow their principles and go with the lesser of two evils "for the good of the party." That begins to chafe after a while.

My mental exercise is to try to think who Clinton would prefer NOT to run against, and choose that person.

I still say it's pirro.

But again there's a lot to think about, and this all has to play out yet . . .

[Mia T]

bump...

Jeanine is conservative where it truly counts today: on national security and terrorism. One attack with WMD and all the social issues are rendered quite irrelevant.

HILLARY DUD -- NOT DUFF -- PORTENDS JEANINE WIN


"Married to the Mob" and other stop-Jeanine sillygisms

[txrangerette]

compare her to Rick Lazio as a CANDIDATE (ignoring their positions on issues, just in how they come across), if you wouldn't mind.

[stuckinNY-NJ]

Guess Hillary should get a pass on social issues and should be allowed to moderate by running against a liberal like Pirro. Guess you guys are right

[Mia T]

Jeanine is not merely conservative on these issues -- she's experienced, talented and fearless.

[cvq3842]

I know what you mean. See also my post 45.

One of the reasons for a lot of the frustration people here have felt since the election is that the clear Republican majorities are not the same as establishing clear CONSERVATIVE majorities. We got to 55 in the senate with the northeastern Republicans (or "RINOS" to many) and because moderate-to-conservative voices have been largely purged from the Democrats. We seem to have a bigger idological "tent."

I do indeed understand a conservative who would otherwise support Hillary's opponent not wanting to send money to someone with Pirro's views on social issues. i still say go with the lesser of two evils. Like it or not, I don't think a pro-life candidate can win there. I could be dead wrong. Just my opinion - I don't live there.

[Mia T]

clinton can't afford to moderate. Jeanine would then pick up even more moderates and even some less intractably clintonoid lefties.

[jigsaw]

As a NYer, I disagree with Pirro on many things, but she won't sell the country out like Hillary will -- esp. with national defense.

[txrangerette]

I always keep in mind that we aren't just talking about Hillary, one person. Or about Hillary and her awful "Husband", or about Hillary and her goon squads of political hitmen and her stooges in the press.

We are talking about a DEMOCRAT. These days, the very word strikes me with a bone-chilling FEAR.

I would be almost as charged up if there were a chance to damage or take out Chuckie Schumer with someone who was better than that vile man. In this case, a little more so, because Chuckie has no chance for the White House, as Tom Daschle had no chance but I rejoiced in his defeat, in that Hillary is set on getting into the ultimate position of power in the world...

(and she is a {{{DEMOCRAT}}}!

[doug from upland]

Absolutely --- national security and terrorism. In this case, national security means sending Hillary back home permanently where she can share her husband with several women in Chappaqua.

[Republican Wildcat]

The fastest way to get to 47% in NYS is to go pro-life conservative.

That's ridiculous. Not even a majority of Republicans in NYS are pro-life.

[Mia T]

 

f missus clinton
is serious
about keeping
pornography downloads
from our kids,
she
and that... husband... of hers
will upload themselves
straightaway
to
Chappaqua... or wherever...
and stay clear of
the Oval Office
--and the public square--
forever.

[HitmanLV]

I agree. That being said, I think some folks are just being unrealistic.

McCain is routinely called a RINO: He has a lifetime ACU rating of 83. How a guy who regularly votes the preferred conservative way (and again, that's subject to opinion and the ACU isn't the sole arbiter of that) 83% of the time be so maligned only serves to undermine the credibility of the critic, and not the target of the criticism.

Interestingly, on FR I have seen people casually remark that a guy like Harold Ford is 'a democrat they can live with,' who 'isn't that bad.' His lifetime ACU rating: 19.

This doesn't make sense. If a person dislikes McCain's tactics and personality, fine. That doesn't make him a RINO, nor a 'liberal.' If a person likes Ford personally or personality, fine, but don't impute some level of moderation (or conservative-lite) to him.

Freepers regularly place the bar high (in McCain's case), or thoughtlessly (in Ford's case).

To me, I never think my vote should only go to people who I agree with 100%. Indeed, if I lived my life that way, I'd have no friends, no girlfriend, etc.

It's petty and small for a person to be a one issue voter, and it's even smaller to demand or expect something approaching 100% overlap on issues. To me, the political process is about making change in a positive direction (conservatism): you only do that by electing people who are more conservative than not.

Pirro represents a consensus opinion in NYS. That's what elected officials are supposed to do. People who don't like it should work towards changing the consensus opinion, which is hard to do, so they don't dare consider it.

[stuckinNY-NJ]

You assume all pro-life voters are GOPers. You also assume that campaigns are about persuasion. They are not. They are about motivating the base to turn out. You can read the NYS board of election results on the website to see just how "ridiculous" this is.

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, well. Just keep playing in your little dream world. The rest of of us will move on and try to actually get something done. Have fun.

[radar101]

Oh yeah? Go to her page

Go to "Biography".
5th photo down " ON Golan Heights (Israel)"
6th photo down " with GW ala Laura Bush".

I'm encouraged.