Posted on 11/30/2005 1:33:00 PM PST by neverdem
ALBANY, Nov. 29 - Jeanine F. Pirro's bid to unseat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suffered an embarrassing setback on Tuesday when the State Legislature's most powerful Republican said she should call the whole thing off and run for state attorney general instead.
The remarks by the official, Joseph L. Bruno, the majority leader of the State Senate, forced out into the open simmering concerns about Ms. Pirro's candidacy, which has been beset by gaffes and fund-raising difficulties. And it heightened the sense that the state Republican Party is nervous about its future and riven by squabbles as its de facto leader, Gov. George E. Pataki, prepares to step down at the end of next year.
Mr. Bruno said that Ms. Pirro, who was elected Westchester district attorney three times, would be a better fit as a candidate for attorney general. "I have said from the beginning, and I know a lot of my colleagues, and people within the party, share the thought, that she would make a great attorney general," he said. "By background, by her experience, by her prosecutorial record. And I hope that before this procedure gets too much further, that Jeanine Pirro would reconsider and run for A.G."
While Mr. Bruno's remarks echo what some Republicans have been murmuring quietly for some time now, they put him at odds with both Governor Pataki, who endorsed Ms. Pirro for the Senate last month, and the chairman of the state Republican Party, Stephen J. Minarik III, who is supporting her Senate candidacy.
And while the remarks were hardly welcomed by the Pirro for Senate campaign, Ms. Pirro tried to put the best spin on it. "Senator Bruno is a respected majority leader and I appreciate his confidence in my abilities," she said in a terse, two-sentence written statement. "However..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Attorney Genaral? Isn't her husband up to his butt in aligators of a legal nature?
I still do not understand how people can claim that Pirro is an attractive, sexy woman. Next to Hillary, sure, buy come on!
Given Clinton's celebrity and Pirro's history of legal commentary on cable TV, that should tell you something.
Gonna be darn near impossible. Nobody at a local level with national name recognition will want to run for senate seat. And to be honest, I no longer believe in the American public for the most part. The fact is you have too many dumbed-downed people out there voting and that is why Hillary got in. I've listened to some NY women who voted for her, and it was sad. This sort of child-like celebrity worship is not what makes a good republic. Any candidate going against Mrs. Clinton would have to face that and frankly these are not people who listen to reason or ideas.
Nope, and the state of the NY GOP is so bad, that they won't acknowledge anyone who isn't self financing.
Under Pataki, the NY GOP has gotten so bad, that they may get totally swept.
The fear they have is that Hillary Clinton will finish them off once and for all, but they think that if they can take at least one state office, they can live to fight another day (and save Brunos job as state senate leader).
Sort of, he got alot of his experince under Dinkins.
Under Pataki he became secretary of state, but the department is essentially a giant dumping ground for political appointees.
If he anything, he's just learned to be a more political animal and more about cronyism.
FWIT, if Golisano does get the nomination for the GOP, Pataki may endorse Spitzer or he will stay neutral....according to Patakis people.
We don't get French benefits?!;-)
All in all, it doesn't look terribly promising for next year in retaining the Governorship. I'm not sure I could entirely blame Pataki for wanting to sandbag Golisano, as Golisano was trying to do just that in the past election. Golisano is no loyal Republican, so Pataki certainly doesn't owe him a damn thing.
I'm thinking that the GOP is either preparing for a Hillary Presidency and is trying to placate her or they believe that she is setting a trap for herself, as described by deborah Orin in today's NYPost,that will see her torn apart by the Lefties as Jimmy Breslin did in Newsday yesterday. I think they want Hillary as the opposing candidate.
I'm not fan of Golisano, he is as flakey as they come.
But his attacks on Pataki were definatly on the head.
He bashed him on to much spending and fiscal irresponsibility.
He blasted him on tax hikes, and called him on the fact that Pataki didn't do much to prevent tax hikes.
He ripped him on corruption and growth of government.
Golisano is more to the right then Pataki, though he makes ross perot look normal.
Either way, losing the governorship is only one small problem for the state GOP .
Its also why so many republicans have turned on Pataki.
Under his watch, the party has turned disasterious.
The fact is you have too many dumbed-downed people out there voting and that is why Hillary got in.
&&
That is part of the equation. Another large part is the well-oiled Rat voter fraud machine. How many crack heads did they bus around to how many polling places to vote multiple times?
I've been addressing some of the problems with the NY GOP as of late in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531445/posts
Probably the one thing I haven't spoke to is the profound disappointment I've had in Pataki. Elected as a Conservative Republican, he has effectively jumped the shark and lost focus after he was reelected to his 2nd term in '98. Losing Dennis Vacco and Al D'Amato in that same election didn't help matters (although at least he shed that horrid psychobitch Betsy Ross as his #2).
Just another reason the red bits of NYS need their own state.
Pirro is an incompetant with a bad facelift. Don't waste your money.
Pirro couldn't bloody a raw steak.
PUHLEEZ! If Loozio got trashed by 11%, a real incompetant like Pirro would go down by 20.
But how about just to defy Hillary?
She controls the Dems in NY; should we grant her the opportunity to control the Republicans as well?
A waxy stiff who hasn't moved in seventy years? That sounds about perfect for a New York Senator.
I would vote for Spencer or even Daniels over Hillary. I don't have an anti-Hillary fetish (she's just another Lib politician to me, nothing more) so I really don't see the advantage of having a dumb broad like Pirro embarass our party.
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.