Tom Suozzi
Posted on 01/12/2006 8:31:42 AM PST by Liz
"Suozzi a conservative?"
I'm not from the Northeast, so I'm only taking a wild guess. I admit, I'm as befuddled by this as every other poster her.
You're right about this being a disgrace. This is one of those cases where there are no good choices. We all that can be done is make the best of a bad situation by choosing the the least objectionable candidate with any chance of winning.
As for Suozzi, I don't know anything about him.
Sounds like they're finally being honest. Although if they were being COMPLETELY honest, they'd endorse Spitzer -- Souzzi may not be quite left wing enough for the NY GOP.
So .... Golisano is honest at least.
Tom Suozzi
Oceanview in post #28 seems to have some insight on Suozzi.
Well, I'll give him this much credit: he's very telegenic.
Bad analysis ?
Yes, piss poor. I don't care if it was printed in National Review, the guy either doesn't know what he's talking about, or has a personal issue with Weld. The whole thing is written from a vindictive, angry point of view, and it clearly colors his entire analisys.
If it were written by Bill Kristol, Michael Novak, or Byron York, I'd give it a little more creedence, but I'd still think it is lacking and obviously has some personal issues coloring it, and I'd still disagree.
So you are now DENYING he decimated the recovering MA GOP ?
Yes, absolutely.
It was in large part because of him that it was recovering. It seems to me that he brought a lot of those R's in along with him, overcoming the strong D machine. Criticizing him for losing it later is a cheap shot and not particularly useful. Massachusetts had suffered from Dukakis enough to kick back, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the only state that went McGovern for President.
Not to mention, the most humerously bad parts of analisys and obviously wishful thinking is blaming him for a Republican primary that would lose them the Governor's mansion...well guess what? Not only did Paul Cellucci win, his predecessor was an R too, that being Mitt Romney. I actually think it is a lot more fair to credit Weld for passing the torch to R's for the Governor's mansion then attacking him for losing state house/senate seats. After all, that was his job.
You are DENYING he attempted to undermine the national party by supporting Sen. Jesse Helms's Democrat opponent ?
I don't agree with this action, but it was clearly personal, and had nothing to do with the party. Considering how he seems to be consistantly treated by Helms and his like, and frankly, people like you who expect him to govern like Mark Sanford in Massachussetts, I can't say I blame him, even if I don't agree with this particular action.
You are DENYING he waged open warfare against Conservatives, both in purging them from the Massachusetts party, and also attempting to carry the war nationwide ?
I have seen no evidence of it. The article certainly provides none.
You are DENYING he accepted a high-profile diplomatic posting by Clinton in order to facilitate that war and attack the GOP from it ?
Yes, absolutely. Again, you have proven no evidence of this fact beyond the innuendos of some random attorney in Boston.
Paul Cellucci accepted an ambassadorship too, and Mitt Romney didn't run for a second term. There are possibly other reasons for that, obviously, but I'd be willing to believe that it's mind-bogglingly frusturating and exhausting being a GOP Governor in such an insanely D state.
Especially considering he had only a year of his Governorship left, and you can theoretically say Ambassator forever, I can't say I blame him at all.
And, as I pointed out before, Cellucci won anyway, so it didn't really matter much in the long run.
Weld is known for having diverse interests. He's written fictional books, done some acting, been a prosecutor, worked on K street, etc. He's well known that he's always going for random road trips, that he's always facinated by something new, etc. It's consistent with the rest of his life. Frankly, I admire him for that. You shouldn't be totally invested in only one thing your entire life.
You can disagree with his tactics all you want, but you are demonizing his motives with little to no proof just because you don't like the guy.
You are DENYING he proved to be an incompetent leader, both in Massachusetts, but also in Kentucky, driving a small college into the ground with his gross mismanagement ?
I don't know much about the Kentucky thing, but considering the 5-1 D lean of Massachussetts, I don't have any reason to believe he was a bad Governor.
Sorry, Red, Weld makes Chafee look like a rank amateur.
This is only true if you consider party loyalty, support for Iraq and the WOT, and vocal and frequent support of Bush in 2004 to be insignificant.
I do not.
Everything you've written about him has been nothing but laughably slanted, overly broad generalizations that nicely lead you to the conclusion you already had.
If you want to convince me, actually tell me something. Not these overbroad, rediculous statments like 'Weld destroyed the party'.
Rudy is much more than simply 9/11, although that terrible day and the way in which he handled it is nothing short of admirable, and it became his defining moment for many skeptics.
But Rudy became St. Rudy way before that day, when he first started to become a force in NYC politics during the mid 80's. Combatting organized crime as US Prosecutor, running (and losing, closely) his first run for Mayor in '89 vs. the inept Dinkins, and then finally winning in '93 ... the skeptics all predicted that he'd fall flat on his face trying to govern an 'ungovernable city'.
Rudy showed 'em all, and turned the city completely around. Street crime dropped dramatically, the municipal unions were forced to surrender some of their stranglehold on city finances, Times Square became an oasis of investment and tourism instead of the blight of peep-shows and urban decay that it had become before.
NYC under Rudy's watch became the template for the revitalization of cities all over the country. It wasn't just about 9/11
Nevertheless, he would be considered a moderate democrat anywhere else but New York. He loves illegal aliens (supported public education and in-state tuition for illegal children), gay rights (even lived with two gay men), the United Nations, HATES guns (this alone means he will not get my boat), and is pro-choice in all areas.
A good mayor, but I do NOT want to see him as President. Let him stay in New York to succeed Bloomingidiot.
that's OK, you've got to play the hand you are dealt.
I already knew that you did, Clemenza ... and I should have added to my post: "but, you already know all this" :)
Was just trying to repeat the story of NYC's textbook turnaround under Rudy's reign for any FReeper reading this who may only know of his accomplishments peripherally.
Nevertheless, he would be considered a moderate democrat anywhere else but New York. He loves illegal aliens (supported public education and in-state tuition for illegal children), gay rights (even lived with two gay men), the United Nations, HATES guns (this alone means he will not get my boat), and is pro-choice in all areas.
Agree. Anywhere else then Rudy is a moderate Dem. But we're talking about NYS here, not President ... and NYS is going incresingly liberal, a breakdown of the GOP here in a state with a bunch of RINO's running it into the ground. Rudy would make a fine Senator or even Governor ... hell of a lot better than then anyone the Dems or (lifeless) GOP can come up with. Remember, this is New York .. there are no conservatives here! (well, maybe a few .. George Marlin comes to mind, but he'll never get any votes). Our best bet is a rational tough guy like Giuliani, RINO perhaps, but still our best bet.
A good mayor, but I do NOT want to see him as President. Let him stay in New York to succeed Bloomingidiot.
Can Rudy run for Mayor again in 2009 ?? I'm not really sure of the term limit law in NYC, but read somewhere several years ago that it didn't disqualify a former officeholder from running again for the same office at a later time.
I made exact, specific, and factual points.
"Yes, piss poor. I don't care if it was printed in National Review, the guy either doesn't know what he's talking about, or has a personal issue with Weld. The whole thing is written from a vindictive, angry point of view, and it clearly colors his entire analisys."
You seem to have an aversion to factual points where Weld is concerned. You're going to find very few people who have any experience with dealing with Weld that he is either a reliable (except in being unreliable) or loyal individual. In fact, I've not found anyone aside from you who seems to find him to be remotely acceptable or defensible in his personal conduct or public performance. Why is that ?
"If it were written by Bill Kristol, Michael Novak, or Byron York, I'd give it a little more creedence, but I'd still think it is lacking and obviously has some personal issues coloring it, and I'd still disagree."
It's not lacking at all, except perhaps to review the long-term damage in the 9 years since it was written. BTW, whom do you think were the folks that appointed that Supreme Judicial Court that foisted gay marriage on the state ? It wasn't Dukakis.
(Re: Denying Weld's destroying the MA GOP) "Yes, absolutely. It was in large part because of him that it was recovering. It seems to me that he brought a lot of those R's in along with him, overcoming the strong D machine. Criticizing him for losing it later is a cheap shot and not particularly useful."
He was given ample opportunity to hold and build on those numbers. Nobody expected him to turn the GOP into the dominant party again overnight. Said Vince McLaughlin, a liberal MA GOP activist, "Weld declined even to respond to pleas from the state party to do "institutional advertising" for candidates during the 1994 election." He used the GOP as a vehicle to get himself elected, and as soon as he was, he no longer felt the need to help anyone but himself. That's not a cheap shot that he allowed the party to wither on the vine, but a cold, hard fact. Only you refuse to believe it. Again, why is that ?
"Massachusetts had suffered from Dukakis enough to kick back, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the only state that went McGovern for President."
Which was in 1972. By 1980, it voted for Reagan... and in 1984... and even against Dukakis, Bush, Sr. performed exceptionally well there. By the time Weld was safely ensconced, he lifted not a finger to help our GOP Presidential candidates. There's hardly any party apparatus now that can even have a GOTV for our candidates. Our Presidential nominees get an absurdly low percentage of the vote there now, and there hasn't exactly been some wholescale ideological shift in the state in the past 15 years.
"Not to mention, the most humerously bad parts of analisys and obviously wishful thinking is blaming him for a Republican primary that would lose them the Governor's mansion...well guess what? Not only did Paul Cellucci win, his predecessor was an R too, that being Mitt Romney. I actually think it is a lot more fair to credit Weld for passing the torch to R's for the Governor's mansion then attacking him for losing state house/senate seats. After all, that was his job."
And you might have a point there if it wasn't for the fact that his successors were virtual carbon-copies of Weld (minus his enormous ego) and the party CONTINUED to shrink on their watches. Effectively, both Cellucci and Swift were extensions of the decline. Cellucci didn't bother to stick around for a full term because he realized he had NO PARTY to work with. Swift proved just as grossly incompetent, though at least had the common courtesy to get out of the way for Romney. We had strong hopes that Romney would help to turn around the damage Weld-Cellucci-Swift inflicted, and he did manage to increase the number of legislative Republicans when he won in '02, only to come up with nada in '04. You see, there also is another problem that faces a Republican Governor now (which did not when Weld was still in office). Romney has absolutely no power whatsoever. He can't name an interim replacement for a Senator, he has no power to override a veto, he is effectively a Governor in name only. He's not even going to bother to run for a 2nd term, because there isn't a damn thing he can do. All of those powers and losses occurred due to, you guessed it, William Weld.
"I don't agree with this action, but it was clearly personal, and had nothing to do with the party. Considering how he seems to be consistantly treated by Helms and his like, and frankly, people like you who expect him to govern like Mark Sanford in Massachussetts, I can't say I blame him, even if I don't agree with this particular action."
Aww, he was treated poorly by Jesse Helms ? Tough titty. Helms knew trash when he saw it, and treated him accordingly. How I expected Weld to govern was simple, I expected him to govern like a Republican. Perhaps following in the mode of Ed King, the best and most successful Governor in MA in the past 40 years was a good model. King was a Conservative Democrat who later switched to the GOP. Weld couldn't hold a candle to King.
"Yes, absolutely. Again, you have proven no evidence of this fact beyond the innuendos of some random attorney in Boston."
Weld said he would wage war for the "soul of the Republican party." We know exactly what that was and what he meant. It meant defeating mainstream Republicans and replacing them with liberal Democrats (or political whores like Weld cross-dressing as Republicans and advancing the Democrat party while destroying the GOP from within).
"Paul Cellucci accepted an ambassadorship too, and Mitt Romney didn't run for a second term. There are possibly other reasons for that, obviously, but I'd be willing to believe that it's mind-bogglingly frusturating and exhausting being a GOP Governor in such an insanely D state."
Cellucci accepted an ambassadorship from Dubya, not from Clinton. I already pointed out above why both Cellucci and Romney chose not to stick around. As for why the state is such an "insanely D" state, blame your pal Weld. The VOTING number of Republicans doesn't even mesh with their percentages in office. MA is a 'Rat state, but there is a lot more than only 12% Republican voters.
"Weld is known for having diverse interests. He's written fictional books, done some acting, been a prosecutor, worked on K street, etc. He's well known that he's always going for random road trips, that he's always facinated by something new, etc. It's consistent with the rest of his life. Frankly, I admire him for that. You shouldn't be totally invested in only one thing your entire life."
He was nominated and elected by Republicans and Massachusetts voters to do his job, not to "get interested" in other things and neglect the party and state (which he did). The basic fact remains, Weld was only interested in one thing, and that was Weld.
"You can disagree with his tactics all you want, but you are demonizing his motives with little to no proof just because you don't like the guy."
I don't like my elected Republicans whoring for the liberals, advancing their agenda, and HELPING elect Democrats. If I want a Democrat, I'll vote for one. In fact, even Weld's 1990 Democrat opponent was more of a Republican than Weld, John Silber. That was a bad sign right there. Weld was bad news for a long time, going back to his backstabbing conduct while in the Justice Department under Reagan... and going back further, his buddy-buddy relationship with Hillary Rodham while serving on the Watergate Committee. There should've been red flags rising everywhere over this creep.
"I don't know much about the Kentucky thing, but considering the 5-1 D lean of Massachussetts, I don't have any reason to believe he was a bad Governor."
Read and learn: http://www.observer.com/thepoliticker/2005/11/exclusive-bill-welds-kentucky-accusers.html Your buddy is just keeping on with his "hear no evil, see no evil" schtick that he perfected in MA. His handlers, as you can see, are already denying his role in the situation. No, of course, it's always someone else's fault, never Saint Slick Willie Weld.
"This is only true if you consider party loyalty, support for Iraq and the WOT, and vocal and frequent support of Bush in 2004 to be insignificant."
Chafee ain't had the opportunity to work his magic on Rhode Island from the executive, yet (thank heavens for Don Carcieri), so he doesn't have the wreckage of an entire state party to credit to his leadership. Besides, you make a presumption that if Weld had prevailed in his Senate contest that he would be this "magical" Bush supporter. He'd be nothing but another Jeffords, throwing a tantrum every time the Senate refused to go along with him. In fact, I'd wager he would've been Jeffords before Jeffords in 2000 (since he wouldn't be up for reelection, yet-- that would've been in '02).
"I do not. Everything you've written about him has been nothing but laughably slanted, overly broad generalizations that nicely lead you to the conclusion you already had."
My opinion that Weld is a slimeball is an opinion. The fact he DID everything I cited above is not an opinion, it is fact. You're the only one in denial over it. You yourself have failed to present any facts, anecdotes, cites, sources... ANYTHING to refute the overwhelming case against Weld. All you grudgingly acknowledge was Weld's attempt to replace Jesse Helms with a liberal Democrat in the Senate and jeopardize our majority at the time.
"If you want to convince me, actually tell me something. Not these overbroad, rediculous statments like 'Weld destroyed the party'."
I've already cited umpteen facts on Weld's tenure, as Governor, and running Decker College straight into the ground. I personally hope the latter results in an indictment.
Unfortunatly, we will be looking at Mayor Weiner in three years. :-(
Completely agree, but Schumer is such a hack that if he didn't believe in Suozzi he would never put his stamp on him considering the state DNC is firmly behind Spitzer.
Chuckie sides with Suozzi on all levels and the fact that Spitzer is wall-street unfriendly doesn't hurt either.
You didn't make a single one. Saying 'Weld destroyed the party' is NOT a factual point. It is opinion. And other then the article you linked to, which assumed causality on every single tern where there was none proven and little evidence given, you didn't even level any specifics.
The fact he DID everything I cited above is not an opinion, it is fact.
No, they are opinions, and you are obviously far too blind to see them. I'm not even going to bother responding anymore, because you clearly cannot debate things logically or honestly.
You are assuming causal effects all over the place where they may or may not exist. You are free to assume they are caused by Weld, but you have provided 0 proof and little evidence.
I have given point after point after point. You're the only one who continues to deny, deny, deny. Again, I ask, WHY is that ?
"Saying 'Weld destroyed the party' is NOT a factual point."
It is when I gave SPECIFIC evidence of his actions. You remain the only one denying it. Why is that ?
"It is opinion. And other then the article you linked to, which assumed causality on every single tern where there was none proven and little evidence given, you didn't even level any specifics."
Repeated again for you: Said Vince McLaughlin, a liberal MA GOP activist, "Weld declined even to respond to pleas from the state party to do "institutional advertising" for candidates during the 1994 election." He used the GOP as a vehicle to get himself elected, and as soon as he was, he no longer felt the need to help anyone but himself. That's not a cheap shot that he allowed the party to wither on the vine, but a cold, hard fact. Only you refuse to believe it and continue to deny it. Again, why is that ?
"I'm not even going to bother responding anymore, because you clearly cannot debate things logically or honestly."
Au contraire, this is nothing but projection. You CANNOT debate, because it is YOU who cannot and has not refuted a single point where Weld is concerned. All you do is deny facts, deny evidence, deny, deny, deny. WHY is that ? My honesty is above reproach, sir, because I back up what I say with facts. You also conveniently ignored his recent escapades destroying Decker College, which was yet another facet of his non-existent character. You seem to have established by yourself an example of having your points refuted elsewhere and cutting and running (example how you had your butt handed to you in the McCarthy thread). You've only seemed to have seen the light regarding Chafee, but seem to be chronically wrong where almost everything else is concerned. I've tried, with the patience of Job, to have endless discussions with you on this one particular man to try to shine the light of truth, but you continuously and pathologically refuse to see reason.
"You are assuming causal effects all over the place where they may or may not exist. You are free to assume they are caused by Weld, but you have provided 0 proof and little evidence."
Alan Keyes put it best when describing Clinton supporters, and it applies well to you as an endless defender of Mr. Weld: Anyone who continues to stand for irrationality without reason (or facts) they stand in a position and keep that position in spite of every prompting of rationality--that's a bigot.
maybe. I have a hunch that Ray Kelly may try and run as a republican.
This is why I will not debate this anymore.
If you think this is a cold hard fact, you have the mental capacity of a 8 year old.
The fact that you quote Alan 'Slave Reparations' Keys as your source on reality just goes further to prove what a nutjob you are.
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.