Keith Bedford for The New York Times
John Faso, the Republican candidate for governor, at a Conservative Party dinner in Manhattan on Friday. His Democratic critics portray Mr. Faso as ultraconservative.
Posted on 06/10/2006 11:21:32 PM PDT by neverdem
Borrowing a page from Karl Rove's playbook, John Faso plans to spend the next five months convincing voters that his likely opponent in the governor's race, Eliot Spitzer, comes with a defining liability: Mr. Spitzer would raise your taxes.
Mr. Faso, who became the presumptive Republican nominee on Tuesday when William F. Weld withdrew his candidacy, has already used the sort of tactics that characterized John Kerry as a flip-flopper in 2004.
In doing so, Mr. Faso is also playing to one of his strengths: Both his friends and his opponents say he is a tenacious debater, who would be willing to continue beating the drum about taxes between now and Nov. 7.
"John is relentless, absolutely relentless, when he is making his point, and he can drive opponents crazy by doing it with a smile," said John Ravitz, a Republican who served with Mr. Faso in the State Assembly and is now executive director of the New York City Board of Elections.
Mr. Faso's campaign is clearly hoping his tax message will resonate in electoral bellwethers that can decide statewide elections, like Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties. But for all of the appeal of that message, at the outset of the race he faces grave political disadvantages.
Mr. Spitzer, the state attorney general, leads in opinion polls by 50 points and enjoys a vast superiority in...
--snip--
Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell Jr., the state Democratic chairman, was teed up to atomize Mr. Faso's candidacy at a news conference last Wednesday, yet the ensuing coverage focused on Mr. Farrell's suggestion that tax cuts were not a top priority of Democrats.
An hour after the news conference, Mr. Faso pounced, saying, "Eliot Spitzer and Denny Farrell don't think tax cuts are important to create jobs and opportunity for all New Yorkers."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Not really following this race but from this NYT view--obviously disapproving--I kinda like this guy.
Spitzer is going to win in a landslide and NY deserves him.
Yeah, that's what I assume, and why I kind of tuned out of the race. Of course, Pataki didn't have a chance of winning, either.
Bloomberg Denounces the Pressure Not to Question Leaders
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Spitzer is a CROOK who abused the office of the NY Attorney General. He should be stuffed in jail, or worse impeached from office and shamed in public.
He does not deserve anything better.
Oh, I forgot that we are talking about NY. Yes, he will be the Governor.
I'm becoming convinced that the vast majority of Americans want bigger government and higher taxes. This year will be a good indicator of that. Those of us wanting a smaller government are probably going to lose big regardless of who wins.
We are working on something that just may take WNY away from Spitzer and give it to Suozzi. : )
I suspect that if by some bizarre chance Spitzer doesn't win, he'll indict everybody in New York and have them immediately jailed.
He should ask some of the wealthy victims of Spitzer to finance his campaign. Who was the guy at the NYSE that he prosecuted for his cpmpensation package being too large?
We are working on something that just may take WNY away from Spitzer and give it to Suozzi. : )
being from nassau county, tom snazi (correct spelling) is not a person that i am fond of.
So you're not going to give Faso a chance?
Who would you rather have, Spit or Suoxxi, Honestly..
I will be voting for Faso but am pushing Suozzi in the dem primary.
OOOPS
Who would you rather have, Spit or Suozzi, Honestly..
I will be voting for Faso but am pushing Suozzi in the dem primary.
God only knows what money and personal freedoms the tax serfs in NY will have left after Bloomberg and Spitzer get through with them.
Matthew T. Bodie is a Hofstra law professor who is guest blogging over at the Conglomerate blog and, in this post, wonders why fellow law professors such as Stephen Bainbridge and Larry Ribstein are critical of New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer. After extolling the merits of the Lord of Regulation's crackdown on the mutual fund and investment banking industries, Mr. Bodie then observes:
All of these accomplishments took creative application of the laws, as well as the settlement process, to bring systemic changes to entire industries. . . Now, apparently it makes one a naif to believe that Spitzer has improved things. But really, what is so controversial about what he has done? Who was in favor of the gross conflicts of interests at play in analysts' recommendations, so luridly displayed in emails? Who thought the rigged bidding in the mutual fund industry was a practice to be encouraged? Really, where's the problem?
Mr. Bodie's question is commonly asked regarding the use of the state power to prosecute or regulate through civil litigation the unpopular and greedy businessperson of the moment. "Why shouldn't (insert the name of any Enron defendant, Arthur Andersen, Martha Stewart, Frank Quattrone, Hank Greenberg, etc) be prosecuted or sued," the argument goes. "They probably did something illegal. So what if the state has to cut some corners in pursuing them. That's a small price to pay for protecting us from these evil people, isn't it?"
Well, the problem is that sacrificing the rule of law is never a small price to pay, and sacrifice the rule of law is precisely what Spitzer has done in his quest to become the Lord of Business Regulation and the next Governor of New York. Just a quick overview of Spitzer's tactics over the past couple of years exposes the widespread abuse of authority and the rule of law in pursuing his popular agenda:
Publicly playing to public envy and resentment of wealthy businesspeople by defaming Maurice "Hank" Greenberg (here and here) as well as Richard Grasso and Kenneth Langone;Criminalizing those who would take the risk of creating a market for home ownership for those who most need it;
Creating employment opportunities for his chums (noted by Mr. Bodie);
Failing to coordinate investigations with other governmental agencies;
Interference with the regulatory role of other governmental agencies (here and here and here);
His prominent involvement in the drive of U.S. governmental officials to criminalize business generally;
Transparently assisting favored corporate suitors in the acquisition of target companies;
His involvement in eviscerating the corporate attorney-client privilege and in bludgeoning dubious plea bargains and settlements from business executives; and
The destruction of professional careers and personal lives left in the wake of his abuses.
In short, the problem with Spitzer is that his campaign to regulate corporate agency costs is, as Larry Ribstein has coined it, a lottery. If the prosecution pursues a bit player such as William Fuhs or Daniel Bayly in the Enron-related Nigerian Barge case and can come up with something particularly distasteful to the jury -- such as Merrill Lynch's involvement with the corporate pariah Enron -- then it wins. On the other hand, if Spitzer slams a little guy such as William Sihpol while failing to pursue his dastardly superiors, then the government loses. This is a radical abuse of our justice system, and the carnage to the families of Mr. Sihpol, Martha Stewart, Mr. Bayly, Mr. Fuhs, Jamie Olis and others who are caught in this troubling spiral that Spitzer promotes simply cannot be responsibly dismissed as a "trade-off" of an imperfect system.
However, as great as my compassion is for members of those families, my even greater concern is for the principles of justice and respect for the rule of law upon which the success of our society is largely based. For if we lose those, then -- as Sir Thomas More reminded Will Roper in A Man for All Seasons -- "do you really think you could stand upright in the winds [of abusive state power] that would blow then?" Even wealthy business executives are entitled to justice and the protection of the rule of law in the face of the overwhelming power of the state. Not only for their protection, but for ours.
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.