Replies

"...In 1994, Mr. Giuliani endorsed Mr. Cuomo over Mr. D’Amato’s candidate for governor, George E. Pataki, warning that “ethics will be trashed” if the “D’Amato-Pataki crew ever get control.”

There is a difference between jealousy and envy. In jealousy the aim is to totally posses the person in question. In envy the aim is to destroy the person in question.

D'Amato's envy has not succeeded. Indeed, he only destroyed his own political chances in trying to destroy Giuliani's.

Fred Thompson may or may not learn from D'Amato. If he is wise, he will not follow D'Amoto's path into mindless envy.

D'Amato's envy has not succeeded. Indeed, he only destroyed his own political chances in trying to destroy Giuliani's.

Uh . . . D'Amato's man, Pataki, WON that race despite Giuliani supporting a flagship leftist. NY state was already substantially corrupt, and Cuomo did nothing to change that. With Pataki, it was business as usual, as the corruption is bi-partisan. If Giuliani had a serious issue with Pataki or D'Amato, he could have stayed silent on the race. That would express disapproval without supporting the Dem. Instead, he pulls a John Warner.

D'Amato DID lose his next election in 1998. Giuliani's non-support was only one factor of many. D'Amato had shot off his mouth way too much, had moved left on social issues--losing him more votes than he gained and Schumer was a much stronger candidate Holtzman, Green or Abrams.

Except for the '86 election, D'Amato NEVER won a majority of the vote, being to the right of what the city-dwellers could bear. He benefited in '80 from the defeated liberal Republican incumbent Jacob Javits running in the general election as the Liberal candidate. His Senator Pothole role was absolutely necessary for two reasons. One, he needed to give independents a reason to vote for him. Two, he had to undo some of the damage done by the principled Jim Buckley, whose anti-spending ways cost the state as a whole in terms of federal support. (Buckley, of course was right, but being right has consequences in a liberal state).

So, while the Giuliani feud did not help things, D'Amato probably would have lost in '98 anyway.

“mindless envy...”

That is a bit harsh. Ed Koch shares the same view of Rudy that D’Amato does. When America gets a view of his true personality rather than what is filtered through his 9/11 prism, they will not see tough. They will see “mean”, an adjective that Koch has frequently applied to him.

He has an ego as tall as the Empire State Building and his arrogance (whether it is rudeness in dealing with others, taking cell phone calls to diss stalwart Republican groups, being late for events)will not play well outside of New York, where there are few Republicans.

I think your criticism of D’Amato is harsh particularly because you are an apologist for Rudy. D’Amato nearly always voted prolife and was generally a conservative during his three terms in the Senate, in spite of representing a leftist state. Rudy is not now, nor was he ever, a conservative.

D’Amato knows his weak points, and he has plenty (from Cuomo to handgun control to partial birth abortion to endorsement of Bill Clinton’s policies as close to his own). Fred is a 12th Commandment guy who, I predict, is going to begin to lower the ideological boom on this poseur starting on Tuesday night.