Posted on 01/27/2009 3:47:03 PM PST by neverdem
I think it’s still winnable, especially if there’s a significant shift in public opinion by 2010.
If Rudy runs and wins, Peter has a shot.
One of the best posts in the NY Post message boards was about Caroline Kennedy. The poster said they could run Son of Sam and he could have beaten her if she had been appointed.
Using “hunters’ rights” already.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Great.
Another old white guy to go up against a much younger white woman Gillibrand.
What will the gop think of next?
Idiots.
Peter King s-cks on guns. ‘Nuff said.
Gilly ain’t bad looking.
If she sticks up for the 2nd ammendment she might be worth it.
This is the definitive answer: If Rudy really succeeds in his race for N.Y. Governor as well as successfully creates some political coattails for King and other GOP candidates at every level throughout N.Y., then it will be a decent election year for the N.Y. GOP in ‘12. It will also depend upon who wins on the GOP side between RINOs and conservatives, because, unfortunately, it will probably still be tougher for conservative GOP candidates, at every level, to actually win the general election in N.Y. state compared to RINO candidates, at every level.
Never worth it! She'll tell ya she is good on guns then knife you in the back during the vote. Trust not a rat ever and pubbies only once in a while. How many times must it happen before we learn.
There will be a catfight bloodbath in the Democrat primary. Those NY priaries are only 2 most before the election, and don’t leave much time for healing.
A day or two before 9/11/01, I read an article about Mark Green’s becoming Mayor of New York City. It was a done deal. The primary would be Tuesday, Green had it won, and no Republican was going to win the Mayoralty in NYC any time soon, since the put in term limits for Rudy. So the last part turned out to be correct, except Bloomberg ran on the Republic ticket in ‘01.
Point being, it ain’t over till it’s over. Go for it, Rep King!
If she sticks up for the 2nd ammendment she might be worth it.
She's a knee-jerk liberal on everything else. The ACLU has given her a 90% rating. Peter King has a low rating with them, and the only times he's voted their way, a whole lot of other Republicans were with him.
I supported Sarah Palin because of what she stood for, not which part of me stood up. Maybe you'd serve your own interests better if you took the same outlook.
If he runs, he will lose. We need a Conservative in this race. King is an idiot.
For some reason, the NRA and GOA deny access to their ratings after elections are over.
King gets a 76.28 lifetime rating from the ACU as of 2007. At least he has some name recognition. Has any one else expressed interest from the GOP for the U.S. Senate?
Yes, Faso and Tedisco but they are both fighting over the congressional seat right now too.
Post #15 sums it up perfectly. The NYGOP can go ahead and run Pete King if they want to discredit their "RINOs are soooo much more ELECTABLE in NY!!!" talking point yet again. $50 says King loses by at least a 10 point margin. Not to say a conservative would automatically win, but at least a real Republican could keep the second amendment crowd on his side and wouldn't suffer defections from people who normally vote Republican.
A King-Gillibrand race is no-lose scenario for us anyway, since either one of them would likely vote to the right of Hillary. A Dem retention wouldn't make much of a difference in the Senate, this seat has been RAT for 30 years and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. It's extremely unlikely we'd get back a majority by picking up any Senate seats in NY.
Of course I won't be endorsing Gillibrand because she's hard core pro-abortion. But I sure won't be shedding any tears over RINO Peter King being out of elective office. Should have happened 10 years ago.
Following this logic, shouldn't you be rooting for the RAT candidate to win in NY, since she's indisputably better than Peter King on second amendment issues? (despite that this is canceled out by King being 10X better on rights of the unborn)
Of course I've never argued such a point, but just from a logical standpoint it's far more dangerous to let a RAT takeover a seat in a deep south GOP stronghold than let a RAT retain a seat on the east coast they've had for 30 years. The latter just maintains the status quo, the former is a guaranteed way to give Harry Reid a veto proof majority.
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.