Archive from January, 2006
21 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

NYYRC Hosts Ed Cox & Claudia Rosett at January General Meeting

For those of you who couldn’t make our January 2006 general membership meeting, this is what you missed:

For Immediate Release, January 20, 2006

Contact: Jen Saunders
Email: pr@nyyrc.com

NEW YORK YOUNG REPUBLICAN CLUB, INC. HOSTS ED COX, CLAUDIA ROSETT AT JANUARY MONTHLY MEETING

(New York, NY) The New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (NYYRC) was proud to host and number of speakers at their monthly January Meeting of the NYYRC General Membership.

Ed Cox, former Senate Candidate spoke to 100 Members of the Club, telling stories about his days as a Young Republican. He was excited to speak to the “Future of the Republican Party” and delved into the issues the GOP will face in the immediate and distant future.

NYYRC President Dennis Cariello said, “Ed Cox is a great man and we are very proud to have hosted him last night, our first meeting in 2006. Our Young Republicans were impressed by his knowledge of the issues and his passion for the Republican Party.” He continued, “With such an extensive background, he would be a great candidate for any office and I hope that he will, one day, revisit that option.”

The NYYRC also hosted Claudia Rosett, the Journalist-in-Residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who discussed her extensive and ground-breaking work on the Oil-for-Food Scandal.

President Cariello noted “Ms. Rosett’s work has truly been a great public service. In uncovering much of the truth behind the largest financial scandal in the history of the world, she has help shed light on a secretive organization that is increasingly less a tool for peace than a safe-haven for despots and frauds.” He continued, “We are all in debt to her and I sincerely hope that she continues her good work and gets to the bottom of this matter in a way that the Volcker Commission did not.”

The New York Young Republican Club, Inc., is a not-for-profit political organization that exists to bring Republicans aged 18-40 together to discuss the Republican Party platform and aid the Republican in the education of the public about the Republican agenda and the promotion of Republican candidates for office. To find out more about the New York Young Republican Club, Inc. please visit the Website at www.nyyrc.com.

The New York Young Republican Club meets on the third Thursday of every month at the Union League Club at 38 East 37th Street, New York, NY. They are free and open to the public. Be sure to check our calendar for details.

20 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    1 Comment

Chirac, Strong on Terrorism?

Some of you might have noticed the markets tumbling during the day. One of the reasons is oil futures in New York closed above $68 a barrel, which is a 20-week high and near the record high of $70. Though it’s been building for several days, today’s capitulation is a result of the Iran confrontation heating up.

The latest development is that Iran’s central bank has started to transfer assets out of European banks for fear that their money might be frozen like after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

To add fuel to the fire, Jacques Chirac of all people yesterday in front of French Naval officers said the French if attacked could respond using conventional or weapons of “another nature”, which everyone took as meaning nuclear.

You can’t blame Iran for pulling their money but what’s the deal with Chirac?

20 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    1 Comment

Breaking News – THE TWU SUCKS

The TWU has just voted down the contract or, as the PA puts it:

“The city’s transit workers, one month to the day
after they stranded 7 million riders with a crippling three-day
strike, voted Friday to reject their new three-year contract by a
margin of just seven votes.”

What a bunch of bums.

20 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    2 Comments

Bin Laden Up Against the Ropes?

Osama bin Laden’s latest radio show has him giving the typical rants: “America sucks, we’re going to bomb you very soon, Iraq is a quagmire (he borrowed that one from Ted Kennedy, I think), etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.”

What struck me though was his offer of a truce. That’s fresh. A truce – which basically means we won’t mess with you if you don’t mess with us – between the radicals of Jihadistan and the United States. Just think about that for a moment. Why would bin Laden even tip his hand like that?

Is it some elaborate mind game? That’s possible considering that rhetoric and subterfuge are key tools in the terrorist skillset. Perhaps it’s an attempt to throw us off our game while he repositions his group for another round of international attacks.

Could it be that he’s offering us a way out before he delivers his knockout blow? This can’t be the case because we are not even close to being knocked out. If killing terrorists around the world is our business, then business is booming. We’ve been wiping these guys out left and right. There has not been a domestic terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, and we have firmly cemented our military presence in the Middle East pretty much indefinitely. Bin Laden may have access to vast resources in terms of money and young men willing to blow themselves up, but in the end it comes down to the words of Gen. George S. Patton: “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” ‘Nuff said.

The last possible reason for bin Laden’s truce option is the one I subscribe to. And that is the fact that Osama bin Laden is boxed in, and he is looking for a way out. You might be thinking that I am overly optimistic. But hear me out. The worldwide jihad that bin Laden had hoped for is clearly not going to happen. He has no state sponsors of any merit (Iran is a problem of its own making, and would be so with or without Al Qaeda). The U.S. war against him literally spans the globe and we are moving on every front all the time. And we have no intention of stopping until we are completely victorious. Five years, ten years, a hundred years; doesn’t matter. Bin Laden doesn’t have a hundred years. Nor does he have the resources to go toe to toe with us. Even his concept of defeating us by attrition is not working.

Only someone who has a deep fear of losing would offer a truce. That’s a lesson we picked up in the school yard. The guy on top never calls for a truce. Why? Because he’s on top. If victory is in sight, or if you believe strongly that you will be victorious, why call for a cessation of hostilities? Why settle for half when you know you can have it all?

I’m not saying we’re going to wake up tomorrow morning and all will be right with the world. And I’m not saying this is the beginning of the end. But, to quote Winston Churchill, I do believe it is the end of the beginning.

20 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    2 Comments

Speaking of Hillary Clinton’s Plantation Comment:

After pondering her plantation comment further, I couldn’t help but wonder if she was referring to the City Council. Thinking about it, it’s actually the best description of the City Council I have ever heard.

20 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    1 Comment

MSNBC, What Democrats Love to Watch?

I have to ask, who are these people that watch MSNBC and visit their website? Everyday MSNBC does this thing called the question of the day where they take a poll of the general public on their opinion of various topics. Obviously the poll is not scientific on what the overall country is thinking but it is scientific on telling us the kind of people that watch MSNBC.

For example the question of the day yesterday was “President Bush says the economy is strong: Do you agree?” The vote turned out to be 24% yes and 76% no. Are these people kidding me? You don’t have to be reading my post on the YR blog to know the U.S. economy is the strongest it’s ever been. Yesterday the weekly jobless claims number showed that people filing for unemployment was the lowest its been since 2000 at the height of the dot com boom. Corporate profits are at record numbers and corporate tax receipts to the government are at record numbers. On top of all this, the percentage of Americans who currently own a home is at record levels across all demographics.

I sent a letter into MSNBC pointing all this out while making a prediction that the people clicking “no” were doing it while holding onto a $300 Ipod, snapping away with their digital camera, while talking on their new cell phone, watching their HDTV driving around in their new car. Ok so you’re paying a little more for gas, get over it.

What’s is more insightful into the MSNBC viewer poll is that the day before the question was “are you offended be Sen. Clinton’s plantation comment”? Interestingly enough the results were, 27% yes and 73% no, the complete opposite of the President Bush question.

What’s sad about this whole thing is that MSNBC doesn’t just throw this poll up on their site everyday for giggles. At least three times a day they do a segment on the poll on the air where they show the results and act as if this is the pulse of the American public.

If MSNBC wants to surpass that other news station in viewers, it should look at these poles closely to see where their problem is. The numbers are telling MSNBC something and it’s not the pulse of America.

19 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Stay out of my Village:

You knew the issue wouldn’t go away and that they would at some point give it another try. Yesterday parents and a consumer group, The Campaign for a Commercial-Free childhood, filed a lawsuit against Viacom and Kellogg. Their aim is to cease marketing junk food to children during shows where over 15% of the audience is under the age of eight.

Now as a parent of a child under the age of eight, I feel I have some authority to speak about the subject. For starters my son is one of those kids who wakes up in the morning and watches Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network and every other station while mommy and daddy get dressed for work. When he comes home he does the same thing, in between playing with his toys, while dinner is being prepared.

I will agree that during those shows my son is subject to every marketing ploy possible. Kids having a great time playing with the coolest new toy, kids eating so much candy that they turn into the fruit it represents as well as ads from all the fast food chains and snack makers.

I though don’t care! Yes don’t care! You know why? Because despite all the advertising I’m still the parent who’s in control. Last I checked when I go to the supermarket executives from Viacom and Kellogg aren’t pushing my cart yelling, “pick that one”. I decide what goes in my cart not them and certainly not my son. Sure he might say “daddy can I get that” but you know what I say as the adult? “No, daddy doesn’t want you to eat that because it won’ help you get big”. It’s amazing how when the adult says no, it works and the stuff doesn’t enter the house. I would love to visit the parents of this lawsuit homes and see what they have in their cabinets.

I have to ask these people, who pays for the groceries at the checkout? I know my son doesn’t. What child under eight even has money to buy any of this stuff? These people need to start taking some more responsibility for themselves. They should worry more about their kids watching MTV while they’re trying to get ready for work then about store purchases that they have complete control over.

19 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

School Choice Heats Up:

Last week I wrote a post, “Trying to keep good kids down”, that mentioned Governor Pataki’s brave and smart idea to give tax credits to families who would like to send their children to private school but can’t afford to do so. At that time Randi Weingarten, head of the UFT, immediately came out attacking the plan because it would obviously create competition for her inefficient teacher system.

Yesterday a new voice threw his hat into the ring and he goes by the name of Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer, as being reported by the New York Sun, commented on the constitutionality of giving tax credits for private school. When he says constitutionality he is referring to the Blaine Amendment that passed the House of Representatives in 1875. Despite falling short in the Senate most states including New York have adopted it for their states constitution. The Blaine Amendment originally was a well-known 19th century attempt to stop the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and their schools. The Amendment stated that no money or land raised by the state could be devoted to a religious sect.

This brings up some interesting questions. How could a liberal state like New York with a Senator like Hillary Clinton, who accuses Republicans of discrimination, allow the Blaine Amendment on their books? Are they not embarrassed that such discriminatory legislation that was proposed during a period of rampant discrimination against many groups is one of the building blocks of their states constitution? Based on what Democrats claim to stand for, I would expect such legislation would be on the books of those hate mongering southern states, not a liberal loving, peace on earth, fighting for the discriminated against, northern state like New York! Here’s a question the Observer could ask Hillary and Elliot the next time they do lunch, “So (fill in name here) do you think an amendment that was passed in the eighteen hundreds to knowingly stop the spread of Catholicism should be overturned?” I won’t hold my breath.

I would also like to make a point that I believe the whole idea of separation of church and state, has been dramatically exploited by the left. Doesn’t our constitution also call for freedom of religion? How does a country like the U.S. and state like New York, claim freedom of religion when they pass laws like the Blaine Amendment that are obvious attempts to prevent it?

If I’m a parent of a child and cannot afford to exercise my right of freedom of religion by sending my child to catholic school because my money in the form of taxes is being diverted to the public school system, how is that not discrimination? By forcing me to pay for a public school seat the state is not allowing me to exercise my right to send my child to private school.

Democrats argument against school vouchers, tax credits or whatever you want to call them, is not a matter of separation of church and state but a continuous attack on the idea of God playing a part in peoples lives. Democrats need to stop the hypocrisy and start respecting that there are people who don’t want their money to go to a public school seat but a private school one. Lets see what Elliot has to say about that one.

19 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    3 Comments

From the Horse’s Mouth – On the NY Observer

As is my practice, I tend to enter debates at the last minute, to give a Montel Williams-like summary, or, some would say, Jerry’s Final Word. Rather than doing so to get the last word, I feel it best to enter after passions have subsided and after all views have been aired. It helps me make better sense of things,

First, I would like to thank Jessica Bruder and the Observer for contacting me regarding the story that everyone seems to be commenting so much about. I can say that I was not misquoted and, considering the allegations of “dwarf-bowling” and the like, I guess I came out as a pretty reasonable person.

I guess the biggest complaint was that their could have been more research done on the article and, I do agree with that point. I think there are a number of people that could have been interviewed about what we do as an organization and given a positive impression. That said, I won’t kill Jessica for this, as this was her last day on the job and deadlines are deadlines. To that end, I wish her well and good luck with the book she’s writing.

Of course, I would prefer an article that, if it had to discuss the two clubs as factions, would have been titled “Two Young Republican Clubs, Working Separately to the Same Goal” and focused on the positive aspects of the clubs. I would rather have an article mention that we won the award for Best Large Club of 2004-2005 from the Young Republican National Federation, provided members with opportunities to meet Senator Brownback, Congressman Reynolds, Ari Fleischer, Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, and that we helped multiple campaigns this year and that we keep growing (membership and fundraising are up for the fourth consecutive year). I would have been pleased to see the other club’s accomplishments in print as well. It would have set the right mood for the article – albeit one of sadness.

Instead, the article focused on the bizarre — and more interesting for readers I’m sure — details about the split. I don’t blame anyone for this, although as a party leader and Republican I just want to shake my head. Not about the Observer article, but that this situation exists for the Observer to write about.

I do wish to note for the record that Ms. Bruder asked me for details about the split that occurred in 1991 and that I declined the invitation to discuss it. Of course, my understanding of the facts differs from that reported in the Observer — which I assume was provided by Mr. Thomas Stevens. In any event, even if I knew that the account of Mr. Stevens would be reported, I still would refuse to air such laundry for the public. We are Republicans and I do not see any gain in publicly disparaging my friends or proclaiming to the world our internal differences.

For the record, though, there is no feud because, at minimum, I have laid down my arms for quite some time. The story is only interesting because of the salacious history from a decade ago. It is now a quirk. Paul Rodriguez and I have resolved our disputes through phone calls not law suits.

I also wish to thank Paul for not ratcheting up the rhetoric. He and I have had a very nice relationship, despite the odd situation we are in, and I look at it as a display of friendship that he chose not to take the easy road and get his name in the paper with a quote disparaging me or this club. I’ve called him today to tell him that and look forward to conveying the message when he gets back in.

In all, my biggest concern about the piece was the implication from one quote that we are not an activist club. I dispute that, and am willing to put the facts before judge and jury to prove otherwise. Thankfully, I have spoken to the author of the quote and he has graciously agreed to come to our club in the future. I am sure we will be vindicated on this point and that we will win a new friend in the process.

I wish to thank you all for your kind words about how I looked in print (the chair – you look much better on radio!). I don’t give interviews much and I guess it pays to be honest and speak what you believe.

Now let’s go out there and win some special elections this February!

18 Jan
2006
Posted in: Blog
By    7 Comments

What Quality of Reporting?

Thanks to Gos for plowing the road on Jessica Bruder’s story. She claims that Young Republicans are keeping an old feud alive, but the only thing that I see keeping this so-called feud alive are stories like Bruder’s (which I won’t bother to link to. I’m afraid you’ll have to find it yourself). Her reporting, as Gos pointed out, misses the facts of the present situation by a country mile. And here I thought the phrase “All the news that’s printed to fit” only applied to the New York Times.

It makes me realize that politics probably wouldn’t have the bad reputation it does with many people if weren’t for the media’s reporting of it.

As for the feud or schism or conflict, whatever you want to call it – even the Hatfields and the McCoys settled their differences eventually. Republicans are too small a group in this town to be pitted against one another.

Remember what Ben Franklin said:

We must hang together, or we most assuredly will hang separately.