Is this guy still talking?
The economy questions have been thrown at Spitzer and frankly he lost me at hello.
I think his strategy is to just keep talking and hope people fall asleep, so he can sneak out the back door.
What’s amazing is that both Faso and Suozzi both gave ideas on how to address the economy where Spitzer just keeps restating the question telling viewers what the problem is but not giving his solution.
Are people of this state kidding me!!!! I would have more respect for Democrats if they nominated Suozzi and he became Governor then elect this statue.
Oh wait he just said he would “raise the minimum wage”. Someone buy this guy an economics text book because everyone includes case study’s that show minimum wage loses jobs not make them.
Excuse me King Spitzer? You may have been out of school that day but prices are a reflection of wages not the other way around and raising the minimum wage will just mean that prices will go up to reflect it, putting those people right back where they started. All while making people lose their job.
Great first plan Eliot!
What do you know; King Spitzer has finally come out of his castle to face his lowly subjects.
The guy looks stiff.
Oh wait great question. Some women from Woodside just asked if he would “support a ban on partial birth abortion”.
After a short stutter, Spitzer said he would favor “late-term abortions”, as he put it.
I say before he supports “late-term abortions” he should have to sit in on one so he can watch first hand as the doctor punctures the skull of a baby who could live if the mother went into labor and watch as the doctor then sucks the baby’s brain out.
Having an abortion in the first trimester when there isn’t much there is one thing. Executing a baby whose internal organs and bone structured has formed is another.
Right this moment a town hall debate for governor is on NY1. So far I’ve only seen Faso and Souzzi.
Faso as always sounds great. I will say though that I was also impressed with Souzzi. How Democrats can vote for Spitzer over Souzzi really shows they have no clue.
The likelihood that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first to leak Valerie Plame’s name has become so clear that even The New York Times is reporting that he is probably the source.
The Wall Street Journal editorializes today on how disloyalty in the administration may have played a role in keeping this information from top Bush officials and suggests Patrick Fitzgerald may have played into the administration critics theory that the Bush administration was gunning to out Plame.
Armitage has yet to admit publicly he was the source, something he should have done long ago when Fitzgerald was going after Rove and Libby. He should admit his role in this affair and hopefully, finally put this issue to rest.
Maybe if Armitage had come out in the first place, more attention could have been paid to how Plame was able to get her husband assigned to the trip and the fact that his report has been widely discredited. Actually, that likely would have been ignored by mainstream media anyway.
Over the last week Eliot Spitzer has been embroiled over a challenge by John Faso that he failed to pay the proper cost for a private jet. The jet, which was owned by a friend who is bidding on a state gambling contract, was used by Spitzer at below the fair cost of a normal flight.
Since the charge the Spitzer camp has been on the defensive defending the low price paid. Today the NY Sun is reporting that a Spitzer campaign official in response to the story:
“Said going forward the candidate would pay the full cost of charter flights”
What I want to know is why I can’t find one mention of the story in the New York Times? A stroll over to the NY Times website reveals nothing in regards to the story. Under the NY Times Eliot L Spitzer section, which lists all stories relating to him, not one article mentions his use of the private jet. The fact that Spitzer’s camp has acknowledged the claim and has said going forward they would do it different, proves that what Spitzer did wasn’t kosher.
This is only another example of my charge that the New York Times continues to shield Spitzer by failing to report damaging news about his campaign.
Since Eliot Spitzer won’t properly explain to New Yorkers how his policies will affect New York, John Faso continues to do it for him.
John Faso’s campaign website has posted a new analysis (though I would call it a whitepaper) on how Spitzer’s school property tax plan would end up increasing taxes. This would make sense since there still hasn’t been any word from the Spitzer camp that they won’t raise taxes. The lack of response could also just be because, as usual, Democrats don’t think tax cuts matter. After all it was only a week ago when the New York State Democrat Chairman Denny Farrell admitted that tax cuts were “not a priority”.
Whether Democrats think they’re important or not they still have their consequences on the economy and your family’s pocket. As Faso’s analysis shows, the Spitzer plan will make your savings account that much smaller. With a possible 2007 economic slowdown on the horizon, New Yorkers are going to need a plan that keeps money in our pocket to better cope.
I encourage you to read the report and make your own conclusion.
Today’s Wall St. Journal has a brief editorial titled, “Waiting Game”, that explains the health care crisis in Canada. Democrats in the U.S. love to point to Canada’s nationalized health care as a goal for America.
According to the editorial a Canadian study found that:
“In 2005 it found “total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces was 17.7 weeks.”
“17.7 weeks”! That’s almost 5 months on my calendar. The moral of the story when comparing the U.S. and Canada’s health system is you pay for what you get.
Legislation that would create a searchable database of federal funding recipients (s.2590) has been held up in the Senate by a secret hold, an informal Senate procedure that allows members to anonymously delay legislation.
The bill had widespread bipartisan support and seemed likely to pass before the anonymous Senator interfered. So who is this anonymous Senator that is barring better transparency from our government? And what does he/she have to hide?
Porkbusters.org has posted a suspect list and is eliminating the Senators who issue denials. Both Senators from NY are in the clear.
Let’s hope the offending Senator will be revealed and shamed into rescinding the hold.
RedState believes Senator Stevens may be the culprit.
TPMmuckraker discovered that Coburn himself has accused Stevens. They speculate Stevens’ might be paying back Coburn for his failed attempt to block the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’
Stevens has now admitted he placed the hold, claiming he was concerned about the cost of the program, which is an interesting excuse.
“The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that Coburn’s proposal would cost “$4 million in 2007 and about $15 million [total] over the 2007-2011 period.” By comparison, Stevens — who’s been called the “King of Pork” by one government watchdog — was recently publicly lambasted for his appropriation of more than $200 million for the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” which would link Ketchikan, Alaska (population 8,900) with its airport on Gravina Island (population 50).”
Let’s see, a Senator that pushed a bill that costs $200 million and benefits 50 Alaskans is criticizing a program that benefits the general public and costs $15 million over 4 years. How does he do that with a straight face?
Last night in Buffalo, the high King Eliot Spitzer, was a no show for a gubernatorial debate. The other two candidates, John Faso the Republican and Tom Suozzi a Democrat looking to beat Spitzer in the Primary, showed and attempted to make good use of their time. To me the highlight of the event is not what did Faso and Suozzi say but what did Eliot Spitzer say. Nothing!
For some strange reason Spitzer thinks if he stays behind the walls of his castle long enough, his opponents will go away. This though is a strategy that will only continue to hurt Spitzer. Sitting on his thrown while Faso catapults the walls of his campaign, will only continue to hurt New Yorker’s opinion of him.
The New York Times and Observer can only protect Spitzer for so long. At some point Spitzer will be forced to lower the bridge and start his attack. However considering we’re only two months away one has to wonder why the delay and why he allows Faso to continue to hit him without a valid response. The Faso camps latest attack on Spitzer’s use of a cronies (who’s looking for a state contract) jet plane at below market value, is just another example of Spitzer’s walls starting to crack.
Maybe it’s because Spitzer has no plan. Maybe Spitzer is concerned once he is forced to get on his horse and enter the battle he won’t know what to do with his sword. Spitzer has made a living hiding behind the media. Remember his vendetta against Wall St. was all done using jury by press conference. When one of his accused finally stood up and said, take me to court, the judge threw out most charges and on the rest he was found innocent.
My prediction is once Spitzer has to actually face Faso on the battlefield, he’ll be sent retreating. The only question is how strong will his allies in the media be able to hold line before the voters of New York realize Spitzer is not the answer for New York.
Like you, everyday I either read an article or hear a story about Iraq. Reading and listening to these stories I’ve noticed that all of them include the same phrase, “since the invasion of Iraq”.
When hearing the use of the word “invasion” to describe Iraq I can only stop to think at how the media has played a huge part in trying to demoralize the nation with the use of subtle words. One word can change and shape a whole story and when you lead with the word “invasion” you’re attempting to subconsciously bend your audiences mind to associate everything they read next with negativity.
Now did we invade Iraq? Based on the pure definition of the word, which is when one nation enters the boarders of another, then yes. However so do other words that carry a more positive message. When you use the word “invasion” it should be because as a nation you plan on not only entering another countries boarders but also keeping it for yourself. For instance when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The word I would like to see the media use when describing the Iraq War is, “liberation”. Did we not liberate the Iraqi people from the ruthless and deadly clutches of Saddam? Did we not give the government back to the people, another sign of liberation? I think the media’s decision to only use the term “invasion” is just another example of their ties to Democrats. When President Clinton sent troops to Mogadishu none of the media used the term “invasion”. When President Clinton sent military to Kosovo, the media didn’t use the word “invasion”. Why was that?
The next time you hear and read about Iraq and they choose to throw the word invasion in you face, keep liberation in your mind to replace it.