Comments on: Conservative Group Gives Low Rankings To NY Politicians

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:24:06 +0000

its not conservative republicans I have a problem with it
is the ability of the conservative party to veto choices
the republican party makes…for purely singular issues
as mike long has admitted…no one wants to kick out
conservative republicans..but purist republicans keep
referring to moderates as rhino’s etc…remember
in new york only moderate republicans have won..
in westchester the same is true…nationally it may
be a different story but the fastest growing party
is no party at all…just like the fastest growing
religion…republicans need to reassess where they
want to take the country ..read david brooks this morning
in the new york times….his perspective is informative
but frankly I am really tired of conservatives both
in the republican party and the conservative party telling
me I am not a republican…frankly its enough to make
me become a member of the fastest growing party..not
the democrats by the way..because centrists will control
the agenda of this nation going forward..not the left
and not the right..their time has come and gone..its
going to be one from column a and one from column b
and if liberals have a good idea it will be adopted
if conservatives have a good idea the same..but no
one ideology will overwhelm the other…
and I will not support any candidate who thinks that
any brand of his party’s philosophy is the only answer
I’m too smart..too educated and too old to be bullied

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:50:59 +0000

I have to get back to work but this is absurd.

Gotcha? While there is a distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican your argument does not follow. You previously argued that Republicans have betrayed conservative principles, now you are arguing that the conservative wing of the Republican party is insulting the moderate wing. These two issues do not logically follow. If your argument is that Republicans are too conservative it is more or less irrelevant whether conservatives and Republicans are one in the same. As I acknowledge they are not. So your gotcha moment is just silly.

Your criticism of the Republican party has gone beyond a mere disatisfaction with one or two policies. As such, I asked why are you staying a member of the Republican party? You failed to answer the question.

I have not looked down my nose at anyone. It is you who seems to be arguing that if we kick out conservative Republicans we would be better off. It would be my argument that we need everyone to win. If you kick out one constituency you need to replace them with a larger constitutency to remain viable. I am not a conservative Republican by any means on any number of issues but I am a Republican. Anyone who criticizes you or points out holes or inconsistencies in your arguments somehow is an extremist.

The good old days that you seem to constantly refer back to was when the Republican Party was a minority party in the country. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans were really bereft of any ideas, and we had Presidents such as Nixon and Ford who were not particularly successful. There is plenty to criticize now but your solutions are not the answer.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:33:56 +0000

gotcha…you are cofusing being a republican with being
a conservative…that has been the problem with our
inability to get elected in this state…republicans are
right of center…not far right…most independents are
right of center not far right..the problem is when the
conservative wing looks down its nose at moderate republicans…as you have done..I am an independent republican..and I thought there was plenty of room in
the tent for me….but the tent is getting a lot smaller
maybe that is why thre wre 250,000 new democrats enrolled
and 3100 new republicans…make the tent any smaller
and even you won’t get in

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:09:11 +0000

“in fact very little of the conservative agenda is
conservative anymore…”

Sorry, you feel that way. Why are you a Republican then?

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:07:53 +0000

“by the way should people stop paying payroll
taxes at 90,000 a year..any good reason for that”

Yes, there is a good reason if you live in Westchester or any high cost of living area and make $125,000 or $150,000 you should not be subsidizing those making $80,000 in Texas. Social security is a regressive tax. It would be completely unfair to make it more progressive at the expense of people who live middle-class lives. If they want to have some kind of gap where people start paying again at $1 million than that may be something to consider. What you are proposing is not fair. If you want to pay more of your money in taxes to the government for social security, go ahead and donate to the U.S. treasury. Approximately, 40% of my income is going to the gov., I think pay enough.

As for capital gains taxes, putting them back at 25% will hurt the economy. If you don’t believe that, you probably are not a Republican on economic matters.

“but you can’t fight a war..and cut taxes at the same time
guess who said that” Tom Friedman, said that. A liberal Democrat. It happens to be untrue. Sometimes you have to cut taxes and sometimes you to need raise taxes but raising taxes as opposed to having a larger deficit is not always the answer.

By: 7Curses

7Curses — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:49:23 +0000

does anyone really care. they are so out of touch.

By: 7Curses

7Curses — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:48:01 +0000

who cares about those jerks and their rankings. they are totally out of touch.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:21:32 +0000

Liberal populism is mostly harnessed to a concrete legislative program aimed at broadening prosperity. Al Gore’s “people versus the powerful” campaign focused on his differences with Bush over issues like regulation of HMOs and progressive taxation. Conservative populism, by contrast, is a way of exploiting the grievances it identifies without redressing them. It has an ever-shifting array of targets-~~Michael Dukakis’s veto of a law requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or the rantings of Jeremiah Wright~~-but no way to knock them down.

Conservative populists sometimes ape liberal populism by promising material benefits to average people. But the promise is structured so as to pose no threat to any wealthy economic interest. George W. Bush offered tax cuts to the middle class, but paired them with far larger tax cuts for the rich, so that, ultimately, the middle class bore a larger proportion of the tax burden.

deficits are not conservative
government intervention in your bedroom is not conservative
starting wars and overthrowing dictators we don’t like
is not conservative
encouraging people to buy adjustable rate mortgages
is not conservative..

in fact very little of the conservative agenda is
conservative anymore…

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:15:37 +0000

you guys haven’t looked at the tax code…not only do
people making 100-200 fall into the AMT..but those
making 75-150 do as well..my point is that 200m is not
rich…and those families are on budgets just like
everyone else…when you compare what your tax would
have been with what you actually pay you lose your
state income tax deduction, and your local property
tax deductions as well as some others…bush has
done absolutely nothing to remedy this situation
because in actuality the AMT provides more revenue
at those levels than the tax code itself…it was
never indexed for inflation and as the cost of living
and inflation go up more and more lower middle income
wage earners will be affected..Obama would increase the
amount of taxes on capital gains to back where they were
before bush lowered them..so instead of paying 15%
you might be paying 25%....the entire tax code is out
of wack…I prefer a flat tax of say 23%...but the way
it stands now the wool is being pulled over your eyes
and why, by the way should people stop paying payroll
taxes at 90,000 a year..any good reason for that..are
we ever going to be able to fund social security and
medicare or are we just going to let our grandchildren
pay for it..you need to stop listening to Larry Kudlow
and start using your own brain…capital gains which occur
in 401k’s are not taxable..so the argument that all the
average folk who own stock would be taxed is nonsense
the people who benefit from capital gains tax relief are
at the very top end of the income scale..they are the
wallstreet boys and the hedgefund guys…and those who
play with 2-3 million in investible assets…but if you
graduate the capital gains tax you solve the problem
and thats what rangle wants to do….so using the
word repeal is only accurate as it pertains to that
portion of the capital gains tax lowered by bush….
there is still some great arguments about whether supply
side economics stimulates growth or creates deficits…
but you can’t fight a war..and cut taxes at the same time
guess who said that?

By: Wahoo

Wahoo — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:46:46 +0000

Ian is holding the Consultant’s feet to the fire.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:32:32 +0000

As for the Consultant’s comments on the AMT, he is just misinformed and misleading. The AMT does hit some making $200,000 and $300,000 but far from everyone. It is not the Bush’s fault that it does so. He has tried to eliminate the AMT. It is fault of our legislator and those in other blue states for having such high taxes. Moreover, cuts like the capital gains tax which Obama would repeal have spurred growth and have even been embraced by partisan Democrats such as Charlie Rangel.

And you know what, when you are talking about tax cuts for the rich you are talking about Westchester residents. A Westchester family of four that makes $200,000 or even $250,000 lives probably less well than someone in Iowa who makes $100,000. Until a cost of living adjustment is factored into the tax code and we distinguish between wealth and income, most Westchester residents will benefit for “tax cuts for the rich”.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:31:30 +0000

The Consultant wrote, “the club for growth is correct..it embodies traditional
republican values….the social conservatives are
destroying any chance the republicans have of
winning ny state elections..and probably national
elections….bush has been a disaster….his father
was great..but clinton beat him…..mc cain needs to
embrace the growth agenda and reject nation building”.

Lets see how many contradictions are in this statement:

1. The Club for Growth is correct. Okay but then the Consultant goes on to criticize the Bush tax cuts, which the Club for Growth lobbied hard for and opposed in the primary politicians that voted against the tax cuts.
2. “the social conservatives are
destroying any chance the republicans have of
winning ny state elections..and probably national
elections….” Well if the Consultant believes than why is he praising the Club for Growth, an organization that supports economic conservatives in primaries who are usually considerably more socially conservative than their opponents. See Toomey vs. Spector or Laffey and Chafee. Most of the most economic conservatives embrace some more of social conservatism. The reason is self-evident even if the politician does not care about social issues. You need a coalition. If you alienate unions and trial lawyers by embracing economic conservative policies you need social conservatives in order to win.
3. The Consultant is criticizing nation-building while telling other readers to read David Brooks. David Brooks is a neo-conservatism who embraces nation-building and a hawkish foreign policy something the Consultant emphatically rejects. So basically when it suits his purpose, David Brooks is great and other times he is a war-monger according to the Consultant whose friends less us to war to benefit Israel.

These are just some of many contradictions. Previously, Obama was considered a radical by the Consultant and now he is better than Republicans on taxes. After, his last posts going over the top in defending DiFiore, I cannot take a lot of what he says as being anything other than spin.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:26:29 +0000

better read david brooks in the new york times sue ..he
is a real conservative and points out that conservatives
in europe are making a comeback while they are wandering
the wilderness here…and I would be ok with any
duly elected president..we have a democracay much
as some of you would like an aristrocracy ..of course
many or you would not qualify to vote…doesn’t mean
i am voting for obama…just that should he be president
I would be ok..and so would you..take a look at your
income taxes…you make more than 200 m…if you do
you are not getting any tax cuts from bush..on the other
hand if obama wins and you are making less you will get
lower taxes…something to think about

By: Sue Didna

Sue Didna — Fri, 09 May 2008 03:57:40 +0000

The “consultant” lost any credibility as a Republican when he said he’d be okay with Obama as president in an earlier comment. Obama is an ultra-liberal that no self-respecting Republican could approve of as president.

As for King, he is conservative on some issues (immigration, bilingualism, abortion) but liberal on gun control (usually votes for it) and some other core conservative issues. He’s arrogant and nasty, but he’s his own man. Too bad he cares more about Northern Ireland than his own district. That’s why he sold out his constituents on the Clinton “assault weapon ban” in a quid pro quo with Slick Willie for granting Gerry Adams a visa and White House access.

By: ed

ed — Fri, 09 May 2008 03:14:05 +0000

These days, Rev, we call it a slipping disc. For some reason, addressing you as Rev seems inappropriate. Or maybe it’s the other Revs who are called that inappropriately. At any rate, the Con lately does float down some kind of Obaminous stream of vague ambiguity.

By: Paul Revere

Paul Revere — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:10:07 +0000

The Consultant is a Jacob Javits Republican. He is entitled to his opinion, of course. He is also a broken record sometimes. No offense, but that’s the way it is.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:27:05 +0000

and here is why the bush tax cuts are illusory..if you
make between 100 and 300 thousand dollars a year
you get no tax relief..because of the AMT…a parallel
tax universe that takes away your state inc tax
deduction your dependent deductions and your local
property tax deductions…so it is a fact that only
the very wealthy benefit from the bush tax cuts
its why McCain was correct in his initial vote
against them…and why Obama could bury McCain

By: the consultant

the consultant — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:18:41 +0000

the club for growth is correct..it embodies traditional
republican values….the social conservatives are
destroying any chance the republicans have of
winning ny state elections..and probably national
elections….bush has been a disaster….his father
was great..but clinton beat him…..mc cain needs to
embrace the growth agenda and reject nation building

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:11:59 +0000

You are both incorrect. Peter King is a social conservative but not an economic conservative who appeals to blue collar Reagan Democrats. Prior to 9/11, he was very close with Democratic politicians including Bill Clinton but after 9/11 where national security became more of a priority, he became more of a reliable Republican vote. That said, on issues the club for growth cares about such as business/union issues, regulation, and taxes, he is not a conservative.

By: re:

re: — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:37:39 +0000

Peter King? Conservative? No. He is Amo Houghton, Ben Gilman, Sue Kelly conservative. It’s been all down hill since Chris Buckley left the Senate.

However, the consultant does have a point… cross endorsements and electoral fusion have gotten out of control.

But I’d like to remind the consultant that the Club For Growth however is not the conservative party of new york. To me, the first is good, the second is not.

The conservative party endorses anyone who is willing to grease the right palms, regardless of whether they are a conservative democrat or liberal republican. primaries are quashed, and meaningless in most cases since the apparatus is so tightly controlled.

By: the consultant

the consultant — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:32:13 +0000

it is interesting that peter king..a conservative congressman could only muster a 50…that is the
problem the conservative party should not be allowed
to cross endorse..therefore their ratings would be
meaningless