Wednesday, August 10, 2005

"Her Park Name is Everest"

These are the responses to my August 10 article, "Why Do Elephants Prefer Jeanine Pirro To Ed Cox? They Want To Minimize Hillary's Expected Victory." Thanks to all, please continue to provide us with your feedback.


  1. Despite repeatedly threatening repeatedly to leave the
    GOP over Bush I have remained a NYC Republican and
    feel I can vote for Pirro. She should have run for
    State Attorney General as I believe you said. She
    could have won and then gone on to either governor or
    senator at a latter date. Minimizing the loss to
    Hillary is not worth sacrificing Pirro's career.

  2. She is hindered by her husband's sins, which are more serious than her opponent's husband's indiscretions.
    Pirro's husband disgraced himself, Hillary's, his office.
    Far more serious in my opinion.

    I won't let my wife read today's article. If she did, regurgitation would be a distinct possibility.
    I, fortunately, have more peristaltic control.

    This should give you an inkling of our distaste for Hillary.

  3. Starquest:

    "Running for the Senate did not do a lot of good for former Congressman Rick Lazio, the loser in 2000. He lost his House seat, had his 15 minutes of fame as a counterpoint to Hillary, and after being defeated by 55 per cent to 43 per cent,
    ( 3,747,310 - 2,915,730, to be exact) sank back into the obscurity whence he came."

    Don't kid yourself, Senate race or not, my friend Rick Lazio is doing verrrrry well in private sector. I am not driven by money, and I know Rick isn't either, but when you get paid as much as he is right now, it sure cushions the fall.

  4. I'm going to have to disagree with you on "elephants" preferring Ms. Pirro over Mr. Cox (or for that matter, Mr. Spencer & Mr. Brenner).

    Granted, the GOP State Committee apparently wants a "Battle of the Moderate Women", but true blue... or should I say, Dead Red Republicans prefer a candidate that will be better fitted in getting the Conservative Party endorsement also, rather than the Independence Party endorsement.

    The media will most likely distract inquisitive voters who want to know where the candidates like Cox, Brenner & Spencer are on issues. However, I fear tabloid journalism and TV will dig deep and create a circus of two powerful women going at it (see today's NY Post PAGE SIX cartoon).

    The Republicans I know from New York (mostly the young professionals in their 30s), would have preferred Ms. Pirro running for Attorney General, rather than US Senate. We already had three well qualified candidates.

    If I am fortunate to run into Ms. Pirro over the next year, and more than likely I will, and she happens to ask me if I plan to vote for her, I will be honest and say, "Not in the Primary. You should've picked the AG race. But if you beat the other candidates, then I will likely vote for you in November." I know many elephants that are thinking the same thing.

  5. Hi Henry,

    I always said Hillary was a Republican who became a centrist, but remained a majority of the time a republican in foreign policy.

    I never considered her a liberal She was always more conservative than her husband.

    I will never forget who was the architect in the 1970's for impeachment of a President. How often does this country forget who she worked for early in her political career.

    And it was always a political career first, not an attorney. One just paid for the other.

    War of the roses. Oh brother!

    And you were right her now wanting the promotion and it is okay. Who would expect anything less from her.

    By the way, I haven't always been a big Hillary Club fan.

    When I was the Interim Executive Director of American Jewish Congress Metropolitan Region, Pirro was generous enough to join us in a press conference on stronger gun laws down by City Hall. She was gracious and very supportative of our suggestions.

  6. please delete me from your list. hillary clinton is a bald faced liar. she only tells the truth when it benefits her. i will not read any material from someone who is so forgiving of her obvious faults. delete me immediately

  7. > > Star
    > >
    > > Interesting column, although I disagree with your statement that Dean
    > can't
    > > raise money and that liberal ideas are out of step with the American
    > people
    > > and their core values. The org Media Matters for America touched on the
    > > issue of Dean's fund-raising prowess in a June 17th posting
    > > (
    > >
    > >
    > > Dean fund-raising lie persists among conservatives
    > >
    > >
    > > The conservative media continues to falsely assert that Democratic
    > > National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean is an ineffective
    > > fund-raiser. In the past week, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred
    > > Barnes, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz, and Washington Times
    > chief
    > > political correspondent Donald Lambro all cast Dean as a fund-raising
    > > failure. In fact, when compared with fund-raising in the most recent
    > > non-election year, Dean has raised more money in raw dollars, and more
    > in
    > > comparison to the Republican National Committee (RNC), than did his
    > > predecessor.
    > >
    > >
    > > As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here),
    > > raised $14.8 million between February and April 2005, versus $8.5
    > million
    > > raised by former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe during the same time
    > period
    > > in 2003. Dean has also raised more money than McAuliffe relative to RNC
    > > fund-raising. The RNC raised $32.4 million between February and April
    > > 2005, about 2.2 times the rate of the DNC; over the same period in
    > > the RNC's $25.7 million was more than three times what the Democrats
    > > raised. An article in the June 20 edition of Newsweek by chief
    > > correspondent Howard Fineman and national correspondent Tamara Lipper
    > > noted how Dean has been effective at soliciting smaller donations:
    > >
    > >
    > > Officials estimate that $12 million of the $14 million the Dean
    > > regime has collected so far this year has come from those who
    > > less than $250. "For people who really look hard at the numbers,
    > > he's wowing people," says Elaine Kamarck, a respected DNC member.
    > >
    > >
    > > Nevertheless, Barnes wrote in the June 20 edition of The Weekly
    > Standard:
    > > "Rather than make a fool of himself, Dean is supposed to be raising
    > money
    > > and expanding the party. He's failing at both." Lambro wrote in a June
    > 16
    > > Washington Times "Commentary" column: "Congressional Democratic leaders
    > > rushed to Mr. Dean's defense last week, but former DNC officials say
    > > privately his tenure so far is disappointing. The RNC is
    > out-fund-raising
    > > him better than 2-to-1 and the uproar over his intemperate remarks is
    > > drowning out the party's message -- that is, if it has one."
    > >
    > >
    > > Podhoretz wrote in a June 14 New York Post column: "Democrats have good
    > > reason to fear. Dean's Democratic National Committee has raised less
    > than
    > > half of what the Republican National Committee has received in
    > > contributions." Podhoretz went on to compare Dean's 2005 totals to what
    > > the Democrats raised last year: "But last year, more money was raised
    > > Democrats and left-wing groups than by Republicans and right-wing
    > groups,
    > > so it's not as if there's nowhere for Dean and his people to turn for
    > > dollars." But 2004 was a presidential election year, so it's not
    > > comparable to 2005, a year with few national races, let alone a
    > > presidential contest. Also, 2004 was anomalous with respect to the
    > > relative fund-raising of the two parties; Republicans typically
    > > Democrats at fund-raising.

  8. Dear Mr. Stern,

    Thank you for sending me this article. I was rather disapointed to learn Jeanine Pirro was running against Senator Clinton. I was hoping Ms. Pirro would find another prominent position to run for so we could benefit from the talents of both women.

  9. Mr. Stern: I found that very interesting but I think you are prejudiced in favor of Ms. Clinton and we haven't heard that much from Ms. Pirro. I, frankly, don't care what her husband did, nor did I care about President Clinton's fobiles. I don't compare them, I do not care. I don't think of Hillary as a New Yorker. I don't particularly like her style. I think she is using this state and nothing more. I don't know who I would vote for yet, I don't know enough about Pirro to make a judgement.....but I vote for whomever I think will do a better job. I think Hillary messed up health care so badly that it will take decades for the government to do something about it. I resent that. I don't think she represents this state in a spectacular manor either. So many people are prejudging this race....I am a Democrat, like you but I will have to consider this race....maybe, like so many others, I just don't like Hillary Clinton!

  10. As always, your comments make a lot of sense and your overview in contrast
    > to Fred Dicker's column makes it clear why Pirro is running against
    > Hillary. Too bad for her since she would have made a good AG.

  11. Woodieo9:20 AM

    But Pirro is no Sir Edmund Hillary!

  12. Henry, you have lost your good sense of balance. Hillary Clinton and the truth are total strangers. “ Her sensitivity to the American people and their core beliefs” surely you jest, Senator Clinton is only sensitive to her own ambition and what will get her what she wants. The American people are not total fools and Clinton’s transparency is as obvious and disturbing as a skin rash. We cannot be certain of what she really believes because she has never told us and the chances are that she never will, that is part of the win at all costs strategy. It is not her super intellect that frightens those of us who are not Clinton acolytes but the feeling in our guts that this is a heartless, soulless politician. We love you Starquest but not enough to believe this bologna.

  13. Dear Starquest:

    Once again an outstanding article.

    There are observations that I would add regarding Senator Clinton that her opponent could and may use to successfully shed the percentage of her lead in the poles and possibly cause a defeat.

    1. Absolutely, Senator Clinton is extremely smart and I would say is the driving force behind her husband's successful career. However, her current appeal in New York State and throughout the states may have to do more with [MOVIE] Star qualities.

    2. Senator Clinton when running for Senate, if I remember correctly, promised all of the poor counties upstate New York which she asserted were ignored [rightfully so] promised a better future both economically for its cities, small towns and families, and promised the attention to those cities, towns outside the great City of New York that had been ignored by both Democrats and Republicans. Many feel that Senator Clinton has failed on these two points. Jobs are definitely booming in Utica?

    3. Senator Clinton will be undermined by her own party. Senator Kennedy aka Senator Kerry, Al Gore who is waiting in the wings, and yes Howard [THE SCREAM] Dean will muddy the waters of Senator Clinton's reelection to the New York Senate and her upcoming run for President. How say you? Blind Ambition and emotion. Kennedy, Kerry, Gore and Dean are no Hilary. Their approach is premised more on emotion than intelligence. Like primal man seeking food, they will kill their own to survive and gain power in lieu of working in a logical thoughtful way.

    4. Senator Clinton would be challenged on her role regarding your outstanding articles on Medicare abuse, fraud, overruns and the irresponsible formula in New York State which places such a burden on all of its counties and cities to the breaking point. Forgive me but I did not hear the good Senator jumping into the fold now nor within the past five years to correct this wrong and to save the counties, cities from the Medicare Monster which has caused severe cuts in services, raised taxes and which counties have in themselves failed to lift this albatross. Watch out Elliot!

    5. Senator Clinton's opponent may take issue with regard to the over $21 Billion which was slated by President Bush for the rebuilding of the World Trade Center Site. Four years latter if you ask what words come to mind about the rebuilding of the World Trade Center, words such as: gross mismanagement, fraud, waste, dysfunctional, the hate America Loonies come to mind. Yes our good Governor and Mayor have major roles but what of our Senators? Where were they; it's been four years? You say it's not their jurisdiction? The Port Authority is at fault? What happened to and where is the $21 Billion Federal Tax Dollars?

    6. Hilary will run for president. Is the country, I am not talking about New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, ready to elect a "woman" to this post? As was learned in the past few elections, the electoral college and the 270 needed to become President is determined by Midwestern and southern states. I do not want to say that the electorate in these states are bias but many [more than people anticipate] would follow those old fashion values [that the President should be a man]. Yes the war in Iraq and more so the ever increasing price of gas will determine who is elected the next President but chauvinism and cultural mores will prevail resulting in a Mr. President, not Mrs or Ms President.

    Hey, I could be wrong but I do listen to word on the street excluding those on the extreme left and right from New York City to those from upstate visiting the dreaded down state.

  14. Henry -

    In the year-plus that I have been reading NY Civic I have always, even when I disagreed with what was posted, felt that your position was stated fairly and graciously. I am thus disappointed in this posting, for it is neither. Everyone is entitled to a lapse, but this column is, for reasons stated below, a nasty foul. Here is why:

    1. It is plain wrong to say that Al Pirro's being jailed for tax evasion is more serious than a President--the nation's highest legal officer--being impeached for perjury & conduct both unbecoming and injurious to the morale of those who served under him. A 4-star general's career was cut short this week just prior to his retirement because he had an extra-marital affair. Clinton escaped impeachment only because Democrats like Chuck Schumer are not the measure of Scoop Jackson, who would have put country before partisanship. People in the US go to jail every year due to perjury--regardless of whether they lie about a matter deemed "personal." (In the real world, few bosses think sex in the workplace is a purely personal matter; as David Broder said of Clinton's Oval Office sex-capades, "He trashed the place and it wasn't his to trash.")

    2. Rove did indeed cunningly calculate in backing Jeanine Pirro. But did Hillary in 2000, native of Illinois and a resident of Arkansas pre-White House years--not choose NY without comparable calculation? Her "I love NY" nexus was celebrities and raising money. She picked NY not because like Pat Moynihan she planned long service, but as a stepping-stone to the White House. Fair game, but equally fair for Rove to try to use an NY race to stop her.

    3. Bush's ANG service included flying night intercept missions in the supersonic F-102, a hard-to-fly plane with 1950s radar technology far less reliable than today's aerial marvels. Not as hazardous as Kerry's Swift Boat duty, but more hazardous than Bill Clinton's war years.

    4. Hillary's masking her convictions until she gets 270 votes is hardly praiseworthy. Shouldn't voters know what they are getting? If she gets to play it cute so do her opponents, should they so choose.

    5. Re whether 2 or 6 years for a Senator's service matters, if re-elected Senator Clinton will not even give New Yorkers 2 years of senatorial service. She will by mid-2007 have to devote immense amounts of time to running for President. As for New York doing well if she wins, both Clintons have a long and dismal history of leaving friends to take the fall and/or clean up their messes (think Webb Hubbell, who had to "roll over one more time"). If elected and if she stays true to Clinton form, Hillary will, per Prince Felix Schwartzenberg of Austria's comment as to how Austria would view Russia's helping him suppress the 1848 revolts, "[she} will astound the world with the magnitude of her ingratitude."

    6. Re Achilles, he was protected (save for the heel Thetis held during Styx dip) until his predestined warrior death. Would that Bush could engage the Gods in his battle against the terrorists (so far only they have tried to do so). Re Caesar & Henry V, heads of state were younger in those days, and could indeed take the field. If elected and ever at war, do not expect Hillary to imitate Penthiselia, Queen of the Amazons.

    Again, everyone is entitled to an off day.

  15. Henry: Senator Clinton should run for the senate, win and on the theory that a Democrat heads the government in Albany, then quit, so a Democratic governor appoints her replacement.

  16. monger5:50 PM

    I heard a story, I certainly do not know if it is true or not; that Pirro was promised a seat on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals if she lost by "someone from Washington".
    It has that smell of reasonableness to it.

  17. have been meaning to write to thank you for what I believe to be the fairest and most perceptive succinct analysis of Hillary Clinton (Aug. 12th ?) that I have seen anywhere to date. I widely recommended it to fellow Republicans (and some Democrats) who find her an untrustworthy enigma. This is the kind of thing for which I value New York Civic the most.