New York Governor George Pataki has announced he will not seek a fourth term in 2006. He said he sought new paths and new challenges. He did not rule out a run for the White House in 2008.
This frees Pataki from the restraints of elected office during what will be a battle royale for the Republican nomination. Pataki has surprised before. The protege of former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, Pataki stunned many in 1994 by upsetting Mario Cuomo in the "Contract for America" year. Of course, in 2008, Pataki will have to contend with two Empire State stars that shine brighter than he does: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Pataki could easily make a play for moderates, but he is far less engaging than Giuliani.
Of course, Pataki will also not have the platform of the governor's office to keep his name in the news. Neither does Giuliani, but more people know and like the former mayor, I think. Plus, Pataki evades a bruising re-election fight and the prospect of even losing to the Democrat candidate. Polls apparently show Pataki trailing state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer has made a national reputation after his aggressive prosections of Wall Street corporate criminals. That alone should be enough to attract the attention of a national fundraising crowd. And you know the Dems want the NY governor's mansion back. Keep an eye on Spitzer. His star is rising.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has said he is not considering a bid for 2008, but just today now has said he would not rule it out. His new book has kept him in the media spotlight, and I think he'll have some on the religious right calling for him to enter the campaign -- if nothing else than to carry the banner for religious conservatives. I maintain, as I have for months, that Santorum is a strong candidate on that side, and don't be surprised if he ends up on the ticket. First, though, Santorum must get through what is shaping up to be a tough re-election campaign in 2006. And, if Pennsylvania's other senator, Arlen Specter, has a worsening of his health, Santorum would be in a position to dominate the media from the Keystone State -- also in the major media markets of the tri-state area.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think it will be very interesting to see who is on the Republican ballot. Right now, there is no clear opponent to the generally accepted canidacy of Hillary Clinton, who is enjoying exceptionally high approval ratings throughout most of the country.
I don't think Hillary Clinton is gooing to be the Democrat nominee for president in 2008. I think it is a great idea, and I like her a lot. But I don't think the Democrats, and certainly the moderate majority, is ready for President Hillary. In fact, any candidacy would likely be an uphill battle against all the negative media reports and baggage she has. If she could erase everything prior to 1996, I think she'd be set.
You never know, though. She already got her husband elected, and she is as good a politician as they come.
-- L.
Crack down on illegal immigration? This is such a bogus issue. However, immigration is so complicated that it cannot be boiled down into a simple slogan or solved by a quick bill.
You think that illegal immigrants are coming to America and taking jobs from Americans? Hardly. Many American workers don't want the jobs or are unwilling or unable to relocate to be near the work.
The way to get American workers to do jobs such as picking crops is to pay more. But American consumers aren't going to pay $4 for an avocado.
You think illegal immigrants are crowding our schools and hospitals and sapping other social services? That is what social services are for -- society. Schools, in this state at least, are funded partially with sales taxes, which are paid by all people, not just the legals or citizens. And everyone who pays rent for housing has some of that rent go to property taxes for schools, hospitals and other infrastructure.
You think that being born here gives you some special claim on the American Dream? People are willing to risk their lives in travel, willing to give up seeing their families for months or years, willing to work horrible jobs for poor wages. Who do you think you are to say that these immigrants are bad for our country. Pretty much everybody's family came here from somewhere else, so get over your elitism.
Here's another suggestion: Maybe if we spent more time and money investingin other nations, those countries would be more stable and wealthy and then the workers would not all want to come live and work here. And, even better, they would have more wealth with which to buy American-manufactured goods. We can give up a little American wealth to gain some down the road (and also see added security because foreigners would not hate us so much) or we can continue to screw the world and spend our riches to build a big wall on the border.
-- L.
Illegal immigrants. ILLEGAL immigrants. It's against the law for them to be here yet we cater to them. I don't think they are taking our jobs, but I don't see what rights you think they should have here. They move here and have a kid and so we say they can stay. Illegal immigrants take more out of the system and work the system over more than they put into the system. A large percentage of them drive around wrecklessly without insurance. If they cause harm they generally have no assets or money to compensate. If they're illegal we can't scan them for previous criminal activity or deadly contagious diseases. Why don't you see how much lepracy has risen in the United States?
If all hard-working and better-life driven mexicans moved here, then how is a country full of low-lifes and lazy people going to prosper?
Adam,
You are so egocentric and elitist, it hurts to read your posts. You must be the only Native American on your block.
DrPezz, be nice.
Adam, you have some bogus arguments:
America was founded with the idea that someone born here becomes a citizen. That is the way it works.
You don't know that illegal immigrants take more out than they put into a system. How do they "work the system over" more than anyone else? Compared to corporate executives who get tax loopholes made into law because they donated to a campaign? Compared to a family having kids for the Earned-Income Tax Credit? Show me the data.
Lots of legal immigrants and even citizens drive wrecklessly, some even without insurance or assets to compensate.
Just because someone is an illegal immigrant does not mean they don't have a medical or criminal record in the United States or elsewhere. That's how we can deport people.
Finally, I think you misunderstood my point about helping a nation, say Mexico, prosper. If we do that, then native Mexicans will want to and be able to stay at home because the economic need to come to the United States will be reduced. They would be able to get a living wage in Mexico. And actually, that is a type of conservative economics. It also is what the United States did after World War II in Europe and Japan -- and now those are some of the most economically vital parts of the world. A little investment pays off well.
-- L.
Sorry, Loganite. I just tire of the Limbaugh/Savage/O'Reilly/Coulter unsubstantiated argument--all assumption, bravado, and no factual support. It's the same argument over and over: immigrants are dooming the nation, if it ain't white it ain't right, hypocrisy is ok if we do it, etc.
I also don't find it fair to be immediately labeled a racist because I oppose illegal immigration.
Look, our economy fluctuates depending on who's living here. I don't oppose immigration, just illegal immigration. If we allowed 200,000 to 300,000 legal immigrants a year, well I think that's a fair number. I just find illegal immigration a strain on our country. Catering to languages, giving illegal immigrants all of our government benefits, etc. The vast majority of Illegal Immigrants are low-skilled and poor, which generally go hand-in-hand with crime, drugs, etc. It costs money to keep them in jail, give them their welfare checks, to teach 2nd languages, etc.
And I didn't mean to imply that somebody born in this country isn't a U.S. citizen. But if a giant family comes here and has a kid, the family gets to stay. I just think it's a terrible incentive for illegals...especially since they are poor and generally can't raise a child.
And how is this hypocrisy? My ancestors crossed over legally on the Mayflower (William Bradford is a direct grandfather of mine *not my last name*). Am I not supporting legal immigration? With legal immigration everyone can be screened, tested, and we can weigh out just how many people our country should have each year based on our economic and social situations. We could save a lot of money and maybe use it to help more poor nations.
I think many would now disagree on the actual legality of the Mayflower crossing itself. In fact, most people would say that the passengers aboard the Mayflower took advantage of the natives they encountered, deliberately taking land from the them, knowing they wouldn't understand the value of what they were giving away. I believe that is called fraud.
That being said, illegal immigration is a serious issue. It's dangerous, but not for the reasons you say. Each year hundreds, and possibly thousands, of illegal immigrants die each year as a direct result of the conditions in which they are forced to travel. When these people leave their countries, whether it be China, Mexico, or Nigeria, they know full well that their journey could end with their deaths. However, the possibility of a better life overrides their fears, and they leave for America. Is this illegal? Yes. Wrong? I don't think so.
Another aspect of your response I take issue with is your claim that if people ar poor, they cannot rais a child: "especially since they are poor and generally can't raise a child". I am here in this country legally. My parents were also born here. However, as I was growing up, we were incredibly poor. From the time I was five until I turned 13, my family used some form of welfare. It ranged from actual checks to food stamps to shopping at food banks and government surplus stores. I would like to think that those resources were there to help us through a rough period in our lives so that we could survive and become productive citizens. I would also argue that my parents, my mother especially, did a damn fine job raising us on very little money. Poverty doesn't make people bad parents.
You could argue that there are definite correlations between poverty rates and things such as malnutrition, low test scores, and crime. Do poor people commit more crimes? Yes. Do children from poor families tend to score lower on standardized tests? Yes. But people are not poor through sheer acts of will. Sometimes we have no control over what happens to us. We especially have no control over where we are born. People come to this country dreaming of a better life. As the richest nation in the world, maybe we owe it to them. After all, we are a nation where the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
As a descendant of immigrants myself, I would hate to limit the definition as to exactly who those people are that our government is supposed to serve.
Illegal immigration causes domestic problems. You seem to agree with that. The domestic problems illegal immigration causes, in your eyes, doesn't outweigh the thought of opportunity? This is where we disagree. I feel there is already opportunity in legal immigration which is much safer. There could be more opportunity for legal immigrants if they weren't competing with illegal immigrants as well. Our country only has so many resources (natural and government), and the depletion of them is accelerated through illegal immigration...which could turn our country into a not-so-opportunistic land.
It is true that illegal immigration causes problems, but the majority of the problems fall directly on the shoulders of the immigrants themselves. I believe Loganite had a great point when he advocated helping other countries so that their citizens don't feel as though their only option is to come to the United States. I think it's a shame that the lives of our poorest poor are much better than the average lives of those who live in other countries.
For the most part, the illegal immigrants who come to this country contribute greatly to our society. We buy corn at 10 ears for $1.00. I buy apples at 45 cents a pound. The workers who made these low prices possible probably don't have legal green cards or permanent residences. However, I know that every dime they spend in our county results in some form of tax revenue which greatly contributes to our economy. Also, our, quite frankly, spoiled teenagers are able to take relatively cushy jobs in fast food restraunts and tanning salons to avoid toiling in the fields.
I don't claim to have all the answers for how to solve this problem, but I don't think the United States should continue on its perceived path back to isolationism in the area of global aid. In another post on this blog, Loganite commented on the obligation felt by the incredibly wealthy Bush #1 to help those less fortunate than he. Our current policies regarding aid to foreign countries are incredibly stringent (especially in regards to sex education and family planning in Africa), and even foster more resentment towards America. I think the United States can do more.
Foreign Aid doesn't work and we got by without illegal immigrants doing farm work in the past.
This is how I see the chemistry. We helped ourselves and made our nation great...other countries can do it too, but instead we've become this huge nipple for the poor scum of the Earth to come suck off and bring down. Call me a racist...call me what you will but I think we have an obligation as a country to prosper. You think we should spread our wealth (which we do...we give some foreign aid and we have a military that protects much of the world), but if we spread too much we could hurt ourselves and before we know it we won't be so wealthy and powerful anymore.
Actually, Adam, we exploited the legal immigrants here to do the dirty work for us: slavery, the Chinese, Europe's unwanted, etc. The country is changing from one where a family could live on an agricultural minimum wage to the present, where people work less with their backs and more with their brains. We need those immigrants, legal or not, to do the work no one else wants.
Did you see the "30 Days" episode where the host and his wife tried to live a month on minimum wage? They barely made it, had no savings, and were one difficulty from being homeless. The comfortable of this nation live on the backs of the poverty stricken and the illegal laborer. It is a fallacy to think that if we stop illegal immigration that the American citizenry will pick up those jobs will a zeal unknown before. The U.S. would lose a valuable section of the labor force with no one willing to fill the void.
Post a Comment