The Lazio campaign has announced that former Congressman Rick Lazio has received the official endorsements of the Rockland, Westchester, Bronx, and Brooklyn GOP Chairmen:
Kings County Republican Chairman Craig Eaton said, "I enthusiastically endorse Rick Lazio for Governor. We need someone who will bring sweeping change and reform to Albany and Rick is the only candidate in the race who will do just that. He stands up for what he believes in. He always supported lower taxes and lower spending, and he opposes civilian trials for terrorists in New York City. I am excited to hit the campaign trial for Rick and I am confident he will be our next Governor."
Westchester County GOP Chairman Doug Colety said, "Westchester County saw in 2009 how the voters responded to a message of lower taxes, less government, and fiscal responsibility when they elected Rob Astorino County Executive. In 2010, history will repeat itself when Rick Lazio is elected Governor of the state of New York. I am proud to stand with Rick as he is the only candidate for governor who will stand up to the status quo in Albany. We need sweeping change so we can get New York back on track. I enthusiastically endorse his candidacy and urge my fellow New Yorkers to get behind Rick Lazio for Governor."
Rockland County GOP Chairman Vincent Reda said, "I'm supporting Rick Lazio for Governor because I believe he's the only candidate in the race committed to the type of change our state government desperately needs. He'll stand up for lower taxes and lower spending. He'll fight the special interests by putting the people first. The overwhelming Democratic majority in Albany has failed and it's time for an outsider with new ideas to take the helm. A Lazio administration will benefit Rockland County in so many ways. I am proud to endorse him for Governor."
Bronx County GOP Chairman Jay Savino said, "I am endorsing Rick Lazio for Governor because he has what it takes to turn New York around. We need someone who will stand up to the special interests and fight for sweeping fundamental change. I applaud his stance on opposing holding terrorist trials here in New York. We need more leaders like Rick Lazio and I am happy to help get him elected Governor."
A month ago, Savino signed a letter with 14 other GOP County Chairman urging Erie County Executive Chris Collins to run for governor. (Eaton, Cotey, and Reda DID NOT sign the letter.) Not too long ago, Collins announced he was not running.
These endorsements certainly help Lazio when the state party has its convention in a few months to pick their slate for 2010.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 1058
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (25)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by chancehaywood , January 29, 2010
http://lazio.com/releases_view...&year=2010
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Behold a Pale Horse , January 29, 2010
The Politics on the Hudson blog at LoHud.com reports that with the endorsement of the four county chairman, Lazio now has 55 percent of the weighted vote at the party convention this spring. See http://polhudson.lohudblogs.co...hted-vote/
Unless a big name emerges to challenge Lazio for the nomination or Lazio does something really, really stupid, it looks he's the party's favorite.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , January 29, 2010
Does anyone know when and where the state convention is being held this year?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , January 29, 2010
That same blog is also reporting that we now have an announced Republican candidate for state Comptroller - a Westchester hedge fund manager named Harry Wilson.
He supposedly has a website, but blog's link was bad.
Interesting development. My oft proposed candidate, Andrew Eristoff, just took a job with NJ Governor Chris Christie, so I guess he's out of the mix.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by evannyny , January 30, 2010
Andy Eristoff-good guy, little on the liberal side, but basically a rich GOP-er OUT for himself.
He gave up his seat in 1999 in the City Council to get a high level job in the Rudy Administration. We have NOT held that seat since. A Republican Councilman from Manhattan is so rare, and yet he couldn't wait to give it up to get something better.
Charles Millard did that too a few years early, giving up his seat to ALSO get a job with RUDY, which led to the election of the GREAT Gifford Miller. And we haven't come close to winning that seat either.
And then people like Eristoff tell the party faithful, to always be loyal and put the party before self first!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Raquel Okyay , January 31, 2010
"Rick proved to be a good steward of our natural resources, and as a result he was routinely endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and by the Sierra Club. He was the original sponsor of the first bill in Congress to provide credit under a cap and trade program for early and voluntary action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
So how would he vote on cap&trade?
I think NYS Republican Party would do better if they supported a fresh face.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Quickjustice , January 31, 2010
So Lazio's a green, and not a very bright green at that. Conservation is fine, but the Sierra Club is extremist. Where does Lazio stand on nuclear power plants and power generation?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , January 31, 2010
evannyny - how long was Eristoff supposed to stay in the City Council where he was ridiculously outnumbered and term limited (at the time of his departure, he was in the second year of his final term)? When a better opportunity presented itself within a real Republican mayoral administration, didn't he owe it to himself and the Mayor to take it?
You make the point that we have not held the seat since, or the neighboring Millard seat, but truth be told - we weren't going to win those open seats in 2001 anyway. Special Elections tend to favor the minority party because they are low turnout elections. Eristoff and Millard actually gave the Republicans their best shot at keeping those seats past their respective terms by resigning mid-term. Had the Republican candidates prevailed in the specials, they would have had almost two years to establish themselves with their constituency and would have had a fighting chance in 2001. Sadly, there wasn't enough of a Republican bench on the East Side.
Eristoff was a bit on the liberal side, as most of those Met Club/East Side Republicans were/are. However, he has a head for finance, served in that capacity in the Giuliani Administration and would make a good Comptroller. Also, the Comptroller's office is rather insulated from most of the social issues, so his liberalism in that regard would have been nicely muted.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , January 31, 2010
Evan, normally I agree with you but in this case I must differ. Whose responsibility was it to hold those seats, Eristoff and Millard or the Manhattan GOP? Frank is right, if they couldn't do it in a non-partisan special then they really had little chance come the general.
And what is this about being a liberal? You think either Eristoff or Millard was liberal? Again, I disagree. Just because someone is pro-choice does not make them a liberal. Maybe a libertarian, but NOT a liberal.
When are we going to learn that the Republican party can not survive as a club for social conservatives. It needs to be open to social moderates as well if it wants to win anywhere outside the south. Didn't we learn anything from the victory in Mass?
Across the board, the Party does best with fiscally conservative, strong on defense, pro-Israel social moderates. That is our future. That is how we can insure our values and the ones that prevail and not those of the far left.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , January 31, 2010
As a socially conservative Republican, I agree with Robert. We can't have a one-size fits all Republicanism and expect every candidate to fit into that mold.
Republicans who win in certain parts of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island may not be able to win in Manhattan, and vis versa.
Millard and Eristoff were reform minded Republicans who were a breath of fresh air in liberal Manhattan. By their own admission, they took fiscally conservative and socially liberal positions, but they had to in order to win those seats. And again, I must stress that abortion is a phony issue in the City. There is nothing - save for the occasional rhetorically.
I say we should be looking to win everywhere, and we should run the right candidates in the right districts to make that happen. If someone is with me on 7 out of 10 issues, they are 70% my ally, not 30% my enemy.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Raquel Okyay , January 31, 2010
Many reasons led to Brown's win but the fact that he is pro-choice has nothing to do with it.
It was a special election with special circumstances.
Should it be a model for elections across the nation, sort of, in the sense that he came across as an honest average guy, willing to say no to fiscally destructive legislation.
Sure, in Manhattan a pro-choice Republican can get elected, but it is not indicative or a fair example of how average voting Americans vote.
Lots of if not most Republicans are pro-life, Robert, are you suggesting they shouldn't run for office, or should not promote that position?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , January 31, 2010
The Manhattan GOP should not turn away a pro-life or pro-choice candidate for city council. Perhaps that is the issue.
It's a shame that Eristoff and Millard had to even address abortion, because the Supreme Court has determined the end-all on abortion at the moment and if in the unlikelihood it was overturned by the courts and sent back to the states, it's a state issue, and doens't have to do with the council.
But anyway, we have to learn to be clear on the issues that face the office and we need very good communicators for that. Not everyone can be a Ronald Reagan communicating positions, but we at least find folks who can target issues like Scott Brown did.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Quickjustice , February 01, 2010
The first thing a liberal reporter asks a Republican candidate in NY is "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?" That question is designed to discredit the Republican candidate with the Democratic base. It's their litmus test, not ours. Republicans don't ask that question of a candidate unless that's their top issue.
In New York, the question is irrelevant to a political campaign unless the candidate is running for President of the United States. That's because New York legalized abortion in 1968, eight years before Roe v. Wade. Even if Roe were reversed tomorrow, abortion would remain legal in New York.
What should a Republican candidate say? I'd say, "I personally oppose abortion, but current law is that it's legal, and in fact, a constitutional right. Until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, and the New York state legislature then acts to reverse existing state law, my personal opinion has, and can have, no legal force. My personal opinion therefore is irrelevant to the issues in this campaign important to the people of New York."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , February 01, 2010
How about "the only pro- or anti- choice council members need to concern themselves with his School choice, and in that matter, I'm pro-choice."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , February 01, 2010
Abortion is such a non-issue in municipal elections that it actually strange that candidates for those offices even have to address it. Usually it is done by liberal Democrats to pander to their left wing base, or to paint their Republican opponents as "anti-abortion extremists." Never mind the fact that abortion is mainly a federal issue, and as noted above, even if Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow (which it should because it's bad constitutional law no matter what your position is on the legality of abortion), New York would still have legal abortion in most circumstances.
What Republicans should do is tackle the issue head on. I like QJ's answer, but I wouldn't run away from giving my personal opinion. As a pro-life Republican, I would probably say something similar but to the effect of, "I am personally opposed to abortion, but the issue is not one that is determined by the position for which I am a candidate. Neither my opponent nor will have any influence over abortion policy if elected. But with that said, I also do not believe that we should be funding the choices made by others - so I would oppose any of your tax dollars being spent on something for which you do not realize a benefit. I also do not believe that a minor child should be subjected to a potentially life threatening medical procedure without the consent of a parent - so I would oppose any law that diminishes the right of a parent to make choices on behalf of their child. I also don't believe that a non-parent or guardian should be able to transport a minor child across state lines for an abortion, as this again infringes on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. All of these positions, in my opinion, put me in the mainstream of public opinion of both those who consider themselves pro-life and pro-choice. If my opponent disagrees with such positions, I would encourage him to explain why?"
I would like to see the Democrat - even in some parts of Manhattan - who can successfully argue against that logic. To attempt to do so turns the tables on them and makes that candidate the true abortion extremist.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Raquel Okyay , February 01, 2010
If Roe v. Wade were overturned and I'm assuming together with its companion case Doe v. Bolton that permits abortion until birth for any reason, New York's liberal abortion laws would be severely restricted which would in turn reduce abortion rates -- so let's not pretend things would go on as usual.
A candidate's position on a varied of issues is important because it gives the voter a sense of the complete character of the candidate. So, yes, abortion is important on a local level. Is it the most important thing? Yes for some, but mostly no, atleast in a city as liberal as New York.
The pro-choice Republican cannot dismiss the concerns of pro-lifers just because the election is not statewide. You need a better argument than that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , February 02, 2010
The point here is not who has what authority over abortion rules. The point is the republican party will die if we do not embrace the "big tent" strategy where we have both pro-choice and pro-life republicans working side by side and supporting each others candidates when a primary is won or the candidate is chosen.
If we are going to pout and undermine the ream when we don't get our way on certain issues, then the party is doomed. The Obama forces of darkness will prevail and we will be living in a socialist nightmare in a matter of time.
The ties that bind the republican will have to be based on the small gov't, low tax, strong on defense, free trade platform. There is more than enough that we can agree on to make this a strong and effective winning coalition.
Or we can endlessly bicker over whether the party is strictly a pro-life party or not, and let the liberals run the country into the ground.
On another note, Raquel, do you really think that if Roe was overturned, that super-liberal NY would see any changes in its abortion laws?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Raquel Okyay , February 02, 2010
Yes, it would change, legally, because abortion had restrictions-limitations previous to the Supreme Court mandate.
After Roe and Doe abortions in New York and elsewhere sky-rocketed. I would image a reversal would return New York State to its previous restrictions on abortion. But maybe Harry can answer that question??
I am certain a decision as big as reversals of Roe and Doe would have worldwide implications!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , February 02, 2010
From the information I read, New York State had just passed the most liberal interpretation of abortion rules prior to the Roe v. Wade decision. If this is the case, then any overturning of Roe w. Wade would force our state to address the laws it has on the books as far as the state goes. Unless of course, restrictions were put into place after the Roe v. Wade decision and post-Supreme Court laws would also remain on the books as they are state based.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , February 02, 2010
Let's put aside that I don't believe Roe will ever be overturned. Or that I think it rather shortsighted to make decisions that have real-world implications today based on something that may or may not happen someday in the future.
Let's just look at what we know. First, prior to Roe, there was a national movement toward liberalizing abortion laws. NY, of course, being one of the leaders. Roe codified the "right" of a woman to have an abortion, not allowing for any state to prevent a woman from making that choice.
If Roe were overturned, it would allow each state to make its own rules, or leave the current system in place. States more hostile to abortion have already restricted it as much as the law allows. In states with very liberal abortion laws there would be no requirement to change, and it is highly unlikely they would change anything.
Bottom line, overturning Roe would change very little.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Quickjustice , February 02, 2010
Actually, after abortion was legalized in New York in 1968, multiple abortion mills sprung up in New york to serve pregnant teenagers from out-of-state. One of the most notorious was in Pelham Manor, up in Westchester County.
So New York's "health care" (abortion) economy prospered mightily from the out-of-state business prior to 1974. That economy dried up when Roe v. Wade was decided, making a trip to New York for an abortion unnecessary.
I think you're wrong about New York's abortion law being more restrictive than Roe v. Wade, Raquel. It's one of the most liberal in the country. I do agree that Roe should be overturned to permit state legislatures, elected by the people, to decide for their own residents what state policy on abortion should be. As a public policy matter, Roe has been an abysmal failure.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , February 02, 2010
Roe is bad constitutional law - and it isn't just pro-lifers or conservatives who think so.
Alan Dershowitz, Archibald Cox and other left legal scholars have all said that while they agree with the policy result of Roe, the legal reasoning is not sound.
Harry Blackmun was chosen to write that decision by the Court because he had represented the Mayo Clinic as a private attorney, and because of that, the majority felt that he had "expertise" in medical cases! Unbelievable.
If you are an originalist (strict constructionist), etc. - as most Republicans tend to be, there is no way you can reconcile Roe v. Wade with that view. You can fully support legal abortion but be against Roe v. Wade. The problem is that most people who don't follow politics every day and don't know a damn thing about constitutional law believe that if Roe is overturned, back alley abortions will return overnight. Even so-called "educated" people believe this.
As Republicans, when Democrats attempt to use the abortion issue as a canard, we should take the opportunity to educate the voting public exactly what Roe says and what the practical effects would be if it disappeared. I think if most people in New York realized that they would still have their precious abortion rights even if Roe went away, they wouldn't care so much what a City Council or Assembly candidate thinks about it.
The Democrats have demagogued this issue for years in New York because New Yorkers views on abortion tend to be to the left of the average American. The Republicans have failed because they've let them get away with it and have often rushed to "out choose the choicers." If someone is voting purely on the pro-life/pro-choice issue, and they are firmly pro-choice, they're probably not voting Republican anyway.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Raquel Okyay , February 02, 2010
There is nothing more liberal than being able to obtain an abortion at any time up until birth for any reason -- which is the state of the law now.
The rate of abortion in New York (the "abortion capital of the world") now dwarfs the number of abortions previous to the Supreme Court's decision.
So-called back alley abortions were widely and grossly miscounted and misinterpreted, most abortions, previous to Roe v. Wade were performed by doctors at hospitals.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , February 02, 2010
I think this topic has sort of evolved off the point of five county chairs endorsing Lazio.
Raquel, for arguments sake, please do not use the term back-alley abortions. I always imagine the words coming out of Boxer or Feinsteins mouth, as if this procedure will become common again. It instills a misnomer against the pro-life argument putting fear that pregant 15 year olds would actually stick a hanger into themselves. I highly doubt this would go on in the 21st Century.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Behold a Pale Horse , February 02, 2010
QJ, didn't New York State actually legalize abortion in 1970, not 1968? As I recall (i.e. remember reading), the bill passed the Assembly by one vote.
With the pro-abortion lobby, they demand more. They oppose any restrictions including those that have been upheld by the Supreme Court (i.e. parental consent/notification, waiting periods, and bans on partial-birth abortions) and want the taxpayers to pay for them. If a candidate doesn't agree with this, then he or she isn't really considered pro-choice.
More sinister is how the pro-abortion lobby wants Catholic hospitals forced to perform abortions and provide other services that violate their teachings and oppose conscience protections.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
