This might be incredibly naïve of me, but I thought Hillary was running to further the legacy of Sen. Moynihan.
Does Hillary (does she have a last name anymore?) accepting thousands in campaign contributions from a group and an individual supportive of the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, which in turn are supportive of eradicating Israel from the globe, count?
Read the detailed chronology here. And then please explain how it is simply a “totally bogus, Republican fact.”
With regard to the OP, I think rs0522 said it best.
If voters in New York elect her, they deserve exactly what they get, and nothing more.
Maeglin:
Pretty much the same issues as the ones you mentioned. Except that I expect Hillary to vote in a way that furthers the interests of the Democratic Party, and Rick to vote in a way that furthers the interests of the people of the state of New York.
First of all, it’s quite easy to deny it. To have a lot of experience advocating policy is not the same as to have a lot of experience making policy. Second of all, her limited public-policy record is one of almost unmitigated failure. Even Democrats couldn’t be convinced to get behind her health-care plan…that’s what you call “political savvy?” Gee, maybe I can convince you to give me some money of your to invest based on my extensive “financial savvy.”
Because even if he were as blatantly ambitious as Hillary (which is far from true), there’s at the very, very least (and no, it’s not all I base my vote on, I’m simply saying why a New Yorker is better as a NY Senator than a non-New Yorker) an assumption that he’d do nothing to harm the well-being of himself, his family, his friends, his business interests, etc. With Lazio, all the above (for the most part) are in New York, and therefore, New Yorkers are protected by that umbrella to some degree. Hillary has nothing invested in New York…even the house she bought here was bought with other peoples’ funds. This frees her to engage in partisan career-building and to ignore the needs and desires of New York’s citizens.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I’m not a New Yorker (or even an American!), but if I were, my main concerns about Hillary would be:
[ul]
[li]Do her political beliefs coincide with mine?[/li][li]Once elected, how much time will she spend on New York issues as opposed to national issues?[/li][li]What will she do if the interests of New York clash with her desire for national office?[/li][/ul]
The last would trouble me the most. I think most people realize that Hillary picked New York for political reasons. She has higher ambitions. So what happens when the interests of New York collide with her national ambition? Let’s say there is an issue that is very popular in New York, but unpopular nationwide? Which way will she go?
I would question whether or not she’ll even care. I suspect that Hillary has little interest in ‘regional’ issues. She’s a ‘big picture’ intellectual. I suspect she’ll spend far more time on ‘Meet the Press’ and writing books on national issues than she will on the issues important to New Yorkers, unless they just happen to coincide. And you have to know that electing her means you’re getting a part-time senator, because her national election campaign will start about the day after she’s elected as Senator.
BTW, I predict that she WON’T divorce Bill. That would be politically damaging, and their marriage has all the signs of having been a marriage of convenience for a long time. Bill, however, might well leave her.
Just an opinion here. I think you should have to live among the people before you can claim to represent them.
I have no beef with Hillary. She seems like a smart woman, and qualified for public office. But if she rented an apartment in here in California and announced she was running for the US Senate, I would not vote for her. My reason would be that she is not a Californian. It may be petty nitpicking, but I wouldn’t vote for Abe Lincoln under those circumstances.
If she wants to represent New York, she should live there for at least a year, then run for office. Otherwise, she should run in Arkansas.
Well, it conveniently omits the fact that:
-
The American Muslim Council mentioned therein endorsed George W. Bush for President. (See here.)
-
Rick Lazio solicited money from the American Muslim Council. As reported in the New York Post on Nov. 2:
"On Oct. 23, the Republican hopeful sent a fund-raising letter to Faroque Khan, chairman of the New York chapter of the American Muslim Alliance, a group which took credit for hosting a $50,000 Boston fund-raiser for Clinton in June.
The form letter, which was obtained by the New York Observer and posted on its Web site last night, asked Khan for his ‘immediate financial help.’
‘I may not have the President of the United States in my corner but that’s OK, I’d rather have you!’ says the letter which is signed ‘Rick’. "
spooje said:
Well, that pretty much rules out almost all politicians. I mean, when was the last time you saw your Senator or governor (or president – whoever that might be) living among the people?
Hillary definitely did it for political reasons. I don’t think there can be any doubt of that. But I also think that when people vote for somebody to “represent” them, they’re more concerned with representing their views, not with whether they lived next door.
I personally have never seen my Senator or my Governor, but they both live in sunny California, amongst other, albeit wealthier Californians, and have for quite some time. That’s all I’m talkin’ 'bout.
Why do we require any presidential candidate to be of U.S. birth? Just because one is born here does not mean they have any inherrent advantages, other than a better chance at being loyal to the coutry. Same with any elected official, why not require one to be from the area they claim to represent?
(Maybe it does not matter all that much, since most Senators ‘live’ in Washington D.C. anyway).