The New York Democrats That Stood Up For The Rule Of Law

by: phillip anderson

Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 16:03:36 PM EDT

Clarke (NY-11)
Hall (NY-19)
Hinchey (NY-22)
Israel (NY-2)
Maloney (NY-14)
McNulty (NY-21)
Nadler (NY-8)
Rangel (NY-15)
Serrano (NY-16)
Slaughter (NY-28)
Towns (NY-10)
Velazquez (NY-12) (My Congresswoman. Way to go, Nydia.)
Weiner (NY-9)

It should probably go without saying, but all New York House Republicans (with exception of Tom Reynolds, who was apparently napping) voted for this abomination.

Hall, Hinchey on the Petraeus Sham

by: phillip anderson

Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 21:25:17 PM EDT

Here's some highlights of John Hall's statement:

The hearing provided little in the way of new evidence and I believe we still need a firm timetable to wind down our involvement in Iraq.

...

However, General Petraeus gave no new evidence that Iraqi forces are prepared to hold the gains American troops have made.  And Ambassador Crocker seemed pessimistic that Iraqi politicians could take advantage of whatever small improvements have occurred.

When announcing his escalation, President Bush said we would see results in 6 months.  Now, at the 6 month point, his two top officials in Iraq are unable to show any tangible signs of improvement and have asked for 6 more months.  The American people don't want 6 more months of the same quagmire and I don't believe Congress should provide it.

And Hinchey shows the freshman how it's done:

"Well it took President Bush awhile, but he finally found a military leader who would go along with his misguided plan for Iraq and try to sell it to Congress and the American people.  The call from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for Congress to give more time for the so-called surge to work is a recipe for disaster and completely unacceptable.

"Time and time again, President Bush has appealed to Congress and the American people to remain patient and wait for him to come through with a successful plan for Iraq.  Time is up.  As of today, 3,759 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and more than 27,770 have been wounded.  The violence is getting worse with 56 percent more U.S. casualties in Iraq this year than at this time in 2006.  Not one more American should have to die in Iraq or lose a limb as President Bush looks for more excuses to stay in Iraq.

...

"The so-called surge was designed to give the Iraqi government more time to solidify itself and strengthen security throughout the country.  The surge has failed.  The sad truth is that Iraq is a very volatile country; there are tragic levels of violence now and there will be tragic levels of violence whenever the United States leaves.  However, the United States' presence in Iraq is not doing anything to quell the violence that already exists.  For that reason, it's time to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"President Bush misled this country into invading Iraq and he has proven to be extraordinarily incompetent at managing the subsequent occupation.  When President Bush said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks he was deliberately wrong.  When President Bush declared "mission accomplished" just six weeks after the invasion of Iraq he was foolishly wrong.  When President Bush asked for time to let his so-called surge work he was wrong.  Now that he is asking for more time to let his so-called surge work we are wise enough to know that he will be wrong again so we must step in and end the U.S. occupation of Iraq now.  It is time for our troops to come home and to be redeployed to Afghanistan and other parts of the world where al Qaeda continues to lurk as a major threat to our national security.  Not another American should die in Iraq."

I'm still looking for other statements from the NY delegation. If you find anything, feel free to pass it on or post them yourself.

Possible Spitzer Appointments

by: phillip anderson

Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 14:00:15 PM EDT

NY-Sen: Whom Might Spitzer Appoint?

Bear with me here.  Let's assume for a moment that Hillary is our 2008 Presidential nominee, and that she wins.  Fast forward to the election aftermath, where Gov. Eliot Spitzer has the task of appointing a replacement to fill Clinton's Senate vacancy.

Whom might Spitzer appoint?  And whom would you want Spitzer to appoint?

Spitzer surprised many observers when he tapped state Senator David Paterson for his running mate in 2006, and perhaps he could surprise again given the chance.  Despite being large in number, there is no one of tremendous stature in the state's Democratic congressional delegation who could be tapped (Charlie Rangel, at 77, is too old), but that's not to say that I think a promotion from the House to the Senate is unlikely.

...

Perhaps even Paterson himself could be a possibility, but one would expect that Spitzer would come under pressure to balance the state's Senatorial delegation with an appointee from upstate rather than a second Senator with Brooklyn roots.

The usual calculations are tossed around in the comments. Should the candidate be from upstate? Should they be female? A moderate? A progressive?

These are all good questions. I'll just say that I would look for an unabashed progressive. As much as I'd also like to replace a female Senator with another, and I have a feeling we would, my first and foremost wish is that New York be represented by a Senator with strong progressive values. I want this state to be looked upon as a beacon of such values once again and there's no good reason we shouldn't be. I mean, this is New York, not, say, Missouri or Pennsylvania.

My choice? Louise Slaughter. What about you?

Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) On Colbert Report Tonight

by: phillip anderson

Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 18:35:46 PM EDT

A Very Big Day For Kirsten Gillibrand

by: phillip anderson

Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 14:45:51 PM EST

Here's some of what we saw and heard...

UPDATE: Man, I blog this from the car and still get scooped by Capitol Confidential by about 20 minutes. Sheesh.