December 12, 2005
The NY Governors race
I wrote back in August that Golisano was a flawed candidate because of his past independent runs for Governor. Some Republicans love the whole 'independent' thing which to me is always code for either 'liberal', 'unprincipled', 'wishy-washy' or more likely all three. Here's a story about the independent Golisano. Still think he's a good candidate for Governor? From the Note:
Tom Golisano continues to play coy on his 2006 intentions, according to Pat Healy's Saturday New York Times story which concluded with this detail, "Next Wednesday, Mr. Golisano plans to meet with former President Bill Clinton in Buffalo, where they will watch a Sabres game. Mr. Golisano has contributed to Mr. Clinton's causes in the past."
Posted by Karol at December 12, 2005 11:14 AM
Technorati Tags: Tom+Golisano New+York+Governors+Race+2006
He also supports quite enthusiastically Clinton's Global Initiative.
Isn't Golisano known as a pro-lifer/death penalty supporter?
That's got to please some conservatives...
"'liberal', 'unprincipled', 'wishy-washy'"
Odd. Those are three words I'd use to describe New York Republicans as well as Independents. Golisano should be at home. He ran to Pataki's left once, ran to his right another time on fiscal matters. I think his defense of life has been altered quite a bit as well (though Steve Forbes did the exact same thing).
"his causes" might include AIDS charities and/or Tsunami/hurricane relief.
Golisano may be good for a great number of New Yorkers, but there is something to be said about building the Republican party and keeping it competitive. For without, the Dems dominate unrestrained. And clearly Golisano's independent party has faltered, so much he quit. So, what is best for NY? A guy who reforms for a term or two and leaves behind a dead GOP - like Bloomberg here in NYC? Or a guy who pledges to build the GOP at the same time?
Don't confuse Golisano's charitable work with his political positions or commitments. He hanot been the "independent" candidate as much as he's been the "anti-pataki" candidate and the "reform" candidate. He may not be my first choice right now, but he looks a whole lot better than anyone who throws in with Pataki & his cronies.
Bill Clinton is like this political junkie who must stay up all night contemplating ways to get back into the game.
Two hockey fans?
This has politics smeared all over it. It reminds me of the Golisano of old -- and provokes mistrust. However, Golisano is well-liked upstate and trusted by millions of voters who are sick of either major party.
Democrats will be humbled with Suozzi's candidacy.
The State GOP's candidates were humbled today. Neither Weld nor Faso, after six months of campaigning, garnered any clear consensus -- and Faso fell horribly.
The exclusion of Manning from the vote, an awful snub by Minarik, begs a question.
How well could have Manning done today? I suspect very well, since my regular contact with county chairs indicated a groundswell for him BEFORE the vote. After the vote, the Reagan chairs were asking him to visit their counties.
He also would have done very well today but he's mistrusted by a lot of county chairs. Meeting with Clinton on Wednesday will not help him -- but it's well-timed.
Quinnipiac is polling this week, thus maybe the Rochester billionaire is doing a little public triangulation of his own.
Jesse Ventura ran as an independent candidate and was a flop as governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not your typical Republican and his independence and reform agenda has alligned Democrats & Republicans against him.
Though Tom Golisano could very well pay for a well financed, well managed campaign, however, in the end, New Yorkers will be greatly concerned that such an outsider would be unable to work with Democrats or Republicans. It's a dangerous situation.
A candidate like a Tom Suozzi could do well for Democrat and Republican legislative candidates on a reform agenda. A candidate like a Pat Manning could do well for reform minded Republicans running for legislative posts.
But a Golisano reform candidacy would be dangerous b/c no democrat nor republican would swish to allign themselves with a man, who could cause their political downfall if one chooses to support him and sees golisano lose.
That's an excellent point, one I embrace entirely since I agree that Tom Suozzi's candidacy in certain parts of the state could actually help Republicans more than Democrats.
Golisano could help too but his Independence Party was a wild card. Roger Stone's hijinks haven't helped either.
I don't agree with how Governor Pataki has coldly divorced himself from Golisano but his reasoning against supporting the Rochester billionaire has not entirely been lacking substance.
All it takes is one stunt -- and this meeting with Clinton could leave the State GOP wary.