Patterson Picks NY Senate Appointee

[/dev/null]

You can't "Palin-ize" someone unless they are shallow, unable to answer simple questions and see the world through narrow eyes.

 

Or her name is Kennedy

[Max Fischer]

Her name didn't make her unqualified it was her actions. Not ready for primetime, like someone in AK.

[Kelly the Dog]

Her name didn't make her unqualified it was her actions. Not ready for primetime, like someone in AK.

Very true, on all accounts. But her name and not her actions made her apparently 'qualified', when she wasn't.

[Wacka]

You can't "Palin-ize" someone unless they are shallow, unable to answer simple questions and see the world through narrow eyes.

 

Sounds just like the Messiah

[Albany,n.y.]

Dont be so quick to have a knee-jerk reaction to your black and white worldview. You can't "Palin-ize" someone unless they are shallow, unable to answer simple questions and see the world through narrow eyes. The "elite media" is in your head and I bet KG has 70% approval ratings by April. Step away from the blogisphere. No matter what you think the Dem party is much more open to anti-gay, pro NRA views than you'll ever believe.

[BillsNYC]

Dont be so quick to have a knee-jerk reaction to your black and white worldview. You can't "Palin-ize" someone unless they are shallow, unable to answer simple questions and see the world through narrow eyes. The "elite media" is in your head and I bet KG has 70% approval ratings by April. Step away from the blogisphere. No matter what you think the Dem party is much more open to anti-gay, pro NRA views than you'll ever believe.

 

To be clear, I like Gillibrand as she's a centrist which is what I am.

 

It's not a "black and white worldview".....It's called having lived in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn for over 11 years and still living here. The "drive by and elite media" does exist, especially here in NYC with the NY Post and Daily News. They destroy people, and when they're wrong they simply move on. I've been reading the papers for over 10 years, they just want a story. I have seen first hand them destroy people I know personally by distorting the truth to sell papers. I actually had to stop reading them at one point because I realized how distorting they were and were trying to tell people how to think. The Post and News are written at a grade school level for a reason, its so they can manipulate the under educated folks. If they don't like somebody, NYC won't like somebody and they'll make sure of it. Look at what has happened to Caroline Kennedy this week.

 

I also know for a fact that many New Yorkers look down on the rest of the state having lived here for 11 years. Anybody not from the 5 boroughs, LI, or Westchester is hick and an idiot. It's evident in when New Yorkers refer to anybody not from this area as an "Upstater"...its not a warm term as I have learned first hand living here.

 

In terms of the elite...they exist, I worked for some of them and saw the inner circles. Spend any time on the Upper West Side, Park Slope, the Village, SoHo and you'll understand. I remember when Mark Thomas from outside of Buffalo was running for Congress and he had a fundraiser in NYC. Carl McCall and about 5 others showed up, and that was it. Nobody cared to support an upstater.

 

Jury is still out on her, but to say she's a shoe-in for 2010 is premature. Anything can happen. The NYC Papers can attack her, or a candidate that more appeals to NYC could run against her with more liberal views...and the liberal view is hot right now.

 

I hope she succeeds.

 

PS....I don't read many blogs.

[Max Fischer]

To be clear, I like Gillibrand as she's a centrist which is what I am.

 

It's not a "black and white worldview".....It's called having lived in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn for over 11 years and still living here. The "drive by and elite media" does exist, especially here in NYC with the NY Post and Daily News. They destroy people, and when they're wrong they simply move on. I've been reading the papers for over 10 years, they just want a story. I have seen first hand them destroy people I know personally by distorting the truth to sell papers. I actually had to stop reading them at one point because I realized how distorting they were and were trying to tell people how to think. The Post and News are written at a grade school level for a reason, its so they can manipulate the under educated folks. If they don't like somebody, NYC won't like somebody and they'll make sure of it. Look at what has happened to Caroline Kennedy this week.

 

I also know for a fact that many New Yorkers look down on the rest of the state having lived here for 11 years. Anybody not from the 5 boroughs, LI, or Westchester is hick and an idiot. It's evident in when New Yorkers refer to anybody not from this area as an "Upstater"...its not a warm term as I have learned first hand living here.

 

In terms of the elite...they exist, I worked for some of them and saw the inner circles. Spend any time on the Upper West Side, Park Slope, the Village, SoHo and you'll understand. I remember when Mark Thomas from outside of Buffalo was running for Congress and he had a fundraiser in NYC. Carl McCall and about 5 others showed up, and that was it. Nobody cared to support an upstater.

 

Jury is still out on her, but to say she's a shoe-in for 2010 is premature. Anything can happen. The NYC Papers can attack her, or a candidate that more appeals to NYC could run against her with more liberal views...and the liberal view is hot right now.

 

I hope she succeeds.

 

PS....I don't read many blogs.

 

I grew up in Westchester and have lived around the country; believe me it's pretty much the same everywhere. Maybe different degrees of scrutiny, different sets of standards but in the end it all evens out.

 

Yes, the NY media (esp. rags like Post and NYDN) are brutal, they infect any open wound and can make something out of very little - but that's why you have to know your audience and learn how to deal with it. Caroline (though I have some respect for her) was not ready and likely would never be ready for that job. She simply doesn't have the personality to handle the job in NY.

 

Fact is, the NYC area is hard on EVERYONE, regardless of party, ideology and personal preference. They respect those who can handle themselves. For decades, those with nearly identical viewpoints have been tearing each other apart - it's just how it is. The media goes after everyone eventually, no matter who they are, but they want to see how you step up to the challenge. I'm convinced someone from beyond the NYC area can succeed statewide, the problem isn't political ideology it's familiarity, the time it takes to go through the ringer, which can take years of work (and/or a sudden opportunity like KG's). It has little to do with anti-gay views or the NRA, most people in the NYC just don't care that much, they are much more curious on HOW they will handle the spotlight. See: Brett Farve, Eli Manning.

 

KG will NOT be test because of her views but how she presents herself. If she's tough, straightforward, doesn't back down and demonstrates she can stand with the "big boys" people in NYC area will respect her. She WILL get questions because if it wasn't gays or guns it WOULD be something else. Hell, Caroline WAS one of the them and they killed her because she couldn't handle the game. If she could she'd be on her way to DC today. (See: Hillary Clinton; David Dinkins, Rudy Guliani; D'Amato; Pataki; Robert Kennedy)

[BillsNYC]

I grew up in Westchester and have lived around the country; believe me it's pretty much the same everywhere. Maybe different degrees of scrutiny, different sets of standards but in the end it all evens out.

 

Yes, the NY media (esp. rags like Post and NYDN) are brutal, they infect any open wound and can make something out of very little - but that's why you have to know your audience and learn how to deal with it. Caroline (though I have some respect for her) was not ready and likely would never be ready for that job. She simply doesn't have the personality to handle the job in NY.

 

Fact is, the NYC area is hard on EVERYONE, regardless of party, ideology and personal preference. They respect those who can handle themselves. For decades, those with nearly identical viewpoints have been tearing each other apart - it's just how it is. The media goes after everyone eventually, no matter who they are, but they want to see how you step up to the challenge. I'm convinced someone from beyond the NYC area can succeed statewide, the problem isn't political ideology it's familiarity, the time it takes to go through the ringer, which can take years of work (and/or a sudden opportunity like KG's). It has little to do with anti-gay views or the NRA, most people in the NYC just don't care that much, they are much more curious on HOW they will handle the spotlight. See: Brett Farve, Eli Manning.

 

KG will NOT be test because of her views but how she presents herself. If she's tough, straightforward, doesn't back down and demonstrates she can stand with the "big boys" people in NYC area will respect her. She WILL get questions because if it wasn't gays or guns it WOULD be something else. Hell, Caroline WAS one of the them and they killed her because she couldn't handle the game. If she could she'd be on her way to DC today. (See: Hillary Clinton; David Dinkins, Rudy Guliani; D'Amato; Pataki; Robert Kennedy)

 

Very good points, I agree. Either way, she's going to get killed by the media, and how she responds will dictate 2010.

[Albany,n.y.]

Here's what I'm seeing. The NYC area politicians & their media feel like they've been slighted. Just like Hillary Clinton had this feeling of entitlement before Obama beat her for the nomination, the NYC pols have the same attitude of entitlement. They couldn't imagine that the Governor would dare pick anyone from outside their area & they are PO'd because now someone with a more global view of New York State, instead of their own myopic view will be representing New York in the senate.

This is what I've seen from Gillibrand-she's proven that she can get both votes & contributions to fight anyone who is competition for her job. When she first ran, everyone thought she had no chance in a big Republican majority district. She got lucky because her opponent was caught in a bad marriage which included allegations of spousal abuse. Then she went to work-she went out of her way to make sure she was extremely accessible to her constituants. This made her very popular, along with her record of voting on what she believes is right, not what her party wants her to do. When she didn't see enough accountability in the bailout, she voted against it.

The NYC pols are attacking her on her gun stance. They should realize that before he left the seat due to health & age, the late Congressman Solomon who was entrenched in that seat, was a staunch gun rights advocate, even going as far as to defend his vote to keep assault weapons legal so that his wife could feel safe while he was in Washington. No anti-gun politician would ever have been elected in that district & only a stupid one would have even tried to run there. This is a conservative, gun rights electorate in that district & it's time the downstaters realized that guns upstate are a totally different issue than guns on the streets of NYC.

I think Gillibrand will do very well in the Senate. She's smart, agressive, really listens to her constituants, and isn't a rubber stamp for the NYC Democrats.

The other thing I can't stand is the media's attacking Patterson for waiting so long to select Clinton's replacement. WTF was he suuposed to do? He couldn't name a replacement until Hillary Clinton was confirmed in Washington. If he did & then Hillary had to withdraw (like Richardson), then you have a replacement for someone who isn't leaving-no politician in his right mind would have chosen a replacement for someone before the confirmation process was completed.

Here's what I think-The media was so embarrassed by their own incompetence by not being able to correctly predict who Patterson would choose, they've taken it out on Gillibrand & Patterson. I've heard both right & left wing media (includes newspapers, radio & tv) tell us for weeks it would be Kennedy or Cuomo and when it turned out to be Gillibrand, they were exposed, big time. If Patterson had picked the person they were predicting, they would have looked like they knew something. Instead they were shown to be the know-nothings that they are.

[BillsNYC]

Here's what I'm seeing. The NYC area politicians & their media feel like they've been slighted. Just like Hillary Clinton had this feeling of entitlement before Obama beat her for the nomination, the NYC pols have the same attitude of entitlement. They couldn't imagine that the Governor would dare pick anyone from outside their area & they are PO'd because now someone with a more global view of New York State, instead of their own myopic view will be representing New York in the senate.

This is what I've seen from Gillibrand-she's proven that she can get both votes & contributions to fight anyone who is competition for her job. When she first ran, everyone thought she had no chance in a big Republican majority district. She got lucky because her opponent was caught in a bad marriage which included allegations of spousal abuse. Then she went to work-she went out of her way to make sure she was extremely accessible to her constituants. This made her very popular, along with her record of voting on what she believes is right, not what her party wants her to do. When she didn't see enough accountability in the bailout, she voted against it.

The NYC pols are attacking her on her gun stance. They should realize that before he left the seat due to health & age, the late Congressman Solomon who was entrenched in that seat, was a staunch gun rights advocate, even going as far as to defend his vote to keep assault weapons legal so that his wife could feel safe while he was in Washington. No anti-gun politician would ever have been elected in that district & only a stupid one would have even tried to run there. This is a conservative, gun rights electorate in that district & it's time the downstaters realized that guns upstate are a totally different issue than guns on the streets of NYC.

I think Gillibrand will do very well in the Senate. She's smart, agressive, really listens to her constituants, and isn't a rubber stamp for the NYC Democrats.

The other thing I can't stand is the media's attacking Patterson for waiting so long to select Clinton's replacement. WTF was he suuposed to do? He couldn't name a replacement until Hillary Clinton was confirmed in Washington. If he did & then Hillary had to withdraw (like Richardson), then you have a replacement for someone who isn't leaving-no politician in his right mind would have chosen a replacement for someone before the confirmation process was completed.

Here's what I think-The media was so embarrassed by their own incompetence by not being able to correctly predict who Patterson would choose, they've taken it out on Gillibrand & Patterson. I've heard both right & left wing media (includes newspapers, radio & tv) tell us for weeks it would be Kennedy or Cuomo and when it turned out to be Gillibrand, they were exposed, big time. If Patterson had picked the person they were predicting, they would have looked like they knew something. Instead they were shown to be the know-nothings that they are.

 

100% agree. That's why I said right away that they were going to Palanize her, not as much to do with what she stands for (which is what they are trying to make it look like) but because they were wrong for weeks. The media was infuriated that McCain staffers told them it was going to be Romney or Pawlenty and he turned around and selected Palin, which is the original reason they went after her. I don't really get what the Patterson beef is, the guy selected somebody, and never said it would be Kennedy, only the media said that.

 

You hit the nail on the head. All the negative coverage has nothing to do with Patterson/Gillibrand, the media is just getting payback for being wrong.

[Max Fischer]

100% agree. That's why I said right away that they were going to Palanize her, not as much to do with what she stands for (which is what they are trying to make it look like) but because they were wrong for weeks. The media was infuriated that McCain staffers told them it was going to be Romney or Pawlenty and he turned around and selected Palin, which is the original reason they went after her. I don't really get what the Patterson beef is, the guy selected somebody, and never said it would be Kennedy, only the media said that.

 

You hit the nail on the head. All the negative coverage has nothing to do with Patterson/Gillibrand, the media is just getting payback for being wrong.

 

That's why first impressions mean so much in politics; and why the second look is even more important. You CAN fool people the first time around but the second time is much, much more difficult. If you get through the second then things become infinitely easier. If not, you're poorly branded and either you're politically dead or it takes a lot of time to make a comeback. (see Nixon for comeback and HRC for making through tough second look for Senate).

 

Palin passed the first test with flying colors but couldn't handle the second look -- and neither could Caroline. Many will continue to argue that Palin got pounded because she's an attractive conservative woman. Not so. If she did a good job of looking competent she would have been respected. Problem was: she failed the third, fourth and fifth tests as well. If she nailed any of them there would have been pressure to back off. Instead, she was branded as a lightweight and was unable to shake it off - or just as important, didn't have time to rebrand herself.

 

I doubt Kay Baily Hutchinson or Margaret Thatcher would've had a problem passing these tests.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

That's why first impressions mean so much in politics; and why the second look is even more important. You CAN fool people the first time around but the second time is much, much more difficult. If you get through the second then things become infinitely easier. If not, you're poorly branded and either you're politically dead or it takes a lot of time to make a comeback. (see Nixon for comeback and HRC for making through tough second look for Senate).

 

Palin passed the first test with flying colors but couldn't handle the second look -- and neither could Caroline. Many will continue to argue that Palin got pounded because she's an attractive conservative woman. Not so. If she did a good job of looking competent she would have been respected. Problem was: she failed the third, fourth and fifth tests as well. If she nailed any of them there would have been pressure to back off. Instead, she was branded as a lightweight and was unable to shake it off - or just as important, didn't have time to rebrand herself.

 

I doubt Kay Baily Hutchinson or Margaret Thatcher would've had a problem passing these tests.

 

 

Palin failed in two interviews where she was sabotaged by the socialist-minded media and her own unworthy campaign officials. True, her knowledge is narrow in scope (but what she does know, she knows very well) but her determination proved her worthy enough when she beat Biden in the debate. Over the next four years, I expect her, through osmosis and her unfettering motivation to succeed, gain the necessary knowledge to be the force the dems are fearful of--a true conservative woman.

[Dan]

Palin failed in two interviews where she was sabotaged by the socialist-minded media and her own unworthy campaign officials. True, her knowledge is narrow in scope (but what she does know, she knows very well) but her determination proved her worthy enough when she beat Biden in the debate. Over the next four years, I expect her, through osmosis and her unfettering motivation to succeed, gain the necessary knowledge to be the force the dems are fearful of--a true conservative woman.

Seriously, do you actually think all that or are you just trying to get a rise?

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

Seriously, do you actually think all that or are you just trying to get a rise?

 

 

Yes I do.

 

Do you really believe the media is not drawn to a left socialist stand or are you trying to get a rise out of me?

Refrain from insults--I do not intend to go there.

[Dan]

Yes I do.

 

Do you really believe the media is not drawn to a left socialist stand or are you trying to get a rise out of me?

Refrain from insults--I do not intend to go there.

I'm fairly certain I've never directly insulted anyone on this board. Typically, I find it counterproductive. And no, I'm not trying to get a rise. I was just curious if you really thought the media "sabotaged" her or that she could osmotically become a the fear of democrats.

[RI Bills Fan]

Do you really believe the media is not drawn to a left socialist stand...

 

That depends on whether or not your definition of the "Media" includes Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Post, Sean Hannity, Worldnet Daily, Clear Channel Radio, etc...

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

I'm fairly certain I've never directly insulted anyone on this board. Typically, I find it counterproductive. And no, I'm not trying to get a rise. I was just curious if you really thought the media "sabotaged" her or that she could osmotically become a the fear of democrats.

 

 

No, what I meant was, from a strategical standpoint, she is a potential threat to the dems because she is a Barry Goldwater kind of conservative that appeals to the 'real' conservative base--something the republicans haven't had. By osmosis, I meant she will learn over time to gain more knowledge and the cultural worldliness she so desperately lacks now...Alaska being where it is located is in a cocoon of sorts. This can only help to legitimize her candidacy. Yes, the media went after her, and she didn't help herself --she clearly was not "press" ready. But she is a determined over-achiever with a resume of achievements. The elitist media certainly did a number on her. I think it was class thing (being a moose hunter and such). That's my take.

[JPDontletthedoorhityourars]

That depends on whether or not your definition of the "Media" includes Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Post, Sean Hannity, Worldnet Daily, Clear Channel Radio, etc...

 

 

I can triple and quadruple the amount of liberal biased media outlets over the conservative right. C'mon. I will list if you want me to...it might take me two hours just from memory.

 

The right dominates radio and that is it. All the TV/print and internet is far to the left.

[RI Bills Fan]

I can triple and quadruple the amount of liberal biased media outlets over the conservative right. C'mon. I will list if you want me to...it might take me two hours just from memory.

 

The right dominates radio and that is it. All the TV/print and internet is far to the left.

 

You would be correct if you made the statement that more of the TV/Print Media slants to the left than to the right but it isn't as one sided as you are trying to portray it to be.

 

The problem with your assessment of the media's treatment of Sara Palin is the fact that she was savaged just as badly by the right leaning media as she was by the left leaning media. There was nothing elitist about the treatment she received. She wasn't ready for the grand stage and it showed.

 

Four or eight years from now, who knows?

 

But blaming the "media" for her performance in this election campaign is just ignoring the obvious fact that she was a horrible choice, not because of her ideology, but because of her inexperience and ineptitude on the national stage.

[Dan]

No, what I meant was, from a strategical standpoint, she is a potential threat to the dems because she is a Barry Goldwater kind of conservative that appeals to the 'real' conservative base--something the republicans haven't had. By osmosis, I meant she will learn over time to gain more knowledge and the cultural worldliness she so desperately lacks now...Alaska being where it is located is in a cocoon of sorts. This can only help to legitimize her candidacy. Yes, the media went after her, and she didn't help herself --she clearly was not "press" ready. But she is a determined over-achiever with a resume of achievements. The elitist media certainly did a number on her. I think it was class thing (being a moose hunter and such). That's my take.

I don't understand this whole concept that they need someone to appeal to the real conservative base. Is that conservative base going to suddenly vote Democratic? Absolutely not. It seems to me the Republicans would want someone that can appeal to the moderates more, while reassuring the base that they'll not stray too far. I think that is ultimately what hurt McCain. Palin, although she excelled at firing up the base, she completely alienated everyone else.

 

And I don't understand how anyone can blame the media for coming down on her. She agreed to an interview with Couric and bombed. Not because Katie sabotaged her or blindsided her in any way, but because she couldn't answer with any sort of competence standard VP-candidate type questions. Biden got the same type of questions. Although you may not have liked the answers, he answered them with a certain level of competence and confidence. The media jumped on Palin because she let them by not having any sort of grasp of national issues.

 

You can easily draw a comparison to Hillary. When she first began asserting herself (with that health care deal), the media jumped all over her. However, she fought back and stood her ground. Very few liked her positions, but she answered the tough questions and showed a certain level of competence on the issues. For Palin to succeed at the national stage, that's what she's going to have to do - demonstrate a certain level of competence as opposed to just rally support on conservative base issues like gun control and abortion.

 

All this other talk about people looking down on her as a hick or anything is just obscuring the fact that she just wasn't ready to run for national office. She and McCain should have known that, but they didn't. In some respects, I think you could also draw a comparison to this recent Caroline Kennedy situation. She, too, was not ready for a Senate seat - for a variety of reasons perhaps. But, rather than try fight for the fame and glory, she had the good sense to back out. If Palin doesn't actually become knowledgeable on national issues and develop sound ideas/solutions, I would hope she'd do the same in a few years.