JustWonders wrote:
To clarify, I don't think that Pirro's forcing Hillary to admit her ambitions will cause her to win against Clinton. New Yorkers will most likely vote her in for a second Senate term, even knowing she won't be around for most of it.
I don't think it will be necessary for her to quit the Senate to run for Pres. Who knows how well this Presidential bid, if she makes one, will last? One or two primaries and she could be out of the running.
JustWonders wrote:What it [possibility of running for Pres] could do is make the race much closer than Hillary would like, considering those ambitions.
All I can say is that ever since I could read or understand newscasts on TV, I have been seeing underdogs make charges that the favorites really only want the office as a steppingstone to something higher. And on Election Night, when the analysts come on, I don't ever, ever recall any race where the steppingstone charge ever made a race close or caused an upset. There are always upsets, but because the underdog showed charisma or found an issue that connected with the voters-
never because of the steppingstone issue. I have never heard an analyst say that "Jones made traction against Smith when he accused him of using the state senator's position only as a steppingstone to the Governor's Mansion".
If Pirro actually makes this race close using the steppingstone issue as it's central theme, then it will be the first time that I have ever seen it do any candidate one bit of good.
Just Wonders wrote:Much better to run against a candidate that she could crush at the polls, but I don't think that's the case with Pirro.
Pirro could be good, Pirro could be terrible. I don't believe she has ever run for legislative office before, or perhaps not even any office. She has already stumbled in a speech in New York, (more on that later), so for right now there is no reason to rule out a Clinton landslide. But Pirro may prove to be good candidate after all.
JustWonders wrote:As far as voters choosing their candidates based on emotion, who knows? I can only speak personally and I pick according to who most closely mirrors my own political leanings and beliefs.
That is probably the way a lot of many people vote. But would you say there is NO emotional connection to the candidate you vote for on Election Day? You may come to like them because they mirror your beliefs, but don't you eventually come to like them personally?
I do.
JustWonders wrote:I support having a strong, well-funded military. I believe that my country is right to have nuclear weapons...
What politician doesn't?
JustWonders wrote: ....and the freedom to develop technology that would allow us to defend ourselves from nuclear attack.
Star Wars? Don't know how big that would play in New York State, even allowing that upstate New York is more conservative than the city.
JustWonders wrote:My vote would go to someone who is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment
Again, I don't know how big gun control is in New York State. Upstate New York is full of hunters. I do not even know where Pirro stands on it. It didn't hurt Hillary last time, anyhow.
No doubt, we'll see a picture in the news this fall with a smiling Hillary dressed in khaki, holding a rifle in one hand and a lifeless duck in the other. Something to look forward to.
JustWonders wrote:....and someone who supports Israel and their right to protect and defend themselves.
Hillary made a gaffe some years ago at a luncheon she attended in the Mideast, kissing the wife of an anti Israel Arab politico on the cheek. Much was made of it for a week or so. Actually, it was more like the New York Post made much of it for a week or so.
Aside from that, though, Hillary has positioned herself so close to Israel that I understand she is considering changing her name to Hillelry.
JustWonders wrote:I'm pro-life,
Both Pirro and Clinton are pro choice, the only difference being a nuance in late term abortions-both are for them under certain conditions.
JustWonders wrote: I believe in capitalism, free-trade and low taxes. I believe that people should earn what they get through working for it and keep what they earn. Productivity and success, in my humble opinion, should never be punished through taxes.
But people are also for balanced budgets and keeping Social Security. Which means that many people think that taxes should be as high as they need to be to prevent continual deficits leading to a higher national debt, leading to a greater percentage of your budget required to pay off the interest on the national debt, leading to less of the budget being devoted to necessay services, leading to new deficits in the budget, leading to even higher national debt, leading to the interest payment on the national debt becoming larger, leading to even less percentage of the budget being used to pay for government services, leading to an even bigger deficit in the new budget, leading to the national debt becoming even bigger.....etc etc.
JustWonders wrote:I could never vote for someone like Hillary, but I am excited that Jeannine Pirro will force her to take and explain her positions on a wide range of issues.
As Tico and the articles have pointed out, Pirro is considered possibly tough because she is on the same side of so many issues as Mrs Clinton. So on many of the tihings you have listed here, you would be no happier with Pirro than with Mrs Clinton.
JustWonders wrote:Whatever Hil says now will be noted and may come back to haunt her in her bid for president in '08.
But that would be true whichever candidate Hillary runs against. I don't understand why Pirro, who agrees with Clinton on many issues, would be effective for the role of "exposer". How can Pirro "expose" someone she agrees with on the issue? And if the issue she plans to "expose" Hillary on is the steppingstone issue, well, good luck getting mileage out of that one. Nobody has yet.
