Weld for Governor

I obviously must weigh in on the announcement from Bill Weld that he will run for the Republican nomination to be Governor of New York.

Now, many a blog site on the right seems to be wailing and gnashing their teeth at the "RINO" running.  Unfortunately, many of these bloggers have never lived in a state either East of the Mississippi or North of the Mason Dixon line.  As a lifelong New Yorker (until two months ago when I moved to DC), I know better.  The bloggers want the second coming of George W. Bush to run.  Problem is that Bush got 40% of the vote in New York.  A Santorum-style conservative cannot win a statewide election in New York.  Compromises must be made to the socially liberal views of New Yorkers.  If folks want a Republican governor, they can get one.  If they want a Conservative, then the Red Staters need to start moving up to the Empire State to tip the balance.  The worst part of the criticism is that it is not constructive - it amounts to not wanting Weld and hoping the GOP can do better - but fails to even suggest a possibility that would be more to their liking.  The reason is that there is no such person - no viable politician in New York is a conservative to their liking.

That said, I am full-square behind Weld.  He has the strong support of Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani is the only person who has polled better for the Governor's mansion than Eliot Spitzer.  Campaign help from Rudy and a Giuliani endorsement would be huge boosts for Weld.  Plus Weld has the seriousness to run - he managed to run, win, and govern Massachusetts.  Can Eliot Spitzer say that?  Of course not.

Finally, and the biggest reason I am for Weld - we have nobody else on the bench.  The other names I have heard are very lackluster.  Randy Daniels, the current Secretary of State (an appointed office in New York), is a virtual unknown, and is himself a converted Democrat.  Tom Golisano spurned the Republicans three times to run for Governor as an independent - and he never gained any real traction - a loser if I ever saw one.  Joe Bruno is a mess and shouldn't even still be thinking about it - he carries with him the burden of being responsible for scuttling the West Side Stadium in NYC (and any shot at the Olympics with it) and for the total dysfunction that has characterized the state government.

In the end, 2006, for New York Republicans is probably not about winning another term in the Governor's mansion, or defeating Hillary, we likely will lose both.  What 2006 is about is keeping our Senate and Assembly candidates from getting swamped by coattails from big wins by Spitzer and Clinton.  Pirro is a good choice in the Senate race.  We need to make a similar one at the top of the ticket.  The Senate majority stands at 35-27 - and the GOP manages to hold a number of suburban districts that have trended Democrat in presidential, US Senate and congressional elections.  A sweeping Democrat victory could be the difference in some of those districts and could cost us the chamber.  Coupled with an already overwhelmingly Democrat Assembly and a Democrat governor and the state will surely go to hell right quick.

So all the naysayers on the right should probably just quiet down and support Weld as a pretty good shot at holding this seat.

Comments

[Federalist Phoenix]

Someone had a comment here - but it simply called me a war criminal for supporting Weld (because Rudy supports him and Rudy "murdered" Diallo - convoluted logic indeed) and Pirro. Name-calling provides nothing to the issues debate, so the comment was deleted.

And to the commenter - who mentioned Pirro's mafia money (the only info that was at all relevant to a debate): Given that Hillary was at least complicit, if not the leader of the effort to sell Presidential pardons and misuse the White House Travel Office, I think we can save the "your guy's dirty" argument in that race.

Besides - the comment is about Weld and the downticket races - I'm not endorsing Pirro (though I'd prefer her to Hillary).