it is no surprise that the same people who blindly worship Obama and voted for him to prove how “tolerant” they are are beating a similar drum over the Ground Zero mosque. And it’s sadly predictable how they can’t make any legitimate argument in support of the mosque — they have to resort to calling Republicans racists and hatemongers. It is interesting how the same people who manage to find the right to an abortion in the text of the Constitution have also created an new interpretation for freedom of religion.

Restrictions on what can be built and where is nothing new. In fact, in many situations the public actually has alot of power when it comes to allowing and preventing construction in their neighborhoods. Would you tolerate a strip club in your neighborhood? A cigarette advertisement next to the school your children attend? An adult video store on your street? I can’t imagine most would, especially parents. But would Cuomo, or any of the left-wing bloggers crying foul over opposition to the mosque say that zoning laws are anti-free speech? Would they have no problem with the Westboro Baptist Church setting up a congregation at Ground Zero, or next a gay night club? They have freedom of speech and religion too, don’t they?

And let’s not pretend that these left wingers can’t see the legitimate controversy here. Sure, the local left-wing bloggers may say “See, Republicans hate Muslims!” but that’s just a cop out argument, and they know it.

They see this as another opportunity to attack Republicans at the expense of commonsense. Was 9/11 so long ago they forgot that not only was it attack on our country, but it was an attack in the name of Islam? Do they forget that, conveniently ignore it, or does the irony arouse them? Perhaps in their heads it’s poetic justice? Perhaps they don’t care that such a mosque will be a magnet for anti-American Islamic extremists to congregate at the site of what they see as a huge triumph for their cause?

Commonsense needs to prevail here. Freedom is not independent of responsibility.

So many of the Empire State’s leaders show up in stories on ethical violations that the articles double as a prize selection guide.  But there are other worthy entrants for varying reasons.  Here’s a more comprehensive listing for the most prestigious award I’ve ever invented with each candidate’s attributes:

The Fake-Teeth Recycling Opponent: I’d like to go on record being anti-having-to-wear-your-dead-sister’s-dentures.  But I’m still not voting for Louise Slaughter.  Using tales of woe as manipulation is a common bleeding-heart tactic, as it’s easier to trot out an alleged victim than lay out a reasonable case.  But the Rochester import’s disgraceful attempt to sell Democraticare by exploiting a poor elderly woman at the D.C. Kabuki Theater went beyond parody.

The good news is that such brazenly cloying tactics reek of desperation: when government health proponents realize they can’t win on economic, quality, or liberty-based appeals, they trot out sob stories of vile Republicans forcing victimized citizens to degrade themselves.  If Slaughter cares so much about the lady in question that she had to shamelessly use the story in a pathetic attempt to win support, she should dip into her personal fortune, offer an example of private charity, and buy a set of dentures for the lady.  Then the congresswoman can go back to being one of the House’s biggest extremists, especially as a proponent of incessant abortions.

King Charles of Upper Manhattan: Rod Blagojevich has nicer hair, barely.  But he and Charles Rangel are still mutual corruption role models in style terms.  It’s not bad enough that Rangel is a bully who thinks taking care of his district means throwing federal money at it: simply, he also stinks horridly, especially as evidence one-party rule’s byproduct.  The only issue with his so-called temporary leave from the Ways and Means Committee is what took so long.

But his career arc could get much more amusing.  Thankfully, in Scott Brown’s America and with Rangel’s unbearably scummy behavior in mind, there’s also a possibility he might lose more than his chairmanship and be banished to the private sector. He’d have to learn to act utterly corruptly on a private employer’s time, although he’d presumably continue to cheat on his taxes.

Congressman One-and-Done: Did Eric Massa really do what they say he did?  Ew. One-term wonder Massa is the congressional equivalent of Kajagoogoo.  At least we didn’t have to cope with him for long.

Chuck Nasty: The only thing worse than Charles Schumer’s policies may be his personality.  Whether he’s calling his now-coworker something classy or dismissing a peasant with oh so courteous language, the utterly arrogant senator personally embodies his government-knows-best policies.  There’s no better way to punish him than to get him out of the Senate.  For notorious attention junkie Schumer, the only thing worse than losing power would be losing appearances in front of cameras.  Please, Larry, please. . .

The gubernatorial incumbent for now: Is he gone?  Do a Yahoo! news search for “David Paterson,” and reload every few minutes to see if he remains in charge.  The fact he’s a Yankees fan is bad enough for some people, but free tickets for a baseball game are a trifling benefit compared to the governor’s other troubles.  For one, maybe he should have spent less time having state workers making ominous phone calls to his aide’s alleged domestic abuse victim and more time running the state.

What’s really sad is that he could have governed in a novel style by resisting fiscal perfidy and/or ruin.  Every now and then he has seemingly advocated halting the insane spending levels that plague the state.  Of course, he already demonstrated how limp he was as a leader before he started acting shiftily.  That’s not to mention his fetish-level desire to tax soda pop.  Maybe it was for the best that he got scandalous: it has distracted him from conjuring new, frightening ideas for messing with our lives.

The last governor who resigned: The only thing that makes a sanctimonious lecture worse is when it emanates from a steaming pile of human hypocrisy.  Eliot Spitzer is a repulsive troll who coincidentally also wants the government meddling in every aspect of commerce possible. Getting hassled and burdened by officious twerps who think they can run industries and lives efficiently is a tedious folly, especially as the onerous view gets exposed as counterproductive nonsense every day in both this nation and state.

The White House and its congressional allies constantly prove why heavy manners don’t work when it comes to giving the government limitless jurisdiction.  Namely, the economy ends up sucking, and every entrepreneur is afraid to start new businesses, hire new people, or earn too much.  Spitzer will hopefully be relegated to moaning in theory and never again get to sanctimoniously browbeat free enterprise in actuality.  Someone please distract this man with a hooker.

Mario Cuomo’s kid: Set aside the ethical questions of investigating the aforementioned man he’s presumably out to replace. The real trouble is that Andrew will pursue the identical policies as his father.  If the present ruinous taxes and regulations aren’t enough, then please vote for the man whose dad’s reign epitomized everything noxious about trying to get by in New York.

Tracy Flick: Almost as equally well-known by her given name, Kirsten Gillibrand has been largely indistinct at job she was handed.  That’s true except for her strange willingness to stick with ACORN. That move offered proof that she’s the most obvious redundancy, namely a boringly liberal New York politician.  As with Paterson, Gillibrand wasn’t elected to her current seat; based on her similarly unmemorable stint, she hopefully will also never win her current office.  Compared to such an utter mediocrity, even the lukewarm George Pataki looks worthwhile to New Yorkers.

What’s-his-name from around South Buffalo: I checked- his name is Brian Higgins, and he in fact holds a federal office.  The most generic Democrat possible is notable for nothing notable.  Worst, if he’s going to be just another blandly meddling liberal, he could at least figure out how to knock down the damn Skyway.  Yes, it would involve federal spending, but only so the government can rectify the headaches caused by their obsolete monstrosity.  Higgins can’t even waste money correctly.

It’s considerably tough choosing the lot’s standout.  The contest for top New York Democrat is like picking the best beer or Ramones song: every time you think you’ve picked a definitive favorite, another worthy candidate pops into mind.  The politicians in question repulse with what they support, how they frame it, and in some cases through the way they act the rest of the time.

It’s up to voters to reduce the field for next year’s Democraties by casting out the leftists, scoundrels, and leftist scoundrels.  Meanwhile, I’m going to apply for a government grant to create a trophy.  We’ll naturally model the statuette on Hillary Clinton.

As several commenters have noted, Brown’s once-unimaginable triumph suggests the GOP could wage competitive races this November in fellow sapphire state New York.  Not only could Republicans pull off notable surprises and win senatorial, gubernatorial, or House races: a conservative could, too, in a place where the terms aren’t necessarily synonyms.

Notably, Brown’s party affiliation doesn’t have to be followed by the phrase “in name only.”  The Massachusetts Miracle perpetrator might not be a Jim DeMint clone, but he’s more to the right than, say, John McCain despite his supportive robocall on the Arizonan’s behalf. While he’s occasionally wavered from the right, most notably on Mitt Romney’s state health plan and abortion, he still didn’t run as a Scozzafava-style Republican.

In addition to offering the deciding health care vote, Brown established that he’s a prototypical conservative on security while being big on smaller government. If Brown, who’s ultimately replacing Ted Kennedy, working alongside John Kerry, and driving to Washington in his pickup truck with Barney Frank riding shotgun (possibly in theory), can win, a similar candidate could pull off the same feat in New York without divine intervention.

Unfortunately, residents of the state where Rockefeller Republicans were born may not get that choice.  If the past offers any indication, conservatives could instead end up supporting by default a Patakiesque candidate in many races or, even worse, George Pataki. In New York, the Republican is frustratingly often the one who wants government to grow at a slightly more sluggish pace above inflation than the opponent.

Even someone like Pataki himself, who ended his governorship more identifiable with Albany than his party, would make conservatives happy in some regards.  Any GOP senator would likely oppose Democraticare while supporting judges with restrained tendencies.  But those on the right would obviously prefer casting votes for a Republican they agree with more than intermittently.

Conservative Republican officeholders have been as rare in the Empire State as a sales tax decrease.  But those of a center-right/sympathetic independent mindset should make it known what kind of Republicans they want to support.  Any Tea Party sympathizer who has ever had the urge to represent his or her fellow New Yorkers on either the state or federal level should elbow into the arena posthaste.   Brown has proved that victory is possible anywhere if one offers a genuine alternative to the progressive syllabus.

Martha Coakley may have been a bad candidate.  But even a slick campaigner would have trouble overcoming being aligned with Obama: as a result of seeing his policies on the table or in action, many are cheering for the exact opposite course.

That’s true even in states the president won with ease.  In other words, New York could be the next Massachusetts, which was itself the next New Jersey. Conservatives running at any level could run strong here even without having Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Cuomo, or your local Democratic congresspersonsurmise that Jim Kelly is a Patriots fan.

For example, Louise Slaughter has been the bane of Western New York’s conservatives ever since contrived redistricting bumped her into the area.  But Slaughter’s adversaries can finally agree with her, kind of, for the first time since the invention of her earmuff-shaped domain.

The Weekly Standard has drawn attention to a story in The Hill which highlights a most unlikely alliance between children and the Trix Rabbit.  Specifically, conservatives and Slaughter equally hate the Senate’s attempt at remaking health care, even if for diametrically constrasting reasons:

Slaughter argued that while the House bill is far from perfect, the Senate bill’s exclusion of a public option, along with abortion funding restrictions and other measures, make the bill undeserving of a vote.

Foes may want either more or less governmental participation in health care.  But they at least agree that the upper chamber would set involvement at the wrong level.  As for a centralized power enthusiast, Slaughter writes in a linked CNN.com editorial that the present attempt to commandeer one-sixth of the economy won’t make anyone happy:

But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?

She wants the right thing for the wrong reason.  Naturally, she thinks ceding more control to Washington will aid competition, somehow:

I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform.

 

By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn’t worthy of its support.

In summary, she maintains that an entity with unlimited funding that doesn’t have to worry about profitability, efficiency, or service would bring down prices and enhance the market.  Perhaps the feds should first demonstrate the ability to create and/or save jobs.

Big business’ foes curiously think big, big government will alleviate everything.  But who cares why she hates the bill that snuck through Congress’ other side during shifty late night and holiday sessions?  Sabres and Leafs fans can hate both each other’s teams and Ottawa.

In this case, there’s eclectically widespread contempt aimed at different Senators.  A semi-prominent liberal has gained some odd, extremely provisionary allies in conservatives, libertarians, and tea partiers who all despise the bill as much as she does.

The dissenting coalition’s formation resembles voting-based reality show strategizing.  In short, competitors are temporarily uniting to knock off a formidable yet undesirable fellow player.  The uneasy coalition can worry about taking out each other at a later time.  For now, the right and a prominent member of the left can unite in one common belief: the odiously devious Senate bill sucks, and opponents must gang up on it to ensure it’s sent packing.

Representative Nydia M. Velázquez, whose district spans parts of Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens; who is the first Puerto Rican woman to serve in the House of Representatives, according to sources, is the front runner should Clinton get Secretary of State.

Our sources in the know say: Velázquez is qualified; she will be the trump card to get the “gang of four”, three at this point, to go along with Malcolm Smith as Majority Leader. The only question mark would be Senator Ruben Diaz whose dissent is predicated on moral issues, e.g. his opposition to Gay marriage & abortion. Good for him! ###

I still remain highly skeptical that Hillary will accept the job if it is actually offered.

UPDATE: The Politico reports that, contrary to the Guardian‘s earlier claim, Hillary not only has not yot been offered the job of secretary of state, but is not even sure she would accept the post if it were offered.

Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t certain she would accept the Secretary of State post even if Barack Obama offers it to her, several people close to the former first lady say.

Press reports that portray Clinton as willing to accept the job – once the Obama transition team vets Bill Clinton’s philanthropic and business ventures – are inaccurate, one Clinton insider told Politico.

“A lot of the speculation and reporting is out ahead of the facts here,” said the person, who requested anonymity. “She is still weighing this, independent of President Clinton’s work.”

This really strengthens by belief that she won’t take it. If that happens, I can’t help wonder who leaked the false claim to the Guardian, and what was their motive. It could have been started by someone in the Clinton inner circle with tho intention of arousing displeasure amongst former Clinton supporters, or it could have been someone in Obama’s circle, leaking the false story to a foreign media outlet as a trial balloon and assess public reaction at home and abroad.

According to this interview from July 2007 about his running for Congress, Jon Powers said he hasn’t always been a Democrat.

Q: Have you always been a Democrat?

A: No. I grew up Republican. I switched when I got back from Iraq because I came home and I looked at who was in charge of this country. At the time, there was one party in charge. It was the party I grew up with but it was not the party I grew up believing in.

I’ve never been political growing up, my parents aren’t political. … I went to war for America. I didn’t go to war for a specific party.

Is this Jon Powers‘ way of trying to appeal to independents and moderates? I don’t know. But, with congressional approval at historic lows, Powers would certainly find it beneficial to not appear as if he’s a typical far left Democrat, especially since NY-26 is a more conservative district. Powers certainly has tried to paint himself as more moderate than the party that has chosen to embrace him today. In an article from the Buffalo News last year (‘Powers gets a early start’, July 1, 2007), Powers described himself as fiscally conservative and socially progressive, but avoided giving any position on abortion:

But so far he labels himself primarily as “fiscally conservative and socially progressive” — ducking answers on hotbed issues like abortion.

“I’m an Irish Catholic and that’s something I struggle with,” he said. “Soon I’ll be in a position to make a decision on it.”

Jon Powers only recently decided to come out in favor of abortion, (Buffalo News, ‘Powers clarifies stance on abortion, gay rights,’ March 27, 2008):

Democratic congressional candidate Jon Powers says he is pro- choice.

Always has been, the Iraq War veteran said Wednesday.

Powers clarified his stance on abortion rights — he supports them; and same sex marriages — he opposes a constitutional ban against them — in light of new allegations from a womens’ rights group.

“I’m pro-choice,” said the Clarence Democrat. “The only reason I didn’t say so before is because I didn’t want my grandmother to read about it first in the paper.”

But, that explanation doesn’t exactly hold water. Powers only decided to go public with his newfound pro-abortion position after being criticized a couple months ago by the Rochester chapter of the liberal women’s group, NOW.

Jon Powers, an Iraq war veteran from Clarence, Erie County, and a Democratic candidate in the 26th District, was accused of not being committed to the pro-choice cause and being opposed to same-sex marriage, based on an honor bestowed on him by a Catholic organization.

In 2003, while Powers was serving in Iraq, he received a “Man of the Year” award from the Ancient Order of Hibernians.

Efforts to reach the group were unsuccessful, but a letter from the New York state president of the organization, on its Web site, notes that no one who holds views that contradict the Catholic faith can be publicly honored by the order. The Roman Catholic Church does not condone abortion or same-sex marriage.

Powers’ honor by the Hibernians is “a serious problem” for the candidate, said Linda Stephens, political action committee chairwoman for Rochester NOW, a chapter of the National Organization for Women.

But, it’s not just the issue of abortion that weakens his claims of being a moderate Democrat. If you check out website for his positions on various issues, you’ll find mostly vague or politically neutral positions on various issues, but, mixed in there are surefire examples of DNC talkings points that contradict Powers’ claim to be a fiscal conservative, such as ending trade deals with other countries, ending so-called “tax cuts for the rich,” and expanding S-CHIP.

The lack of clarity surround his positions on the issues isn’t too surprising… Powers has largely defined his candidacy around his status as an Iraq war veteran and his views about Iraq — and even his position on Iraq isn’t very clear.

Now that Powers has received endorsements from local Democrat committees and other liberal groups and individual, it is certainly time for him to be more specific about his positions on various fiscal and social issues. As he becomes more beholden to the Democratic Party, I’m sure any last trace of fiscal conservatism has been obliterated… but we’ll never know unless someone asks him these important questions.

Based on what we’ve seen so far, Jon Powers has either flip-flopped on both fiscal and social issues in order to obtain important endorsements in his congressional campaign, or he’s truly become a fiscal and social liberal who can’t possibly represent NY-26.