Skip to main content

If you were running to become the junior U.S. senator from New York, where would you raise money?

Certainly, your home state (in this case, New York) comes to mind. And since New York is home to New York City, the go-to place for political fundraising dollars, you would have no problem raising funds from the large group of people willing to give the maximum amount to any candidate they like.

For Jonathan Tasini, his fundraising locale of choice isn't the state he wishes to represent, but rather Del Mar, California. That is where Tasini was last night for a fundraiser hosted by actor Richard Dreyfuss.

Jimmy Vielkind has more on the Tasini Hollywood fundraiser:

Jonathan Tasini, a labor activist who is mounting a left-flank challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will host a fund-raiser tonight in Los Angeles featuring actor Richard Dreyfuss.

Tasini told me by phone from LA that he has known Dreyfuss--the star of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Mr. Holland's Opus--for about three years. Dreyfuss is an active Democratic donor, and played Dick Cheney in the 2008 film W. Tickets start at $100 a head.

I asked Tasini how things were going, in light of a new poll which shows Kirsten Gillibrand running behind potential Republican opponents.

"I believed from the very beginning that she will not be the senator from New York," Tasini said. "It will either be that I defeat he in the primary, or she'll lose in the general election. Democrats should be very concerned about that; I will be a much stronger candidate against any Republican."

"I intend to be the nominee. I'm very confident in that," he said, noting things are "very, very different" than his Quixotic 2006 primary against Hillary Clinton.

I have always wanted Siena or Marist to include Tasini in their polling. If he thinks Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will lose in the general election and that he "will be a much stronger candidate against any Republican" then we should know just how well he fares against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki.

There are those who come here and criticize our coverage of this race and label the whole blog (The Albany Project) pro-Gillibrand even though there are only a few of us in this community who are outspoken in our support for Gillibrand. Yes, a few of us are front-pagers, but that doesn't make the whole group pro-Gillibrand. That is like the labeling that went on during the 2008 elections that tabbed Daily Kos as the blog for Obama and MyDD as the blog for Clinton. Were front-pagers on those respective blogs supportive of those respective candidates? Yes. But it wasn't an accurate label of those blogs.

The truth is that I would take primary opponents a little more seriously if they did two things:

(1) Ran on their own platform instead of trying to run against the incumbent. If you have to run on someone's weaknesses instead of your strengths, why bother running?

(2) Treated the race seriously by actively campaigning, traveling the state and by putting New Yorkers first just as you would have to do as senator.

In Tasini's case, he fails both. While he does have his own platform, that is not his primary focus. He is trying to highlight Gillibrand's weaknesses instead of his strengths. He did the same thing in 2006 with Hillary Clinton. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Tasini had a problem with being viewed as a serious candidate in 2006. The same can be said now. Instead of making trips to Hollywood for fundraisers with actors, why not take that time and effort and come to upstate New York (not Ithaca, somewhere else), the North Country or hold a fundraiser on Long Island. There is more to this state than the five boroughs and Tompkins County. Apparently, Tasini doesn't know that.

Originally posted to robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:09 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    Support our troops... not the war.

    by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:09:30 PM PDT

  •  well, MANY Senators (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    robert harding, soms, Norbrook

    if not most Dem Senators go to Hollywood for fundraising. Hard to complain about that in my opinion. Not that I'm a Tasini fan, because I'm not.

    (1) Ran on their own platform instead of trying to run against the incumbent. If you have to run on someone's weaknesses instead of your strengths, why bother running?

    This rings true for me, however.

    •  Well... (4+ / 0-)

      It is one thing for them to do it. They are, as you say, senators. They got there by campaigning in their home states and putting their state first.

      The problem Tasini has is that he isn't running any sort of aggressive campaign. Instead of going to Hollywood now, he should be touring this state. I have heard very little (if anything) of him touring this state. I know that he makes the rounds in NYC, but that's nothing. I know that he made a trip to Ithaca recently, but that's only one city out of many.

      Those who are politically informed hear Tasini's name and laugh. They remember him for being a joke of a candidate in 2006. If he approached this a little better, he wouldn't be a joke. When he talks trade issues and health care, he's a very smart activist and progressive.

      But then he says things like "[I] will be a much stronger candidate against any Republican." Based on what?

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:23:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, he was a joke of a candidate (7+ / 0-)

        for running against someone who moved to New York just to run for Senate, bringing with her the entire DLC machinery in the process.

        •  Also, I have this sneaking suspicion (7+ / 0-)

          that she brought lots of out-of-state money into her campaign as well.

          •  I think you are making the same mistake... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tberry

            Kindofblue is making. You are focusing on the fundraising part of this as if I am trying to pull a Republican stunt and criticize him for raising money in California with "Hollywood Liberals" or raising out-of-state cash. That's not the point.

            My criticism is in this context: One of Tasini's big failures in 2006 was to make himself look like a serious candidate. He decided that he was just going to attack Hillary Clinton for the Iraq War vote. He didn't campaign. I can't tell you how many people asked who Tasini was around here. If they are given the opportunity to meet someone different, they will give them a chance.

            Tasini isn't a campaigner. That has been shown already in this election. He isn't going to win with that approach. But I guess playing candidate and going to these parties is an advantage. Why not milk it?

            Support our troops... not the war.

            by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:06:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your diary's title focuses on the fundraising (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GN1927, corvo, BruceMcF

              "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

              by Pesto on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:09:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That's exactly your point; heck, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pesto, GN1927, BruceMcF

              it's your fracking title.

              •  My title... (0+ / 0-)

                Reads Jonathan "Hollywood" Tasini. There can be many interpretations of that. My intent? To show that he is focusing his attention where he shouldn't be. Instead of centering on New York and campaigning there, he is off at a fundraiser in Hollywood.

                Support our troops... not the war.

                by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:24:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Damn right there are many interpretations of ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GN1927

                  ... that.

                  Instead of forthrightly and honestly saying something in particular, you put up a title that suggests one thing and then claim that, oh no, you are intending to mean it to say something different from the first impression it gives.

                  If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

                  by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:27:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My title suggests nothing... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    tberry

                    My title is open for interpretation (if you don't read the post).

                    My post is rather long. I think you should read it. Maybe then we can have a better discussion here instead of what my title reads.

                    Support our troops... not the war.

                    by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:32:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I read your piece ... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GN1927, airmarc, JerichoJ8

                      ... I read a lot of diaries during the early primary wars by people seeing confirmation of their candidate preference in all sorts of things.

                      If you have a blog that attracts Gillibrand supporters, I guess it might be of some use in rallying the troops, but other than that, there's no logic in your argument:

                      (1) You argue Tasini should do "X" and is not doing so.
                      (2) You state that Tasini is doing "Y"
                      (3) There is no contradiction between doing "X" and doing "Y"
                      (4) Therefore there is no therefore here. Just a pretext for repeating the claim that Tasini should do "X" and is not doing so.

                      Whether or not Tasini is campaigning in the part of your state and in the way that he must do in order to overcome the hurdle you have established for "taking him seriously" is clearly independent of whether Tasini has a Hollywood fundraiser.

                      Since the argument you present on that front makes no more sense than the argument that "to be taken seriously" Tasini should refrain from critizing his opponent, the diary looks very much like (1) you have a beef with Tasini and (2) you think the Hollywood fundraiser gives you a pretext for airing that beef.

                      If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

                      by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:50:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My post... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tberry

                        Had nothing to do with "confirmation of [my] candidate preference." I don't really feel as if I need to engage in any "rallying [of] the troops" either. There are a lot of supporters in Gillibrand's corner. I don't need to do any rallying.

                        You won't believe this, but I'll make the point anyway.

                        I have been criticized often by those who support a primary. I support a primary under one condition: As long as the primary isn't all about the incumbent and focuses on the issues.

                        To date, every would-be candidate falls into this trap where they can't stop themselves from talking about the incumbent. Tasini is guilty of this. Jon Cooper, when I interviewed him recently, did the same. The difference was Cooper was willing to present his own platform and show why he made such a strong candidate. He has a legislative background. He is a businessman who knows the importance of economic development and job creation. He supports single-payer health care.

                        Cooper also has started to travel the state. He was up in Buffalo and Rochester recently. He has mobilized some of his fellow Obama grassroots activists that are backing his campaign.

                        That is a far cry from what Tasini has.

                        Say what you will about my post, but what I want to see is the following: If there is going to be a primary, why make it what everyone is expecting? In Tasini's case, everyone knows what he is. He is someone who likes the recognition of being a candidate but doesn't actually like the candidate part of the job. So why not encourage him to campaign around this state (instead of California) in an effort to make this competitive. He isn't running against Hillary Clinton this time. Gillibrand's name recognition is not that high. If he were to work hard, he could be competitive. If he wanted to be.

                        I am encouraging a strong primary on the issues that instead of being about each other (or the incumbent), we are talking about who will do the best job for New York. That is a noble idea, I know. But it's one that shouldn't be so far-fetched.

                        Support our troops... not the war.

                        by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:32:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  That's totally disingenuous (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      corvo

                      My title is open for interpretation (if you don't read the post).

                      Let's read the "above the fold" part of your post:

                      If you were running to become the junior U.S. senator from New York, where would you raise money?

                      Certainly, your home state (in this case, New York) comes to mind. And since New York is home to New York City, the go-to place for political fundraising dollars, you would have no problem raising funds from the large group of people willing to give the maximum amount to any candidate they like.

                      Stand by your diary, edit it, or delete it.  But please don't write that title, and those first two paragraphs, and then say, "I'm not focusing on the fundraising."

                      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

                      by Pesto on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 07:11:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I'll give you credit (0+ / 0-)

                  for at least being an inept liar.  That's worth something, I guess.

            •  I seem to recall that when Republicans are ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GN1927, JerichoJ8

              ... called on pulling a Republican stunt, they come back with a spin saying how, oh, no, that's not what they meant at all, they were raising a serious point.

              If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

              by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:25:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I seem to recall... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Norbrook, tberry

                A report card in grade school I received. My teacher heaped high praise but did have one critique. She said I was "careless" when reading some directions because I wouldn't read the whole thing.

                You can read Jonathan "Hollywood" Tasini as the title and read the first paragraph and say I am guilty of "pulling a Republican stunt." Cool.

                But that would ignore the following and since you clearly didn't read it, I will repost it just for you:

                I have always wanted Siena or Marist to include Tasini in their polling. If he thinks Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will lose in the general election and that he "will be a much stronger candidate against any Republican" then we should know just how well he fares against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki.

                There are those who come here and criticize our coverage of this race and label the whole blog (The Albany Project) pro-Gillibrand even though there are only a few of us in this community who are outspoken in our support for Gillibrand. Yes, a few of us are front-pagers, but that doesn't make the whole group pro-Gillibrand. That is like the labeling that went on during the 2008 elections that tabbed Daily Kos as the blog for Obama and MyDD as the blog for Clinton. Were front-pagers on those respective blogs supportive of those respective candidates? Yes. But it wasn't an accurate label of those blogs.

                The truth is that I would take primary opponents a little more seriously if they did two things:

                (1) Ran on their own platform instead of trying to run against the incumbent. If you have to run on someone's weaknesses instead of your strengths, why bother running?

                (2) Treated the race seriously by actively campaigning, traveling the state and by putting New Yorkers first just as you would have to do as senator.

                In Tasini's case, he fails both. While he does have his own platform, that is not his primary focus. He is trying to highlight Gillibrand's weaknesses instead of his strengths. He did the same thing in 2006 with Hillary Clinton. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

                Tasini had a problem with being viewed as a serious candidate in 2006. The same can be said now. Instead of making trips to Hollywood for fundraisers with actors, why not take that time and effort and come to upstate New York (not Ithaca, somewhere else), the North Country or hold a fundraiser on Long Island. There is more to this state than the five boroughs and Tompkins County. Apparently, Tasini doesn't know that.

                This is more than just money or fundraising. This is about becoming a viable candidate. He is all talk. No walk.

                Support our troops... not the war.

                by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:30:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, I read that: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HudsonValleyMark

                  (1) Ran on their own platform instead of trying to run against the incumbent. If you have to run on someone's weaknesses instead of your strengths, why bother running?

                  If someone did this, someone determined to write a similar diary could say with an equally straight face: "(1) Ran like they were the challenger and made the case why the incumbent should be replaced, instead of acting like they were the incumbent by focusing entirely on their own platform." The logic of your argument seems strong to you because you start without any doubt of the conclusion. But for somebody without a pony in the race, it sure looks like well whipped bullshit.

                  (2) Treated the race seriously by actively campaigning, traveling the state and by putting New Yorkers first just as you would have to do as senator.

                  Repeat the "Hollywood Tasini" charge, except try to dress up the rationalizations to support it.

                  You have a conviction: Tasini is all talk and no walk, and so is not a serious candidate.

                  You have an event: Tasini has a fund-raiser in Hollywood.

                  In your eyes, this confirms your conviction.

                  But there's nothing there that would persuade someone who does not already share your conviction.

                  If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

                  by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:39:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You read it alright... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    tberry

                    If someone did this, someone determined to write a similar diary could say with an equally straight face: "(1) Ran like they were the challenger and made the case why the incumbent should be replaced, instead of acting like they were the incumbent by focusing entirely on their own platform." The logic of your argument seems strong to you because you start without any doubt of the conclusion. But for somebody without a pony in the race, it sure looks like well whipped bullshit.

                    You take what I wrote and then come up with your own theory about what someone else could write.

                    What is your goal here? To debate what I wrote? Or ponder what others might say?

                    Repeat the "Hollywood Tasini" charge, except try to dress up the rationalizations to support it.

                    You have a conviction: Tasini is all talk and no walk, and so is not a serious candidate.

                    You have an event: Tasini has a fund-raiser in Hollywood.

                    In your eyes, this confirms your conviction.

                    But there's nothing there that would persuade someone who does not already share your conviction.

                    Actually, you are doing what Tasini is guilty of. Instead of making your own points, you attack the messenger.

                    That might work in your world. But it gets very old in mine.

                    Support our troops... not the war.

                    by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:46:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I read what you wrote ... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GN1927, HudsonValleyMark

                      ... and tell you how it reads.

                      You may have had something in mind other than just airing your beef with Tasini and thinking that "Hollywood Tasini" gave it an extra little zing, but there's no logical coherence to your argument.

                      And when I point out that there is no logical coherence to your argument, you accuse me of attacking the messenger?

                      How in the hell could I attack the messenger? I have not idea who you are. I am attacking the failure to present a coherent message.

                      You present one argument that makes no sense: Tasini should not be supported, you argue, because (1) he is not campaigning in the parts of the state that you argue he ought to be campaigning in. And, see, (2) he has a Hollywood fundraiser.

                      Now it is obvious to anyone who has not already taken sides in the question that someone could be doing (1) and not (2), or (2) and not (1), or neither (1) nor (2), or both (1) and (2). So there is no actual argument in the argument.

                      The defense of the title is, "oh, but look at the strength of my argument, that's what I am really saying". But that defense has no weight, because there is no substance to what you claim you are "really" saying.

                      And another argument that is so politically naive that even I can recognize it for being naive - Tasini should not attack his opponent, the incumbent, but should restrict himself to presenting a positive platform. In other words, if Tasini wants to be taken seriously by you as a candidate, he has to deliberately throw the election, because if people do not feel that they want to unseat the incumbent, the primary challenger will lose.

                      Either (1) you really think your arguments lead to the conclusions you claim they do, in which case there is no reason to give any weight to your advice, or (2) you are in fact engaged in a substance free symbolic attack and do not give a damn that your arguments don't lead to your conclusions, in which case there is no reason to give any weight to your advice.

                      If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

                      by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:20:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  he spent a lot of time (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tberry

              focusing on why she wouldn't debate him. Why should she? It was silly.

        •  And that should have been... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buffalo Girl, PinHole

          a major point in his favor. He could have campaigned around the state as the "People's Candidate" and possibly made some major inroads and garnered significant support.

          Instead, he was nowhere to be found outside of NYC.

          "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

          by RonV on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:58:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yeah. he was. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tberry

          "someone"  who happened to be a former first lady with a HUGE amount of money. And he didn't make even the remotest impact on her.

      •  You seem awfully threatened (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruceMcF, JerichoJ8

        by someone you dismiss as a joke.



        Medical Marijuana is Healthcare. does YOUR bill cover it?

        by ben masel on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:52:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tasini raised $246,806 in 2006 (6+ / 0-)

    ...and finished $43,244 in debt. Hillary Clinton won with 83% of the vote, rarely mentioning her opponent and had no debates with him.

    I expect Kirsten Gillibrand to employ the same strategy with similar results.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:19:36 PM PDT

    •  I don't think money is Tasini's problem... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PinHole, tberry

      It's his approach. If you don't take it seriously, people aren't going to take you seriously. When people don't see you campaigning, especially for an office as high as the U.S. Senate, they aren't going to give you a look.

      New York is a big state population wise, but it's not a bad state to cover. You could make a whole day or weekend out of campaigning in western New York. That is seven or eight counties out of 62 in New York. That's what Tasini needs to do more of.

      Less Hollywood. More New York.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Money is always a problem (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, PinHole, BruceMcF, soms, tberry

        ..when you don't have any.

        And his FEC filings so far look similar to what happened in 2006, with only about $20,000 on hand as of 6/30/09.

        Perhaps he ought to try for city alderman some place.

        Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

        by Scarce on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:31:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Someone mentioned... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RonV, casperr, PinHole, soms, tberry

          Running for a House seat or even a state-level seat. For someone like Tasini, I think that would be a much better task to undertake. He clearly doesn't like covering a lot of area on the campaign trail so why not go for a smaller district. The House districts in New York City aren't that big. The Assembly and Senate districts are small as well.

          We could use a Tasini in the state Legislature. That's where I would like to see him.

          Support our troops... not the war.

          by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:42:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that Tasini -- like Cooper (0+ / 0-)

            should be running for a mid-level office.

            Candidates without any kind of salient cred, who insist on starting at the top, waste everybody's time.   At the end of the day, they are little more than pests.

            Has Tasini had any fundraisers in New York?   If most of his money will be coming from out of state, that's not a good thing, either.

  •  I think this has been a problem for Democrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, PinHole

    in NY for a long while.  I've often come away with the feeling that people think that New York City is the be-all and end-all of New York State  It's not, as the current special election in NY-23 should call to mind.  While NYC has approximately half the population, it's a very, very small part of the state geographically.  The rest of the state has a great diversity - and a lot of rural areas.  Those mean that you can't just focus on urban issues, you also have to go listen to the farmers, the small towns, the smaller cities, because you're representing their concerns as well.  

    I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

    by Norbrook on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:20:12 PM PDT

    •  I agree with you... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonV, Norbrook

      And this is what I find surprising about Tasini's campaign.

      If he came to WNY with the trade themes (or pretty much ANYWHERE in upstate New York with those themes), he would find many people who will listen to him. I'm not just saying that either. That's why I'm surprised by his strategy. On an issue like trade, why wouldn't you want to come to an area that has been negatively impacted by free trade?

      Here is another thing: Why not go help Bill Owens out in NY-23? Tasini could really throw his name out there and win over some people with that. But he chooses to go a different route. One that happens to take him outside of New York.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:30:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Weak (7+ / 0-)

    The guy holds one fundraiser out-of-state and now he's "Hollywood" Tasini?  Lame criticism.  Has Gillibrand not held any fundraisers out-of-state?  A quick google search for "Gillibrand fundraisers" gives wikipedia saying that in 2008 she held fundraisers in London and Paris.  And i'm sure she's raised bundles from out-of-state beltway types - yet it is "Hollywood" Tasini.  What a joke.  

    Further your point (1) is ridiculous.  There is nothing wrong with running against someone's weakness.  That's what Joe Sestak is doing.  It's what Ned Lamont did.  It's what Andrew Romanoff will do, And it's what Tasini is doing.  Hell, i'd like to know one successful primary challenger who defeated an incumbent without negatively portraying their opponent.  There are alot of New Yorkers who are not happy with the appointment of a Blue Dog as our Senator and the subsequent White House pressure to eliminate opponents.  There is nothing wrong with Tasini drawing on this anger - frankly, he would be stupid not to.

    •  So Sestak equals Tasini... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NorthCountryNY, PinHole, Norbrook, tberry

      My point isn't the fundraiser. As a previous commenter noted (and I agreed with), Hollywood fundraisers are a common occurrence. As you point out, Gillibrand hosted her own fundraisers out of the country. But she was also a sitting congresswoman, not someone who isn't an elected official and whose previous run at this same seat was, to borrow the subject of your comment, weak.

      Your point about Sestak is laughable. Sestak is a congressman. And he isn't just playing to Specter's weaknesses. Is that part of the game? Sure. But you have to have some of your own substance.

      I am a New Yorker too. I live in an area that Tasini probably has never been too. It's a county of about 44,000 people in western New York. I have yet to hear of him being even close to my county, which would involve him going to Buffalo and/or Rochester. You might want a senator who doesn't campaign/visit your hometown or region, but I don't. I want to know that accessibility isn't going to be a chore with my elected official. Tasini hasn't bridged that gap.

      His failure of a campaign in 2006 is looking very much the same in 2010. He hasn't learned anything. That's a shame.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 06:40:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your point wasn't about the Hollywood fundraiser? (4+ / 0-)

        Funny, your title and the first half of your diary is all about that.  I was not comparing Tasini with Sestak in terms of quality of candidate.  My point is every primary challenger against an opponent "goes negative" as a major part of their campaign.  The strength of incumbency is so great that it is a necessity.

        Yeah, you don't like Tasini; you've made that clear.  If you regard his candidacy as such a 'joke', why bother with the lame attack diary?  He's way behind and an extreme longshot, but you feel the need to start a "Hollywood" Tasini diary because of one out-of-state fundraiser?  Come on, do you expect anyone to take that seriously?

        •  My point was... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PinHole, Norbrook, tberry

          The principle of the fundraiser. Here is a guy who a lot of people say didn't campaign hard enough in New York last time and he is off raising money in Hollywood. That might help him in the money department, but how many people at the fundraiser were New Yorkers who could vote for him?

          To sum up: My point is that he should be spending time in New York, not fundraising in Hollywood. That was the underlying point of my post. My point was a general one. I'm not attacking him for raising money in Hollywood. I'm targeting his strategy and his belief that he is a serious candidate even though he has done very little (if any) campaigning in New York.

          You mentioned Sestak in your point. My counter was that Sestak has substance to run on. Yes, there is a certain level of negativity in these races. But if you don't have substance, you might as well go home. Saying that you make a better candidate against the GOP (even when the major New York polling outlets don't even factor you in) is easy to say, but harder to become.

          As for the "lame attack diary," I don't find anything "lame" about it. What I find lame is someone touting themselves as a candidate for U.S. Senate in New York and not willing to play the part. He's all talk and no walk. Going to Hollywood to raise money with Richard Dreyfuss is a nice feather in his cap. But it hardly makes him a serious candidate. If he wanted to become one of those, he would be making the rounds in New York.

          You are entitled to your opinion. But I am entitled to mine. I don't mind disagreeing with you. It happens. But don't tell me what I should write about. I'm not new to this game.

          Support our troops... not the war.

          by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:01:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What a couragous stand on the principle ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927

            ... that if a generic "lot of people" say it, it must be so.

            Here is a guy who a lot of people say didn't campaign hard enough in New York last time and he is off raising money in Hollywood. That might help him in the money department, but how many people at the fundraiser were New Yorkers who could vote for him?

            Isn't what you mean that Tasini is a guy that you feel didn't campaign hard enough in New York last time, but you don't have the guts to stand behind your position, so you hide behind a generic "a lot of people"?

            If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

            by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:31:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norbrook, tberry

              A lot of people have said that. You might see that as generic like "some people say" but a lot of people (political observers, party members, bloggers, etc.) have said that to me and in the media about Tasini. He didn't work hard for it.

              You know what I love about people like you? You make a debate into a "progressive test." You accuse me of using Republican tactics and then pull this stunt. There is better time spent than trying to be holier than thou and try to see who is the bigger progressive.

              Support our troops... not the war.

              by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:36:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are making the claim in a nationwide forum .. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GN1927, airmarc

                ... with no linking evidence, just your own say-so. Underneath a diary with slipshod reasoning as the reason for believing your say so?

                I understand that you argue that your reasoning is sound, but since the arguments you have presented don't hold any water, that also loops back to believe you because you-say-so.

                If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

                by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:45:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That's a Fox News tactic. n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GN1927

              Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

              by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:58:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not every use... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tberry

                Of "a lot of people" makes it "a Fox News tactic."

                Let's use a real world example. My mom is dating someone. My dad passed away 10 months ago and this is her first go of things. The guy is a real nice guy. But if my siblings and I (seven of us in all) had concerns about it and I approached her and said "some of us have concerns," is that a Fox News tactic too?

                I disagree with the use of "some people say" as a regular tool. It should not be. I am not a regular user of it or other variations. The reason I used "a lot of people" is because a lot of people have said that. The people I have encountered from other counties who talked about Tasini and his campaign in 2006. The people from my own county committee. The people from other parts of the state. Fellow bloggers and activists who said Tasini should work harder.

                I could name names, but "a lot of people" would be substituted for, well, a lot of names. And I would much rather use those four words than use people's names, especially since I do not have their permission to quote them directly.

                Support our troops... not the war.

                by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:03:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  When I ran for the Senate in '06 (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RonV, airmarc, crankyinNYC, robert harding

          anytime I was asked "What's wrong with Herb Kohl,' I'd respond "I'm not running AGAINST Herb Kohl, I'm running FOR the United States Senate."

          I finished with approximately the same % of the vote as Tasini, spending all of $662 to Kohl's $3.2 million.



          Medical Marijuana is Healthcare. does YOUR bill cover it?

          by ben masel on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:59:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I agree with Robert (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        robert harding, Norbrook, tberry

        When Tasini campaigned for the Senate seat in 2006, we were interested. He did travel across upstate, western NY and made a stop or two in the northern Finger Lakes region on his way to a convention in Buffalo.  We made it a point to travel to meet him.  

        We were very unimpressed, mostly because he was full of himself, did not seem interested in speaking or even greeting those of us who attended.(in our case we drove an hour to see him) He spent the whole time talking with the host.  

        Also at that time there were reports about his previous screw-ups with unions and authors posted here.  Signed a petition to enable him to run, but thought his grasp of the job was weak and not up to what was needed by a state such as NY.  Continued to follow him a bit afterwords, as he campaigned elsewhere and news was posted on Albany Project, etc., but saw nothing to change our minds.

        Let's see how he does at the state level first.      

        •  At least that's a relevant and logical case. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norbrook

          Thank you. that's disappointing to hear, I suppose.  Although, my reps do the same. I still like them.

          Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:00:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  At the time (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tberry

            we were at this gathering, there were only about 6-8 others in the room. At no time did he 'circulate' nor did we even realize who he was.  Impression taken back to our county Dem committee - a very poor one.

            Both at the time and especially during the presidential campaign, there are things that Hillary did that were upsetting.  But to turn down her connections and hard work, for JT, there was just no comparison.

            Even with the hoards around her, twice I have been at events when she stayed until every last hand was shaken, every last book signed. She did a lot for upstate NY as a Senator, taking Sen Schumer's advice about not neglecting upstate seriously.  Senator Pot Hole (D'Amato) hardly ever came near these parts.

            •  I'm not defending anybody. I just don't like to (0+ / 0-)

              like the hypocrisy of the diary and lack of fortitude of the diarist to acknowledge it's a diary against Tasini.

              Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

              by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:36:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't question my fortitude... (0+ / 0-)

                I told you it was a critique. If you want to call it a "diary against Tasini", that's your choice.

                I guess real "fortitude" is to make a comment to someone else that calls into question my fortitude. That must take real guts.

                Support our troops... not the war.

                by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:39:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well it sure as hell isn't "for Tasini" is it? (0+ / 0-)

                  It's an anti-Tasini diary plain and simple. You're being hypocritical.

                  Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

                  by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:40:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't question my fortitude... (0+ / 0-)

                    That's all I'm saying. You can disagree with my diary, but you're the one that questioned my fortitude to someone else. That is a personal attack, like it or not. When you have to resort to questioning someone's guts, you deviate from the topic and instead focus on the poster.

                    I don't see it as "for Tasini" or "anti Tasini." I will let everyone who reads it determine what they want it to be.

                    I don't have to be objective here. If you're looking for objectivity, look somewhere else. I reserve the right to criticize people. It's what I do. If there's something I don't like, I'm going to speak up.

                    Support our troops... not the war.

                    by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:07:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  From elsewhere (mostly TAP) (0+ / 0-)

                      I know Robert to be a very supportive, astute observer, and one who is intelligent and caring.  He has done a ton of unpaid work informing and connecting people throughout the state & nation. We don't always agree on everything (WWW? :-) ) but his point about the afterthoughts often given to upstate NY by downstate pols, is well taken.  

                      One reason the RePigs succeed in upstate is they take time to listen and respond to people in semi-rural areas. It is difficult to get anything going in many areas of the state, because of the lack of support by the national, state & regional 'important' Dems.

                      BTW-Sen Gillibrand came to upstate NY in August, and held fund raisers throughout the region, giving the money back to the starving local county committees. She was very supportive of the public option in health insurance, which got coverage in many of the local papers. In our area, thanks to Eric Massa, Dan Maffei & B Obama, the 2008 Democratic totals were higher than they have been in 100+ yrs.

                      So his observation that Tasini hasn't done the ground work, and has gone where it is 'easy going', is one I can agree with, given the 2006 track record.  YMMV

      •  Are you serious? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927, JerichoJ8

        What kind of access do you think you're going to get with Gillibrand, unless you're rolling in dough?  HRC does get credit and kudos for conducting a "listening tour" in non-NYC parts of the state, but how much time you think she actually spent meeting or talking with constituents, who must number close to 20 million?

        The days logged in the state have little to do with accessibility, and money is important, especially before the campaign heats up.

        "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

        by Budlawman on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:50:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you live in what was previously (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tberry

          Gillibrand's district?  Her constitutents are effusive in their praise of her accesibility and constituent relations.  I have rarely seen a congressperson who made her/himself more available to constituents.  I live downstate but know the district and many residents well, and I never heard anything but solid support for her program "Congress on Your Corner," which was an ongoing series of public meetings and town halls throughout her seriously crazy, diverse, gerrymandered, geographically dispersed and massive district. To maintain that program, particularly because of the geography and size of the district, was a herculean effort and she never let up. I hope that some of her former constituents come on to add to my comment.

          Thanks!

          Where are their votes?

          by mindoca on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:30:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  also Senator G is fucking weak on health reform (0+ / 0-)

      She favors the public option which is a useless piece of shit diversion that has fooled many progressives who apparently don't actually read research on how stupid this idea is.

      "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care program." Pres. Goldman Sachs Obama, 6/30/03

      by formernadervoter on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:46:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Coronations in America - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, JerichoJ8

    Senior Proms and Senate Seats.

  •  Sorry, but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, beijingbetty, JerichoJ8

    ""Ran on their own platform instead of trying to run against the incumbent.""

    An appointee doesn't really count as an incumbent to me.

    •  And diaristshouldn't be worried if "it won't work (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      now"

      Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:50:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would agree... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      math4barack, Norbrook, tberry

      But she will be considered an incumbent in 2010. From my perspective, it is hard to label her an incumbent, but then again, it's hard not to. While she wasn't elected to the post, she was appointed to fill it AND she is running for re-election (or election, whichever you'd prefer) next year.

      One of the dictionary definitions of "incumbent" is "holder of an office." By that definition, Gillibrand is an incumbent. That's why I called her one.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:52:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wanna buy a dictionary? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      math4barack, Norbrook, tberry

      Really, you don't have to buy one. There are plenty of free dictionaries available online. And guess what... they will all say that a current office holder is known as an incumbent. Doesn't matter how they got the office.

      But you're welcome to invent your own definitions.

      "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

      by RonV on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:53:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927, JerichoJ8

        I did.

        An incumbent, to me, is someone who has been elected by the people. An appointee is a placeholder until they've actually won an election.

        I really couldn't care less what the dictionary says about it.

        •  perhaps you should define "to me" n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

          by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:01:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  As I said... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          math4barack, Norbrook, tberry

          You are welcome to make up your own definitions of words.

          Have at it.

          BTW, Gillibrand has won two difficult elections. Both against well funded republicans in a very republican district. So, she was elected by the people. She can hardly be faulted for being appointed to the Senate.

          And, having been appointed, she is currently the incumbent. Except to you.

          "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

          by RonV on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:05:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ford (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927, crankyinNYC, JerichoJ8

            was also elected by the people. But not to the presidency.

            •  And he was... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              math4barack, tberry

              the incumbent in the race against Jimmy Carter because he was the current President.

              Like it or not.

              "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

              by RonV on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:14:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We have had this debate in New York... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              math4barack, tberry

              People whine all the time about Governor Paterson not being "elected." The argument is that we elected Spitzer, not Paterson, to be governor.

              The flaw in that argument, of course, is that there is an order of succession. There is a reason why you have a lieutenant governor or a vice president. Ford wasn't elected to the presidency, but he was elected to a post that put him in a position to ascend to the presidency in a constitutional manner should a certain situation arise.

              Those who are criticizing Paterson and Gillibrand for being "appointees" and for not being "democratically elected" are shallow. They did not ask for these situations. They did not ask for Spitzer to spend money on prostitutes. They did not ask for Hillary Clinton to be named Secretary of State.

              Now, they are being punished for being put in this position. I don't know what sense that makes but for critics, it's a nice rallying cry.

              Support our troops... not the war.

              by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:18:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The dictionary also says... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          math4barack, Norbrook

          That a progressive is someone who is "left of center." Maybe I should make up my own and say that it's someone who is of "moderate thinking."

          An incumbent to me is someone who has been elected too. But I'm not a dictionary, nor do I believe I am above a dictionary. If a dictionary says that an incumbent is someone who is currently the holder of a public office, then so be it.

          Support our troops... not the war.

          by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:05:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Incumbent (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927, JerichoJ8

            means one who seeks reelection to the office they currently hold.

            You can't be reelected to an office you haven't been elected to.

            •  that's what it means to you, yes (0+ / 0-)

              In New York, we know that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. I'm not sure where definitions fit in.

              To me, it seems a bit brassy to say that "incumbent means" what you want it to mean, when to most people it means something else. But I think I understand your point of view.

            •  She may have not been "elected" (0+ / 0-)

              to the office, but she currently holds it whether you like it or not.  Therefore Gillibrand is the incumbent.    From Merriam-Webster:
              Main Entry: 1in·cum·bent
              Pronunciation: \in-ˈkəm-bənt\
              Function: noun
              Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin incumbent-, incumbens, present participle of incumbere to lie down on, from in- + -cumbere to lie down; akin to cubare to lie
              Date: 15th century
              1 : the holder of an office or ecclesiastical benefice
              2 : one that occupies a particular position or place

  •  Isn't your diary doing exactly what you accuse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927

    Tasini of doing?

    Running against somebody instead of on your candidate's platform?

    Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

    by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:51:14 PM PDT

    •  Not really... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norbrook, tberry

      Considering I have written other posts here (see here, here and here) about this race and "my candidate", I'm not guilty of that.

      I am also not smearing Tasini. Nothing I said is a lie. Nothing I said is an attack.

      All I am doing is criticizing his approach. If he is the "much stronger candidate against any Republican," then that means he has a strong base in New York, right?

      Wrong. His base is non-existent. The reason is because he doesn't put in the effort. There was a comment earlier here that talked about people going to see Tasini and he ignored them. When you campaign for a U.S. Senate seat, you have to be everywhere. Gillibrand has learned that. Schumer learned that. Tasini hasn't. You would think his experiences in 2006 would have taught him something, but it didn't change his ways. He's going to do this his way.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 07:58:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't ask about other diaries. I asked about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927

        this one.

        It doesn't have to be a lie.

        As far as an attack, you're bashing his out of state fundraising.  You're saying he hasn't shown enough love to the state. How is that not an attack?

        Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

        by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:05:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't care what you asked for... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tberry

          You called me out. I will defend myself in whatever way I see fit.

          Criticizing and bashing are two different things. I'm not "bashing" it. If that's his game plan, fine. I just find it to be the wrong one, especially for someone who is seeking the office of U.S. senator for the second time.

          And I don't care where he gets his money. That is a distraction you are drumming up because my argument doesn't jive with yours. I am saying he isn't focusing on New York. Period. That's not just fundraising. That is campaigning too. He is spending precious time in Hollywood. He goes on CNBC. He is doing a lot of great things, but none of them will help him in New York. That is where hitting the pavement comes into play.

          Support our troops... not the war.

          by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:11:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Let's step back to 1998 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          robert harding, tberry

          A somewhat unknown congressman decides to tackle the incumbent Senator in New York.  What did he do?  He hit the road - he went to every county, introduced himself and his ideas, and campaigned for the job.  That was Chuck Schumer.  

          Jump forward to 2000.  The First Lady decides that she wants to run for Senator from New York.  She hits the state first with a listening tour, meeting with local party chairs and officials, along with regular citizens.  Then she announces, and campaigns in every single county in the state - including hitting little towns upstate that have never seen a national figure in them.  She wins.  

          Now, we have Tasini.  Not only haven't many of us heard too much about him, but apparently what he's saying is that he's a stronger candidate - with no evidence to that effect.  Even more so, he's not really seen outside of NYC, and he sure hasn't been doing much to introduce himself around the state.  Yes, I do know that - I just got back from a county party dinner, and there were four county chairs there.  None of them had any idea that anyone else was thinking of running.  

          So yes, he is a weak candidate.  If he hopes to have a prayer, he's got to get out and start working the state.  Just because he's the latest in a series of "great progressive hopes" being touted by various people here doesn't make him a viable candidate.  

          I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

          by Norbrook on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:28:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's fine. I don't see what it has to do with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927

            the point I made.

            The diary was written in a way so as to be against Tasini.

            The diarist states that a candidate shouldn't run against another candidate but should stand on their own platform.

            This diary is not about standing on one's own platform. It's about being against the other candidate.

            Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

            by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:32:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  My point exactly... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Norbrook, tberry

            Chuck Schumer won the election in 1998 doing the same thing he has done as a senator: Work the counties. Even some Republicans like him. They might not say so publicly, but there are some Republican farmers I saw at a immigration forum that have a lot of respect for him.

            Schumer won it the right way. He didn't have to attack the incumbent. He set the tone himself. When you put in the work and have a strong campaign to work with, you're going to be successful.

            I don't know why no one else is following that model. It's worked before. With Gillibrand in D.C., someone like Tasini could take advantage of her being on the job and hit every corner of this state.

            Support our troops... not the war.

            by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:36:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The thing is, instead of strengthening that ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927

            ... argument, the "Hollywood Tasini" charge weakens it, since not only is there no contradiction between running that kind of campaign and having one or more California fundraisers, but indeed running that kind of campaign could be one of the things that a California fundraiser raises funds for.

            That's part of what would distinguish a serious critique from a partisan attack - focusing on a serious argument and not going for cheap shots that have no substance behind them.

            After not only going for the cheap shot with no substance but also repeatedly trying to spin the fact that it is a cheap shot with no substance, the claim to be engaged in a serious critique is substantially undermined. The credibility of a "serious critique" from someone who behaves more like a partisan supporter of an opposing candidate is very limited.

            If you join the twitter #HSrail swarm, find me @BruceMcF

            by BruceMcF on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:56:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can't have a partisan attack... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norbrook, tberry

              When we're dealing with all Democrats here.

              And it wasn't an attack. My point is spelled out in my post. It is an attack to you because you are skeptical of Gillibrand and are more in Tasini's camp than Gillibrand's. So that makes it an attack.

              My post was a critique of his campaign style. Instead of going to Hollywood, he should spend some time in New York. That's what he needs to do.

              The problem with you and a few others here who have criticized me is that you are starting to resort to attacks. You are starting to question my credibility and even one other person has questioned my fortitude. That is when the debate is lost and we turn this into nothing more than an exchange of personal attacks. I had those duels a long time ago and they led to nothing except wasted time.

              So I won't waste my time here either.

              Support our troops... not the war.

              by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 09:00:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Are you affilliated in any way with the (0+ / 0-)

    Gillibrand campaign?

    If yes, how?

    Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

    by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:07:27 PM PDT

  •  Correction: Del Mar is not Los Angeles (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, JerichoJ8

    It's near San Diego, about 100 miles away from LA.

    "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

    by Budlawman on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:30:10 PM PDT

  •  We should be able to elect a progressive from NY (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, JerichoJ8
    1. Kirsten Gillibrand was a bad choice to take HRC's seat; there was no need to kowtow to the upstate "moderates" and Paterson gained nothing from doing it, other than the continued enmity from the president.  As the NY Times reported a week ago:

    In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor’s selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.

    The White House and Democratic House leaders were concerned that her sudden departure from the House would give Republicans a prime opportunity to reclaim the seat. Aides to the president conveyed those concerns to the governor, according to Democrats who have discussed the matter with Mr. Obama’s aides.

    In the end, Mr. Paterson selected Ms. Gillibrand anyway, infuriating White House officials and Democratic leaders in Washington. Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama’s, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton’s replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons.

    The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama’s advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.

    1.  It is hardly unusual, let alone cause for criticism in today's political world, to use CA as an ATM.   The fact that Tasini is having one or more fundraisers in the state tells us nothing about who he views as his constituents.  
    1.  Tasini, on substance, is the best candidate.  I hope he can garner the support of progressives, unions and others to build his name recognition and teach the Dem "MOR/DLC" types a needed lesson that appointees are not anointees, and should be chosen not merely for triangulation purposes.  

    And while we're at it, the Governor probably should have the good sense to take a powder.

    "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

    by Budlawman on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:41:39 PM PDT

    •  Because Hillary never had a fundraiser in Califor (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, Budlawman, BruceMcF

      ooops, wait oh yeah, that multi-million dollar FEC fiasco...

      Wall Street Got Between Kimi Young and her Doctor.

      by JerichoJ8 on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:47:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tberry

      We should be able to elect a progressive from New York. And as a senator, over the last several months, Kirsten Gillibrand has yet to show us that she isn't that person. In fact, she has been one of the more progressive members of the U.S. Senate.

      Kirsten Gillibrand was a bad choice to take HRC's seat; there was no need to kowtow to the upstate "moderates" and Paterson gained nothing from doing it, other than the continued enmity from the president.

      I don't see her as a bad choice. I was actually rooting for someone else - Steve Israel - but that never panned out. I was hesitant as first (anyone who read my posts knows this) but then I was invited to take part in some press calls with her. I listened to her stories about how some of the legislation she was introducing or initiatives she was starting came to be. A lot of them were derived from stories constituents told her about issues they ran into or problems they had. She researched those issues and found them to be more than just one person's problem.

      I would also warn you against saying things like "kowtow to the upstate 'moderates.'" I am from upstate and there was no kowtowing done. One of the reasons given was that Paterson needed someone from upstate to raise his own profile. This wasn't done out of the need to kowtow. It was done, if you go based on political motives, to have someone who could help Paterson in 2010. Paterson's big weakness, if you have noticed, is upstate. So that is where Gillibrand could have helped him.

      It is hardly unusual, let alone cause for criticism in today's political world, to use CA as an ATM.   The fact that Tasini is having one or more fundraisers in the state tells us nothing about who he views as his constituents.

      I'm sorry, but when you go to California before even coming to a lot of different areas in this state, that says a lot. He was guilty of a lot of the same things last time.

      Tasini, on substance, is the best candidate.  I hope he can garner the support of progressives, unions and others to build his name recognition and teach the Dem "MOR/DLC" types a needed lesson that appointees are not anointees, and should be chosen not merely for triangulation purposes.

      If only Tasini acted like a candidate and attempted to campaign, I would agree.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 08:57:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Others have pointed out (0+ / 0-)

    the glaring problems with this hit piece and I have expressed my agreement via recs.

    Good for Tasini for choosing to put his hat into the ring and compete for this seat.  No establishment is attempting to clear any field for him, unlike the current appointed occupant.

    Primaries are positive exercises in small d democracy.  Vigorous primaries, particularly of appointees, should be encouraged, not disparaged.

    I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.-President Obama

    by GN1927 on Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 05:01:02 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site