"My desire to go to Congress was to fix what’s broken and go home. End subsidies. End government dependencies. Dramatically cut the budget by 30 or 35 percent. Slash capital-gains taxes down to zero. Cut taxes across the board."—Bob Turner, June 8, 2011
“Koch — a staunch ally of Israel — said he would "vote for Bob Turner" if the Republican-Conservative candidate backs Israel and opposes cutbacks to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.” — : New York Post, July 12, 2011
“These are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others.” —Groucho
It took Anthony Weiner a little less than three weeks from that first jolting stir of an irresistible temptation in his loins to its leading to his giving up everything he’d worked his entire adult lifetime to accumulate.
By contrast, engorged with the scent of potential victory like a bull elk in the rut with the scent of a menstruating cow teasing his nostrils, it took Robert “Bob and Weave” Turner only ten days from Ed Koch’s salacious hint of impending goodies to cum, to go from being “a quintessential Tea Party candidate,” to a staunch defender of the welfare state status quo.
At first he resisted.
Asked about the Ryan plan, Turner responded by condemning Health Care Reform’s efforts to save Medicare by trimming its waste-line, as if that were an attack on the elderly, who have earned the right to have money flushed down the sewer in their name.
But Turner refused to take a position on the Ryan Plan (to save the Medicare village by destroying it, followed by raping and pillaging, and giving the spoils of the war on the less fortunate to our society’s most well-heeled, as the tributes of their victory).
Turner also hemmed and hawed on “Cut, Cap and Balance,” noting David Weprin’s refusal to support the bill as proof that Weprin refused to support a balanced budget, but refusing himself to state his own position on CCB.
It was a truly pro-abstinence platform; “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” may be coming to end, but Bob Turner wasn’t saying “Just Say No,” it was more like “Just No Say.“
In the end the Principal won out over the Principles, and Koch endorsed Turner, who had, by then, promised to oppose efforts to change Social Security and Medicare.
Yes, I’ll be the first to admit that Democrat David Weprin has himself engaged in pandering of “monumental proportions” on the matter of Social Security (hell, I was even the first to call him on it), but Weprin’s position is only a refusal to acknowledge the political and fiscal realities, and likely is consistent with what, in an ideal world, Weprin would like to implement.
By contrast, Turner’s new position is a sell out of everything the man once held dear. Unlike the House Republicans he would like to join as a colleague, Bob Turner has no trouble saying “Yes.”
He’s practically a Republican version of Molly Bloom.
If Bob Turner were a girl, he’d surely be with child (he says with a pregnant pause).
Which bring us to the father of this political Rosemary’s Baby. A former close associate of the former Mayor put it this way:
“Koch has a long memory and a taste for vengeance…He will overlook issue differences once he decides someone is a "friend" or even a "friend of a friend" or an "enemy" …one of the things that has always pissed me off about him is his unique definition of "moderate". Basically, someone who agrees with him is moderate. So being in favor of Gay marriage is not extreme, it's moderate and opposing any cuts to Medicaid is moderate too.”
Koch gave two rationales for his endorsement of a candidate who ten days ago held positions exactly opposed to his on America’s most popular entitlement programs.
Koch told NY1 that he is backing Turner to send a message to President Barack Obama about his stance on Israel, and to send the national Republicans a message on the need to protect Social Security and Medicare.
I see a few problems with this.
I won‘t even mention that a Republican victory will be taken, in some quarters, as a defeat for Same Sex Marriage, which Koch favors.
I’ll just deal with the issues Koch has raised.
The first problem is that Darrell Issa and Ron and Rand Paul notwithstanding, the Congressional Republican Conference does not really need additional troops to reinforce their right-wing Zionist bonafides.
By contrast, while the House Democratic Conference is full of pro-Israel members (not withstanding the substantial minority who are not) the number who are to the right of Bibi Netanyahu is rather limited, and without Anthony Weiner, it is down by one.
Electing David Weprin, who apparently enjoys visiting West Bank Settlements would replenish their numbers.
Further, Republican support for Israel has some inherent problems, such as Eric Cantor’s bizarre and dangerous proposals to separate aid to Israel from the rest of the foreign aid budget. A favorite point of the first generation of Podhoretzes and Kristols was "you can't let America abandon its commitments to the rest of the world and still expect it to defend Israel. " And they were right. But these days it is the conservatives who propose to do exactly that.
But even more importantly, if Jewish voters punish Democrats by voting against even the most hawkish pro-Israel Democratic candidates, so that that stream of thought is no longer represented within the Democratic party, and US support for Israel becomes strictly a partisan issue, swaying back and forth depending upon the political winds, how does this help Israel?
Then there is the Domestic Problem.
If Republicans can win this seat in the aftermath of the Ryan Plan, it will indeed send a message.
The Democratic Party’s greatest attrition in support last year came from senior citizens, the only element of the population currently benefiting from socialized medicine and scared to death by the Republican Party into believing that someone might actually try to ensure their care is provided in a rational, cost-effective manner.
The Republicans, who admitted last year to seeking draconian cuts in all Domestic spending affecting those who vote at lower rates than those over 65, also said they were so opposed to looking at Medicare–the single greatest hole in the deficit, that they opposed diverting any possible recoverable wasted Medicare funds to either deficit reduction or other programs. They didn‘t even want to use them to cuts taxes for the rich!
And then they railed about death panels and other manner of obscenities.
And, by those means, they took the House.
Then came the truth.
The Republican Party did indeed oppose providing medical care to the elderly in a rational, cost-effective manner.
In fact, they turned out to oppose providing it at all.
The Republicans, turned out not to be total hypocrites.
Not only were they seeking draconian cuts in all domestic spending affecting those who vote at lower rates than those over 65, they wanted to eventually go after those over 65 as well, as long as they were under 55 now.
And it turned out they while they were opposed to using the funds they recovered from gutting Medicare to find other programs, Republicans were in favor of using such funds to cut taxes for the rich!
They opposed death panels, except for the one called the House Budget Committee, which they were using to kill Medicare.
Exposure of this truth cost them the Hochul seat, which they had held steadily since the 1970 election.
The exposure of something else (Anthony Weiner) took the heat off this narrative, and now gives them the opportunity to reverse it.
We know where Bob Turner really stands; he began this commedia dell’arte repeating the narrative the Republicans used in 2010:
“Obama and the Democrats moved $500 million out of Medicare and into ObamaCare. And they have the nerve to complain about Medicare?!”
If the Republicans pick up this seat, which the Democrats have held steadily since the 1922 elections, the message which will have been sent is “we can keep suckering the old folks and then keep doing what we want after we win.”
And that would be a shame.
For one thing, it is imperative that we increase money for Alzheimer’s research.
If only to save us from more Ed Koch endorsements.