Wishful Thinking Department:
This article posits a four or five way race for Mayor working to Lhota's advantage.
Such a theory has a few canyon size caveats.
1) That the Liberal Party, which does not have ballot status, actually qualifies for the ballot.
2) That Lhota is the Republican
3) That there is no Conservative candidate dividing his vote
4) That the folks with minor party lines lose their major party primaries.
5) That the primary losers actually bother running real races on their minor party lines (the last time this even arguably happened was 1981).
6) That people forget the subway fare has gone up. http://www.cityandstateny.com/could-a-four-way-general-election-make-lhota-mayor/
In which we learn that Sal Albanese's thinks his endorsement for strengthening the vile Joe Bruno's Republican majority by electing right wing Republican Marty Golden in 2002 is ancient history from "many years ago," but that his own public career, which ended five years before that, is extremely relevant and fresh in the public's mind.
Asked about his support for this reactionary and cynical exploiter of hate, Albanese demurs:
"I’d rather not rehash that.”
Here's notice to you, Sally Ally–A day is not going to go by when you do not have to rehash that. I am going to make it my personal business to emulate Gail Collins so that people associate you with endorsing Marty Golden in the same way they associate Mitt Romney with dogs on the roofs of the cars.
Another Albanese delusion is that his getting Latino support in Sunset Park as the Democrat running in a 1982 general election for Council against a Republican somehow translates into his obtaining such support in a Citywide Democratic primary for Mayor in 2013. http://politicker.com/2013/01/sal-albanese-dont-call-me-a-long-shot/
Bloomberg "bi-partisanship" (or is it "non-partisanship") is defined as working to oust Democrats who disagree with him, while working to "change" Republicans who do the same. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mayor-bloomberg-takes-on-the-gun-lobby/2013/01/13/5fd61888-5d9c-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html
The ultimate southern Queens political dog bites man story:
“Flowers collected at least $92,000 from investors, falsely representing that he would use their funds to finance a film production business and promising exorbitant, guaranteed returns…Instead of investing funds, Flowers misused $30,498 to repay other investors and pay for personal expenses without the investors’ knowledge, consent or authorization.”
In many places, such a story would be disqualifying for a candidate. In southern Queens, it merely satisfies the requirements for entering a political contest. http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/blogs/insider/2013/01/council-candidate-was-banned-from-securities-trade/for
Classic Chait:
"Republicans consider the budget deficit so massive and urgent as to be worth provoking economic disaster, but not urgent enough to consider accepting higher revenue as part of a compromise. The fiscal status quo is worse than a potential global meltdown, but even slightly higher revenue is worse than both." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-dares-gop-to-kill-the-hostage.html
The difference between past Democratic posturing on the debt ceiling compared to present Republican posturing, is the difference between public masturbation and a truck bomb. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/01/14/the_myth_of_the_democratic_hostage_takers.html
Goodwin hits a new low.
Goodwin: O hits a new Lew low.
Nominating Jack Lew to be the next treasury secretary, President Obama offered mighty strange praise: “I know very few people with greater integrity,” he said.
So, where are they? Did those with greater integrity turn down the job, or didn’t Obama want a more honest man around?
Gate: Or maybe, none of the people with greater integrity had any knowledge of finance. Given the record in recent years of people with knowledge of finance, this seems the most credible explanation. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/final_city_to_tackle_unwed_mom_epidemic_PsyThjp8sCdXvVBbTl6hdK/1
I would be lying if I didn't admit that Chuck's Hagel's prior inability to distinguish Zionists from Jews didn't bother me.
It would bother me even more if that idea that Zionists and Jews are indistinguishable wasn't the position of the Zionist right, which has a tendency to call any deviation from the far right end of Likudism "anti-Semitic."
Frankly, Hagel would bother me more if he was chosen for State, since, with the possible exception of how we deal with Iran, there has been zero daylight between the President and Israel on defense (as opposed to foreign policy) issues, and no one has credibly asserted that this is likely to change.
As to Iran, I prefer the President's prior statements on the matter to Hagel's and I am hopeful that the process of advice and consent will clarify Hagel's views in a useful and encouraging matter.
That all being said, those who accuse Hagel of being an anti-Semite are not only engaged in slander, they are also being counterproductive, for, by crying wolfowitz, they are draining all meaning from the term at issue.
Which brings us to the link. You wanna see an anti-Semite? This, my friends, is an anti-Semite. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/egyptian-president-calls-jews-sons-of-apes-and-pigs-world-yawns/267131/
Longing to taste Tina Fey's twit. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/why-tina-fey-should-join-twitter.html