A letter to the editor in Wednesday’s New York Times reminded me why I hate Ralph Nader and his Green Party supporters.

 The letter from Theresa Amato, Nader’s Campaign Manager responding to Thomas Friedman’s assertion that Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000, reads in part:

 “The writer blames Ralph Nader for George W. Bush, despite the millions of Democrats who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000; Al Gore’s loss of his home state; and the Florida legal battles”

 My problem with Nader and the Greens is that they won’t take responsibility for their actions.

“We must demand that the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate be replaced, because they have failed to fight for the reforms that we seek. The current leadership in Albany has had ample opportunity to heed the message of reform and address the problems New Yorkers face, but they have spent far more energy making backroom deals to protect their own majorities. ..New York belongs to the nearly twenty million people who call our State home, not to three men in a room in Albany. With Governor Pataki on his way out, it is time to show Majority Leader Bruno and Speaker Silver the door, as well.” —- Tom Suozzi, speaking at a conference on government reform.

The dichotomy in politics between what people say they favor and the contents of their actual agenda is often striking. Take the so-called “Right to Life” movement. As an article by Russell Shorto in today’s NY Times Magazine makes clear; the real agenda of many “Right to Lifers” isn’t preventing abortions, but preventing sex. That is not to say this is the agenda of all “Right to Lifers”. I have a gay Catholic friend, who when confronted with the dichotomy between his opposition to abortion and his sexual libertarianism, always smiles and says “blow jobs don’t kill babies”.  And certainly there are outspoken "Right to Lifers" like Nat Hentoff who strongly advocate access to contraception and comprehensive sex education as part of an effort to prevent abortions.

Ed Rollins remarks about John Spencer’s “affair” once again is a fine example of how the New York Times covers New York politics (as opposed to say, a parlimentary election in Ukraine)

They cover it badly!

Thursday’s  NY Times story on the remarks says –

“Mr. Spencer has never denied that while he was mayor, he had a long affair with his chief of staff while he was married, and had two children with her before they were married”

But the Times reporter or editors apparently didn’t read Wednesday’s Journal-News. The paper, which covers Westchester paper, had this to say–

If someone introduced a resolution at Park Slope’s Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID) to honor Lynne Stewart, an attorney convicted of aiding and abetting an Islamo-fascist terrorist group, it would undoubtedly pass with flying colors.

And while Stewart’s conviction does raise some troubling questions about what appears to be an effort by the Federal government to impede the rights of criminal defendants and their counsel, Ms. Stewart is clearly no hero.

Part of the frustrating nature of the continuing debate about Andrew Cuomo’s purported involvement in the 1977 Mayoral campaign’s infamous “Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo” posters is that the ambiguities in the story prevent serious discussion of the underlying question about how long the statute of limitations runs for candidate “bad acts”, and whether the statute should ever run. Instead we focus on questions like: Did the posters exist? If so, did Andrew have anything to do with them?  If he did, should we hold this against a 19 year old 29 years later?  If Andrew knew, how could Mario not? And, if Mario knew, how could people outraged in 1977, forgive and back Mario in 1982 (Allen Roskoff, this means you), and then hold it against Andrew in 2006?

Bill Weld in accepting the endorsement of the Libertarian Party said he disagrees with the Party on legalizing drugs and prostitution but he concurs that government should be "kept out of your bedroom". Isn’t this a contradiction?