The Occasional Observer

That's Paladino's Angry Man Pronoucements (via the NY Daily News):

"I'm beyond the normal person, I'm not your everyday Joe."

"There will be blood on the floor," he said, washing down pork braciola with red wine. "It won't be pretty, it won't be clean, but I will take them [Lazio & Cuomo] down."

He told building contractors in Ronkonkoma that Gov. Paterson was "a wimp . . . really, he's pathetic." Former Gov. George Pataki? He's a "degenerate idiot."
The Legislature? "They don't have a brain in their heads," he told gas station owners in upstate Rochester.

...he described the Albany work ethic this way: "Their idea is to play pinochle, get sloshed at the bar, rub elbows with lobbyists, then leave town by Wednesday afternoon to go home and play golf."

His solution: "I'm going to have to put some people in prison." Who's at the head of the list? "The petty dictator and master manipulator Shelly Silver." The Assembly speaker, he repeats, "belongs in Attica."

Paladino's policy prescriptions can be unforgiving, like his platform on illegal immigrants. He vowed to send the state police into New York City "and every other sanctuary city in the state to pick up illegals and turn them over to the feds."

Rubio seems to be gaining momentum.

Great news for the GOP. Here's the math on why:

Principled conservative + quick on his feet + made-for-TV face + hispanic background = possible future as a national candidate.

"The budget should be balanced; the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest [we] become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of...living on public assistance."

I used the new paper ballots this morning. It's so crazy hard. I can see where everyone got messed up in Palm Beach.

I mean, there's all these ovals. And you have to mark them. I mean, who wants to leave a blank oval? It's like peanut butter without jelly. I just had to fill them all in.

But don't worry, I'm sure the election officials will figure out who I really wanted to vote for. Because I circled their name AND wrote an explanation on the bottom of the ballot, just for good measure.

The tea party-backed, Sarah Palin-endorsed insurgent candidates are starting to chap my posterior. I'm not weighing in on the merits. I'm sure Lamongtane and O'Donnell are perfectly good conservatives with whom I probably agree on most issues. And perhaps they will be more reliable conservatives than Castle or Ayotte.

But Castle and Ayotte are both brand name GOP politicians with a good reputation, who have won state wide elections previously. Both have been polling ahead of their Dem opponent all cycle long. And both seemed likely to win and create GOP pickups in the Senate.

And now, both insurgent GOP candidates, who have basically come out of nowhere to be polling in a dead heat with the leaders, may win the nomination. And both Palinistas trail the Dems in statewide polls. Just like in Colorado, Nevada, and Kentucky, where mainstream GOP candidates were likely to win, and now tea party candidates are either fighting uphill (NV) or in a dogfight (CO, KY). In DE and NH, the tea party candidates face even worse prospects.

I feel like the perfect is starting to become the enemy of the good.

With this win, Coach K is now the reigning NCAA Champion, FIBA World Champion, and Olympic Champion, simultaneously.

Yet one more reason he is approaching "GOAT" status.

I love how this guy shuts down the demagoguery. Gov. Christie Responds To Teacher Claiming He Lambastes Education.

For those interested in the GOP race to oppose Sen. Schumer, here's the link to part one of the debate between the two Republican hopefuls.

NOTE: I fixed the link

I can only hope the results will pan out on election day similar to today's polls:

California Senate - Boxer vs. Fiorina SurveyUSA Boxer 46, Fiorina 48 Fiorina +2
California Governor - Whitman vs. Brown SurveyUSA Whitman 47, Brown 40 Whitman +7

I've listened to most of this debate at this point. I don't disagree with anything DioGuardi has to say, but I can't seem to warm up to him. He's obviously the most practiced and doesn't get himself too far out on a limb (see: Blakeman) with rhetorical flourishes. His low ACU ranking is an issue, but he's bound to be an improvement on Gillibrand. He just seems a little long in the tooth and, as a former long-time Congressman, unlikely to cash in on the "outsider" sentiment that seems so popular this year.

Blakeman seems to have the most passion, and the most willingness to go out there and battle. He was clearly drawing distinctions between himself and his opponents, and challenging Malpass and Dioguardi on different points througout the debate. It would help if he did a better job getting his facts right (he called Dioguardi a paid lobbiest and really pressed the point, but it would appear he was factually wrong). It would also help if he didn't step on giant landmines, like when they asked each candidate to say one thing they admired about Gillibrand, he led off with "she's an attractive woman." I guess we can see why he's divorced.

Blakeman also seems to be frequently loose with facts and truth. He "can't remember" if he's been sued (wouldn't most people remember that)?

As for Malpass, he's the intellectual elite of the group, long time Bear Stearns chief economists, speaks three languages, etc. etc. He's got tons of published paper trail, and gets the economy better than 99% of the folks in Washington. He also seemed incredibly genuine and likeable. The downside to that is that he's not the practiced with political rhetoric and parry. He seemed unable to defend himself against Blakeman's attacks and unsure how to attack his opponent. He spent plenty of time bumbling and stumbling around. They asked him in the lightning round (yes or no answers only), "should creationism be taught in public schools?" His answer, "um......[6 seconds]...no." He's just not a politican, and he's going to be running into a buzzsaw of attack ads, and he's got a long paper trail for the Dems to distort.

If I were to use a boxing analogy to describe the political approaches taken by the candidates in this debate, DioGuardi was the boxer, Blakeman the slugger flailing away hoping to catch one good uppercut. Malpass? I don't know, maybe a front-row armchair philosopher considering how best to improve the sport.

In terms of policy, there are some differences between the candidates. DioGuardi is clearly most pro-life of the group, and Malpass takes a pro-choice-with-"reasonable"-restrictions approach. Blakeman and Malpass expressed more unabashedly hawkish foreign policy positions, while DioGuardi went as far as saying that, with what we know now, invading Iraq was a mistake (the other two said it was the right position).

The most lacking element of the debate? Discussing the structural problems in our budget that need reform to reduce the deficit, in a real way, over the long term. Malpass spent the most time talking about deficit, followed by DioGuardi, but no one talked about how the Dems were kicking the can down the road, and how the tea party uprising is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix the long term problems embedded in our entitlement system.

Think I'm leaning to DioGuardi as the most viable, but I think, unfortunately, we don't have a great candidate available in the group. I'd definitely like to support Malpass if he showed the ability to articulate his agenda more clearly and deal with his opponents.