Spin Cycle

The ads sound pretty accurate to me. What Hevesi did was wrong, but the thought of Mr. Callaghan in charge of my pension gives me the chills. Callaghan is in WAY over his head. I'll vote for Hevesi and assume that he will ultimately be replaced by someone else who is qualified for the job -- as chosen by Spitzer and Silver.

James:

You have WAY too much faith in Spitzer and Silver to do the right thing. Let's face it, these are just self-interested politicians who'd rather appoint someone who then becomes, for all practical purposes, beholden to them for the next four years. That's no way to clean up Albany.

Look, Newsday, the NY Post, and even the New York Times have endorsed Callaghan. He's obviously qualified for the job. Leaving it to Spitzer and Silver gives them way too much power. I have no faith whatsoever that they'd do the right thing by the people of NY.

This is a choice the people should make, not politicians. And given Hevesi's admitted ethical (perhaps criminal?) lapses, the choice is clear: Chris Callaghan. That's who I'll be voting for.

Tom: I will abide by the results of the election, of course. But if the people choose Hevesi over Callaghan, as I suspect will happen on election day, then the people HAVE spoken. The voters will have said loud and clear that they would prefer "ABC" -- "Anybody But Callaghan." And Spitzer and Silver WILL choose a new comptroller. Shall I assume that you will accept the result of the electoral process? Or will you be complaining about the need to subvert the electoral process because you don't like the outcome?

James:

Of course I fully accept any vote of the people even when I disagree with it - as I hope that you and all good citizens would do as well. In fact, I accepted - humbly and in awe of our electoral process - the results of my own failed election bid to the NYS Assembly in 1998. I respectfully submit that I need no reminders about my civic responsibilities and duties.

But I also respectfully submit that Hevesi's re-election under these circumstances would come about for one of two reasons (i) IGNORANCE - because too many voters will fail to fully inform themselves of the extent of Hevesi's multiple ethical (perhaps criminal?) lapses, or (ii) NAIVETE - because some voters would rather entrust this most important decision to self-interested politicians who will directly benefit from the appointment. Either way, a very bad result for the people of New York - but clearly one the people are entitled to seek.

Look, I am voting for Callaghan. He's clearly qualified for the job. And, as the NY Times reminded us when it endorsed Callaghan, sometimes political parties have to suffer for their own failures in policing themselves. The Democrats shouldn't be rewarded for their failures here. Hevesi - and his party - deserves to lose. I just hope that there are enough like-minded voters out there who are willing to reject the power play that the Democrats are now advancing.

But I'd guess that you and I are just not going to agree about that, are we?

Tom -- One last thing. I DO understand your point about Hevesi's unethical (and perhaps illegal) actions. I'm not condoning his actions at all. I would be happy to see him go, which I'm confident will happen in the not too distant future.

I would have to respectfully disagree, though, with your assertion that Callaghan "is clearly qualified for the job." It's not clear at all. Please give that some thought.

Callaghan was treasurer of a smallish (and fairly wealthy)county in upstate New York. He's a "small time" accountant in a "small time" job. He has no experience dealing with finances on a grand scale. He was hand picked by the state Republican party to be their sacrificial lamb against Hevesi -- for which he will no doubt be rewarded even if he loses. He's not a shining knight in white armor. I doubt that they exist in politics. Callaghan is just as beholden as anyone else. To believe otherwise would be naive.

Callaghan's main qualification for the job is that he got lucky. Somebody is feeding him inside dirt. That's about it.

So we're stuck making the best of a bad situation. I want someone with some strong financial credentials as comptroller -- regardless of their party affiliation. If a qualified Republican were on the ballot, I would be happy to vote for him/her over Hevesi. But that isn't the case.

Since there's no way the Republicans can offer anyone but Callaghan, I don't think that folks can in good conscience vote for their grossly underqualified candidate. That leaves Hevesi as the only option (who WAS qualified for the job despite his current problems). And as I said, he will presumably be replaced in short order if he wins. And I do think that the candidate chosen will have strong credentials.

But the bottom line is that the people should speak via the electoral process. It is appalling how few New Yorkers exercise their right to vote. That, I suspect, is something that we can agree on.

James:

Thanks for your very thoughtful and very respectful reply. You are both passionate and clear-thinking about your position. It's obvious that you have come to your conclusion rationally.

Look, I hear you about your concerns about Callaghan. I just disagree is all - as do the major dailies. This ain't rocket science. I'd take a minimally qualifed public servant who is honest and hard-working over a slick, corrupt one anyday. Callaghan is substantially more than minimally qualified. Moreover, from what we know at this point, his integrity and work ethic is unquestioned.

I also disagree about Hevesi. Ever since he commented that Senator Schumer should or could "put a bullet between" President Bush's eye's, I suspected that there was something seriously wrong with the guy. That's not how a rationale politician behaves in public. What was going through his mind?? I thought at that time that he should have had the decency to resign, but was not surprised that his party protected him. Who knows how much his party knew about his current troubles but failed to act just so it could protect its electoral self-interests? It's naive to think they'd do the right thing now when they haven't to date.

Finally, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you about how appalling it is that so few people exercise their right to vote. Everyone who is qualified to do so should. On that we agree.

Thanks for engaging in such CIVIL discourse. It's a rarity today.

Tom

These attack ads are pretty pathetic and misrepresent Chris Callaghan as a candidate.
The first ad comes from Hevesi's question during the NY1 debate. Callaghan put up his response to the question of "missing accounting records" from McCall's audit. It can be found here: www.callaghanfornewyork.com/oscauditresponse.html

The second ad is a blatant lie. As a comptroller, he cannot make tax policy, only suggestions and then balance the books when a budget is past. His focus will be on making sure government spending isn't wasted and that member items are transparent in future budgets.

The third ad is simply ridiculous, because even though the comptroller controls the pension fund, he is not at liberty to change it, because that would require changing the laws. He advocates Pension Reform and proposes a privitization method, but this is no different than how the president proposes social security reform. It is simply that. A proposal. It would still require the Legislators to enact policy.

Hevesi's ads are blatant lies and manipulations. In 2002, he made abortion a Comptroller issue to turn votes away from Faso. Now, he's telling New Yorkers that the electing Callaghan would mean change to taxes and pension funds. They are bold face lies.

I agree with Tom. The attack ads are not accurate. I could not find anything to support what Hevesi is saying about Callaghan but found plenty to dispute it. Why is everyone so afraid to have Callaghan in that seat. So what if he is not flashy and not your typical politician? Aren't we ready for someone to look out for the taxpayer, not special interests and high powered friends? From what I understand the republicans did not pick Callaghan. He had to go around the state and present his case to the county chairs one at a time and won most of them over. Scott Vanderhoff was in the running early on and dropped out of that race because (to everyone's surprise) all the high ups were backing Callaghan.
I think he can do the job. We should let him.

Hevesi's campaign commericals are grossly inaccurate. One the State Controller does not enact Pension Benefits. That is the job of the Legislature and the Governor. The Controller can be a bully pulpit for change in the system something Hevesi has not done with respect to the Legislature's irresponsible granting of incresaed benefits to public employees. Callaghans proposed changes mirror what is evolving in the private sector and addressing an issue that could be devastating financially in the future to NYS.

As for his qualifications Hevesi was a legislator and a Political Science Prof not exactly sterling qualifications for the job. Callaghan is by training, experience and temperment more qualified than Hevesi for this job. Plus if NY'ers are serious about reforming Albany and keeping Spitzers feet to the fire then you don't want a fiscal monitor who is beholden to the machine you're trying to clean up.

As for Mc Call's report the two comments in question were minor issues that were not problems at all. I spent 11 years in Public Accounting and if I said what Hevesi said about it I would have been laughed out of my firm.

Sponsor Results are sites that pay for placement in search results on terms that are relevant to their business.

chat online

chat online

dating

dating

dating

The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride f*cking with you. F*ck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.
2d948994a8dc85706376de81d3a72bd5

The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride f*cking with you. F*ck pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps.
33f83f702e389cf9524c473b4eb9c436