‘America’s Mayor’ apparently is going to bypass a run for the NY governorship and turn his sights toward ousting Kirsten Gillibrand (who was appointed to the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton).

Here’s the story from the WaPo:

After months of relative quiet regarding the political future of former mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), the New York newspapers have exploded this afternoon with reports that not only has he decided not to run for governor in 2010 but that he plans to enter the Senate race against Kirsten Gillibrand instead.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Giuliani, released a statement insisting that no decisions — about the Senate or governors races — have been made; “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own,” added Comella.

According to conversations with several Giuliani insiders, the Mayor has not made up his mind yet although a run for either governor or Senate is not likely. Interestingly, a Senate bid appears to be the more likely choice if Giuliani decides to get back into the political game, note the sources.

This is definitely an interesting turn of events. It looked like a Giuliani-Cuomo match-up was developing in New York (notwithstanding Cuomo having to challenge incumbent David Patterson). But from the sound of it, Rudy is opting to go for the presumably easier seat to win.

Honestly, for Republicans this is probably the preferable choice. The Senate seat is needed far more than the governor’s mansion considering what this administration and the Democrats in Congress are trying to foist upon us.

One thing is for certain – a Rudy senate run only makes 2010 that much more interesting.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Senate Republicans have managed to get 10 hours of debate on the motion to proceed. Harry Reid initially wanted just 1 hour of debate.

Republicans, though, have dropped the idea of reading the bill on the floor. And now they will need one Democrat or Independent Joe Lieberman to join them in a filibuster.

One Senate aide summed it up this way:

“Under the rules, we would only have been entitled to one hour of debate before the vote. Now we have all day to flip one Democrat,” the aide said. “The reading would’ve been to an empty chamber after the vote had happened, press would’ve gone home, and Americans would’ve turned the channel. Now it’s show time.”

I should add, this effort is not without its shenanigans from the mischievous Senator Reid. In a post at Red State, Senator DeMint explains the meaningfulness of this vote and what Reid plans to do:

A defining moment is coming in this year’s health care debate.

Yesterday, Democrat leaders announced they may soon bring Harry Reid’s new health care bill to the Senate floor in an effort to grant the President’s wish for a government takeover of our nation’s health care by Christmas. This is in spite of the fact that 99 senators have never seen Reid’s new bill that was written in secret. Reid even hinted he may rush to a vote before the bill’s been public for 72 hours, as even Democrats have demanded.

To begin debate on this new version of Obamacare, Reid will play a shell game. He needs 60 senators to “vote to proceed” to an unrelated piece of legislation, and once he clears that hurdle he will strike that bill’s text and insert his new health care bill. But don’t be fooled by senators that will say they oppose a government takeover but just wanted to allow debate on health care, they are not being honest.

The simple fact is this: Any senator that votes to proceed to the Reid-Obama bill is voting for a government takeover of health care.

Why? Because, President Obama and Harry Reid cannot pass a government takeover without clearing 60 vote procedural hurdles in the Senate — but they also know that vulnerable Democrats likely cannot win reelection if they vote for this unpopular bill. So they want all Democrats to stick together on the vote to proceed, then some Democrats will vote against final passage of the bill and claim they tried to stop it.

Senators who say they just want to allow for debate are trying to deceive their voters while giving President Obama the crucial votes he needs to pass a government takeover of health care.

Voters should be watching and remember who stands up for their freedom and who stands with the special interests who want to ram through this takeover.

Again, to see the senators we need to target review my previous post here.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

If you wish to attend the rally here is the information:

We will begin with a briefing and prayer at 8:30 AM in the Cafe in the lower level of the annex. Ask the guards when you check in for directions to the Cafeteria.

You will need a picture ID.

Parking if you get in early (before 9:00 AM) is limited but free in the garage directly behind the State House. 

PARKING, There are other parking lots with a fee and metered parking on the street (bring quarters).

Both the Assembly and Senate will be caucusing and committee hearings are being held by both houses starting at 10 AM, 2 PM and 2:30 PM

Senate Judiciary Committee is at 10 AM. This committee will hear the homosexual marriage bill soon.

Hat tip to loyal Conservative Majority reader John Di Marco for bringing this to my attention.

One additional note: according to Steve Lonegan, Senator Kip Bateman has come out against the legislation. Senators Sean Kean, Jennifer Beck and Bill Baroni, though, still need us to persuade them.

Cross-posted at Red County and CMNJ.

It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.

Talk about chutzpah when this is what he has unleashed upon us (and this doesn’t count if healthcare destruction passes).

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

The decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to try Gitmo terrorists in U.S. civilian courts is bad enough. But now we are learning that the AG has a clear conflict of interest regarding this issue and clearly should have recused himself from any involvement in the decision.

What is the issue? Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, represents sixteen Gitmo terrorists. From the firm’s web site:

Guantanamo Bay Detainees

• We represent sixteen men detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  Most of the men have been detained for approximately seven years.  None have been charged with any crimes, and none have been accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention.  In Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), where we were co-counsel for eleven of the detainees, the Supreme Court held that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus extends to detainees held at Guantánamo Bay.  Following that decision, we have been preparing for habeas corpus hearings to be held in federal district court Washington, DC, for eleven of our clients.
• The firm has been involved in the Guantánamo related litigation for the last five years.  In addition to the on-going habeas corpus proceedings, our efforts have included: bringing cases for review of enemy combatant classification decisions in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; challenging the destruction of CIA torture tapes in federal court; filing amicus briefs and coordinating the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006); filing amicus briefs in support of Supreme Court review in Moussaoui v. United States, 382 F.3d 483 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 544 U.S. 931 (2005); challenging the government’s practice of redacting information from documents given to security-cleared habeas counsel; and challenging the abusive medical and living conditions that the detainees experience at Guantánamo.

It should also be noted that Holder has a history of going to bat for terrorists. When he was Deputy AG in the Clinton Administration he was directly involved in the pardons of FALN terrorists which caused an uproar in the waning days of Clinton’s term in office.

And just to provide some further context, when the Enron scandal broke during the Bush years, for AG John Ashcroft recused himself because when he ran for senate he had received campaign contributions from Enron execs. Ashcroft also recused himself over the Valerie Plame matter because he had allegedly been briefed about the FBI’s questioning of Karl Rove about the incident.

Yet in this case Holder’s former law firm stands to directly gain from these proceedings and Holder neither discloses such facts nor recuses himself? Senate Republicans now need to step up, voice their objection and threaten to investigate this matter. Holder’s actions are completely unethical and he needs to be held accountable.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Independents now also have an extremely unfavorable view of this Congress. A Gallup poll shows their approval of the Pelosi-Reid Congress at an abysmal 14%. As I reported last week, only 45% of independents want their representative re-elected. Additionally, according to a CBS poll, Barack Obama’s approval among independents has dropped precipitously since April – from 63% then to 45% now.

All of this obviously bodes quite well for Republicans in 2010.

Here is the story from Politico:

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

 Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message. 

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington. 

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Also, while I am on the subject of independents, here is an interesting article from Zogby explaining the difference between independents and moderates.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

As has been feared, the Democrats are planning to put the controversial gay marriage issue to a vote before Chris Christie takes office. My colleagues over at Conservative Majority New Jersey (formerly Conservatives with Attitude!) Sharon Soon and Michael Illions have just posted on this.

Sharon’s post mentions the following:

The New Jersey Family Policy Council has just announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will post and vote on a gay marriage bill. The bill has been introduced by recently defeated Lieutenant Governor candidate Loretta Weinberg and openly gay Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.

The NJFPC is calling all supporters to call their legislators, notify churches about this bill, and sign the marriage petition (it can be signed repeatedly).

While Michael’s post warns that 4 RINO Republicans are rumored to be in favor of this bill.

The names of the Gay Marriage enablers in the Republican Party should not surprise or shock anyone. They are Jennifer Beck, who once was on the short list to become Chris Christie’s LG pick until it rumored that they had discussed that possibility while he was still a US Attorney.

The next one is Sean Kean, one of the GOP Senator’s who voted to reappoint Liberal Judge Barry Albin, to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Kip Bateman makes three. Kip voted to repeal the Death Penalty as an Assemblyman 2 years ago and also joined the above mentioned weasel Sean Kean in voting to reappoint to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

And finally, the last of the 4 is Bill Baroni. Baroni was the lone “Republican” vote and the deciding vote that saddled this State with Paid Family Leave Act.

If you are a fellow New Jerseyan who opposes gay marriage, then it’s time to start getting on the phone and telling these legislators to vote ‘NO!’

Cross-posted at Red County.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

Cross-posted at CMNJ!

Politically, Christie is going to be under tremendous pressure to follow through and cut taxes. The suffocating tax climate in New Jersey is one of the main reasons he was elected and property taxes were the top issue for New Jersey voters this year. Further, according to some recent polling, voters are expecting Christie to cut taxes in his first year.

The signals, though, that Christie will follow through on property tax relief so far aren’t promising.

First, Christie has shown no inclination to do anything at all about the unfair school funding formula in the state. As we witnessed during the primary with Steve Lonegan, Mr. Christie does not support changing the formula to a per pupil basis which would result in a 20% cut in property taxes.

In a column last week by Paul Mulshine, he explained that Christie is not only opposed to increasing state aid to suburban towns like Toms River, but that he also opposes ending mandates like binding arbitration: 

No sooner were the votes counted than he was telling suburban voters they’re out of luck if they thought he was going to help them with their property tax bills.

That happened last week when he met with several Ocean County mayors in my old home town of Toms River. Christie scored his biggest wins in Toms River and adjacent Brick Township, which together gave him 38,000 votes toward his 100,000-vote margin of victory. The mayors of those and other towns asked him if he will deliver badly needed state aid to their towns.

“I’m not going to give Newark’s money to Toms River,’’ Christie told them.

The mayors then proceeded to tell the governor-elect that if they won’t be getting more state aid, then at least they need to be relieved of state mandates. The most costly such mandate is binding arbitration of labor disputes. The arbitrators routinely award raises that can add up to double the current cap on tax hikes, which is 4 percent.

I discussed this yesterday with Manchester Township Mayor Michael Fressola, who was at the meeting. Fressola said the police in his town now earn an average of $94,000. In the absence of state aid, homeowners have to pick up that tab.

“That’s why we were asking him to get rid of a lot of the mandates,” said Fressola. “That would in effect be the same as more state aid.”

It would indeed, but McGreevey’s response to the mayors was: “I can’t see eliminating binding arbitration.”

I’m sorry, did I say “McGreevey”? I meant “Christie.” Pro-taxpayer before the election, pro-union afterward. It’s hard to tell the two apart.

This leaves the property tax gimmick. Christie won’t be able to deliver on his promise to first, restore, then increase the rebates without borrowing or increasing the income tax which funds the rebates. Again, either more debt and fiscal peril or, on the other hand, broken campaign promises.

Herein lies the problem that so many conservatives had with Mr. Christie throughout the campaign. Yes, there was a lack of specifics, but there was also a more overriding doubt that he would have the political will and courage to address the serious structural problems with the budget.

Today, Mr. Christie is meeting with his transition team to discuss taxes. It will be interesting to see what other signals come from this meeting. Will he show any more willingness than he has to date to address the aforementioned issues? Or will we hear more generalities and platitudes?

For Mr. Christie’s sake I hope it is the former and not the latter. For if he ultimately fails to deliver on real property tax relief I believe it will to his own political peril. The people who voted for Mr. Christie are expecting no less and they will surely hold him accountable four years from now.  

The time is now for bold leadership on this issue and the state’s finances in general - not timidity and sleight of hand.

[ON EDIT] And on cue: NJ Budget May Be Worse Than Thought: Christie

Cross-posted at Red County and CMNJ.

There is an old saying that ‘truth is stranger than fiction.’ I suppose that is the best way to frame this story. You just can’t make this stuff up.

“Gay American” Jim McGreevey is spending his Sunday mornings with a new man — Jesus.

The former New Jersey love gov has gone from Turnpike rest stops to the church rostrum as part of his training to become an Episcopal priest, working each weekend at All Saints Church in Hoboken.

McGreevey — who resigned from office in disgrace in 2004 — isn’t far enough along in his seminary studies to actually give sermons, but he assists the Rev. Geoffrey Curtiss at three Masses on Sunday and participates in parish programs, donation drives and activities.

During services last week, McGreevey, wearing a white robe, carried the cross during the processional, helped Curtiss bless the Eucharist and helped baptize a group of babies and young children.

A beaming, bespectacled McGreevey — himself the proud papa of two girls, Jacqueline, 7, and Morag, 17 — took photos of the newly christened kids and their families afterward, and hugged and chatted with members of the congre gation while sipping coffee between Masses.

The noticeably graying ex-gov, 52, also welcomed parishioners with an enthusiastic “Good morning.”

The churchgoers know him simply as “Jim,” and he knows many of them personally.

Well, despite this odd turn - considering his sordid past – we can only hope he has turned himself around and wish him the best.

Cross-posted at Conservative Majority New Jersey!