First of all Rock, do you think endorsements at the last minutes are more effective than ones that are early? Because I think you have that ass backwards.

As to why Jeanine doesn't get a pass from the LGBT community it is three fold: First of all she refers to us as "the gays", secondly she fails on our bell weather issue of the day—she is not for same sex marriage—that's a reason for you to support her, Rock, and us to oppose her.

Finally, she is a Republican. You waive that off the way pundits who supported Nader did in 2000 did. Eh, the parties aren't that different, really are they? Let's stop the partisan bull-crap! Tell that to the people of Iraq Rock—Al Gore would not have started that war.

Being a Republican, in this day and age, when the Federal Marriage Ammendment is an official part of the GOP platform is enough reason to oppose her. When it comes to LGBT issues, the Republicans get an F, while the Dems get a C.  

Appart from "the gays' issues," she may be better qualified to be AG than Cuomo is, but New York needs to give Eliot every chance to improve this state—Jeanine is not going to be his ally. We need a Democrat in that position.

In addition, she is likely to be far more pro-business than Eliot was. The list of reasons not to like her goes on and on. I am supporting and will help Andrew in any way he can to beat her.

You always misread and misconstrue my posts and I'm not going to stand for it anymore.  You, Rock, are a liar. Everything in your comment just now was a lie.

How is it a single issue vote, when I think A) he's better on gay rights B) he will be much more  of a help to our new Governor and C) he won't be soft on business like Jeanine? That's at least three reasons Rock.

I didn't call you a name. I called you a homophobe and I said why I think you are (I'm not going to repeat my argument) which you never responded to my points. Instead called me a name. You said I was intellectually dishonest for writing "anonyimously", but you never admitted that by your own criteria, your fave gatemouth is also—that is calling people names.

Take a look at those comments: You never challenged me to discuss marriage. NEVER. You said you didn't want to discuss the issue. I would have if you did.

And, I wrote an entire post on VFCNTH http://www.r8ny.com/blog/enwhyseawonk/gay_voters_want_to_know.html

Who's intellectually dishonest now?

1 one issue voter? Lie

2 called you names? Lie

3 refused to discuss gay marriage? Lie

4 never covered Vote for Cuomo? Lie

Rock- Pirro the better candidate?  You talk about how AG is not the job that Andrew originally wanted.  True.  However, last year, Jeanine was running for...what was it again...oh yeah, United States Senate. When that idea went bust, she turned around and ran for AG.

This job is not the same thing as being a DA. I think Eliot showed that. Andrew's experience as Commissioner of a major Federal agency provides him with a great background to be Attorney General.  In addition, having been around New York state government for so many years gives him a very good grasp of the issues that he will have to confront as the chief law enforcement officer.  

 And Enwhyseawonk is right...in an era where Republicans control all three branches of government in Washington and the State Senate here in NY, why would any progressive activist who shares the ideals of the Democratic party support her?  It doesn't make any sense.

To quote Michael Bouldin...

 Feh!

 I am no fan whatsoever of Cuomo. But Pirro is even worse. And I wan't too impressed with her poor conduct (along with Joe Bruno) at a police officer's funeral. Double Feh!

I have to agree with EnWhySeaWonk... although the temptation to support Pirro is high, I think if you watched two alternate universes compete, you would see the one with Cuomo as AG would come out with a slight upperhand. Slight.

He shouldn't have even been in the running, but now he is the lesser of two evils. 

The legal universe is not my main concern or area of knowledge.

But what do you think of Wayne Barrett's contention that Cuomo is likely to serve as a rallying point for oppostion if Spitzer seeks to reign in funding for powerful Democratic interests such as New York's hospital industry to make free up funds for underfunded needs? 

In other words, what are the chances that Cuomo would seek to influence events beyond the scope of his own office to raise his profile?  The easiest way to do that, though not the best way, is to pander to existing privilege by opposing change.  And change is hard enough as it is.

Pirro would be unlikely to do so. I don't think she'd get out front to oppose cutbacks for Republican special interests either. She'd just hold an occasional press conference outing some internet porn, a small but useful service.  I wouldn't expect much good from Pirro in the office, but hopefully there wouldn't be much damage.  And when lawsuits were filed to stall some change Spitzer was trying to make, Pirro would be more likely to do her job and defend the state rather than undermine its case.

I'll be tempted to vote for Pirro to keep Cuomo out of Spitzer's way.

Don't worry about Cuomo holding back Spitzer, the whole game will be played out between the three men in a room, but one of the men will be different. Shelly and Joe will still run the show.  The real deal will be veto over-rides if Spitzer betrays his many supporters and follows your script for smashing defined benefit pensions and government employees health and welfare benefits.

 Spitzer never broke up the three men, neither will Pirro or Cuomo.

(The real deal will be veto over-rides if Spitzer betrays his many supporters and follows your script for smashing defined benefit pensions and government employees health and welfare benefits.)

You obviously meant to say follows my script and demand relative equality for those his generation and after relative to those who went before, for new hires relative to those who grabbed more money than exists, and for those who toil with neither work nor benefits relative to those with plenty of both.

As I've said, two kinds of people are getting richer -- top executives who sit on each other's boards and endorse each other's pay packages, and retired and soon to retire public employees.  Everyone else is getting poorer, including new public employees and those who rely on them for services.  Do you have any kids, and do you think they will live here.  I do, and the direction of things --- deal after deal after deal -- bothers me.

Whether Spitzer will demand a better deal for the losers, we shall see.

...about Pirro is strategic: we're going to have a Progressive Democrat in the governor's chair come January. Pirro, of course, is an ambitious republican with designs on that chair herself, one that would, as AG, unfortunately be euipped with subpoena power. I seem to recall that this particular combination really wasn't very useful for President Clinton.

Cuomo, by contrast, would prove himself very useful, because he knows as well as anyone that he needs to succeed in this office. Self-interest alone is enough to make the man perform; not least because he clearly views the AG spot as a stepping stone. It's way too early to talk about this, of course, but Cuomo will be Eliot's heir apparent, with all that that entails.

Long story short, I intend to support Cuomo with a view to the bigger picture. He wasn't my first (or even second) choice, but the voters disagreed, so I'm very willing to give the man the benefit oof the doubt. Consuming ambition, if directed into the right channels, can be useful; especially if one's goal is to wipe this state clean of republican power.

And that is my goal. Everything else flows from that. 

Vote for the attorney general who you think will do the least damage. 

You make a case that Pirro would be more likely to pull a Whitewater investigation, someone else said the reverse.  I guess I'll think about it between now and then.

It is a sad thing, but the number of politicians in this state I feel I can trust to even a limited extent I can count on one hand.  Very disillusioning.