Have a safe and Happy New Year.
King Watch will be back in a few days.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
How Much Did King Spend to Win?
Now the number is very high but King did spend some cash on non-campaign items like his car payments.
But for an incumbant in a "safe" district gerrymandered for him, this is alot of money to spend.
According to Open Secrets from a 11/27/06 FEC filing,
King raised $1,478,660 this election cycle.
King spent $2,055,507.
Cash on hand right now is $316,990.
Not being in the majority or a commitee chairman will certainly affect him raising the same cash he has been.
King was so scared, in the last month of the campaign he spent $316,726 on printing alone.
How much did he spend to air tv and radio ads? $1,260,579.
Yikes.
Again, for a "safe" seat King spent more than he has in previous elections combined.
King paid Warfield & Company of Delaplane, VA $24,646 for the production of his ads.
If you saw the ads, you know he over-paid.
More financials as we get them....
But for an incumbant in a "safe" district gerrymandered for him, this is alot of money to spend.
According to Open Secrets from a 11/27/06 FEC filing,
King raised $1,478,660 this election cycle.
King spent $2,055,507.
Cash on hand right now is $316,990.
Not being in the majority or a commitee chairman will certainly affect him raising the same cash he has been.
King was so scared, in the last month of the campaign he spent $316,726 on printing alone.
How much did he spend to air tv and radio ads? $1,260,579.
Yikes.
Again, for a "safe" seat King spent more than he has in previous elections combined.
King paid Warfield & Company of Delaplane, VA $24,646 for the production of his ads.
If you saw the ads, you know he over-paid.
More financials as we get them....
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Another Letter to King from the 80 Year Old Constituent
We posted a letter sent to King back in October. Here is a follow-up letter.
Apparantly the writer did get a response from King and I'm working on getting a copy of that.
Enjoy the letter.. I'm sure King didn't.
Dear Congressman King:
You stated that you found my October 23rd letter “reassuring.” I assume you meant that to be humorous. If so, please know that you succeeded, earning you, in my judgment, a comic rating somewhere between John Kerry and George Allen.
But now… let’s see where we are, with the election behind us and your fifteen minutes of - what has it been, fame, notoriety, hype? - running out. We’re back to approaching irrelevancy, aren’t we, Congressman? A condition more likely to be achieved by virtue of approaching minority status.
One nice thing (for the officeholder) about being a member of Congress - you can be irrelevant and still draw your paycheck.
How do you figure you got back in? I mean, realistically. Lest you have other illusions, I think it can be safely said that you won your narrowest election in years against an able but much less well known opposition candidate, thanks to:
The almost unbeatable advantage of incumbency in a gerrymandered district where ability doesn’t seem to enjoy the highest priority
The help of a still creaking Gulotta-Mondello political machine
Greatly outspending your opponent
Misrepresenting your opponent’s support
Assuming the mantle of a tough guy without ever having to prove it
Avoiding calling attention to your theretofore very public support of the misadventure in Iraq
Not dealing with such issues as the economy, taxes or health care
A mandate to stay the course? Don’t think so.
Let me, in retrospect and fairness, credit you with two acts of decency in your Congressional career: not joining in the chorus to impeach Bill Clinton and not letting Tom DeLay escape ethical scrutiny (not that the House Ethics Committee has any teeth or guts to be concerned about).
Other than that, what have you contributed to the country in these dangerous times? Let us count the ways.
You have posed endlessly for photos (how you have helped Louisiana since you went down there and had your picture taken isn’t clear but I assume you’ll let us know), given interviews while attacking the media, sounded off about terrorists (both real and imagined), identified yourself gratuitously with our fighting forces (without calling for any sacrifice on the part of the country to help support them) and made a whipping boy of immigrants – all very jingoistic and obviously appealing to enough people to reelect you.
You have supported the speciously titled Patriot Act, approved the wiretapping of phone calls to American citizens and called for “tough” CIA interrogation of those you believe to be terrorists, without finding it necessary to distinguish between toughness and torture. Or would that be too wimpish a difference from where you safely sit?
A lot of flagwaving from someone who apparently has never had to face a real enemy (unless Newsday counts). But with little substance and no discernible legislative effect.
You’re aware, of course, that a Vatican cardinal, speaking for Pope Benedict has decried the building of the Bush- and King-championed wall along the Mexican border, as have the American Catholic bishops. Evidently, they haven’t seen the wisdom of your pet project or recognized its moral justification. Clergy can be pesky sometimes, can’t they, Congressman? All caught up in ideology. But no matter. When you’re right, you’re right.
But have you noticed a problem? Congress hasn’t actually appropriated the money to build the wall, has it? Did you fail also to convince your colleagues of its merits or was it all for show? Truthfully, we know the wall won’t be built, don’t we?
Let’s face it. Your soon to end service as Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has accomplished exactly what? The peril of terrorism is as great as, if not greater, than ever. The country is grievously unprotected. You preemptively got Dubai booted out of port management, embarrassing the White House and State Department, while New York (your home base) got short shrift in security funding. There is precious little to prevent a 9/11-type air attack on any of our ports, transit systems or exposed nuclear energy facilities. We have more lethal enemies who hate us than we had before and alerts have become a fact of life.
Meanwhile, Iraq is in shambles and getting more chaotic and murderous each day, our troops continue being killed and wounded, additional billions of dollars are going down the drain (you’ll soon be approving more and adding to the deficit), the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan and we are facing ominous threats in Iran and North Korea.
And what is your and Bush’s solution? More of the same? Let someone else’s sons and daughters pay the price for this tragic folly?
Henry Kissinger says we can’t achieve a military victory in Iraq. He’s not my favorite statesman but at least he fought in a war. But is anyone listening? If you and our non-battle tested CIC have a new plan to accomplish the “mission,” tell us what it is. Throw in more troops? (If so, where will they come from – National Guard, reserves, re-recycled units, high school seniors?) Start moving troops to Kuwait? Train more Iraqi militia so they can kidnap and kill more Iraqis? Establish “benchmarks?” God forbid, set a timetable.
You have been uncharacteristically silent on the war lately. And for a good reason. You have nothing to say.
Yes, getting rid of Rumsfeld was a start but more - a lot more - change is needed.
Since posturing and preening don’t seem to help, how about a suggestion as to what you, as a patriot, can do?
Seriously consider whether now may be a good time for you to cut and run, to resign your congressional seat for the larger good. Such an act wouldn’t cause much of a blip on the national screen but it could set an example and help continue the momentum for further change. Some people might even consider it noble. What more could you ask as a legacy?
Think about it. Your contribution could be to give up the burdens of public office and the irritation of unappreciative critics. You could treat yourself to a farewell party (make sure the caterer’s help are all documented) and take your plaques home. Let someone else (almost anyone) take over while you look around for another job with free health care, expense account and pension.
You must at some point have thought about joining some of your well-connected cronies to become a post-Congress lobbyist, right? If you act soon, I’m sure the Defense Secretary (you’d better hurry), Majority Leader (ditto) and Ed Koch (take your time) will give you good references. You could ask the Vice President, too, if you can find him. I don’t know about the President; I think you may have alienated him, although publicly, he’d probably say you did a heck of a job.
You could still hang around Washington, go home on weekends and attend an American Legion meeting or two. You could continue to take trips, maybe not to the Green Zone, but to, say, Mexico.
And you’d have time to visit some of the sick and injured in Walter Reed and veterans’ hospitals.
I bet if you put your mind to it, you could come up with a friend or a family member on K Street to put in a good word for you. As a last resort, you could always hit up Al D’Amato.
What do you think?
Sincerely,
MH
Apparantly the writer did get a response from King and I'm working on getting a copy of that.
Enjoy the letter.. I'm sure King didn't.
Dear Congressman King:
You stated that you found my October 23rd letter “reassuring.” I assume you meant that to be humorous. If so, please know that you succeeded, earning you, in my judgment, a comic rating somewhere between John Kerry and George Allen.
But now… let’s see where we are, with the election behind us and your fifteen minutes of - what has it been, fame, notoriety, hype? - running out. We’re back to approaching irrelevancy, aren’t we, Congressman? A condition more likely to be achieved by virtue of approaching minority status.
One nice thing (for the officeholder) about being a member of Congress - you can be irrelevant and still draw your paycheck.
How do you figure you got back in? I mean, realistically. Lest you have other illusions, I think it can be safely said that you won your narrowest election in years against an able but much less well known opposition candidate, thanks to:
The almost unbeatable advantage of incumbency in a gerrymandered district where ability doesn’t seem to enjoy the highest priority
The help of a still creaking Gulotta-Mondello political machine
Greatly outspending your opponent
Misrepresenting your opponent’s support
Assuming the mantle of a tough guy without ever having to prove it
Avoiding calling attention to your theretofore very public support of the misadventure in Iraq
Not dealing with such issues as the economy, taxes or health care
A mandate to stay the course? Don’t think so.
Let me, in retrospect and fairness, credit you with two acts of decency in your Congressional career: not joining in the chorus to impeach Bill Clinton and not letting Tom DeLay escape ethical scrutiny (not that the House Ethics Committee has any teeth or guts to be concerned about).
Other than that, what have you contributed to the country in these dangerous times? Let us count the ways.
You have posed endlessly for photos (how you have helped Louisiana since you went down there and had your picture taken isn’t clear but I assume you’ll let us know), given interviews while attacking the media, sounded off about terrorists (both real and imagined), identified yourself gratuitously with our fighting forces (without calling for any sacrifice on the part of the country to help support them) and made a whipping boy of immigrants – all very jingoistic and obviously appealing to enough people to reelect you.
You have supported the speciously titled Patriot Act, approved the wiretapping of phone calls to American citizens and called for “tough” CIA interrogation of those you believe to be terrorists, without finding it necessary to distinguish between toughness and torture. Or would that be too wimpish a difference from where you safely sit?
A lot of flagwaving from someone who apparently has never had to face a real enemy (unless Newsday counts). But with little substance and no discernible legislative effect.
You’re aware, of course, that a Vatican cardinal, speaking for Pope Benedict has decried the building of the Bush- and King-championed wall along the Mexican border, as have the American Catholic bishops. Evidently, they haven’t seen the wisdom of your pet project or recognized its moral justification. Clergy can be pesky sometimes, can’t they, Congressman? All caught up in ideology. But no matter. When you’re right, you’re right.
But have you noticed a problem? Congress hasn’t actually appropriated the money to build the wall, has it? Did you fail also to convince your colleagues of its merits or was it all for show? Truthfully, we know the wall won’t be built, don’t we?
Let’s face it. Your soon to end service as Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has accomplished exactly what? The peril of terrorism is as great as, if not greater, than ever. The country is grievously unprotected. You preemptively got Dubai booted out of port management, embarrassing the White House and State Department, while New York (your home base) got short shrift in security funding. There is precious little to prevent a 9/11-type air attack on any of our ports, transit systems or exposed nuclear energy facilities. We have more lethal enemies who hate us than we had before and alerts have become a fact of life.
Meanwhile, Iraq is in shambles and getting more chaotic and murderous each day, our troops continue being killed and wounded, additional billions of dollars are going down the drain (you’ll soon be approving more and adding to the deficit), the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan and we are facing ominous threats in Iran and North Korea.
And what is your and Bush’s solution? More of the same? Let someone else’s sons and daughters pay the price for this tragic folly?
Henry Kissinger says we can’t achieve a military victory in Iraq. He’s not my favorite statesman but at least he fought in a war. But is anyone listening? If you and our non-battle tested CIC have a new plan to accomplish the “mission,” tell us what it is. Throw in more troops? (If so, where will they come from – National Guard, reserves, re-recycled units, high school seniors?) Start moving troops to Kuwait? Train more Iraqi militia so they can kidnap and kill more Iraqis? Establish “benchmarks?” God forbid, set a timetable.
You have been uncharacteristically silent on the war lately. And for a good reason. You have nothing to say.
Yes, getting rid of Rumsfeld was a start but more - a lot more - change is needed.
Since posturing and preening don’t seem to help, how about a suggestion as to what you, as a patriot, can do?
Seriously consider whether now may be a good time for you to cut and run, to resign your congressional seat for the larger good. Such an act wouldn’t cause much of a blip on the national screen but it could set an example and help continue the momentum for further change. Some people might even consider it noble. What more could you ask as a legacy?
Think about it. Your contribution could be to give up the burdens of public office and the irritation of unappreciative critics. You could treat yourself to a farewell party (make sure the caterer’s help are all documented) and take your plaques home. Let someone else (almost anyone) take over while you look around for another job with free health care, expense account and pension.
You must at some point have thought about joining some of your well-connected cronies to become a post-Congress lobbyist, right? If you act soon, I’m sure the Defense Secretary (you’d better hurry), Majority Leader (ditto) and Ed Koch (take your time) will give you good references. You could ask the Vice President, too, if you can find him. I don’t know about the President; I think you may have alienated him, although publicly, he’d probably say you did a heck of a job.
You could still hang around Washington, go home on weekends and attend an American Legion meeting or two. You could continue to take trips, maybe not to the Green Zone, but to, say, Mexico.
And you’d have time to visit some of the sick and injured in Walter Reed and veterans’ hospitals.
I bet if you put your mind to it, you could come up with a friend or a family member on K Street to put in a good word for you. As a last resort, you could always hit up Al D’Amato.
What do you think?
Sincerely,
MH
Monday, November 27, 2006
What Happend to KingPAC?
Remember the political action committee King started called KingPAC also known as "Know-How and Integrity for Our National Government"?
What did the PAC do this election cycle?
Here are the numbers from Open Secrets
Total Receipts - $41,225
Total Spent - $40,759
End Cash on Hand - $463
Debts - $2,500
Where did the money go?
Nassau County Republican Club - $5950 for "event tickets"
3 Dog Consulting LTD - $20,427 for "Fundraising Consultant Fees"
So half the money that came in went to pay the firm that raised the money.
Bobby Van's - $748 for "catering"
That's Kings favorite steakhouse where he spends alot of his campaign funds.
FDNY Emerald Society - $750 for a "donation"
If King wants to donate, why doesn't he do it out of his own pocket? The Emerald Society isn't a political group.
CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY/VICTORY 2006 - $1,200 for "contribution"
Seaford Republican Club - $4000 for "donation"
Long Beach Chamber of Commerce - $2500 for "donation"
Political Compliance Services - $2500 for "Accounting & Compliance Fees"
So more that half of what was raised went to the running of the PAC.
Next up.. Who gave to the PAC
What did the PAC do this election cycle?
Here are the numbers from Open Secrets
Total Receipts - $41,225
Total Spent - $40,759
End Cash on Hand - $463
Debts - $2,500
Where did the money go?
Nassau County Republican Club - $5950 for "event tickets"
3 Dog Consulting LTD - $20,427 for "Fundraising Consultant Fees"
So half the money that came in went to pay the firm that raised the money.
Bobby Van's - $748 for "catering"
That's Kings favorite steakhouse where he spends alot of his campaign funds.
FDNY Emerald Society - $750 for a "donation"
If King wants to donate, why doesn't he do it out of his own pocket? The Emerald Society isn't a political group.
CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY/VICTORY 2006 - $1,200 for "contribution"
Seaford Republican Club - $4000 for "donation"
Long Beach Chamber of Commerce - $2500 for "donation"
Political Compliance Services - $2500 for "Accounting & Compliance Fees"
So more that half of what was raised went to the running of the PAC.
Next up.. Who gave to the PAC
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Happy Thanksgiving
As we count all the things we are thankful for, lets rememer those who are just thankful for thier next meal or a roof over thier heads.
Please give if you can...
Long Island Cares - The Harry Chapin Food Bank
New York City Coalition Against Hunger
United Way of Long Island
Society of St. Vincent DePaul
Salvation Army
Please give if you can...
Long Island Cares - The Harry Chapin Food Bank
New York City Coalition Against Hunger
United Way of Long Island
Society of St. Vincent DePaul
Salvation Army
Monday, November 20, 2006
Fossella Misses "Chairman" King, Others Not So Much
From the Staten Island Advance story 'Fossella slams shift at Homeland SecurityFears hard times for N.Y. with agency's Dem boss; others see improvement'
"That hurts New York," Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) told the Advance. "There was no better champion on these issues than Peter," he said. "That in itself is a loss. He's a hometown guy."
The loss was actually 40% of funding while King was the "champion."
"Fossella said he was concerned that Thompson might not be as open to arguments, put forth by New York lawmakers, that homeland security money should be allocated based on the degree of threat.
"I'm not making any projections," said Fossella. "But I don't know how sympathetic someone from Mississippi is going to be to New York City."
From the same article further down
"Thompson and King locked horns earlier this year when Thompson said King prevented Democratic committee members from adding amendments to restore funding for rail and bus protection to a House port-security bill.The committee also voted down Thompson's proposal to increase funding to the federal Department of Homeland Security by $6 billion above what was requested by the White House. King at the time said Thompson's figure was unrealistic."
So, King was against increased funding... I see....
How do other New York officials see the change?
Mayor Bloomberg says "It was helpful that Peter was there... but now we've got to make the case to the next head."
"City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) called King "a pit bull" who'd fought hard for homeland security dollars. "No one in either party can fault Congress member King for his efforts on that," she said.
However, Ms. Quinn added, "The sad truth was, the fact that he was a Republican didn't get us any more resources. Sadly, having a New Yorker in that position didn't make any difference."
"That hurts New York," Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) told the Advance. "There was no better champion on these issues than Peter," he said. "That in itself is a loss. He's a hometown guy."
The loss was actually 40% of funding while King was the "champion."
"Fossella said he was concerned that Thompson might not be as open to arguments, put forth by New York lawmakers, that homeland security money should be allocated based on the degree of threat.
"I'm not making any projections," said Fossella. "But I don't know how sympathetic someone from Mississippi is going to be to New York City."
From the same article further down
"Thompson and King locked horns earlier this year when Thompson said King prevented Democratic committee members from adding amendments to restore funding for rail and bus protection to a House port-security bill.The committee also voted down Thompson's proposal to increase funding to the federal Department of Homeland Security by $6 billion above what was requested by the White House. King at the time said Thompson's figure was unrealistic."
So, King was against increased funding... I see....
How do other New York officials see the change?
Mayor Bloomberg says "It was helpful that Peter was there... but now we've got to make the case to the next head."
"City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) called King "a pit bull" who'd fought hard for homeland security dollars. "No one in either party can fault Congress member King for his efforts on that," she said.
However, Ms. Quinn added, "The sad truth was, the fact that he was a Republican didn't get us any more resources. Sadly, having a New Yorker in that position didn't make any difference."
Saturday, November 18, 2006
They Write Letters
This is from the November 14th Newsday letters section.. "King re-elected despite NewsdayI have to give Newsday credit for candidly reporting U.S. Rep. Peter King's critical, unflattering comments about Long Island's leading newspaper ["King stays on the job," News, Nov. 8]. King has said that he was the victim of Newsday's selective news coverage and slanted editorials.
King, a registered Republican, won election by almost 20 percent against a Democratic political tide that washed across New York and the nation. King's criticism of Newsday resonates with Long Islanders of all political persuasions.
Michael P. Mulhall
The writer was a Republican and Conservative candidate for the Nassau County Legislature in 2001."
Mulhall picks up on Kings "Newsday Hates Me" theme and 6 days after the election (okay it was probably written 1 or 2 days after the election) says King won by "almost 20 percent."
Is 12 almost 20?
We're going to have more on Kings Newsday fight this week.
King, a registered Republican, won election by almost 20 percent against a Democratic political tide that washed across New York and the nation. King's criticism of Newsday resonates with Long Islanders of all political persuasions.
Michael P. Mulhall
The writer was a Republican and Conservative candidate for the Nassau County Legislature in 2001."
Mulhall picks up on Kings "Newsday Hates Me" theme and 6 days after the election (okay it was probably written 1 or 2 days after the election) says King won by "almost 20 percent."
Is 12 almost 20?
We're going to have more on Kings Newsday fight this week.
More Comedy Gold from King
What world is King living in?
King has been going after Newsday saying that they were his "real opponent" in the race and in the NY Observer "said the reports of his fund-raising were greatly downplayed in the paper while the reports of money raised by his opponent, Dave Mejias, were inflated."
Really?
Seems King can't get facts straight.... or he's just lying as usual.
Newsday always reported King fundraising especially when he became chairman last year. Jioni Palmer reported back in December 2005 in the story 'King cashes in with new post', "There were no door prizes, 50-50 raffles or entertainment of any sort.Nonetheless, the recent reception at the Phoenix Park Hotel near Capitol Hill was brimming with lobbyists, lawyers, former lawmakers, industry representatives and other deep-pocketed donors with interests before Congress.
"There were probably three or four times more people there than at any other fundraiser I had," King said of the Dec. 7 event, which raised between $70,000 and $75,000 from individuals and political action committees."
Or how about recent reports "Last week, King went on network television with a purported $450,000 media buy -- a bold and normally cost-prohibitive move in New York, the nation's most expensive and saturated media market. Such as ad blitz is generally reserved for the most competitive races, and the clearest sign that Mejias' challenge is gaining steam, said political professionals from both parties.
Beyond saturating the airwaves with at least three different spots, King said he intended to swamp voters with 10 or 11 pieces of mail, which would mean one piece every other day.
'I have a lot of money and I'm covering all the bases,' King said, insisting he isn't worried about coming up short on Election Day. 'Quite frankly, I don't know what you guys at Newsday are going to do.'"
Whenever Newsday reported on the money in th erace, they always emphaszied that King had alot more that Mejias.
Newsday reported the facts about fundraising for the race and King has a problem with that "While King has a war chest of $1.59 million, half of it - $796,779 - was carried over from his last campaign. Based on what each candidate has raised during the current election cycle, Mejias has collected $103,602 more than King.
King has been going after Newsday saying that they were his "real opponent" in the race and in the NY Observer "said the reports of his fund-raising were greatly downplayed in the paper while the reports of money raised by his opponent, Dave Mejias, were inflated."
Really?
Seems King can't get facts straight.... or he's just lying as usual.
Newsday always reported King fundraising especially when he became chairman last year. Jioni Palmer reported back in December 2005 in the story 'King cashes in with new post', "There were no door prizes, 50-50 raffles or entertainment of any sort.Nonetheless, the recent reception at the Phoenix Park Hotel near Capitol Hill was brimming with lobbyists, lawyers, former lawmakers, industry representatives and other deep-pocketed donors with interests before Congress.
"There were probably three or four times more people there than at any other fundraiser I had," King said of the Dec. 7 event, which raised between $70,000 and $75,000 from individuals and political action committees."
Or how about recent reports "Last week, King went on network television with a purported $450,000 media buy -- a bold and normally cost-prohibitive move in New York, the nation's most expensive and saturated media market. Such as ad blitz is generally reserved for the most competitive races, and the clearest sign that Mejias' challenge is gaining steam, said political professionals from both parties.
Beyond saturating the airwaves with at least three different spots, King said he intended to swamp voters with 10 or 11 pieces of mail, which would mean one piece every other day.
'I have a lot of money and I'm covering all the bases,' King said, insisting he isn't worried about coming up short on Election Day. 'Quite frankly, I don't know what you guys at Newsday are going to do.'"
Whenever Newsday reported on the money in th erace, they always emphaszied that King had alot more that Mejias.
Newsday reported the facts about fundraising for the race and King has a problem with that "While King has a war chest of $1.59 million, half of it - $796,779 - was carried over from his last campaign. Based on what each candidate has raised during the current election cycle, Mejias has collected $103,602 more than King.
How Does King Stand on Darfur?
King gets a 'C' for his efforts to help the people in the Darfur region of Sudan suffering genocidal attacks.
Darfurscores.org says "Rep. King co-signed a letter urging Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to exert his influence to change the AMIS mandate.
He co-signed a letter urging Secretary General Annan to return to Darfur and demand the UN Security Council pass a strong resolution against the Sudanese government.
Contact Peter King
Peter King has received a “C” for not actively supporting Darfur-related legislation and failing to consistently champion the cause. Co-sponsoring one or two resolutions or providing a few favorable votes is not enough. Elected officials must continually support efforts to end the genocide in Darfur."
"Votes
Darfur Peace and Accountability Act Voted For
Funding Amendment for Protection Voted Against
Funding Amendment for Humanitarian Aid Voted Against
NATO Bridging Force Voted For
Presidential Special Envoy Voted For"
For more info on what is happening in Darfur, visit this page.
Darfurscores.org says "Rep. King co-signed a letter urging Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo to exert his influence to change the AMIS mandate.
He co-signed a letter urging Secretary General Annan to return to Darfur and demand the UN Security Council pass a strong resolution against the Sudanese government.
Contact Peter King
Peter King has received a “C” for not actively supporting Darfur-related legislation and failing to consistently champion the cause. Co-sponsoring one or two resolutions or providing a few favorable votes is not enough. Elected officials must continually support efforts to end the genocide in Darfur."
"Votes
Darfur Peace and Accountability Act Voted For
Funding Amendment for Protection Voted Against
Funding Amendment for Humanitarian Aid Voted Against
NATO Bridging Force Voted For
Presidential Special Envoy Voted For"
For more info on what is happening in Darfur, visit this page.
Pure Comedy Gold from Peter King
King tells the NYPost "It would be better for New York if I were chairman, but I'm not, so that's that,"
Really?
With King as Chairman, NY lost 40% of its funding!
How can that be better???
The Post continues "King used his post to try to squeeze more homeland funds out of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff after the department announced a shocking 40 percent cut in the city's anti-terror funds this spring."
NY did get a few more scraps but during his tenure as Chairman, King just couldn't deliver for NY.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the newly minted Majority Leader in the House "pledged that if Democrats win control of the House his party will get the funding formula changed to reflect the greater risks big cities like New York face.
A Democratic House would take the homeland security chairman's gavel from King and give it to Rep. Bennie Thompson, of Mississippi, but Hoyer said that still would be better for New York.
"You need to put (the money) where the risk is occurring," Hoyer said. "That argument is going to be made by a rural representative from Mississippi. Frankly, he may be better able to do that."
Really?
With King as Chairman, NY lost 40% of its funding!
How can that be better???
The Post continues "King used his post to try to squeeze more homeland funds out of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff after the department announced a shocking 40 percent cut in the city's anti-terror funds this spring."
NY did get a few more scraps but during his tenure as Chairman, King just couldn't deliver for NY.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the newly minted Majority Leader in the House "pledged that if Democrats win control of the House his party will get the funding formula changed to reflect the greater risks big cities like New York face.
A Democratic House would take the homeland security chairman's gavel from King and give it to Rep. Bennie Thompson, of Mississippi, but Hoyer said that still would be better for New York.
"You need to put (the money) where the risk is occurring," Hoyer said. "That argument is going to be made by a rural representative from Mississippi. Frankly, he may be better able to do that."
Monday, November 13, 2006
NYTimes 'G.O.P. Worries About Effects of State Losses'
'G.O.P. Worries About Effects of State Losses'
“This was a rough year to be a Republican,” said Representative Peter T. King, who fended off a formidable Democratic challenge on Long Island. “But I’m just wondering if the demographics have changed so much. There is no Republican base anymore.”
“This was a rough year to be a Republican,” said Representative Peter T. King, who fended off a formidable Democratic challenge on Long Island. “But I’m just wondering if the demographics have changed so much. There is no Republican base anymore.”
Peter King on His Loss
From the NYTimes article 'Democratic Broom Doesn’t Sweep Clean'
"Mr. King — Long Island’s only Republican congressman — beat back a challenge from David Mejias, a Democratic Nassau County legislator. Mr. King had 56 percent of the vote, down from 63 percent two years ago.
But his victory was bittersweet. Because his party lost control of the House, Mr. King forfeits his coveted post as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “It’s better to be in the majority,” he said."
"Mr. King — Long Island’s only Republican congressman — beat back a challenge from David Mejias, a Democratic Nassau County legislator. Mr. King had 56 percent of the vote, down from 63 percent two years ago.
But his victory was bittersweet. Because his party lost control of the House, Mr. King forfeits his coveted post as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “It’s better to be in the majority,” he said."
From AP: King wins race but loses Homeland Security post
King wins race but loses Homeland Security post
Rep. Peter King, who won his race Tuesday but lost his powerful Homeland Security chairmanship, said yesterday he had reached out to his Democratic successor.
King (R-Seaford) defeated Democratic challenger David Mejias 97,279 to 76,943 votes - 56% to 44% - but had to give up the leadership of the committee as his party lost control of the House.
King had been the chairman of the committee for more than a year. In January, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) is expected to take it over.
King acknowledged that his party took a beating nationwide in large part because of unhappiness over the Iraq war.
He said he already had called Thompson, and insisted that as the ranking minority Republican on the committee, he will still be in a position to help New York, even if it is in regional disputes against members of his own party on issues such as security funding for cities.
"As a Republican, I'll be able to deal with the administration. I can help with that, and also quite frankly against people in my own party, some of whom know the price of everything and the value of nothing," King said.
Rep. Peter King, who won his race Tuesday but lost his powerful Homeland Security chairmanship, said yesterday he had reached out to his Democratic successor.
King (R-Seaford) defeated Democratic challenger David Mejias 97,279 to 76,943 votes - 56% to 44% - but had to give up the leadership of the committee as his party lost control of the House.
King had been the chairman of the committee for more than a year. In January, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) is expected to take it over.
King acknowledged that his party took a beating nationwide in large part because of unhappiness over the Iraq war.
He said he already had called Thompson, and insisted that as the ranking minority Republican on the committee, he will still be in a position to help New York, even if it is in regional disputes against members of his own party on issues such as security funding for cities.
"As a Republican, I'll be able to deal with the administration. I can help with that, and also quite frankly against people in my own party, some of whom know the price of everything and the value of nothing," King said.
Kings View on Hillary Clinton
From the NY Daily News story 'The Hillary Factor'
"I've seen her walk into a room full of firemen on Long Island who really had no use for her, and by the end they're asking her for pictures with their children," said Long Island GOP Rep. Pete King."Probably a lot of Republicans would want Hillary, but I think they'd be making a mistake," he said, pointing out that Democrats licked their chops over Ronald Reagan in 1980.
"The Clintons have the best political team in the country - they're like the government in exile," King said."
"I've seen her walk into a room full of firemen on Long Island who really had no use for her, and by the end they're asking her for pictures with their children," said Long Island GOP Rep. Pete King."Probably a lot of Republicans would want Hillary, but I think they'd be making a mistake," he said, pointing out that Democrats licked their chops over Ronald Reagan in 1980.
"The Clintons have the best political team in the country - they're like the government in exile," King said."
A View from Connecticut
From the NY Daily News
Bringing up the rear
East Haven, Conn.: Rep. Peter King suggested during his campaign we might be in Iraq 10 or 15 years and reminded the voters that we've been in South Korea for more than 50. A little history lesson, congressman: Our troops in South Korea are facing north, toward a possible security threat to an ally. They're not looking over their shoulders at the threat from the population they're protecting. Feel free to debate our role in Iraq, but don't confuse apples and oranges.
Raymond D. Dunn Jr
Bringing up the rear
East Haven, Conn.: Rep. Peter King suggested during his campaign we might be in Iraq 10 or 15 years and reminded the voters that we've been in South Korea for more than 50. A little history lesson, congressman: Our troops in South Korea are facing north, toward a possible security threat to an ally. They're not looking over their shoulders at the threat from the population they're protecting. Feel free to debate our role in Iraq, but don't confuse apples and oranges.
Raymond D. Dunn Jr
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Analysis from Guest Blogger E Part 2
1. 31,758 more people voted in the 3rd CD than in the 2nd CD. The reason for that would seem to be that people in the 3rd CD, whether Democrat or Republican, viewed the race as being close, whereas Israel was seen as a lock in the 2nd. And again, more than half of that difference came from the Suffolk portion of the 3rd.
2. Steve Israel won the Nassau portion of the 2nd CD that was formerly part of the 3rd by a margin of 78% to 22%. As I know many people who live in that part of the district who normally vote straight D down the line, it can be assumed that Dave would have won that area by the same margin.
3. Clearly this is speculation, but if you take the 36,506 people who voted in the Suffolk portion of the 3rd CD and assign that number to the Nassau portion of the 2nd CD, and project the vote at the 78-22 that it came out for Israel/Bugler to Mejias/King, and add the totals to the 3rd CD race minus the Suffolk portion, Dave wins 89,703 to 84,519. Maybe this would not have happened, but the bottom line is that it shows that if the 3rd CD was reconfigured to its pre-2002 lines, it is at least a competitive district for a Democrat, whereas now it is not unless that Democrat was already known and popular throughout the district (remember, when the race started, 60% of the people in the district had never heard of Dave).
4. By the way, when doing this switch and adding back the Suffolk portion for the 2nd, Israel still wins 63%-37%. Not quite 70%-30%, but still very convincing, and evidence that he does not need the Nassau portion.
Remember
For all those that Served and are Serving in our Armed Force.
Your sacrifice should never be forgotten or taken for granted.
Your sacrifice should never be forgotten or taken for granted.
Analysis from Guest Blogger E
I believe that the race turned on one thing, which was given a cursory mention on your this blog, but a major mention in articles in Newsday and the New York Times, and that is the gerrymandering that occurred in 2002. In fact, in a Times article that was posted a couple of weeks ago, a Democratic strategist said that there was no way that King could lose because the district was carved out to guarantee him a win. I don't care what idiot King or the moron on Mejias Watch says, but it is aggravating that they think that King had a decisive win when the facts don't bear it out. And when you figure in the gerrymandering, it was an even closer race. I ran the numbers, and this is what I found:
Put the Nassau portion of Israel's district back in King's, and the Suffolk portion of King's district back in Israel's, and you get a 52-48 win for King. However, there is more to it than that. In the Nassau portion of Israel's district, only about 15,000 people voted, probably because the area is so heavily Democratic that the outcome was a foregone conclusion (it is so strong that Israel did barely any campaigning in the area).
In the Suffolk portion of King's district, about 36,000 people voted, probably because the race was viewed as being close, so all of the Republicans came out to vote. This is obviously only speculation, but I am betting that if the Nassau portion of Israel's district was back in King's, with the election being tight, and with Dave's tremendous GOTV effort, many more people would have turned out to vote for Dave, and we may have had a Congressman Mejias today.
For a comparison, just look at Ed Dane's race for District Court Judge. He had all of Oyster Bay and Glen Cove, and lost 52-48, with the Indy line making the difference. He became the first Democratic Judicial candidate in TOB to get more votes straight Democrat versus Republican lines. So, if you factor in those numbers with Long Beach, it is quite conceivable that Dave wins. Thus, when comparing Dave's numbers versus those of the past, it is even more impressive.
It is just unfortunate that the Democrats may be to blame for costing Dave the seat. Steve Israel, who is an excellent Congressman, was looking to shore up his seat, and made the deal with King, giving the Republicans a much smaller edge in registration. But, due to increased Democratic voter registration his district now has more registered Democrats than Republicans, which was clearly reflected in him garnering 70% of the vote.
It is therefore quite clear that he gained something that he really didn't need as I am sure he would have won easily without the Nassau portion (maybe 65%?), and it potentially cost the Democrats another House seat.
I know that there will be some gerrymandering with the Democrats in charge. Let's just hope that they have the sense to give the area back to King, but I have a feeling that they won't.
Put the Nassau portion of Israel's district back in King's, and the Suffolk portion of King's district back in Israel's, and you get a 52-48 win for King. However, there is more to it than that. In the Nassau portion of Israel's district, only about 15,000 people voted, probably because the area is so heavily Democratic that the outcome was a foregone conclusion (it is so strong that Israel did barely any campaigning in the area).
In the Suffolk portion of King's district, about 36,000 people voted, probably because the race was viewed as being close, so all of the Republicans came out to vote. This is obviously only speculation, but I am betting that if the Nassau portion of Israel's district was back in King's, with the election being tight, and with Dave's tremendous GOTV effort, many more people would have turned out to vote for Dave, and we may have had a Congressman Mejias today.
For a comparison, just look at Ed Dane's race for District Court Judge. He had all of Oyster Bay and Glen Cove, and lost 52-48, with the Indy line making the difference. He became the first Democratic Judicial candidate in TOB to get more votes straight Democrat versus Republican lines. So, if you factor in those numbers with Long Beach, it is quite conceivable that Dave wins. Thus, when comparing Dave's numbers versus those of the past, it is even more impressive.
It is just unfortunate that the Democrats may be to blame for costing Dave the seat. Steve Israel, who is an excellent Congressman, was looking to shore up his seat, and made the deal with King, giving the Republicans a much smaller edge in registration. But, due to increased Democratic voter registration his district now has more registered Democrats than Republicans, which was clearly reflected in him garnering 70% of the vote.
It is therefore quite clear that he gained something that he really didn't need as I am sure he would have won easily without the Nassau portion (maybe 65%?), and it potentially cost the Democrats another House seat.
I know that there will be some gerrymandering with the Democrats in charge. Let's just hope that they have the sense to give the area back to King, but I have a feeling that they won't.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Kings Fall from Power Started on Bill O'Reilly
Last night King was on O'Reilly to talk about Rumsfeld.
Usually the graphic under King says "Chairman, Homeland Security Committee."
Last night it just said "Member of International Relations Committee."
Usually the graphic under King says "Chairman, Homeland Security Committee."
Last night it just said "Member of International Relations Committee."
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Day One
So here is Day One of the 2008 Congressional Race.
This website isn't going away.
There is still alot of stuff we didn't have time to get to and more is being planned.
Want to get e-mail alerts of updates?
Send an e-mail to nassaupolitics@yahoo.com with the word "subscribe" in the 'Subject' field.
On January 1st, King returns to the minority and loses his chairmanship.
Not only that, his benefactor Dennis Hastert is on his way out from the leadership so there is no guarantee King will be the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee or even a member.
The Republican Leadership elections will be coming up soon and this will tell us where King stands with the new leaders.
This election has taken the adjectives "moderate" and "powerful" away from King.
Looking at the preliminary numbers, King has lost votes in the district. for a non-presidential election year.
In 2002 King got 116,931 to Finz's 44,289.
This year King got 97,279 to Mejias' 76,943.
King LOST 19,652 votes in off-year elections and Mejias/Opponent GAINED 32,654 votes.
The tide didn't turn this time, but it is turning.
This website isn't going away.
There is still alot of stuff we didn't have time to get to and more is being planned.
Want to get e-mail alerts of updates?
Send an e-mail to nassaupolitics@yahoo.com with the word "subscribe" in the 'Subject' field.
On January 1st, King returns to the minority and loses his chairmanship.
Not only that, his benefactor Dennis Hastert is on his way out from the leadership so there is no guarantee King will be the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee or even a member.
The Republican Leadership elections will be coming up soon and this will tell us where King stands with the new leaders.
This election has taken the adjectives "moderate" and "powerful" away from King.
Looking at the preliminary numbers, King has lost votes in the district. for a non-presidential election year.
In 2002 King got 116,931 to Finz's 44,289.
This year King got 97,279 to Mejias' 76,943.
King LOST 19,652 votes in off-year elections and Mejias/Opponent GAINED 32,654 votes.
The tide didn't turn this time, but it is turning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
