Last night after my wife and I bathed our two little munchkins and tucked them into bed, I escaped the house and drove a few blocks to Union College, where I teach, to check my mail and do a little puttering.
Little did I know I would be stumbling right into a debate between the two Republican challengers for Chuck Schumer's Senate seat. The campus, normally buttoned-up on a summer night, was abuzz with a Time Warner satellite truck, lots of cables, and techies starting to pack stuff up. In fact, as I made my way past the Theater and Dance department on my way to the Music building, I walked right past a couple guys in dark suits who might have been the candidates [or the YNN/NY-1 talking heads].
It was only when I read this morning's paper that I found out what had transpired. Follow for a few thoughts.
Time Warner, which broadcasts 24-hour newschannels YNN [Your News Now] in upstate NY and NY-1 in NYC, hosted the live debate between Jay Townsend and Gary Berntsen. Townsend, described variously as a "political consultant" and "communications consultant", is from Cornwall-on-Hudson in Orange County about 90 minutes north of NYC and holds the Republican Party endorsement; Berntsen is a former CIA officer from Port Jefferson on Long Island and is endorsed by the Conservative Party.
According to Michael Gormley's AP piece, there is not a lot of ideological distance between the candidates. My interpretation of this is that both candidates are extremists, playing deeply to their bases:
* both oppose the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan
Berntsen warned "that mosque will be a magnet to some fundamentalists who will want to use it to case downtown" for further attacks.
As if any person with evil intent couldn't rent an apartment or room in lower Manhattan or even walk the streets with impunity? Why would they need a mosque as a "secret headquarters"?
* both candidates don't feel the need to act on global climate change:
Both said global warming doesn't exist.
Berntsen called global warming a "charade," based on bad science.
Townsend said the scientists pushing the theory of rising global temperatures blamed on industrialization have been discredited and their theory is a hoax.
Imagine one of these two taking part in serious dialogue on Capitol Hill? Leading a Senate committee?
* both candidates are also abortion foes and believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
From a CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in June 2009: "More than 35 years ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade established a constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court's decision was a good thing or a bad thing?"
All respondents
Good Thing: 62%; Bad Thing: 32%; Both: 3; Unsure: 3%
breakdown by party:
Democrats
Good Thing: 74%; Bad Thing: 21%; Both: 1%; Unsure: 4%
Republicans
Good Thing: 40%; Bad Thing: 51%; Both: 7%; Unsure: 2%
Independents
Good Thing: 63%; Bad Thing: 30%; Both: 2%; Unsure: 5%
"Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"
All respondents
Overturn: 29%; Not Overturn: 64%; Unsure: 7%
These nation-wide numbers speak to a two to one margin supporting abortion rights. I could not find any recent state-by-state statistics, but I am led to believe that New York State is even more liberal than the nation as a whole, and that a candidate with such a strong anti-abortion stance would have a hard time getting elected, especially among NYC residents.
According to the AP article:
Last month, a Siena College poll showed Schumer, the two-term incumbent, with big leads over Berntsen and Townsend. In July, Schumer reported $23.8 million in campaign cash, far more than the two Republican candidates combined.
Often, NY candidates run on multiple party lines--often Republican plus Conservative or Democratic plus Working Families Party. I wonder how the dueling endorsements will affect the Republican primary. I am of the opinion that Schumer will cruise to an easy election to a third term. Given New York State's demographics, economic issues, and severe administrative dysfunction at the state, county, and local level, is this the best that the Republicans can come up with?
As I'm posting this, another Time Warner-sponsored debate has just concluded, this one featuring the three Republican challengers to Kirsten Gillibrand. They have slated a debate between the two Republican candidates for Governor for August 30; Carl Paladino has accepted, while Rick Lazio has declined, citing a "scheduling conflict".