Hawley votes against 'anti-Second Amendment' bill

While I'm glad Hawley voted against this bill, I don't want to have any further assaults on the 2nd amendment (or any other constitutional rights). Why are they not concerning themselves with the state budget, only the state budget and nothing else? Please everyone, remeber this crap come election day.

The re-license idea is just another "fee". It's a money grab and has nothing to do with public safety.

You've got that right John. This is the 3rd or 4th year in a row that they've tried to make pistol permits renewable. Each time it was about raising revenue.

I guess this time they figured they'd get less flack if they called it a public safety bill.

And microstamping ammo is a joke too. When a bullet impacts something it deforms. Alot. A stamp would be illegible after impact. Traceabiliity after a bullet is used is a pipe dream.

If you steal a gun, what makes the idiots think that ammo will not be stolen also? But this is an election year and they want to look like they are doing something while not passing a budget.

John is absolutely right. The micro stamping is useless. This is simply a way to make it look like the politicians are doing something about gun violence with out actually doing anything to address the problem.

CM,
Since you are "considering" running against Hawley, as a Democrat/Green, where do you stand on this?

John,

C.M. is out of town this weekend so he's probably not going to see this thread. I had a pretty detailed conversation with him about firearm issues and what he told me was that he doesn't believe in fees and 'punitive taxation' as a solution to New York's Budget woes. We all know that that is pretty much what this bill amounts to. Chris Barons has a deep respect for our hunting and shooting traditions and, if in Albany, would be working hard to get guns out of the hands of criminals without affecting our hunters and sportsmen.

The other side, of course, is that while Hawley seems to understand where the real gun problem lies, he doesn't seem to be very busy doing anything about it.

Hawley said: "The Majority should be working on legislation that will help pursue the criminals who obtain their firearms illegally.”

OK Steve, I'll bite, why aren't YOU working on it. You seem to have an understanding of the needs and rights of law-abiding gun owners. You should be just the right guy to help hammer out some meaningful legislation, but instead, every year you just wait for 'The Majority' to get it wrong so you can vote 'no' and tell us what a great job you're doing.

Chris, let's say Steve sits down and writes a nice little piece of legislation. Then what?

He won't.

Here's <a href="http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=139&sh=sponsor">a list of Hawley sponsored legislation</a>.

It's not accurate to say he's doing nothing.

Though his legislation tends to be fairly procedural (though I didn't review every bill).

The fact is to take on bigger issues, where it goes contrary to the majority wishes, any minority party member would be stymied. It's like running your truck into a brick wall. No sensible person would do it.

I'm not defending Hawley, but I continue to find this drumbeat of "but instead, every year you just wait for 'The Majority' to get it wrong so you can vote 'no' and tell us what a great job you're doing" completely disingenuous and not based in reality. It's either a willful ignoring of reality or simply not understanding how the legislative process works. And that's what bugs me -- not anything to do with Hawley.

Run against Hawley, but tell the truth.

It's accurate to say he's doing nothing about criminals with illegal weapons and that's what this conversation is about. None of those bills have anything to do with the issue we're discussing.

If you want to argue with me, don't use unrelated material to do it. I find that practice completely disingenuous. Defend Hawley, but tell the truth about facts related to the matter at hand.

Chris, the "he's doing nothing line" has been a meme on this site for months. It's more than just about this issue. It's a theme that his political opponents seem to be trying to develop. In my opinion, it ignores reality.

I'm not defending Hawley. I'm defending reality.

The "Hawley's doing nothing" meme reminds me of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness">truthiness</a&gt;

Howard as soon as you stop defending Hawley every chance you get, I'll take that seriously.

We site specific issues that Hawley is currently doing nothing about e.g. the budget, illegal guns in the hands of criminals, unfunded mandates stemming from Leandra's Law, etc.. Those are realities, care to disagree?

It's not a 'meme' either; rickrolled is a meme. This is just an occurrence of more than a few people noticing a trend.

Chris,
I understand that your job as the Democrat party election chairman is to get your guy elected. But to not admit that Democrats run all three branches of the State and that they are the problem, is a bit of a sham.

What part of you're in total charge have we missed?

You can say Republicans did nothing when they where in charge, no argument. But your side (The Democrats) have are running the show now for a few years and have done nothing. When will they give us a balanced budget this year?

What are the chances that Howard and John are going to talk about the original subject of the thread: Slim to none I'd say.

Downstate Democrats obviously have some interest in getting illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. Steve Hawley obviously has an interest in ensuring that that sort of legislation doesn't adversely affect upstate sportsmen. This is a perfect opportunity for the two interests to work together and get something meaningful written and passed. I'm saying that Hawley has no interest in actually working on this because it's easier for him to let the Downstate Dems run rampant on hunter's Second Amendment rights and then blame all Democrats for it.

This isn't that difficult to understand. Three men in a room aren't writing gun legislation.

and John, it's the Democratic Party. Easy enough to spell it right; it's on all of our letterhead.

Chris,
Reread what I said at first. I stated this is nothing but a money grab and the idea of marking ammunition is stupid, costly and will do nothing.

The bill also will do absolutely nothing to stop illegal guns (Chris, bad guys don't license illegal guns).

There is no working with Democrats on this issue. It has come up before, been defeated, and they keep bring it back up. It's about taking more of our money.

There is no need for this bill at all, none. Hawley did what he should have done, voted no. No need to reword or rework it, just don't pass it.

But I would ask you again, when will you Democrats give us a balanced budget?

Truthiness ....
It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. (Cobert)

Listing Hawley sponsored legislation on a thread about the imposition on the 2nd Amendment Rights of lawful gun owners and the costly mandates on firearm manufacturers presents the "perception is everything" part of truthiness.

Many people aren't going to look at that list and will just assume that all of that legislation has to do with the topic at hand. Not so.

As a matter of fact at least two have to do with insurance. Wouldn't you think that legislation in the area of Hawley's business would be a conflict of interest?

I read what you wrote John and I agree with most of it. Now go re-read what I wrote. I said that Hawley is in a good position to assist in writing useful gun legislation that will not affect our hunters and sportsmen. He's just not bothering to try.

The budget is a fiasco, but a fiasco unrelated to the subject at hand.

What the hell though, I'll play your game. You're saying that Hawley can't do anything about the budget, he can't do anything about protecting our hunters and sportsmen from punitive fees and ridiculous laws and he can't protect his district from unfunded mandates. So why should we send him back to Albany? $70,000/ year is a lot to pay a guy who is seemingly unable to do his job.

Chris,
Because if we send your guy, we'll get more of the same and no dissenting voice.

By the way, NY has passed about every law you can to limit both legal and illegal guns. And it has not worked. Bag guys don't read the law.

And the Assembly has not been willing to take the laws already on the books and lengthen the prison terms with new mandatory sentences, and to deny parole to felons who use guns in crimes.

Oh, I get your logic now. Hawley is completely ineffective, but we should assume that anyone else is going to be as well.

That is the most patently ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Chris wrote, "This is a perfect opportunity for the two interests to work together and get something meaningful written and passed."

But the major assumption on your part is that there is somebody on the opposite side that Hawley could actually work with.

Look at what the downstate interests are doing with the Farm Labor bill. It was defeated, but rather than accept the defeat and sit down with the Farm Bureau (which Dean Norton said the FB would be willing to do) and work on compromise legislation, a downstate Democrat (who has no legitimately representational interest in this issue) reintroduces the bill with only cosmetic changes.

This is how Albany is run. And unless and until those in control of Albany are willing to sit and negotiate on complex issues like reasonable people, nobody who is outside of the circle of power is going to be able to do anything to address the problems facing the state.

Again, I'm not defending Hawley. How many times do I have to say that, Chris. I'm reacting to what I see as a sham campaign line. It is a smokescreen to avoid addressing the real problem in Albany.

I'm hoping Chris Barons will run. I'm hoping the Democrats of the district will put him on their line and back him (without making him switch parties). I think Chris can effectively engage Steve in a productive and beneficial debate on real issues. As your own party members have said to me, even if Steve wins, engaging in a campaign against Chris could help him become a better legislator or help put some issues on the table.

There are a few things I'm critical of Steve on, especially his support of Leandra's Law, and I think he's not really in tune with the district's position on things such as medical marijuana; and you know I'm no fan of partisanship, and I don't see Steve breaking out of the party mold.

There are issues that Barons or anybody else could run effectively against Steve on, but this "Steve is doing nothing" meme (and it is a meme, or an attempt to create one) is complete hogwash and is a smokescreen to avoid talking about the real problem in New York -- and the real problem is in Albany, not in Batavia.

And I see that kind of disingenuous campaigning as counter-productive to the interests of Genesee County. We need to have an honest discussion about the real issues and how best to address those issues, not a campaign of ad hominem attacks.

Howard, Hawley is doing nothing and we've cited examples. As a matter of fact, we've been citing them since well before there was going to be a contested race. This isn't new and it's not going to go away just because you don't like it.

We tell you the reasons we think Hawley should no longer hold office and you tell us that they're 'hogwash.' Then you say that you're not defending Hawley. That's as much as I would expect from a person who believes there's 'no such thing as objective fact.'

Also a definition of internet meme since I assume you don't mean meme in the genetic or evolutionary sense:

At its most basic, an Internet meme is simply the propagation of a digital file or hyperlink from one person to others using methods available through the Internet (for example, email, blogs, social networking sites, instant messaging, etc). The content often consists of a saying or joke, a rumor, an altered or original image, a complete website, a video clip or animation, or an offbeat news story, among many other possibilities. In simple terms, an Internet meme is an inside joke, that a large number of Internet users are in on. An Internet meme may stay the same or may evolve over time, by chance or through commentary, imitations, and parody versions, or even by collecting news accounts about itself. Internet memes have a tendency to evolve and spread extremely quickly, sometimes going in and out of popularity in just days. They are spread organically, voluntarily, and peer to peer, rather than by compulsion, predetermined path, or completely automated means. The term "Meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 pop-science bestseller, The Selfish Gene.[3]

The term may refer to the content that spreads from user to user, the idea behind the content, or the phenomenon of its spread. Internet memes have been seen as a form of art.[4]

From what I can see, C.M isn't even running yet, but you have already started using the negative buzz words like, disingenuous, campaign of ad hominem attacks, avoid talking about the real problem in New York,sham campaign and counter-productive. Who exactly are you directing the buzz words, C.M or Chris?

I was at the meeting and listened to C.M. speak. You are right about one thing, you wrote, "I think Chris can effectively engage Steve in a productive and beneficial debate on real issues.". It is too bad you weren't there to hear him speak. It was a breath of fresh air.

Bea,
This was about Hawley voting against two laws that will do nothing to stop crime and are just a money grab. The license renewal has been defeated before, but the Democrats in the Assembly keep bring it back.

I asked CM what he thought. Instead of CM answering (he's out of town and we would have waited), Chris answered for him. And then we were off to the races.

CM is running, but not nominated yet. He has to line up support from the other counties in the district and hope an enrolled Democrat does not want to run. But he is running.

Chris,
You said CM is against fee and punitive taxes to solve the budget, then I look forward to him stating that Mr. Silver and his majority party is wrong on these two money grabs.

Chris, you left out this portion:

"The term Internet meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/, rhyming with "cream"[1]) is used to describe a concept that spreads quickly via the Internet.[2] The term is a reference to the concept of memes, although this concept refers to a much broader category of cultural information."

And Chris, below is the very definition of "disingenuous"

"Howard, Hawley is doing nothing and we've cited examples."

What you continue to ignore is that even God Himself couldn't do anything if He was a Republican in the Assembly.

Your examples are meaningless, because even when you personally ran and were elected as a Republican, you couldn't do any better.

You're demanding of Steve that he be something that nobody could be.

You're welcome to keep bashing away at the same hollow claims, but you do yourself, your party and Genesee County a disservice with this smoke-and-mirrors act.

How about sticking to issues instead of ad hominem attacks?

Though C.M. has left comments attacking Hawley along the same lines, I'm hopeful, given his intelligence and breadth of knowledge, he can and will run an issue-oriented campaign and stay away from the mudslinging. But given your position in the party and your unwillingness to recognize that your attacks are without substance and just, in fact, mudslinging, I'm not feeling too hopeful about that at the moment.

And Bea, stop twisting what I say. It gets really old. I'm not debating Barons here. I'm not even taking a position against C.M.

And it's a shame the only way to discuss this issue is by including the names of Hawley and C.M. Barons, or Republicans and Democrats, because my issue has NOTHING to do with any of those proper nouns. It's about lobbying for an honest, issue-oriented campaign that deals with reality, not fantasy about what whomever is elected is able to effectively do.

John, Howard stopped just short of calling me a liar twice this morning. A lesser person may have taken serious offense, instead, I simply clarified my position and restated the facts.

The pro-Hawley, anti-Democrat opinions that have showed up in this thread have taken on a tone that I find a little silly. Even the story's headline is a regurgitation of Hawley's opinion.

The gist of what I'm hearing so far has been: The big, bad Democratic Party is picking on poor, defenseless Steve Hawley. Anyone who knows anything about local politics should be laughing their heads off right now.

Maybe Howard should invite Steve to defend his positions and explain his inability to address serious issues by leaving a comment or two in this thread, or anywhere on this site for that matter. I'm sure all of you will demand that Chris Barons engage you in the comment section, why not hold Hawley to the same standard?

Here's another definition for you, Chris, with some irony:

An idea that self-reproduces like a virus; a catchphrase or concept, or other unit of social currency. Example: "Where's the beef?"

Source: http://www.oskoui-oskoui.com/glossary/M

Howard, I've been discussing the specific issue of gun control and what I think Hawley should be doing about it all morning. Maybe your understanding of 'ad hominem' differs from the actual definition.

Your entire last post was an explanation of how Hawley can't possibly be an effective legislator, why should we support him then?

and nothing here is spreading 'quickly via the internet' Howard. It's just you and me trying really hard to remain polite while a few innocent bystanders wonder why the hell the tone this morning is so acerbic.

Chris, I came nowhere close to calling you a liar. I'm openly questioning your political tactics and saying why I think it's the wrong direction to go.

I've certainly not been pro-Hawley or anti-Democrat. I've made it VERY CLEAR that this isn't about Hawley/Republicans vs. Democrats. Those are just nouns in the conversation. This is about truth in campaigning. It's about the concept of demanding of a person that he do that which is impossible and then faulting him for not being able to that which is impossible.

It's like blaming the doctor for his failure to revive a corpse that's been in the grave for 100 years. Or for blaming the astronaut for not bringing the entire Moon back in his lunar lander. Or blaming the 12-year-old for not pitching the perfect game in the MLB World Series.

The "Hawley has done nothing" meme is as based in reality as believing George Bush was a good president.

This "The gist of what I'm hearing so far has been: The big, bad Democratic Party is picking on poor, defenseless Steve Hawley. Anyone who knows anything about local politics should be laughing their heads off right now."

is just a complete twisting of anything I've said. It's simply ignoring the substance of what I'm saying.

"I'm sure all of you will demand that Chris Barons engage you in the comment section, why not hold Hawley to the same standard? "

Where the hell does that come from?

Chris, when you wrote, "but instead, every year you just wait for 'The Majority' to get it wrong so you can vote 'no' and tell us what a great job you're doing. "

You opened the door to topics other than gun control because you're hitting on a theme that has been common for several months now: Hawley does nothing.

To try to particularize that concept as to applying only to this thread is to ignore the larger issues at play.

I've not sensed anything acerbic in the tone. We've just been debating.

What I'm waiting to hear is what you would do in his place ... pretend you're a member of the Rose Party and the Tulip Party controls the Assembly -- what do you do to get any major piece of legislation passed that the Tulip Party has always said they oppose?

Howard Said:

'Run against Hawley, but tell the truth.'

I've been telling the truth all day, you have been inferring the opposite.

Howard, I'm not sure you understand how laughable it is for you to say you're not defending Hawley while at the same time attempting to scold me for attacking him for lack of effort on a specific issue.

Perhaps the Republicans should instead nominate Don Quixote to run in Hawley's place.

Howard, I've been talking about gun legislation, you took this thread off into the ether. I already stated what I think should be done. You said it's impossible. You're wrong.

Posted by Howard Owens on May 15, 2010 - 1:45pm
What I'm waiting to hear is what you would do in his place ... pretend you're a member of the Rose Party and the Tulip Party controls the Assembly -- what do you do to get any major piece of legislation passed that the Tulip Party has always said they oppose?

Sorry, I can't resist.
If I were the Rose Party (your favorite flower, by the way, not surprised you chose it to be "Hawley"), and the Tulip party controls the Assembly, what do you do? Just exactly what is being done. Throw as much manure (ie: press releases) against the wall and hope some of it sticks.

Bea, I didn't choose it to be Hawley, I chose it to be Chris Charvella.

There, you go again, twisting what I say.

Chris, prove I'm wrong. What example can you cite of the majority party compromising with the minority party to pass a piece of legislation where they start with significant differences?

I cited an example of a case where downstate interests have adamantly refused to sit down and reach a compromise position with upstate interests.

What counter example can you cite?

BTW, Bea, I also love Tulips. I'd plant hundreds more in my yard if I had the time and the money. One of the things I love about New York in spring vs. California is all the Tulips.

Sure Howard, but Chris Charvella isn't running for anything is he?

Hawley can defend himself, let him. You engaged in this discussion because you didn't like what I said, or the way I said it. Tough cookies, I stand by it all and I backed it up to boot.

Taking issue with my approach is, in itself, a defense of the other side. If it wasn't then you would be taking Hawley to task for simply complaining about 'The Assembly Majority.' It's the same sort of argument, but you didn't seem to have a problem with it before.

Call Sheldon Silver if you want answers to that question Howard, I'm not your secretary.

Chris, where have you backed it up? I just don't see that. You've made lots of assertions, but offered no proof.

"Taking issue with my approach is, in itself, a defense of the other side."

Bunk.

It's taking issue with a form of argumentation that lacks substance or any qualification of being backed up by valid data.

You're welcome to stand by it, but as an disinterested observer, I'll stand my observations. You're welcome to attack me as being somehow "taking Hawley's side," but that doesn't invalidate what I know to be true -- which isn't not about Hawley, it's about dealing with reality.

"If it wasn't then you would be taking Hawley to task for simply complaining about 'The Assembly Majority.' It's the same sort of argument, but you didn't seem to have a problem with it before."

That is a <a href="http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm">circular argument</a>.

Chris,
One of the reasons I supported you in your election bid for the County Legislature was to have a voice of dissent. You were not going to have any influence if you had won, none, zero. But you would have stated your case.

Hawley does just what you wanted to do, but you say he should go. By that logic then you should not have been elected and Hollis was the better pick.

And for the record, you did say CM does not support fees or punitive taxes, but he fully supports the proposed tax on soft drinks, which punishes consumers. That money, if passed, would to the general fund. Was that a "lie", a misstatement, heat of the moment, or what.

As for Hawley defending himself, that's true. But you're the one who decided to speak for somebody else.

Howard, Hawley has not written any gun control legislation that targets criminals and keeps the state's hands off of hunters and sportsmen. He says that's what 'the Majority should be working on' inferring that he has no responsibility to participate. That's what this is about, that's where this started. It doesn't get more black and white.

and no, Howard, it's not a circular argument; if you claim to stand on principle then you should do so both when it hurts your cause and when it benefits you.

John, I spoke for Chris dealing only with that specific issue. The rest of this has been an occurrence of Howard telling me that I'm not allowed to tell people what I think Hawley is doing wrong.

Chris,
I thought you would know by now, even if your on the right committee, the minority is ignored. And if you're not on the right committee, don't bother writing anything because it will not be accepted. That's just the way they run things

And there are more than enough gun laws now on the books. I don't want the majority writing any more.

What they should do is up the penalties for gun use in a crime, but Mr. Silver does not support that. And again, if he does not support it, it is dead.

John,

Respectfully, 'That's just the way they run things,' isn't an acceptable way of doing business, I think we can all agree on that.

If we're going to operate on that sort of logic then why send anyone to Albany at all. We could save the taxpayers $70,000/ year plus office and staff budgets that way. If a politician tells you he can't do anything useful, then why send him in the first place?

Chris wrote,

"Howard, Hawley has not written any gun control legislation that targets criminals and keeps the state's hands off of hunters and sportsmen. He says that's what 'the Majority should be working on' inferring that he has no responsibility to participate. That's what this is about, that's where this started. It doesn't get more black and white. "

But that's the heart of the problem, Chris, and a point I've made that you've not directly answered.

Like I said before, what you're asking Hawley to do: "It's like blaming the doctor for his failure to revive a corpse that's been in the grave for 100 years. Or for blaming the astronaut for not bringing the entire Moon back in his lunar lander. Or blaming the 12-year-old for not pitching the perfect game in the MLB World Series."

I don't know what the cost to introduce legislation in New York is, but in California, in the 1990s, it cost taxpayers $25,000 for each piece of legislation introduced.

There is a cost associated with introducing legislation.

So are you suggesting that Hawley waste taxpayer money by introducing a bill that both you and I know will die in committee?

Again, this isn't about Hawley. It's not defending Hawley. It's arguing against a line of thinking that in my perception is not wedded to reality.

Chris wrote,

"If we're going to operate on that sort of logic then why send anyone to Albany at all. We could save the taxpayers $70,000/ year plus office and staff budgets that way. If a politician tells you he can't do anything useful, then why send him in the first place? "

Exactly.

Abolish Albany. I'm all for that. The very heart of this argument is that Albany is a waste of our State's treasure.

BTW: Chris, it is a circular argument, because you're saying in order for point A to be valid, point B must also be valid, but the argument is about whether point B is valid.

The fact of the matter is, it's the job of the minority party to criticize the majority party. As John pointed out, you're finding fault with a member of the minority party for doing what he should be doing.

What haven't I directly answered Howard. I explained what I think he should be doing and why he should be doing it.

I just don't think you get it. Hawley tells us what the other guys should be doing instead of taking ownership of his opinion and attempting to participate in the process.

It is about Hawley and no matter how many times you try to take the heat off of him, the reality is the same. Is he able to legislate or not? If not, let's replace him with someone who can.

Point A: I say something about Hawley that you don't like.

Point B: You tell me that the way I structure the Argument is unacceptable to your delicate sensibilities.

Point C: I point out to you that your sensibilities don't seem to be affected when the guy you're defending does the same thing.

Point D: You tell me that logical constructs only matter when they support your point of view, any other time, logic and fact are subject to your whim and desire.

Questions or shall we proceed?

Chris,
Do you really think sending CM, or a Democrat, will change how Mr. Silver is running the Assembly. No, he won't.

And we would lose the dissent vote and voice. On top of that, CM is not a real Democrat, he's a Green. He'll have to play extra nice with Mr. Silver to even get on a committee.

The rules in Albany are no different than what you ran against at the County level-same thing. You would have had no real input or say on anything. But you would be able to voice your dissent.

Chris, I don't accept your construct of the argument.

Point A: My position is that attacking a member of the minority party for not authoring a particular piece of legislation is akin to criticizing somebody for doing that which cannot be done, or is pointless and non-constructive to do.

Point B: Your position is that a particular minority party legislator is effective because rather than author said legislation, he attacks the majority for doing the wrong thing.

In order for the statement that I'm not fairly criticizing Hawley for "doing the same" thing to be true, I would have accept Point B as a valid thesis. But the whole issue is that I disagree with Point B for the reasons I state in Point A.

Hence, a circular argument.

In order for my Point A to be true, you're saying, I must also agree with Point B, but the thesis of Point A is that Point B is invalid.

Howard, if I say the sky is blue and you refuse to accept it as fact then we're done here.

Nothing is stopping Hawley from attempting to write the kind of legislation we're talking about. He says it's the Majority's responsibility and that's incorrect.

I'm not refusing to accept the sky is blue. I would say refusing to accept the sky is blue is refusing to accept that a minority member is just spinning his wheels to write legislation that he knows will die in committee, thereby costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in wasted expense.

My position has been about nothing but reality. The sky is blue. Very blue.

FWIW: I can argue all day when I have the time. The intellectual game of it is quite fun. I always regret that I wasn't on the debate team in school. Once I got to dabble in the constructs of argumentation, I found I quite enjoyed it (whether I'm disciplined enough at it to be any good is, um, debatable, but I do enjoy it). The topic is secondary.

An at least we've been civil enough about it not to fall prey to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law">Godwin's Law</a>.

It's not a game Howard, we're not dealing in abstracts here; Albany is a very real place.

What the pro-Hawley contingent is saying here confuses me.

We all realize that certain things need to be achieved in Albany

We want those things to be achieved.

We recognize that our current representative cannot help us achieve them.

We send him back to Albany anyway.

sigh...

What pro-Hawley contingent?

The position against Hawley should be "he's ineffective because he doesn't introduce this or that piece of legislation."

As a member of the minority party, it's unrealistic to expect him to introduce the kind of legislation you seem to expect (I mean, because as we noted, he obviously introduces legislation, you're just criticizing him for not introducing some particular kind or piece of legislation).

The greater concern should be that Hawley is tied to one of the two major parties, with some obligation to follow the GOP line. (Now, I think Hawley is true-blue conservative and quite in line politically with most of the positions of his party; that's not what I'm talking about).

I often wonder how many of Hawley's press releases aren't just part of the GOP Assembly talking points. There have been times when the same issue being raised by Hawley is also being raised (based on a Google news search) by other GOP members. I can't find a good example now; I thought the seahorse legislation release might be one, but there aren't many news sources that picked that issue up.

If Chris Barons were to win, in the "introduce and pass legislation" sense, he wouldn't be able to do much. Surely, you must recognize that's true.

But if he went there as an independent (meaning he doesn't switch parties, though he has Democratic line), he might be able to make a difference in other ways -- he would serve as a voice (hopefully) not beholden to either party (hopefully, since he isn't a Democrat, Sheldon Silver wouldn't successfully lean on him to toe the line). Barons could act as a sort of gadfly within the chamber, reminding members what they're really there for, and reporting back publicly as to what he's really seeing and hearing. And he might serve as an inspiration for voters in other districts to support independent candidates.

As I've said many, many times: I see no value, if you believe in and want change, for voting for either a Republican or a Democrat. That will never achieve change.

If you want change, don't line up behind a Republican or a Democrat. Line up behind a third-party candidate.

The revolution won't begin in either major party.

Ok, Howard, Chris & John; I read through all 62 comments and only fell asleep once. The final comment was worth it:

"As I've said many, many times: I see no value, if you believe in and want change, for voting for either a Republican or a Democrat. That will never achieve change.

If you want change, don't line up behind a Republican or a Democrat. Line up behind a third-party candidate.

The revolution won't begin in either major party."

The state is going broke, parks are going to be closed, the idiot Governor almost set us up to be burdened with expensive lawsuits relating to a punitive furlough program for "some" state employees, the LT Gov who was brought in just for his expertise in negotiating fails totally; and all the 2 houses of legislature want to do is bat the ball back and forth. The majority party spits out inane bills like seahorse protections, "money grab" pistol re-licensing and an already defeated farm worker bill to make certain politicians look good for their particular constituencies. The minority then speaks out against them so they can say "I'm doing something, I'm saving NY money" All the while staying in session 3 days a week, collecting their salaries, paying their staff and running up per diem charges. Chris called them "Glad handing nincompoops", perfect phrase (hope I can use that). I believe a lot of people have had enough of this B.S., unfortunately most of them don't vote. Look at the Tea Party movement, it was getting a lot of participation, until Republicans have started hi-jacking it which will turn off the people it originally tried to attract. I hope C M Barons does run, I hope it is as a Green or party other than D or R. I don't think he's right saying that he needs to be aligned with one of them. It's going to take everyday people talking him up, home made signs (al a Ron Paul) and distance from the apparatus that has run this state and country down to where we are. Sorry, Chris Charvella, you are a bright guy and we agree on a lot of things, but you are going to have a tough time getting people who don't usually vote to get excited about a candidate who is going to be part of a broken system.

To go back to an earlier question, if I may: What would I have Steve Hawley do? Stand up Every day in the Assembly and demand all business be set aside until a budget agreement is reached. May be futile and frustrating, but I'd respect that.

Dave,
I agree with you 100%. A third party candidate is what they need.

Dave,

I'm sure C.M hopes he can count on your support no matter what lines he runs on. :)

Howard's speculation about party switching is a fabricated controversy, not based on any actual event. The concept hasn't even been discussed with the potential candidate. One does not have to be a Democrat to run on the Democratic line or to be endorsed by our party. I'm only addressing it here because it's the sort of nonsensical rumor that can get out of control before breakfast.

I think it was Mark Twain that said: "A lie can make it half way round the world before the truth has time to put on its shoes."

As far as us (meaning the posters here) deciding exactly what Barons' relationship with Sheldon Silver is going to be 6-months before election day and 8-months before the next assembly is sworn in well...it's premature to say the least.

I know of one Democratic Assemblyman (Mark Schroeder) from South Buffalo who insisted last time around that if a balanced budget weren't delivered on time he wouldn't vote for Silver's re-election as Speaker. Schroeder kept his promise and Silver retaliated by cutting Schroeder's office budget. As I understand it, Schroeder has to pay for his own phones in Albany. Schroeder still bucks the Speaker when his principles say he should and it doesn't look like he has any intention of doing anything different.

I told that story as an example. There are good, tough, ethical Democrats in Albany and maybe, just maybe, if we start giving them some company we can begin to change the tone up there. Of course our other option is to do the same old song and dance and send Hawley back. Then we can spend the next two years complaining about how screwed up Albany is and how we're just too insignificant to get it fixed.

Sources on Schroeder:

http://www.observer.com/5203/rage-mark-schroeder\

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/29/1034432/schroeder-calls-silver-ob…

I think that Howard brought up the chestnut about C.M. switching parties in order to bring up a favorite theme, downing the two party system. He succeeded.

The negative just keep coming.
Posted by Howard Owens on May 15, 2010 - 5:03pm
If Chris Barons were to win, in the "introduce and pass legislation" sense, he wouldn't be able to do much. Surely, you must recognize that's true.

So why bother running? Just send the same old back again and again. No reason to change horses in midstream.
So far Howard gives the impressiion that Chris Charvella and, in some cased C.M. are not wedded to reality; untruthful; not capable of running a campaign; unrealistic; ineffective, and described Chris' opinions as 'hogwash'.
While that may be a the ideal way to spend a dreary day with nothing else to do, it puts this entire discussion on the same level as a game show. Running for NYS Assembly for the 139th isn't a game and the discussion isn't meant to be a fun exercise.

Chris, there's no speculation about C.M. switching parties. It's not speculation at all. It's a question.

Bea, you say that as if there is something wrong with that.

Let me adjust my comments. If a candidate runs on the Democratic Party line, the perception will be that he is a Democrat. My point is that voter turn-out is not very good at any time, worse during a mid-term such as 2010. I believe it's been about 35% over the last 20 years. If anyone is going to defeat Hawley, they will need new voters or at least people who don't usually vote in midterm years. The perception in this district is Democrats are not good for WNY'ers. I'm not agreeing with that, just saying. My humble opinion is that a true outsider is what's going to get those people excited.

Well said Dave, and all true.

Howard, your 'question' (stated more than once in the last few days) is about a non-issue that hasn't even been discussed. You're fabricating news where there is none.

Chris,
I looked up Assemblyman Schroeder. He has sponsored lots of legislation, and almost none has been voted on this year. It all dies in committee. That's what happens to Dems. who buck Sheldon Silver. If CM didn't switch parties and bucked Silver, how do you think he'll get treated?

This is still all hypothetical. Orleans and the other counties might have an enrolled Dem that wants to run (Hawley's last two opponents came from Orleans). But then, your party has done well running non Democrats, so maybe a Green is what you need.

I'm not sure whether being on the Dem line will help or hurt.

First, I'm not convinced that basing your entire campaign on anti-incumbent fever is a sound strategy. History shows that anti-incumbency abates as voters enter the booth. Anti-incumbency can start a campaign; I'm not sure it can finish it.

Being on the Dem line will guarantee a base of votes. Some people vote straight party line. Obviously, in this district, that's not enough to win, but it's a start. The question is, does it give more votes than it takes away?

If a third-party candidate could position himself as a truly independent, but still be on a major party line, that might be the best of both worlds.

Tricky waters to navigate, but might the best hope for unseating an entrenched incumbent.

Or to put it another way, if the County Democrats want to make a serious run at unseating Hawley, they're going to have to find a non-Democrat who can align with independent voters and create a coalition strong enough to counter balance the auto-GOP vote.

To get somebody like Barons elected, it's going to take a strong anti-Albany coalition that cuts across some ideological boundaries, which means support from the Democrats.

It sounds like there are a lot of right-leaning voters on this site ready to at least consider backing Barons. Those type of voters will need to be part of such a coalition.

One aspect of that is not only the Democratic name, but the Democratic organization. Genesee County Democrats may not be the largest organization, but it's a very active and passionate organization. I don't think a challenger could win without that support, no matter how strong the anti-incumbency mood.

I'm fabricating nothing, Chris.

This discussion gets me thinking about Nebraska and their non-partisan, unicameral State Senate. We really can't afford 150 Assemblymen and 62 Senators and their respective support staff. In this day and age of instant communication and ease of travel, why do we need so many representatives? The non-partisan aspect takes away the power a Sheldon Silver wields. I know we have a lot more people and issues than Nebraska, but it's a direction to head toward.

Dave, I think we need a bicameral legislature in this state.

Unfortunately, our current bicameral operates more like a unicameral.

I, for the life of me, can't see any difference between the Assembly and Senate. They certainly don't operate as a check-and-balance on each other.

I think the Senate should be four-year terms and each county should have a senator.

If the assembly is proportioned by population, it will operate as primarily a downstate interest house.

A county-based Senate would give upstate a voice.

This, ideally, would force compromise.

Short of that, an non-partisan unicameral legislature would be an improvement over the current system.

Oh, and in my reform, I would reduce the Assembly to 100 members, maybe even 50.

I'm not sure how many counties in New York.

I believe we have 62 counties in NY

The only person talking about party switching here is Howard Owens. I think it's important for the folks reading this thread to understand that.

Posted by John Roach on May 15, 2010 - 7:47pm
Chris,
I looked up Assemblyman Schroeder. He has sponsored lots of legislation, and almost none has been voted on this year. It all dies in committee. That's what happens to Dems. who buck Sheldon Silver. If CM didn't switch parties and bucked Silver, how do you think he'll get treated?

Assemblyman Schroeder has been there for five years. It is uncommon for someone with that low seniority in the Assembly to get through many bills anyway.
He has, however, passed several important pieces of legislation.
If C.M. goes to Albany as a Green/Democrat then most likely he would have the same record as Schroeder even though he has not aligned himself with Silver.
So, a junior Assemblyperson will not get a lot through regardless of party affiliation.
Hawley does not have a better record than Schroeder and he doesn't have Silver on his back.
C.M, on the other hand, would not be beholden to Silver or the Assembly leadership.

There are 62 counties and 62 state senators. It may make more sense to do it by county since there are 25 state senate districts in NYC alone. The one senator per county method would swing a lot of weight toward upstate which I wouldn't really mind. It would also be more in line with our Federal system with the House seats distributed by population and the Senate seats being distributed equally.

I'm not the only one talking about it, Chris. Just the only one in this thread. That's all I can say.

Cute, Howard. I'll reiterate: The only one talking about party switching here is Howard Owens.

Running a partisan, anti-Hawley campaign is a sure way to get embarrassed.

If that is the strategy, my advice would be to spend the campaign budget on some wings and beer. Life is too short to waste time and effort with a bad plan that is doomed from the beginning.

I wish I had the inside information that Howard and Charlie have. It is astounding how much one learns when reading this site.
What is the plan, Charlie?
Spell it out for us so that we can just sleep tight tonight.
No surprise where your vote will go, Charlie. I'm sure Steve finds that very reassuring.

The bi-cameral idea isn't bad Howard. Especially if you reduce the Assembly to 50 or so members. That reduces the total legislation to 112, almost half what we now have. I like the one county, one dog one bone idea too. Cap their salaries at 100 grand, cap their staff numbers, one office in the district and one in Albany. Go to a non-partisan election system, no majority or minority parties, term limits and a district map that makes common sense and you're all set.

I agree Charlie, campaign for your guy and his positions, not against anyone or anything.

Dave, I don't know how you constitutionally (right to assemble) make it non-partisan.

I have ideas about how to reduce the power and influence of political parties, which I've discussed before. But I think people have the right to associate along whatever political lines they choose.

I believe, I'm not sure though in Nebraska they have an open primary in each district and the top 2 vote getters, then run against each other, regardless of party affiliation. Their senate then elects their leaders on the first day of session, again regardless of party. I suppose members of a particular party could band together and vote a bill in, but it takes out the power to control the bills that get to the floor. It's got to be better than the dysfunctional mess we have in Albany now.

Bea, all I have to do is read between the lines:

1. Steve Hawley does nothing but, speak Republican talking points.
2. Steve Hawley's seat going Democrat would equal out the state senate.
3. A Democrat would bring more pork home.

You can't run a campaign in this area based on how your candidate would hurt the Republican party or how Steve Hawley does nothing.

In my opinion the campaign would need to be positive and not about party to have a chance to win. The candidate would have to be a proven fiscal conservative as well.

As for my vote, it has always been based on the person, not party or politics. If the real campaign is based on negativity or partisan party politics, there is very little chance that Steve would lose my vote.

Dave, that sounds like an acceptable system, but one of my beliefs is that political parties should be responsible for putting their own candidates in the general election at their own expense.

In other words, primary elections should not be funded by taxpayers.

Each party uses its own expense and method to select its general election candidate and then we vote.

Voters deserve choices. Citizens need to see contrasting view points. Showing contrasting viewpoints isn't negative,it's positive.

It seems to me that the partisan politics came wrapped up in Steve's press release. I see the "Assembly Majority" talking point repeated three times.

I see what you are saying Howard, but this gives independents a better chance when they aren't running against party money. Interestingly, Nebraska went to this in the 1930's after first voting out a lot of incumbents over dissatisfaction about partisanship and no cooperation between the 2 houses during the depression and the new guys couldn't get a budget passed. The subject had been raised about 20 years earlier, but it took the effort of one of their US Senators. They had to have a constitutional convention. Nebraska has had this ever since 1935. The Senators are also part-time, get paid 12,000 a year are term limited and are in session 90 days per year. Noone does it for the money. Like I said above, Nebraska is a lot less populous than NY, so it would surely need to be modified, but in my opinion is a good direction.

Dave, well there's an effort afoot to get a constitutional convention in New York.

Lorie, are you saying that you believe what I said came from a Republican talking points paper? You can't be serious...

As for competition and choice. You are not giving anyone a choice if you select a far left candidate to run against Hawley. That is not a choice that a vast majority of the assembly district would ever make.

I'm a little late to this party, but I've read all 90 (or so) posts and there's a lot of wind there. I might as well add some.
I've already taken the position that I will be voting against ANY incumbent for state office in the upcoming election because of the charade that is currently called government in New York.
I know that's a stupid position, but it's my stupid position.
Therefore, if C.M. Barons does run...he gets my vote.

Think of the possibilities if *everyone* in the state did this in every district. Sheldon Silver would be gone!
This isn't so much about Democrats or Republicans...it's about responsibility.

I'm not so much against Steve Hawley as I am against our tax money being wasted on as colossal a scale as is currently taking place.
There are plenty of examples of Democrats in the legislature including the aforementioned Shelly who need to go. Senators Bill Stachowski and Antoine Thompson from Erie county (the latter being particularly greasy) are local examples of all that is wrong with the current system. Both parties are currently part of the problem and completely new blood is needed.

The idea Mr. Olsen described in previous posts is intriguing and would certainly be a step in the right direction. One county one senator sounds like a good idea and we certainly don't need 150 assemblymen making $80K + per year to get what we're getting now.

As a side note, I went to www.seethroughny.net and downloaded the spreadsheet of legislature salaries for 2009. There are 4807 rows in that spreadsheet. Some lines are duplicates, for example Steve Hawley's base salary is $79,500 and then he gets another $9109.59 for being the "Chr Min Program Comm" (whatever that means). So for $89000 we get what we're getting.
The total for all salaries for 2009 was $170,658,394.40

How many out there think we're getting our money's worth?

Posted by David Meyer on May 16, 2010 - 8:35am
I'm a little late to this party, but I've read all 90 (or so) posts and there's a lot of wind there. I might as well add some.
I've already taken the position that I will be voting against ANY incumbent for state office in the upcoming election because of the charade that is currently called government in New York.
I know that's a stupid position, but it's my stupid position.
Therefore, if C.M. Barons does run...he gets my vote.

If he runs, would you put a sign on your lawn?

Think of the possibilities if *everyone* in the state did this in every district. Sheldon Silver would be gone!
This isn't so much about Democrats or Republicans...it's about responsibility.

Exactly.

I'm not so much against Steve Hawley as I am against our tax money being wasted on as colossal a scale as is currently taking place.

There has been a great deal of speculation, on this site, about the platform someone should have if they run against Hawley. There has also been a great deal of ridicule against the thought that anyone would have the nerve to challenge the annointed one. He has staunch supporters, on this site, who want nothing more than to send him back to Albany.

There are plenty of examples of Democrats in the legislature including the aforementioned Shelly who need to go. Senators Bill Stachowski and Antoine Thompson from Erie county (the latter being particularly greasy) are local examples of all that is wrong with the current system. Both parties are currently part of the problem and completely new blood is needed.

The idea Mr. Olsen described in previous posts is intriguing and would certainly be a step in the right direction. One county one senator sounds like a good idea and we certainly don't need 150 assemblymen making $80K + per year to get what we're getting now.

As a side note, I went to www.seethroughny.net and downloaded the spreadsheet of legislature salaries for 2009. There are 4807 rows in that spreadsheet. Some lines are duplicates, for example Steve Hawley's base salary is $79,500 and then he gets another $9109.59 for being the "Chr Min Program Comm" (whatever that means). So for $89000 we get what we're getting.
The total for all salaries for 2009 was $170,658,394.40

How many out there think we're getting our money's worth?

See above. People like Charlie and his ilk will work hard to see that Hawley is reelected. You will read outright lies about what is happening with a candidate that isn't even endorsed and isn't available this weekend to discuss his ideas or opinions. So, they have had a ball making things up out of whole cloth.

You are right about one thing. Is Steve earning that $89,000? Apparently the fiscal conservatives, on this board, feel it is money well spent. Do you?

Posted by Charlie Mallow on May 16, 2010 - 7:54am
Lorie, are you saying that you believe what I said came from a Republican talking points paper? You can't be serious...

As for competition and choice. You are not giving anyone a choice if you select a far left candidate to run against Hawley. That is not a choice that a vast majority of the assembly district would ever make.

Since, I believe you are talking about Chris, what makes you think that he would be a far left candidate?
What do you have to support that?

David; No such thing as late to this site, in my opinion anyway. Thanks for the seethroughny info. In answer to your question, No I don't think we are getting our money's worth.

Bea,
If you get what you say you want, everyone voting their guy/gal out, that would be great!

We get a Republican controlled Assembly and Senate, with two Democrats (one in each house) representing us here in Genesee County. Locally, we would not see a big change, but in Albany! That would be fun to watch.

Also, you said at 8:54 PM, yesterday, there have been lies told about CM already. What are they, or did you make that up? The only thing I said about him is that he supports the tax on soft drinks, and he does (He said so on). He is was also against bring back money (pork) to this district (He said so on 4/17), so where is the lie?

Dave
The idea of non partisan elections is how our School Board elections are run now.

Posted by John Roach on May 16, 2010 - 9:13am
so where is the lie?

John,
I was referring to the comment (not made by you) that he would switch parties if endorsed.
That was a supposition and not a fact. But, said enough times, and it will become gospel.
There are the comments that are developing C.M.'s possible platform as if there is some insider information to which most of us aren't privy.

Bea,
Nobody said he would absolutely switch. They were speculating. You know full well some in you party felt burned by some local candidates that ran on your line, but were not Democrats. Some said they would not endorse anyone again that was not an enrolled member.

Since CM is a Green, the speculation is fair, but not a lie. It was more along the line of you trying to make us think you had a Democrat to run, a topic for discussion.

His platform will be fun since he has posted his opinions here for a long time.

Posted by John Roach on May 16, 2010 - 9:49am

His platform will be fun since he has posted his opinions here for a long time.

John,
I'll admit I was blown away by his demeanor and his ability to articulate his opinions. It was refreshing.
To quote Josh Lyman, from The West Wing, he is the 'real deal'.
You have far more knowledge on the history of the committee than I. I'm just a neophyte.

Bea,
No more knowledge than you. The discontent was from last the last two years.

Bea said

"People like Charlie and his ilk will work hard to see that Hawley is reelected. You will read outright lies about what is happening with a candidate that isn't even endorsed and isn't available this weekend to discuss his ideas or opinions. So, they have had a ball making things up out of whole cloth."

Bea, I didn't know I had "ilk". I also am pretty put off by this idea you think I would make up " outright lies" to support Steve. The fact is I have always supported Steve and I have never been part of his campaign staff or have made up lies supporting him in the past. I know him because of my work with the city. In that time, Steve proved that he was always willing to help Batavia. His door was always open. I also know that because of Albany partisanship his ability to help was limited.

Maybe your right, instead of being passive this year, I should help the best man for the job in a more direct way.

Charlie,
Do you believe that he actually earns the $89,000 that we pay him?

Bea, I do believe that if not for the intense partisanship in Albany, Steve would do even more for our district.

I am still shocked by what I seen in my trips to Albany, for the city. Partisanship has ruined our state. The system makes it impossible for someone outside the "party in power" to represent their district to the best of their ability.

Bea, I have no doubt you act politically with the best intentions. Our political system was not designed for people with good intentions. For the glory of the party, people do stupid things, like not supporting the best person for the job. Why not give Steve a call and sit down with him and talk about the things that bother you? I think you will find him all too willing to talk to people in his district.

The idea of voting anti-incumbent, regardless of party, is as close to revolution as our fat lazy society could muster at this point. While I have no real qualms with the job done by Steve Hawley, I fully support this novel approach to the next election.
I am making it my mission in the next several months to promote awareness to this idea.
It also astounds me that Nebraska and New York could be so different in their approach to government. It sounds like Nebraska has it right...the office holders are not career politicians, rather citizens doing their patriotic duty.
As far as Hawley earning his pay, I doubt ANYONE in the legislature "earns" his or her pay.
Let's revolt

Bea,
Are you saying Sheldon Silver is earning his pay? Really?

Oh John, of course Mr Silver earns his pay. Remember he and two other corrupt guys do run the state from a back room.

Charlie,
Sorry, I forgot that, and they don't even have to stay in Albany a full week, while we have no budget, to deserve their pay. Right Bea?

Whatever, John. Just keep putting words up that I haven't said. Have a grand Sunday, I have things to do today.

Bea,

In answer to your question, I would absolutely put a sign for C.M. Barons on my lawn.

BTW, if anyone's interested, the aforementioned Mr. Silver, our distinguished speaker of the assembly "earned" in 2009 $80047.18 as a member of the assembly and $41500.00 for his role as its speaker for a total of $121,547.18

It's actually not as much as I thought it would be, but it's WAAAAAAAAY too much for the job he's doing.

According to the US Census bureau, the median income for households in Genesee County in 2008 was $49,133. I doubt it's gone up much since then given the economy. So Mr. Hawley is making 80% MORE than the average income of his constituents for a job that he works at a couple of days a week. That doesn't include his income from his real job. Who here thinks that he really feels the pain of what the state inflicts on its residents?

Perhaps if their numbers were reduced and the pay was lowered these 'part timers' would be less likely to see this job as a job and more likely to see it as a service.

Bea,
Have a good day, its great outside. I recommend the County Park.

But, since you asked if we thought Hawley has earned his $89,000, it was more than fair to ask you, if you, thought Silver has earned his pay ($121,500). Your failure to answer yes or no tells me your question was pure partisan.

But we can wait till Monday for you to answer.

I had no intention of posting a comment on gun control legislation....but that is not what this thread is all about anyway...so here is my 2 cents.

Chris said:

"C.M. is out of town this weekend so he's probably not going to see this thread. I had a pretty detailed conversation with him about firearm issues and what he told me was that he doesn't believe in fees and 'punitive taxation' as a solution to New York's Budget woes."

As tempting as it is to put words in candidates mouths, it's a disservice to the public and to the potential candidate. Chris' statement above gives the impression that when he spoke with C.M. in "detail" about firearms issues, C.M. deflected the issue and spoke about NY's budget woes.

Chris said:

"Chris Barons has a deep respect for our hunting and shooting traditions and, if in Albany, would be working hard to get guns out of the hands of criminals without affecting our hunters and sportsmen."

It's a shame that C.M.'s views are already being scrubbed and sanitized into a talking point and spit out by a press secretary before he has even had a chance to state any for the record.

I'm sure that C.M. is more than capable of eloquently stating his position and I for one would rather hear a direct quote.

Maybe I am just naive and this is simply "politics as usual", but like I said at the top of this post, this thread is not about gun issues...it's about people being angry over politics as usual. Apparently it starts way before a canditate even reaches office.

It's too bad that C.M. is out of town, with no internet access. I wonder if he can feel himself spinning?

Its too bad all this debate will change nothing !
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JSBhI_0at0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1JSBhI_0at0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Bea, 9:31 a.m:

"I was referring to the comment (not made by you) that he would switch parties if endorsed."

There you go again, making stuff up.

Great video Gabor.

I really do agree with most of what people say about reducing government but it hasn't worked yet.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x59wNGHe6iI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x59wNGHe6iI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Two good videos, Gabor.

JoAnne,
At the start of this, it wasn't even really about gun control or crime prevention. It was about another money grab by the state made to look like it.

It's just another punitive fee to be wasted in Albany.

John,

I am in no position to either agree or disagree with you because I don't follow gun control or crime prevention legislation. That is why I had decided not to comment on that topic.

But I think that your comment speaks volumes to the overriding theme of "people are angry over politics as usual".

JoAnne,

I'm sure Chris would be happy to clarify any of this for you. Email him at BaronsNYAssembly@aol.com.

That will be his campaign email until there's a website up and running (shortly.) No staff or political hacks such as myself will be answering those emails, they go directly to him.

howard seems to have become the "apologist" for hawley in virtually any & all circumstances ad nauseum.

talk about "special interest" influence on politics, hawley can always be counted on to do whatever the fanatical LEADERSHIP of the NRA demands of him. how much do they contribute to his campaigns i wonder?

it appears he marches in lock step to whatever his party's leadership in albany dictates, a rubber stamp seemingly incapable of of formulating his own independent viewpoint. can anyone on this site point out an occasion when his stand on any issue differed from that of his leadership?

David, there's nothing I've said that can be pointed to as being an apologist for Hawley. I'm apologist for truth and accuracy. That is all.

David- Why don't you focus your political attention to the corrupt democrat downstaters that are less than desirable in their actions, like Charlie Rangel and Pedro Espada.
And keep your ears and eyes open for the revolution. No incumbent is safe this November, including Mr. Hawley.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny".
Thomas Jefferson

"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is".
Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government".
Thomas Jefferson

David,
Without bringing either candidate into this question, do you:
1) Think this is good law?
2) Prevents crime?
3) Is another fee, punitive tax or money grab?

Great quotes Gabor; While hosting a dinner honoring some Nobel laureates at the White House President JFK said "This is the most extraordinary collection of talent ever in this dining room, except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." or something like that.

I'd like to toss out a quote from someone else about the original subject of this post: "Laws are like cobwebs which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through." that's from Gullivers Travels by Jonathan Swift written in 1726.

I enjoyed that Dave, Thank You.

your record speaks for itself on the issue i have raised here howard. i rest my case.

today Rand Paul, US senate candidate in the republican primary in kentucky was quoted thus in the media:
"the day of reckoning is coming. we cannot elect the same old politicians without getting the same old mess."
genesee county voters may want to keep that in mind regarding assemblyman steve hawley's re-election campaign.

David Lazik,
While down in Brooklyn, could you answer the questions I asked earlier.

And does your support for voting everyone out transfer to the Democrats in WNY also?

ok bud. so you must feel then that upstate republican & former senate majority leader joe bruno, recently convicted & sentenced for corruption, could not poosibly have been corrupt because he was from upstate & is a republican? i agree that pedro espada is corrupt & i suspect he'll be defeated but the article i was commenting on was about steve hawley & not pedro espada.

David said "so you must feel then that upstate republican & former senate majority leader joe bruno, recently convicted & sentenced for corruption"
Stop right there. He's a piece of crap, who gives Italians a bad name. And he's not from upstate. He's from Albany, which is NYC north.
Sir, let me make myself clear. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on, incumbents in November are going to hear it's citizens loud and clear.
A revolution's coming, ask Arlen Specter

Bud says A revolution's coming. Man, I hope so and not a moment too soon. Arlen Spector is 80 years old for heaven's sake; let go, Arlen.

David wrote, "your record speaks for itself"

You're right, David. I rest my case.

Mr. Lazik has a record as a NYC hack. Today he proved it again.

NYC, are you kidding me? Hey, David, you can have Paterson back, along with Espada, Monseratte and Al Sharpton too. Hawley may well be a Republican flunky, but he's not corrupt.

i will not dignify john roach's personal attacks & insults with a response.

David Lazik,
Too bad, because I can make my case with your track record on this site going back over a few years. And what insults?