Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  May 3, 2012
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.

Why Wendy Long for U.S. Senator from New York

It's time for the guys to be gracious, lest their unhelpful political "War on Wendy" give credence to Team Obama's "Republican War on Women" canard.

Kudos to National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez for a tremendous interview of United States Senate candidate Wendy Long (www.wendylongfornewyork.com/)titled "Wendy's No Long-Shot."

One quibble: Lopez subtitled her piece "Senator Gillibrand could face a pro-life woman challenger."

Senator Gillibrand WILL face a pro-life woman challenger on Election Day 2012.

Wendy Long already is the candidate of the New York Conservative Party.

Long dominated the New York Republican Party Convention, winning more than 47% of the vote, while two pro-life men, George Maragos and Bob Turner, split the rest of the vote about equally and won the right to participate in a primary without having to obtain signatures on petitions.

WHY either of these two men wants to split the anti-Gillibrand vote by making it a three-way race is a mystery to me.

All three vied for the Conservative nomination and Long won 91% of the vote on the first ballot and then her nomination was made unanimous.

It's time for the guys to be gracious, lest their unhelpful political "War on Wendy" give credence to Team Obama's "Republican War on Women" canard.

After reading Lopez's questions and Long's answers, they may realize they should be uniting behind Long.

Here are highlights:

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What do you have against Senator Gillibrand?

WENDY LONG: National Journal recently came out with its annual congressional rankings — the gold standard in political measuring sticks. Kirsten Gillibrand was tied for No. 1 Most Liberal Member of the United States Senate. She’s metamorphosed from a moderate, fiscally responsible, guns-under-the-bed, upstate,Blue Dog Democrat into an entrenched vote for the hard Left, carrying water for big government and special interests. She voted for Obamacare, for Obama’s failed stimulus that did nothing (not even build infrastructure in New York), for federal funding of ACORN, for Dodd-Frank (which will cripple New York as the financial capital of the world) — generally, for big, oppressive government. On jobs, debt, deficit spending, energy policy, taxes, and regulation, she’s out of step with mainstream New Yorkers, who gave Ronald Reagan two victories in this state. She has stood mute while Barack Obama has undermined and attacked our ally Israel, and while Iran has marched toward nuclear armament. She speaks in friendly bromides that seem designed to keep her in office, so that she can tell all the rest of us how to run our lives. It reminds me of a phrase that Tocqueville used: “velvet tyranny.”

LOPEZ: What’s the tenure of a Senator Long going to look like?

LONG: I would be honest with my fellow New Yorkers. Our nation and state are in dire circumstances. Serious people need to work hard to reduce the debt, reduce taxes, and slash regulation on the small businesses and families that are the lifeblood of new jobs and innovation in our state. I wouldn’t let a year pass by without producing a federal budget. This is the most basic job that we are paying her salary to do. I would vote to repeal Obamacare immediately, if the Supreme Court has not already invalidated it. I would support a real American energy policy, put American interests first in foreign policy, and be actively engaged on national-security matters, as Congressman Pete King is. New York needs not just a congressman but also a senator who is at the forefront of protecting our national security.

I would let our allies know that we are unequivocally on their side — particularly Israel. I would drastically revise much of the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation, which I call the “Bureaucrat Full Employment Act.” I would not waste time, as Senator Gillibrand does, on things such as dictating a national minimum driving age and sponsoring a “National Day of Play.” I’d help New Yorkers understand that we get less in value from Washington than what we send there in taxes. Our families and employers, and our financial, agricultural, medical-device, and other industries, are being crushed by taxes and regulation. I would fight to take those burdens off them.

LOPEZ: Why you and not the others in the primary mix?

LONG: I salute my two primary opponents: George Maragos, a real gentleman who embodies the American Dream and now serves Nassau County as comptroller, and Bob Turner, who inspired Republicans with his special-election victory in a Brooklyn-Queens district. We share many of the same views. I expect that differences among us will emerge over the course of the next few months. I have never run for elective office before, but I have significant experience working in or with all three branches of our federal government.

I have been in private law practice in New York City, where my husband and I are raising our children. I’ve spent a great deal of time over the past decade as a caregiver for various family members. It gives me a perspective on the struggles that many New Yorkers face with illness, disability, health care, insurance difficulties, and trying to work with and also take care of family members. I’ve also in recent years been involved in important national debates about our Constitution and Supreme Court, in the context of the confirmation battles over nominees of both President Bush and President Obama. My experience in those battles has given me a depth of experience and perspective on the problems facing our country — and how to solve them — that I think is unique.

LOPEZ: What would you bring to the Senate?

LONG: Two things: One, I have certain core convictions and principles, which stem from my understanding of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Those founding documents contain the answers to almost every problem we have in federal government today. If we had 100 senators who saw it that way, we would have a federal government that is smaller, less intrusive, and less burdensome to Americans in their daily lives, but also more vigorous in protecting America and her interests in the world.

Two, I would be honest instead of politically correct. Senator Gillibrand is good at saying things that sound nice but have little substance. I don’t think we elect our public officials to avoid taking a stand or a difficult position on anything. Public officials insult our intelligence and our goodwill when they paint rosy pictures about budgets, jobs, bipartisanship, and transparency, and alter their positions on issues simply to keep collecting their paycheck by never disagreeing or disappointing anyone.

Enjoy the rest of the illuminating interview at National Review Online: www.nationalreview.com/articles/297451/wendy-s-no-long-shot-interview.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor


Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.


Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2012 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved