Southern Brooklyn

GOP Chooses Turner As Candidate For Weiner’s Seat


Capital Tonight is reporting via Twitter that the GOP is choosing Bob Turner to face off against David Weprin in the September 13 election for New York’s Ninth Congressional District.

Turner was Weiner’s Republican challenger in 2010. Following Weiner’s resignation, the Queens businessman explained in an op-ed why he ran then, and why he hoped to run again this time. He wrote:

The situation in America is worse now than it was in November 2010. The political climate in my district is now very favorable for a repeat run. But that’s not why I did it then, and not why I’d consider a return. My desire to go to Congress was to fix what’s broken and go home. End subsidies. End government dependencies. Dramatically cut the budget by 30 or 35 percent. Slash capital-gains taxes down to zero. Cut taxes across the board. The rest of America’s economic healing will happen naturally as a consequence. I suffered through Carter’s administration and saw what Reagan did to restore American prosperity. It can happen again. Congress knows what to do. Anthony Weiner knows what to do. They just don’t do it. Call it incompetence or arrogance. It’s a matter of political will, and giving up control is something few in Congress are willing to do.

America is tired of standing outside, looking in. It’s time to oust the remaining dead-weight from the House — and bring the change America so desperately needs.

Comment policy


  1. “End subsidies. End government dependencies.”

    I wonder how well this will go with the Section 8/Medicare/Medicaid/TANF/etc. recipients in this district.
    Hint: last election cycle, Bob Turner’s robocalls in Russian (I received at least two) never mentioned “ending subsidies”, but instead mentioned increasing Section 8 program…

  2. reminds me of the British attitude toward those inconvenient, impoverished Irish during the potato famine: just let them go away to another country or fall in a ditch and die, QUIETLY!. I am not for the grossly misspent zillions of dollars to continue, but the Republicans are not offering any practical answers either, apparently!

  3. Precisely the opposite. You people yell for more and more money from the government, which makes the problems bigger and bigger. And your solution? More and more money and government? The problems get bigger. The next solution? More money and government? The problems get bigger. At what point do you realize that just handing more and more money out JUST DOESN’T WORK.

       But I know, how it ends. When big government collapses of its own weight, you will fall back on BLAME BUSH. You always have that in your hip pocket, right?

  4. 800 billion in “stimulus”. The result? According to almost everyone: NOTHING. Your solution? Another 800 billion? Isn’t that the much-quoted definition of insanity?

  5. Gee, when it came to Anthony Weiner, the posts here were “all politicians lie, nothing new, we should expect it, give the guy a break”.  Different party, different rules, I guess.

  6. So, let’s see. We gave a huge tax cut to the 1% of the population that has over 70% of the income during a given year. Corporations make huge profits and pay NO taxes. The Federal government takes on the burden of a war which immediately costs trillions of dollars with no economic return.

    In the meantime there has been a steady decline in the earning power of the average American. Personal debt is staggering, prices go up and wages are flat. Due to the loss of skilled jobs many earn significantly less than they did their peak years of employment. It has not been the concept of big government which has failed us, it is the return of laissez-faire governance along with the willingness of our elected officials to aid those who have to take from those who don’t. 

    All the smoke and mirrors don’t change that. The real crisis is that those who have now want to take what little the rest has away as well. When enough Americans finally perceive that they are not being included in this grand scheme, that they will never become financially secure in a market-based economy, that government has a necessary function of protecting us from the excesses of those who have more economic power than most individuals; only then will this current trend towards stripping Americans of what they are entitled to as part of the covenant promised to them by our founding fathers end.

    The failure is not from liberal excess. The liberals have been a relatively extinct species for the past 30 years. In our culture of avarice that concept could not well survive. Especially so when the opposition constantly insists that the price for the mechanisms put into place during the age of progressive government is too high. However, the cost of losing them will be higher.

    In the end it is always a question of whether the government is serving the needs of the individual. What you call “BIG GOVERNMENT” does that, and, as it was practiced originally, placed the cost upon those who could afford to pay for it’s existence. This was fair and proper, since these entities are benefiting from the work and expenditures of those less economically successful. Government, in the understanding of how this country was created, was meant to serve all. In the scenario proposed by those who use “BIG GOVERNMENT” as their catchphrase, government will only serve those who who actually NEED it the least.

  7. No, same rules.  The only thing Mr. Turner has to do is to admit that he lied to either group of voters (Russian- or English- speaking).

  8. So money given to the biggest banks guarantees that those bankers will vote for Obama next time.
    OK, that takes care of 100 voters right there.

  9. Lisanne, well, good thing we got a democrat in the White House who did all those things he promised. Remember the urgent moral need to pull out from Iraq? Never happened. Afghanistan? Never happened. Close Gitmo? Nope. Didn’t happen. Not so urgent I guess. Get us into another war – Libya? Yes! At least Bush had the support of the congress/senate – Obama didn’t even bother. Oh, remember how democrats rammed through the stimulus? 787 billion dollars were rammed through by the dems without republican support (remember Obama was supposed to be a uniter? Didn’t happen either). 787 billion went out the window, doing absolutely nothing for the economy. “Shovel-Ready was not as shvoel ready as we expected,” joked Obama. Isn’t he hilarious? Unemployment is at 9.2%. Remember when it peaked at 6% during the previous recession when Bush was in office?

  10. There’s nonrecovery because the entire structure is flawed. Both parties bear responsibility for that. Just as both parties bear responsibility for the Iraq debacle. 

    The Bush Administration laid part of the groundwork for our current economic malaise. They also lied in extreme about the danger Iraq posed for the world’s safety. They prepared an invasion of such magnitude that they could not achieve it with the help of Congress. The expenditures for that war will continue to have a negative effect on our economy for years. It was financially mismanaged and rife with graft. 

    I will not even begin to document how facetious George W. Bush acted when confronted with his failures and his inability to even understand the consequences of his action. Yale educated, he liked to play the buffoon rather than serious address criticisms. Our current President wants to see consensus. Not such a difficult task for him, he is hardly the ideological liberal that his opponents have often made him out to be. But neither was Clinton. Knowing this in advance, and aware that if two party platforms are too close in substance no one wins, I watched the campaign era redefining of Obama with amusement.

    He has indeed done a number of things that we perceive that Republican President might do. And while it may be discomforting, it is governance by pragmatism.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here