McFarland In
"Nine months ago, my daughter Fiona, a student at the United States Naval Academy, reminded me that service to one's country is both an honor and an obligation. She challenged me to return to public service, to re-apply the skills and expertise I acquired while serving three U.S. Presidents on behalf of our state and nation.
"Today, I accept my daughter's challenge by announcing that I am running to be my party's nominee for the United States Senate from the State of New York. Toward that end, I have formed an exploratory committee, which I expect to upgrade to a full Senate campaign committee in the coming days."
Now we get a few more months, at least, of Hillary saying, "I'd love to engage my challenger, but the GOP really needs to figure things out first."
Also: Will GOPers buy that McFarland's time in the Reagan Pentagon PR apparatus makes her a national-security expert today?
Full statement after the jump.
"Nine months ago, my daughter Fiona, a student at the United States Naval Academy, reminded me that service to one's country is both an honor and an obligation. She challenged me to return to public service, to re-apply the skills and expertise I acquired while serving three U.S. Presidents on behalf of our state and nation.
"Today, I accept my daughter's challenge by announcing that I am running to be my party's nominee for the United States Senate from the State of New York. Toward that end, I have formed an exploratory committee, which I expect to upgrade to a full Senate campaign committee in the coming days.
"When I left government service to raise my children, America was enjoying a period of profound optimism. We were on the brink of winning the Cold War, our economy was reaching historic heights and the future looked bright in every direction. Morning in America had indeed returned; our nation had regained its footing after years of self doubt.
"Today, our country faces new challenges. We are confronted with a dangerous and determined enemy abroad and political divisions at home that are eroding our national spirit. At a time when Americans should be working most closely together, we are being pulled apart by partisan rancor and counterproductive ‘gotcha' politics.
"A man I once had the privilege of serving reminded Americans that we are better than that. To Ronald Reagan, America forever would be ‘that shining city on a hill,' always noble, always striving, always hopeful. In that spirit, I will conduct my campaign for the U.S. Senate.
"I seek to engage other candidates for this office in substantive debate on issues of importance to New York State and the nation, including homeland security, over-dependence on foreign energy, education and job growth. I will be issuing detailed statements on these and other key issues as my campaign progresses, and I expect to hold a formal announcement of my candidacy down the road. I am taking this campaign one step at a time.
"I have been personally assured by New York State Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik that the nominating process for this seat will be fair and open. For the past several weeks I have been in touch with county leaders of the Republican Party throughout New York State and I am very encouraged by the response. I now believe I will have the requisite support to appear on the Republican ballot this September.
"I also have met with the Chairman of the New York State Conservative Party, who has personally endorsed another candidate in this race, but who graciously recommended that I meet with other leaders from his party to solicit support. I will certainly do that.
"I have been blessed over the years by the manifold opportunities this nation has provided. I have been privileged to serve at the highest levels of government; I have received a world-class education through scholarships, part-time jobs and student loans and I have shared my life with the most wonderful husband and children one could hope for.
"Now it is time to get back to the business of serving my country, which I seek to do as a candidate for United States Senate from the State of New York."
I guess Carolyn Maloney can breathe easy; now she'll won't have to face an opponent who might actually manage 25%. And Hilary has her worst nightmare: an opponent who might get two points more than Spencer would. She probably worries more about Tasini.
The entrance of KT McFarland into the Senate race could give Hillary something to worry about. The Friday front page NY Times piece indicates she is going to run a very savvy race. And, prior to raising her family of 5 kids(including one daughter currently in the Naval Academy), she was on the Nation Security Council staff making major contributions to US policy. Her expertise is nuclear arms. What a timely entrance for the ultimate security mom.
If McFarland sticks with the race, it will surely make the republican primary interesting.
However, I can't imagine Hillary will be losing any sleep over this.
Doesn't John Spencer already have the Conservative Party's nomination? Unless Mike Long convinces his party to push Spencer overboard for a dollar-store version of Jeanine Pirro, McFarland is running to win 30% of the vote, at best.
If McFarland can put together the money and the team she can rough Hillary up pretty nice before 2008. Everyone seems to forget that Hillary isn't moderate. She's far left, votes that way, and always votes against NY's best interests (e.g., tax cuts). McFarland could do a good job of showing Hillary is outside the mainstream on a lot of issues. This will be interesting. Let's watch how she does with fundraising to see if there's any chance for a good race. If she can crack 40% that will be pretty good and it will make Hillary sweat.
Sorry, indman, Lazio got 40% and Hillary never broke a sweat. A 20 point win is not an embarrasment.
Spencer has a lock on the conservative party and is ahead in republican party endorsements right now. Plus, in a primary, he has the advantage with more conservative primary voters.
This will not be a corronation for McFarland. She has her hands more than full and many republicans want to see a more conservative candidate go after Hillary.
Not to mention that while Hillary's voting record may be leftist, most NY'ers don't see her that way. Most believe she is very moderate, like her husband.
What if the Conservatives make her KT's life miserable, and she drops back down to run against Maloney. She'll have raised Senate-race $ to pour into a Congressional race where the prior occupant of the seat was a Republican.
Moose: You are way off. The last Republican who held the seat was highly popular and did everything he could to run away from Reagan and Bush; he still lost. This woman brags about her Reagan connections.
Moreover, since 1992, the old folks who used to like liberal (not moderate) Republicans have all died or moved to Florida. Plus the borders have changed (and not to a Republican's advantage). An Eristoff, Millard or Ravitz would at least fit the profile, and they'd get their clock cleaned. McFarland does not fit the profile and would be desimated. McFarland would be better off running against Hilary-it would make her a national figure, and she could get permanent employment as a commentator for Fox.
Having met KT McFarland, I can say that while she would be an acceptable candidate against Maloney, she has no business running for Senate. She is a puppet that has been involved in neither the political or the working world for almost half a century and hasn't published any stances on the issues yet because she doesn't know enough about any of them to do so (with the exception of cold war era national security, but I wasn't aware we were still in the cold war). She talks about this being a time when Republicans should work together and not against one another? Ok, KT, who is the one causing the primary now?
Condi's expertise was in Cold War National Security. Hmmmmm...
That was meant to be quarter of a century, excuse the exaggeration
this candidacy is a joke. anyone who postulates otherwise on this blog is obviously connected, financial or otherwise, to ms. mcfarland's campaign.
And Condi's part of the reason we're in a ridiculous war in Iraq. Hmmmmmmmm
This candidacy is an abusive step by liberal Republicans in Manhattan, in my opinion, who feel that invoking the name of Ronald Reagan is all a candidate needs to qualify as a Reagan Republican.
McFarland is a Rockefeller Republican.
She is liberal on abortion.
We all know this is about abortion. It's that one issue obsession leading liberals around this state like dogs sniffing the ass of the dog next to them.
What bothers me more is that when McFarland was questioned this weekend about Iraq, she would not offer an answer.
She is running for U.S. Senate, her supposed forte' is foreign policy -- and SHE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IRAQ?
This is a nonsense candidacy, designed to slow down Spencer's national fundraising, so that Pataki's side consulting businesses make more money with his national campaign.
McFarland is being tragically used.
As a Republican, I have serious concerns about KT McFarland.
What do we really know about her past work experience?
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/396686p-336175c.html
The Daily News reports that she started in the typing pool. Advancing from the typing pool to high level Pentagon official sounds as plausible as going from the mailroom to CEO.
A speechwriter and spokesperson is not necessarily an expert on anything except speechwriting and public relations. Maybe the reason McFarland is unable to answer the questions on Iraq is because she isn't the expert her PR people claim her to be.
She may be a very nice person with plenty of connections but that does not make her a good candidate for Senate.
C'mon Pia, didn't you see "Secret of my Success?" It's totally possible to go from the mailroom to CEO.
Might I suggest that Bob Fois keep his comments on his own blog. His conspiracy theories and personal attacks are really tiresome and not productive
Ben, might it be better if Bob Fois kept his comments for his own blog? I'm not for censorship but his conspiracy theories and personal attacks are really tiresome and not productive here on Politicker.
Bob Fois seems to be upset about this development for the same reason Democrats are upset about Suozzi running for Governor. Of course, he is all for Suozzi running a suicide mission so Democrats are ecstatic about KT running for the Senate. Of course we should not characterize his opposition to KT as anti-woman the way he accuses Democrats of being anti-Italian, anti-Catholic et. al. for not getting behind Suozzi.
By the way, how can one say that a person who worked for the Reagan administration is not a Reagan Republican? Did Spencer work for Reagan? Seems that KT was closer to Reagan than Spencer could have ever dreamed.
Anyway this is shaping up to be an even better Democratic year than imagined. Weld and Faso splitting the Republican vote against Spitzer, McFarland and Spencer splitting the Republican vote against Hillary. A can't lose proposition for the Democrats.
Democrats ecstatic about KT? Sorry, but we couldn't care less. Any Republican, including David Duke or Jacob Javits, is going to get all the hardcore Hilary haters and little else. Might as well go with Spencer; at least Bob Fois would get excited.
Whoa...
I'm not the story here, folks.
McFarland is not a Reagan Republican and a LOT of people who worked in Reagan's White House turned out to be liberal or moderate Bush, Sr. Republicans -- who have ostensibly split the GOP since then.
Tom Suozzi is a tremendous candidate, a great speaker and brings far more to the table than most of the candidates in any statewide race.
John Spencer is a Reagan Republican and also comes to this race with far more experience in actually governing than Hillary.
McFarland's candidacy is a Pataki ruse designed to delay and divert donors who normally would give to Reagan Republicans like Randy Daniels and John Spencer.
Being a Reagan republican entails much more than having worked in his admin. Mcfarland also worked for Nixon. Should we call her a Nixon republican too?
I thought Randy Daniels was a Dinkins Republican.
I thought John Faso was a Pataki Republican.
Chris Matthews just gave her a pretty harsh re-welcome into the world of political campaigning. Way to avoid every issue.
Matthews let her off so easy! She didn't answer any question directly. Al Sharpton actually made more sense today than she did.
If this is her best, she's going to get bloodied bad. And I mean by Spencer, not Hillary.
She started out like a deer in headlights, but ended like a pro. Matthews came out of the box hard. She was thoughtful and came across as competent on the question of Iran. She survived it, which is more than some do. Jury is still out.
Anon, she may have ended like a pro, but the question then is, a professional what? Not politician. She showed a clear lack of knowledge about the issues. She rattled off a bunch of names regarding the Iran conflict as if that conveyed some sort of policy or insight into the situation beyond what one reads in the newspaper. It reminded me of when Bush was struggling to look proficient on foreign affairs and would rattle off the names of foreign leaders.
Those of you who are speculating that the Senate candidacy is a Pataki ruse [i.e. Bob Fois] don't know what they are talking about. At all. If you want the answer the hint is right in front of you: her strategist Ed Rollins. He has zero to do with Pataki or anybody else on the state level, so you are WAY OFF. I want to see how smart you think you are...