NY-13: Vito Finito: Fossella Comes Clean On Affair, Other Child

Also Note (4.00 / 1)

that in an update to Liz's post linked above, she points out that

Crain's reported this morning that the DCCC has been calling Assemblyman Mike Cusick in hopes of coaxing him into the race. Certain Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are floating Sen. Diane Savino's name.

I guess this means that if (when) the seat opens up, it's likely going to turn into a free-for-all on the Dem side.

For the record, Democrats actually have a significant edge in the district in terms of voter registration.  As of March 1, 2008, there were 162,974 Dems (46.0%) to only 102,463 Republicans (28.6%), with the balance divided among the smaller parties and independents.

---

by: The Maven @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 16:38:25 PM UTC

I need some guidance (4.00 / 5)

I signed up for someone's camapaign listserv who was running for Fosello's seat on the Dem side. I find out after reading on DailyKos that there are actually 2 dems running right now for it, Reccia and Harrison.

I'm a college student who'll be volunteering (hopefully) for SOMEONE in that district who is progressive, but can The Albany Project post something about the two candidates? I turn to you guys to form my opinions on NYS politics (I know, I should turn to more, but I'm too consumed by national politics... and plus you all are really very informative). Anyway I hope someone posts something, or in the least can like e-mail me. I know I'm asking for special attention, but it would AWESOME and think of the payoff: One more energized volunteer for the most progressive Dem in Fossello's district!  

---

by: theantidesi101 @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 16:48:31 PM UTC

Don't see the special (0.00 / 0)

I doubt that we'll see a special election in NY-13.  Vito is finito, to be sure -- but the NRCC doesn't have the resources to play defense in yet another special.  My guess is that Vito serves out his term in shame, and that we don't get a crack at the seat till November.

---

by: Trapper John @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 17:00:02 PM UTC

depends on vito (0.00 / 0)

i guess. i'm not convinced he's capable taking the heat until july 1.  

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 17:34:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Elect women! (0.00 / 0)

Both major parties could put a massive dent in the tabloids' profits (and their own bad images) by electing more women.  Women just don't seem to relate to positions of power by collecting concubines, at least as much as the guys do.

Not that I am saying that one should always favor the female candidate-- after all, I'm a big Obama fan-- but, there is a real need for more equity in representation, and it might really help with the once-a-month-or-so sex scandals that are mostly the result of certain gender-specific hormones, I'm convinced.

---

by: robinia @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 17:16:30 PM UTC

How about electing the best candidate? (0.00 / 0)

Don't take me wrong - we need more women (and minorities) at all levels of government. But just electing women for the sake of electing women (or using the same principle with all genders, races, ethnicities, etc.) is not the best way to go about business. In fact, I think you do more harm than good by arguing that we should elect women for the sake of electing them.

One of my favorite representatives in this state is Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. She has proven her worth as a representative time and time again. But then you have a woman like Sen. Diane Feinstein, who wasn't too well liked by the progressive blogosphere awhile back.

I have long been a fan of Barack Obama. It isn't because he will be the first black president. It is because what he brings to the table as a candidate.

I agree - we need more women. But let's hold EVERY candidate to the same standards and not elect them just to get one more woman or one more minority in government.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 17:35:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In representative democracy, there is no "best" (0.00 / 0)

For starters, I did not say and do not mean that we should "elect women for the sake of electing them"-- I did say the opposite: "Not that I am saying that one should always favor the female candidate."  Representation is the heart and soul of representative democracy.  The idea is that there is no perfect leader, no "best" candidate.  All electeds are imperfect, in different ways. There are many "excellent enough" individuals, though, who, when gathered together in a deliberative body that fairly represents the populace, can form a more perfect union.  We rely on electeds to represent us, so, representativeness is as important as technical skill.

The idea of "holding everyone to the same standard" is, on its surface, appealing.  However, everyone did not start in the same place-- to act as if everyone is running the same race, when some had grandparents who could not vote, or great-grandparents who were enslaved, is too naive.  And, we do get systematic distortions when certain parts of the population are over-represented (as per bumper crop of sex scandals).  What is "best" for democracy is sometimes better representation, not better oratory or legal or policy knowledge, or whatever. It's complicated, but being a "constituent" involves being able to effectively see yourself in your representative-- electing a congress or legislature that has a roughly proportional number of "people like me" makes people feel empowered as constituents, and empowered constituents are what really make the thing go.

BTW-- NYS is among the worst in its record of not electing women to office.  But, as Susan B. Anthony said, "Failure is impossible."  And yet, we, like she, may die before we see success.

---

by: robinia @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 18:11:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]