| After Sen. Hiram Monserrate turned the "Gang of Four" into the "Gang of Three" yesterday when he cut a deal with Senate Majority Leader-in waiting Malcolm Smith, there is one question that deserves to be raised: Which of the three remaining "Gang" members should we be worried about?
You can make your arguments for any of the three: Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., Pedro Espada Jr. and Sen. Carl Kruger. While there are compelling arguments to make for Diaz and Espada, my pick is for Sen. Kruger.
Why Kruger? A few reasons. First, it is worth noting that the first paragraph of Kruger's state senate biography reads like this:
Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, a lifelong and staunch independent Democrat, made history in early 2007 when he was appointed Chair of the Senate Committee on Social Services, Children and Families - the first time in the history of the Legislature that a member of the minority conference was named to head a standing committee.
It is also worth mentioning that Kruger, during 2008-09, will receive the highest total of member item money than any other Democrat. Kruger received $850,000, which is more than the $657,000 that Sen. Malcolm Smith received.
Recent history has shown that Kruger has what it takes to get something for his willingness to deal with the Senate Republicans. That committee chair assignment is proof, as is his member item total for 2008-09. Those member item numbers came out in May, so it makes you wonder if the GOP saw the writing on the wall and figured that if it came close as it is now, having some sort of "in" with Kruger would help them. Whether they are successful or not is up to Kruger.
The Drum Major Institute's Middle Class Scorecard from 2001-2005 also gives us an idea of what kind of senator Kruger has been. According to my observations, Kruger received the second-lowest score (69 percent) of all the Senate Democrats in the scorecard.
So here you have Kruger, nowhere near a progressive, and he could be the difference between a 32-30 Democratic majority and a split. While Ruben Diaz Sr. might differ with the Democrats on certain social issues (he is anti-choice and anti-marriage equality), there are other issues he does align himself with the Democrats with. I can't see him leaving solely because of his social issues, but you never know. Espada Jr. is an interesting case too. He hasn't feared working with Republicans, so he could be a threat just as Kruger is. The only problem for Espada Jr. is that he replaced Efrain Gonzalez, who was also known to align himself with the GOP. If Espada Jr. plans on working with the GOP, he won't last more than one term in office. Period.
Then we come back to Kruger. Keep in mind that the other three members of the now-"Gang of Three" were Latinos. The Latino element of the group - Diaz Sr., Espada Jr. and Monserrate - claimed that Latinos lacked representation in the Senate Democratic caucus. Because Sen. Smith decided to create a new Latino caucus, that might be enough to please Diaz Sr. and Espada Jr. It appears that the creation of that caucus (along with a couple other gifts) was enough to get Monserrate on board. I assume the same could work for Diaz Sr. and Espada Jr.
But Kruger isn't Latino, so that won't work with him. The Senate Democrats shouldn't pander to him. If Kruger wants to represent the Democrats in the New York State Senate (as he was elected to do), then he should do that. If he wants to side with the GOP, that's his choice. But it's a choice he will have to live with when 2010 rolls around and, in the spirit of electing Governor David Paterson to his first full term, Democrats in the 27th Senate District will drop Kruger by the wayside.
The ball is in Kruger's court. Either become irrelevant in 2010 or ensure that your political career will be alive by joining the party that you have used to run on since 1994. |
