If Ruben Diaz Sr. Is A Democrat, Why Isn't He Backing Malcolm Smith?

Other than the last line (0.00 / 0)

I can agree with much of what you wrote.

Absent death or some other form of disqualification, Diaz is pretty much unbeatable in his patch of turf, and I would rather spend 2010 expanding the majority than engaging in civil wars within it.

Diaz will come home, Malcolm will make it happen.

---

by: Lead Dog @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 22:19:10 PM UTC

Civil wars? (0.00 / 0)

That has a soft tone to it. I'm not saying primary all 32 Democrats. I'm saying primary the ones who used our party to get to the New York State Senate only to consider switching sides. If it warranted a primary for Joe Lieberman, it should warrant a primary here for Diaz.

Look, this is 2008. Diaz might be unbeatable now. That doesn't mean he is unbeatable in 2010. Only he can reconcile this with the party. If he votes for Skelos, he's done. And I'm sure you will have the Democratic caucus working to make sure he's done. If he decides to get himself down from that pedestal he is putting himself on and vote for Smith, fine. But the message is clear: Marriage equality isn't something that is at the top of the list right now. He needs to get that through his head.

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 23:48:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If... (4.00 / 2)

Diaz thinks "my position as an ordained minister and a pastor will not allow me to support any would-be leader that will bring gay marriage to the Senate floor," then he clearly has a conflict between his ministerial position and the oath of office that he swore when he became a sitting Senator.  The Constituion does not allow the religion of individuals to shape the form of our government.  As he probably can't put aside his ministerial calling, he should resign from office.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 00:26:43 AM UTC

That and... (4.00 / 1)

The fact that the religion argument is so overused and absurd. Of course, God and religion has been used as political cover for a long time, including with issues like abortion and in this case, homosexuality.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:01:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not exactly (0.00 / 0)

I haven't heard Diaz calling for New York to be a theocracy.  He's one Senator who's made it very clear over the years that he holds certain positions, and that he holds them because of his also being an ordained minister. The voters in his district seem pretty calm about that, however unpopular his position may be here.  I even suspect that most of those voters know they elected a minister - Diaz doesn't exactly hide it.

Religious motivation isn't exactly a foreign ingredient for people's politics on either the right or the left.  (Just wait until I get this Quaker theocracy set up in Tompkins County... though maybe the Catholic Worker folks... hmmm...)  

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the government, not the election of religious individuals or consideration of religious convictions in the making of public policy.  While I don't remotely buy the argument that the founding fathers were establishing a Christian nation, it does seem clear that they weren't trying to bar ministers from holding office.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Diaz.  Claiming that there's a conflict between being a minister and being a legislator isn't one I'd recommend pushing.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not me claiming a conflict, it's him claiming it (0.00 / 0)

I have no problem with ministers running for and winning public office.  The problem comes in when Diaz says that he can't discharge the normal duties of his office, such as electing the leadership of his party caucus.  Democrats have become the majority party by the will of the voters, those voters expecting it would then act as a majority party, and in conormance with its platform. Diaz threatens that unless the entire party hews to his religious beliefs, he will hold it hostage.  

If his votes follow his religious convictions and his constituents are ok with that, well, that's their perogative.  When he tries to impose his religious beliefs on the entire party-- which, after all, has platform planks agreed to by the majority of party faithful that are opposed to discrimination in marriage laws-- well, that is establishment of religion in my book.  And, his quote explicitly notes a conflict, which can be resolved in only three ways: he leaves the party (at least as per election of leadership), he leaves office, or he acknowledges that his faith cannot hold sway over the operation of the entire Democratic Party without establishing religion in governmental operations and abstains from voting.  Either of the second two is fine with me, the first, if acted on, is reprehensible and should lead to lawsuits.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 13:37:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're pushing too hard on a string (0.00 / 0)

There's nothing in the oath of office that requires him to vote for a particular majority leader.  There isn't any deep conflict between his oath of office and voting however he wants, for whatever reason he wants, so long as he isn't deliberately trying to undermine the State of New York.  

(And Diaz didn't say there was a conflict with his oath - that's what you interpreted above.)

What argument would you be making if he was doing this just because he, say, claimed the further evolution of the species requires heterosexual marriage?  No religion necessary.  (Yes, atheist homophobes really do exist.)

The folks who get to decide what's acceptable for Diaz are his constituents, unless criminal charges come up.  Folks here do seem to want to challenge Diaz, and that's fine. We need a lot more primaries in New York State.

I just don't think you're going to get far with voters by blasting him from this particular angle.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 14:06:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect, you're dead wrong.  When you vote for a candidate of a party, you're not only voting for that candidate to represent you, you're also voting for his/her party to control the leglislative body that he/she is a member of.

If Mr. Diaz's constituent's had wanted a Republican to be the majority leader of the state senate, they would have voted for a Republican state senator.

If Mr. Diaz is unwilling to support a Democrat for majority leader, he has no business running for office as a Democrat.  If he intends to support a Republican for majority leader, he should be running for office as a Republican or an Independent.

In all likelyhood Mr. Diaz is actually a Republican and he just falsely claims to be a Democrat because he knows it's the only way to get elected in his district.

---

by: BluePoster @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 16:05:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

then knock him off the ballot (0.00 / 0)

Anyone can register as a Democrat.  Running as a Democrat is just a matter of collecting signatures and surviving a primary.  Once in the Senate, it's a matter of choosing which caucus to hang out with.  It's always been that way.

In this case, it's been pretty clear that Diaz's loyalties were murky at best, and even if some voters pulled the lever for him just because he was on Row A, the party machinery certainly knew who he was and didn't stop his getting Row A.

If Diaz really isn't a Democrat, then it's up to Democrats to demonstrate that - at the polling place, next time.  It's not that far away.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 17:00:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

then knock him off the ballot (0.00 / 0)

Anyone can register as a Democrat.  Running as a Democrat is just a matter of collecting signatures and surviving a primary.  Once in the Senate, it's a matter of choosing which caucus to hang out with.  It's always been that way.

In this case, it's been pretty clear that Diaz's loyalties were murky at best, and even if some voters pulled the lever for him just because he was on Row A, the party machinery certainly knew who he was and didn't stop his getting Row A.

If Diaz really isn't a Democrat, then it's up to Democrats to demonstrate that - at the polling place, next time.  It's not that far away.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 17:00:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Differing opinions on how the US 2-party system works (0.00 / 0)

Simon, you and I have been around this issue before, although not about religion, per se.  I believe that party platforms, and party loyalty, are more important than you do to our system of democracy.  That's ok, we need not agree, and you do not have to prove me wrong.

As I have stated, it is fine by me if Diaz wants to vote against something that is a part of our party's platform-- that is an important freedom that electeds have, and their constiuents can turn them out at the next election if they don't like it.  And, I sincerely doubt that I am being read by many, if any, of Diaz's constituents, anyway.

Fine for him to not vote for Malcolm Smith if he thinks he would make a poor conference leader, too.  His right, for whatever wacky reason.

But, breaking with party unity as a conference and aiding and abetting the opposing party maintaining power against the statewide expressed will of the electorate-- because of a religious conviction-- is causing the mechanism of governance of the entire state to adjust to one man's religious conviction.  That is not ok, undemocratic, and contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the oath of office, wherein there is a promise to uphold the will of the people as expressed through democratic elections.  

---

by: robinia @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 16:42:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure if you're upset (0.00 / 0)

because Diaz is breaking with party unity at an especially sensitive moment, or if you're upset because of the specific issues he's breaking on, or if you're upset specifically because of his religious motivation.

All of them may be reasons to support a primary challenge for you, but #3 feels to me like you're treading on very dangerous ground.  At the very least, I don't think that argument's likely to play well with his constituents, and at worst, it's likely to alienate Democrats and potential Democrats beyond Diaz's district.

Perhaps most importantly, though, #3 doesn't seem necessary to the argument against Diaz - even tactically, I don't see what it adds.

Diaz has some power for what I'm guessing is going to be a very brief moment.  This could, in the end, matter a lot - but I'm guessing it won't.  Trends are against him.

I'm always happy to hear people say "we need a primary", though, since competition seems core to functioning political systems from my perspective.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 17:12:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not upset, just opinionating (0.00 / 0)

I probably have more sensitivity to the religious right's deliberate political power-grabbing strategies, with my family connections to people involved in doing just exactly that.  While it may not sit well with the Catholic Worker and Quaker activists among us, the truth is that there is a nationwide push to theocratize our democratic process, and it is very much focused on gay marriage prohibition, even more than abortion, at this point in time.  We ignore threats to our unity as a party at our peril, esp. i they come from the pulpit.

That said, I agree with Bouldin about Diaz's basic M.O., and I think he will not prevail.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 19:08:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and i agree (0.00 / 0)

that he cannot discharge the duties of his office when he refuses to have a democratic vote on an issue. If he does not believe in democracy, he has no place in the government.

---

by: nassaupolitics @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 23:46:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's one thing to hold those positions... (0.00 / 0)

That's not the issue. While I disagree and believe his whole argument for why he holds his opinions are hogwash, you are correct. They have long been opinions of his and that's not going to change.

However, the issue here is whether or not Diaz will vote for the Democratic majority. He pushed really hard the fact that he is a Democrat but he holds different opinions on a couple of social issues. That's fine, but he seems to be the only one making a big deal about addressing marriage equality in the New York State Senate. Malcolm Smith has said that the budget/fiscal crisis will be the first thing on the list and the top priority. After that, I can't imagine marriage equality is too high on the list.

Another point being missed here is that Diaz, like 61 of his colleagues in the New York State Senate and unlike millions of New Yorkers, has a vote in the New York State Senate he can exercise. If he doesn't like a bill, he can vote against it. That's his right as a legislator. So this is more than just this one issue. He is looking for something. Period.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:01:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because Ruben Diaz (4.00 / 1)

isn't first and foremost a Democrat. He is first and foremost a homophobic bigot.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 00:42:35 AM UTC

RE constituents, where are they? (0.00 / 0)

There are so many conditions that should be sorted out before figuring out if Diaz is worth attacking. There will be more low hanging Trunzo and Maltese fruit. Those should be the focus unless going after Diaz is realistic.

1. Does anyone know the politics of his Dem committee? i.e., are there factions within that? In other words, is there any possibility his own committee will not support him in a primary? Who would run against him in a primary? (Sorry if I missed that discussion) And could that turn him into a local hero?

2. Are his constituents persuadable? One major reason Prop 8 went through in CA was because (apparently) there was poor/no organizing in communities of color. So as voters pushed the lever for Obama they also voted yes on 8. Are Diaz's constituents single-issue voters? Or do they understand that this is a diversionary issue, and that they/their community benefits from a Dem-controlled Senate?

One thought: a Congressional seat in '06 turned because a very wealthy man was outraged at the incumbent's position on marriage equality. He created and funded a PAC worth $500k. Many feel that is what made the difference in the very close race. It would not be a shock if that happened in this case.  

---

by: LOBlue @ Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:30:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I really have no idea. (4.00 / 1)

What I do know is that any serious challenger to Diaz will raise a million dollars with ease.

As to his constituents, take a look at that district. It's poor. The schools suck. The voters there have more immediate and pressing concerns than Mr. Diaz's strange obsession with other peoples (?) sex lives.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:16:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]