About

The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

New York Blogwire

This belongs to you. Take it back...

"Gang Of Three" Deal Falling Apart; Might Be A Dead Deal

by: robert.harding

Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 22:51:35 PM EST

The overlooked news item of the day comes from right here in New York, where that "Gang of Three" deal is looking like a dead deal, according to Liz.

Malcolm Smith's deal with the Gang of Three is crashing down around his ears, and the renegade trio is accusing him of renegging on significant portions of the power-sharing agreement in the wake of displeasure from his members over how much he gave away to end the leadership stalemate.
...
Attorneys for the two sides have been negotiating back and forth throughout the day with little to show for it. There was supposed to be a big announcement tomorrow by Smith, but that appears to be off for the moment.
Within the last hour, Espada told The Times he is "tremendously dismayed and disappointed" by reports in recent days that the majority leader's post will perhaps not have any real responsibilities attached to it, adding that this has led him to "suspend my support for Malcolm Smith as leader."

If you share my opinion that throwing this deal out and letting the "Gang of Three" vote for whomever they want (even if it's a Republican) is the way to go, then this news is good news. But if you are Sen. Malcolm Smith, you can't be happy.

From Smith's perspective, he was in a lose-lose situation. Putting the "Gang of Three" aside, Smith would have to go back to the rest of his caucus (a total of 28 senators) and give them the scraps of what the "Gang of Three" left behind. That was never going to go over well and, as we found out over the weekend, it didn't.

But with the "Gang of Three", Smith made a deal too good to be true. He promised Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. the majority leader's post and promised to make the post relevant and more powerful than it has been in the past. As we can read above, Espada sees the deal as dead mostly because he does not see what, if any, powers he will have as majority leader. As a result, Espada has now held off on his promise to support Smith.

For Sen. Carl Kruger, the second part of the "Gang of Three", he has held off on saying anything on this until tomorrow. He isn't as upset as Espada is, but he isn't saying much. We will see what tomorrow brings.

More on the flip.

robert.harding :: "Gang Of Three" Deal Falling Apart; Might Be A Dead Deal

And as Liz found out tonight, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. believes the deal is dead while adding this, which was in response to former New York City Mayor Ed Koch referring to the "Gang of Three" as "rats."

"The only rat is Ed Koch," Diaz exclaimed. "When he was mayor, nobody in our community wanted him. The only rat he had was this rate. Rev. Diaz. Now this rate is no good anymore."
"The gays are calling my office. They're jamming my phones. They're going to see what we can do. They've going to see exactly what we can do. Ed Koch is going to see what we can do. They're just going to see. That is what I'm telling you."

The big thing Diaz wanted was assurance that a marriage equality would not be brought to the Senate floor for a vote, even though he has the constitutional right to vote against any legislation brought to the Senate floor. Nevertheless, Diaz insisted on it and that was part of the original deal with the "Gang of Three."

In reviewing what Diaz said, he sounds almost threatening that he, along with Espada and Kruger, will show all of their detractors what they can do. That's fine. I'm eager to see what they can do. But I will leave them with this warning: In two years, you will have to go back and face the DEMOCRATS in your district. You will have to tell them (if you vote against Smith and for Skelos) why you supported a Republican for majority leader. You have two words to work on your excuses and reasoning for such a decision. Telling the voters "Smith didn't give us what we wanted" won't cover it.

The deal originally made between Smith and the "Gang of Three" helps no one. It doesn't help Smith (it makes him look like he caved) and it doesn't help the Democratic senate, who ran on a platform of reform and "One New York." While the "Gang of Three" would have benefited from such a deal, in two years they would have to face the Democrats in their districts. Either way you slice it, the "Gang of Three" will get primaries.

So why make a deal where no one wins? Who knows. But now the deal is dead and things really get interesting. It will be interesting to see what Kruger says tomorrow. From the sounds of it though, it looks like Diaz and Espada will not support Smith.

Stay tuned.

Tags: "Gang Of Three", New York State Senate, Democrats, Sen. Malcolm Smith, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

"Gang Of Three" Deal Falling Apart; Might Be A Dead Deal | 11 comments

Bye Malcolm (0.00 / 0)

Again I ask,

What do people think of our next President Pro Tempore and Majority Leader, Jeff Klein?

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 04:36:45 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

(or minority leader, if things shake out badly) (0.00 / 0)

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 04:40:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"the gays are calling my office" (0.00 / 0)

"The gays are calling my office. They're jamming my phones. They're going to see what we can do. They've going to see exactly what we can do. Ed Koch is going to see what we can do. They're just going to see. That is what I'm telling you."

What does that even mean?

by: Exile on Ericsson St. @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 05:29:01 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Thug-speak (0.00 / 0)

Very threatening. Can the feds investigate?

by: robinia @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 14:31:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It means he's toast (4.00 / 1)

If Democrats don't control the Senate starting next month, the "three amigos" are going to find themselves out in the cold two years earlier than they would have been.

By 2012, between Republican resignations and redistricting, there will be plenty of real Democrats in the Senate to tell any renegades to take a long walk off a short pier. If these guys go too far now, however, they'll be primaried out of office in 2010.

Then let's see "what [they] can do."

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 15:33:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One aggravating factor: no Lt Gov. Why isn't there more pressure... (0.00 / 0)

to amend the NYS Constitution ASAP to establish an orderly process to fill LG vacancies?

IIRC, amending the NYS Constitution requires votes by two successive Legislatures, and a ratification vote by the public. If that is correct, not dealing with this in 2008 would extend the craziness for at least one extra year.

A reasonable, legitimate process IMO would be for the Governor to appoint a new temporary LG, subject to ratification by the entire Legislature, acting as a single body, with one vote for each Sen. and each Asm.
A more permanent LG could then be elected in the following November. Other options would be to give each Leg house a separate vote, and/or a prompt statewide special election.

The details are less important than working out some legitimate process.

If the outgoing Legislature votes for an amendment now, and the incoming Leg votes in January, we could have a temp LG in a few weeks and an elected LG after November 2009.

Even Republicans should support this: their minority status for the next few years is not in doubt, but they can hope to return to power some time in the future when the Dems eventually screw up, for example by electing a NY version of Blago.

by: Albanius @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 08:19:54 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Apparently Espada upped his demands (0.00 / 0)

A few days ago he said he was fine not getting a lulu so long as he got Majority Leader. Apparently yesterday he then demanded a lulu as well and was told no.

by: demlonnie @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 16:10:25 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Sad (4.00 / 1)

but I favor integrity.

Once you negotiate with terrorists just one time, you've taught them that their tactics are successful.

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 16:31:33 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Great Metaphor. (0.00 / 0)

I am going to mix some and see where it leads.

Against the counsel of allies and the weight of history, you decide to negotiate with the terrorists. You go into a meeting you didn't call, give them everything they want, and expect things to be OK.

You then go back to your allies who are like "eff you, dude," and you realize you have messed up, as you start to take a pounding for caving to idiots and selling out on a key issue.

When your allies rake you over the coals, rather than fess up, you then compound your strategic failure by lying to your allies. You tell them you were just kidding, you weren't REALLY going to give the terrorists what they want, and that they won't REALLY get anything, so we are all ok and it's all good, right my loyal allies?

But wait, the terrorists are watching you spin your "success" on CNN and they are monitoring your troop movements on Google Earth. They start to wonder whether you are like the crazy Saddam spokesman who was telling his homies everything was cool even as the Marines were taking a crap on one of Saddam's golden toilets.

Regardless, the terrorists now have tactical awareness and perhaps, the high ground. All they are waiting for now is for you to cut the power at Nakatomi Tower.

They now know you are lying to them, and they are ready to kill some hostages because you are trying to punk them. It's ok to punk terrorists, but they usually don't find out until just before the bomb you have planted in the getaway helicopter blows up or you go "yippe-ki-yay" and let them fall out a skyscraper window.

Your lying has killed your credibility - they can no longer trust you, even though they are the bad guys. Your allies are suspicious of your motives, abilities, and integrity, and everyone is wondering whether you have the ability to manage through this crisis.

The terrorists are now flipping out - they said they had a deal for a helicopter, safe passage, and 72 virgins (whatever the number is). You told your allies that you were just kidding with them, but your ALLIES are getting restless, because they are wondering if you lied to THEM about lying to the terrorists, because why would the terrorists be flipping out if they didn't think they had a deal?

And the funniest part - now that negotiations have FAILED, you NOW say that you WON'T negotiate - except on your terms!!!

You also say that that one of the terrorists' primary demands is off the table, after according to unnamed State Department sources (your allies) YOU GAVE IN (in this case on marriage equality).

It's as if in a desperate attempt to secure a Middle East peace deal, you told Hamas they can have Jerusalem, the Israelis went ballistic on you, you tried to backpedal, and now and everyone is saying this shit wouldn't have happened with Bush or Cheney.

Pretty nutty, huh? Only in New York, kiddies, only in New York.

by: Lead Dog @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 17:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]