Coup failed?

What happens if the remaining 30 Dems don't show up for Avignon 'quorums'? (4.00 / 3)

If all the remaining actual Dems didn't show up, then that would mean that only 32 Senators were there -- not enough to have final votes on bills, IIRC.  

The Dems should make their return to the chamber predicated on the imminent holding of special elections for the two clowns who are likely headed for prison anyway.  Once their replacements -- who this time around will NOT be voting with the Republicans -- are sworn in and seated, then and only then should the Democrats relent.

---

by: Phoenix Woman @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:05:40 AM UTC

What they're claiming (4.00 / 2)

or rather, what they claim Brian Keeler claimed is that the meeting had already been adjourned and so the business couldn't continue.  That sounds accurate from my general knowledge of parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rules) but I'm sure the Senate has their own form of rules so who knows?  Perhaps that's the issue that will be litigated.

---

by: BingChester @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:20:48 AM UTC

It's not going to matter (4.00 / 1)

Their argument:  We have more votes now.

Our argument: Doesn't count, we called time out.

One is simple, the other isn't. And the whole damn thing is just too sexy/fun/sad for the press to ignore. Sometimes, it's just that simple.  Besides, per Dan, we love it when it goes our way.  

To me, the war is now making sure that people know why this happened, and getting them mad about it.  

If that brings public pressure to bear and flips it again, that's great.  At the very least, it should be very clear which side is more focused on politics when they should be governing (as a political consultant, I almost hate myself for saying that, but it's a decent narrative).

---

by: dunn @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:37:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"we called time out" (4.00 / 2)

may have some chance of holding up in the courts, but no chance of holding up in public opinion.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:19:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Senate is over for the session. (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans don't have the majority, because they tried to do stuff after the Senate adjourned.  The courts will agree.

However, Smith can't reconvene the Senate, because then the Republicans would be able to take over.  That's why the Senate is shut.

It will remain shut until either one of the two traitors, or one or more Republican Senators, is "removed from office".

---

by: neroden @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 06:06:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (0.00 / 0)

And, you know, some of us had a few "minor bills" that we had still hoped might pass this year. So, all this drama is no help with that.

And, who do you think will want to "invalidate" a bunch of reform rules that passed?  That will be an attractive thing to be fighting against, eh?

It'll be Texas all over again, with the Senate Dems refusing to go to the Capitol, and the Reps blasting them for "not wanting to work" all summer.  Totally sucks.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:04:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A bad argument (4.00 / 3)

Without commenting on the legality, if any, of the coup attempt, because I haven't looked up the rules...

There is an argument going around that New Yorkers elected a Democratically-controlled state Senate, and Monserrate & Espada are defying the will of the people.  This is not (exactly) accurate.

"New Yorkers" didn't elect a Senate; New Yorkers elected 62 separate Senators, each in a different district, and 32 of those individual Senators ran as Democrats.  I voted for one of them, but had no choice regarding the other 61.

One could argue that in both districts there is no way a Republican gets elected.  Monserrate's district (the 13th) is over 2/3 Democratic, with blanks outnumbering Republicans almost 2:1.  Espada's district (the 33rd) is even more lopsided, with Democrats making up over 3/4 of registered voters, and Republicans numbering barely over 6% of the total.  Clearly, had either one run as a Republican he would have lost, and lost big.

History shows this -- in December of 2002, Olga Mendez changed party affiliations, and was defeated at the next election (albeit by the son of a Congressman, but still...).

So the argument isn't that Monserrate or Espada overrode the "will of New Yorkers," but more properly could be that they overrode the will of their own district.

On the other hand...

In 2001, progressives cheered as U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party and began caucusing with the Democrats, changing the balance of power in the Senate.  Do we have the moral authority, then, to denounce what Monserrate and Espada have done?  Are we hypocrites for doing so?

I am very angry at Monserrate and Espada.  I am confident that this is the last political stand for both of them, and good riddance.  But I drank a (temporary) victory toast when Jeffords switched sides, and will not be the hypocrite when the tables are turned

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:25:56 AM UTC

yep (4.00 / 2)

I'm in the same place.

I'll add that I don't think Espada is particularly overriding the will of his own district, given his past history and the mess that made it possible for him to get back in the game. It's had to imagine a Democratic Senator who came with more bright red flashing "I may defect" signs even before he showed up to work.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:18:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a communications fight now (4.00 / 3)

So you've got to start somewhere.  Keeler's a smart guy, he knows that you need to stake out some type of argument early, no matter how believable or not (call it the republican rule) if you want to have any chance of getting back in the game.

They got rocked today on pretty much every front, but I don't think that this is where their comms counter-punch ends... at least I hope not.

He may not look it, but Keeler's a pit bull (and so is Philip)... he left our firm and went to Albany to do some good, so I know this ain't over yet.

---

by: dunn @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 03:29:23 AM UTC

newer article makes the same claim (0.00 / 0)

at Daily Kos without (so far as I can see) claiming any new evidence.  Check it out.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:50:52 PM UTC