Whoa. Duane?

What if (0.00 / 0)

the Senate Republicans decide that marriage equality in New York is a reasonable price for solidifying their control of the Senate?

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:55:00 AM CDT

How would they hold power? (0.00 / 0)

Passing marriage equality would put then in hot water with Conservatives...The Conservative Party is just going to let that slide and not run Conservative third party challengers against these guys and threaten the Senate Majority?

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:56:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's very plausible (4.00 / 1)

I've been saying this for years.  The NY Republicans are quite willing to throw Conservatives off the bridge and I always foresaw them glomming onto "Democratic" issues that the Dems are too reluctant to pass.  

Never could understand why people so willing to declare the NYSGOP dead.  This branch of the Republican party, of all the ones in the U.S., is primed for a change in direction  (although, I don't expect to see them backing the Bottle Bill any time soon... now THAT's serious).  

Their backs are against the wall, why did people expect them to go out with a whimper?  Honestly.

---

by: NYCO @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:33:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How would they keep winning though? (0.00 / 0)

In many cases, the Conservative Party delivers victory for the GOP...how will they win without them?  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:48:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm guessing that here (0.00 / 0)

the Republicans are contemplating that sticking with the Conservatives has a higher cost.  That's likely true in the short term, a big question in the long term.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:55:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh PLEASE let them do that. (4.00 / 1)

I can't speak to elsewhere, but that would fracture the hell out of the Republican voting base out here in cow country, and I could see getting two or three new Dem senators out of the deal.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:03:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Voters (4.00 / 2)

If the state is indeed getting bluer, as the Dems enjoy pointing out, why does the GOP need the Conservatives so much?

Seems to me like they're just rolling with the demographics.

---

by: NYCO @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:19:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because Conservative voters (0.00 / 0)

sometimes makes the difference between a 51%-49% Republican victory or a 49%-47%-4% Democratic victory.

The Conservative Party line made the difference between a 32-30 Democratic Majority last year and a 35-27 majority. If it wasn't for the Conservative line, Kemp Hannon, Frank Padavan, and Joe Robach would have been defeated.

I didn't look, but it may have made the difference in the Razenhofer/Mesi race too.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:28:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not quite in Ranzenhofer/Mesi, but close, 1500 votes (0.00 / 0)

I'll also note that the Conservatives provided half of the margin of victory for my waste of oxygen, Dale Volker, even though he outspent his opposition 29 to 1.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:54:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But you don't know (4.00 / 1)

how many of those would have voted for him on the R line instead if someone they'd never heard of was on the C line. I'm guessing 1450.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:00:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I mean the margin was 1500 votes without the Con line. (0.00 / 0)

The Conservative line delivered I think ~3000 to 4000 votes.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:01:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (4.00 / 1)

They just would have had all of the votes for them on the R line instead of split among 2 lines.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:01:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And how about if the Republicans had endorsed gay marriage? (0.00 / 0)

They won't, of course. But the point is that if the Rs and the Cons split, it would screw them both.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:02:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if there was a Conservative candidate (0.00 / 0)

running?

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:26:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Conservative Party (0.00 / 0)

is a joke. Like the WFP and the IP.

Go ahead, run your own candidates. And watch the Democrats win the State Senate forever.

Won't happen.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:59:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whoa, Duane? (4.00 / 1)

I, too, was startled when I read the item early this morning.  Here's a portion of the message I sent to Senator Duane today:  I have just read in this morning's New York Times that you are considering switching to the so-called "coalition" that the Republicans have succeeded in forming as a billionaire's coup d'etat.  I know that gaining passage of the marriage legislation is the issue closest to your heart, but switching to the other side to accomplish this would be "dealing with the devil".  These guys had forty years to initiate reforms and they failed to do so, and now they have added two senators with serious legal and ethical problems to gain a majority. Yes, the Dems should have canned these guys somehow, but at least they didn't appoint either of them as President of the Senate!  

Cooperating with this bunch is a big mistake.  It ignores corruption.  It's packaged as "reform", but it's the same old thing.  It places the hope of reasonable redistricting in serious jeopardy (that will hurt us by preserving Republican pseudo-majorities for another ten years.     Worst of all, these are the very guys who again and again, as demonstrated by their words and actions, have no interest in gay rights and generate election support by stoking the worst fears about homosexuality. Why reward these guys in any way?  

---

by: Jim in Holley @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:48:11 AM CDT

gay marriage (0.00 / 0)

Tom Duane went to Albany to pass gay marriage in NY.  That's it.  That's his thing.  

And honestly, don't the issues transcend the party.  Are you honestly telling me that if the 30 GOP + 2 traitors are willing to pass gay marriage, Duane shouldn't support it.  Really?  Think about the loyalty your asking of Democrats then.

Look at the repercussions of the GOP passing a bill like that: the GOP would never ever let any minority group in NY ever forget that it was they, Republicans, who supported gays and how weak the Democrats were.

If Duane is under any impression that the GOP would support gay marriage, the Dems need to demand that it be brought to a vote right now.

Ken

---

by: kma815 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:21:44 AM CDT

I hear you, but I don't for a second think they'd actually do it. (0.00 / 0)

They want to bring the marriage bill to the floor, sure--so that it gets defeated.  

---

by: Adama @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:28:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what's the point? (0.00 / 0)

To give New York another 5 years of "safety" from the irreversible trend toward gay marriage rights?  when they could kick sand into the faces of their enemies?

---

by: NYCO @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:32:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes (0.00 / 0)

Many of them don't think gay marriage is inevitable.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:34:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It certainly is in New York (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:03:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

but it's smart politics on GOPs part (0.00 / 0)

If Duane doesn't support a gay rights bill he's dead.  He can't go back to his constituents and say "well they said they would support gay marriage, but I said no"

Dems must put this up for a vote immediately.

It's time.  We're at a do or die moment.

---

by: kma815 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:37:55 AM CDT

and he won't be representing (0.00 / 0)

a manhattan district much longer without a D behind his name either.  

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:40:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you're totally right (4.00 / 2)

If this whole thing is true, they are taking out another democrat.  It's brilliant.  NY Politics at its finest.

Honestly what's going on here.  How did we go from a Democratic Governor elected by 70%+ of the state to Tom Duane potentially siding with the GOP?

---

by: kma815 @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:48:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by bringing knives to a gun fight? (4.00 / 5)

---

by: NYCO @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:52:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More Duane (0.00 / 0)

Of course, if a bill comes to the floor, he'd vote for it no matter which party was behind it.

My comment was about his joining the Billionaire's faction as the price for bringing it to the floor.  

---

by: Jim in Holley @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 09:56:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe we need to face the prospect... (4.00 / 1)

that we now have a genuine third party in NYS government - "G" the Golisano Party.

You could say "Golisano is in da HOUSE!" - but then again, you couldn't, because the only person who'd want to say that is Tom Golisano.

---

by: NYCO @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:08:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good concept, wrong name (4.00 / 1)

I say we start identifying the members of the "Corrupt Billionaire Coup" Party.  Join if you are a corrupt crook anyway and may need help with your legal bills.

That's not Duane.  But, he may go to their session in the Park to make sure he is there to vote yes if it is brought up for a vote.  I would not ID him as a member of the Secret Syndicate (alternate name, good acronym-- SS) for doing so.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:34:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Simple (4.00 / 1)

This traces to three things:

1) Our lack of enforcement of existing campaign finance laws that gave GolisanoPigeon power

2) Our 2002 redistricting plan that allowed, again, the Republicans to draw their own lines.

3) The Republicans in the NYSS have way more political skills then the Dems as a result of years of the NYC Dems putting the people they just wanted to get rid of into Senate offices, assuming they couldn't hurt anything there.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:08:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good to see you Phillip (4.00 / 1)

How's your life been for the last 2 days?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

eh. (0.00 / 0)

i've been better.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:57:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope we get to hear from you at some point, Phillip (4.00 / 1)

As someone involved, I'm sure you'll have a lot of great insight here.

Although I'm also certain there are restrictions about what you can say publicly for now.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority."


-William Jennings Bryan

---

by: BingChester @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:11:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes He Can (4.00 / 1)

He can't go back to his constituents and say "well they said they would support gay marriage, but I said no"

I don't think that's true, and I speak as a constituent of his. I know his position on the issue, I'm aware of the politics of the situation, and I'm not a one issue voter. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say "You all know how strongly I feel on this issue and I want my party to bring it to a vote, but there are so many vital issues for my constituents and all New Yorkers in the present crisis that we cannot put our majority at further risk. I will continue to advocate for same sex marriage until we obtain those equal rights, and we will eventually win."

It's not like he wouldn't get reelected.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:05:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm also a constituent (4.00 / 1)

and  you've hit the nail on the head. West Siders WOULD understand why TD might turn the Skelos/Espada deal down. I also know that the east siders in his district would be VERY upset if he does take the deal.

Supposedly a number of Dems are blaming Duane personally for greasing the skids for the coup by pushing to hard for his same-sex legislation. That's wrong. I'm no huge TD fan, but  their anger is misdirected. Thank our inexperienced leadership for that...

---

by: JohnS @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 13:00:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]