| Yesterday's New York Times editorial, "The Lost Arts of Albany", seems likely to draw the same kind of response from the Senate leadership as the "goo-goo" editorials they've noted when convenient and ignored when inconvenient.
The editorial takes a slightly different approach than most I've seen, though, and even takes a chance in identifying Senators of both parties they think could work through the issues:
We suggest these Democrats: Liz Krueger of Manhattan, Andrea Stewart-Cousins of Westchester County, David Valesky of Syracuse and José M. Serrano of the Bronx. Republicans should include Charles Fuschillo of Long Island, Frank Padavan of Queens, John DeFrancisco of Syracuse and Elizabeth Little of Glens Falls.
This group will not agree on issues, but they can agree to make their house work less like an autocracy.
Now they've done it, painting scarlet letters on these folks as "the people the Times thinks know better than their leadership". I'm not sure they could have made their point without doing that, but it seems like a case where naming people ensures that they won't be able to talk. But maybe...
At the same time, though, they have a good point. I think back to Liz Krueger's comments on "to the victor goes the spoils", and wonder how far down the leadership hierarchy that attitude goes. I suspect that it weakens substantially.
It's hard to imagine Senators, perhaps especially Republican Senators, breaking party ranks to talk about this. Still, it seems like a worthy prayer for a Sunday morning. |
