Why These Seven Democrats Should Worry

eh (4.00 / 1)

I live in Addabbo's district, there's no way he'll get ousted in a primary over this, not with the number of social conservative Democrats here.

I was at his victory party, the only person more popular than he that night was Sarah Palin.

In the end, the Catholic church threatened him over this, and the landslide loss of his chief of staff to a Republican in his old council seat played a major factor. Seriously, almost all the local volunteers on his campaign were older ladies who want to torture terroists and think gays are icky.  

Huntley, Kruguer and Diaz are in districts where this is barely an issue and Stachowski almost lost a Republican last year.

The only one I think is seriously primaryable is Onorato and I'm not even sure he's running fo reelection

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 23:35:20 PM CST

I wouldn't say this is "barely" an issue... (0.00 / 0)

If this is barely an issue, then the social conservatives won't hold it against him. It works both ways. You can't it's barely an issue in these districts and then say Addabbo was pressured into voting no.

And let me ask you this: Where does Addabbo draw the line? If something related to choice came up in the NYS Senate and the Catholic Church came to him and asked him to vote no, would he? And don't tell me it wouldn't happen because I go to Catholic Church. These social issues are all they are talking about.    

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:37:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think it does work both ways (4.00 / 1)

I think a vote for gay equality is a serious infraction for the right, and something they can use effectively as a rallying cry to "Souzzafava" a candidate in a primary.

But on the other side of the aisle, I really seriously doubt that a vote against equality can resonant with the general electorate to unseat an incumbent.

The political reality is the right hates teh gheys a lot more than the left supports the gays. That's evident by the large numbers of progressives that have told the gay community, to just STFU (sometimes nicely, sometimes not so) about DADT, ENDA and DOMA.

I mean, we'll see, in the months ahead, and I hope I'm wrong. It's not the world I want to live in, but it's the one I see.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 08:31:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh no, you misnunderstood (0.00 / 0)

barely an issue in Huntley, Kruger and Diaz' districts. This is quite the issue here in Addabbo's. The priests talk about it in their sermons all over the district.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 23:37:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The problem I'm seeing is Democratic support (0.00 / 0)

for marriage equality is weak, in general. It's not a walk the plank issue for either party leadership OR the voters. I'm speaking pragmatically, realistically, not principles or ideals.

Clearly, these districts will be a walk for anyone on the Democratic ticket line. Due the primary voters care enough to vote incumbents out based on this vote, do you think?

Or are marriage equality advocates better served by not making marriage equality the primary focus and concentrate on hitting these candidates in other vulnerable areas, while advocating a candidate who just happens to be a supporter of marriage equality?

In particular, Queens has many Latino Catholics who are unlikely to be persuaded to dump an incumbent based on opposition to gay marriage. Particularly as activist as this Pope has become on social issues.  

Working Families Party is nuetral on the issue, yes?  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 23:35:39 PM CST

A poll came out today (0.00 / 0)

showing that 51% of New Yorkers favor it. I don't know if they're passionate about it, but a majority won't stay outvoted for long.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:05:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A 51% number doesn't make me feel better (4.00 / 1)

in our gerrymandered districts, it probably means 28-30 districts in support.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:14:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know, (0.00 / 0)

I think it should. I think back to my personal journey on this issue, detailed here, which culminated in a complete 180 in a matter of weeks earlier this year, and I think that 51% is over 20 points more than just 2 years ago. These things don't just happen overnight, hell, LSU didn't have a black football player until 1972!

To me, this says that yes, your numbers are probably right as of right now, but in 2 years, there will be another 10-15%, maybe more, in support, and at that point, the upstate and LI districts will fall like dominoes.

I hate telling people they need to wait out the discrimination, its like middle school never ended for these people, I get that. But in time, gay marriage advocates will clearly will win this battle.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 14:55:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't look at it as "you need to wait out" (0.00 / 0)

issue, and the phrase, "it's not the right time," is like kryptonite to gay activists, because WE KNOW the time will never be right.

But I'm resigned myself to being patient. The Senaca Fall's Women's Right convention took place in 1848, 72 years before women got the right to vote.

And I understand we're asking people to wrap their heads around a similarly radical social idea. And we're making progress much faster. Gay marriage was a pipe dream 20 years ago.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 18:26:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the paradox (0.00 / 0)

The paradox is that people who are likely to support gay marriage, or at least not say "no" to it, may not be people who are all that passionate about marriage in general.  Gay marriage opponents tend to be more passionate about it.  

Marriage, despite its perception as a universally "good thing," is nevertheless something that a lot of people feel they can personally take or leave.  Marriage is not a social or civic norm in our society any longer.  Whereas the ability to vote is pretty much the bedrock of our democracy, (and to a lesser extent, access to education) and so voting rights and educational equality more easily became emotional issues (Jim Crow and segregation laws and such), marriage is not REALLY the bedrock of young people's lives any more.  In today's society, one can advance one's vital interests without it (except in states where gays are not allowed to adopt at all).  There are something like 2,000 rights and prerogatives that unmarried people don't enjoy, but except for a few hot-button issues (such as medical decisions for spouses), the ramifications of them seem vague to many people.

Right or wrong, the fact is that there seems to be more of a grassroots passion AGAINST gay marriage than there is a grassroots passion FOR it.  (By "grassroots" I mean, people who aren't involved in organized political or lobbying groups.)  

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:43:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's awfully complicated (0.00 / 0)

I think the simpler explanation is the right hates the gays a whole lot more than the left values their place in the coalition. The right chomps at the bit to vote against us. The left is too busy keeping it's power dry for "more important things" to expend any political capital to help the gays.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 14:27:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not sure if I agree it's too complicated (0.00 / 0)

Gay marriage is just not a burning issue for a lot of people on the left, and I'm not too sure it's because they don't value gays as a member of the coalition.  I just don't think they are (in the main) all that passionate about marriage, that they don't think it's a truly "important thing" for anyone, gays or straights.

This is generalizing of course - obviously many people on the left DO burn with passion for marriage!  But I think people on the right burn for it more.

 

---

by: NYCO @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 17:12:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just wait for those clowns Scalia and Alito to croak... (0.00 / 0)

The courts are the answer - just like they were for interracial marriage. I demand the FULL benefits of marriage and recognition at the Federal level.

It is a civil rights issue that only the judicial branch should be deciding - not silly Christianist voters and not slimy New York politicians.

---

by: UpstateAlan @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:04:18 AM CST

Except the New York Court of Appeals (0.00 / 0)

already ruled this has to be done legislatively.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 00:15:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet -- and of course we don't want them to until, as UpstateAlan says, "Scalito" is no longer in power there.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:47:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

without comment (0.00 / 0)

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 01:09:36 AM CST

Excuses, Queens style (4.00 / 2)

Addabbo voted no because he claimed he had to, yet Catherine Nolan and Michael Miller--both local assembly members--voted yes.  Shirley Huntley's general area is represented by some pretty good Dems, including pro-equality Michele Titus.  And don't even get me started on George Onorato, whose district boasts AM Michael Gianaris, outgoing CM Eric Gioia, and incoming CM Jimmy Van Bramer, who himself is gay.

While I don't doubt that, within these districts, there are some constituencies that may be against this bill, clearly enough of the population is progressive enough to elect these aforementioned good Dems to other offices.  It might be time for Catherine, Michele, and Eric to think about helping out the Democratic cause and throwing their hats in the ring for the Senate.  And, if not them, I'm sure we can find equally progressive candidates.  Despite Joseph, Shirley, and George's protests, Queens is chock-full of progressives who would love to see these three go.

---

by: Yorkvillian @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 02:50:34 AM CST

It would be great if we could turn over more (0.00 / 0)

Senate seats.  New Senators wouldn't have had the chance to get cozy with the money brokers.  

There's the movement to re-boot New York and this is another important issue that may do well in a new Senate session  with 3-4 fresh faces.

HylasBrook

---

by: HylasBrook @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 10:03:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There are good people in Onorato's district (0.00 / 0)

but I wouldn't list Eric Gioia as one of them.  He goes whichever way the political wind is blowing.

"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 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:06:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As far as Addabbo (0.00 / 0)

Nolan and Miller represent parts of Addabbo's district Addabbo would win even if he loses districtwide. I'm excited to see Miller had voted for it as Semenerio did not.

Addabbo's got to worry about his Howard Beach base...if the church turns on him and puts their support behind a Republican, Addabbo loses...period.

The church played MAJOR role in throwing Addabbo's council seat to a Republican last month.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 06:08:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not buying it.. (4.00 / 1)

I can't stand it that people are giving Aubertine a pass on this. Once again the Dems are weakly accepting a faux Democrat in Aubertine simply because he has a D after his name. So what if he's in a heavily Republican district. He should be held accountable just like the rest. This isn't a political issue or an issue of "Eight Democrats voting against their party..". It's an issue of equality. Aubertine is obviously ok with being discriminatory and in my mind he has no place in the Senate because of it. And as of yesterday 38 NY Senators has stood up and said that they are OK with discrimination. All of them should go.  

---

by: MattS @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 08:07:38 AM CST

Go ahead and primary Aubertine... (4.00 / 1)

All the power to you. Just know that you will lose and be embarrassed in the process.

We knew what we were getting with Aubertine. His district is a conservative district and a red district. There is a reason why he was being recruited to run for Congress. Aubertine is opposed to abortion and marriage equality. But those are the only issues I know of that he has been to the right of the party on. Other than that, he's been one of our best senators and is needed in the Senate. You can't say the same for the other characters (i.e. Huntley, Onorato, Stachowski).

And good luck targeting 38 senators. The throw them all out sentiment is cute (as I have said before) but it is hardly a strategy for success. We need to target these senators. You aren't going to change the NYS Senate in one election. I know there are those who want to, but you need to change the Senate in every election. 2010 will be a starting point. And for a starting point, we need to do it right.


Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 13:12:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What could be "embarrassing" about (0.00 / 0)

trying to effect change and failing?

Don't bet me wrong, I might certainly agree trying to take out Aubertine is a fruitless task and resources are better allocated to other battles that might have been odds for success, whether it's taking out a GOPer or replacing a Democrat with a better one. Clearly, there 38 battles on this issue and we can't successfully wage them all. Let's pick and choose the smartest battles. And the gay marriage vote is not likely to sway voters one way or another, imo.

Pragmatism is paramount, imo. But "embarrassment" plays no part. A fight worth having is not one to lament regardless of the outcome.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 14:13:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, this isn't a fight worth having... (0.00 / 0)

We can go with your words then. SD-48 is a conservative district. If you want to run on the marriage equality platform there, good luck. Also, good luck challenging a guy everyone agrees would have been a lock for NY-23 if he was the Democratic nominee. That's how popular he is in the North Country. No other Democrat could do that (walk into a race and be the favorite).

We have seven Democrats from seven Democratic districts who voted against marriage equality. That's where change CAN BE MADE.


Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:49:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow, it doesn't appear you read my post at all (0.00 / 0)

I totally agreed SD-48 probably wasn't a fight worth having and there were probably more fruitful battles worth staging.  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 22:38:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We'll lose the seat without him (0.00 / 0)

and without the majority, gay marriage never even makes the floor for a vote.

So without him, we're actually a step further away.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 15:04:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Robert gets it but others here don't (4.00 / 2)

You cannot do a more and better Democrats primary in a district like Aubertine and with this exception and a Choice vote that is not on the table he has been a solid blue voter on every single core Democratic value issue from tax policy to labor rights to education.  A Republican would be infinitely worse.

Now for some of the others, We challenge Kruger, Monserrate and Diaz not based on this vote but based on their overall disloyalty to the Democratic Party and its principles. We tap into the considerable financial and volunteer help of LGBT community in this primary effort but the no vote on marriage does not become the central issue against them, rather the straw that broke the camels back.

Onorato and Huntley are definitely a good primary target for a more and better Democrats challenge. I can see a Donna Edwards type recruit knocking off Huntley with no problem and an across the board progressive in Onorato district can win.

I would give Addabbo a pass and Stachowski too because I do not think those districts will elect an across the board progressive.  That gives us five new votes for Equality and gets us to 29.  The other two votes must be picked up the old fashion way, by beating Republicans in progressive districts. Hammond and Johnson on LI, Padovan because Gennero came sooo close and Alesi upstate.  We can probably pick up a few in the Mid Hudson Valley if any of them retire.

---

by: politics64 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 09:08:52 AM CST

So you are OK with discrimination? (0.00 / 0)

So you are OK with Aubertine being discriminatory because he votes the way you like about taxes, labor, and education?  

---

by: MattS @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:26:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The real question (0.00 / 0)

"Can we do better than X?"  Where "X" is any given elected official, and "do better" means get someone elected whose votes will more closely mirror our positions.

The general consensus seems to be that in the case of the 48th SD we cannot do better than Aubertine, his vote on marriage notwithstanding.  That may be true; certainly we're all open to possibilities, but until a real possibility comes to light we're willing to let Aubertine slide.

In the case of several others, the answer is probably yes, we can do better.  Certainly with Monserrate and Onorato we can get someone better elected.  With Kruger, there are certainly better people in the district, but getting them elected would be such an enormous task that even getting someone to run may be impossible.  Diaz's situation is similar to Kruger's, except that it will probably be easier to get a good candidate to run.  I won't comment on Stachowski's situation, because I don't know the situation well enough; perhaps others can chime in.

That leaves Huntley and Addabbo.  In Huntley's case, I have already heard two names mentioned in different places, and certainly there will be a push.

Regarding Addabbo, there isn't another Democrat with a chance of getting elected who would challenge him in a primary, which leaves two possibilities:  1) Run a Republican next year who can win, and then get a better Democrat in 2012; or 2) Work on Addabbo to turn him back on the right path.

The first possibility is a rotten way to do things, and the end might not be worth the means -- a new Republican who can beat Addabbo will probably be able to stay in office for a while.  The second possibility requires a fresh look at the district (we need to prove to him that he can win even if the Catholic Archbishop backs a Republican challenger), and garnering real support within the party structure to bring him back into the fold.

Treating different people differently isn't discrimination; it's dealing with the reality of different situations.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 12:42:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the question (0.00 / 0)

Can we get better than Monserrate and Espada and Diaz? I'm not fluent in downstate politics, but I was under the impression that they're deeply entrenched in a Democratic patronage network that makes them bulletproof.

---

by: Cliff Hendroval @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:51:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Espada, Huntley and Diaz probably not (0.00 / 0)

but the political demographics are there...these are very Democratic districts...the problem is we'd have to overcome the entrenchment and the local indifference to this issue.

Monserrate is pretty much gone.

But as far as Addabbo, Aubertine or Stachowski, these districts could easily revert to Republicams if not handled properly.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 18:09:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute MattS... (4.00 / 2)

Let's think about this.

You want to go after Aubertine in a district where the following is true:

(A) Running to the left of Aubertine in a Democratic primary would end in failure

and

(B) Getting a Democrat elected is a hard thing to do.

Aubertine is popular in the district. The district is a conservative one.

Whether you like this answer or not, there is more to life than marriage equality. I believe this was important and don't like Aubertine's vote, but I'm not surprised, shocked or angered by it. When we were supporting Aubertine in February 2008, I knew this was his position. I supported him anyway because I hail from upstate and I know how hard it is to get a Democrat elected. Everything about Aubertine is good. I disagree with him on social issues, but it is what it is. I'll take everything else he has pushed for, including Green Jobs, over one vote any day.

But here is what you are missing. The seven Democrats I list here come from Democratic districts. Aubertine comes from a red district. So we can be angry at him, primary him, but we won't get anywhere. Even if you get lucky and beat him in a primary, that person won't win in the district (running as a progressive). Sorry, that's reality. I wish it weren't true. But I have seen what happens when a progressive person runs in local races such as these. They get beat more often than not.

There is no reason why these seven - all from urban areas - voted against marriage equality. Please, do give me the excuses for why they voted against it. What, were they scared of a GOP anti-equality challenger? That would make me laugh. Now, they have plenty to worry about. They are in safe districts.

Focusing on Aubertine is a distraction. Quit while you are behind.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 13:25:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Diasagree with you (4.00 / 1)

If you and Dan want to support Aubertine and look the other way because he is a bigot then go ahead. I won't and IMHO, giving him a pass on this just because he is better than an supposed R is disgusting.

Yeah, having a Republican as a Senator from that district probably isn't any better but I am damned if I am going to support Aubertine or the other 7. In my book nothing we have in this country is more important that equality. And it is very obvious that Aubertine doesn't believe in that tenant.

No, I got your point about the other 7 and support it. I just think we should not ignore Aubertine's bigotry because he has a D after his name.

---

by: MattS @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 14:48:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disagree with me all you want... (0.00 / 0)

This isn't about "discrimination" or being a "bigot" for Aubertine.

If you and Dan want to support Aubertine and look the other way because he is a bigot then go ahead. I won't and IMHO, giving him a pass on this just because he is better than an supposed R is disgusting.

I don't want to look the other way - I think I made it clear, if you have been reading, that I don't agree with his vote - but there are BETTER fights where we have a greater chance to make change and elect Democrats who are pro-marriage equality. Queens might not have a lot of senators with the fortitude to vote for marriage equality, but it seems to me they have plenty of assemblymembers and city councilmembers who are gay themselves and/or who support marriage equality. So if these senators won't support it, let's promote the ones who will (and who will be better senators as well).

Plus, we knew where Aubertine stood before. So if you had a problem with his stance, it should have been addressed then. Don't get mad now because it is convenient to do so. For that matter, we knew where Huntley, Onorato and Stachowski stood too. But they also come from blue districts, which is different than Aubertine's situation.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 17:01:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was going to let this go... (0.00 / 0)

But I can't.

If rebuttal to your last post...

1.) If going on record and officially voting against equality isn't discrimination then I don't know what is. Aubertine can try and pass his vote and stance off as something else, but it isn't. By his vote the other day he in essence told every gay person in the State that he doesn't believe they deserve the same rights as everyone else simply because of their sexual orientation. That is discrimination! Plain and simple. I also believe that his vote shows he is a bigot.

2. Whether or not you want to look that other way, you are. And stances like that are part of the problem.

3. I wrote before that I agree with you that the other 7 districts are better for a pro-equality candidate having a chance winning than in Aubertine district. But that doesn't mean that we and especially the voters in his district shouldn't show our displeasure with him.

4. I didn't support Aubertine when he was first running and I still don't. But thanks for assuming otherwise.

---

by: MattS @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 09:04:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A question (0.00 / 0)

Two questions, really.

First, is there someone in the district whom you could back who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

Second, if not, is there an organization that can begin the process of developing possible candidates who meet those criteria (and if not, maybe you could start one)?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 10:49:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Answers:

1. No clue. Not my district.

2. No clue. Not my district.

I have enough to concern myself with in trying to get a new Senator to replace Seward (my district).

Although I am close enough to have had the pleasure to watch Aubertine's nifty golly gee shucks farmer ads on TV in the last campaign.

All this doesn't change what he is.

---

by: MattS @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 11:37:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unless you both have a lot more time (0.00 / 0)

and money and resources on your hand than I or most people, aren't you arguing abstractions?

I personally, don't have enough time or money to work 62 Senate campaign (plus the assembly, oy, national?)

I'll throw my support, in the form of cash, time, advocacy to the candidates that support me as a GLBT citizen AND are at least not unacceptable on other issues. I mean, it's NY, there's a lot to choose from.

Aubertine?

I am disinclined to actively work to overthrow Aubertine if polls and other metrics show it probably can't be done. I'll devote my most resources where they have the best chance at a happy ending. Oh, maybe I'd toss a few buck in the kitty if it looks like someone can make him sweat a primary.

And of course, I'll reward Aubertine for his apathy to my life, with apathy to his campaign. Win or lose, whatever. You're on your own (he's not my district, I can afford to choose apathy).

If 2008 has shown me anything, the Democratic party doesn't know what to do with a majority anyway (both in Albany and DC).  

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 18:41:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Matt... (0.00 / 0)

To respond to your points (sorry, was away for the weekend):

(1) Voting against marriage equality and discrimination are two different things. You are the one saying that this is discrimination.

Aubertine's vote, like it or not (I don't like it, but know better) are reflective of the district he lives in. It is no different than Addabbo voting against the bill because of pressure from the Catholic Church. Aubertine is a conservative and unless past readings suggest otherwise, based his decision on religious reasons.

Plus, we don't really know what Aubertine's stance on LGBT issues is. You cry discrimination, but what if he supported the term "civil unions?" What if he supported the granting of benefits to same-sex couples? What if he supported measures that prohibited the discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation?

Marriage equality is a different issue. We have learned this already. Part of the problem is that there is a generation gap. Our generation, I would argue, is supportive of marriage equality by a strong majority. But as age increases, it gets lower and lower.

(2) I'm not looking the other way. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of Aubertine and who he is. I also have a problem with singling out senators who voted against this. There were eight (which is why I wrote the post) and while I did say that I would give Aubertine a pass, I did so because of the district he was in. The other seven, if they cry fear of losing in 2010, had no excuse. Voting against this bill did them no favors. Voting for it would have helped at least a few (Huntley, Onorato and Stachowski).

(3) I am certain there are pro-equality folks in SD-48, but they are few in number. There are progressives around here that I know that are progressive on a number of issues, but when it comes to equality, they are moderates. They want "civil unions", not marriage. They want some sort of compromise instead of calling it marriage. Right or wrong, that's what you face.

(4) I didn't assume you supported Aubertine. What I said was that we, here at TAP, did. We knew he was anti-choice and anti-marriage equality. But having a Democrat elected in his district was a monumental step and he was the right man for the job. It was also a good sign of just how popular he is when he was thought of as a candidate for Congress.

Aubertine isn't a progressive, but he is one of the good senators we have. Yes, he voted against the majority opinion this time, but that has been a rare occasion. He has been out in front on other issues. That's what matters.

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 13:44:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stachowski's district could. (0.00 / 0)

I know the NYCers think that the district is blue collar, uneducated, and Catholic, but these people pay NO attention to what their state rep is doing, and a likable guy with a Polish  name has a great chance in this area, and Stachowski is very, very vulnerable (although a likable Polish Republican would be a tough challenge)

But I think Stach also can be persuaded, and that's way cheaper.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 15:09:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

We have to be strategic.  Your layering of seats to definitely go after as opposed to holding back is right on the money.

And let's not forget that even though Pedro Espada voted the right way on equality, he's voted the wrong way on nearly everything else and HAS to go.

"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 @ Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 16:08:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting tidbit buried in Elizabeth Benjamin's column: (0.00 / 0)

Paul Rivera, communications director for Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson, said a policy was set earlier this year not to dispense precious campaign cash to protect incumbents against fellow Democrats at a time when money might be better spent to try to unseat Republicans.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blo...

Nice to know that status quo machine may not interfere unduly with primary challenges. Or at least that's the stated policy.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:55:03 AM CST

What he said was (0.00 / 0)

The conference opposes primaries against its members in principle," Rivera said. "Whether or not we will get involved in primaries depends on whether we think they will effect us in controlling the chamber."

Meaning they will only primary candidates who they think will lose to Republicans.

Just a thought:
This has been the policy of every party ever!

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]