The Kochs LOVE Andrew Cuomo

This Makes Me Sick (4.00 / 1)

But it now answers the question as to why he sold out the middle class and poor of NYS.  I wish I could take my vote for Cuomo back (I'm sure others do also).

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 00:17:23 AM UTC

Fracking (0.00 / 0)

Turning half of upstate NY into a natural gas extraction sacrifice area.

---

by: robinia @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 15:42:40 PM UTC

Fracking (0.00 / 0)

Turning half of upstate NY into a natural gas extraction sacrifice area.

---

by: robinia @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 15:42:40 PM UTC

Vindicated (0.00 / 0)

I told you guys back during the election that the correct choice for a non-corrupt true man of the people was between Howie Hawkins and Warren Redlich during the campaign season.  But nooooooooooooo, we gotta make sure Crazy Carl don't accidentally win, we can't "waste" our votes, we gotta pull across Row B without hesitation and hope things will be different this time....

When are you guys going to stop being so scared of the Republicans that your only line of play is to just vote Democratic even when the difference, when it comes to what really matters, is zilch?  When the are you going to have a little faith in the democratic republic and direct your energies to the people who aren't going to manipulate and exploit you with their petty bourgeois bullshit?  When are you going to start supporting the ousters of long-time Democratic incumbents even if it does mean you're less likely to become the establishment's legislative assistant or volunteer coordinator so you can feel like your part of the club?  So you can feel like your "winning."

Yes, that is in quotes to conjure up Charlie Sheen.  Because that's how crazy this behavior is.

I voted for Warren Redlich because he's one town over from me and I've met and spoken with him on a few occasions, enough to convince me beyond a doubt that he's honest and incorruptible despite my disagreements with some of his libertarianism.  If not for that, it would have been an easy vote for Howie for me and it should have been an easy one for all or you.  

I wasn't about to vote for a guy who only got anywhere because of his last name, who was accepting donations from all sorts of seedy corporate interested known and unknown (Mr. Redlich frequently pointed to a large donation made by, get this, a parking lot...what the fuck is that?) and whose campaign rhetoric indicated that he would go after organized labor and impose austerity budgets because he wants to cast himself as a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" 2016 Presidential candidate.  You do realize that our great state is just a rung on a ladder for this motherfucker, don't you?

Don't you?

Post is getting too long.  But once again, I feel very, very vindicated.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 20:09:30 PM UTC

Wall Street Andy (4.00 / 1)

The notion that a libertarian governor wouldn't pursue the same corporatist, anti-middle class platform that Cuomo is pursuing seems to be pretty popular among a lot of young kids these days.  It's rather silly, and I hope that strain of thought gets reigned in by reality one day.

Cuomo has been a disaster, but you're absolutely right that it was obvious from day one.  He didn't hide what his platform was, or what sort of policies he was intending to pursue when in office.  It was clear he was a corporate shill from well before he initiated his campaign, and the fact that some people are surprised about that fact now says much more about them than it does about Cuomo.

---

by: BKSocDem @ Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 20:28:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Libertarian (4.00 / 1)

Not sure why you think libertarian means "corporatist" or anti-middle class. My main proposal was to cap public sector pay at $100K/year, and eliminate wasteful agencies like the do-nothing Commission on Corrections.

By doing these things, that would leave more money in middle-class pockets and protect the huge majority of public sector workers who make less than $100K.

Libertarians oppose the wars, including the drug war. Ending those would save even more money. What part of my platform did you dislike?

---

by: wredlich @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 20:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Goodness (4.00 / 1)

I think libertarian means corporatist and anti-middle class because, in practice, that's what libertarian policies end up accomplishing.  Decrying big government and big labor while simultaneously recommending policies which further empower corporations and the wealthy to exert incredible influence over our political process and our policy-making demonstrates either a naivete or hypocrisy I have difficulty taking seriously.

While I generally favor a more permissive legal framework in regards to illicit substances and ending foreign interventions, those aren't the issues where progressives and libertarians disagree.  Your budgetary recommendations are gimmicky.  What would those two policies save, something in the order of a few million dollars annually for a multi-billion dollar budget?  

Furthermore, a $100K/year cap on public sector workers isn't something I agree with.  First off, the overwhelming majority of public sector workers don't make anywhere near that amount.  However, some public sector positions, which, I point out, includes positions that carry out many of the states most vital functions, are incredibly difficult and require outstanding and accomplished individuals who need to be compensated accordingly to attract them away from higher paying positions within the private sector.  Cutting those salaries would inhibit the state's quality of service.  So, either you allow exceptions, which makes the cap pointless, or you hurt the quality of services provided by the public sector.  Of course, the latter goes along nicely with an ideology that is generally hostile to the public sector on principle, which is generally the libertarian position.

So, uh, that's what I dislike about your platform.

---

by: BKSocDem @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 22:00:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...And? (0.00 / 0)

So, what's the point?

If there were an actually VIABLE third party candidate in an election, then it might be a different story. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how much we might rant on the internet, neither Howie Hawkins nor Warren Redlich is ever going to be elected Governor of New York on a minor party ticket. It strikes me as kind of like being pissed off that it's raining outside. Yes, you're angry, but the anger doesn't translate into being able to do anything about it. You're never going to muster 51% for a third party candidate; the only times in recent history when it has actually happened is electing celebrities.

Cuomo isn't exactly ideal, but he got elected. Seems to me that we're better off trying to make the most of what the world is, rather than what it isn't.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 20:02:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your vote does matter (4.00 / 1)

Your comment reflects a common line of thinking - you don't want to waste your vote on someone who's not going to win.

But in the 2010 election, there was no question as to who was going to win. Cuomo was a lock and we all knew it well before the election.

In your line of thinking, your vote only matters in the extremely unlikely event that the election is a tie or decided by only one vote.

By voting for a third-party candidate (Howie would have been a great vote) you send a message that you support the principles of that third party or that candidate. In Howie's and my case, your vote could have been the vote that puts us over 50,000 votes and gives us ballot status. Howie made it and I was close (we're in court now on that).

Apparently you sympathize more with the Republicans who voted for an angry bigot with a baseball bat over me. Some voted for him because I didn't have a chance. Does that really make sense to you? Especially when, really, he didn't have a chance either.

---

by: wredlich @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 20:22:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The point is this: (0.00 / 0)

Party lines don't make candidates viable.

PEOPLE make candidates viable.

The Populists of the late 19th and early 20th century weren't celebrities.  But they won some races, and they put pressure on the Democrats.  And by the time 1912 came along, the Republicans splintered and the Democrats became the progressive party.

And they did it because people wised up and stopped believing in the high pressure/low pressure meterological politics you speak of and created their own storm.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 21:03:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your kind words ... (4.00 / 1)

and of course, for your vote!

---

by: wredlich @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 20:15:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yawn.... (0.00 / 0)

Cuomo had numerous private sector union endorsements, he stands up for labor rights.  There has to be a balance struck between business and labor concerns, just as there must be a balance on ideology.  Nothing but right-wing dominance would mean a corporatist dystopia, nothing but left-wing dominance would mean a park every 10 feet and no business.

We have to start moving forward, together, that means spending  cuts on the state level and a reduction in the size of our antiquated government.  We're still living like we were in the 90s, when thanks to Clinton the state was flush with cash, we aren't anymore and we have to realize that.

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 03:48:20 AM UTC

Wake Up (0.00 / 0)

We are already in a corporatist dystopia because this absolutely idiotic idea that the left is "anti-business" that has been perpetuated by the right.  How the fuck is the left anti-business????  This makes no sense.

What, you think that if government actually reflected the will of the majority of people and the best in human nature is going to cause people to stop making and selling things?  How stupid.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 20:57:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

Don't know who you are buddy, but I don't think I said anything to you that is worth getting heated about.  I don't talk to people that I don't know with that kind of animosity and I would request you do the same when talking to me.  Kthx.

Your statement proves my point.  I don't want government run by a bunch of people who think they have all the answers.  We need cooperation, discussion and debate.  It serves the state better for the Governor to adopt pragmatism as a strategy rather than governing from a construct of "I'm always right and you're always wrong."

Government is well intentioned and does do good, the trick is to prevent it from becoming too large and inefficient.  Business has the intention of creating a profit, and we need to regulate it to make sure that it's done within the parameters of laws.  That's why we need moderates and both ideologies present in government, to keep a check on each other.

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 01:26:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Getting heated (0.00 / 0)

As to why I get heated about this sort of thing, it's because I consider your position to be ignorant.  I see people everywhere just stuck in their old ways, spouting out mainstream media memes like "government can't be so big" and "the left is anti-business"."  Not only are these ignorant statements, but you also failed miserably to engage me in them.  Instead, you pussed out with the old "why so heated" and "oh noes! swearing!" strawman post.  

Good job, grandma.

What, you don't like the F word?

Well, welcome to New Fucking York!

I prefer conversing with people who are willing to engage in ideas, not disengage the second a four-letter word enters the conversation.

Here's why I got heated: Because it doesn't take too much digging to see that the ideas you presented are the root cause of just about all human suffering in this world.  Business wants to make a profit.  Hah!  Business wants to exploit you, reduce your family relations to a financial calculation, force you into wage slavery, and laugh all the way to bank as they watch you support their interests instead of your own.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 02:26:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reasoning together? Nah. (0.00 / 0)

Your sunny disposition is inspiring.  Really, you're a great spokesman for progressivism, sure to change lots of minds.

In the mean time, I live in the real world, where the Republicans are taking over because the Democrats have drifted so far off the deep end that they are unable to connect with regular people.  You are the problem.  People like you who scream at the top of their lungs at other people because you perceive them to be 'ignorant', rather than engaging in meaningful discussion.  I believe in regulating businesses and making sure the rich pay their fair share, but its not worth it if an otherwise good, balanced and fiscally sound budget is stalled or the government is shut down.

I also resent your remarks about business, I know many business owners who support progressive causes.

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 02:39:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the way... (0.00 / 0)

When the economy is on better track, I'll be all for a millionaire's tax, just not while we are in a recession.

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 02:41:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, you're the problem (0.00 / 0)

And your sunshine patriotism is depressing.  

Not raise taxes on the super rich during a recession huh?  Why don't you go dig up Ronald Reagan's corpse and make out with him if you love trickle-down economics so much.

Oh, you don't like people who scream at the top of their lungs for political change?  Or go even farther?  I recommend you look up the story about how this country got started again.

And what's this crap about Democrats having "gone off the deep end"???  Your quoting fucking Limbaugh and Hannity here!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a concern troll in our midst.  An ignorant concern troll.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 06:21:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okie Dokie (0.00 / 0)

I will end with this, which pretty much sums up what you and people like you are doing to the party.

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 13:23:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS (0.00 / 0)

I also don't mean progressives, I mean people who feel the need to add vitrol to everything they say when disagreeing with someone.  The teabaggers need to tone it down and so do we.

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 13:33:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still BS (0.00 / 0)

And you mean vitriol.  V-I-T-R-I-O-L.

I'll give you kudos for selecting an appropriate video for this little flame war, though.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 16:10:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's great! (0.00 / 0)

I really like this line: "nothing but left-wing dominance would mean a park every 10 feet and no business."  That's really hilarious.  Good stuff!  

Back to reality, though, the only elements of the left that description would accurately describe is anarchist groups you might find on some SUNY campuses.  Among mainstream progressive and left groups today, there's plenty of acceptance of business as the vital cog of a healthy, functioning economy.

---

by: BKSocDem @ Sat Apr 02, 2011 at 22:09:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See my post above (0.00 / 0)

I think it kills two birds with one stone. :)

---

by: faithandfreedom @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 01:27:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be fair (4.00 / 2)

There was only one candidate in the race and Kochs had an opportunity to invest in a sure thing.

And has any politician ever said "Your money's no good here?"

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 03:26:09 AM UTC