Malcolm Smith Did The Right Thing

by: robert.harding

Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 15:26:58 PM EST

This is a good day for Sen. Malcolm Smith. Here's why:

- You can never allow three people to have what they want and then turn to the rest of the group and say that they can have what's left. That is what happened with the Senate Democrats. It would be like having the three biggest eaters in your family at the head of the line for Thanksgiving dinner. There needed to be common sense in the process. If these three senators need to be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, then they don't deserve the attention.

- The ball is now in Ruben Diaz Sr., Pedro Espada Jr. and Carl Kruger's court. What they do now isn't as a gang, but rather as individuals. If they choose to vote for a Republican majority leader, they will no longer be senators in 2010. They might think differently, but I think they will be gone. And I will help make sure that happens.

- This line in Sen. Smith's press release was a direct shot at Diaz: "Furthermore,  real reform cannot and should not ever include limiting the civil rights of any New Yorkers. Those issues must be part of the legislative process." Like I have said time and time again, Diaz has the constitutional right to vote "no" against any bill that advocates for marriage equality. No one is preventing him from voting no. But to try and negotiate a bill off the table isn't democratic, nor is it Democratic.

- Let's face it: The original deal was a jab at many Democratic senators, especially for upstate senators. Sen. Bill Stachowski deserves to be chair of the powerful Finance Committee. Hopefully now he will have that opportunity.

- This whole process does, however, raise some serious questions about Sen. Smith's ability to lead. He needs to be strong and, when necessary, forceful. Even if that means being in the minority for another two years, never throw away your principles for leadership and power. It seemed to me that Sen. Smith had his eyes on being the most powerful man in the Senate and was willing to make a deal with anyone. But then when he had to go back and answer to the other 28 Democrats, they let him know how bad of a deal it was. It was a wake up call and hopefully he learned a great lesson.

The future of the New York State Senate is uncertain. With these three senators out on their own island, we don't know who will be in the majority come January 1.  What is clear is that the "Gang of Three" won't be supporting Malcolm Smith anytime soon. That might mean two more years in the minority for the Democrats, but at least we get to keep our dignity.  

"Gang Of Three" Deal Falling Apart; Might Be A Dead Deal

by: robert.harding

Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 22:51:35 PM EST

Malcolm Smith's deal with the Gang of Three is crashing down around his ears, and the renegade trio is accusing him of renegging on significant portions of the power-sharing agreement in the wake of displeasure from his members over how much he gave away to end the leadership stalemate.

...

Attorneys for the two sides have been negotiating back and forth throughout the day with little to show for it. There was supposed to be a big announcement tomorrow by Smith, but that appears to be off for the moment.

Within the last hour, Espada told The Times he is "tremendously dismayed and disappointed" by reports in recent days that the majority leader's post will perhaps not have any real responsibilities attached to it, adding that this has led him to "suspend my support for Malcolm Smith as leader."

If you share my opinion that throwing this deal out and letting the "Gang of Three" vote for whomever they want (even if it's a Republican) is the way to go, then this news is good news. But if you are Sen. Malcolm Smith, you can't be happy.

From Smith's perspective, he was in a lose-lose situation. Putting the "Gang of Three" aside, Smith would have to go back to the rest of his caucus (a total of 28 senators) and give them the scraps of what the "Gang of Three" left behind. That was never going to go over well and, as we found out over the weekend, it didn't.

But with the "Gang of Three", Smith made a deal too good to be true. He promised Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. the majority leader's post and promised to make the post relevant and more powerful than it has been in the past. As we can read above, Espada sees the deal as dead mostly because he does not see what, if any, powers he will have as majority leader. As a result, Espada has now held off on his promise to support Smith.

For Sen. Carl Kruger, the second part of the "Gang of Three", he has held off on saying anything on this until tomorrow. He isn't as upset as Espada is, but he isn't saying much. We will see what tomorrow brings.

More on the flip.

Could The "Gang Of Three" Deal Fall Apart?

by: robert.harding

Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 00:06:38 AM EST

According to Liz, that big deal made with the "Gang of Three" might come to a screeching halt tomorrow if some Democratic senators have their way.

I have spoken to several Democratic lawmakers now who employed words like "blowup" and "disgrace" to describe what might happen at the closed-door conference (the former characterization and the deal Smith struck with the Gang of Three (the latter), which senators who stuck by Smith and helped him fight for the majority consider giving away the store to the renegade threesome - two of whom have longstanding GOP ties.

There are a number of problems here, not the least of which is the fact that if the now-tenuous deal blows up, it will send the Senate Democrats back to the drawing board, return the chamber to leadership-free limbo and perhaps drive the trio back into the arms of the Republicans, at least in the short term.

Some Democrats say even staying in the minority for another session is preferable to giving away the store in a deal that empowers the Gang of Three. A few took particular offense at the idea that control of legislation would rest in the hands of Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. as vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

The reasoning behind this is that sooner or later, given the aged GOP conference and the demographics of the state, more seats are going to end up being won by Democrats. The year that everyone should really be concerned about is 2010, because that's when the Senate that will control the next round of redistricting will be elected.

I am going to propose this: If these three won't vote for a Democratic leader without deals, then let them vote for Dean Skelos. Then those three can go back to their Democratic districts in 2010 and explain to them why they voted for Dean Skelos over Malcolm Smith. That should be the bargaining chip here. There is no reason to cave to these three opportunists. Let them walk and explain to their voters in 2010 why they voted for a Republican state senate when their voters sent them to Albany to be part of a Democratic senate.

Yes, I am saying I would rather be in the minority for the next two years than to cave to the thugs who want to rob us and create their own "Gang of Three Men In A Room." Then we could have a real shot at getting three TRUE Democrats to replace the traitors and then build our majority throughout the state, including upstate where we made serious gains this year and on Long Island where there might be another seat or two to grab in 2010.

If Malcolm Smith wants to be a leader, he needs to show some fortitude. This deal is not only bad for Senate Democrats, but it is also bad for him. He needs to realize that and for the good of the caucus, I hope he will realize that before tomorrow's meeting.  

What Role Will Upstate Democrats Have In New York State Senate?

by: robert.harding

Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 15:40:44 PM EST

Also, upon reviewing the committee list, it appears that upstate Democratic senators will not be chairing any of the important and powerful committees.

So I must ask Sen. Malcolm Smith: Where's that "One New York" you were talking about?

Sen. Smith deserves credit where credit is due. He reached an agreement with three senators who demanded certain concessions and threatened to vote for the other side if Smith didn't do it their way. Sen. Smith can't please everybody, but it seems this deal only pleased the "Gang of Three."

Upstate Democrats do have a presence in the Senate. One of the biggest races of the year was in late February when Sen. Darrel Aubertine won in a special election and then defended the seat last month. You also have senators like Stachowski, Sen. Antoine Thompson, Sen. David Valesky and Sen. Neil Breslin. Those are some big names and all are deserving of an important post in the Democratic Senate. But because of this deal with three senators, upstate might be shut out of the whole process.

I see Sen. Smith's "One New York" a shattered concept that will need serious repair moving forward. If this is truly going to be one New York, upstate needs to see that. It is in Sen. Smith's hands to make sure that it happens and he follows through with his promise to make it happen. If he doesn't, he will have failed as a leader and he will only make the Republicans case that the "New York City Democrats" rule the state a stronger one. If the idea of "One New York" is to give in to three renegade senators, we need to take a look at the deal and ask ourselves if we are better or worse off with this deal than we were before.

We have very good Democratic senators from upstate. It is about time they are recognized in the New York State Senate and I hope our Democratic caucus realizes that. Buffalo, like New York City, needs strong representation in the upper house of the New York State Legislature. Albany, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown and all of the rural counties in between need representation too. I hope this is reflected in the New York State Senate come January 1.  

More On Deal With "Gang Of Three"

by: robert.harding

Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 17:13:49 PM EST

- The positions of Senate majority leader and president pro tempore, which were both held by former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, have now been bifurcated. Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore.

The majority leader post in other legislative bodies in New York, the City Council and the Assembly, for example, is not one with a lot of power. Espada told me he has been assured by Smith that his position will "have absolute substance," and, as a result, "the Latino empowerment issue has been substantially enhanced."

Espada said he will have a "meaningful role" (Nick Confessore reports it's vice chairman) with the Senate Rules Committee, arguably one of the more powerful committees in the chamber and the last stop for all the bills before they go to the floor for a vote. He'll also have a part to play in the next big fight coming down the pike: Redistricting.

- Sen. Carl Kruger will not get the Housing Committee, as some activists like ACORN's Bertha Lewis, had feared, but he will chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee. Recall that this was something the Republicans proposed in an effort to woo the Gang of Three to their side. The committee will have an enhanced staff and a fair degree of independence.

- Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. will chair the Aging Committee.

A few things here: Espada got a nice deal. It must be nice to walk into a legislative body and be anointed someone who will wield a certain amount of power. How much exactly remains to be seen. But Espada got a nice deal here.

Naming Kruger to the Senate Finance Committee is interesting, especially considering here in Western New York we were pushing during the campaign that Sen. Bill Stachowski would become the Chairman of the Finance Committee. In fact, Stachowski was the ranking minority member of the committee. Kruger jumped Stachowski, plus two other members of the soon-to-be majority to get the chair. I don't like this deal, considering Stachowski's service in the Senate, and I hope that Stachowski receives some sort of post in return.

Giving Diaz the Aging Committee isn't a huge deal. Diaz was in line to chair that committee anyway considering his ranking minority member status.

There is one other notable part of this deal. According to Liz's report, senators will be seated in alphabetical order instead of by party. Espada argues that this could mean the end to party-line voting, although I'm not sure how much a New York State Senate game of musical chairs matters to how senators vote.

I'm sure there is more to this that we haven't been told yet. But we will see what details come out over the next day or two.  

If Ruben Diaz Sr. Is A Democrat, Why Isn't He Backing Malcolm Smith?

by: robert.harding

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 16:45:33 PM EST

But I found these quotes to be rather intriguing from Sen. Diaz in a Buffalo News story about his membership in the "Gang of Three":

"I have not committed myself to anybody, and my position as an ordained minister and a pastor will not allow me to support any would-be leader that will bring gay marriage to the Senate floor," he said in a statement.

"This is nothing new. Mr. Smith and all my colleagues have known my position for more than a year. That does not make me a Republican. Where is it written that in order to be a Democrat you have to support gay marriage? And where is it written that if you do not support gay marriage you are not a good Democrat? I have always been a Democrat. I remain a Democrat, and I will continue to be a Democrat. A Democrat who rejects gay marriage and abortion based upon my beliefs," he added.

Okay, so we have known the position, as I mentioned above. It isn't a secret that this is where Sen. Diaz stands. But if he is such a good Democrat and is remaining a Democrat and will continue to be a Democrat, why is he playing these games? Something tells me that this more than just the marriage equality issue. The man who hopes to be majority leader, Sen. Malcolm Smith, has said that the budget and fiscal crisis will be the priority. So this seems to be an attempt to get something out of the deal.

Sen. Diaz can tell the world that he is a Democrat. On paper, he is. No one said being pro-choice or pro-marriage equality was a prerequisite for being a Democrat. Sen. Darrel Aubertine, who received support from all over the state when he won a special election in late February, is anti-choice.

So we have an array of opinions and views in the New York State Senate. But the difference is that Sen. Aubertine isn't playing games. He isn't trying to threaten the Democrats with voting for Dean Skelos if they vote on a certain issue. Sen. Diaz has a vote in the Senate, does he not? He can exercise that vote in opposition.

In any event, Sen. Diaz, you are at the end of your Senate career. Enjoy it while it lasts. In 2010, you will be done.