|
This belongs to you. Take it back...
Albany reform 
Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 13:32:37 PM EDT
|
|
The Democrats are entering the 2008 election cycle in New York with the wind at their backs, aided in no small part by the collapse of the republican party both nationally and at the state level. All of New York's statewide elected officials are Democrats, including the governor, the attorney general, both U.S. Senators and even the comptroller, a race won by a Democrat under the shadow of indictment. To properly gauge the catatonic state of the republican party in this state, look no further than the re-election of Alan Hevesi.
The goals for the 2008 cycle are clear: knock off a few more republican Members of Congress, carry the state's electoral votes for a Democratic Presidential nominee - more of a challenge if the matchup turns out to be Hillary versus Rudy, but still winnable even in that scenario - and, lastly, wiping out the last bastion of republican power in the state, the two-seat Senate majority that enables Joe Bruno, obstructionist in chief in the Albany drama of dysfunction.
Once the Senate falls, New York will be a deep blue state without a real, functioning republican party in practical terms.
So then what?
Conventional wisdom says that, once the Democrats attain the majority in the Senate, they will reform the way that body does business, enacting real rules reform along the lines of the Brennan Center Report. This assumption is key to the quasi-alliance between Democratic partisans and reformers, and is based on a simple observation: that New York's sclerotic legislature, branded with cause the worst in the nation, can only be changed when a majority changes. It is hoped that this turnover, coupled with reform, will then shame the lower house, the Assembly, currently a medieval fiefdom run like a manor house with so many vassals by Sheldon Silver, into becoming an acceptable semblance of an actual legislature; this despite the observable fact that shame is a concept foreign to the Assembly as a body.
The leverage to bring this change about is two-fold: for one thing, the people of New York demand it, as evidenced by the deep disdain in which the legislature is held, for another, Democrats need the help of reformers to achieve their partisan goals.
With a view to what party monocracy looks like in practice - Brooklyn, The Bronx and Queens come immediately to mind - reformers would do well to insist on iron-clad guarantees before they commit to assisting the Democrats in this effort.
(Original @ TDG)
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 761 words in story)
|
|
Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:15:52 AM EDT
|
|
In a short article in The New York Times, you'll find a snapshot of New York State's biggest challenge: the withering of an entire region, upstate New York, by a slow process of industrial decline, economic stagnation and, flowing from that, population loss.
Buffalo, the state’s second-largest city, lost 16,114 residents, or 6 percent of its population. Rochester, the third-largest city, lost 10,352 residents, or 5 percent. Yonkers, the fourth-largest city, grew by 1 percent, or 1,524 residents. Syracuse, the fifth-largest city, lost 5,574 residents, or 4 percent.
That kind of population loss normally occurs only in wartime. By way of illustration: if New York City had lost six percent of its population of eight million since 2000, that would work out to a bit less than half a million, a catastrophic loss. That's what's happening upstate.
(XPosted @ TDG)
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 946 words in story)
|
|
Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:06:36 PM EST
|
|
We've written about Eliot Spitzer's refusal to commit himself in the Presidential primary before; now, if Fred Dicker is to be believed, Team Hillary is none too pleased with the governor's lack of support, and expressing this rather forcefully.
The Murdoch Post:
March 5, 2007 -- ALBANY - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign organization "exploded" last week over Gov. Spitzer's refusal to endorse her for president, according to senior Democratic officials.
And, in another sign of trouble, the former first lady's campaign has become increasingly nervous over the refusal of many of New York's African-American political leaders to endorse her for president, the officials said.
"Hillary's people were really upset by Spitzer, and they called his people - Rich Baum, Darren Dopp, Christine Anderson - to make that clear," a Spitzer insider told The Post, referring to the chief of staff and two top press aides.
Another senior Democrat said the Clinton camp "exploded, really went crazy," over Spitzer's refusal to back her during a visit to Washington last week.
"She's slipping in the polls, has a problem with blacks, [Sen. Barack] Obama is gaining, and then she has the governor of her own state equivocating on whether he'll back her. That's not good," the Democrat said.
Experience would suggest that exploding at Governor Steamroller really isn't the best way to get him to do much of anything, especially when the power balance is so clearly in his favor, as it is with the question of an endorsement. Long story short, Hillary needs Eliot at this point, but it's far from clear what he gains by committing himself. He could help her wrap up New York; what she could do for his goals isn't clear.
(Cross-posted from The Daily Gotham)
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 327 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
