How bad must it get for an 85-year-old former mayor of the City of New York - not an easy job, that - to leave retirement and start rattling the cage?
Pretty bad.
The following is an op-ed that went out by email to the mayor's list.
The New York Uprising Begins
Last Friday, at the New York City offices of my law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, for a group of us, the New York Uprising began.
A hundred men and women came together to commit themselves to the overhaul of the New York State legislature, which the Brennan Center for Justice appropriately called "dysfunctional" six years ago, and which has alarmingly deteriorated since. The legislature in Albany is an abysmal failure and a disgrace to the Empire State.
The New York Uprising was convened by Dick Dadey of the Citizens Union, Henry Stern of New York Civic and myself. The purpose for the meeting was a brainstorming session aimed at developing a strategy for reforming the state legislature, both the Assembly and Senate.
Compounding New York's government problem is its non-functional governor who is beset with allegations that he may have committed a crime by swearing falsely before the New York State Commission on Public Integrity, as well as allegations of possible obstruction of justice now being investigated by the New York State Attorney General. The latter recused himself from the investigation -- he is a perceived candidate for the office of governor in the November election -- and selected Judith Kaye, retired Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, to oversee the investigation by the Attorney General's staff.
Attending the March 12th meeting were Frank Baraff and Brian Keeler, leaders of a coalition of New Yorkers called Reboot New York, who are organizing upstate and Long Island citizens to push for reform in Albany. Other citizen-based organizations are being established around the city and state, including Unshackle Upstate, headed by Brian Sampson, as well as various reform-minded groups of business people. Five respected good government groups - the Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Union, Common Cause NY, League of Women Voters/NYS and N.Y. Public Interest Research Group - have organized to address Albany reform. The Westchester County Association, led by former Lieutenant Governor Al Del Bello and Bill Mooney, is taking up the effort in Westchester.
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
Bill Owens isn't a Democrat (not officially, anyway, until he votes in November) and since he wasn't an elected official, much isn't known about him. I started looking at Owens and came up with a number of different positions, but there were more questions that came from that post.
Obviously, health care is a big issue. There has been some debate about where Owens stands. But now, at least to me, his stance is clear.
The question about Owens and his support of a public option might seem complicated, but it really isn't. Owens isn't opposed to a public option. That, to him, isn't the biggest piece.
He has outlined his ideas for health care reform already. If a public option is in a bill that meets his objectives, he will support it. That has been repeated to me over and over again. It's not the public option that he is opposed to. He wants to see a strong comprehensive bill. I think we all can agree that there is a such thing as a weak health care reform bill even with a public option. Because if we don't reform the whole system and just throw in a public option as a deal sweetener, that's not much of a reform package.
Owens wants a strong comprehensive bill. I think that's something we all want.
The Owens campaign also confirmed that Owens supports climate change legislation. When asked specifically about the bill that passed the House earlier this year, Owens said he would have supported (and supports) that legislation.
It is easy to look at Owens and say he is going to be a "conservaDem" or a "Blue Dog." He doesn't see himself as conservative or progressive. He seems himself as a moderate independent. Is he going to be the next Alan Grayson? Probably not. But I don't see him as the next Mike Ross either.
With Bill Clinton and the Working Families Party getting behind Owens it is time that we get behind him. Is he the perfect progressive? No. But he is a moderate that we can work with. He's a vote for climate change and for health care reform. He is for job creation and ending regressive taxation and wasteful tax cuts. Those are all good things we can get behind.
Plenty of good news on the campaign trail for Democratic candidate Bill Owens. A key minor party backed him and a key Democratic figure sent out an e-mail blast for him.
The Working Families Party announced today that it has endorsed Owens in the 23rd congressional district race featuring Owens, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
The importance of the WFP endorsement will be known later, as the party is still plotting its course forward with the New York City elections just around the corner (although, it's hard to imagine that any of the candidates they have backed in the city have the task ahead of them like Owens, but I digress) and a number of issues they were going to be active on. It is key that they endorsed Owens when you consider that in 2004 and 2008, they supported Scozzafava. Of course, Scozzafava ran unopposed in both elections and there was no alternative.
Also helping Owens out today is former President Bill Clinton, who sent out a fundraising e-mail for Owens.
Here is part of the e-mail:
Every once in a while, a special election comes along that's bigger than just one candidate or one office. Such an election is taking place right now in Upstate New York. It can expand our Democratic Majority in Congress this year.
With the media closely watching this race, victory or defeat will also be seen as a referendum on President Obama's agenda for health care and on our entire progressive agenda. So it's critical that we stand together as Democrats behind our candidate, Bill Owens.
With just 26 days left before the November 3rd special election, Republicans and their conservative outside groups are expected to spend over a million dollars attacking Bill. Our top strategists just briefed me on this race. They said that Bill needs to raise $83,000 before Friday to stay on the air combating the more than $500K Republicans have already spent attacking him.
There is a lot going on in NY-23 today and in recent days. I'll have more on this race later.
The other day, I shattered the ugly belief that the Republican candidate in the 23rd congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, was the most liberal. That post was a direct response to Markos' post Thursday, which also included a critique of Democratic candidate Bill Owens.
One of the arguments made by Markos is that Owens is a "conservaDem" and that he would be just another member of the Blue Dog Coalition should he win in November. Owens, who was an independent but has changed his party affiliation to become a Democrat, was picked over two Democrats to run.
I met Michael Plitt by accident. Apparently, he has been a reader of mine for some time. When I worked at Darien Lakes State Park this summer, Michael's cousin just happened to be a fellow employee.
Michael is running for Town Council in Darien, a small town in the western part of Genesee County. He is a Democrat and last night, won the Democratic primary. Plitt and fellow Democrat Stephen Ferry will be on the ballot for November.
Congratulations Michael. Best of luck to you in November.
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
Earlier this week, I asked you to get your respective Democratic city, county or town committees, as well as Democratic or progressive groups to support the public option resolution. By adopting the public option resolution, your committee or group will officially endorse the idea of health care reform with a strong public option.
Because without a strong public option, there is no reform.
Since Sunday, the resolution did change a little bit. Changes were made to make it a little easier to pass.
Here is the text of the resolution that your committee can adopt:
Public Option Resolution
WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
WHEREAS, public polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest," while co-ops or so-called "triggers" are inadequate in and of themselves to address the health care crisis by creating significant competition for the medical insurance industry; and
WHEREAS, Republicans and their allies in the health insurance industry have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the Democratic majority and administration to reasonably discuss the issue with the American people, and have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] urges Democratic members of Congress to vote for only such healthcare reform proposals as contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourages Democratic legislators to use any available parliamentary means to pass such reform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] shall send a copy of this resolution to all Democratic members of Congress who represent any of our members.
As of today, I have contacted six county committees in my area about putting the resolution on the agenda for their next meeting. It has been confirmed to me that four of these counties will be voting on the resolution. I have also have confirmation from at least one Democratic/progressive group that they will add the resolution to the agenda and put it up for a vote. I will be doing more targeting today to see if I can get more county committees to vote on this measure.
At Netroots Nation, Gov. Howard Dean hosted a town hall. He discussed the public option throughout the question-and-answer session. Here is a video of Dean discussing the public option:
We need real health care reform in this country. While I support a single-payer system, I also believe that the public option offers our greatest chance at reform. We need to get this done and we need to have the support of the Democratic Party - the same party that holds the White House and both houses of Congress.
The fight for a public option and true health care reform is still very much alive. We have seen the attempts by the Republican Party, conservatives and insurance industry to turn aside reform. They don't propose alternatives or their own version of reform. They just fearmonger and distort reality so they can stand in the way of change.
This is why we must set our own tone and encourage our leaders to support health care reform and most importantly, a public option.
WHEREAS our heath care system is in crisis with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance and hundreds of millions more lacking adequate coverage ; and
WHEREAS both the uninsured and insured alike regularly face the risk of financial ruin from health costs; and
WHEREAS millions of Americans live sicker and die younger due to inadequate access to health care; and
THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC OPTION
WHEREAS insurance companies are driven to maximize profits by reducing benefits while increasing premiums, often without regard for the health of consumers; and
WHEREAS an overwhelming majority of Americans want health reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest;" and
WHEREAS a public option must, by definition, be accountable to Congress and the voters to correctly be called "public" in any meaningful way; and
WHEREAS the establishment of non-profit cooperatives in lieu of a robust public option will not "keep insurance companies honest," and
WHEREAS the proposed co-ops would be accountable only to their membership and not accountable to Congress or the voters, and therefore not "public" in a meaningful sense; and
WHEREAS proposals to delay the implementation of a public option until some contingency is reached (known as a "trigger") are without merit given the need for immediate action to remedy our health care system; and
THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENT ACTION
WHEREAS the Republican members of Congress have demonstrated no desire to reform health care and their leaders will not negotiate in good faith toward the passage of meaningful reform; and
WHEREAS the Republican Party and insurance industry lobbyists have organized extremists to disrupt efforts by Democratic Representatives and Senators to honestly discuss the merits of health care reform, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators in Washington should accept no more delays in passing health reform and must use "any available legislative means," including the reconciliation process in the Senate, to pass by the end of the year health care reform legislation which includes a robust public option; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators should vote against health reform that does not include a robust public option; that seeks to substitute inadequate alternatives like the non-profit cooperative scheme in place of a public option; or makes the implementation of a public option contingent upon a trigger; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this expectation covers all votes on this issue, whether procedural or not and regardless of whether they occur before, during or after the reconciliation process.
This resolution allows more than just bloggers to get involved. If you are a member of a local Democratic committee or are a chair of such a committee, show this resolution to other members and make sure your group signs on. If you have your own chapter of DFA or have another progressive group you are a member of, get them to sign on to this resolution.
We have some great representatives in the health care fight on our side. We have plenty of activists who want to get involved. This resolution allows you a way to not only get involved, but to get a group of people involved.
The Republican Party, along with the conservative movement, is united in its opposition to health care reform. Their idea of reform is to keep things the way they are. That's not reform.
The Democratic Party and progressive movement should be united in its support of health care reform and a public option. Anything less than a public option is not reform. The leaders of the Democratic Party and progressive movement at all levels, whether it's in Washington D.C. or Washington County, New York should stand united for a public option.
This week is another crucial week for the public option and the road to reform. Rally your party leaders and progressive groups to get behind this resolution and to support a public option.
In Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post, business columnist Steven Pearlstein will call for an end to the talk of a public option, arguing that it is a "political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don't want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market."
Of course, Mr. Pearlstein is wrong. The public option isn't merely a litmus test, nor is it that we as "left-wing politicians and pundits" are living in a dream world where we can provide a Medicare-style program to those who would choose government coverage over private coverage. This isn't about politics or "real-life dynamics", but rather providing people with a choice: Their own private health insurance or a strong public option.
That is why rewarding those who support a strong public option is necessary. The Republican Party is united in its opposition to health care reform. They would not like to see a public option. Anything other than the current system to them is "socialized medicine."
The support for a public option has been up in the air. There have been indications that while he is supportive of a public option, President Barack Obama is having trouble getting support for it among leaders in the House and Senate. If those leaders think they can pass health care reform without a public option, they have a big shock coming.
The reality is this: Without a public option, any bill that supposedly reforms our health care system won't pass the house. The Republicans will oppose essentially all health care reform with or without a public option. Without a public option, you will lose at least 64 House Democrats, including eight representatives from New York.
With FireDogLake's leadership, we are fundraising for those progressive members who are standing up for real health care reform. The goal is $150,000, but more is welcome and necessary. It is time to recognize those who will stand up for a public option. Without those representatives in the House, real reform won't be realized. We don't need watered down legislation. We need Democrats to start being Democrats. That is why we need to reward those who have stood alongside a public option.
It is time that the progressive members of the Democratic caucus in the House get the same attention as the Blue Dog Coalition. We need to continue recognizing those who stand up for reform instead of those who stand in the way of it. Let's make sure we reward good behavior by helping the Democrats who are standing with the Democratic Party.
Here are the representatives who will stand for nothing but a public option:
Albio Sires (NJ-13) Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Andre Carson (IN-07)
Barbara Lee (CA-09) Barney Frank (MA-14) Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Bill Delahunt (MA-10) Bill Pascrell (NJ-08) Bob Filner (CA-51)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01) Corrine Brown (FL-03) Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Diane Watson (CA-33) Donald Payne (NJ-10) Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Ed Towns (NY-10) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07) Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) Eric Massa (NY-29) Pete Stark (CA-13) Grace Napolitano (CA-38) Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jackie Spier (CA-12) Jerry Nadler (NY-08) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07) Jim McGovern (MA-03) John Conyers (MI-14)
John Olver (MA-01) John Tierney (MA-06) John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16) Judy Chu (CA-32) Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Laura Richardson (CA-37) Linda Sanchez (CA-39) Lloyd Doggett (TX-25)
Lucille Roybal-Alard (CA-34) Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11) Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) Maxine Waters (CA-35) Mazie Hirono (HI-02) Mel Watts (NC-12)
Michael Honda (CA-15) Mike Capuano (MA-08) Nydia Valezquez (NY-12) Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Phil Hare (IL-17) Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
Robert Wexler (FL-19) Rush Holt (NJ-12) Sam Farr (CA-17)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) William Lacy Clay (M0-01) Yvette Clarke (NY-11) Hank Johnson (GA-04)
It should also be mentioned that Congressman Anthony Weiner, who has been an outspoken advocate for a public option, doesn't appear on the list but is someone who is a strong supporter of a public health insurance option.
This is a key fight. We need to make sure those who are with us on that fight are being congratulated.
This first shot features Congressman Murphy on the far left, with a good chunk of the crowd in the foreground. According to my source, he got a good number of people in the shot, but there were many others who weren't in the picture. That's how well attended this event was.
Health care wasn't just being opposed at this meeting. Supporters from Planned Parenthood and other groups were on hand to show their support for health care reform.
But like the health care meetings we have been hearing about, the opponents of change were in attendance. One photo calls for "NOBama Care" while another makes a reference to Soylent Green, a 1973 science fiction movie "depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers."
But this picture is really the highlight from the anti-change movement.
If you aren't interested in reading for yourself, here are the sayings on this guy's poster:
- So... Hows That Whole "Hopey-Changey" ThinkG (spelling his, not mine) Working Out For Ya?
- On a bumper sticker with the Obama for America logo crossed out, it reads: No Thanks. I already have a Messiah.
- Somewhere In Kenya A Village Has Lost Its Idiot.
- You Think Health Care is expensive now? Just Wait Til Its Free!
- Socialists: Spreading the Wealth Since 1917
- My AARP Card Stands For: Armed And Really Pissed.
- Fly Navy
- Don't Tread On Me
- There is one more saying on the upper right hand corner that I can't make out, plus another small sticker in the middle that says "Silent No More."
That sign alone sums up this anti-change movement pretty well. The AARP sayings and the anti-Obama sentiment make good talking points, but lack substance. Most of Americans agree that health care reform is needed, but the teabaggers don't want that to happen. Why? Because they are being funded by the same groups who don't want change to come to America. They try to tout themselves as believers in the Constitution, but really have no solutions to present. All they want is attention to promote a hateful and anti-everything agenda. They have no solutions. Just problems.
A lot has been made of the chaos that took place in the Senate chamber yesterday. But before the Senate got locked down, the Senate Republicans passed rules reform legislation that has been touted by Tom Golisano and by Republicans in a show that they actually passed reforms when the Democrats did not. (This is true, although the Democrats had a much more open process that involved a committee being formed and a report being issued with suggestions for legislation.)
I turned to Larry Norden for his view on the rules reforms that the Republicans passed yesterday. Norden writes the Reform NY blog that is used to promote the Brennan Center's New York reform efforts and he also co-authored the most recent Brennan Center report on the New York State Legislature, as well as the second Brennan Center report that was published in 2006.
When I asked him what he thinks of the rules reform legislation passed by the Senate Republicans, Norden had this to say:
There are some good things in here and there are some not-so good things. I wouldn't say that they are bad things but I think they didn't tackle some of the key issues that I would have liked them to tackle. Then there are some interesting things that I wouldn't say are bad or good, but are certainly curious.
Norden pointed to three things that are good things: The equalization of resources for staff, eliminating messages of necessity (unless it's an emergency) and providing for members a way to have a petition or motion to get a bill to the floor for a vote even if leadership does not want the bill to get to the floor. Norden cited the marriage equality bill as an example of legislation that would benefit from that.
While Norden did praise the Senate GOP for those three areas (and he did say that they went further than the Democrats did), he did point out that these reforms will not go into effect until July 15. Obviously, that date is significant because it is nearly a month after the session ends.
Norden also noted that, in the past, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has held legitimate powers, but over the years, those powers have been given to the majority leader. He pointed out that Sen. Pedro Espada, who sought this post, really doesn't have as much power as one would think. But he's got the post nonetheless.
The major area that wasn't reformed under the Senate GOP's reform legislation, according to Norden, was committees. If you know anything about the Brennan Center's reports, you know that committee reform is a major component of their recommendations for changing the way the state Legislature conducts business. Norden said that while they did eliminate proxy voting (you can see a summary of the rules reforms here), they still failed to complete major reforms.
Here is more from Norden:
Having functioning committees is where the New York State Legislature is perhaps at its worst in comparison to other states and they really didn't address that at all. There is nothing about requiring amendments, review or defeat of bills before their voted out of committee. They say they got rid of proxy voting (according to Irene Jay Liu's summary, they did) but I don't see it in these changes. There is nothing requiring reports for bills that are voted out of committee, which is a key function of committees everywhere else.
Did they really do this because they wanted reform or wanted power? I think most people can make a judgment on that without knowing too much about the details of this. Are there some good things in these rule changes? Yes. Does it go to the heart of changing how the Legislature operates? Probably not.
Norden argued that the Republicans went further than the Democrats did just by targeting the three areas.
"I have to give the Republicans credit," he said. "They went further in many areas than the Democrats. The Democrats didn't pass any rules changes. They had a committee that made recommendations, many of them didn't go as far as this, and they still hadn't passed anything. It maybe, in the end, if they held onto power they would have passed bigger changes. Certainly, that was something they kept telling us they might be doing. We did see members like Sen. Daniel Squadron really push the envelope and doing things in his committee that we wanted to see every committee do. So it's possible they would have gone further, but the fact of the matter is, in the end, the Republicans actually passed rules changes and the Democrats didn't pass anything."
The rules reform that the Republicans did is a great start. But more (as always) needs to be done. It seems that Albany is always willing to take baby steps even when it's time to be an adult and take responsibility for past indiscretions and change your ways completely. We don't need baby steps anymore. We need revolutionary changes that will change the three men in a room ways of Albany. While these reforms are a great starting point (although, I think we have had many starting points over the years), we still have a lot of work to do before we achieve full rules reform.
The state Republican Party held a tech seminar today that was "dedicated to ensuring Republican elected officials and campaigns from around the state are educated and trained in the latest cutting-edge technologies available."
Some 100 Republican county chairs, operatives, and past and future candidates for elected office are gathered in Albany today to attend the state GOP's first-ever "Politics Online Seminar," an event designed to help train party members in "the latest cutting-edge" political technologies.
According to Niagara County GOP Chairman Henry Wojtaszek, who organized the seminar at state Party Chairman Joe Mondello's request, this includes tools that have come to be considered fairly standard in political circles - things like Twitter and Facebook, for example.
The fact that this is the first time the New York Republicans have ever held an event like this underscores just how far behind the eight ball they are in this realm, particularly when you consider how tech-savvy the Democrats have become.
I'm sorry, but if you consider Facebook the "latest cutting-edge political technologies" then you are definitely far behind. I have been a Facebook member since 2004. That is a full five years before the state Republican Party caught up with the rest of the world and decided that they wanted to talk about "the Google."
I can't say that the national Republicans are that far behind the Democrats, but Democrats all over the country have dominated the Internet this decade. In New York, the gap is wider. The Republicans lack a strong tech foundation. The number of pro-Republican blogs in New York is very low. That alone tells you the story of the state GOP's Internet operations.
In 2008, the blogosphere and Internet proved to be key at the state and national levels. In New York, the takeover of the New York State Senate by the Democrats was aided by a strong blogosphere and tech presence.
There is always room for improvement, however. I believe that the Democrats can widen the gap by including technology more and more. Whether that means Tweets from the Senate floor or Facebook groups for ALL Democratic senators and their respective campaigns (some of them already do this, but all of them should be), we can increase our lead on the Republicans by simply doing what we do best.
While the Republicans are still educating themselves on how to create an account on Facebook or learning what a blog is, we can better ourselves. Remember the saying "more and better Democrats?" Well, why not more and better tech savvy Democrats? It is possible and we can do it right here in New York.
Greider's reporting however exposed that even Stockman, doubted the fiscal prudence of Reaganomics. After the article's publication, Stockman absorbed public humiliation when President Reagan took him "to the woodshed." I trace that article as a seminal moment in my own political awareness.
Here is a statement from Sen. Malcolm Smith on the release of the budget:
"We applaud the Governor for putting together an honest and courageous Executive Budget. Senate Democrats intend to thoroughly review its proposals and discuss them within our conference. From the Upstate counties to the suburbs of Long Island, Senate Democrats will help lead our state out of the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, by funding a fair budget that will allow us to reduce spending without severely impairing the state's ability to provide essential services. Times are tough and so are the choices we have to make, but any cuts must reflect the principle of shared sacrifice among all sectors as we work together to return our state to fiscal solvency," said Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm A. Smith.
That is a very diplomatic statement. Obviously, the Legislature will have its own opinion of how these cuts will factor into the final budget. But Paterson's budget is a starting point. Hopefully the finish is a lot better than the product is now.
Liz is reporting that following a long meeting today, the New York State Senate Democrats will be behind Sen. Smith and support him for majority leader come January. In fact, Smith seems very confident that he will be in that role and have 32 members in his corner January 1.
Following a roughly two-hour meeting in which about two dozen of the 32 Senate Democrats participated, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith emerged from 250 Broadway and confidently declared to reporters:
"I want to be real clear about the fact that despite the rumors, the members (are) very united, and we're going to move forward with the majority come January. We will have 32 come January."
When pressed by NY1's Josh Robin about how he plans to get to the magic 32 votes necessary to be elected majority leader (and maybe also temporary president of the Senate) on Jan. 7, Smith replied:
"We have 32. We've got 29 members now, we'll have 32 by January."
What that means exactly remains to be seen. Does that mean that a deal could be made (again) with the "Gang of Three"? Or does it mean that a few Republicans might join in supporting Sen. Smith?
It's tough to say because members of the "Gang of Three" seemed to indicate that they had suspended their support of Sen. Smith because of the deal that was, according to the three "Gang" members, reneged upon by Smith.
What appears to be clear is that there won't be a coup attempt, at least for now. Smith will have the support of the caucus he has at this point, which totals 29 members, including himself. He needs three more. Where he gets those three will be fun to watch over the next few weeks.
Let me also add that the Senate Democrats should make up their minds. Rumors like the ones today about a coup attempt do not help the cause, no matter who started them or originated from. The Senate Democrats should decide now whether they want Malcolm Smith as the leader (it seems they did that today) and what kinds of deals they are willing to make to ensure that come January 1, they are sitting in the majority.
This is too important to screw up. I would like to see a Democratic senate in January. I do not, however, want to see a Democratic senate that reached that point by caving to three pseudo-Democrats who voted for Smith because he gave them some goodies. That's not how this majority should be achieved. We need to stay true to our principles.
After the failed "Gang of Three" deal (which I am glad failed), there were a lot of questions about the leadership of Sen. Malcolm Smith. As I said in a previous post, he came off as two-faced. He made a deal with the "Gang of Three", which The New York Times has obtained a copy of. That deal fell apart once Smith went back to his caucus and realized that they were more than a little angry with the deal that gave away the store to three members of the conference.
Because of his failures, Sen. Jeff Klein is reportedly working the phones and seeing if he can garner enough support to overthrow Smith and become majority leader.
State Senate Democrats plan to meet privately Friday amid talk of a possible coup attempt against leader Malcolm Smith.
Sources said Bronx Sen. Jeff Klein, Smith's deputy, has been working the phone in hopes of winning support to become Senate majority leader next month.
...
One of the dissident Democrats, Pedro Espada, said Thursday he spoke with Klein and could work with him as leader.
"I'm very comfortable with Jeff Klein," Espada said. "If he'd be the choice, I think it would be a smart choice."
One senator loyal to Smith said he was aware Klein was making calls, but downplayed the chances of success. "I think Malcolm will do what he has to do to make sure his position is secure," the senator said. "People are mistaking frustration in the conference with a desire for change."
Sen. Diane Savino, a Staten Island Democrat close to Klein, denied there was a coup attempt, saying, "Don't mistake members consulting with each about their frustration with head counting."
This was bound to happen and to be honest, might need to happen if the Senate Democrats don't want to sit it out with Smith as their leader. If they want the majority, chances are they need someone else to step up and be their leader. Klein would make sense and depending on how well this coup attempt is received, might be in line to become majority leader.
