NY-Sen: Siena Poll Shows Gillibrand Improving In General Election Contests

by: robert.harding

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:10:45 PM EST

The Siena poll found the following:

- Gillibrand's favorable rating is 31 percent, which is a decrease from last month's 34 percent rating but still keeps her above 30 percent. Her unfavorable rating is 22 percent - the lowest it has been since August. Those who don't know or have no opinion come in at 47 percent and while that still is a lot of ground to cover, it is still below 50 percent of the respondents.

- Bill Thompson's favorable is lower than Gillibrand's. He comes in at 25 percent and his unfavorable rating is 17 percent. There are 58 percent of respondents who don't know him or have no opinion of him, so he's behind Gillibrand in that respect.

- In a primary featuring Gillibrand, Thompson, Harold Ford Jr. and Jonathan Tasini, Gillibrand wins with 32 percent of the vote. Thompson is second with 23 percent, Ford nets seven percent of the vote and Tasini is last with three percent. That part of the poll makes it clear that, at least today, Gillibrand is the top of the Democratic crop of candidates. She is the strongest of any of them.

- In head-to-head matchups with with Gillibrand and two top Republican candidates, Gillibrand fares well. While she would lose to Rudy Giuliani 49 percent to 42 percent, she would defeat George Pataki 46 percent to 43 percent.

The Gillibrand-Giuliani matchup is especially good for Gillibrand since in October, she was 17 points behind Giuliani. Now, she only trails by seven points 11 months out from the general election and nine months out of the primary.

- Giuliani and Pataki both have favorable ratings over 50 percent (Giuliani is at 58 percent while Pataki enjoys a 53 percent favorable rating) but neither get over 50 percent against Gillibrand.

Gillibrand has plenty of work to do to make herself a favorite for the general election next year. But one thing is becoming clear. She is the option for Democrats next year. If she can do this well in a poll against Thompson, who is coming off a battle for mayor in New York City (a place where Gillibrand hasn't run a full-blown campaign as of yet) then that is a good sign for her.

Another good sign is beating out Pataki. She was ahead of Pataki by one percentage point in the last Siena poll so increasing that lead to three points is a good sign that more and more voters see her as a better candidate than Pataki. Of course, Pataki doesn't want to run for Senate, but considering his name recognition (he was governor for 12 years), beating him in a poll isn't a bad thing.  

SD-1: Meet Regina Calcaterra, Candidate For New York State Senate

by: robert.harding

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:52:59 PM EST

This fight for the Senate will have many battlegrounds and one of those battlegrounds will be Long Island. And for Regina Calcaterra, the 1st Senate District will be one district where the incumbent will face a serious challenge.

Calcaterra is a corporate fraud lawyer who has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including the fraud cases involving Merrill Lynch and WorldCom. She has protected the pensions of employees whose futures are threatened by the fraudulent actions of Wall Street.

She also is the Democratic candidate challenging Republican Senator Kenneth LaValle in the 1st Senate District.

"In 2008, there was only one candidate on the ballot for the state Senate's First District - a 32-year incumbent who had experienced only nominal opposition during his entire tenure," Calcaterra said. "With so much at stake in state government, and with growing dysfunction in the Legislature, I decided to run for the seat in next year's election."

Calcaterra's childhood is, in itself, a profile in courage. She experienced homelessness and poverty growing up and credits a certain group of people with making her the person she is today.

"Through the help of very hard-working people in government - teachers, social workers, librarians, police officers and even crossing guards - we got through it," she said. "They inspired me to take the path that got me here today, through public school, college and law school, and convinced me that government can absolutely do a better job than we see today."

Calcaterra took time to answer questions submitted via e-mail about her candidacy, where she stands on important issues and provided a general idea of what her platform will look like.

QUESTION: You make it a point on your website to list "Prosecuting Wall Street, Protecting Main Street" as, if I may presume, a priority. As it pertains to your district, why is protecting Main Street a high priority while ensuring that Wall Street is regulated?

CALCATERRA: Our current economic downturn might have been avoided had regulators been more vigilant and those on Wall Street were held to higher standards of transparency and honesty. Big companies like WorldCom and AIG took investment dollars from the pensions of hard working people like cops, firefighters, teachers and other civil servants. My job as a corporate fraud lawyer is to fight to get that money back so those hard-working people or taxpayers aren't out hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars. I have done this effectively on behalf of retirees and New York's taxpayers.

It shouldn't stop there, though. We've learned many lessons from what happened on Wall Street to cause the economic meltdown and a lot of it can be applied to Albany. Quarterly agency and authority budget reporting, certified audited year end agency financial statements, investigations that include legislative subpoena power, and agency head accountability can get government to work effectively again for everyone.

Q: After the defeat of marriage equality, you appeared at a pro-marriage equality rally. Your opponent, Senator LaValle, voted against the bill along with the whole Republican conference. Is it safe to say that you would be a "yes" vote for marriage equality? Why do you support marriage equality?

CALCATERRA: I will vote for marriage equality without hesitation. I do not believe in "separate but equal" treatment of any group in society, as Sen. LaValle proposed with favoring civil unions over legal marriage. I also believe we should not discriminate against families - - any families, any children - - for the reasons marriage equality opponents like Sen. LaValle suggest.

Q: Property tax reform has been an issue in the past that is still largely unsettled. Governor Paterson and other advocates have supported a property tax cap that would cap taxes at a certain percentage rate. Others have supported a circuit breaker, which would set your tax rate based on the money you make. Do you support either of those proposals or do you have other ideas for property tax reform?

CALCATERRA: Long Island has a deep problem with property taxes that can't be solved overnight. A major step toward fixing high property taxes has been taken by allowing voters the option of consolidating local government and getting rid of some unnecessary special benefit (and tax) districts at the local level. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo proposed that legislation last year, the Legislature passed it and Gov. Paterson signed it into law. It is unfortunate that Sen. LaValle voted against this measure; the first step toward reducing property taxes is reducing waste and redundancy in local government. Residents now have that opportunity in spite of Sen. LaValle's opposition.

If these efficiency and consolidation measures do not address the problems in the near term, a property tax cap should be part of the discussion. However taxpayers must be assured that schools and localities would receive adequate funding so it does not have the effect of forcing school districts to fire teachers, or municipalities to lay off law enforcement officers.

The ultimate tax cap is the voters' ability to hire new legislators who will force government to be efficient and effective.

Read more from Calcaterra about reform and analysis below the fold.

ON THE WEB:

Regina Calcaterra's Campaign Website

Regina Calcaterra's ActBlue Page

NY-Gov: I Endorse Emil Henry Jr. To Be The GOP Candidate For Governor

by: robert.harding

Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 13:37:02 PM EST

Emil Henry, Jr., a former assistant Treasury secretary under George W. Bush and executive at Lehman Brothers, has been in discussions with state Republican officials about the possibility of running for governor next year, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.

In July 2007, Henry was brought on board and served as managing director for Lehman Brothers. Prior to that, Henry was Assistant US Treasury Secretary for Financial Institutions. Over a year later came the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

Just who I want running an already broken state budget process.

Nice work, Ed Cox.

FLASHBACK: NY-23: NRCC Attacks Hoffman; Lacks "Cross Party Appeal"

by: robert.harding

Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 17:53:01 PM EDT

Here is part of the statement (H/T to TPM):

"With Assemblywoman Scozzafava suspending her campaign, we urge voters to support Doug Hoffman's candidacy in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

"He is the only active candidate in the race who supports lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and opposes Nancy Pelosi's agenda of government-run healthcare, more government and less jobs.

"We look forward to welcoming Doug Hoffman into the House Republican Conference as we work together for the good of our nation."

But this is a different tune that the Republicans are singing. It wasn't long ago that they were defending Scozzafava and attacking Hoffman, saying he lacked "integrity" and "cross party appeal" to win.

Here are some quotes from the NRCC giving their assessment of Hoffman:

"Fortunately, the local Republican county chairs had the foresight to see that Doug Hoffman lacked the integrity and qualities needed to be elected to anything - let alone Congress," Lindsay added. [The Hill, 9/28/09]

The national GOP acknowledges Hoffman and his moneyed supporters make their job harder, but they emphasize Scozzafava is still the favorite.

Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Hoffman's political calculus doesn't add up.

"We're pleased that the Republican county chairs in New York had the foresight to not even consider Hoffman among the final three candidates, and the Washington-based endorsements and misleading political ads that are meant for his benefit will ultimately backfire on his futile sour-grapes campaign," Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/03/09]

The National Republican Congressional Committee bristles at Mr. Hoffman's campaign, with a spokesman arguing that he's "running a smoke-and-mirrors campaign that has absolutely no path to victory and is based entirely on Washington-based endorsements that carry no weight among voters in central and northern New York."

NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said Mr. Hoffman doesn't even technically live in the district and also said Mr. Hoffman had promised to back the Republican candidate before withdrawing that support and deciding to run.

"At the end of the day, we could not be more pleased that Dede is the only candidate who possesses the principles and cross-party appeal that is needed to win in this swing district," Mr. Lindsay added. [Washington Times, 10/06/09]

"There is still a path to victory, and we will continue to support [Scozzafava]," NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay said. [The Hill, 10/26/09]

Some conservatives support Scozzafava, insisting that a one-size-fits-all strategy isn't a good approach to districts such as New York 23.

"Outside endorsements will not change the fact that she's the only candidate with the cross party appeal that can win this swing district," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. McClatchy, 10/30/09

Amazing what one day will do to the NRCC's approach. One day they are backing their candidate saying she can still win while standing by their past opinions of Hoffman and the next day, they are already welcoming Hoffman to the House GOP conference.

NY-23: How's This For Timing: Scozzafava Gets Gingrich's Endorsement (And RNC Money)

by: robert.harding

Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:07:51 AM EDT

The NRCC, instead of posting stories calling their nominee "liberal" or posting stories linking their candidate to ACORN (falsely, but tying their candidate to the group nonetheless), decided to publicize former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's endorsement of Scozzafava.

"The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections," Gingrich said in a statement to supporters. "Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava."

Then comes the news that the Republican National Committee will give $85,000 to the campaign and an additional six-figure sum to the state GOP to help Scozzafava. Prior to these contributions, the RNC had not given anything.

There are conservatives who don't want anything to do with Scozzafava. But Republican Party leaders don't want to come off as abandoning their candidate. The problem, of course, is that the conservatives in the party are questioning why the party is backing someone who is pro-choice, pro-equality and closer to the middle than most of the party's current leadership.

It has been said that this race is a referendum on President Barack Obama. I actually think it is the opposite. It is a referendum on the Republican Party.

In NY-20, Republicans put up a fairly well known candidate (Assemblyman Jim Tedisco) who was, at the time, minority leader of the Assembly. His opponent was Scott Murphy, someone who had never served in elected office and had to build up a profile to be considered a serious candidate. With hard work, Murphy won.

There is a similar situation brewing in NY-23, although we aren't going to count our chickens before they hatch. An elected official, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is running on the Republican and the Democrats put up another non-elected official in businessman Bill Owens. Scozzafava's support has been questionable and Owens has taken advantage of the conservative revolt and built up a lead in this race.

This isn't about Obama. This is about the Republicans. They have work to do and they are throwing their candidate under the bus.

Sirota Discusses The WFP And How They Scare Both Major Parties

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 20:49:35 PM EDT

Earlier today, Sirota talked about how the WFP has become a power in New York politics and also about how the Democratic and Republican parties fear the so-called "minor" party.

According to the New York Times, the most recent election proves that the Working Families Party "is now the pre-eminent political force in New York City politics." The WFP has achieved this status not through the usual celebritized/glamorized channels of big money television ads and endorsements, but through old-fashioned grassroots work that too much of the much-ballyhooed Washinton-based progressive "infrastructure" ignores/laughs at. The result is that not only have they built power, but they've built durable power - and that scares the bejesus out of both major parties in the Empire State.

As I showed in my latest book, conservatives, led by Rudy Giuliani, have long vilified the WFP. But a few has-been washouts in the old Democratic machine are freaking out as well. What's so hilarious, of course, is that because these washouts are so overcome with rage, they've forgotten some of the most basic lessons of Economics 101. Specifically, check out this op-ed by former New York Mayor Ed Koch (who endorsed George W. Bush) and former city comptroller candidate David Yassky (whose candidacy just got crushed by the WFP's candidate) using McCarthyist "threat" language - and more specifically, check out the crux of their argument about why the WFP is supposedly a "threat":

   "We see danger when narrow agendas overwhelm the public good. That happened this spring in Albany, when the WFP masterminded a whopping 9% increase in state spending in a year when the state's economy is actually contracting."

The danger? Really? I mean...really? Are you out of your friggin' mind?

Sirota concludes his piece by giving this summary of what the attacks on the WFP mean:

Indeed, being attacked - and in particular, being attacked so dishonestly and spastically in such hysterically McCarthyist terms - is the tell tale sign that something has built the kind of genuine power that is feared by the status quo. That's what the WFP has done - and it should serve as a model and inspiration to all of us working in progressive politics.

To add onto what Sirota said, other aspects of the WFP that are different from the major parties include their focus on certain issues. Take, for example, the push for Green Jobs legislation. The WFP was at the forefront, but they shared in the glory with the Democrats who saw the Green Jobs bill pass the Assembly unanimously and pass the Senate overwhelmingly. They worked hard and the bill passed, even though some Republicans tried to take jabs at the WFP in the process.

This is why the major parties (in particular the Democratic Party) finds it so difficult to pass huge legislation like health care reform. The Democratic Party wants health care reform, but for the party, there is not an individual proposal that they want to see passed. They have the "big tent" and welcome all ideas, which is great, but leads to a stalemate.

The WFP has made it clear: They want health care for all. They created a campaign outlining their 10 standards for reform. You won't see the Democrats (or Republicans) doing anything like that.

The Working Families Party is more than just a political party. They are a think-tank and policy-based party that isn't afraid to address major (or minor) issues.

And that's why they scare the major parties. They have had a lot of legislative success, especially here in New York. That's not something you see from a minor party anywhere. But thanks to fusion voting and a strong infrastructure at the WFP, we have such an institution here in New York.  

NY-19: FEC Complaint Against Republican Ball

by: robert.harding

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:05:25 AM EDT

You can read the complaint here.

The complaint alleges the following:

- On June 5, 2009, Ball's "Congressional Exploratory Committee" hosted a golf outing at Hudson Hills Golf Course and Murphy's Restaurant. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that. But according to the complaint, Ball's committee solicited and accepted corporate contributions for a fundraising auction, which is illegal.

From the complaint:

10. On or about May 1, 2009, Jacqueline Ambrosino, a Ball representative, sent an email to a distribution list soliciting donations for the silent auctions. See Exhibit A. "We are looking for tickets to sporting events, televisions, gift certificates to restaurants and services (such as legal and accounting services), foursomes for other golf courses, trips, plane tickets, spa gift certificates, televisions, just to name a few ..."  Exhibit A.

11. The May 1, 2009, email expressly asked for corporate contributions: "You can reach out to your network and try to get donations from both businesses and people.  Exhibit A (emphasis supplied).  

"When working with a business, you can emphasize the foot traffic that will be generated by having their name featured at our event and in a brochure to be handed out to everyone that attends."  Exhibit A (emphasis supplied).

- The complaint also alleges that Ball's committee accepted corporate sponsorships and sought "excessive contributions" for an event.

Again, from the complaint:

12. On or about July 25, 2009, Ball's campaign sponsored a "Rockin' Rib Fest & Battle of the Bands."  Exhibit B.

13. The July 25, 2009, event was "sponsored" by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association.  Exhibit B.  On information and belief, both entities are corporations.

14. The Ball campaign sought additional "sponsorships" in connection with the July 25, 2009, event, including a "VIP Congressional Tent Sponsorship" priced at $2,900 - $500 in excess of the federal contribution limit.  Exhibit B.  Other Ball event solicitations have shown similar indifference to the $2,400 limit. See, e.g., http://www.ballforcongress.com... (Exhibit C) (asking for $2,500 and $4,800 contributions, without regard to the per-election limit).

It should also be clear that the event in question on July 25 was not "sponsored" (that's why it is in quotes and not stated as fact) by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association or the NRA.

From Mark Hoops, who is a member of the New York Democratic Lawyers Council:

As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and a member both of the NYSRPA and the NRA, I want to point out that Greg Ball's campaign committee distributed fliers which CLAIMED sponsorship by these entities, but in fact, Tom King---President of NYSRPA--- had no idea that Ball's campaign was going to make this claim. The NRA and the NYSRPA are both 501 (c) 3 organizations, and as such are PROHIBITED from endorsing candidates for election. The NYSRPA has a subsidiary, the Political Victory Fund (PVF) which DOES endorse candidates, but it is not incorporated integrally with NYSRPA. Likewise, the NRA-PVF endorses, but these are NOT the organizations advertised as "sponsoring" the July 25th event. (He also claimed that Senator Vincent Leibell was a sponsor---uh, no he wasn't.) The NRA and NYSRPA will not like the specter of seeming to have expressly endorsed a political candidate...they do not break the law. Ball did.

- The complaint also alleges illegal robocalls that were paid for by the Ball committee but not attributed to his committee and did not include who authorized the call. Federal laws require calls of that magnitude to include who paid for the call and to say that it was authorized by the candidate.

19. Ball's July 15 Quarterly Report discloses an in-kind contribution made on June 29, 2009, by Brian Callaghan in the form of "Automated Calls."  Exhibit E.

20. On or about June 29, 2009, an automated call featuring Ball was distributed to voters in the 19th Congressional District.  The call contained no statement indicating who had paid for the call, or whether Ball had authorized it. See Exhibit F.

- The last allegation is that Ball transferred money from his Assembly campaign committee to his congressional committee, a big no-no since you can't use non-federal monies for a federal race. To date, there have been two filings for Ball4NY, Ball's committee. Nowhere does it show payment for these items for the use of resources from his nonfederal campaign and his official New York State Assembly office.

17. Ball's federal campaign has made and is making repeated use of photos, videos and other assets from his nonfederal campaign and/or his official New York Assembly office.  
See, e.g., http://www.ballforcongress.com... (Exhibit D). Ball's filings to date with the Federal Election Commission show no payment to his Assembly campaign, nor to the State of New York, for the use of these photos

Gary Levine, the man who has brought the FEC complaint against Ball, had this to say to me when I inquired about the complaint:

The reason for the complaint was because Assemblyman Ball violated FEC laws. If he wants to play politics he should play by the established rules and he didn't. Whether it was flagrant or unintentional it does not matter. Either way it is a violation and it does not bode well for the Assemblyman, his campaign or his current constituents.

The charges here are pretty serious. Some of these charges revolve around things that are basic. His committee should know the FEC guidelines and that there are limits on contributions. Setting $2,900 contribution levels just comes off as lazy (or intentional) to me. It's clear that either they were ignorant in regard to the rules, or they intended on trying to get by without anyone noticing. That's tough in politics, since everyone is watching.  

NY-23: Scozzafava's Record At A Glance

by: robert.harding

Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 09:48:35 AM EDT

Last night, Markos wrote that Republican Dede Scozzafava was "the most liberal candidate" in the 23rd congressional district race.

This doesn't surprise. A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call "liberal" and some progressives like Markos have called a "Blue Dog."

After reading Markos' post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his "liberal" labeling of Scozzafava.  

NY-Gov: If Lazio Is The GOP Nominee, Paterson Can Run... And Win

by: robert.harding

Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 00:15:01 AM EDT

The only candidate Paterson beats? Republican Rick Lazio, who has declared his candidacy for governor.

Steve over at Daily Kos has this analysis on the New York gubernatorial race:

NY-Gov: Is Romney Tipping Rudy's Hand?
There are a couple of different ways to read into this nugget of news out of the Empire State: apparently, 2008 GOP presidential contender (and, to many, the 2012 favorite) Mitt Romney will be heading to New York in three weeks to host a fundraiser for 2010 gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio. This could be seen as a sign that Giuliani is going to eventually demur from seeking the governorship, since Romney would be unlikely to expend a lot of political capital on a candidate who polls show would have little chance of winning the GOP nomination against Giuliani. This could also be a sign that there were some seriously hard feelings about the 2008 presidential race, and Romney feels like giving Rudy a little clip at the knees. It is worth noting that Lazio is a Romney friend, as well as an endorser of the former Massachusetts Governor's presidential campaign last year.

While I don't think Romney will have such an impact (if Giuliani decides not to run, it will be on his own, not because he isn't aligned with Romney or because Lazio is Romney's horse in this race), I do think if Giuliani were to take a pass and no other serious Republican challenger steps up to run, we could see Paterson give it a go in 2010.

For that to happen, Paterson will need some help.

- Giuliani would need to announce he isn't running OR Giuliani could run for U.S. Senate against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. That would take away the GOP's best candidate for the seat.

- Cuomo will have to pass on the Democratic primary. This is the least likely of the two. Cuomo's poll numbers show that he would win a primary. He is a very popular attorney general and would get a lot of support in a primary and general election. He is the biggest threat to Paterson.

- Lazio isn't the strongest of candidates, yet he is only within a few percentage points of Paterson. While it's too close for comfort, it's a race Paterson can win.

I don't think it's likely, but we could end up with a general election of Paterson versus Lazio. What a campaign that would be. Having a matchup like that would be like the Yankees and Red Sox losing their respective division series matchups and getting an ALCS featuring the Twins and Angels. Sure, it's still a championship, but it's not the best championship possible.  

NY-23: Scozzafava Leads In Siena Poll By Seven

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:00:26 PM EDT

Scozzafava comes in at 35 percent with Owens behind her at 28 percent. Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, who has been trying to tout himself as the conservative option to Scozzafava, stands at 16 percent.

Some of the other highlights of the poll include:

- The poll asked respondents who would be the best candidate on six different issues: The economy, health care, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, education, homeland security and bringing federal dollars to the district. Owens won or is tied with Scozzafava on five of the six issues. The only issue Owens lost to Scozzafava was the economy (25 percent to 23 percent, according to the poll). Those surveyed said that Owens would be best to address health care, the wars abroad and homeland security, while he tied with Scozzafava on education and bringing money to the district.

- An endorsement from former Congressman John McHugh might be helpful in the eyes of some voters. Of those surveyed, 40 percent said an endorsement from McHugh would make them more likely to support a candidate. Only seven percent said McHugh's endorsement would make them less likely to support a candidate.

Here are some other details from the press release:

Scozzafava leads Owens 53-23 percent, with 10 percent for Hoffman in the western North Country counties (Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence). Owens's largest lead is in the Central New York counties of Madison, Oneida and Oswego, 30 percent to 20 percent each for Scozzafava and Hoffman. The Democrat and Republican are virtually tied in the five counties of the eastern North Country (Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, and Hamilton), 32 percent for Owens, 31 percent for Scozzafava and 18 percent for Hoffman.

Scozzafava is viewed favorably by 33 percent of voters and unfavorably by 20 percent, with 47 percent not having an opinion. Owens has a 23-12 percent favorable rating, with 64 percent of voters undecided, while Hoffman has a 16-13 percent favorable rating, with 71 percent of voters undecided.

The good news for Owens is that he is still in this. He also has a good showing when it is broken up into issues. Being able to be trusted on certain issues is key and when voters trust you more than the Republican on most issues, that says a lot (even though he still trails in the overall poll).

Keep in mind that Owens has stayed out of the limelight for most of this. He has a few TV ads out, but he's let Scozzafava and Hoffman duke it out. That has its advantages. But he will need to get this party going if he plans on winning next month.

NY-1: Bishop A Republican Target For 2010

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 23:11:39 PM EDT

Congressman Tim Bishop will be a target for Republicans seeking to put a dent in the majority for Democrats in Congress and try to decrease the large number of Democrats in the New York congressional delegation.

The 1st congressional district does have a Republican enrollment advantage of about 27,000 voters. There are a large number of unregistered voters in the district, which balances things out.

Here are the numbers as of April 1:

DEMOCRATS: 141,030
REPUBLICANS: 168,718
INDEPENDENCE: 18,967
CONSERVATIVE: 12,576
WORKING FAMILIES: 2,070
GREEN: 1,060
LIBERTARIAN: 109
BLANK: 124,896
TOTAL: 469,426

Bishop won in 2008 with 58 percent of the vote. He won in 2006 with 62 percent of the vote. So Bishop isn't exactly vulnerable. Obama narrowly won the district with 51 percent of the vote in 2008, so perhaps that is why the Republicans are adding this seat to the list.

Obviously, defending Bishop will be a priority. We don't need any surprises. Yes, Bishop won his last race by 16 points. But we don't want to sit back and assume that will happen again. So defending NY-1 and keeping Bishop in office will be a priority.

NY-23: Hoffman Offered Support To Scozzafava Before Opposing Her

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:02:07 AM EDT

Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava's campaign passed along an e-mail to the Watertown Daily Times and in that e-mail was a message from Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman offering his support.

Jude Seymour from the Watertown Daily Times has the story:

Doug Hoffman pledged to help Dede Scozzafava in an e-mail sent two days after the Republican Party passed over the Lake Placid accountant for the nomination.

The e-mail, sent from Mr. Hoffman's business account on July 24 and provided by the Scozzafava campaign, states in full: "Hi Dede, Congratulations and the best of luck in your candidacy. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Doug."

...

I asked Mr. Hoffman today - through his spokesman - to explain why he told Ms. Scozzafava one thing and me another.

Here's the response I got from Rob Ryan, Mr. Hoffman's spokesman: "Like most Republicans, Doug Hoffman had no idea how liberal Dede Scozzafava is. The fact that Scozzafava has voted for higher taxes, increased spending and gay marriage proves she is way to liberal for the voters of upstate New York."

So Hoffman is one of two things: Either he is an opportunist who first promised support only to get backing from the Conservative Party in a run for Congress OR he really didn't know what Scozzafava was all about.

If it is the former, that wouldn't be surprising. It wouldn't be the first time a candidate saw an opening and realized that with the Conservative Party's help, he could run to the right of all candidates and try and rally the base for an upset victory.

But if it is the latter, it should raise questions about how just informed Hoffman is. He says he didn't realize just how "liberal" Scozzafava was and yet, she voted for the marriage equality bill in the Assembly back in 2007. Since Scozzafava has been labeled as "liberal" for only being pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, you would think that would have been a wake-up call for Hoffman. That's a vote everyone knows about, especially in political circles. He could have looked it up or he could have already know about it.

This whole battle has been all about ideology and nothing else. Hoffman, a fellow Republican, has gone after Scozzafava and labeled her as a liberal even though she isn't a full-blown liberal. Being left-of-center on two issues doesn't make her a liberal. Being left-of-center on ALL or MOST issues does.

NY-23: NRCC Posts Story Slamming Republican Candidate... Again

by: robert.harding

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 17:22:46 PM EDT

Today, the NRCC posted a this story from The Hill on their website. The piece describes Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, and his labeling of Republican candidate Scozzafava as "liberal."

Conservative Party special election candidate Doug Hoffman is up with an ad in the race for former Rep. John McHugh's (R-N.Y.) seat, and it takes square aim at the GOP nominee.

Hoffman, who has garnered plenty of attention as a little-'c' conservative alternative to centrist GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, uses the ad to push Scozzafava to the left.

The ad features a series of costumed characters and suggests Scozzafava is trying to hide her real ideology. The last costume features a suit and a Ronald Reagan mask.

"Pretending can't make you a Reagan Republican," the narrator says.

Look for Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens to continue to focus their message squarely on Scozzafava, who enters the race as the frontrunner.

The NRCC posted this story on their website. However, as you will notice if you follow the link, they have since taken the story down.

It makes you wonder where the NRCC stands. Do they support Scozzafava, who is the Republican in this race? Or do they support Hoffman because he is the conservative (ideology, not party) in the race?

It raises this question again: Do the Republicans support the Republican Party or do they support the conservative ideology? Would they rather go for ideology or the win for their party?

I know that there are progressive Democrats who would put their ideology first. But they would never put a Democrat in danger of losing to a Republican. The Republicans are throwing their candidate under the bus in the name of the conservative movement.

NY-23: Republican Scozzafava Attacked For Siding With "Radical Left"

by: robert.harding

Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 17:40:06 PM EDT

From Liz:

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party's candidate, was first out of the box with a press release that seeks to capitalize on the ACORN scandal by calling on his Republican opponent, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, to "explain her relationship with the radical left."

   "Dede Scozzafava claims to be a Republican, yet, time and again, she has run as a candidate of the radical left Working Families Party," Hoffman said.

   "The WFP is an organization that detests almost every principle the GOP stands for and with its sister organization, ACORN, has worked to radicalize the New York political scene."

   "I am calling Dede Scozzafava to disavow her relationship with the WFP, condemn ACORN for its actions and come clean on her and her husband's dealings with the two entities."

The release goes on to note that Scozzafava's husband, Ron McDougall, is an organizer for "Big Labor" (he's a union official).

Hoffman's campaign spokesman, Rob Ryan, helpfully forwarded over a list of contributions McDougall has made to the WFP - 64 of them since 2002, all but one of which are for $10. The one is for $50, bringing his grand total to: $690.

Here's the deal: This should be a clear example of how conservatives are different from Republicans. Do they go hand-in-hand most of the time? Yes. But this is a clear instance where the Republicans put up a fairly moderate candidate (Scozzafava is liberal on social issues, but other than that, I can't say she's progressive) and she gets attacked by the conservative (and Conservative Party) candidate in the race for being a member of the "radical left." Conservatives are using the same hate tactics Democrats have seen over and over again on Scozzafava.

Democratic candidate Bill Owens got some good news today when he was endorsed by Senator Darrel Aubertine. Aubertine's endorsement could be seen as a big one, considering his stature in the district. He was being talked about as the front-runner for the race should he run. He passed on the race, which opened the door for other candidates like Owens.

Republicans Booed Before Wilson Yelled "You Lie"

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 17:29:34 PM EDT

You can read the resolution here.

One of the defenses given is that, in 2005, Democrats booed President George W. Bush during the State of the Union. Here is the video of that:

I don't doubt that the Democrats booed Bush there. But one of the things that was overlooked with Congressman Wilson's "You Lie" shout was the fact that is was the Republicans who booed Obama:

I know I am young, but I have watched every State of the Union that I can remember from the Clinton years to now. Booing is not new to the State of the Union. I have heard both parties boo and I have heard both parties cheer.

Wilson could have solved this issue himself. All he had to do was apologize to the House - the institution he is in - for his actions. He chose not to. That is why this resolution is necessary.

After today, we can move on. I was not a fan of dwelling on Wilson's conduct, but this is where we are at. No one forced Wilson to say what he said. And no one prevented him from making an apology to the House.  

NY-23: Hoffman Internal Poll Has Scozzafava In Lead

by: robert.harding

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 19:37:15 PM EDT

The results of the poll showed that Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee, leads with 26 percent. The Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, netted 17 percent while Hoffman came in at 16 percent. When "lean" votes are factored in, Scozzafava gets 30 percent, Owens 20 percent and Hoffman 19 percent.

The poll also has a large group of undecideds at 31 percent. It covered 300 likely general election voters and had a margin of error of 5.7 percent.

This poll makes for a good NY-23 post, but nothing more. Based on some other information in the poll, you can tell what the goal was: To portray Hoffman as the conservative option to the "liberals" Owens and Scozzafava.

Here is an example:

All things being equal, based on the following descriptions for whom are you more likely to vote for U.S. Congress? If you will decide your vote on other issues just say so. A Democratic candidate who is pro-abortion and is supported by Nancy Pelosi, who supports gay marriage. A liberal Republican who is pro abortion and pro gay marriage, OR, A Conservative Republican who is running on the Conservative Party line, who is pro-life and pro traditional marriage.

The results of that question had 48 percent saying they supported the "Conservative Republican" choice (which is Hoffman without the question saying as much).

The intent of this poll was to do what Hoffman has been trying to do since being given the opportunity to run on the Conservative Party line. He is running as the conservative alternative to Scozzafava (and Owens, if that's possible). He has labeled his two opponents as "liberals", which is an interesting approach. He labels Owens as a supporter of gay marriage even though he does not support gay marriage (he supports civil unions, but does not support full marriage equality due to religious reasons) and tries to separate himself from Scozzafava on the same social issues.

Obviously, this poll is nothing more than a way for Hoffman to get more support. It's not something I would take too seriously.  

NY-23: Early Look At Race For 23rd Congressional District Seat

by: robert.harding

Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 21:18:37 PM EDT

On the Democratic side, Bill Owens is an independent who was selected by the 11 county Democratic chairs to run for the seat that will be vacated by Rep. John McHugh, who is leaving to become the Secretary of the Army in President Barack Obama's administration.

The Republicans picked Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, a pro-choice and pro-marriage equality candidate who is known as a bit of a maverick in Republican circles.

In response to the Republicans' choice, the Conservative Party has nominated Doug Hoffman to run on their line as the conservative candidate in the race. The Conservative Party, which is known for putting social issues at the forefront of their selection process, decided against endorsing Scozzafava because of her social liberal views.

There are those who are wondering why the Democrats picked a moderate independent to run. The reason is that you aren't going to win NY-23 with someone who is a staunch progressive. Scozzafava, while being a social liberal, isn't liberal on too much else. She, like the man she wants to succeed, is fairly moderate and will vote with the Republicans most of the time. Owens, the Democratic choice, makes it known that he is a moderate and doesn't deviate from that.

The enrollment in the district shows you what we are looking at in terms of voters:

23rd Congressional District Enrollment
DEM	REP	IND	CON	WFP	GRE	LIB	SWP	BLK	TOTAL
120,887	167,272	19,619	5,561	1,482	911	77	3	76,194	392,006

The reality is that you aren't going to win NY-23 with a staunch progressive or a staunch conservative. McHugh has served the district well and is known as a moderate. That is why he was such a tough election foe. In order to serve the district, you have to be able to balance yourself.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

- People have pointed out that Owens is to the right of Scozzafava on marriage equality. That's true, but he isn't to the right on the issue. He is actually in the middle, arguing that his religious beliefs prevent him from being a supporter, but does believe that equal rights are important. The conservative in the race, Hoffman, is opposed to marriage equality altogether. If you had to pick from Owens or Hoffman, which would you rather have? Also, I would like to hear Owens on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and whether or not he would support other key LGBT legislation. As a friend reminded me, a certain high-profile Democrat held a very similar view of marriage equality that Owens does. We just happened to elect that Democrat our president.

- Scozzafava will be tough, especially when it comes to getting the minor party lines. She has already secured the Independence Party line and will also be in the running for the Working Families Party line. Owens might be able to secure the WFP line, but that will be up to the party to decide.

- Hoffman won't win, but he will play spoiler. The conservatives (and Conservative Party) will try and make this about social issues. With Owens and Scozzafava both pro-choice and Scozzafava pro-marriage equality, the Conservative Party will seek to steal votes that may have been headed in Scozzafava's direction.

While voter turnout for this special election might not be high for a congressional race, it's not your typical special election. If everything falls into place, the election will take place on Election Day 2009. That means down-ticket races (county legislature, town board, mayoral races, etc.) could benefit from having a high-profile race on the ballot. Voter turnout won't be at record levels, but it shouldn't be as bad as some are assuming it will be.

Is Owens a progressive candidate? No. But the Democratic chairs weren't looking for a progressive candidate. They were looking for someone who fit the district. There will be people who question why Democrats would pick an independent to run on their line. It is a good question to ask, but the decision was apparently a unanimous one and a decision that was supported by the DCCC.

There is a lot more to learn about these candidates. That I will say. There has been a lot of reactionary comments made about Scozzafava's pro-choice and pro-marriage equality stances as if those positions alone make you a progressive. That only makes her progressive on those issues.

The election is still a few months away, but it sure will have the attention of New Yorkers. A lot will be on the line. There is a lot of work to be done. So let's get to work.

NY-23: Democrats Pick Bill Owens To Run For Seat Vacated By McHugh

by: robert.harding

Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 21:27:49 PM EDT

The nomination of Rep. John McHugh to serve as Secretary of the Army - a move that is being blocked by a couple of Republican senators along with other appointments - has opened the 23rd congressional district up and the race is underway. And with the Republicans and Conservatives putting up separate candidates, this is a race that we can win.

After gathering today in the North Country, the 11 county chairs have selected Bill Owens to run on the Democratic line. This has been confirmed by Oswego Democrat, who was on the scene and waited for the decision to come down.

Owens entered the fray a few weeks ago and made it known he was interested. He acknowledges that he is an independent, but he has distanced himself from Republican thinking.

Owens was a favorite of the DCCC's and it's easy to see why. Owens is an independent voice and will be able to appeal to voters on all sides in the district. That can't be said of the Republican candidate (Dede Scozzafava) or the Conservative candidate (Doug Hoffman).

Here's some more from the Press-Republican on Owens:

The longtime attorney has been with the law firm of Stafford, Owens, Curtin & Trombley PLLC, the firm of former State Sen. Ronald B. Stafford, an icon in the Republican Party.

"I've been an independent since I was 18," Owens said.

"People who think I was a Republican all these years don't know me well enough."

Owens has also served as a host on Mountain Lake Public Television news shows.

He said he wants to join Congress so he can fight for the people of the North Country.

"I think it is time that we get people in Congress who are going to look out for the people in their districts," he said.

"The deficit, jobs, health care, these are the issues that are on people's minds."

While I agree with Scozzafava on issues like marriage equality and abortion, I can't see myself agreeing with her on much else. She is, after all, a Republican. She will need to appeal to the base and if the NRCC sees this race as another attempt at trying to crack President Barack Obama's armor.

But without the Conservative Party line, it will be tough. That will take votes away, especially if Doug Hoffman makes an issue of Scozzafava's stances on marriage equality and abortion.

That is where Owens comes in. He is a voice for independence and he will provide voters with a clear choice. Yes, he's running on the Democratic line. But he provides voters with an option: Either you can support the politics of the past or you can vote in favor of change and balance.

Five Ideas To Fix The New York State Senate (And The Legislature)

by: robert.harding

Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:29:00 AM EDT

I have had a lot of time to think about possible changes to the New York State Senate. I am opposed to the idea of a unicameral legislature, but I'm not opposed to the guiding principle behind that suggestion: Permanent reform.

It is easy to make suggestions that are band-aids or short-term fixes. But it is much harder to make recommendations for changes that will have lasting effects.

(1) Decrease number of standing committees in the Senate: There are 32 standing committees in the New York State Senate - a very large number considering the United States Senate has 16 standing committees. Each committee allows the chair to get a "lu-lu" for their role as head of said committee. Some of these committees, in the past, have hardly met enough to justify such a stipend. Reducing the number of committees will mean that not everyone in the caucus gets a committee chair (and the extra money) but that only the best and brightest leaders will get to head these committees.

(2) Reduce the number of leadership posts: A majority of the 62 senators - 34 - have a leadership position in the New York State Senate. Like the committee chair positions, these leadership posts also come with a stipend. The fact that there are so many leadership posts devalues the idea of leadership. Much like the high number of committees devalues the opportunity to head a committee, it is necessary to decrease the number of leadership posts so that leadership isn't something that everyone can make money off, but rather serves as a reward for those who are real leaders and have proven that they can lead in their respective caucus.

(3) Equal distribution of member item money: The idea of member items is a good thing. Allowing a senator to secure funds for their respective district is a common practice, but in the case of the New York State Senate, it is also used as a political tool. What better way to ensure your re-election than by giving to your local Little League organization or by giving hoards of cash to a number of different groups. For 2009-10, Senate Democrats will get 9.3 times the number of members items than their Republican counterparts. There is a problem with that. Reforms that were put forth would allow the minority one-third of all member items, but that's hardly reform. It's better than the current system, but giving senators an equal number of member items would allow all 62 senate districts to benefit instead of just the ones where the majority party is representing them.

(4) Expanding from a six-month session to a year-round session: Obviously, with a "year-round" session there would be recesses and breaks, but it would also enable the New York State Senate (and the Legislature, since this reform would apply to both houses) to take up the important issues of the state on a regular basis and not just for the first six months out of the year. This would allow for committees to become more relevant considering they have more time to meet and to take up key legislation.

(5) Make legislators full-time: If we elect legislators to go to Albany to serve us, they should focus all of their attention on representing our concerns. Giving them the opportunity to continue full-time employment while being part-time legislators (and yet, make full-time salaries as legislators) doesn't allow them to do their jobs to the best of their ability. This obviously ties in with number four and would see legislators working year-round instead of half the year.

Some of these ideas aren't new, but they deserve to be emphasized as ways to address the problems in the state capital. Committee reform is something a lot of people talk about, but we need more reforms than that. The number of committees we have are unnecessary. We could merge some of these committees and cut back on the number of committees to make them more efficient. It would also be important to decrease the number of leadership positions (including committee chair posts) to increase the importance of leadership in the Senate chamber.

Arguably the most important reform I propose here is balancing the current member item system. The member item system that both sides have used to help their re-election efforts if flawed. The "reforms" proposed that would allow the minority one-third of member item money is laughable. That's not reform. That's allowing the current system to continue. Member item money is taxpayer money. It shouldn't be used as a way for a member of the Assembly or senator to campaign.

Reforming Albany is on the minds of many. But we don't need to take baby steps any longer. We need to take giant leaps. Albany is known for being dysfunctional and that label will not be eased unless we do something about it. Full-scale reforms are needed and it will take reformers to reach those objectives.

There is a lot we can focus on moving forward. We need a grassroots movement to make reforms. We won't need billionaires to do it. We won't need political parties to do it. What we need is a large group of progressives to come together and push for reforms.  

Sotomayor 1998 Versus Sotomayor 2009

by: robert.harding

Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:19:13 AM EDT

The interesting part of the vote was how closely it resembled Sotomayor's 1998 confirmation vote to become a member of the U.S. 2nd District Circuit Court. That vote was 67 to 29, with all 29 nay votes being cast by Republicans.

In 1998, these Republicans supported Sotomayor's appointment to the Circuit Court.

Bennett (R-UT), Campbell (R-CO), Chafee (R-RI), Coats (R-IN), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), D'Amato (R-NY), DeWine (R-OH), Domenici (R-NM), Frist (R-TN), Grams (R-MN), Gregg (R-NH), Hatch (R-UT), Helms (R-NC), Jeffords (R-VT), Lugar (R-IN), Mack (R-FL), Murkowski (R-AK), Roth (R-DE), Santorum (R-PA), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Warner (R-VA)

Since 1998, some of these senators are no longer in office. But of the remaining senators from this list that voted for Sotomayor in 1998, these are the senators that supported Sotomayor:

- Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
- Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

(Note: Because of Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, I didn't count him as one of the Republican votes.)

In 2009, the 68 to 31 vote to confirm Sotomayor was not as bi-partisan. In 1998, Sotomayor was backed by 25 Republicans. On Thursday, Sotomayor was backed by nine Republicans.

We know that Supreme Court nominees tend to bring out the best in partisanship, depending on the party of the president at the time. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made it a point to say that he had not voted against any Supreme Court nominee. Yet, he did vote against Sotomayor before. He opposed her appointment in 1998 and was one of the 29 votes. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who supported Sotomayor in 1998, voted against her in 2009.

Aside from Senators Collins, Gregg, Lugar and Snowe, the other five Republicans to back Sotomayor were:

- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
- Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
- Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)
- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)

Of the four, only Bond was a senator in 1998. He actually didn't cast a vote for or against Sotomayor that time around. But with Bond on the verge of retirement, a yea vote wasn't surprising. The same can be said of Martinez, who announced his resignation today and had said previously that he was going to retire. Alexander, who is also on his way out, wasn't too surprising.

The polarizing of the process that is the selection of a Supreme Court justice is disappointing, but a reality we must face. Having senators who once supported Sotomayor at other levels of the judicial system only to vote against her because she was an appointment to the Supreme Court shows just how politicized the process is. The irony is, of course, that we expect these justices to be fair and unbiased and yet, the process to pick them is less than fair and has politics all over it.