|
This belongs to you. Take it back...
Senate 
Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 17:19:56 PM EST
|
|
The New York Times is running a story that tries to cast Harold Ford as an underdog, some kind of opponent to the party leadership in New York State.
Now, perhaps it's possible that Ford didn't meet much of the New York State party leadership while he was head of the DLC, and it doesn't sound like he exactly sought political activity since moving to New York City. So maybe he's worried that these folks haven't heard of him.
I've criticized the Gillibrand campaign repeatedly for casting aspersions on and pushing out primary opponents before, but in this case I just have to wonder: what is Harold Ford thinking?
I appreciate the difficulties Southern Democrats face and recognize that they have to hold more conservative positions to represent their districts. But to move north after making those positions clear, and trying to inflict them on the rest of the party as Chairman of the DLC? Seriously?
Has he looked around at the kinds of folks who vote in statewide New York Democratic primaries at all? They aren't rabid DLC supporters.
Go ahead, primary Gillibrand. Get the conversation going. Don't feel bullied. Just bring whatever you have for this "marquee challenge." Right.
|
|
Discuss
:: (11
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 16:46:14 PM EST
|
|
A new year is starting in Albany, and if you thought that the wheeling and dealing of last year was over.... well, you got another thought coming. They are self-promoting it as "Unprecedented Bipartisanship In Senate As Leadership Appoints Two Republicans To Major Committee Chairmanships".
I call it more back-room power politics. Maziarz, who represents a district with the Niagara Power Project in it, will chair the powerful Committee on Energy and Telecommunications. So glad we can have a bought and paid for company man in that position. Here's hoping that we don't have to depend on HIM to protect us from Exxon's natural gas grabs....
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:07:48 AM EST
|
|
Crossposted with slight editing from DailyKos
I'm also unhappy with a lot of what I've seen from the administration. I've largely held my tongue, defended the President to my friends on both the left and right, and held out hope that Things Could Be Improved.
But it's hard to feel optimistic after seeing the Senate bill gutted so ceremoniously this week.
I wish I could receive an email that starts like this (and is continued after the jump):
Hello, my name is Senator X.
I'm running for majority leader.
And I need your help.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 1482 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 18:49:04 PM EST
|
|
There's a lot to be angry about from today's vote. Some of the following rank at the top of my list:
1) Ruben Diaz was the only one on the "No" side to state his convictions and speak publicly about his No vote. None of the rest of the 38 had the courage to get up and explain their vote.
2) Hiram Monserrate, a man that supported marriage equality in the City Council and in his Senate campaign, flipped and voted no. Hiram Monserrate, a man convicted of assault against his girlfriend, wants to tell same sex couples that their right to marry a partner of their choice are less important than his.
3) 8 Democrats broke rank and voted against equality. That's 25% of the Democratic caucus in the State Senate.
4) Zero Republicans voted for the bill. This includes people like Vincent Leibell, who counsels gay couples on estate planning, as well as Jim Alesi, who attends a church where gay couples are given the church's blessings. This includes 3 Republicans who represents New York City. This includes 7 Republicans who represent Long Island. 100% of the Republican caucus voted for discrimination.
5) John Sampson, our new caucus leader (or whatever his title is) was nowhere to be found during today's debate or in comments after the press. Supposedly he spent his time pressuring borderline Senators to vote yes. The one one to do so was Senator Valesky.
Shame, shame, shame.
But let it not go without saying that we now have these people on record. Even if the No side hid their votes until the very end, we have a record showing their support for discrimination. It's up to us to pound the pavement in every one of their districts and remind voters that their state senator supports discrimination.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 12:19:31 PM EST
|
Lest anyone forgot our outrage over the dysfunction that is the State Senate, one only needs to take a peek at what's going on with the current deficit reduction plan to catch a wiff of the stink emanating from that body. The New York Times is out today with an op-ed today that squarely lays the blame for Albany's current mess at the Senate's feet.
If New York State runs its money supply down to a mere $36 million later this month - as predicted - the state will have to decide which bills to pay first. That means libraries, schools and taxpayers who qualify for a real estate tax rebate could all get their money later than usual, maybe a lot later.
And the blame for this latest financial squeeze will fall squarely on the New York State Senate - both Democrats and Republicans.
The State Senate, on the other hand, has done little more than issue press releases. Senators are too busy eyeing next year's elections, especially those lawmakers with the least political security - that is, a few suburban Democrats in dicey districts and all 30 of the Republicans, who want to regain the majority next year.
They don't want to do anything unpleasant or really difficult like pare state expenses in midyear - in other words do their jobs - even if it means facing an even larger deficit in April, perhaps as high as $10 billion.
We have Senators who can't work together, who don't want to do their job, and who don't have the policy and legislating chops to actually get anything done. In other words, the Senate is entirely dead-weight in this process. If we get lucky, maybe the Assembly and Governor Paterson will craft a decent deal. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with massive cuts because the lack of fortitude by either of those bodies to leverage progressive taxes against our top earners. Regardless of what we get, you can take it to the bank that it won't be because of the Senate. The Senate has wiped their hands of any responsibility in, you know, governing.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 15:19:35 PM EST
|
Liz Benjamin noticed this job posting today on craigslist for the State Senate Sergeant at Arms. Considering the calamity that has been our State Senate in 2009, I can only imagine what the real job requirements are compared to the listing. But I think I can guess what the Senate was really thinking when they posted this ad .
Requirements: Successful completion of police or government security service career with administrative experience. An associates degree related to government security service or a degree in a similar field to the aforementioned degree.
We're not just looking for muscle. No sir. We need a policy wonky. Who else do you think will break the tie the next time Pedro Espada and a disaffected Hispanic colleague switch sides? "Lt. Governor Ravitch"? As if!
Supervisory experience in the above fields.
Lord knows we need some adult supervision.
Must have the ability to work long hours and be on 24 hour call.
You never know when there might be a coup! But on the bright side, you get long vacations when we lock out the other side and fight behind closed doors, hidden away from the public.
Have the ability to coordinate security needs with other law enforcement agencies. Have experience as a proven supervisor of officers. Provide for the special needs related to legislative activites.
We might not be able to work with either the Assembly or the Governor, but don't think that means you can't cross administrative lines! Did we mention that we really need supervision? We really do. When we say "special needs", we really mean the ability to lock the doors, throw away the keys, and thumb your nose at the other side.
DCJS certified as security program instructor. Certified in CPR and AED.
Yea, we're old.
Successful candidate must be available on 24 hour call back and be able to work long hours when neccesary.
Did we mention that a coup could happen at any time? We really don't trust Pedro Espada.
Willing to maintain primary residence within the Capital District.
That cushy per-diem figure that we in the Senate get? Dream on you slag, that's not for staff!
Good luck to all you ambitious job seekers!
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 00:15:41 AM EST
|
|
I will start with a personal story. After my father passed away last year, I was left as the only male remaining in my immediate family. My mother and six sisters keep me busy. Most of my sisters are Democrats but a few are Republicans. They might disagree on certain issues but if there is one thing they are united on, it is the belief that a woman has a choice and that all women should be entitled to that choice.
Remember that: A WOMAN's right to choose.
The Stupak amendment was all about a woman's right to choose or rather, taking away that right. It was a sorry amendment which, the more you read, appears to be a deal sweetener to get Blue Dogs on board with health care reform. We couldn't get a vote on single-payer but we can vote for the stripping of women's rights.
There is an interesting fact about the vote on the Stupak amendment that is worth noting. Of the 240 votes in support of the amendment put forth by Congressman Bart Stupak (a man), how many of those votes were women?
19. That's right, on a vote that will impact women AND only women, 19 women voted in the affirmative. And 17 of those women are from the Republican Party (all 176 Republicans supported the amendment).
Only two women from the Democratic side (of the women in Congress, there are 57 in the House Democratic conference) voted for this amendment: Kathleen Dahlkemper and Marcy Kaptur. Both Dahlkemper and Kaptur attached their names to the amendment and were paraded out to try and make this look legitimate, but with 62 male members of the Democratic Party voting against women, nothing about it is legitimate.
Stupak, in a statement about the passage of his amendment, said the following:
"Today all members of Congress were afforded the opportunity to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents on the issue of federal funding for abortion," Stupak said. "Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy."
"I have long been an advocate of health care reform. My goal has always been to ensure that the voices of the majority of Americans who oppose federal funding for abortion were heard in this important debate. Now that those voices have been heard we must move forward and pass a bill that provides quality, affordable health care for all Americans. I thank Speaker Pelosi for allowing this important vote to occur and I appreciate the hard work and perseverance of my pro-life colleagues in Congress who held strong and stood with me over the past several months as we worked to find a way to allow this vote against all odds."
NARAL Pro-Choice America had plenty to say about the amendment's passage, calling it a vote for "extreme anti-choice policies" and a "blow to women's freedom and privacy."
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."
NARAL also included a few facts that debunk attempts by supporters of the Stupak amendment to make the measure appear like an ordinary move that just reinforces current federal guidelines.
* The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
* Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
This is a damaging amendment. As stated earlier, it is hard to ignore the possibility that this was a deal sweetener for the Blue Dogs and other anti-choice Democrats to vote for health care reform. It is never good to sacrifice women's rights in the name of "reform." That's exactly what this amendment does.
|
|
Discuss
:: (6
Comments)
|
|
Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:39:46 AM EDT
|
(Think he'd be playing this card if Monserrate was gay? I think he would be at the head of the line calling for him to be resign. - promoted by NYBri)
I'm not sure how else to interpret Senator Ruben Diaz's latest effort to defend his buddy Hiram Monserrate. In plain terms, Senator Diaz is playing the race card and he's playing it fast and loose:
"I think none of these liberal white guys could be fair; they're all out to get Monserrate," Ruben Sr. said when I asked him if he believed Sen. Eric Schneiderman was a good choice to chair the bipartisan, nine-member committee.
"...All the white people, all the legislators, are asking for the head of the Puerto Rican. That's what they want to do. They're opening a Pandora case. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it."
source
So let me get this straight: not only does Senator Diaz attack the motives of those that have called for Monserrate to resign or be expelled, but he attacks the motive of a Senator who hasn't even taken a stance on the issue yet? And doesn't this quote attack the motive of every single white person who calls for Monserrate to resign?
Let's not forget during this effort that there are other bad Senators in our caucus. After all, Ruben Diaz is the same guy who openly questioned whether Obama was born in this country and who stands against marriage equality. Hiram Monserrate committed a violent crime and for that he deserves to be expelled from the Senate. We can't tolerate domestic abusers among the ranks of elected officials. Others, such as Pedro Espada and Ruben Diaz, violated the proper code of conduct for a public official. For that they deserve to be defeated next November.
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 10:26:55 AM EDT
|
(Good stuff. Sign the petition. - promoted by NYBri)
As of this writing there are 652 signers to the petition to FIREMONSERRATE. You can see for yourself the names of the signers. The outpouring of anger with Sen Monserrate and the New York State Senate is not surprising. But the eloquence and of the comments is remarkable and must be shared.
Some comments about domestic violence:
If we do not remove Montserrate, we are sending a TERRIBLE message to all the girls and women trying to strategize about their options or escape abuse and violence.
If our lawmakers can get away with domestic violence, then what message does that send to everyone else?
What a classic case of scaring the victim to lies.
He should be imprisoned.
Comments about the impact on government:
Senator Monserrate should do the right thing and resign. I am so tired of the lack of ethics and the bad behavior of many of our State Democrats, and was especially upset by the actions during the summer. For the first time in a long long time, we had a chance to show the Republicans how to govern. We (or should I say YOU) blew it. The reputation of all the representatives has been destroyed. You have to do better. We- the people who voted for you all -deserve better.
Nothing will hurt the Democratic party more in New York than keeping people like this in the Senate.
Several signers have made this point:
This requires courage to do the right thing, but is morally, ethically and politically the right course of action. Do not hesitate.
There are hundreds of comments, and I have not been able to read them all. There are several more after the flip.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 553 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 13:33:38 PM EDT
|
|
Hat tip to Liz Benjamin for this catch. While Democrats lead by Senator Sampson continue to defend Espada from critism, Espada is raising money for the re-election campaign of GOP Senator George Maziarz.
Yes, that's right, the "Democratic Majority Leader" of the New York State Senate is raising money for the opposition leader. And he's doing it with Dean Skelos.
The event, which is being held at The Penn Club, features two "special guests" - Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos and Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr.
Maziarz, as you'll recall, played a key role in the ill-fated June 8 coup that deadlocked the Senate for 31 days this summer.
He served as the point main between Tom Golisano and Steve Pigeon and the Senate GOP in the early days of coup planning. According to Jim Odato's tick-tock, Maziarz set up a meeting between Skelos, Sen. Tom Libous, Golisano advisor Steve Pigeon and himself as an Albany bar called Red Square.
link
When will the insanity end? How much longer will the Democratic leaders in Albany keep supporting the same wolves in sheep's clothing?
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Sun Jul 19, 2009 at 09:17:24 AM EDT
|
|
It's an interesting situation that you're in.
I have to say that I don't think you're going to be primaried. And if you are, I don't think it will amount to much-- you have the money, the party support, the President's support, and Howard's support.
Me? I'm either "on the fence" about whether you should be primaried or just don't care (at least not yet).
I'm neither a fan of you nor virulently for one of your (three!) opponents. I don't know you well enough or them at all.
So I'm scratching my head. Why all the talk of a primary? And I also find myself wondering, how should you game play this? More after the flip.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 1063 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:37:12 PM EDT
|
|
If we may turn our attention away from the Charlie Foxtrot that is New York politics for a moment: today the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Al Franken, dismissing Norm Coleman's attempt to get the election results overturned, and ordering Governor Tim Pawlenty to sign the election certificate.
A few minutes ago Coleman offically conceeded the election, now almost 8 months distant, to Senator-elect--and soon to be Senator--Al Franken.
Elsewhere on the 'net, the congratulations are pouring in. From the now-no-longer-most-junior Senator Gillibrand.
From DSCC chair Senator Menendez.
And last but not least, from the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 13:13:40 PM EDT
|
|
Might something actually get done in the New York State Senate today? I still wonder about the legality of anything they do, but Senators seem to be seething about the Governor, and maybe that will take this in a new direction.
The chamber was empty a while ago, and albanycitizen1 reports Malcolm Smith's emergence from a meeting with Republicans.
I'll update this post as I hear more. If you want to watch the video, maybe around 3:00pm, it's here, at the bottom of the page.
|
|
Discuss
:: (19
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 18:50:15 PM EDT
|
|
Paterson's office says that the one thing that our State Senators agreed on was getting paid, though in the same article GOP spokesman Scott Reif denies it.
The one agreement I can imagine would help the Senate's image with voters short of something that gets things going again would be an agreement to forego pay until the Senate operates again.
However, I'm glad to see - and I was wondering about this - that Reif "added that Senate employees would be paid regardless of the state of negotiations in the Senate stalemate."
Update: Liz Benjamin reports that "the Republicans tell me they didn't collaborate with their Democratic colleagues on that effort, but merely prepared the payroll information on their own accord and sent it along - just to be on the safe side."
A few other bits:
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 09:31:02 AM EDT
|
From the tell-it-like-it-is-in-Albany guy, Bill Hammond:
Republicans should search what's left of their souls and do the deal.
Perhaps somewhat complicated by the fact that, as LBJ would say, Golisano has "their peckers in his pocket," or, perhaps that devil has bought their souls. Ya think we could fund-raise to get Golisano some scratch, and buy them their members back?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:24:58 AM EDT
|
|
It has been all well and good to sit back and laugh at the circus that is Albany. But I'm finding it harder and harder to join in.
We are faced with an extraordinary set of problems and the theatrics coming from the State Senate do nothing to help fix them.
Time to stop behaving like children, work together, and figure out how to make the State work in the short term and fix it in the long term.
Specific suggestions below the fold.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 581 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 15:50:16 PM EDT
|
What better way to solve a leadership dilemma than to make up new titles? Nobody is quite sure what it means, but Senator John Sampson is now filling the newly-created position of "Conference Leader," and has appeared for a Q&A session flanked by Deputy Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Klein and #%$^&/ Hiram Monserrate.
Despite claims that there will be divided duties (Sampson is in charge of "internal" issues such as legislation and Smith is in charge of "external," "bigger picture" issues that haven't been outlined), it appears that Sampson is effectively in charge.
Does that mean that Smith is still in charge of strategy, or PR?
|
|
Discuss
:: (8
Comments)
|
|
Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 16:15:24 PM EDT
|
|
This was an effective teaser for an article:
Last week's coup in the Senate may signal the final breakdown of New York's long-declining political order
Nicholas Confessore goes on to describe the rot that had set into the old political order, the one we here at TAP have complained about for a long while:
New York's long-declining political order, where governors and senators were once feared and powerful county leaders provided a check on ethnic feuds or individual ambition. Even veterans of New York's rough-and-tumble political scene seemed shocked at the revolt....
That weakness has been reflected from Buffalo to Brooklyn, as old political coalitions fray and the once-powerful party organizations decay. Three of the state's senior posts - governor, senator and comptroller - are filled by unelected figures who are either politically unpopular or unknown to many voters.
The Democratic Party is dominant here, but it lacks a strong central figure with the stature, authority or will to impose discipline. The Republican Party is cohesive, but shrinking.
The rest of the article is a search for a strong leader to rescue the Democrats and the state from chaos, and it doesn't really find one. It also takes a look in the Times' own neighborhood, at city council, and finds similar weakness.
I know that New York State has relied on strong "government by patroon" from the Rensselaers and the Schuylers through Rockefeller and Bruno, but suddenly we find ourselves bereft.
Our last state strongmen collapsed in scandals at the Mayflower Hotel and consulting gigs. The remaining possible leaders all have good reason to want to stay out of this mess.
The problem, though, is that there's nothing ready to replace the rotted system. It's not election season. Our state party committees and even many of our local party committees (on both sides of the aisle) spent most of their time reinforcing the status quo rather than changing it. The echoes of gerrymandering and machines have left voters wondering whether they have any role in the process at all.
We've rotted our way out of the old system, most likely. What comes next?
|
|
Discuss
:: (32
Comments)
|
|
Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:48:34 AM EDT
|
Hey kids! Have you heard about the trouble at the State Senate? Is it making your mom and dad confused? Would you like to learn more about how your state government and democracy works? Don't worry... Johnny the Friendly Senator is here to explain it all for you. Gather round, children, and come sit on Senator Johnny's knee!
The Roberts School students who became inadvertent eyewitnesses to New York Senate history got to hear an account Friday of what they saw from one of the participants -- Sen. John A. DeFrancisco.
The children, members of the Roberts student council, were supposed to get some face time with DeFrancisco as part of their field trip to Albany Monday to watch government in action.
Instead, they got to watch from the gallery as Democrats Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate joined 30 Republicans, including DeFrancisco, in a coalition that voted to oust Democratic leader Malcolm Smith as Senate temporary president and majority leader and enact reforms to give senators from either party equal resources and an equal chance to pass legislation.
Read on...
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 147 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
