Skip to main content

New York State Sen. Jeff Klein
There's no reason to trust anything Jeff Klein says, pretty much ever
Goal Thermometer

For months, there've been rumors, leaks, and half-heard reports of all sorts that the renegade Democrats who've handed control of New York's state Senate to the GOP were brokering a deal whereby they'd rejoin their mainstream counterparts—since, after all, Democrats control a majority of seats in the chamber. Now the wayward members of the so-called Independent Democratic Conference, in a joint statement with Gov. Andrew Cuomo, want the world to believe that they are in fact coming back:

[Bunch of b.s. about how great the IDC is.]

"Therefore all IDC members are united and agree to work together to form a new majority coalition between the Independent Democratic Conference and the Senate Democratic Conference after the November elections in order to deliver the results that working families across this state still need and deserve."

Note a few things of things here. For one, the IDC isn't saying they're definitely going to return to the Democrats—no, they're hedging, saying only they "agree to work together" to form a new coalition. That only means the IDC has agreed to work amongst itself on the concept of rapprochement. Hooray!

That leads us to the next thing: the timetable. The IDC isn't saying it's rejoining the Democrats now, which it easily could if it wanted to. They're just promising to possibly do something in the future, after the elections. The statement mentions November, but the real issue here is the September primaries, where so far two IDC members are being challenged by real Democrats: Sen. Jeff Klein (by Ollie Koppell) and Sen. Tony Avella (by John Liu). The IDC is just trying to undermine these challengers, to give voters less of a reason to fire their senators by making vague pledges that they'll be good. Some day.

That brings us to the final key point about this statement—specifically, what's not in it. The mainstream Senate Democrats didn't sign it—only Cuomo and Klein did. That means there's no actual deal here, nothing of substance. Again, it's just an airy-fairy promise about something that the IDC might do months and months from now.

And no one should ever trust any promise made by Cuomo, considering he started walking back his pledges to the Working Families Party scarcely a day after he earned their endorsement less than a month ago. No one should believe Klein, either, who's spend years trying to convince everyone that he's furthered the cause of progressivism by allying with Republicans.

So in the meantime, we all need to keep our eyes on the ball. The IDC's promised nothing, and it still needs to go. Please donate $3 to help John Liu and Ollie Koppell take a bite out of the IDC's hide.

Originally posted to David Nir on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:09 PM PDT.

Also republished by New York City and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nope; they're Rs in sheep's clothing (5+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:19:42 PM PDT

  •  "I will gladly pay you Tuesday ... (5+ / 0-)

    for a hamburger today."

    These jerks! What's there to think about?

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:31:38 PM PDT

    •  Why in the world did (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rexxnyc, Demi Moaned, poco, Australian2

      The working families party believe Cuomo in the first place????  Really????  You think any last minute desperate promises are worth a nickel?????  

      The working families party has been had, brudda.  Just like the GOP used the religious right.  That's how the tea party came about.  It might have been an AstroTurf movement by the Koch Bros. but they preyed on the anger and frustrations of the people the GOP betrayed.

      •  It was never about "believing" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Demi Moaned, poco

        Cuomos promises.  In the end, it was about Dan Cantor and the leadership of the WFP being scared shitless about taking a chance that could leave them unemployed, and some of the unions involved in funding the party being afraid Cuomo would fuck them over when it came to public contracts - IE:  1199 SEIU and building trades unions.

        The parties rank-and-file activists and the anti-Cuomo unions simply didn't have the clout (or war chest to fund the party later) to prevent the pro-Cuomo factions from winning.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:34:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I would never vote for Liu (3+ / 0-)

    His actions in the campaign finance scandal were despicable. A young woman is going to be deported from the US because he dumped the rap on her.

    Some things are more important than politics.

    •  Essentially, that primary (3+ / 0-)

      has no good choice.  It sucks for the voters of that district.

      However, if I were in that district, I'd likely lean Avella, because before he joined the IDC, he wasn't a bad senator, and I kinda-sorta feel like he made the deal simply because he thought he could do some good (such as push progressive legislation) - and not so much over political power like the rest of the IDC.

      However, regardless of my feelings on Avella, the campaign finance scandal that Liu was involved in leaves an extreme distaste in my mouth.  With the New York legislature being so known for it's corruption, the last thing we need is another guy who barely made it out of a corruption probe while clearly smelling of being corrupt.  It doesn't help New York, and it doesn't help the Democratic brand.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:59:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Describe what Liu did and why he was indicted. nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  google "john liu corruption" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charliehall2, genethefiend

        The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

        by GreatLakeSailor on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:37:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  :-|. I take you dont know either. nt (0+ / 0-)
          •  my recollection is - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darth Stateworker

            his campaign got larger donations than are matched under NYC public campaign finance law

            and that his campaign falsely reported these donations as instead coming from a lot of small donors

            I think the match is 6 to 1 for the first $250 given and money beyond $1500 or $2500 is not matched from the same donor.

            So if the campaign got $50,000 from one donor but then falsely reported that as coming from 500 donors at $100 each

            the campaign would get $300,000 in matching funds instead of $1000

            pretty serious stuff - a difference of a quarter million

            the city campaign finance board found that irregularities were so wide that they took away all Liu's matching funds which  certainly left his campaign with much less ammunition than the rest of the field

            and a campaign manager went to jail

            •  Jenny Hou got 10 months, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              and Oliver Pan got 4 months. Both testified in court under examination and cross that Liu had nothing to do with it, that they thought they were helping him. The FBI investigation cleared Liu. There is your serious, despicable, criminal, ill never vote for that evil man fraud.

              Liu made a mistake in choosing friends instead of professionals in handling his campaign finance. Thats an example of bad judgement for sure. And the City was right in pulling his money considering what went down. But to suggest that hes this despicable criminal and anti progressive, especially when one really doesn't know shit, is pure bullshit.

              Especially considering the scum that folks in Manhattan elect.

              •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco

                although we elect some nice guys in manhattan too, for the record  ;D

              •  i also seem to recall (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco

                a really good article about this in, maybe, new york magazine which examined the cultural issues at play--  liu represents a huge pride for many asians in nyc as the immigrant son who has made good and been the first citywide elected asian official.  the culture of giving cash as gifts, prevalent especially in chinese culture, was highlighted to frame the corruption scandal in a rather different light--  one that backs up the FBI's finding that he knew nothing about the money at issue

                •  That was Liu's error. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  Naturally the Asian community would want to support one of their own. Italian businesses raised money for De Blasio and Giuliani. Koch made no secret of the money he raised from the Zionists. Dinkins raised money from black folks across America and in the Caribbean. This is not a big deal.

                  But Liu didnt bring in professionals to handle the due diligence. When it comes to stuff like that, you dont appoint your friends. It was a bad judgment call and hes suffering for it politically.

                  But this anti-progressive and despicable criminal stuff is nonsense. And not just a little bit suspect as to its origin.

                  •  i agree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poco

                    and you're right that there's no good excuse for not having good oversight of your own campaign.  even so---  i know a lot of people feel like he got a rough deal when he was denied matching funding for the mayoral campaign.  i imagine that probably embarrassed and pissed off a lot his asian base.  hopefully they will turn out to return him to his former glory against the no-count traitor avella

      •  If you think merely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justanothernyer

        because Liu wasn't indicted means he doesn't have the stink of corruption around him, I think that's a bit obtuse.

        That's about the same as saying you believe Chris Christie that he didn't know what his staff was doing either on Bridgegate.  These guys all know what their staffs are up to.  If they don't, they don't belong in office in the first place, because they are horrible managers.  Either way, Liu looks just as bad as Christie, even if on a smaller scale.

        Regardless, indicted or not, that stink doesn't help change the picture that New York state Democrats seem to keep painting for themselves that there is a ton of corruption here.  This is an image problem that we must fix in this state, wouldn't you agree?

        I should also note that the O/P never stated in their post that Liu was indicted.  Merely that his actions during the scandal were despicable - an opinion I tend to agree with.  Charged or not, the court of public opinion matters.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:41:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, you too dont have any idea what (0+ / 0-)

          Liu actually did or what suspected of doing, do you?

          •  Your response indicates (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Justanothernyer

            that you're merely looking for excuses to defend Liu.  I know what happened.  You know what happened.  There is no need to rehash it, especially as rexxnyc just did in response to you.

            Quite frankly, if you want to be a Liu fanboy, that's your choice, but the rest of us don't have to be, whether you and your ego like it or not.  As I noted:  tell us how the Liu and Christie situations differ.  That is what matters.  Not whether or not he was actually indicted.

            What's next?  Are you going to tell me former senate majority leader Joe Bruno was a perfectly clean politician as well because he won his retrial?  Granted, he's a Republican, but still - the logic is the same, and the evidence against him is equally overwhelming enough to taint him in the court of public opinion.

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:04:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Joe Bruno was indicted and convicted. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              So now youre comparing a man cleared by the FBI, never arrested, never indicted...hes just as corrupt as joe bruno.

              So, you after being asked twice, never actually can actually say what Liu did because you have no idea. You know why you have no idea? Because he was cleared by the FBI. To you he just looks corrupt, right?

              •  Of course, that's not the full story. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justanothernyer

                Bruno was indicted, convicted, and then the decision overturned, and then acquitted on retrial.

                Regardless, you're again ignoring the overarching point:  the court of public opinion matters.

                Your defection on repeatedly asking me to reiterate what occurred in the Liu campaign finance scandal is merely an indication that you are well aware that the court of public opinion and Lius tacit connection to the scandal are all but indefensible.

                Again:  How is Liu "I didn't know what my staff was doing" excuse any different from Christies?  Explain that, or you have no legitimate line of argument.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:19:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Aha. Central Park 5 logic. (0+ / 0-)

                  Actual guilt or actual innocence, irrellevant. If youre guilty in the media, its the same thing as being actually guilty. So lock em up.

                  Lol.

                  Well, look. I know Liu was politically impossible which is why I endorsed de Blasio on the front page here when he was nowhere in the polls. But calling him Joe Bruno? This 'ill never vote for that evil man' stuff? It appears something else is going on here.

                  All the same, hed be an improvement over just about everyone in Albany.

                  •  Just what, exactly, are you implying? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Justanothernyer
                    It appears something else is going on here.
                    While I said I was bowing out of arguing with someone who's clearly being obstinate, I'm not letting that comment go.

                    By all means, finish your thought.

                    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                    by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:01:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  As for Christie, were still fleshing that out (0+ / 0-)

                  now arent we? If hes cleared, hes cleared. I mean what kind of sociopath are you that you presume guilt even when a person has been cleared?

  •  Not even close to believable (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, MKSinSA, Darth Stateworker

    Cuomo can forget about it and his little pal Klein. Why does Cuomo think he can fool people this way?

    He's just the pits at least he will never be President. Never.

    Blessed are the hearts that can bend; for they can never be broken Albert Camus

    by vcmvo2 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:42:24 PM PDT

  •  I am, however, a big supporter of Koppell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suzq

    in this election (I live in Klein's district), despite the fact that Koppell's own career is not so stellar at supporting the correct side:

    1) He was on the wrong side in an intra-Bronx Democratic Party fight that kicked out a corrupt country party boss.

    2) He endorsed Bloomberg over Thompson in 2009.

    These two errors have cost him a lot of support around here.

  •  the dems that (5+ / 0-)

    sided with the gop in albany should  be voted out.

    the deal made with cuomo just shows how weak and  pathetic the dems have become, its no wonder the country is in a path to rw conservatism with the lack of fight in the party that once used to be left of center, that isn't the case anymore.

  •  It wasn't even a day... (4+ / 0-)

    More like 12 hours at most before Cuomo started walking his WFP promises back. Until it's done you can't trust Cuomo or the IDF.  Until it's actually done it's just empty air.  

    Fool me once shame on you
    Fool me twice shame on me.

    Why yes there is a war on women and minorities.

    by karma5230 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:50:39 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit. (9+ / 0-)

    Either rejoin the caucus or shut the fuck up and get primaried. Matter of fact, fuck you. Rejoin the caucus and still get primaried.

    Fuck these guys.

    •  Weak hand (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      charliehall2, Justanothernyer

      If you're going to primary somebody, you should find a solid progressive candidate to do it with.  Liu simply isn't.

      •  Most of New Yorks solid progressives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        are shitty politicians who couldn't win a seat on a community board, much less a senate seat.

        Why isnt Liu progressive enough for you?

      •  How is Liu not progressive? He has solid union ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco

        How is Liu not progressive? He has solid union support for a reason and also has a lot of residual good will in a number of independent reform dem clubs.

        •  Liu is despicable (0+ / 0-)

          And you can find many links with an internet search.

          Here is one:

          http://www.nydailynews.com/...

        •  Cuomo has union support. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justanothernyer

          So by your logic, does that make him a solid progressive?

          Union support alone doesn't cut it, so that argument is rather faulty.

          However, I will not opine on Lius progressivism - simply pointing out a fault in your logic.  I will, however, point out that I don't think the stench from his campaign finance scandal really helps the progressive cause, even if he himself was not indicted.

          "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

          by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:45:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  of course not (0+ / 0-)

            but what i meant was that he was well-liked by many unions, some of whom stuck by him through his mayoral election, if i recall correctly.

            i'm not saying that there wasn't a problem with the campaign finance situation, but i do think that a lot of people feel like it was perhaps blown out of proportion.  (similar to charlie rangel's situation, for instance--  relatively small ethical situation did not match the heavy duty backlash/punishment...)

            if i lived in that district, liu would have my vote against traitor avella ANY DAY.  i'd probably volunteer for him too

            •  As I noted with brooklynbadboy (0+ / 0-)

              the "Court of Public Opinion" matters.

              The Democratic party in this state is not going to shake its reputation for corruption if legislators even nominally linked to a scandal keep getting voted into office.

              I pass no judgment on Lius guilt or innocence per se.  But as I said elsewhere, the scandal stinks bad enough because he either knew what they were doing or is an incompetent manager.  There's no way around that.

              It is the same exact situation as Christie.  No one may have directly linked Christie with any of his administrations scandals, but public opinion on them sure isn't helping.

              My concern here is for the reputation of the Democratic party in NYS itself.  That reputation needs to be cleaned up, and I don't believe a candidate like Liu helps with that.

              Out of the entire IDC, Avella seems to be the only one who went with them not to increase his own power, but to get legislation to the floor he supported.  Naive - yes.  Idealistic - yes.  But he doesn't have the court of public opinion working against him, and doesn't bring with him that sense that hey, the Democratic party in New York is full of crooks, both indicted and not-indicted.

              That's not to say I wouldn't want to see Avella challenged - I'd just prefer to see a candidate that didn't have the baggage Liu has, and with the baggage Liu has, I see Avella as marginally better for the reputation of the party.  That's it.  Nothing more complicated than that.

              Rangel is the exact same deal.  I'd have preferred to see him lose to Espaillat simply due to the parties reputation.  Espaillat was spot in in stating that Rangels reputation was a liability to the party.

              Essentially, we need to stop giving Republicans ammunition to paint Democrats as corrupt, real or otherwise.  If that means people like Liu and Rangel who are marginally linked to scandal either don't win office or get booted from office, that needs to happen.  Republicans need to be denied the use of such a political tool/argument.  That is of the utmost importance in my book, because then we have the moral high ground when it comes to their corruption - real or perceived.

              "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

              by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:29:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ok-- (0+ / 0-)

                so, in the first place, i can't believe you are defending one of the """"""democrats""""" (not enough scare quotes in the universe to describe these traitorous bastards) who literally gave republicans de facto control of the senate IN THE FACE OF the people putting a democratic majority in the senate.  that's the height of corruption, if you ask me...

                furthermore--  you said that liu wasn't progressive and you continue to not make any arguments for why that is the case.  the fact is that liu is indeed progressive and that you have a problem with the way the fundraising scandal went down.  that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that liu is and always has run on a progressive platform-- and he delivered on it as comptroller.

                finally--  i live in rangel's district.  if you think charlie is 'corrupt' because he slipped up on his taxes and had more than one apartment that was rent-stabilized, then you wouldn't want to be within a hundred miles of adriano espaillat--  i voted for walrond, but i am relieved that rangel kept his seat rather than fall to adriano (who is also my state senator).  as it happens--  do you know that one of adriano's biggest backers was a george w bush 'pioneer' fundraiser (meaning he raised more than $100,000)??  WTF is the supposed progressive champion of immigrant tenants doing pal-ing around with a major republican fundraiser??  i'll tell you--  he's paying off/pressuring the cops to allow him to run illegal nightclubs all over upper manhattan that have turned this neighborhood into a bridge & tunnel hell-hole of motorcycle gangs and drunken violence.  charlie is not unflawed, but he has consistently been on the right side of the issues and delivered for this district.  espaillat is only in politics because of personal ambition and would throw anyone under the bus to get ahead--  he stinks to high heaven and the whole district knows it.

                •  Let's address you point by point. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Justanothernyer

                  Firstly, I did not "defend" Avella.  You'll note I stated that I would prefer to see him primaried by a candidate other than Liu that was not marred by scandal.

                  Secondly, Avella didn't hand control of the Senate to the Republicans by joining the IDC.  Avella moved to the IDC long after  the IDC formed and came to it's power-sharing agreement with Skelos.

                  Thirdly, no where did I state that Liu is "not progressive", so your entire rant about that is moot.

                  Fourthly, I made no mention of my personal opinion on Rangels guilt or innocence.  I stated that he is marred by scandal, and as such, whether or not the scandal is real or merely perceived, does nothing to help the reputation of New Yorks Democratic party.

                  In closing, let me borrow from Sgt. Hulka from the movie Stripes:  Lighten up, Francis!

                  I'd also suggest you try actually reading and comprehending posts you respond to, instead of merely responding to what you imagine those posts say.  Perhaps by doing that, you'll save yourself the embarrassment of creating straw men and getting pissed off about comments that were never made.

                  /facepalm

                  "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                  by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:38:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're funny (0+ / 0-)

                    You make a big stink about candidates that you clearly don't know that much about and then accuse * me * of creating 'straw men.' All while trying to distract away from the fact that you are making excuses for a guy who literally helped deprive democrats from their right to control the senate, which has eluded them for all but a few years for the last several decades. Come on now....

                    •  One more thought-- (0+ / 0-)

                      If you think average voters view only democrats as being corrupt, you're pretty out of touch, especially in the context of New York State

                    •  "Big stink about candidates (0+ / 0-)

                      you know nothing about"

                      What, exactly, is inaccurate about saying both Liu and Rangel are at least marginally connected to scandal?

                      You know what your problem is?  A healthy case of "your guy" syndrome.  Because these are "your guys", you're giving them a pass instead of looking at the bigger picture - which is the corrupt reputation of the NYS Democratic party in general.  Sorry to burst your bubble pal, my my issues with these two are based in practicality and aren't personal, even if you're choosing to take it personally.

                      My suggestion to you is be a man, admit you misread (either purposely or accidentally) the previous posts, acknowledge that you understand my reasoning even if you disagree with it, and move along before you further embarrass yourself.

                      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                      by Darth Stateworker on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:35:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  i didn't misread your posts (0+ / 0-)

                        and these aren't 'my guys.'  i voted against rangel on tuesday and i did not vote for liu when he ran for mayor.  however, they both have long histories in complicated political venues.  you know a little bit about both, what you know you don't like, and so you dismiss them wholesale.  it's senseless to say charlie rangel shouldn't be elected if you don't know about his challengers.  if the stain of corruption is your biggest concern, then there is absolutely no way that you should be supporting espaillat.  the fact that you think that espaillat carries less scandal/has less potential for scandal than rangel shows how little you know about the candidates.  

                        finally--  'be a man' is a lame, sexist phrase

                        •  Uh, yeah, you did. (0+ / 0-)

                          Or you purposely decided to twist my words.

                          Choose one and own up to it, because anyone reading this thread will recognize that.

                          If you can do neither, I'd say we're done here.

                          "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                          by Darth Stateworker on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:24:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  pretty much no (0+ / 0-)

                            and probably what 'anyone reading this thread' will most recognize is you sticking up for fake democrats and suggesting that people in avella's district vote against the democratic majority in the senate.  wtf

  •  The Times Union (0+ / 0-)

    does a decent job of explaining the "why" of why they won't reunite now - at least according to the IDC - in this blog:

    http://blog.timesunion.com/...

    Essentially, they claim that they may not have enough Democrats in the "new" Democratic "coalition" to flip the chamber and pass Democrats desired legislation in this session.

    Personally, I call bullshit on that, for a few reasons:

    1.  Sampson and Smith have no reason not to vote along with other Democrats simply because of their pending criminal charges.  They have no reason not to return to the chamber, and they have no leverage to try to eek any concessions from the rest of the Democrats for their votes with the charges hanging over their heads.  Voting against a Democratic chamber with the charges pending would certainly end their political careers - they then have more negative baggage than even their entrenched voters will be able to stomach.

    2.  Felder may caucus with the Republicans, however, that is all about personal political power for Felder.  Felder is much like Klein in that respect.  If the chamber looks like it's going to flip back to Democratic control, Felder will run back to caucus with the Democrats with his tail between his legs in order to try to maintain at least a little bit of the influence he currently has.  If he was to continue to caucus with the Republicans and the Democrats were to take over the chamber, he'd essentially be powerless, and he knows this.  He would be stripped of any committee positions, lose money to fund his offices, find no co-sponsors for legislation he submits, find such legislation would never make it to the floor, essentially, the works of virtual political irrelevance.

    So that equates to 32 total votes adding the IDC in with the mainline Democrats - enough to flip the chamber.  As noted in the TU blog post, the chambers rules about a 3/5ths vote to change the rules could easily be ignored, as New York courts have traditionally taken the position that they will not interfere in legislative branch rules disputes.

    As such, all they have are excuses to not flip it back now - which works to the advantage of both Cuomo and the IDC, and screws legitimate Democratic legislation once again.  If come November lo-and-behold the Republicans win enough seats to outright control the chamber (which is a distinct possibility), Cuomo still gets to say he "tried" and gets to keep playing one house against the other in order to implement his neoliberal agenda - while still proclaiming how "liberal" he is and not technically appearing to have reneged on his deal with the WFP to those Democratic voters in the state that don't closely follow politics.  Essentially, the Great Triangulator gets to keep on triangulating with no pushback.

    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

    by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:51:43 PM PDT

  •  I don't care what Coumo or his type do, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Stateworker

    as I won't vote for someone I can't trust. I'll never for a republicant but won't ever vote for a Blue Dog ever again.

    So how can we really trust Hillary?

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreatLakeSailor

      The connection between how Cuomo governs and how Hillary will likely govern - as both cut their political teeth in a DLC dominated DC environment - does raise that question.  Both are funded by the same people, both have the same aversion to specifically laying out their policy ideas (largely because they know they will be unpopular with the base), ad infinium.

      That being said, that kind of goes off topic on this particular diary, and with the plethora of rox/sux Hillary diaries around to comment on, perhaps we don't need to hijack this diary with rox/sux Hillary commentary.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:03:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Repubs may get a majority anyway (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Stateworker

    Even if the IDC does return to the fold, it will be VERY difficult to keep the Republicans from getting a majority, and here is why:

    Two of the 33 Dems in the NY Senate barely won last time around. Terry Gipson won SD-41 with 44% as a right wing third party candidate punishing the Republican for his pro-same-sex marriage vote got 15,000 more votes than Gipson's margin. And in SD-45 Cecilia Tkaczyk won by only 18 votes after all the absentee and provisional votes were counted -- the Republican incumbent was actually declared the victor and sworn in before all the votes were counted. The Republicans are targeting both these seats.

    Simcha Felder would probably lose in his horribly red district if he tells voters that he will caucus with the Democrats. He may be the best we can do in that district but he isn't going to be the 32nd vote. Felder plus either of the two upstate seats already mentioned gives the Rethugs 32 votes in a 63 member.

    Furthermore there are two Dems who are under indictment for corruption: Malcolm Smith and John Sampson, both former Democratic leaders. We don't want either. Now, they might lose in the primary this year, but if they somehow get renominated (which means certain re-election in their overwhelmingly Democratic districts) we don't want to rely upon them to give us a majority.

    This is probably what Andrew Cuomo wants. :(

    •  Agree on all but Felder (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer

      Felders district contains a large population of Orthodox Jewish voters, and they tend to vote in a huge block and always have huge turn out numbers.  It is not and never was a Republican stronghold.  Prior to Felder, a Republican held the seat only for a few months after a special election.  Before that, it was more a Democratic stronghold:

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      The Orthodox vote is a large part of why his margin of victory was so large.  Remember, this was a district that was specifically carved out during the last redistricting to take advantage of that large Jewish voting bloc:

      http://www.capitalnewyork.com/...

      Felder himself noted that he was going to caucus with whoever offered him more perks and the ability to bring more results for his district, and as such the voters in his district really didn't seem to care about party affiliation:

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      As I noted above in my own post, I suspect if Felder senses a change in power in the Senate back to Democrats, he will then start caucusing with the Democrats.  His constituents care less about party and more about his results to implement their desired agenda - and those results are easier to come by if you caucus with the party that controls your chamber.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:28:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  aren't there a few vulnerable (0+ / 0-)

      Republican seats, as well? It's my understanding that Lee Zeldin's seat is now in play, now that he's won the GOP nomination for the NY-1 Congressional seat, and a couple of others, as well.

  •  The asshole in Virginia (5+ / 0-)

    who flipped for a payout for him and his daughter (who was so fucking incompetent and stupid that the GOP got their majority, the ability to deny hundreds of thousands of people access to affordable care, AND didn't have to pay up in the end), the assholes in New York who hijacked the outcome of an election for personal gain, the assholes in New Jersey called "ChristieCrats" who were for sale, and were cheerleaders for a thug of a governor as long as they got theirs.

    Shitbag Democrats are a real phenomena, and a real problem.

    These assholes have to go.

    Choosing to be hamstrung is not pragmatic, it's stupid.

    Trusting a weasel or a snake is not centrist or moderate, it's stupid.

    There are circumstances where they make it as impossible to govern as a Democrat as the Republican party does.

    The brand has some bright lights. There is real hope that the best and brightest of the Democratic Party can go from being paladins walking the wall of a legacy brand on the defensive trying to preserve old wins, to being on the offensive against the Right. But only if we build the brand and the ChristieCrat kind of corrupt slug leaving a slimetrail on the brand is not helpful.

    The cancer that is the GOP has allowed some real pieces of garbage who make their living floating on the surface of the Democratic pond to argue that 'better a piece of garbage than cancer'. That mindset gives you a choice between garbage and cancer.

    How about a new paradigm.

    No Movement Conservative cancer, and no scum floating on the surface of the pond that is okay because it's our scum floating on the surface of the pond. The jersey and hat matches, so, they get credit for that.  

    When people, sometimes rather indignantly, float the notion that a (D) is always better than an (R) so you can always feel better about voting (D) like that is your baseball team and the color of the hat is what matters more than the performance you get in their political pitch, these assholes undermine that argument profoundly.

    You have to confront the rot and get rid of it to get rid of the rot. You can't negotiate a treaty with rot so that it will behave like healthy tissue in the body going forward.

    Andrew Cuomo has proven, time and time again, that he is a true Very Serious Person High Broderist Centrist. He's a true believer. How he previously handled the issue was a tell. But it was also a warning.

    Don't trust him.

    Don't stop trying to get rid of the shitbags who are willing to fuck you one minute, and then tell you what they want to hear the next. Honestly? They sound a lot like serial shoplifters when they get caught stealing. Lots of promises never to do it again. To be good. To do right. And the second they can run cons, grifts, get theirs?

    It's back to the grift. Suckers.

    "Who are you going to believe? Honeytongued me who fucks you over and then promises to be good until your back is turned? Or your own lying shrill partisan eyes that can't see the big picture that this is what is best?"

    Believe your own eyes. Always.

    The next time somebody goes on a tear about "purity purges" just remember that corrupt motherfucker in Virginia who jobbed 400 fucking thousand people for the grift. Or those lovely people who piled on Buono for Jabba the Governor when it paid well to be with Boss Hogg. It matters that these people can feel perfectly free to operate like tumors in your party at any level, town, state, or federal.

    It's not purity trolling to put salt on those slugs.
     

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:56:54 PM PDT

  •  Who the Hell Wants them "back in the fold"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4mygirls

    I sure would Not-If I were a NY Dem.
    If they ever had credibility it's gone now.
    What is up with Dem Party leadership that they'll count just the number of "D's" before individual quality of service that is at least sort of in line with what the Dem base stands for anyway?
    Or is it just me?

    •  their votes would likely be necessary (2+ / 0-)

      ...not only to ensure a majority Democratic caucus, but to support its more progressive agenda (more progressive than that of the Republicans, that is).

      •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

        Their votes would be especially needed on the Womens Equality Act, as Diaz and Felder tend to vote conservatively on social issues, so they both aren't going to be happy with the abortion plank.

        If I recall correctly however, Diaz is all for the DREAM Act.  Not sure of Felders stance on that.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:12:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What is their driving force? (0+ / 0-)

    WHY?
    I just don't understand why any rational person would join forces with today's GOP. 20-25 years ago, sure. There were some admirable, smart, moderate and honest guys. Illinois had its share of fine GOPers. Chuck Percy, John Anderson, and a bunch of others. But today? They are evil, deluded, or just plain wrong.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 03:59:43 PM PDT

    •  much of it has to do with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer

      the disastrous tenure of the Democrats when they finally...after many decades, gained majority control several years ago.  It was an unmitigated disaster, not only in terms of gross incompetence by the leadership in doing even the most basic of things--like passing a budget on time, for instance, but the level of corruption by the leaders.
      Two of those leaders (Sampson and Smith) are now in legal trouble for corruption.

      The IDC felt it needed to keep power out of the hands of those who would use the majority power for purely corrupt political purposes.

      Fortunately, it appears that the new Democratic leadership in the state senate has changed dramatically, with competent new leadership that's kept itself free of corruption charges. Andrea Stewart-Cousins is the current leader of the Democratic conference and seems to be working effectively behind the scenes to gain the confidence of the IDC.

      •  I completely agree that the last time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justanothernyer

        the Dems controlled the Senate it was a completely embarrassing debacle/clusterfuck - but I completely disagree that Klein "felt he needed to keep power out of the hands of those who would use majority power for purely corrupt political purposes."

        Klein is just as power-mad as the asshat Dems who controlled the chamber the last time around - like Espada, Smith, Diaz, etc.  He most certainly didn't do what he did out of some "greater good" philosophy.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:35:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  as to Klein's motivation.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justanothernyer

          ...it's quite possible that his was primarily motivated by his egomaniacal personality...however...it seems to me that the motivation behind most of the other members of the IDC was prompted, at least in large part, by the damage done to the image of Democrats in that chamber by Sampson and Smith. (Of course, to your point...ego is almost always a part of the equation...when it comes to politics, as well).

          •  Maybe Avella (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Justanothernyer

            was motivated by a "greater good" mentality.  The others?  No.

            For example - Savino went simply because she's dating Klein.

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:57:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Valesky, as well... (0+ / 0-)

              most likely, in my opinion (and possibly Carlucci).

              In any case, they had good reason to be very reticent about putting power back into the hands of Sampson and Smith...at the time, in my opinion. They acted like two kids set loose in a candy shop...and were making the whole Democratic Party look bad.

              •  I don't think any Democrat in this state (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justanothernyer

                could argue that the last time we held the Senate, we all looked like a bunch of dysfunctional idiots.

                However, I don't view Valesky and Carlucci any differently than Klein.  They most certainly knew why Klein was doing what he did when they joined him, as they all went together.

                That Avella went after the fact is the only reason why I think his reasons were more... altruistic.  Maybe.  But Kleins reasons for going are without question due to his desire for power.  The guy had been doing everything he could behind the scenes to get more power for years and everyone up here knew it.  It was essentially an open secret.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:34:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry choices here (0+ / 0-)

    If progressivism really matters we should never vote for incompetent or corrupt politicians just because they pay lip service to progressive ideals Liu is a game player and corrupt, Koppel is a doddering old fool. I saw him on the street the other day looking glazed over and tired. I am from his district and he was not anyone to be admired defending in the past a corrupt party boss.
    Klein may be slick and careerist, but I generally know where he stands on issues.

  •  WFP = Suckers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darth Stateworker

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:06:46 PM PDT

    •  Not so much suckers, but weak. (0+ / 0-)

      The could have made Cuomo hurt if they had a candidate. They put the cart before the horse.

      •  If Teachout makes it (0+ / 0-)

        onto the Democratic ballot as she's attempting to do, we may yet see him get stung somewhat.

        He'll clearly win the primary, but Teachout being on that ballot will put to rest the question of whether or not she was the kind of candidate that could have drawn enough voters away to make him bleed and embarrass him.

        I still lean towards thinking the WFP made the wrong move, and was more concerned about maintaining the power of Dan Cantor and it's leadership then it was about being true to their professed ideals.  Embarrassing Cuomo with a Teachout nomination would have generated press for months in this state, because the political press was completely enamored with the idea of Cuomo having a progressive challenger from the WFP.  Meanwhile, they practically ignore his progressive challenger from the Greens.

        I know you disagree with me on this, but I really think the difference boiled down to press coverage, not name recognition, and the Capitol press corps seemed to have a hard-on for the storyline (from their viewpoint) of Cuomo getting challenged by unions - which means I think it would have spilled into mainstream stories quite a bit that would see wider coverage than simply the states political blogsphere.  This is why Cuomo and his team feared it so much and scrambled to ensure they got the WFP nod.

        If she gets on the Democratic primary ballot, it may yet generate that same level of coverage, and may yet lead to Cuomo suffering an embarrassing challenge.  He would ultimately prevail, but if Teachout were to pull a sizable part of the primary vote, it will demonstrate how weak he is to his left in his home state, and likely embarrass him nationally if the national punditsphere decides to run with the story.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:02:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shes not a serious candidate. (0+ / 0-)

          Nobdoys going to vote for her who doesnt already know her. And its way too late forbher to get known, even if she were a real politician.

          •  Your comment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Justanothernyer

            completely dismisses or ignores what I just said.

            Press coverage matters. Immensely.  And the Capitol press corps wants that story.  They like drama, because it increases their web traffic and print readership, and increases viewership for TV news and opinion programs such as NY Now, Capitol Tonight, and Inside City Hall.  The more an item is discussed in that universe, the more it ends up in more mainstream news and TV reporting as well.  This isn't something that would play out in a vacuum.

            You seem to be forgetting that the news is much more a business today, and requires sensationalized stories to draw readership/viewership to survive.  This would be one of those kind of stories.

            You also seem to be forgetting who turns out for primary votes - largely those who are more engaged in politics in the first place.

            You are welcome to your opinion on the matter, but I don't think you've thought it out very well.

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:12:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  lol. Youre gonna lose. Huge. nt (0+ / 0-)
              •  Your repeated (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justanothernyer

                immature, low information responses to well reasoned arguments doesn't really say much about your debate skills.  Clearly, defending your positions isn't really possible, and you're well aware of that.

                I'd tell you to quit while you're behind, but we both know that's not going to happen.  So I suppose it's best for me to bow out instead simply to save myself the frustration of arguing with someone who chooses to be obstinate.

                Have a good evening.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:22:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  This. (0+ / 0-)

    "And no one should ever trust any promise made by Cuomo..."

    Nope. Never. Not as far as you could throw him.

    New York, your governor screwed you. Hard.

    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

    by grape crush on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:08:21 PM PDT

  •  Back in the early 70's I got sick of the (0+ / 0-)

    corruption in NYC, the mob influence, the ghost of Tammany in the political machine. I left for Colorado and though I have always missed NYC, I think I made the right choice. The mix of power and chutzpah is overwhelming.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 04:18:05 PM PDT

  •  Regarding the "timetable" (0+ / 0-)

    you mentioned:

    When you say "The IDC isn't saying it's rejoining the Democrats now, which it easily could if it wanted to," isn't exactly true.

    First of all, this year's legislative session is pretty much over with and the next official session isn't scheduled until next January. So, when you said it "easily could if it wanted to," that's not necessarily true. It wouldn't be all that easy at all. In fact, it would face a fair amount of difficulties.

    •  That isn't "exactly true" either. (0+ / 0-)

      The legislature can be called back into session by its leadership or Cuomo at any time, and there will likely be a fall session as there is practically every year - in this year I suspect it will be after the election in November as generally happens in election years.

      The diarist is much more accurate than you give him credit for.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:28:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually... (0+ / 0-)

        it is...completely accurate. The legislative session is pretty much over with, as was stated my me. Completely accurate. And it's also accurate to say that  it wouldn't necessarily be "easy" to change the leadership of the current legislative session. Completely accurate. Even your description of how it would come about bolsters my argument that it is somewhat more complicated than implied above (requiring a special session, etc., etc., etc.)

        •  As someone who's been in Albany for years (0+ / 0-)

          your perception and memory are a bit off.  Just because the regular session normally ends in May/June does not mean they don't come back for special sessions later in the year.  We see it practically every year.

          I agree that the change would be somewhat complicated, but overly difficult?  No.  They effectively have the votes.  That is practically indisputable unless one wants to argue reasons why two of the following three - Sampson, Smith, or Felder -  wouldn't vote for Democratic leadership.  The rules issue is moot - the courts won't touch it, regardless of how much the Republicans whine or how many lawsuits they filed.

          What I will say is that the complication comes from Skelos - who would likely do everything in his power to prevent the Senate from returning to session if he sensed such a vote was coming.  Cuomo, however, could resolve that by calling for a special session - which he more than has the authority to do and has already done numerous times in his term.  They have essentially no choice but to return if Cuomo does that.  If they refuse to return, Cuomo can send the State Police to round them up.

          Would Cuomo do that?  No, I think it's doubtful.  He wouldn't to be associated with that kind of drama if he could avoid it because of his desire to play up that he's "bipartisan."  But he could do it.

          So I reiterate - the diarist is correct in that it can be done.

          "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

          by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 06:56:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're correct... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darth Stateworker

            it wouldn't be all that easy to try to make the change now. That was my point.

            •  I think, effectively what it hinges on (0+ / 0-)

              as far as how "easy" the change would be is how Skelos would respond to Cuomo calling a special session.  If he relents and returns - it's simple.  If not, it doesn't happen, because Cuomo wouldn't want the drama of rounding up the Republican caucus.

              So the question mark is Skelos.  However, given Cuomos penchant for wanting a divided legislature, the situation surely does play into his hands for avoiding having to make good on his promises as long as possible.  Otherwise, he might just have to start delivering on progressive items he's promised (such as to the WFP) that would make him... uncomfortable.

              Personally, I think Cuomo fears a completely Democratic legislature because he feels it may very well pass legislation he doesn't like and even possibly be bold enough to override his vetos.

              "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

              by Darth Stateworker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 07:41:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It could be done.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darth Stateworker

            but they would probably prefer not to rely on the votes of any of them especially Sampson and Smith.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site