New York's state attorney general is set to take on Gov. Paterson in the Democratic primary, a source close to Cuomo told the Daily News.
Cuomo spokesman Richard Bamberger declined comment, but a source close to Cuomo told The News, "He will make an announcement at the end of March. And what he will say is that he intends to run for governor. ... He thinks there are a lot of problems in the state and he thinks he can help solve them."
Carpetbagger Harold Ford is, as you know, probably running against Kirsten Gillibrand in the primary. We know he only registered to vote in NY last fall, so he really does count as a carpetbagger.
Think he's an okay choice? How wrong you are....
Adam over at Open Left has some choice words about Harold's recent interview where he talked about sports. Despite being a native New Yorker who should know which team is which, I don't. It's that sports knowledge gap thing -- but you should read this and you'll get it.
We haven't written anything about gay marriage since the Maine vote early last month. A lot has happened, so let's catch up.
First, there was a ruling in Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service. It was a narrow ruling, but basically upheld that gay public employees who were married in other states needed to be granted spousal benefits in New York State. It was narrow in that it did not cover full recognition of these marriages.
Next, the anti-DOMA lawsuit we've all be waiting for has finally be filed:
The lawsuit was brought by seven gay couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after it became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
In court documents filed Tuesday, the couples say the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it denies them access to federal benefits given to other married couples, including pensions, health insurance and the ability to file joint tax returns. They argue that the law "eviscerates" the historic power of the states to establish criteria for marriage.
About time this was filed, and based on the 14th amendment, it has a good chance of winning. Section 1:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then, we have Barbara Ann Radnofsky, candidate for Attorney General of Texas, and a lawyer. She contends that a clause in the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has some bad ramifications for married straight people. Subsection B reads:
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages. [...]
Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.
"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."
In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.
And finally, from California, we have a petition drive to get a ballot initiative in front of the people which would ban divorce. This sign explains it all:
You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone
The idea, put forth by John Marcotte, is founded on the ideal that if marriage is so sacred, let's make sure it is SO sacred you can't get out of it. Or as he said:
Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.
I love this as a, um, shove to all those hypcrites who believe in legislating against others but live in the "do as I say, not as I do" world.
While Doug Hoffman is going off the deep end in NY-23, charging that ACORN stole the election for Democrat Bill Owens, (I mean this is so ludicrous - almost all the charges leveled against ACORN have been about voter-registration fraud, of which there have been a few minor cases, and the GOP has tried, unsuccessfully, to charge ACORN with actual vote fraud, but to charge ACORN with vote-counting fraud, in, of all places, rural upstate New York? Wingnuts continue to amaze me. But I digress) the reality-based community is watching the numbers in the absentee ballot counting, and, while Hoffman may have had a minuscule theoretical chance when we started, well, no more:
It's over. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Plattsburgh, leads by 3,105 votes with 3,072 absentee ballots left to be counted.
With 58.6 percent of all absentees counted, Mr. Hoffman has gained 71 votes on Mr. Owens so far.
Think back to the race last year: sitting Congressman Vito Fossella gets drunk in DC, crosses the bridge into Virginia, blows a red light, blows twice the legal limit on a breathalyzer, gets hauled to jail, calls not his wife, not his chief of staff who lives walking distance away, but his mistress, mother of his other child...there you are, you're laughing....H/T to Matt for sending over info on the GOP primary contenders. It hasn't undone my current sadness, but it certainly has brought back good memories.
Sometimes House races are interesting because of the issues, or because of historical import - and sometimes they're inspiring for their "train wreck" content. Such was the case last year watching Vito! self-destruct. I think my favourite part was the fact that his wife, instead of standing by him in the blue suit, pearls and stoic impression just told him to not come home.
The first two GOP candidates have announced for NY-13, 2010. First is Michael Grimm:
A Marine Gulf War vet and ex-undercover FBI agent who helped take down mobsters, crooked pols and Wall Street fraudsters is teeing up a GOP run at Democratic Rep. Michael McMahon next year.
He's not a pol. There's no info yet on his politics, but my gut guesses that he'll be moderate on social issues, conservative on economic issues, but will run as a law and order candidate.
One candidate is environmental lawyer and ex-legislative aide Michael Allegretti, 31, who has raised nearly $200,000 -- and is facing tough questions about a Gambino mob family capo who worked for his family's business for almost two decades.
I want to be clear: I prefer organized crime to disorganized crime. I have never thought that the "old" mob was worse than some "legal business" practices. I accept that crime is a part of society. I don't LIKE crime, but it will always exist, and the old mob had rules and ways of doing business. But a lot of politics is about appearances, and it doesn't work well to have any association with crime if you are running for office. OK, let's be honest, once you're in, it's different (Shout out to Ted Stevens, et al) but running with mob ties against a Law and Order guy... the potential is there.
The most fascinating thing is that if this is the field, the GOP won't be able to bring the evangelical aspect into the race. It becomes secondary. And Staten Island isn't upstate NY (aka "Canada" to those of us born in the City) - teabaggers won't play as well that far downstate.
Since both candidates and the sitting Congressman are all named "Michael", it's going to take some work to come up with nicknames.
It's going to be a fun race! Will keep you posted.
As threatened yesterday morning, I have read the USA Today again. Sadly, my coffeemaker is still non-functional. I have a coffee story, and I put it after the jump. And yes, it's true.
The gem I would have missed had I not bought the paper has to do with political downsizing.
We all know that people, many people, are disappointed in government. In Western New York, thanks in large part to a man named Kevin Gaughan, the reaction is to cut government by cutting elected officials. Not voting them out of office, but dispatching the offices themselves. Starting in Erie County, which has 25 towns, 16 villages and three cities. Most of these places have a full time supervisor and three to six part-time Council members. The part-timers make an average of $16,000 plus pensions and health insurance. He did the research, thanks to a cadre of college students, and concluded that if each town cut two Council members, there would be an annual savings of $4.5 million a year. Overall, the area has lost 56,000 jobs since 1990, and 300,000 residents since 1970.
After the studies concluded, he asked the municipalities to voluntarily reduce their size. Only one town agreed. After that, three towns held elections, and their councils were reduced. The petition drives and special elections continue.
Gaughan believes that the void will be filled with citizen-volunteers, and will lead to more participatory democracy. In addition, during a time of smaller budgets, this will serve to save municipal jobs like police positions. Further, he believes parts of government would become regionalized, so that there was an economy of scale. Note that some places already have county or region systems. Sometimes for some services (like a county library system) and in some places for everything.
For what it's worth, Grover Norquist is against the idea. What do you think?
Yesterday we polled on next Tuesday's elections, and the overwhelming majority of junkies (that would be 97.3 of us junkies) believe we'll pick up NY-23. We like that because we're Democrats, and haven't held the seat since it was redistricted in the early '90's.
But there is another story here, and it relates to the soul of the Republican Party as they find their footing. We've talked before about whether the possibility that the Perry-Hutchison gubernatorial primary will be a parable for the battle between the right and the far right, but this is certainly the opening act. MUCH more so than either New Jersey or Virginia.
John McHugh had held the seat since the redistricting in the early 2000's, and as the IIE goes, was a moderate Republican. The special election next week is to fill his seat, since he was appointed a few months ago to be Secretary of the Army.
There is a Republican candidate: Dierdre Scozzafava. She is not only the GOP candidate, but also the Working Families Party. (Remember, you can run on multiple lines in NY.) The REALLY interesting thing about Scozzafava is her list of endorsers:
Newt Gingrich
Peter King
NRA
Log Cabin Republicans
NY State United Teachers
Markos Moulitsas
Yup, your read that right. Kos of Daily Kos endorsed Scozzafava. His bottom line is his conviction that she is more liberal than Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. (She supports same-sex marriage, Owens does not. Both are pro-choice).
Meanwhile, there is Doug Hoffman. He's running on the Conservative Party line. His endorsers include:
Club for Growth (which threw $300,000 in his advertising pot)
Interesting, isn't it? Not the Basswood numbers, they're strictly the province of the people who already spent a quarter of a million on this election, but the next two polls.
There are still a lot of undecideds (even though they don't show in the Siena poll, they're there, since 29 + 33 + 23 still leaves 15). In addition, below the topline in the Sienna poll, Hoffman is leading the Independents.
Could Hoffman win? Statistically, but its unlikely. (Although Owens has started attacking Hoffman in ads). The really interesting thing will be the final numbers, hopefully broken out by party thanks to exit polling.
Party registration figures — always a lagging indicator — favor the GOP in the district, but the Republican advantage in the 23rd district is less than the GOP advantage in the 20th district, where Democrat Scott Murphy narrowly won a late-March special election.
According to the New York State Board of Elections, as of April 1, 43.1 percent of active voters were Republicans in the 23rd, while 31 percent were Democrats — a 12.1-point advantage for the GOP.
In contrast, in the 20th district, Republicans held a larger 14.7-point advantage, 41.5 percent to 26.8 percent.
In both districts, the GOP edge has been eroding. In the 23rd, the Republican registration advantage was 14.6 points in November 2006 and 16.2 points in November 2002. So, recent registration trends clearly favor Democrats.
President Barack Obama carried the district last year with 52 percent, compared to 47 percent for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Is there a hidden majority ready to come out in force for Jon Corzine? Maybe
The Club for Growth (H!!! Pat Toomey!!!) is supporting a third party candidate in the NY-23. This is the seat vacated when John McHugh was tapped to become Secretary of the Army. CFG is outspending both the Democrats and the Republicans. It should have been a good pick-up opportunity for the Democrats. The polls are showing the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, ahead of both the Democrat (Bill Owens) and CFG's choice of Doug Hoffman. But no one knows who Hoffman is, while both Scozzafava and Owens have already been on the TV. The money might make a lot of difference: it might shift support to Hoffman, or split the GOP vote and allow Owens to capture the seat.
As Matt reported yesterday, the Obama administration has requested that sitting governor David Paterson withdraw from next year's race. The governor politely declined.
There are several interesting things in this whole situation.
First, whose job is it to pick candidates? The person who wants to run? Some internal party committee? Right now, the Obama administration IS the party hierarchy, no doubt. If they can force a sitting governor from the race, either by direct political pressure or the withholding of funds, I'm worried. SERIOUSLY worried about the ramifications. It makes me question how big the tent really is.
Second, how far will the Obama administration go to prevent Paterson from running? There is no doubt that Andrew Cuomo (and yes, Eliot Spitzer) poll better than Paterson. Perhaps Cuomo will take this as a sign to get into the race, and that's fine. But if he doesn't, will the administration actually run a candidate against a sitting governor? If the President comes to NY to campaign for his hand-picked candidate, what does that mean for the presumed legitimacy of the current state administration? Remember, NY is a state that depends on "three men in a room", and the governor is one of them. Cut his legs out from under him, and it's not a good thing.
Next, is this punishment for picking Kirsten Gillibrand? It's sticky, because there is some truth to the fact that picking her is part of the displeasure with Paterson. But she IS the kind of pick the Obama administration, and the rest of the party hierarchy like: moderate, moderate, moderate. Still, for a lot of New Yorkers, after Kennedy withdrew, Cuomo would have been a happier choice. Alternately, one of the downstate progressives.
It will be interesting to see how things play out: the New York races for governor and Senate will indubitably be interesting. Not to mention, Charlie Rangel will be running again. My guess there, though, is if his ethics problems never hurt him in the past, they won't now.
A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Mike Bloomberg's lead over Comptroller Bill Thompson is falling fast. Specifically:
New York City Comptroller William Thompson, the top Democratic challenger, trails Mayor Michael Bloomberg 47 - 37 percent among New York City voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This 10-point gap is less than half of Mayor Bloomberg's 54 - 32 percent lead June 16.
Here's the part that makes me chuckle:
In the June 16 survey, New York City voters were asked to choose between "Thompson the Democrat" and "Bloomberg the independent." In today's survey, Bloomberg is identified as "running as both a Republican and an independent."
Mayor Mike still has good favourables, but it IS interesting that as soon as people find out he's going to be on the Republican line, too, things change. In New York, people can run on multiple lines, like Independent and Republican, or Liberal and Democratic. In 2008, for example, these were the candidates, and the lines on which they appeared:
DEM – Democratic Party……Barack Obama REP – Republican Party……John McCain IND – Independence Party……John McCain CON – Conservative Party……John McCain WOR – Working Families Party……Barack Obama SWP – Socialist Workers Party……Roger Calero PSL – Party for Socialism and Liberation……Gloria La Riva GRN – Green Party……Cynthia McKinney LBT – Libertarian Party……Bob Barr PLT – Populist Party……Ralph Nader
I don't know why it is that way, but it was when I was a kid, and I didn't realize it wasn't that way until I voted in other states and the ballots had each name in only one place. Which reminds me, if you don't take your little kids with you into the voting booth with you, you should. Like reading and flossing, it pays to set good habits early.
Bill Thompson is a good candidate. He's got strong bona fides in his work as Comptroller. He was previously a Congressional aide, a Deputy Borough President in Brooklyn, and later he served on the Board of Education, part of the time as its president. His lightening round answers put him squarely in the progressive camp.
There has been some back and forth between the two camps on education. If you need to be convinced that Bill Thompson is the better candidate, look no further than the fact that Mayor Mike's spokesman is none other than Howard Wolfson, currently channeling Karl Rove.
In the 2010 NY Senate primary, the conventional wisdom is that it is the fight between Carolyn Maloney, progressive, and Kirsten Gillibrand, moderate. While the two women may have many differences, Gillibrand has been working on two progressive causes of late.
First, she is floating a petition for a public option to be included in the Senate Health Care legislation. You can sign the petition here. If you've signed similar petitions put forth by other politicians and organizations, don't worry, you can sign again. Her logic:
I was very pleased to see the Senate HELP committee pass a bill out of committee last week that included a public option, and I assure you, I am going to do everything in my power to ensure that a public option remains in the final bill. I feel that not only must the public option be national and accountable to Congress, but it must be made available to all Americans right away. We've kicked health care reform down the road for far too long already. As others have said -- I think rightly -- a public option has already been triggered.
It's nice to see someone who believes the trigger level has already been passed.
In other news, Senator Gillibrand tried to get an amendment added to the Military Appropriations bill to stop enforcement of DADT. The amendment would have placed an 18-month moratorium on the ban. She ended up not floating the amendment, because she couldn't get enough support for it in the Senate, and it would likely have faced a filibuster vote. But she certainly gets credit for trying. However, bills for repeal appear to be coming from Ted Kennedy in the Senate, and Pat Murphy (D-PA) in the House.
Gillibrand will not only co-sponsor the upcoming legislation, but is also standing up with Dan Choi:
I am firmly committed to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Not only am I working closely with Congressman Murphy and Senator Kennedy's offices to develop support for repeal legislation, but I will be among the original co-sponsors of the bill when it's introduced. In the weeks and months ahead, I plan to work with Lt. Choi to repair the damage that has been done to his career and spare thousands of innocent, brave men and women, from the same injustice.
Starting in 1873, foreign diplomats, or their governments, paid property taxes to the City of New York on diplomatic residences and consulates. Until a few days ago, the outstanding billings totaled $260 million. This included the $46 million India and Mongolia challenged in court, and lost. Also the $32.5 million for which the Hungarians actually cut a check.
When she was the junior Senator from New York, Hillary was all for getting these scofflaws to pay up. But now, as Secretary of State, she reversed the policy, and told the governments they didn't need to pay. She even told the Hungarians to rip up the check.
What's more, the mayor predicted that -- freed of paying property taxes -- some governments would see it as a business opportunity to buy up properties and make money renting them out.
"It's just patently unfair to New Yorkers and Americans and it contravenes established policy for 130-odd years and it just doesn't make sense," Bloomberg said.
Back in 2000 she decided to run for the Senator from New York, as opposed to Arkansas, where she'd lived for years, or Illinois, where she actuallly hailed from. There was no talk, at the time, about any Pennsylvania connection, that didn't "count" until she was running for President. Back then, there was this word, what was it, hhhmmm, ummm, c-a-r-p-e-t-b-a-g-g-e-r.
"We as leaders of our respective conferences have agreed on a framework for historic rules reforms that will help us move forward to improve the operation of the state Senate.
The reforms encompass many of the recommendations of the Senate Temporary Committee on Rules Reform, as reported on April 21st as well as reforms advanced on June 8th which we believe will create a more open, bipartisan and member-driven body.
These reforms are long overdue. They give each individual Senator the means to effectively represent their constituents and assure each Senator will be treated fairly and with respect so they can do their jobs to the best of their ability.
The rules will empower the membership and enable all 62 members a greater opportunity to get their bills moved out of committees and onto the floor for a vote.
There will be greater public notification of bills on committee agendas and greater notice on active lists for bills scheduled for a floor vote. Committee votes will be posted on the Internet and there will be new CSPAN style government programming to give citizens a greater window into the legislative process.
We have agreed that the Senate administration will be fair and nonpartisan, including access to services such as printing, mailings and provide for equitable allocation for staff.
We hope to conference these reforms and act on them as soon as next week. By enacting these reforms we hope to make the Senate a more effective body to better serve the people of this state." - Press Release
