Y’know, sometimes you have to laugh at the ridiculous justifications that politicians make when trying to get out of a compromising situation. Today, Celeste Katz (who’s done a great job replacing Liz Benjamin on the Daily Politics blog), reported on Newsday’s article that Suffolk County Executive, failed gubernatorial candidate, and all around scumbag Steve Levy was caught red handed filing out disclosure reports different from those every other Suffolk County employee had to file.
Y’know, sometimes you have to laugh at the ridiculous justifications that politicians make when trying to get out of a compromising situation. Today, Celeste Katz (who’s done a great job replacing Liz Benjamin on the Daily Politics blog), reported on Newsday’s article that Suffolk County Executive, failed gubernatorial candidate, and all around scumbag Steve Levy was caught red handed filing out disclosure reports different from those every other Suffolk County employee had to file.
Levy’s OUTRAGED (and no one does outrage like Steve Levy) response was (drum roll please) . . . that as a member of the NEW YORK STATE PINE BARRENS COMMISSION, he was already required to fill out a state disclosure report, which juusssstttt so happens to be a lot less disclosing than the Suffolk County one. How convenient!! This Lilliputian hypocrite has the bowling-ball sized testicles to make this defense not only with a straight face, but with OUTRAGE! I mean, after spending all that time working at the NYS Pine Barrens Commission, and spending all that time complying with the rigorous (sarcasm) state disclosure requirements, why should Levy have to fill out an entirely different form for that meaningless county position he has. I mean the county position is only the one where the voters elected him with numbers better than even Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein got in their heyday. It’s the one where he supposedly spends most of him time working when he’s not playing out his gubernatorial masturbatory fantasies with his fellow tea-partiers and other assorted nutjobs in Cattagaurus (or insert other upstate county here) County. It’s the one where the county taxpayers pay him $140,000 per year so he can have his forum to call murders against Latinos “one day stories” and justify the closing of a maternity ward because they were “delivering anchor babies.”
Why should the County Executive comply with a County form and regulation that every other County employee has to abide by? It continues to prove itself truer with every instance. The loudmouthed, morally unimpeachable, completely and unerringly confident, yet highly judgmental person eventually turns out to be the biggest hypocrite. Spitzer proved it to be true, Republicans prove it to be true on an almost daily basis, and now Levy proves it to be true.
Don’t be surprised if the second half of the story is that those undisclosed real estate deals were with questionable characters as “partners.” It might be that this small ethics story is just the beginning of the end for Herr Levy.
Regardless, from now on, all my references to Levy will be with his preferred title, Pine Barrens Commissioner Steve Levy, as that is obviously his most important function in government.
At least it makes it easier to understand why so many people hate politics.
“I am the one who has been subjected to JP's racial abuse for the past 5 plus years going back to Politicker . . . I am very protective of myself, family, relatives and true friends . . . I would carry a gun if I so choose; and it would be for for sickos like this.” - Rock Hackshaw 05/22/2010 @ 09:44 AM
Gatemouth’s last two columns have been very, very good, but unfortunately, the comments have been hijacked by Rock Hackshaw in an attempt to intimidate me, defame me, martyrize himself, and change history to a version that didn’t really exist. Needless to say, I’m tired of being falsely labeled a racist, a “sicko”, a “nutjob” and apparently, a threat to Hackshaw, his family, relatives, and true friends. Rock, with every escalation of words that you write, you’re coming dangerously close to the elements of libel. Your combination of false allegations towards me, combined with the expressed desire you have of “outing” who I am and tying those false allegations to my person, combined with the obvious malicious intent of those actions, would constitute defamation. I am not in favor of censorship, but you better tread lightly. You better than anyone should know that your words on this site have consequences in the real world.
“I am the one who has been subjected to JP's racial abuse for the past 5 plus years going back to Politicker . . . I am very protective of myself, family, relatives and true friends . . . I would carry a gun if I so choose; and it would be for for sickos like this.” - Rock Hackshaw 05/22/2010 @ 09:44 AM
Gatemouth’s last two columns have been very, very good, but unfortunately, the comments have been hijacked by Rock Hackshaw in an attempt to intimidate me, defame me, martyrize himself, and change history to a version that didn’t really exist. Needless to say, I’m tired of being falsely labeled a racist, a “sicko”, a “nutjob” and apparently, a threat to Hackshaw, his family, relatives, and true friends. Rock, with every escalation of words that you write, you’re coming dangerously close to the elements of libel. Your combination of false allegations towards me, combined with the expressed desire you have of “outing” who I am and tying those false allegations to my person, combined with the obvious malicious intent of those actions, would constitute defamation. I am not in favor of censorship, but you better tread lightly. You better than anyone should know that your words on this site have consequences in the real world.
It’s a shame that I have to even say those words to another poster on this site, but it’s time to recognize that the rhetoric from Hackshaw’s side is becoming heated to a dangerous level. Also, the only way to refute his outright public lies about me, is by just as publicly defending myself against those lies. If one day I do decide to reveal who I am, I'd rather that the reputation of this author be shaped by reality than by outright lies and slanderous statements. As I prefer to deal in facts, instead of incendiary, unsupported allegations, I’m going to analyze Rock’s statement above piece by piece.
If you truly believe what you write (that I’m a racist and a threat to your family), then back it up with links and quotes, just like I do. To me, these discussions, with you or anyone else on this site, are simply that, discussions. Otherwise, stop with your false comments, including calling me a racist or insinuating that I am a threat in any way to you or any person you know.
Here are links to the previous comments that have brought us to this point. If anyone sees a racist or threatening post on my part please let me know:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/enwhyseawonk/the_second_coming_out_of_enwhyseawonk.html#comment-659706
Here's an interesting link from 2006, where Rock actually agrees with me that Obama was not Presidential material. (GASP! A civil conversation!) http://www.r8ny.com/blog/jp/im_tired_of_the_obama_overload.html
A low-blow, but, childishly, I couldn't resist (still not racist or threatening. http://www.r8ny.com/blog/rock_hackshaw/primary_2009_of_great_expectations_endorsements_and_predictions.html_0#comment-1344245
Where I compliment Rock Hackshaw on his columns after the Hillary rebuttal: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/rock_hackshaw/bill_and_hillary_clinton_billary_have_blown_off_the_black_vote.html#comment-555084
Quite possibly the only comment I've made relating to race: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/rock_hackshaw/is_hillary_clintons_latest_hitman_geraldine_ferraro_part_one_of_two.html#comment-708440
Comments on a "Stoned Crackwhore" post: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/stoned_crackwhore/note_to_enwhyseawonk_tighten_the_screws_now.html#comment-599487
Much fewer are those who have a rational set of beliefs and a defined philosophy, and choose their party affiliation because of those beliefs. These are the people that understand that for the most part, the Republican party is the pro-business owners, pro-wealthy, pro-status quo, pro-small government party, while the Democrats are more for the lower classes and believe in social programs and government intervention to help those in society who need it.
The vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle. They agree with Republican beliefs on some things and Democratic beliefs on others. But in the end, we choose the side that we think best represents our views.
So here's my hypothetical question: How is someone that is anti-immigrant, anti-gun control, anti-gay rights, pro-Iraq War, pro-FISA, pro-Bush tax cuts, etc. in any way considered a Democrat and eligible to represent the State of New York as a Democratic Senator.
Party identification is more than what you check off on your voter registration card. Unfortunately, all of us sometimes miss the forest for the trees and forget that part of the reason we belong to a party is because we share the basic beliefs that make up the platform of that party.
"Gillibrand once worked for both D'Amato and Andrew Cuomo, another candidate for the senate seat. She was a special counsel when Cuomo ran HUD in the 1990s and her father was close to both Senator D'Amato and Governor Mario Cuomo in the same time period. Her former law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner has been the largest single donor to her House campaigns, and David Boies, the senior partner at the firm, contributed $25,000 to Paterson's campaign committee on December 23, 2008, while the governor was considering Gillibrand's candidacy. Boies' son Chris, also a partner in the firm, contributed another $25,000 on the same day."
"Gillibrand once worked for both D'Amato and Andrew Cuomo, another candidate for the senate seat. She was a special counsel when Cuomo ran HUD in the 1990s and her father was close to both Senator D'Amato and Governor Mario Cuomo in the same time period. Her former law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner has been the largest single donor to her House campaigns, and David Boies, the senior partner at the firm, contributed $25,000 to Paterson's campaign committee on December 23, 2008, while the governor was considering Gillibrand's candidacy. Boies' son Chris, also a partner in the firm, contributed another $25,000 on the same day."
No commentary necessary.
Let’s start with the assumption that it’s Gillibrand. As shown by my post yesterday, political analysis can get stale very quickly (like in 5 minutes) based on reality.
Let’s start with the assumption that it’s Gillibrand. As shown by my post yesterday, political analysis can get stale very quickly (like in 5 minutes) based on reality.
So the Governor chooses a gay-marriage opposing, gun-loving, blue dog Democrat as the next Senator from New York. You know what’s great about Blue Dog Democrats? They’re good at taking Republican districts, but bad at holding on to Democratic bases. In 2010, Blue Dog Gillibrand will have to run for reelection in the dichotomy that is New York State. She will have to ingratiate herself to liberal/progressive (and pro gay marriage and anti gun) New York City while continuing to charm those upstate Republicans to keep voting for her.
It won’t work.
Here’s why; Paterson has put chum in the water for the Republican sharks. He’s given them a DINO/Lite-Republican to go up against. Think about this, Gillibrand won her district because of the massive incompetency and personal problems of John Sweeney. When faced with a real Republican like Peter King, who will undoubtedly now run against her in 2010, those same Republican constituents who voted to put her in Congress are now faced with a real Republican option that is much more in line with their party beliefs. If faced with the Real Deal Republican (King) or the Republican-in-Democrat’s clothing (Gillibrand), for whom do you think that Republicans will vote? If I were a Republican, I’d vote for King.
Add to that the fact that Gillibrand is completely unknown to the 2.8 Million people who live on Long Island. This is 2.8 Million people that know King and who for the most part like King. My prediction is that King takes Nassau and Suffolk at least 65-35%.
But what about New York City? NYC is the Democratic stronghold and is necessary for any Democrat to overwhelmingly win NYC in order to win statewide office. When faced with the choice of bad or worse, my prediction is that NYC voters will go with Neither/None of the Above and simply not turn out to vote or skip that column. Think about this, Gillibrand is already a loser with the LGBT community, she’s a loser with the anti-gun community, and she’s a loser (see a pattern here) on immigration (bye bye Latinos). Add to that that 2010 is an off-year election and turnout is naturally going to be lower, and I don’t see enough NYC Democrats coming out to vote for a candidate that fundamentally does not share their beliefs.
So far I’m basing my analysis on her philosophy and positions. I haven’t even gone into negative campaigning based on her father using his influence with Pataki and Bruno to enrich himself or some of the other skeletons that are hidden in her closet.
So in my humble opinion, she loses Upstate to a real Republican, she loses Long Island to the native son, and she is not able to pull out enough NYC votes to compensate for the two. What does that mean, say hello in 2011 to your new Senator, Peter King.
So that’s my prediction for Senate, but here’s why I think that this poor selection might also cost Paterson his Governorship;
First, I think that this entire disaster of a process has drastically weakened the Governor. By portraying himself as insecure, immature, fickle, and petty, Paterson has demonstrated the weaknesses that everyone who knew him as Senator knew existed. The honeymoon is over folks. Paterson has demonstrated that he is not a real leader and that his personality faults make him someone who is unreliable.
That said, take Paterson/Gillibrand and put them up against Giuliani/King. Now honestly, putting partisanship out of the way, who wins that matchup? I’m putting my money on the elephants.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you lose a Senate seat and Governorship in one fell swoop.
It's too little, too late. The opportunity to be involved in politics and public service at any level, from community board to district leader to councilmember all the way up the chain to POTUS requires an unflinching desire and ambition to serve in the position one presently has and may be interested in the future.
Remember Tom Golisano, who wanted to run for Governor, before deciding against it, and then changing his mind again and deciding for it. Remember Ross Perot who was a viable candidate before he changed his mind twice about continuing his race. Look at Mike Bloomberg who has floated balloons about every other race before deciding against them (and is weaker for it IMO).
It's too little, too late. The opportunity to be involved in politics and public service at any level, from community board to district leader to councilmember all the way up the chain to POTUS requires an unflinching desire and ambition to serve in the position one presently has and may be interested in the future.
Remember Tom Golisano, who wanted to run for Governor, before deciding against it, and then changing his mind again and deciding for it. Remember Ross Perot who was a viable candidate before he changed his mind twice about continuing his race. Look at Mike Bloomberg who has floated balloons about every other race before deciding against them (and is weaker for it IMO).
Either you want to get involved in this lifestyle or you don't, especially in New York. There is no half-heartedness or "I'll do it on my conditions" when it comes to politics. Indecision is weakness (Are you listening Governor?) and weakness is a fatal flaw in NY politics.
Whether she wants it or not does not matter anymore. The indecision has killed her chances and New York State is the better for it.
On the contrary, if Paterson rewards this weakness by still appointing Caroline, then Paterson and Caroline both have to go in 2010 and I will begin immediately banging the drums for an Andrew Cuomo primary for Governor.
It looks like Ellis Henican hit the nail on the head with Sunday’s column about Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg’s candidacy (note the title, "How THEY, Elected A Kennedy"). From the beginning, it seemed like something with the Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg nomination was fishy and Ellis did a good job of pointing out what it was.
It looks like Ellis Henican hit the nail on the head with Sunday’s column about Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg’s candidacy (note the title, "How THEY, Elected A Kennedy"). From the beginning, it seemed like something with the Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg nomination was fishy and Ellis did a good job of pointing out what it was.
Here’s Henican’s theory. Caroline’s nomination is Obama’s payback for Teddy’s support during the presidential election. In order to complete this plan, Teddy and Obama had to move Hillary out the way, accomplished by Teddy publicly scolding Hillary after her attempt to create and chair a Senate Health Subcommittee and the subsequent offer of SoS by Obama. In effect it was a game of good-cop/bad-cop, with Teddy letting Hillary know that she was essentially persona non-grata in the Senate and Barack coming in as the knight in shining armor to offer her a way to regain her dignity. One more glitch though, the vacant Senate seat would then be filled by the fickle accidental Governor Paterson. That’s where the promises of bundles of Kennedy fundraising money and “good relations” with the White House come in. Let’s face it folks, if Paterson picks Kennedy, he’s Blagojevich with the caveat that the money is going to his campaign committee (it ends up having the exact same result as the one Blagojevich was looking for).
According to Henican, this is a win for Paterson, win for Kennedys, win for Obama, and a win for Hillary.
But Ellis forgot someone that doesn’t win in this scenario; the people of the State of New York.
Why is everyone overlooking the fact that Caroline Kennedy is a political neophyte with NO experience in New York politics and only limited experience in national politics (no-show job with the NYC BOE and honorary title with Obama’s campaign notwithstanding)? Why are we allowing outside influences from Massachusetts, Illinois, and D.C. determine who should represent NEW YORK in the United States Senate? Our democracy has been usurped and, if Paterson is to be believed, we only have approximately two weeks to let the Governor know that the People of New York should come first, not the Kennedy Family and not Paterson’s ambitions and fundraising goals.
There are numerous candidates, all experienced New York public servants, that are better suited for this seat than (Kennedy) Schlossberg. My personal pick would be Tom Suozzi, a man with a proven track record of sound fiscal policies, good governance, and the ability to use a high profile position like Senator to completely finish off the corrupt New York Republican Party in the NYC suburbs. Of course, Andrew Cuomo would also be a fantastic Senator, however I’m afraid of giving the power of appointing the next Attorney General to Shelly Silver, who would undoubtedly use it to appoint blowhard Richard Brodsky to the position. If we want to stay with the woman theme, Carolyn Maloney is a tireless politician with legislative experience in Washington. She knows The Hill and would be as effective as a Senator with no seniority can be. As a last resort, I would even support David Paterson appointing himself as Senator. It would allow him to get out of Dodge and avoid a horrible fiscal situation as governor, which will leave no one in the state happy and undoubtedly permanently destroy his future potential as a politician. As the man who can’t say “no”, is Paterson really ready to piss off EVERYBODY in the state when he cuts all services and raises taxes? Of course, this would create a logistical nightmare as Malcolm Smith (or Jeff Klein or whoever is the Senate Majority Leader) would ascend to acting-Governor until the special election is held for the people to vote for a new Governor and Lt. Governor.
But let’s not lose track of the topic at hand. The next Senator from New York should be someone who is QUALIFIED for the position, not someone who is seen as a cash-cow due to her last name and famous family.
Say NO to Edward Kennedy. Say NO to unqualified nepotism (Paterson, Cuomo, Suozzi, I know, but at least we know who they are and what they’ve done). Stand up. Write to Governor Paterson and SAY NO TO CAROLINE (KENNEDY) SCHLOSSBERG.
In contrast, last week, Andrew Cuomo held a press conference, and the headlines were "Cuomo proposes consolidation of local governments".
Ladies and Gentlemen, please let's not support the appointment of someone without substance. The issues are too important and the stakes are too high to have a political novice representing our interests.
In contrast, last week, Andrew Cuomo held a press conference, and the headlines were "Cuomo proposes consolidation of local governments".
Ladies and Gentlemen, please let's not support the appointment of someone without substance. The issues are too important and the stakes are too high to have a political novice representing our interests.
I think the sign of a true political junkie is when the Machiavellian machinations and conspiracy theories end up consuming your mind at all times of the day. This morning, for no reason at all, I kept thinking out scenarios in which the Dems could keep the Senate and bring the Gang of Three into the fold. The most obvious answer was Jeff Klein because of the Bronx connections with Espada and Diaz. That led me to the same conclusion Dan Jacoby reaches in his post. It's too much of a coincidence that the one person who everyone knows is hungry for the Senate Majority spot is from the same borough as two of the dissidents and has the most to gain from the entire thing.
Throw in the fact that it seems like there's going to be a special election for Boro Prez in the Bronx coming soon with Adolfo Carrion possibly going to D.C., and I wouldn't doubt that the real deal is Klein for Majority Leader in exchange for Diaz Jr. support for Boro Prez. Think about it, Klein becomes one of the most powerful Dems in the state and Rubencito gets exactly what he's wanted for the last couple of years. And really, if the Senate Majority Leader tells the party that he wants to support a candidate for Boro Prez in his backyard, do you really think Carl Heastie is going to stop him?
I think the sign of a true political junkie is when the Machiavellian machinations and conspiracy theories end up consuming your mind at all times of the day. This morning, for no reason at all, I kept thinking out scenarios in which the Dems could keep the Senate and bring the Gang of Three into the fold. The most obvious answer was Jeff Klein because of the Bronx connections with Espada and Diaz. That led me to the same conclusion Dan Jacoby reaches in his post. It's too much of a coincidence that the one person who everyone knows is hungry for the Senate Majority spot is from the same borough as two of the dissidents and has the most to gain from the entire thing.
Throw in the fact that it seems like there's going to be a special election for Boro Prez in the Bronx coming soon with Adolfo Carrion possibly going to D.C., and I wouldn't doubt that the real deal is Klein for Majority Leader in exchange for Diaz Jr. support for Boro Prez. Think about it, Klein becomes one of the most powerful Dems in the state and Rubencito gets exactly what he's wanted for the last couple of years. And really, if the Senate Majority Leader tells the party that he wants to support a candidate for Boro Prez in his backyard, do you really think Carl Heastie is going to stop him?
The whole thing is almost too diabolical. Think about this. Back when Espada won his seat, Klein would have had to began to conspire with Kruger, Diaz, Espada and Monserrate to sabotage Malcolm's chances to become Majority Leader by refusing to join the Democratic caucus. Things were going according to plan, when suddenly, Smith demonstrated that he had no backbone and was willing to give up whatever the remaining members wanted in order to bring them in. At the Dem caucus to sell the meeting, Klein is the most outspoken member, extremely upset that Smith would concede to these backstabbers without first consulting it with the rest of the caucus. This now puts Malcolm in the unenviable position is losing the support of his entire caucus as well as that of the rebels. Coincidentally (as everything has been so far), today, Espada tells Fred "The Rat" Dicker that he would be willing to work with Jeff Klein as Majority Leader, thus setting up the next scene in this soap opera where the Dem caucus removes Malcolm, installs Klein and Klein, with the blessing of the caucus, then gives the rebels what they really want (Espada- Deputy ML+LuLu, Diaz-Rubencito BP, Kruger-Finance.
So what happens to Malcolm? Deposed legislative leaders do not usually stick around to stay in the caucus (with the exception of Marty Connor), so my guess is that he gets appointed to head some type of executive agency where he can make $100K+ and ride out the rest of his public service life in relative anonymity.
Or, of course, everything could just be a coincidence.
As everyone is by now aware, with Hillary Clinton accepting President-Elect Obama’s nomination to Secretary of State (dumb move Hillary – you should’ve declined and stayed in the Senate), Governor David Paterson has the constitutional duty to appoint the new Senator from New York to replace her.
As everyone is by now aware, with Hillary Clinton accepting President-Elect Obama’s nomination to Secretary of State (dumb move Hillary – you should’ve declined and stayed in the Senate), Governor David Paterson has the constitutional duty to appoint the new Senator from New York to replace her.
Many names have been mentioned. Some are very good (Cuomo, Lowey, Nadler, Byron Brown) and some are wishful thinking (the rest of the Congressional delegation).
Out of all of these names, three candidates really stand out: Andrew Cuomo, Byron Brown (I’m a big Byron Brown fan), and my pick, Thomas Suozzi.
If you’re reading this site, then you should have some idea of how politicians operate. Paterson will privately select the person who will end up being most beneficial to his aspirations, while publicly proclaiming that the new Senator is without a doubt the most qualified person for the job. Tom Suozzi gives Paterson the ability to do both.
First, Suozzi can give Paterson an advantage that no other candidate can – winning Long Island. For the first time ever, Dems outnumber Reps in Nassau County and the County Execs and County Legislatures in both counties have Dem majorities. That said, I can almost guarantee that if Giuliani (or even Peter King) is the Rep candidate for Governor in 2010, he will beat Paterson in both Nassau and Suffolk by a 2-1 margin. Do not forget that Long Island remains one of the most segregated areas in the entire United States, with minorities concentrated in a few communities and the rest of the Island consisting of NIMBY center-right whites that bow to the god of Property Values (or in other words, no minorities in my neighborhood). This is the place where Elmont, Hempstead, Wyandanch, Uniondale, Freeport, etc., etc., suffered from “White Flight” as soon as two or three minority families moved into the neighborhood. This is the place where just three weeks ago, seven teenagers were arrested for killing a Hispanic resident in a local tradition gone too far named “Beaner Jumping” (the most amazing part of this story is the overwhelming show of support by the community for the teenagers). This is a place that THRIVES on homogeneity and is deathly afraid of change. With this background, it is highly doubtful that a blind, African-American governor would come close to defeating someone just like them, a Catholic Irish/Italian who is tough on crime and who hates those who are different just as much as they do (e.g. Giuliani or King).
Someone like Suozzi on the 2010 ticket will go a long way towards allaying those fears. Suozzi fits into the Irish/Italian Catholic mold that Long Islanders love, but without the fear mongering and scare tactics that have characterized the incumbencies of Giuliani, King, or even Suffolk County “DINO” Exec Steve Levy. Suozzi’s achievements in balancing and stabilizing Nassau County’s financials have made him a local hero, even as the majority of the County has not noticed that he has made significant inroads into the growing majority population in the County. Suozzi has pulled off a rare feat, being liked by fiscal conservatives, social liberals, white homeowners, minorities and almost everyone in between. With Suozzi campaigning hard in Nassau for Paterson in 2010, the Governor may be able to break even on Long Island and therefore probably maintain his office based on his strength in New York City.
Many say that the same argument can be made for Cuomo (suburban Italian/Irish Catholic), and in large part, I agree. However, let’s take a look at what happens if Cuomo is picked for the Senate seat. His appointment would create a vacancy for Attorney General, which would be filled by Sheldon Silver and the Assembly Democrats, who in turn would probably select a sitting Assemblymember for the position. The top candidate for that position would undoubtedly be Richard Brodsky from Westchester. That would make Paterson’s 2010 ticket look like this: Paterson/X (Gov/Lt.Gov), Brodsky (AG), DiNapoli (Compt.), Schumer/Cuomo (Sen.). If Suozzi were the pick, the slate would be Paterson/X, Cuomo, DiNapoli, Schumer/Suozzi. In the second case, Paterson is still benefiting from Cuomo’s positives by having him run for reelection as AG, while adding a new source of votes in Suozzi.
Some argue that Cuomo has his eyes set on the Governor’s seat and might primary Paterson in 2010. One would think that Cuomo learned his lesson in 2002 against Carl McCall and will not primary another minority Gubernatorial candidate, risking losing ALL support in NYC and thus losing the election.
Looking at the end game (2010 reelection), Suozzi provides the best options for Paterson to retain his seat and continue to increase the Democratic influence in New York.
-- Someone give me some of what he's smoking. From a March 24 QPac poll, "New York State voters oppose 50 - 33 percent a proposal to reduce New York City traffic by charging a fee for vehicles driven south of 60th Street in Manhattan." The 2-1 number is if there were a guarantee that the proceeds would be used for mass transit, but 50% of the same people polled did NOT believe it would be used solely for mass transit. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1162)
"'There were 40-odd Republicans,' he went on. "Their leader said he could deliver those votes."
-- Someone give me some of what he's smoking. From a March 24 QPac poll, "New York State voters oppose 50 - 33 percent a proposal to reduce New York City traffic by charging a fee for vehicles driven south of 60th Street in Manhattan." The 2-1 number is if there were a guarantee that the proceeds would be used for mass transit, but 50% of the same people polled did NOT believe it would be used solely for mass transit. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1162)
"'There were 40-odd Republicans,' he went on. "Their leader said he could deliver those votes."
--His leader said it because he knew that it wouldn't get to the floor and he thinks that by pandering to Bloomberg he will get some money. There were at least 12 Republican Assemblymembers that would have been crushed if they voted in favor of congestion pricing (11 from Nassau Suffolk, 1 from Staten Island). Even with all 42 Republicans, numerous Assemblymembers have said that the Democrats had enough NO votes (76) to kill the bill on the floor. If they had voted, the result would have been a bigger embarrassment for Bloomberg.
"And I think there has never been in the last 20 or 30 years a bill that got to the Assembly floor that wasn’t approved."
--There's a good reason for that. 99% of the time, the bill doesn't get out of the conference if it will be voted down. Also, when it seems that a bill will be voted down (2 examples I can think of the top of my head), the bill sponsor usually decides to pull the bill from the floor instead of being publicly embarrased. With over 10,000 bills every legislative year, it would be impossible for the Assembly to take a real vote on every single one. That's the reason there are committees and caucus conferences, so that bills that will not pass are filtered out of the system. To do otherwise would be an incredible waste of time. Bloomberg has his causation and effect backwards, the reason that no bill has failed to pass, is because bills that will fail are taken out of the system.
"The results would have been there. It would have been passed.”
--WRONG! That's the problem with being a multi-billionaire (or the heir of a billionaire who's elected governor and then caught with prostitutes). You're so used to getting your way, that even when you fail, it's impossible for you to see things as they are instead of how you want them to be. If the bill had gone to the floor, it would have been voted down, which would have been a much more embarrassing event for Bloomberg and those Council members that voted "YES".
Bottom line Mayor Bloomberg, it's time for you to realize your status as the lame duck that you are. This congestion pricing scheme has ruined your reputation in the outer boroughs and the suburbs, thus also ruining any gubernatorial aspirations you may have had. It's time to wait out your term and spend the rest of your life rehabilitating your reputation by using your money in philanthropy.
But look on the bright side, at least you're still better liked than Rudy Giuliani.
Yesterday’s congestion pricing vote did one thing, it separated the real public servants from the pretenders. In the entire City Council, there were only 6 councilmembers who could vote “Yes” in good conscience. These are the ones that represent Manhattan below 60th Street. There is no conceivable way in that this congestion pricing plan actually helps the rest of NYC outside of the privileged area below 60th Street. In fact, what it will do is contribute to the congestion around the edges of this hallowed zone, which will in turn result in a worse environmental situation for areas like Western Queens, Brooklyn and Northern Manhattan/Bronx. Further, as a regressive tax against the working middle class that live in the outer boroughs, it will continue to divide the City into the haves and the have-nots. Of course, since Uncle Moneybags probably couldn’t even tell you where Sunnyside or Bushwick are, he doesn’t really care. Besides, all his millionaire friends are now going to have better air, even if they won’t have basic goods because it will be too expensive for companies to pay $30 every day to make their deliveries.
Yesterday’s congestion pricing vote did one thing, it separated the real public servants from the pretenders. In the entire City Council, there were only 6 councilmembers who could vote “Yes” in good conscience. These are the ones that represent Manhattan below 60th Street. There is no conceivable way in that this congestion pricing plan actually helps the rest of NYC outside of the privileged area below 60th Street. In fact, what it will do is contribute to the congestion around the edges of this hallowed zone, which will in turn result in a worse environmental situation for areas like Western Queens, Brooklyn and Northern Manhattan/Bronx. Further, as a regressive tax against the working middle class that live in the outer boroughs, it will continue to divide the City into the haves and the have-nots. Of course, since Uncle Moneybags probably couldn’t even tell you where Sunnyside or Bushwick are, he doesn’t really care. Besides, all his millionaire friends are now going to have better air, even if they won’t have basic goods because it will be too expensive for companies to pay $30 every day to make their deliveries.
Thank G-d we have Shelly Silver to stop this madness.
Shame on Michael Bloomberg and shame on every single spineless coward listed below, especially those from Brooklyn and Queens who have blatantly slapped their constituents accross the face.
Maria del Carmen Arroyo, 17, Bronx, Democrat
Maria Baez, 14, Bronx, Democrat
Inez E. Dickens, 9, Manhattan, Democrat
Simcha Felder, 44, Brooklyn, Democrat
Eric N. Gioia, 26, Queens, Democrat
Sara M. Gonzalez, 38, Brooklyn, Democrat
Robert Jackson, 7, Manhattan, Democrat
Letitia James, 35, Brooklyn, Working Families
G. Oliver Koppell, 11, Bronx, Democrat
John C. Liu, 20, Queens, Democrat
Melissa Mark-Viverito, 8, Manhattan, Democrat
Miguel Martinez, 10, Manhattan, Democrat
Michael E. McMahon, 49 Staten Island, Democrat
Hiram Monserrate, 21, Queens, Democrat
Annabel Palma, 18, Bronx, Democrat
Domenic M. Recchia, Jr., 47, Brooklyn, Democrat
Joel Rivera, 15, Bronx, Democrat
James Sanders, Jr., 31, Queens, Democrat
Larry B. Seabrook, 12, Bronx, Democrat
Kendall Stewart, 45, Brooklyn, Democrat
James Vacca, 13, Bronx, Democrat
Albert Vann, 36, Brooklyn, Democrat
Thomas White, Jr. 28, Queens, Democrat
David Yassky 33, Brooklyn, Democrat
"Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual [Rezko] to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to."
"Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual [Rezko] to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to."
Here's the FULL truth: The above is only the beginning of the story. Obama first met Rezko while he was still a Harvard Law student. One of Rezko’s employees cold-called him at Harvard and offered him a job in their real estate business in Chicago. Obama went to Chicago, met with Rezko in 1991 and turned down the job offer. That was only the start of their relationship. I'm not going to hold Obama accountable for his work with Davis, Miner, et. al., a Chicago law firm that helped Rezko obtain over $43 Million is taxpayer money in order to purchase and rehab dozens of apartment buildings which were then ignored and practically abandoned. As a junior associate, Obama should not be responsible for the actions of his supervisors (firm partners). As despicable as the client (Rezko) is, I'm sure that the firm was simply doing their job by ethically representing their client. Both the firm and Obama admit that the Senator did legal work for Rezko.
Obama must be held accountable for receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Rezko, going back to his first campaign in 1995. He must be held accountable for providing jobs in his Senate office to campaign contributors affiliated to Rezko. He must be accountable for being involved in shady real estate transactions for his personal gain that certainly involve an appearance of impropriety due to Obama’s position as a Senator and Rezko’s position as an alleged felon.
Antoin (Tony) Rezko seems like an American success story. An immigrant from Syria, Rezko built up a business empire through real estate holdings and various franchise businesses like Papa John's and Panda Express. Like many wealthy people, Rezko became involved politically, giving donations to many IL politicians (both Reps and Dems) and even having a multi-million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. As mentioned above, he also used his political influence to obtain over $43 Million in public funds (read: taxpayer money) to build and rehabilitate low-income housing for Chicago’s least advantaged. Unfortunately, Rezko then stopped providing maintenance to his tenants, leading to lack of heat in the middle of winter and other behavior typically associated with “slumlords”.
Obama was one of the candidates that benefited from Rezko's political philanthropy. Rezko routinely bundled donations from business associates and family members to support Obama’s State Senate races. In 2003, Rezko was appointed as a chairman to Barack Obama’s federal Senate campaign committee and was responsible for fundraising over $14 Million for Obama in that race. Personally, Rezko has donated over $50,000 through family members and closely held corporations to Obama campaigns since 1995.
In 2005, Senator Obama chose John Aramanda to a competitive internship in his U.S. Senate Office. John Aramanda’s father, Joseph, is a longtime Rezko business associate and served as COO of Rezko’s holding company. Rezko personally contacted Obama and recommended Aramanda for the internship. Joseph Aramanda personally contributed over $11,000 in campaign contributions to Obama campaigns and was himself involved in a federal investigation for illegal kickbacks.
In June 2005, Barack Obama and his wife tried to purchase a property in Chicago. However, the seller of the property had an adjacent parcel that he was also selling and would only consider offers that included both parcels in the deal. Not having the financial means to purchase the adjacent parcel, Senator Obama went to old friend Tony Rezko and asked him to purchase the adjacent parcel so that the property owner would sell the other parcel to Obama. Rezko agreed and both transactions closed on the same day. One parcel in the name of Barack Obama ($1.65 Million), the other parcel in the name of Rezko's wife ($625,000). In January 2006, Obama purchased a part of the Rezko-owned parcel for $104,500). Throughout this entire process, it was widely known throughout Illinois and by Obama that Tony Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. Attorneys for allegations of extortion, money laundering and wire fraud.
Obviously there is nothing illegal about purchasing property, but when one considers the position held by Senator Obama and his willingness to involve himself in transactions with alleged felons, it is fair to question his judgment. Obama’s past shows that he is not above becoming a part of the “pay-to-play” political system and providing benefits to his political contributors. Am I naïve enough to believe that he is the only one? Of course not. But it is extremely relevant to know the FULL history of an issue, especially when a candidate is holding himself to be above the fray when the truth is that he is involved in politics as usual.
After reading this blog post, and reading the links below, take another look at Obama’s answer from last night:
"Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual [Rezko] to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to."
Now you tell me, was his response truthful?
Rock – I’m ready for your eventual backlash. Just for you, here are some third-party, independent, credible sources.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4111483
I very often find myself writing extemporaneous thoughts and think about publishing them on this site or other political blogs, but before I do so, I re-read what I’ve written and ask myself whether this is something that I want the entire world to see. Many times the answer is no and the document stays on my computer for my private use (or deletion). If only Mr. Hackshaw had done the same, he would have saved himself from the embarrassment and tremendous decline in popularity that he should suffer from his current article.
I very often find myself writing extemporaneous thoughts and think about publishing them on this site or other political blogs, but before I do so, I re-read what I’ve written and ask myself whether this is something that I want the entire world to see. Many times the answer is no and the document stays on my computer for my private use (or deletion). If only Mr. Hackshaw had done the same, he would have saved himself from the embarrassment and tremendous decline in popularity that he should suffer from his current article.
As a rebuttal, I’m going to discuss certain points brought up by Rock (bold text are direct quotes from original piece):
“Hillary Clinton stole New Hampshire with crocodile tears, lies, innuendo, distortions, push polls, put-downs, dirty tricks, subtle racism and disrespect for a beautiful mulatto (half-white and half-black) human being, named: Barack Obama. It was a gutless, cunning, scheming display of the class the Clintons lack. They should be ashamed of themselves: both Bill and Hilary (Bilary). And last night, when Obama made what must be one of the greatest concession speeches in American history, he displayed the class and elegance deserving of the next president of these dis-United States. He was brilliant; even in defeat.”
What a way to start a hit-piece, with unfounded allegations and potentially defamatory statements. If Rock had written this about anyone other than Hillary Clinton (a public figure and thus not fully protected by defamation laws) there would be a libel lawsuit against him within a day. To call any person a crook, dirty, dishonest, racist and so forth, without one scintilla of evidence is not only irresponsible, but potentially actionable.
Further, notice the inherent racism in Rock’s statement. How dare anyone disrespect a “beautiful mulatto”? As if this behavior would be acceptable if the "aggrieved" party was any other race. If Edwards had been the frontrunner and this had happened against him, would Rock care? I think not. I believe that Barack Obama’s campaign is groundbreaking and historic, but that is not an excuse to deify him and completely savage anyone that actually challenges his record and positions. Barack Obama is a human being, and even more, a candidate for President of the United States. As such, he should be subject to the exact same rigorous examination of his record and positions as anyone else. Challenging Barack Obama's record, positions, and qualifications is not disrespecting a “beautiful mulatto,” it’s making sure that the process works. If I were you, I’d stop looking at him with those lustful eyes and more with a reasoned, analytical mind with a vision of the type of President he can be.
That takes us to the second point.
“Bilary and their people went to great lengths to propagandize that Obama was not pro-choice. It was an outright lie and they need to be held accountable.”
Again, wrong. Hillary’s campaign did put out a flyer contrasting the differing positions between Obama and herself. Rock, look at the facts; while he was a state senator in Illinois Barack Obama repeatedly voted “Present” instead of “Yes” or “No” on votes having to do with a woman’s right to choose. That’s a fact. If you doubt it, you can go to Springfield, IL and I’m sure the legislative librarian in the Capitol would be happy to help you. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a President that takes the convenient way out and is afraid of making the tough decisions. President Obama will not have the luxury of voting “Present” when he is the Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive of the most powerful nation in the world. By the way, voting “Present” on tough issues DOES give your opponents the right to educate the electorate on your record. Hillary did not “lie and/or distort” his votes, they are there for public analysis. In general, why should there be a double standard? Hillary is constantly (and rightly) crucified for her vote in favor of the Iraq war, but when Obama is criticized for votes he’s taken (or failed to take), it’s disingenuous and cheap? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. All the candidates MUST be analyzed based on their past achievements and votes and this is only part of that process.
“When Hilary used that debate to groan and moan about not understanding why she is disliked, it was the gutless whining of a cold and calculating schemer. Did you observe her body language throughout the debate?
It projected arrogance, smugness, condescension, bitterness, meanness and viciousness. It was horribly disappointing and unmannerly. She showed nothing when compared to the decorum that Edwards, Richardson and Obama displayed that night-even when they were under fire.”
“You’re likeable enough” – Barack Obama in response to a question comparing his likeability with Hillary Clinton. Talk about decorum.
Rock, we learn something new every day. I didn’t know that you were an expert on body language. That’s good to know. You were able to get “gutless whining, arrogance, smugness, condescension, bitterness meanness, viciousness, and unmannerly” from those 30 seconds? This expertise on body language is a very marketable skill Rock. Maybe it’s something that you should further explore. Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t take a body language expert to see that your “beautiful mulatto’s” response was clearly mean-spirited and crass, and probably a big reason that so many voters were turned off to his candidacy. The story for the last couple of days had been how badly Hillary had been crushed in Iowa. In response, Obama looked very, very small taking an unnecessary cheap shot at Hillary during the debate. Face it, people in general don’t like seeing others kicked when they’re down. That’s what Obama tried to do and he paid the price for it.
“When she faked shedding those crocodile tears in the coffee shop, it was a calculated display to further play on the fragile emotions of women voters. It was skillful and cheap. It was also crass. She cannot defeat Obama on style, substance, ideas, message, articulation, grace or charisma, but she can sure whip him by manipulating emotions (especially those of women); she has always been good at eliciting sympathy; especially from women.”
So not only are you racist, you’re also a sexist. How dare you say that the women voters in New Hampshire are so "fragile," weak and ignorant that they failed to see through such a blatant “cheap and crass” display? Your gross generalization that women can be manipulated by only using emotions shows just how backwards your thinking is. Apparently women voters can’t see substance, ideas, message, articulation, grace or charisma. The only thing that matters to women is emotions. Shame on you Rock for denigrating the modern women voter. After all your years involved in politics, you really should know much better than this.
“Hilary Clinton is a power-hungry manipulator. Barack Obama is a very genteel man. She should be punished for what she did to him in New Hampshire. Really.”
I think the voters in New Hampshire decided who should be rewarded and who should be punished. Good for them for making the right choices.
“She was putting down a highly accomplished man and subtly suggesting that this person (who calls himself “black”) was inferior and not fit to be president”
Isn’t he doing the exact same thing to a highly accomplished woman? Aren’t you doing even worse for blatantly slandering a woman candidate in this forum? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw Rocks. Isn’t the entire point of a political campaign to show why one candidate will make a better elected official than another or will be a better fit for the position being sought? This inherently means that the candidate believes that their opposition is not as well suited as the candidate is to hold that office. Again, why is Barack Obama entitled to a free pass to the Presidency of this country? The voters deserve to question him, his positions, his ideas and his record. This is not putting him down, this is ensuring that he meets the qualifications that people are looking for in a President. This is the way that a democratic republic works.
And now, we talk about experience:
“Hillary has been a legislator for seven years; Obama has been a legislator for ten.”
Obama served in the Illinois Senate from 1996-2004. In those eight years I’m sure he was a great representative for his senatorial district. However, let’s not make the mistake of comparing STATE legislative experience with the relevant domestic, international and administrative experience needed to serve as President of the United States. Obama had not even served one full year in the U.S. Senate before becoming involved in the Presidential race. Essentially, he’s attempting to make a leap from Springfield, IL to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. To put this in context for New Yorkers, imagine if Eric Schneiderman or Mike Gianaris decided to run for President of the United States. Would they be viable candidates? Of course not. However, both have the same qualifications that Obama has. All are fantastic public speakers, top-notch state legislators and Harvard Law graduates. Folks, that’s the extent of Barack Obama’s experience. When I see Barack Obama, I think of Eric Schneiderman. Neither one is ready to be President. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has been involved in shaping domestic and international policy on the federal level non-stop since 1992 (if the math is too difficult, that’s 4 years before Obama was first elected, and I’m not even counting Arkansas). Congratulations to Obama for sponsoring and passing more bills (Dick Gottfried or Dean Skelos would be proud) and winning more political races (Although I bet that John Marchi has won more than all the candidates put together). All of these arguments are completely specious and irrelevant to the position of President. Now if Barack wants to run for Illinois Senate Majority Leader, I’m sure that he could get a lot of support based on your stated qualifications.
As far as partisanship and the ability to working well with others, I’m going to quote Chris Corbell and let Hillary’s record speak for itself. By the way, if you had done the most minimal homework instead of having a hissy fit because your messiah lost, you would have found the following:
“Here are just a few examples of her working with Republicans to pass bi-partisan legislation, I’m sure there are many more if you keep doing your homework:
* Sponsored legistlation to protect bonuses for wounded veterans along with
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Robert Casey (D-PA). Also co-sponsored by Republican John McCain.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i d=289247
* Sponsored legislation with Chris Dodd to extend family medical leave for wounded soldiers; co-sponsored by several Republicans including Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss and Elizabeth Dole.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i d=289154
* Introduced legislation to improve mental health services for seniors along with two Republicans (Susan Collins, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) and Democrat Patrick Kennedy.
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i d=271222
* Introduced legislation with Pat Roberts (R-KS) to address pandemic and seasonal influenza public health risks
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i d=288893”
From http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/in-nh-clinton-cites-bipartisan-work/
Simply put, the “polarizing figure” rhetoric is hogwash. Hillary has a history of working across the aisle and creating coalitions for important issues.
Let’s continue:
“So by constantly putting down Obama’s message of hope, and by trivializing his vision, they were not only being unfair, but they were calculatingly playing their race card in a subtle way and marginalizing him at the same time. They were raising doubts about his credibility, electability and qualifications.”
Yes, they were raising doubts about his credibility, electability and qualifications, which is exactly what a political campaign is about. However, this has nothing to do with race (Sorry, I know that disappoints you), but everything to do with his absolute lack of relevant experience for the job. It doesn’t matter how much you hope and how much you wish for change, it’s not going to happen if you don’t have the experience to use it to the full potential. That’s the case with Obama. As much as it pains you, this is not a conspiracy against a black man, it’s a campaign against an unqualified candidate (to be reminded on why he’s unqualified, look above).
At this point you go on to complain about Bill’s disrespect, attacks on his qualifications, and “treasonous in substance and spirit” statements. I suggest you use Wikipedia and learn the meaning of treason and how it does not in any way apply in this case. Also, try to take off those blinders and start looking at Obama as a human being instead of as a demi-god who is ENTITLED to win the Presidency. This perception of entitlement is another reason why Obama lost the N.H. primary. If there's one thing Americans hate, it's politicians that feel ENTITLED to anything. Your obvious response is that no one has felt as entitled as Hillary, and you would be right. That is what Iowa was about, the electorate telling Hillary "Not so fast. You're going to have to work for it."
Rock, I think it’s great that you have a candidate that you believe in and are working to elect. In general, I think Barack is doing a lot of good by waking up constituencies that don’t usually pay attention to politics. I also think that Barack Obama is going to be a fantastic Vice-Presidential candidate in this election and has the potential of being one of the best Presidents in American history in 2016, however you do Obama and yourself a great disservice by publishing tripe like this. Your readers and fans expect better from you.