Last week, our friends at Freedom to Marry published their "top 10 moments" for marriage in 2010. It's a healthy list. All told, there were some strides forward.
I've been thinking, too, about strides backwards. I would count losing control of the Minnesota legislature to anti-equality Republicans while electing (narrowly) Mark Dayton as governor. We had a real shot at making Minnesota one of the next states to move on this issue.
The one that comes up the most, and the one I want to write about, is the New York State Senate. I had worked on the fight to pass a marriage bill through the State Senate in December 2009, a fight we lost for a variety of reasons. I'd count losing Democratic, pro-equality control of the New York State Senate this year as a step backward. But as I engage in conversations with colleagues in our movement, as well as friends loosely observing the process, I've noticed a resignation that marriage is off the table for the next two years.
Boy, has that death been exaggerated.
Some simple reasons why:
Despite losing three Democratic incumbents who voted for the marriage bill, we actually knocked off several incumbents who voted against it through a combination of winning primaries, open seats and close general elections. All told, five new pro-equality members (all Democrats), who either have voted for the bill while in the Assembly or stated they will support it during the campaign, will enter the chamber. Which means a net pick up of two, bringing the number of publicly pro-equality members from 24 to 26 (it takes 32 to pass a bill). We'll need to hold a few of them to their words, but it was a small, positive step forward.
Winning 6 more is a tough slog, but it ain't unheard of. It's no secret there are a few Republicans and at least on Democrat who privately pledged to support the bill if it got the requisite number to pass, some of whom are still in the chamber. And as time has shown, some people just come around naturally on their own. The campaign to persuade these members to come out publicly begins now, but we're not talking about changing the minds of six people- we're talking about changing the minds of a few, and instilling some courage in others. Again, that ain't easy in politics, but it isn't impossible.
It also helps that our community, through the work of community activists, HRC, Fight Back NY and Empire State Pride Agenda, targeted several folks who voted against the marriage bill for defeat and made headlines. Our efforts definitely weren't the turning point in a race like Monserrate's (best known for slashing his girlfriend's face), who was already on his way out, but in a place like my home turf of Buffalo, where Tim Kennedy was elected in a tough race over Assemblyman Jack Quinn III, the money and mobilization made a difference.
I don't buy the "Republicans now control the chamber, all is lost" argument. After the 2006 election, Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer faced a Republican State Senate with 34 Republican-held seats and 28 Democratic-held seats (32 are needed for majority control). In January, just around the time he took office, he got Republican State Senator Michael Balboni from Nassau County to take a position as Deputy Secretary for Public Safety in his administration, then campaigned hard for the Democrat running to replace him, Nassau County legislator Craig Johnson. Johnson won. Now there were 29 Democratic-held seats. Later that year, Republican State Senator Jim Wright from the North County region of the state decided to resign to become a lobbyist. A special election was held in February 2008, which Democratic Assemblyman Darrel Aubertine won. 30 Democratic seats, and the Republicans started to sweat over their majority. Sure, Aubertine ended up voting against the marriage bill (and lost his seat last month), but the point is that Democrats came very close to obtaining a majority and therefore control over the agenda.
Another case in point: last year, the infamous "coup", in which four Democrats decided to switch parties in exchange for more power under Republican leadership- and ended up shutting down the chamber as the battle raged in court for over a month- nearly handed over control of a 32-30 Democratic State Senate to the Republicans.
Republican State Senator Thomas Morahan from Rockland County died of leukemia on July 12, 2010, during a chamber that was closely divided, 32-30. Had he been a Democrat and a quick special election occurred that ended up with a Republican being elected, it might have thrown control of the chamber back into question.
The point is that nothing is said and done in a state where State Senators get appointed to state offices and have their seats taken by pro-equality Democrats; others resign or die in office; power-hungry Senators engineer a coup; and other wily moments. So I'm not with all the naysayers who believe the issue is off the table- not only will some State Senators move our way simply because of time and pressure, but control may actually flip. And though I'm skeptical, incoming Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos did promise a vote on this issue. I'm not painting a rosy picture here- it remains an uphill battle, but in Albany, as the motto of the New York State Lotto goes, hey, you never know.
A version of this post went out to OpenLeft e-mail action list members in New York State and Connecticut. If you're not on the OpenLeft action list, you can sign up here.
Cross-posted at Crooks and Liars
There's been a lot of talk in various progressive circles about sending Democrats a message, either through voting or staying home. But messages need to have a clear signal in order to communicate with politicians. So, what if you could support Democrats tomorrow, but send a message at the same time? It's the best of both worlds.
In my home state of New York, and in Connecticut, you can- and I want to tell you how.
In New York and Connecticut, third parties are different, because they can endorse candidates also running as Democrats or Republicans (a unique kind of system called electoral fusion which enables candidates to run on multiple ballot "lines". For over a decade, the Working Families Party has used this power to endorse the most progressive major-party candidates running for office and make sure they win -- without spoiling elections Nader-style.
It's a strategy that works. The Working Families Party has raised New York's minimum wage, passed living wage laws, fought hard against transit fare hikes, pushed for a moratorium on unsafe natural gas drilling, and helped elect real progressives in every corner of the state. Tomorrow, you can vote, and send a message, by voting on the Working Families Party line.
I grew up in suburban Buffalo and went to college in Rochester. Since I turned 18, I've been voting Working Families Party every election I could. And I'm not alone- over 155,000 people voted for Spitzer on the Working Families Party ballot line in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and nearly 160,000 for Obama in 2008, as well as for other elected officials up and down the ballot, from Rep. Louise Slaughter to NYC City Councilmembers. Votes on the Working Families line count the same as Democratic votes for these candidates, but they lend a more powerful message: that you want Democrats to fight - really fight - for progressive values.
Matt Damon explains it all:
At a time when many people feel like Democrats in New York State or nationally haven't done much, the WFP has done more for ordinary New Yorkers. That's because they focus on issues, not personalities. Living wage jobs. A fair tax system. Better and affordable mass transit. Fair treatment for the elderly. LGBT rights. Investment in education. It's a common-sense progressive party, with a strategy that lets progressive New Yorkers hold their politicians accountable. When an elected official gets into office, he or she can see how many of those votes came from people trying to send him a message that they want him/her to be a progressive- and act accordingly while in office.
On November 2, thousands of progressive New Yorkers will be voting for Andrew Cuomo, Eric Schneiderman, and the rest of the Democratic ticket on the Working Families ballot line - Row E. In Connecticut, Dan Malloy, Richard Blumenthal, and others will also appear on the Working Families line. Here's hoping you'll join us- and spread the word.
I wouldn't normally pile on such a spanking, but since there are so many other notables, I feel compelled to parse the Siena poll out today:
Cuomo has an epic 37-point lead over Paladino, 63-26. He leads among men, women (by 50 points), upstate (by 24 points, also excellent), downstate suburbs, New York City, 74% among independents, and even scores 30% among Republicans.
The only thing that could possibly get annoying in that race, I suppose, would be if Cuomo broke Eliot Spitzer's record for share of the vote in a gubernatorial race, set at 69.56% four years ago (annoying only because Cuomo isn't, ahem, exactly what I would call a bar-fight primary kind of Democrat in the way that Spitzer set out to be, not to mention his my-way-or-the-highway spat with the Working Families Party. But I do like his bringing attention to some of the worst practices in the Legislature.
Speaking of the Working Families Party, if you're registered in New York State, please remember to vote the Working Families Party line next month. I have done so since I registered to vote. It's a third party that gives progressives space to send a message without throwing a "Nader", and is a model that has worked to bring progressive pressure to state and local governments in New York State and Connecticut. For more on them, Katrina vanden Heuvel has a great piece in The Nation last week.
Back to the numbers. Paladino's unfavorability is at 69%. To put that in perspective, Gov. Paterson's is at 58%.
Eric Schneiderman, who would be an attorney general in the Eliot Spitzer mold- some of my friends who know him well say even better, actually- leads 44-37 over Republican Dan Donovan. That's a very key race, as Mike noted in this morning's piece, particularly with all this Wall Street mortgage fraud.
As expected, Schumer and Gillibrand lead comfortably by about 30 points each. What's notable about Gillibrand is that her favorability is at 51%- an excellent improvement from where it was a year ago or so, when Republicans were lining up.
Interesting, the favorable/unfavorable/don't know numbers for "Tea Party Movement" are 34/52/15.
69% agree with the statement "Carl Paladino is a loose cannon, who doesn't have the temperament to be Governor".
On the one hand, Paladino's homophobic hate speech- followed by what I called his non-announcement announcement and non-apology apology- pissed me off. And on the other, I think it was a positive step in terms of the message sent to see the public, traditional and new media react with outrage and give him his comeuppance, which helped fuel his slow spiral into oblivion. One of the important footnotes of modern political history in terms of how candidates talk about being openly LGBT and LGBT rights. Let it be a lesson.
Yesterday, NYS Attorney General and presumptive gubernatorial nominee selected Bob Duffy as his running mate. I actually know Duffy from my time at the University of Rochester. The 2005 Democratic Mayoral primary was a hot topic, and I met and volunteered for Duffy's opponent in the race, City Councilman Wade Norwood. Norwood had a lot more grassroots and union support back then, and I supported Norwood because I thought he was more in touch with problems of the city and their residents vs. Duffy, whose biggest issue at the time was crime (Rochester has had problems in that area, and Duffy was the police chief) and eventually schools. I still have a lot of friends back there and like to get back for alumni weekend, so I've kept up.
On his policies, he's not the most outspoken progressive around. He is possibly most well-known for pushing for an NYC-style mayoral takeover of schools in his administration and may get it through (the Legislature needs to approve such a move). He is a supporter of same-sex marriage equality and pro-choice, which is good, having seen David Paterson rise from LG to Governor and become, I would say, one of the fiercest, if not the fiercest, elected official advocating for the marriage bill to move through the legislature. Crime has improved I would say in part due to his administration. One of Rochester's biggest problems is development, and he has a mixed record there. The Renaissance Square project failed during his administration, which has been disappointing, while the Brooks Landing project- a mixed-use space of new campus housing, coffee shops, restaurants across the Genesee River from U of R- is already partly built and pretty nice. But he has at least paid a very close eye to development, which I like. And, of course, there's the "upstate regional balance", which I always find overrated, but there's that. And I do think he would be qualified to serve as governor if elected. Overall a pretty good pick, politically and to some extent policy-wise, and it sure beats Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown.
Duffy has said he will continue serving as Mayor until the election. If elected, the Rochester City Council will appoint a new mayor in January (although it cannot be a Councilperson) to serve until the November 2011 general election. The person elected at that time will serve out the remainder of Duffy's term through early 2014.
I've been following the story of New York State's budget crisis partially because that's where I'm from, and especially because of my parents. My parents work for the State University of New York system (SUNY) and have kept in touch with me throughout the process. It's something of a mess.
Gov. Paterson proposed furloughing about 100,000 state workers one day a week without pay, indefinitely, until the legislature passes a new budget. Despite rallies and fierce lobbying across the state, yesterday, the legislature voted on and passed the furlough plan. It's effectively a 20% pay cut, and there is widespread consensus that its illegal. Immediately after the furlough plan, my parents' union, United University Professionals (affiliated with AFT) moved to file a Temporary Restraining Order, along with Contract Grievances and Improper Practice Charges. Even the NYS Senate unanimously passed a resolution declaring the furloughs an illegal breach of contract.
The whole thing has got me thinking about the difficult of working in the public sector. In this economy, it's often those who work in public service that are most hard-hit. My parents get a 20% pay cut, but they have savings, their mortgage and car loans long paid off, and my sister and I are out of the house and out of college. Those who are younger and with children still at home or in college cannot afford an indefinite 20% pay cut. Even for people who are getting ready to retire, this affects their pension- the state looks at their last 3 years' worth of income, and use the mean salary to calculate their pension. This pay cut distorts their salary and it will affect their pension for the rest of their lives. Already my mom has a paycheck coming due after retirement, victim of an earlier budget crisis in which she gave up 5 days' worth of pay to get back after retirement.
Even in decent times does the job become difficult. One quirk about New York State is that nearly every year for decades now, the budget is passed late. My mom works for the Educational Opportunity Program, which accepts students from underprivileged backgrounds on conditions to college. Students who wouldn't normally go to college because they severely lack the financial means to do so, or have life circumstances that make it difficult at the time, can be accepted with extra tuition aid, tutoring and counseling. Without EOP, there would be little or no possibility of college in their future. Every year the program has to make a decision about how many students to accept, total EOP enrollment has been forced to decline because of budget cuts. Even on a college-wide level, because of budget cuts, no SUNY campuses were allowed to accept any freshmen or transfers in Spring 2010. Others entered college in EOP and were forced to put off their plans to continue, or go on without EOP assistance.
And even in good times, for public employees, things can be tough simply based on who is elected. My first memory of a rally was against Gov. Pataki's contract offer to the state employees, which was a 3-year contract with- get this- yearly salary increases of 0%, 0%, and 1%. Nice. We successfully fought back against that and won a better contract, but despite costs for everything going up, we would have had to make do with less. Later in his administration, Pataki zeroed out funding for the Educational Opportunity Program entirely- e.g., mom's job would have gone up in smoke. We fought against that, too, and won partial funding for the program. But Pataki had it in for good public education and unions and it was a tough fight.
So God bless the public employees, who have it tougher than many, and are sometimes more at the whim of bad economies or bad elected officials, and all in the service of better schools, colleges, roads, state departments, parks, and more.
Last night marriage equality supporters in New York State notched a victory with the special election of Queens Assemblyman Jose Peralta over incumbent (albeit expelled) Sen. Hiram Monserrate. With 95% reporting, the margin was a whopping 66-32%. Monserrate was one of just eight Democrats to vote against marriage equality, flip-flopping on his years of support and promises. He also joined the Pedro Espada-led Republican coup that left the State Senate in limbo for weeks. He was heavily targeted by LGBT advocates and organizations, including some close friends who live in the district. It is, as Duncan Osborne writes, a key first step in the State Senate.
We fell eight votes short of marriage in New York State, given that the Assembly had already passed legislation and Gov. Paterson led the effort for a Senate vote on it, and would have signed it. Seven more to go. Given Monserrate's conviction, expulsion and other litany of problems, he was be the easiest to defeat. There will be tough fight on other fronts. Sen. Onorato from Astoria opted not to run for re-election, and Assemblyman Mike Gianaris, a very strong LGBT ally and marriage supporter, is extremely likely to win the seat. Sen. Frank Padavan, a Republican also from Queens, may receive a challenge from former NYC Councilman Tony Avella. Other races may also pop up. It's also important to make sure allies who voted for the bill keep their seats so wavering Senators next time can see supporting marriage equality isn't political suicide.
We still have a great deal of road to cover, but we are well on our way towards winning the allies needed in New York State.
Okay, I know I'm going against years of political normalcy here, but let me give a free piece of advice to New York State elected officials: using the term "upstate New York" to refer to one region as a political whole is a little imprecise and very dismissive.
The latest example, from Gov. Paterson last night, while introducing Sen. Gillibrand:
Senator Gillibrand represents a region of this state that contains 40 percent of its population, but often is ignored.
Nothing against Gillibrand, but no, not quite. Sen. Gillibrand is from the Hudson Valley. What's that got to do with people in Elmira, Rochester, Niagara Falls, or Chautauqua County? Would Gov. Paterson walk up to any residents of those places and tell them "Guess what? I appointed Sen. Gillibrand to the Senate! She's one of you, since you're all from outside New York City!"? I sure hope not. So why do folks insist on referring to a region that big as one blanket term- "upstate"- and pretending people from "upstate" are all the same? I'm always happy to have elected officials from outside NYC, and she's Senator for the entire state, but Gillibrand grew up in, and represented a House district that is five hours from where I grew up. So what?
How does the hypothetical race shape up by region? In Gillibrand's backyard - upstate New York - she garners 50% compared with 23% for Ford.
Her "backyard"? If you take off Long Island and New York City- including water area- upstate New York is over 52,000 square miles. That's kind of a big "backyard", one that's roughly bigger than nearly half the states in the entire Union, including Alabama, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I was born and raised in suburban Buffalo, lived for four years in Rochester where I did my undergrad, my boyfriend teaches at Syracuse University, and my grandparents lived in a tiny village called Franklinville in the rural Southern Tier near the Pennsylvania border. In all of these places, some issues are the same, but lots are different. I'm pretty sure folks in those places wouldn't tell you they live in "Gillibrand County" or whatever. The culture and demographics are also different from place to place. The City of Buffalo is much more blue-collar Democratic, impoverished, and African-American than an Ithaca or a Plattsburgh or Cattaraugus County, and those places are all different from each other, so I don't know why all get lumped into ridiculous statements like "Hillary needs to score huge margins in NYC and hold upstate" as if "upstate" was all demographically the same and cared about the exact same issues.
Specifics matter. If you're talking about the Finger Lakes region, or Western New York, or the North County, or Elmira, or Westchester, or anywhere else, then say so. The sooner New York politicians- and pollsters- learn to stop speaking like 52,000 square miles' worth of people all live in one gigantic neighborhood, the better off they'll be.
The disclaimer states "This website is neither endorsed nor approved by Harold Ford, Jr. or any of his affiliated organizations. Any content or commentary appearing herein is the sole responsibility of friends and supporters of Congressman Ford."
Yet there are blog posts signed by Harold himself dated February 10th, 7th, and 5th. No doubt Ford's supporters are re-posting his content. I guess his brilliant new media people must have realized how politically dumb the other blog on which he wrote was- you know, the one maintained by a Tennessee County Commissioner.
The site misrepresents the President of the United States. In a post dated January 21, the headline is "President Obama Says He "Needs" Harold Ford", and the URL slug is "http://www.draftford.org/2010/01/president-obama-loves-harold-ford/", yet all of the quotes are from the 2006 campaign, when Barack Obama was Senator Obama. In fact, amusingly, the fact that the URL slug is different from the post title is sometimes an indicator that whoever wrote this post saved it, then realized the original title was not quite accurate, so they changed it, but the URL slug stuck. Regardless, perhaps the White House will make it clear once again that President Obama has not endorsed Harold Ford, Jr.
Under the "Links" at the bottom right, as of this post, you may want to fix that typo, and the lack of consistency on grammar.
(Click for larger image)
There is an ask to sign a petition to draft Ford. As of this post, it has a whopping 25 signatures on it, despite, from what I hear, the site being up since back in January.
In another fun move, Ford's backers allow those who sign to choose to make their signatures public. So let's take a look. We have, as of his post, seven signed "Out of State". We also have weird ones like "Anonymous, 8, 15, 14, 16" and "Ima Hogg, 8, 14". And we have some fun joke ones, like my personal favorite, "Ukant B. Zerius".
Just in case you wanted to have some fun of your own, here's a link to the petition.
First, evidently Harold Ford, Jr. is so unfamiliar with New York State he thinks NYU is in Syracuse.
Harold Ford Jr. -- who began teaching a course at New York University this semester -- might want to brush up on the school's rules for professors.
The Tennessee transplant - who is eyeing a run for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's seat - sent out an email to supporters yesterday about his trip to Syracuse that contained the address of his NYU office in SoHo.
The school had no idea he was using their address on his email until a Post reporter called.
"It's regrettable that this email, which was not affiliated with New York University, went out containing an NYU street address," a spokesman with NYU's Wagner School of Public Service said in a statement.
Third, while Ford is taking New York State 101, he may want to learn which schools are actually in New York State. From Ford's blog post:
When Senator Gillibrand travels to Syracuse again, here's what she will learn. First, the city has a young and dynamic mayor focused on expanding education opportunities and creating jobs. Mayor Stephanie Miner won running as an outsider, enjoying the support of Senator Schumer. We met and she educated me about the Syracuse's Say Yes! education program, a comprehensive approach that guarantees college tuition for Syracuse high school graduates to Syracuse and Carnegie Mellon Universities as well as all SUNY and CUNY institutions provided the student is admitted. Syracuse voters made the right choice in mayor. I look forward to working with her and her team for years to come.
It looks like the list of colleges and universities with which Say Yes to Education Syracuse partners is limited to those almost entirely in New York State, and Carnegie Mellon is, um, not there.
And that, my friends, is a nice dose of new media #FAIL.
In the last few days, two early polls on the potentially competitive 2010 NY-Sen primary have come out.
On Friday, Marist had Gillibrand up 43-24% with 33% undecided. Her approval rating was only at 31% statewide, which is troublesome. I'm certainly no polling expert, but the two things that stand out to me about this are (a) The sample was of registered voters, and only 370 voters. The margin of error was +/- 5%. A few folks with lots of experience told me in a state with 5.7 million registered Democrats it's hard to trust that, while others say it doesn't matter that much, you just get decreased precision. (b) It's startling to me that 52% of those polled have no opinion of Ford, and he's had a brutal roll-out week, but still manages to get 24% support. Again, no polling expert here, but it says to me that people aren't comfortable with Gillibrand.
Today, Siena has Gillibrand up 41-17%, with Tasini taking 5% and 37% don't know/no opinion. Gillibrand's favorability is about the same- 30%. Her re-elect/someone else numbers are 29%-45%. In this poll, Ford is unknown by almost 2/3 of voters.
Again, these are early polls, and not necessarily a big sign that Ford could win in a Democratic primary, but the Ford camp will spin it that Gillibrand is vulnerable, and I suspect it will help his candidacy rather than hurt it. With over 50% in both polls saying they have no favorability opinion on Ford, there is an opportunity to define him and keep hammering away at why this flip-flopping, carpetbagging Merrill Lynch corporate executive is wrong for New York State.
The interview - granted under the condition that the questions be limited to his rationale for running, and not issues - comes at the end of a rocky first week of buzz surrounding his potential candidacy.
And then actually says:
"This race isn't about feet, it's about issues," he said of ribbing he has taken on the web and elsewhere of his regular pedicures.
Taegan Goddard posits whether Harold Ford, Jr.'s game plan is to run as an independent, like Joe Lieberman. It's an interesting notion. The theory, to me, goes:
Ballot lines. New York State has a "fusion ballot" system where one candidate can run on multiple lines. For example, I can vote for Rep. Slaughter on either the Democratic or Working Families Party line. Some candidates even secure three lines. Ford's gamble would be to secure the Independence Party line and run there in the general election, ideally on a second line, although I don't see him getting the Working Families Party line or the Conservative Party line, either. He would also have to secure some kind of Republican support.
Ford's appeal. Given Ford's past positions and his attempts of late to establish himself as an Liebermanesque "independent Democrat", conventional wisdom would say that he appeals to Republicans and Independents as well as, if not more so than, Democrats. Given his carpetbagger issues, unfamiliarity with the state and lower name ID, it would also be better if the election were in November, not the September Democratic primary.
Republicans have no viable candidate. Republican Bruce Blakeman, the former Presiding Supervisor of the Nassau County Legislature, and not a serious candidate, is set to announce on Sunday that he is running. Given that Giuliani, Peter King, Molinari are all out, and chances are very slim if any that Pataki will run, Blakeman would be the New York State version of Alan Schlesinger, the Connecticut Republican who took 9.6% of the vote in 2006.
In 2006, Lieberman took 54% of the Independent vote and 70% of the Republican vote. While Lieberman had much more of a record of "independence" that was familiar to Connecticut voters, the theory is that Ford could make the same kind of appeal and get the same results if Blakeman is the Republican. I am really, really doubtful of this though, as looking at history, the only example of a major candidate to run statewide on just the Independence line was Tom Golisano, who even in his best showing took just 14% of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial general election. On the other hand he was running against Pataki, the incumbent governor who was on both the Republican and Conservative lines. There really is no example of the kind of race Ford may be setting up, where Republicans field a weak candidate and two Democrats run at each other on separate ballot lines.
It also depends on how much Republicans actually support their candidate. If it's a virtual alliance between Ford and the Republicans, that could be trouble, but if the Republicans work for Blakeman, or even just sit on their hands, Ford can't win on just the Independence line alone. And it's also hard to see how Ford has a virtual alliance with the Republicans after all the tacking to the left he's done.
Getting on the Independence line. My understanding is that the executive committee of the Independence Party essentially chooses who will and will not be on the ballot under that line. That's why Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to the Party in 2005 and $400,000 last year to get on the line. Goddard points to Bradley Tusk, Bloomberg's campaign manager, currently advising Ford as one indicator that Ford will do this. Allying himself with Bloomberg, who hasn't been a huge fan of Gillibrand, would go a long way. Ford would also have to get what is called a Wilson-Pakula signed by the Independence Party chair, which is where Bloomberg, who is known to be close to Independence Party chair Frank MacKay, would help.
If he succeeds, Gillibrand could collect signatures from Independence Party members to force a September primary, which would be on the same date as the Democratic primary. She must, I believe, also obtain a Wilson-Pakula, as she is not an enrolled Independence Party member. The winner would be on that ballot line in the general.
2010 turnout. As Mike noted last week, when voters are in this foul a mood, anti-incumbent and anti-establishment candidates have advantages (the notion that Ford is anti-establishment is a joke, but he's certainly trying to paint himself as such). This would be targeted at Gillibrand. On top of this, if 2010 is like 2009 in New Jersey, where Democratic base turnout was way down while Republicans were fired up, turnout at the polls could be better for someone like Ford if the Republicans work to back him, or so the theory goes.
Ford pulling a Lieberman. If you are wondering whether Ford could pull a Lieberman and run as the Independence Party nominee if he loses the Democratic party nomination, the answer varies. If he secures the Independence line uncontested, he's on the ballot in November no matter what. If it's contested, then the primary occurs in September on the same date as the Democratic primary, so it would depend on if he wins or loses.
The question for me is that if he is doing this, he would have very little reason to do things like switch positions on marriage equality and try and proclaim his progressive bona fides on issues like choice, immigration and labor. So, it could either be part of a 32-dimensional chess plot, or another part of a bad roll-out. When asked about it on Morning Joe this morning, he said:
Scarborough: We've got to ask this first. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Chuck Todd just said Harold may run as an independent, that there's a rumor out there that you're considering running as an independent. True or False?
Ford: Well, the thinking hasn't progressed that far. But if I run, I'll run as a Democrat. I'm a proud Democrat, been one for 39 or so years, and I think I'm going to remain that.
Scarborough: You know, I switch parties like I switch T-shirts. I've been a Republican for pretty long.
Ford: As we've said throughout this the last 11 or 12 days, I think the Democrats are looking for an independent, standup Democrat to represent the state. So in that sense I would run as an independent.
He didn't exactly slam the door shut, so we'll see.
So I just finished reading Harold Ford Jr.'s op-ed in the New York Post in which he panders like it's nobody's business goes down the checklist of what he thinks liberal New York Democrats want in a Senator and name-drops Schumer and Moynihan as role models. After vomiting a little in my mouth, I agree with Alan van Capelle- Ford is a snake oil salesman.
You know what the whole thing reminds me of? What my mom, a Clinton fan, wrote to me when McCain picked Sarah Palin as VP:
I take it as a slap to women everywhere, it's saying you want a woman on the tix, here's one. They're all interchangeable. Never mind her measly BA degree and her 1.5 years, she's female and that'll sell the tix, especially to Hillary fans. Bull, isn't it, it's warped white conservative male thinking I swear.
Harold Ford, Jr. thinks New York Democrats are stupid. Like, you want a Democrat who says he's liberal? Here's one on paper! That they'll just read a checklist of progressive issues in his stupid op-ed, read that he is suddenly in favor of marriage equality after flip-flopping on the Federal Marriage Amendment, voting twice for it, and then not announcing his newfound position in 2007, 2008, 2009 or early this year, and fall in love.
You know what I bet happens next? That he goes on a "listening tour" of upstate New York, just like Caroline Kennedy, where he spends 30 minutes each with a couple of mayors and leaves Buffalo with a cute little Buffalo pin on his jacket and pretends he knows anything at all about the state of New York. Oh, and just like her, hesitates on whether to take questions, worried he might be asked about something on which he has no clue.
Liz Benjamin is reporting that Tony Avella, a NYC City Councilman who is leaving office at the end of this year, and lost a primary to Thompson for Mayor, is considering running against Republican Senator Frank Padavan, a no vote on marriage equality. Padavan lost a very tight, recounted race in 2008 for his seat and is a big Republican target. Avella is very much in support of marriage equality and said he would have been a yes vote on the bill. He is also very respected for his work on zoning issues while on the City Council, and was endorsed for his Council races by the labor-backed Working Families Party. While, as we have witnessed, people can go back on their support for marriage equality, that is promising.
The reason I'm pointing this out is because, as I talked about last week, there is been an emerging "primary them all!" theme with regard to the eight Democrats who voted against marriage equality as the solution that will solve all our problems. There are a number on that list who are very likely to still retain their seats. With a target like Aubertine's, his seat is one we are not likely to get back. My point here is that all of this anger over the eight Democrats ignores that there is a target-rich environment among Republicans. Padavan is one. It's important to target district-by-district, not party by party.
At Netroots Nation, those of us interested and active in NYS politics had a great caucus, and this was one of the ideas that came out of it. A number of very smart online folks from some national and lots of NYS-based orgs and blogs will be there. $10 registration, can't beat that. Myself and a colleague will be doing a session on LGBT organizing, too.
If you're interested in New York State politics, you should come. Hope to see you there.
This is more of a sports metaphor, but h/t to Jerry Sullivan, one of my favorite Buffalo News writers, for the title
Some items of note around the country today:
I just got an e-mail from Rep. Eric Massa with the ominous title "An Important Announcement About The 2010 Election", with the text:
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representative as the People's House, and as such the citizens of this great Nation have the duty to elect their member of Congress every two years. While people sometimes get sick of campaigns, this cycle of frequent elections gives the people the best and most immediate tool possible to hold their member of Congress accountable and make their voices heard.
Accountability is a value that I hold near and dear, and it is with this spirit of service that I write you today.
On Saturday, 10/10 at 10:00 am, I will be making a formal announcement about the 2010 election. I would like to invite all of you, friends of old and new, to join me at Centerway Square in Corning NY on this morning.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve the families of this region and I hope to see you on Saturday in my hometown of Corning.
I called Massa's comm people for comment, and they declined to do so initially. Will update if warranted.
I don't like the sound of it, though. Massa knows it's a tough district (he lost his first race in 2006, which I worked on for a bit, and it's my grandpa's district), so perhaps it's just to prime the pump for a big crowd for his re-election announcement. I can't imagine he's running for higher office- certainly not Gov or Senator, and I don't really see him in something like a primary for comptroller or AG (or even qualified). The worst possibility is that he's not running again, something that would really disappoint me. I've been a huge fan of Massa's, particularly on his pushing for the House health care bill to be more progressive, and on his very strategic ways of talking about health care to constituents. He spent 45 minutes with a group of us NYers at Netroots Nation talking about that, and also hit some nails on the head when speaking at panels, too.
But one term and done would really piss me off, considering how hard the district is and how hard many of us worked for him, and that many of you contributed close to $1 million overall on ActBlue- including several thousand for standing firm on a public option. I hope he stays.
At the polar opposite of one term and done, former four-term Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is running again. I asked former Iowa political operative Mike Lux for comment, to which he replied "I thought we got rid of that m*****f*****."
Last night, the defense authorization bill with the LGBT hate crimes amendment beat a motion to recommit (an effort by the Republicans to strip out the amendment), 178-234. Those are solid numbers, in addition to the fact that the Senate version already has it in by amendment. So we should be all set. HRC reports the conference report should be voted on in both houses by the end of next week before going to Obama's desk. We're close to the first major legislative achievement for LGBT rights in this term.
Glenn Greenwald has a fantastic piece documenting how Anne Kornblut violates the WaPo's own rules by using anonymous sourcing sixteen different times in one piece on the Obama Admin's national security policies, and journalistic ethics in general, as well as some on national security issues.
Yesterday, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would legalize marriage equality in the District, was introduced with much fanfare and 10/13 councilmembers co-introducing it. If you're looking for legislative and process details going forward, I wrote a piece last week on it here, and my friend Michael Crawford of DC for Marriage also has a piece today.
If you live in California, there are two LGBT bills before the Governor- one that would recognize Harvey Milk Day (which he's vetoed before, prior to the movie I believe) and one that would clarify that same-sex couples married out-of-state before Prop. 8 are recognized in CA, and that couples married after Prop 8 are entitled to the same rights. I know a lot of LGBT couples who marry in other states and have talked about moving to California one day- this would ensure they are entitled to marriage recognition. Equality California has phone numbers here of your local office- call Arnold and tell him to sign the bills.
Robert Harding at TAP reports the Rochester D&C is running another column by David Sirota, his latest on Afghanistan, which is a great sign. I wrote a bit last week on the D&C, a staid, center-right newspaper with far too many right-wingers on the ed page and a center-right ed board in a solidly Dem city with some hubs of progressivism. They're considering adding David permanently to the ed page. Take a second and drop an e-mail to Editorial Page Editor James Lawrence at jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com and tell him that you want to see David Sirota's column made permanent.
STATE BLOGS
