Rolling Stone: Schneiderman vs. Obanker

Has Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi been keeping tabs on our very own Phillip Anderson's continuing TAP coverage of Attorney General Scheiderman's refusal to cave in to Obama's bank cartel settlement deal?




I would assume both citizen journalists came to it themselves, but the new RS blog by Taibbi is a welcome addition to the voices bringing this issue up. I recieved it from former State Senate candidate David Weiss in an e-mail, and I hope this gets more attention. Fat chance it will break through Very Important Nonstop Hurricane Updates, but I implore you, check out Taibbi's full article if these choice quotes mean anything to you:

Obama Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal

::

The idea behind this federally-guided “settlement” is to concentrate and centralize all the legal exposure accrued by this generation of grotesque banker corruption in one place, put one single price tag on it that everyone can live with, and then stuff the details into a titanium canister before shooting it into deep space.



This is all about protecting the banks from future enforcement actions on both the civil and criminal sides. The plan is to provide year-after-year, repeat-offending banks like Bank of America with cost certainty, so that they know exactly how much they’ll have to pay in fines (trust me, it will end up being a tiny fraction of what they made off the fraudulent practices) and will also get to know for sure that there are no more criminal investigations in the pipeline.

::

So this deal being cooked up is the ultimate Papal indulgence. By the time that $20 billion (if it even ends up being that high) gets divvied up between all the major players, the broadest and most destructive fraud scheme in American history, one that makes the S&L crisis look like a cheap liquor store holdup, will be safely reduced to a single painful but eminently survivable one-time line item for all the major perpetrators.

::

Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.



Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.



Emphasis mine - SP

The same fellow who e-mailed this to me began calling him Obummer a couple years back. Now, with this, it's worth it to add "Obanker" to the list of worthy aliases attributable to this mockery of a president.

Why I Stand With Senator Sanders

It's currently being suggested that the "compromise" between President Obama and the GOP is a good deal.  The mainstream media, which of course is owned by incredibly monied interests with a huge stake in this deal, has all weekend been trumpeting a brief appearance by former President Clinton in support of this "compromise."  This is the same mainstream media which ignored a much longer appearance by a much more heroic figure which captured the hearts and minds of this nation via internet streaming and social networking sites.

By now, you must have heard of The Bernie Sanders Filibuster.  Yes, I know, it wasn't a real filibuster because it wasn't actually blocking a vote.  But what it was was a super-human, super-progressive display of endurance and speaking truth to power.  At over eight and a half hours, it was not only the truth, but it was the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Senator Sanders stood on the floor on the Senate and kept going, explaining why this "compromise" is a very bad deal.

He explained why the tax cut extensions were bad, why the free trade deals are bad, why the reduction in estate taxes are bad, why everything that you and I know are bad are bad.  Essentially, it was the progressive platform that any progressive should be in agreement with 100% and should be getting behind 100%.

Because Senator Sanders said it so well, I'm compelled to simply let Bernie speak for himself.  Up here, you may view the beginning of the speech in video form.  Below the fold, I'll simply snip the best of the best from the transcript as it was entered into the Congressional Record, all 124 pages of it.  But before that, let me tell you how I heard this was happening and how I experienced the speech myself.

It was Friday, and I did not get a call to work that day as a driver helper for UPS.  I was just finishing my first week back to work in nearly two years.  So around noon-time I picked up my first paycheck in two, proud to see that I was finally contributing state and federal payroll taxes again, and decided to hop over to my father's to get my laundry done in preparation for another week of work.  Naturally, I was trolling about the internet, checking my Facebook page and the news sites.  Suddenly, I was altered that Senator Sanders, who I heard speak on a conference call with Democracy for America earlier in the week, had been filibustering the tax "compromise" deal for the past four hours.  I found the feed on C-SPAN2 and was instantly captivated.  Any progressive should have been.  I then headed over to my fathers, and had him and his fiancee (a Vermont constituent of Sen. Sanders) turn the feed on as well. 

I tell you now: sharing that event with my struggling family meant far more to any of us than when we watched the Democratic convention in 2008, or the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009.  We were finally seeing a representative doing their job the way it was meant to be done, not just speaking in political platitudes to win an election or rise his standings in the polls.  We saw a Senator just telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  By the time Senator Sanders got to the point of reading letters from his constituents telling how they are freezing because heat oil is too high and having to choose between groceries for their children and gasoline to drive to and from work, there were tears in our eyes.  The same tears that nearly well up in a strange concoction of anger and sadness now that I hear some of my progressive friends proclaiming that, somehow, this is a "good deal."

Here's the beginnig of the speech from YouTube.  Below the fold, excerpts from the speech's transcript as it appears in the Congressional Record.  Watch it; read it; then ask yourself if you stand with the GOP and Obama...or with Senator Bernie Sanders.




(Cross-posted on The Albany Project)

All emphasis added is my own.  The excerpts are in chronological order.  All I ask if you wish to comment is that you don't address my own words in the introduction; do you best to argue with Senator Sanders' words, and see if you can do better.

But here we are today with a $13.8 trillion national debt, a $1.4 trillion deficit, and almost all Americans are in agreement that this is a very serious issue. So the first point I would make is that it seems to me to be unconscionable--unconscionable--for my conservative friends and for everybody else in this country to be driving up this already too high national debt by giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need it, and in a number of cases they don't even want it.

We have been told not to worry too much because the extension of these tax breaks for the wealthy will only last 2 years--not to worry. Maybe that is the case. But given the political reality I have seen in Washington, my guess is that 2 years from now these tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country will be extended again. What happens around here is that the argument will be made that if you end these tax breaks you are raising taxes. That is what we are hearing right now. I see no reason why, in the middle of a Presidential election, those arguments will not be made again and I see no reason not to believe that those tax breaks will be extended again.

This agreement between the President and the Republican leadership also calls for a continuation of the Bush era 15-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends, meaning that those people who make their living off their investments will continue to pay a substantially lower tax rate than firemen, teachers, nurses, carpenters, and virtually all the other working people of this country. I do not think that is fair. That is wrong.

Here is the important point I think many people do not know. I have to confess my Republican friends and their pollsters and their language people have done a very good job. This is the so-called death tax. I think all over America people say this is terrible. I have $50,000 in the bank and I want to leave that to my kids and the Government is going to take 55 percent of that, 35 percent of that. What an outrage.

Let us be very clear: This tax applies only--only--to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.

The above quotations are all available in the YouTube video above the fold, in case any of you are unable to access it.  From here on out, it's part of the 8 hours and twenty minutes that Senator Sanders continued speaking, continued fighting, continued to tell the truth.

On the Social Security payroll tax "holiday:"

What the President and others are saying is not to worry because that money will be covered by the general fund. That is a very bad and dangerous precedent. Up until now, what Social Security has been about is 100 percent funding from payroll contributions, not from the general tax base. Once again, this is a 1-year program. The loss of revenue going into Social Security can be covered by the general fund. But we have a $13 trillion national debt. How much longer will the general fund put money into Social Security? Is it a good idea for the general fund to be doing that?

I would argue this is not a good idea.

Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides deficit-busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in Social Security contributions for a so-called ``tax holiday'' may sound like a good deal for workers now, but it's bad business for the program that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.

On better things to spend the money on:

Economists on both ends of the political spectrum believe that if we are serious about addressing the horrendous economic crisis we are in now, 9.8 percent unemployment, there are far more effective ways of creating the jobs we have to create than those tax proposals. With corporate America already sitting on close to $2 trillion cash on hand, it is not that our friends in corporate America don't have any money, we have to help them. They have $2 trillion cash on hand. The problem is not in my view that corporate taxes are too high; it is that the middle class simply doesn't have the money to purchase the goods and products that make our economy go and create jobs.
I think if our goal is to create the millions and millions of jobs we need, and if our goal is to make our country stronger internationally in a very tough global economy, I would much prefer, and I think most economists would agree with me that a better way to do that, to create the millions of jobs we have to create, is to invest heavily in our infrastructure.

On the myth of this being a compromise:

But here is the point I want to make. Some people say this is a compromise. Well, the Republicans gave on unemployment; the President gave on extending tax breaks for the rich, et cetera. But here is the point. I do not believe, honestly, that the Republican support now for extending unemployment benefits constitutes much of a compromise because the truth is, for the past 40 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, under the leadership in the Senate and the House of Democrats or Republicans, it has been bipartisan policy that whenever the unemployment rate has been above 7.2 percent, unemployment insurance has always been extended. So what we have had is longstanding, bipartisan policy. That is what we have always done. That is what we should be doing in the future. I do not regard Republicans now supporting what their party has always supported, extending unemployment benefits when unemployment becomes very high--I do not see that as a compromise. I see that as what has been going on in this country and in the Senate for four decades.

On why the precendent this "compromise" sets is terrible:

I think what we will be seeing is--if this proposal negotiated between the President and the Republicans is passed, what you will be seeing within a few months are folks coming on the floor of the Senate, and this is what they will say: You know what. The deficit is high. The national debt is too high. And, yes--oh, yes--we drove the national debt up by giving tax breaks to millionaires. That is the way it goes. But we are going to have to deal with our national debt.

The Republicans will tell you: Oh, we have a great plan to deal with it. We are giving tax breaks to millionaires. But now what we are going to have to do is start making deep cuts in Social Security, and that deficit reduction commission started paving the way for that, very substantial cuts in Social Security.
:: I would suggest their argument is that we have a high deficit and a high national debt; that if we pass this agreement and the national debt goes higher, it only gives them more impetus to go forward to cut programs that benefit working families and the middle class.

Let me also say there is no doubt in my mind what many--not all but many--of my Republican colleagues want to do; that is, they want to move this country back into the 1920s when essentially we had an economic and political system which was controlled by big money interests; where working people and the middle class had no programs to sustain them when things got bad, when they got old, and when they got sick; when labor unions were very hard to come by because of antiworker legislation. That is what they want. They do not believe in things like the Environmental Protection Agency. They do not believe in things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal aid to education. That is the fight we will be waging.
I think to surrender on this issue is to simply say we are going to be waging fight after fight, starting within a couple of months.

On why we, the people, shouldn't be calling this "a good deal":

This fight is not going to be won inside the beltway in a Senate debate. It is going to be won when the American people stand and say: Wait a second. We cannot continue to give tax breaks to people who are doing phenomenally well right now. We cannot give tax breaks to the rich when we already have the most unequal distribution of income of any major country on Earth. The top 1 percent earns 23 percent of all income in America, more than the bottom 50 percent. They don't need more tax breaks to be paid for by our kids and grandchildren.

The vast majority of people are behind us on this issue.

On what's really going in America and what kind of nation we have become if this deal goes forward:

We have to look at it within the context of what is going on in the country today, both economically and politically. I think I speak for millions of Americans. There is a war going on in this country. I am not referring to the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. I am talking about a war being waged by some of the wealthiest and most powerful people against working families, against the disappearing and shrinking middle class of our country. The billionaires of America are on the warpath. They want more and more and more. That has everything to do with this agreement reached between Republicans and the President.

While people are working harder and harder, in many cases their income is going down. The fact is, 80 percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Let me repeat that because that is an important fact. It explains why the American people are feeling as angry as they are. They are working hard, but they are not going anyplace. In some cases, in many cases, their standard of living is actually going down. Eighty percent of all income in recent years has gone to the top 1 percent. The richer people become much richer, the middle class shrinks. Millions of Americans fall out of the middle class and into poverty.

That is not apparently enough for our friends at the top who have a religious ferocity in terms of greed. They need more, more. It is similar to an addiction. Fifty million is not enough. They need $100 million. One hundred million is not enough; they need 1 billion. One billion is not enough. I am not quite sure how much they need. When will it stop?

Today, in terms of wealth as opposed to income, the top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. When we went to school, we used to read in the textbooks about Latin America, and they used to refer to some of the countries there as ``banana republics,'' countries in which a handful of families controlled the economic and political life of the nation. I don't wish to upset the American people, but we are not all that far away from that reality today.

On where the money from this tax cut is going to go:

What happened last year, as I think most Americans know, is the Supreme Court made a very strange decision. The Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and they have the right of free speech and the right without disclosure--all of this is through the Citizens United Supreme Court decision--to put as much money as they want into campaigns all over the country. In this last campaign, that is what we saw: Billionaires, in secret, pouring money into campaigns all over the country. Does that sound like democracy to anybody in America; that we have a handful of billionaires probably dividing up the country?

One of the manifestations of that is, in fact, the agreement reached between the President and the Republican leadership. The wealthy contribute huge sums of money into campaigns. The wealthy have all kinds of lobbyists around here through corporate America. What they are going to get out of this agreement are huge tax breaks that benefit themselves. That is not what we should be supporting.

And now I see that it is quite and impossible task to do what I'm trying to do.  So I will make one final highlight while only halfway down the first of twelve pages of Senator Sanders' speech in the Congressional Record.  Conveniently, it's the only point you could possibly take away from reading any portion of his speech or looking at this deal:

We should understand this agreement is just the beginning of an assault on legislation and programs that have benefited the American people for 70 or 80 years

It's just the beginning.  So I say we kill it before it sees the light of day.

NY-20: RepubliCorp to Endorse Gibson!

Massive Mutant Combination of Right-Wing Pols and Greedy CEOs to Drop Huge Checks at Dinner, Continues Eating Working American's Finances for Breakfast

There's a lot of creative progressive activists in the Capital Region, concentrated in the Saratoga MoveOn chapter, and these good folks have been instrumental in getting Scott Murphy to Congress. To help keep him there, they've devised an ingenious mock press conference where they will endorse Republican Chris Gibson in the spirit of the approaching holiday: by dressing up as corporate fat cats and highlighting how corporate interests and the Republian party have become indistinguishable.

Here's the official announcement, complete with clickable social network links for you to rsvp:

Please join us at a Press Conference where RepubliCorp will officially endorse Chris Gibson - Please sign up to attend: on MoveOn.org also Facebook

Join Protesters posing as representatives of fictitious new merged entity—RepubliCorp—outside the Saratoga Republican Dinner, Tues. 5:30pm, at the Holiday Inn, Broadway and Circular St, Saratoga Springs.

We will stage a mock press conference and present Chris Gibson with the official RepubliCorp endorsement, to highlight how he stands for the interests of the largest multi-national corporations, and against the interests of middle-class families in New York.

The RepubliCorp theme emphasizes the close allegiance between corporate interests and their Republican allies who together plan to spend at least $400 million this election cycle to try to take back control of Congress. We will present also Gibson an -sized checks from RepubliCorp intended to reward service to corporate interests/pay for future votes. Come dressed as a CEO or Lobbyist, or dress casual & come to take photos & video.

Any questions – please call (518)583-4326.
Please pass this on to your friends & lists.

Emphasis mine - SP

Sad to say I won't be able to attend. It's going to be my first day back to work in nearly two years, so I doubt I'll be asking the boss for any time off. But I absolutley love the concept because laughter is, after, the best medicine, and the Republican/Corporate alliance is worth taking seriously enough to make a public mockery of it. This also reminds me of what Stephen Colbert and John Stewart will be doing down in Washington later this week, and tomorrow you can get even more into the spirit of Halloween.

Because at the end of the day, the thought of Chris Gibson serving in Congress is very, very scary.

Oh, and did I forget to point out that they will be doing all of this just outside the Republican's real-life fat cat dinner? MoveOn's totally punking these freeloading lobbyists and executives tomorrow! Here's hoping you can make it if you're in the area. Go show your support for Scott Murphy while having a guaranteed blast doing so.

SD-46: Breslin Debates Republican, Independent Challengers on Gay Rights

After Close Call in Primary, Breslin Will Cruise to Victory Against Lackluster Conservatives

After fending off the toughest inner-party challenge of his 14 years in the legislature, Sen. Neil Breslin faced off against his two general election challengers in what will likely be the campaign's only debate. The Republicans have nominated an army guy who is, of course, a small business man by the name of Bob Domenici. Michael Carey, a mental health reform advocate has started his own party to seek the seat after he discovered he wasn't a Republican after all.

I had meant to attend the debate, but determined that not much that was said there could affect the outcome of the race. It might have had humorous value, as have other recent major debates in New York state politics. The Times Union's headline and lead in to the story confirmed this:

Candidates talk morality

Thursday, October 21, 2010

COLONIE -- In a state in which the rising property tax burden is supposedly prodding voters toward revolt, the three candidates vying for Albany County's state Senate seat spent a lot of time Wednesday talking about morality.

Breslin will of course win the debate now that his third party opponent has proven to be an ultra-religious nut despite his good intentions. And Albany County's Democratic registration advantage is 2-1 over the Republicans, so he's had the general in the bag since winning the primary challenge mounted by Luke Martland last month.

But by surprise, this usually stomach-turning issue of religion and morality in politics lead this anti-Breslin partisan to actual decide to do the unthinkable and -pull the level- fill in the oval for Breslin this year. The candidates' discussion on the issue of same-sex marriage detailed below the fold leaves me no choice...


(Cross-Posted on The Albany Project)


The Tu Local Politics live debate tweets summarized the race as well. The debate wasn't carried live and I don't understand why. The Rent Too Damn High Show did pretty well with viewers earlier this week...

But getting back to the point. Here's the exchange from the debate that finally made me determine that I'd support Breslin for re-election in the general:

While Domenici, a South Colonie school board member and businessman, tried to keep the exchange focused on the economy and the state's fiscal woes, Carey repeatedly steered the discussion back to religion and faith -- at one point appearing to question how Breslin, as a Catholic, could be pro-choice and support same-sex marriage.

"You don't teach young children ... that it's OK to have sex with whoever you want," said Carey, 48, of Bethlehem. "It goes against the holy Scriptures and the written word of God."

::

All the chatter about faith prompted Breslin to remark that he "didn't expect to come to a debate on religion."

"I'm not elected to serve Catholics," said Breslin, 68, of Bethlehem, who is seeking an eighth term in the 46th state Senate District. "I'm elected to make judgments for the entire population."

Domenici, also a Catholic, said he opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds. But the retired Army lieutenant colonel called the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly the "dumbest policy."

Empahsis added - SP

I like that quote, a lot. And of all the complains one could make against Neil Breslin, lack of support on the issue of gay rights is not one of them. He's voted for civil rights for homosexuals before without any question for his entire career, and it's the one of the only truly important social issues of our time.

Too bad the independent candidate's reasoning is so out of line with American values. He might have won an election in Salem in the late 1600s, but not Albany in the early 2000s. And the Domenici is even more confusing. Let me get this straight: if you wouldn't ask your soldiers to lie about the fact that they are gay, why would you want two gay people who've made a lifelong commitment to each other to lie and say they are in a "civil union" when they are just as married to each other as you are to your wife?

My guess is that Domenici is a good guy, but he just can't say what he believes because he has to try and get Republicans to vote for him. Talk about a rock and a hard place. Carey problem is simple: he's gone to too much church. That's what I have to say about morality and politics.

So I'm going to suck it up and support the party this year. I'm a notorious ticket splitter who would otherwise never vote for somebody who've I've spent hours canvassing against. But the thought of two ignorant "morals" politicians representing me at a time when gay marriage has to be enacted (and when the Democratic majority of the Senate is in question) I have to put myself above my own convictions and do my part to make sure the Senate stays blue.

See you at the polls on November 2nd.

NY-Gov: Libs Continue the Smack Down on Crazy Carl

Redlich and Paladino Continue Battle of Wits Before Big Debate

(Cross-posted on The Albany Project)

Is everybody excited for the big gubernatorial debate coming up on Monday? I know I am, because I have a weird affinity for third party candidates. As the Wall Street Journal observed earlier this week (ew, I hate linking to that paper) all the third-party candidates have been invited at Crazy Carl Paladino's insistence.

And probably to his detriment. His borderline insanity becoming more apparent with each passing day, he's apparently too foolish to concede defeat in the battle of wits currently being instigated by Libertarian candidate Warren Redlich. Last week, Redlich went for the jugular with this YouTube parody of Paladino's infamous encounter with New York Post reporter Fred Dicker. It was the funniest thing I've seen all season.

Could the debate on Monday be even funnier? If Paladino continues taking the bait the way he did in the Journal...

Mr. Redlich said he is "the only real choice for anyone who is toward the right of center," asserting that Mr. Paladino "has made himself difficult to vote for." (A spokesman for Mr. Paladino, Michael Caputo, said Mr. Redlich is "so busy leering at teen girls and pushing for legalized narcotics that Carl wouldn't want his vote anyway.")

...which gave Redlich the in to release this response today...

Mr. Redlich admits to reading Mr. Paladino's e-mails. However, he does not "leer" at them and more importantly, he doesn't forward them.

On the drug issue, Mr. Paladino should be among the first to recognize the problems with our current policy. It failed to prevent his own son Patrick from "struggling with an addiction to drugs and alcohol," as reported by the New York Times.

Mr. Paladino might want to learn that well-known saying: "People who own taxpayer-funded glass office buildings shouldn't throw stones."

...then we could have quite the LIB vs. GOP smack-down on Monday.

This is what I like about Warren Redlich. He knows how to deal with Paladino in a way Cuomo doesn't want to. Redlich's strategy appears to be to instigate Crazy Carl into even more public mudslinging, and so far it's working. The Paladino campaign is bleeding votes thanks to it's candidates lunacy, and Redlich's libertarianism is probably the most attractive alternative.

How does this help the Democratic Party? By syphoning votes away from the Paladino Party (or whatever he's calling his new for-sale party line), Redlich is giving us some extra help by making sure the Tea Party dies a quick death in New York State. If Redlich's campaign ends up leaving Carl's for-sale Tea Party line short of the 50,000 votes it needs to rear it's ugly head again, he will have done much better by us Democrats than most of us are currently giving him credit for.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And stay tuned to see if anything like this goes down at the debate.

NY-Gov: Libertarians Make A Laughing Stock of Paladino

Libertarian Gubernatorial CandidateUses Dino-Dicker Confrontation to Hilariously Frame His Issues

Remember a few weeks ago when Carl Paladino flew off the handle in a confrontation with New York Post political guru Fred Dicker? And do you recall the observations earlier this week that it might be the Libertarian's year thanks to the alienation of 'Dino supporters as a result?

Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Warren Redlich has just posted what I consider to be the most hilarious political satire video of the year to take advantage of the fallout.



Just for the record, that's not really Fred Dicker in the video. Redlich confirmed that it's a fellow LP activist. But I still think this is a classy dig at Paladino.

Even more classier, Redlich did what Paladino should have done in real life by issueing a public "apology" to Mr. Dicker for the fictitious indcident:

In light of the recent confrontation between journalist Fred Dicker and Governor candidate Warren Redlich, the Redlich campaign today issued the following statement:

We regret that the incident turned ugly. "I apologize for losing my temper, and for my colorful language," Mr. Redlich said.

Honestly, I was laughing my ass off. Finally, I thought, a candidate willing to stick it to Paladino the way it should be done: with humor. Paladino is not worth taking seriously, and many of his antics, while patently offensive, are also laugh-out-loud stich-worthy.

I also like the way Redlich uses the dig to frame his two main sticking points agianst his two strongest opponents, Paladino himself and our guy, Andrew Cuomo. I had the pleasure of eating lunch with Mr. Redlich earlier this week. My main intention was to simply get face time with another Albany area attorney who might need my services as a paralegal. But he's glad enough to have a firm that's shrinking, and was even more proud to say, and I quote: "I'm the only candidate who's not full of crap."

I like how he ran with this so much, that I'm even going to give you the rest of the release below the fold; he ties the joke into some serious questions for both major party candidates.

(Cross Posted on The Albany Project)

Despite the negative nature of the moment, the Redlich campaign continues to support its statements about Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino.

Andrew Cuomo has received over $51 million in special interest contributions over the course of his political career. In this election cycle Cuomo has taken nearly 900 separate contributions of $10,000 or more. This includes a $55K contribution from a small parking lot at 318 West 37th Street in Manhattan. The parking lot is owned by West 37th Street Parking LLC, a Delaware corporation of unknown ownership. If Mr. Cuomo really wants to promote transparency in campaign finance, he should start by telling the voters of New York who's behind the parking lot.

The evidence is available at:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/ContributionSearchA.html

Meanwhile, the supposedly conservative Carl Paladino has given thousands of dollars to liberals including Al Gore, John Kerry, and David Paterson.

When the 2008 presidential primary season was heating up, when Warren Redlich was giving money to conservative Ron Paul, and when other conservatives were supporting Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, Carl Paladino gave the maximum contribution to that well-known conservative, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When the health care debate was brewing, Carl Paladino gave $1000 to another well-known conservative, Chuck Schumer, five days after Schumer announced his support for "public option."

The evidence is available at:
http://fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

Finally, we have the evidence that Warren Redlich is the only candidate in the Governor's race who is not full of "it".

Feel free to confirm or deny any Mr. Redlich's accusations in the comments. Personally, I was leaning towards Cuomo...but I'm now probably voting for Warren. I'm a weirdo, here: I always split my ticket. But only if it doesn't hurt my own party. I don't see Cuomo really needing my help this year. I am confident he will not noly be the next Governor, but that he will be one of the best the state has ever seen.

But I also care about the health of third parties in New York, and while I'm a Democrat I do feel that the Green and the Libertarian parties both have better stances on a few of my pet issues better than the more centrist-dominated Democratic party does. This year, I think it's Redlich who needs my help. With Paladino bleeding support from the very people apt to support Redlich as well, this could be the year that the Libertarian Party gets some clout in New York. And for me, that's a good thing.

To get the same reasoning right from Redlich's mouth, check out his candid interview earlier this week on Captiol Tonight. And then, stay tuned...I've a hunch the Redlich is going to do something this year, and the lead-up is already interesting and entertaining thanks to his good humor. Enjoy!

SD-46: State of the Race, 9/9 to 9/12

Final Push for Albany County State Senate Seat

Breslin Relies on Big $$ Advertising, Martland on Shoe-Leather and Big Momentum

Welcome back once again. It's been only a few days since our last update to the hottest political contest in Albany County this year. But with incumbent Senator Neil Breslin and primary challenger Luke Martland in the final push of what has become one of the most expensive primaries in the state, the news of Breslin's defense of the status quo and Martland's defiant stand against the established order continues to draw more attention.

A neat synopsis of the above-mentioned qualities of the race was presented by the local cable news channel YNN, formerly Capital News 9. For those looking for a quick wrap-up of where things stands, this is a good entry. Luke Martland gives a great interview while barnstorming the area, nicely juxtaposed against quoted text responses from a Breslin campaign spokesperson.

The rest of the story, including the Times Union' weak endorsement of Senator Breslin and continued debate over this race's relationship to Senator Pedro Espada, lies below the fold...

(Cross-Posted on The Albany Project)

Luke Martland



"Take Albany Back"

The best indicator of what's really going on in the Martland camp might not be coming from the media. They are doing good job at letting voters know a race is on this year, and have been covering Martland's campaign and Breslin's service in the Senate closer than ever before.

Still, its the tone in the most recent e-mail to supporters that tells me this is campaign that is doing better than expected against very heavy odds. It may be a longshot challenge, but you get the sense of serious momentum here:

In 2 days you will make a very important choice

For the first time in many years, voters in Albany County have a choice for State Senate. On one hand the status quo and a legacy of late budgets, ever-rising taxes, jobs fleeing the area, corruption, incompetence and dysfunction. On the other hand what I will fight for: responsible budgeting, term limits, a tax cap, and bringing jobs back to upstate. And, an end to the corruption and dysfunction that has made our State Senate an embarrassment.

As we all know, in Albany County the primary is what matters.

Updates: door to door blitz and TV ad

Over the last 7 days we continued our door to door efforts. I have walked every day, usually from 10 or 11 a.m. until the sun sets. Thank you to all the volunteers who have helped out! We will continue our door to door blitz Sunday and Monday. As always the response is fantastic and people deeply appreciate a candidate personally knocking on their door. In the last email blast I asked for support to place our second ad on TV. We received more then enough contributions, and were able to extend the ad's run. Thank you everyone.

Now it's time to bring it home. Now it's time to win

This will be a very close and important race and your vote will make a difference. Remember to vote next Tuesday. Polls are open from 12 noon to 9 p.m.

The focus on the the last-second uptick in advertising to counter the nearly 10 to 1 funding advantage Breslin has over Martland is key here. So, too, are times the projected closeness of the race as mentioned.

Yes, yes, it's an e-mail to supporters meant to drum up enthusiasm....but given the recent attention given to Breslin's lackluster performance as Senator and the jolt of energy it gave Martland's upstart campaign, I wouldn't be surprised if either candidate's internal polling was giving them the message that things are in fact looking very close.

It would explain just why Breslin has spent more on this primary campaign than any campaign he's ever run. Martland made not of this yet again in the YNN coverage, and he continues to repeat messages like this each day on the campaign trail:

Martland Accuses Incumbent Neil Breslin of Trying to Buy the September 14th primaryTimes Union says Breslin spent $184,449 in July and August

(September 9, 2010, Albany) State Senate candidate Luke Martland today accused 14-year-incumbent Neil Breslin of trying to buy the September 14th primary election by spending $184,449 between July 12 and September 3, 2010. (Times Union)

“Neil Breslin can’t run on his record so he is trying to buy the election,” said Martland who has campaigned door to door for 90 days to win the primary on September 14th.

“I don’t have a huge campaign war chest funded by insurance companies, lobbyists and special interests,” added Martland. “Instead, I have knocked on doors and spoken to voters everywhere in Albany County from Albany to Altamont, from Colonie to Coeymans, from Watervliet to Westerlo and every place in between."

The only thing I have to add to that is that I'm sick to death of adding the link to Breslin's fundraising contributors to remind you that all that money is coming from the likes of AIG, Morgan Stanely, Geicko, Bank of America, and all sorts of other big Wall Stree lobbying firms and political action committees. That should be old news to anyone who's been paying attention to Breslin for any period of time, and people really need to start looking this stuff up for themselves. Maybe that will happen eventually...

More recently, these two direct responses to Breslin's recent attempt to distance himself from Senate dysfunction luminaries like Pedro Espada and make claims that he's one of the good guys in the State Senate. The general Martland theme is Neil Breslin Says One Thing and Does Another:

Neil Breslin says he is a fighter for the people of Albany County –
Wrong!

Breslin voted to increase state taxes by $9 billion in the last two years.

Higher taxes cause suffering for middle class people, seniors and small businesses.

One in four people in Albany live in poverty according to the NYS Community Action Association. (TU March 18, 2010)

Neil Breslin voted to furlough public employees.
Health insurance premiums in Albany County went up nearly 15% in the past year according to the NYS Insurance Dept. (TU March 18, 2010)

Neil Breslin is not a fighter for the people of Albany County. He is a leader of the status quo that raises taxes harming middle class people, seniors and small business. He takes campaign contributions from insurance companies, lobbyists and special interests.

Luke Martland will fight for budget reform, to hold down taxes and state spending, create jobs and put the people of Albany County first.

::

Neil Breslin says he is a reformer and “has made cleaning up the Senate a top priority.”

Wrong!

Neil Breslin opposes term limits for legislators.

Neil Breslin refused to disclose his tax records, law firm client list and salary.

Neil Breslin voted for an ethics bill that would have protected lawyer legislators from revealing their outside income and would have prevented the creation of an independent body to oversee the Legislature.

Neil Breslin refused to return more than $125,000 in contributions from insurance companies and lobbying firms he accepted in the last 18 months while he was chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee.

If you support the status quo in the state Senate, vote for Neil Breslin.

Luke Martland supports term limits, legislative oversight and full disclosure.

If you want meaningful change, vote for Luke Martland.

These have been appearing daily in my inbox, and I wouldn't be surprised if more were to follow in the final days of the campaign. Interestingly enough, the main source the Martland campaign is using to prove Breslin is not the squeakly clean champion of the people he claims to be is the local newspaper...

Neil Breslin



"For All The Right Reasons."

...which this week gave Senator Breslin their endorsement for re-election. The Times Union editorial board on Friday presented what I consider to be one of the worst cases for returning Breslin or any incumbent to office I've ever read.

In fact, I think they've endorsed Breslin for all the wrong reasons.

Judging by the commentary on the TU's own Capitol Confidential blog, I'm clearly not alone in my assessment that this endorsement pandered to a powerful incumbent, ignoring key issues to Martland's detriment and highlighting inconesequential and previously unmentioned minor issues to count towards Breslin's favor. For crying out loud, one section of the endorsement even makes note that the paper's publish and editor sits one several boards of directors that (surprise!) recieved regular support fromthe Senator.

Read the endorsement for yourself and make up your own mind, of course, but as I read it, I wasn't surprised by the fact that the establishment rag endorsement the establishment bum. It was the weakness of the reasoning behind it that knocked me flat. I get the impression both reading responses and talking to voters that this is how the endorsement has fallen in the public's eye.

But Breslin is still trying. In the past few days, the mailer pictured below has been distributed arond Albany County, attempting to make a guy who voted for Pedro Espada for Majority Leader look like a guy who actually stood up to him:





It looks pretty effective to the untrained eye or uneducated voter at first glance. The fact is that Breslin is appealing to just that kind of thing with this mailer; not only did Breslin have the gavel in his hand during the 2009 Senate Coup that gave Espada the Majority Leader's post, but his was one of many Democratic votes that gave it to him in the first place. If any Democratic Senator wanted to take a meaningful stand against Espada, that was the time. Breslin is now one of several Senators statewide, including Espada himself, spending lots of money in their primary re-electionc campaigns trying to convince the public otherwise.

They might buy it, and they might not. But either way, this is still just the primary. With the polls opening in just two days, perhaps it's time to wonder a little about the general election. Smart money still goes to Breslin thanks to his long tenure in office and his family ties to the the County Executive and one of the County Judges, all three of then brothers, but Breslin's electoral fight may not be over after that. While Albany County is overwhelmingly Democratic, it was a first-term Republican Senator and County Executive that Breslin and his brother suceeded to start their decades-long powerhold here. In such an anti-incumbent year, and with a noisy Tea Party segment in the Capital Region, I wouldn't be surprised if probably Republican nominee Bob Domenici couldn't present a serious challenge to Breslin after what has become a bruising primary for the Senator.

Indeed, opposition to Breslin from the right and right-of-center has already begun, and they aren't waiting for the general election to target him. This week's TU Inside Politics columnist sees reporter JOrdan Carleo-Evangelist follow-up on earlier reports that the state-level pro-gun rally has been sending fliers around Albany County encouraging Democrats to vote against Breslin in the primary.

Gun-rights group can't think past primary

The state's biggest gun-rights advocacy group trained its sights on state Sen. Neil Breslin this week, dispatching postcards to its members in Albany County urging them to vote against Breslin in next week's Democratic primary.

The Breslin camp, for its part, wasn't much sweating the ire of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which accused the 14-year-incumbent of consistently sponsoring and voting for "all gun control measures."

The group's PAC, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Political Victory Fund, paid for the mailing.

Breslin's campaign said the senator is proud of his record on gun control -- and for many Democrats generally, the association's distaste is something of a badge of pride.

And that's where it gets weird.

While the rifle and pistol association was imploring its members to vote "against" Breslin on Sept. 14, the group is not endorsing Breslin's lone Democratic opponent, Luke Martland.

Tom King, the association's executive director, explained the mailing this way: "We're saying that we just don't think that Neil Breslin is the man for the job anymore."

Astute observers (or conspiracy theorists) noted that the group might just be trying to weaken Breslin in hopes that he'll lose the primary to Martland, who would make an easier mark for Republican candidate Bob Domenici.

So we asked whether the NYSRPA would be backing Domenici come November, but King said no decision has yet been made.

Given that Dominici is throwing in his lot with the local Tea Party -movement- standstill (something that doesn't make any progress can't be called a movement, after all) and that he's touting former military experience (at least I think he is...don't all Tea Party types?) I'm guessing the gun nuts will go his way eventually. But what's interesting here is, as Carleo-Evangelist's headline points out, they are focusing on Breslin's primary election, not the general.

This speaks to two truths. First, given Albany County's current thirty-plus point registration advantage for Democrats, winning the primary is essentially rubber stamps a general election victory. We're certainly not unique in that respect, but toss in the County's history as being the deathbed of the last of the great urban Democratic machines in just the past generation and you get both a boost to that argument and a second angle that better explains this tactic against Breslin.

See, I make a lot of noise here as a progressive, but I can acknowledge that the Albany County Democratic Party is just that, the Democratic Party. It's not the Progressive Democratic Party, not at all. In fact, the party power players have a conservative bent if you ask me, and most others would probably agree it's most firmly grounded in the center. Such is the nature of self-perpetuating powerful political establishments, but that's beside the point. It's a Democratic environment where the right-wing Guns, Gods, and Gays arguments could work to the tune of a few thousand votes. Trust me: you would be amazed at the language I hear come out the mouths of some of the old white dudes in past committee meetings. Especially during the 2008 presidential campaign. And this contingent certainly can't use the Gays part of the argument this year...

In any case, the ultimate thing to take away from this is that even if Breslin does walk away with the Democratic nomination, his margin of victory may end up mattering in his fight againt the Republcian nominee. It will remain an anti-incumbent year, and if Breslin demonstrates weakness in a primary after 14 years as an incumbent, you can probably prepare for continued and increased media coverage as the big story shifts from Martland's to Domenici's outside chance of taking the Senate seat away from Breslin.

Such is the State of the Race just 48 hours from the closing of the polls, and such are the reasons why I'll have pulled the level for Luke Martland by then. If I can't encourage you to do exactly the same, I at least hope you enjoyed reading and encouraged you to go to the polls this coming Tuesday and vote for somebody, dammit :-) Stay tuned...it's not over until it's over.