Forget the D&C endorsements for state gov’t
I’m sure many of you read the D&C’s bogus endorsements (scroll down to the bottom) this weekend. And I can imagine you read them with the same disgust and incredulity that I did.
I feel for them, I’m sure it’s hard to be objective or at least consistent what with corporate organizations breathing down their necks (cough * Rochester Business Alliance * cough) but come on. It’s almost embarrassing to read:
1) Incumbent Assemblywoman Susan John is taken to task for nor being a reformer, while every other incumbent gets a free pass? And her opponent Ferlicca had such a serious breach of campaign ethics previously the D&C felt it necessary to mention it, but then hand wave it away.
2) Incumbent Joe Robach is touted as “instrumental in getting millions of dollars in additional state aid this year alone”. How much of that is through the special “Member Items” slush fund used by the state Senate Majority Republicans to what some consider “buying votes”? And what about the additional $50M Rochester due city schools if an equitable funding model would pass the Senate. The D&C also says Willa Powell’s “record of service doesn’t come close to matching Robach’s”. So just because someone’s in office, means they should stay in office? To quote my wife’s response: “Uhh…that’s just stupid.”
3) Joe Errigo’s “best moment” was calling for a review of the Fast Ferry? I’m all for lessons learned, but, news flash: Duffy got elected, cleaned house, put the ferry on the auction block. According to Drum Major Institute, he gets a C- on supporting middle-class issues. If he REALLY was interested in helping taxpayers, he’d do more for them besides taking credit for new business that’s not even in his district.
So forget the D&C. They’ve got their marching orders, and so do we. Only ours come from the people, not corporate think tanks.
Forget the polls. They’re at best a distraction and at worst a roller-coaster ride.
The only endorsement that counts is the one a little over 2 weeks from now. Everything we’re doing right now is a foundation. However many of our progressive candidates win in 2 weeks, we are more connected, more informed, and more focused than we’ve been in a long time, maybe even a generation. We are, person to person, reminding each other that we’re all basically progressives, and even if you’ve been drinking the right-wing Kuhl-aid for a long time, it’s never to late to wake up.
If we win big in two weeks, we have a lot of work to do. If we don’t, we have a lot of work to do. If it’s a mixed bag, we still have a lot to do. We’ll need to support progressives in office by changing the conversations folks are having neighbor-to-neighbor. We’ll need to continue to hold our representatives’ feet to the fire, no matter what their ideology. And we’ll need to keep working together, spelling each other off when we need to, to keep the progressive movement going forward.
So forget all these short-term distractions. I enjoy the good ones that encourage me, and try to ignore the rest, since my goal is not just the next election, but a world I can feel ok about handing off to my kids.
Related posts:
This is about Wick’s Law and the Scaffolding Law. Johns buckled to union pressure here and could have been a greater driving force in reducing the economic impact these two items have.Love the blog here by the way. But I have to admit, I’m in agreement with the D and C and the Rochester Business Alliance. We can be progressives and disagree on certain things, right?
Absolutely. Our ability to disagree but still keep moving forward is one of our key strengths as progessives.
My feeling is, those two laws may be an issue, but are they the root that we should be striking at? Are we targeting waste or burdens that are fundamental to why upstate isn’t doing as well as it should? A progressive (not just Democratic) majority in the state Assy and Senate would be necessary to strike at the root of these problems. John would be part of that majority.
And thanks for reading. I’ve been enjoying your comments.
“Candidates we have endorsed must pave the way for change that’s been elusive in New York for too long.” Therefore, we endorse mostly long-time incumbents, since incumbents have historically been agents for change. QED
There’s some prime D&C editorial page logic. Haven’t
Zuba, I think that a real “progressive” would want to look long and hard at how unions as special interests have impeded government reform and hurt the “working man” or whomever progressives see as their core constituency. This is especially true since unions are slow to support progressive candidates. For example, the AFL-CIO endorsed Kuhl in NY-29 in ‘04, but shifted to Massa on ‘06. The reason can’t be issues - Barend was clearly the progressive candidate in ‘04. Rather, the unions were acting as any other long-entrenched political interest group in that election. I think the progressive movement will progress when they start practicing “smart politics”, stop treating unions like a bloc, and throw regressive unions (*cough* AFL-CIO * cough*) under the bus.
But what to I know? I’m don’t claim to be progressive.
Oh, and for alternatives to the D&C’s lame endorsements, please check out ours, in the middle column.
And a big thank you to all you folks knocking on doors, making calls, dropping literature, and helping spread the word. From what I’ve heard first hand, and what other folks canvassing and calling have reported, people on the street are ready for a change. You’re making a difference!
“Candidates we have endorsed must pave the way for change that’s been elusive in New York for too long.†Therefore, we endorse mostly long-time incumbents, since incumbents have historically been agents for change. QED
There’s some prime D&C editorial page logic.
Bingo. We have the most dysfunctional government in the country and the D&C thinks 9 out of 10 deserve re-election.
Rottonchester, I agree whole-heartedly. I am, by all definitions, a progessive, but still consider myself an economic conservative. I negotiate those two things by examining what can be done more efficiently with less resources. Take Health Care. It is becoming increasing clear to both the workers and employers like GM, that single-payer health care may be the best way to reduce a significant cost that is a friction in the economy.
The situation in Albany is a lesser example of this. The state Medicaid system is way out of line with those of other states. We spend more on this program than any other state, including California. There is massive waste and significant fraud, almost to the tune of 20% of it’s cost. Given all that, how does our state measure up in quality of service? Are we getting our money’s worth? Furthermore, how much of the expeditures are driven up by medical unions and special interests looking for coverage?
The whole thing needs fixing, and I can’t believe that neither Silver nor Bruno have the sack to make things change.
Zuba - Barack Obama crystallized it for me yesterday in his appearance on MTP. He noted that much of political discourse is stuck in ’60’s categories. For example, you’re either pro-union (and therefore pro-worker) or anti-union (and anti-worker). He said that people are tired of that kind of categorization and want “smart politics” - solutions that make sense, no matter what category they fall into. Now the term “smart politics” could be just a buzzword, but I like it because it is shorthand for pragmatism over ideology.
RC, I agree, the political landscape is littered with “false choices” like that. One pet peeve is jobs vs. environment, another is taxes vs. jobs.
Unions did a great job of improving the lot of the American worker from sweatshop status in the early 1900s to what we have (had?) now. But growing up in Western PA, union central, I saw how when they were singleminded and overreaching, an entire mill, the largest employer in my hometown, shut down after a game of union vs. management “chicken”.
Here’s hoping the SEIU’s new direction under Andy Stern will be a holistic one, good for everybody involved.
My understanding is that much of the cost of workers’ compensation is tied up in litigating related health care coverage decisions. If we had a single payer system as Zuba appears to recommend, we might be able to remove this component of workers’ comp costs, thereby helping NYS businesses.
From my understanding, its also important to note that companies providing workers’ compensation insurance in NY reap higher profit margins than in any other state. At the same time, the compensation workers receive in NYS is embarrassingly low. If this is correct, something’s not right here. Hence, I’m concerned by legislative proposals that would increase the size of the yearly benefit for ten years, but then cut off workers that have serious permanent injuries after this point. Are we creating some arbitrary timeline that commands all those with permanent injuries to find a cure within a decade?
Moreover, while costs may be cut by such proposals, I’m not convinced local businesses will see these savings. I suspect our system will allow the savings to fall into the pockets of the already profitable insurance companies.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. Please correct me if you think my characterization of the situation is inaccurate.
I’m thrilled Susan John didn’t get endorsed. I have never found a reason to get excited about her.
The irony of the D&C endorsements is seen when you read the editoral about the endorsements—the one about reform.
The D&C wants reform but endorses the status quo. Interesting.
You are all so eloquent on the topic of D&C hypocricy. Anyone willing to email your comments to the D&C for publication? its dceditpage@DemocratandChronicle.com
I would certainly appreciate anything any of you might choose to point out.
BTW. Have they endorsed even a single woman in a race that wasn’t woman vs. woman (Townsend v. Gallaher for Family Court)?
My jaw dropped when I saw the D&C endorsed Robach.
How can they claim to be for reform in Albany when they endorse a career politician who brags about wasting our money on member items every time he boasts of “securing” grants for this or that?
If they were serious about reforming Albany, they would insist that any candidate they endorse adopt positions in favor of clean money, fair elections, sensible redistricting, and the cessation of earmarks and member items.
THANK YOU! You condensed my lengthy rant down into a bite-sized chunk.
[...] It’s a sad commentary on our county government that their greatest acheivements aren’t actually in the county. I guess success is such a rare commodity in these parts that everyone wants to take credit for them. See also: Joe Errigo. [...]
[...] Well, I was all excited. WAS. You may remember, that after frequently mentioning the need for reform & change in Albany, the D&C last fall endorsed every single state leg incumbent except Susan John. You may also remember I was incensed enough to write a rebuttal that stopped just short of using the words heck and darn. [...]
[...] every incumbent from here to Ypsilanti, Michigan, claimed a piece of the credit pie. Including, as we noted, GOP Assemblyman Joe Errigo, whose district, as we also noted, did not contain [...]