Next week there will be more than 1,000 police checkpoints set up across the state. The police officers will stop every passing car, and look at the inside of the vehicle. If you turn around, and attempt to evade the checkpoint, they will pursue you.

What are they looking for? Abducted children? Escaped convicts? Terrorists? Loose nukes? Kilos of cocaine?

None of the above. They will be checking to see if you’re wearing your seat belt. It’s “Click It or Ticket” week.

Seat belt use in New York State is at about 85%.

I’m curious as to how readers of this blog feel about police checkpoints.

Even though it’s not April anymore (so environmental stuff is supposed to disappear off the traditional media’s radar), here at RT, why, it’s Earth Day Every Day. So I’m proud to show off my new toy, a Scotts Classic 20″ reel mower. That’s right, it’s the modern version of those old-school manual push mowers from back in the day.

Now, I have a gas mower that I’d used in years past, but it needed serious reconditioning since it’s been laying around for a couple years. We’ve been paying our neighbor’s kid to do it while our kids were infants and toddlers. But I’m ready to rock this year, so I took a look at the old mower. It was going to cost a bit to get it back in running shape, not to mention the gas, so I started researching viable alternatives.

I read and saw good things on-line about modern reel mowers, so I thought I’d give it a try.

So far, so good. Advantages:

• Uses no gas
• No nasty pollutants like gas mowers:

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a traditional gas powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new cars each being driven 12,000 miles.

• Even if you don’t care about the environment in general, it just smells better
• I can mow with my kids in the yard– no stones or sticks being launched into kids’ eyes
• No noise pollution, and no more damage to my eardrums– and it allows me to “keep an ear” on what my kids are doing.
• As easy to push as my gas mower
• No $$$, ever, for “reconditioning” like for my gas mower

I hear you saying, “That’s great, you tree-hugging idealist. But what kind of job does it do?”

My answer: good enough. I have neighbors that spend a LOT of time on their lawns, making them look like a putting green. And they’re pretty, in their own way. My goals are a little different: keep it green through keeping it at 3″, and by allowing soil-nurturing things like clover to share the yard. I basically never have to water, don’t spread chemicals on the lawn, and people ask what our secret is.

“That’s a lot of fancy talk, but I need more proof,” you reply. Ok, check out these pics below the fold:

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Is this more fallout from President Bush’s abysmal ratings and Iraq war and other policies?  WBFO News just published this observation about the race in NY-26 (emphasis mine):

BUFFALO, NY (2008-05-01) The race for the 26th congressional district seat being vacated by Republican Tom Reynolds could be unlike any other in recent history. None of the current candidates holds elective office.

Even at the presidential level there is no incumbent president or vice president running for office, the first time since 1928 that has happened. 

The article goes on to say that it is tough for political newcomers to get elected to Congress in Western New York but this year seems to be the exception to “the rule,” as in the rule of the incumbents and current office holders seems to be over in this area.

Which brings us to back to dough, a dear concern.  Incumbents have a huge advantage in fundraising, so the absence of incumbents in NY-26 seems to make the playing field more level…except for that whole millionaire thing.  The Supreme Court, packed with Bush appointees, could override the lack of Bush or his cohorts running for elected office, nullifying the lack of incumbent advantage via their decision on Jack Davis’ Millionaire Complaint later this spring.

So, political experience may be shown the door in NY-26 but it remains to be seen if money can buy its way back in to the party.

Stlo7 posted the video clips of Smith’s MCC Q&A earlier.  Commenter louis did a nice job of interpreting and putting things in context:

You’ve got to hear this!!!

My take on the first few questions:

Q: Why do you want this job?
A: To lead an institution that has such a vital link to the economic success of this community.

What this really means - Just think of the goodies I can dole out to my friends who have been so good to me over the years, never mind the power I can wield.

Q: Why are you qualified -
A: Multiple roles of president - Focusing on nurturing relationships with political entities and business.

What this really means - I don’t know squat about education, but boy am I connected.

Q: There’s been some controversy -
A: Well, all presidents have to get acclimated.

What this means - We all know I don’t know squat about academia, but I’m going to make it seem like I’m on equal footing with those who have spent their lives in it.

What’s really interesting here is that I don’t think in the first several questions he’s even mentioned students, education, quality of education, campus, etc.

And yet the GOP has done such a good job rigging the selection process and stacking the deck (like with the Water Authority, Public Defender selection, etc.) that you have to be a legal research expert to find any way of stopping this, or slowing it down.

And if you do find a way, they want to change the rules.  Ugh.  How does fairness and responsible government get any kind of traction against this kind of thing?  I’m open to suggestions.

We recently commented on Joe Robach’s election-year PR move, getting taxpayer money to help start up a law school at St. John Fisher, a local private school.  We’re not the only ones who see it as an inefficient use of taxpayer money.  The head of SUNY Buffalo feels the same way:

…some New York officials are pushing for creating new law schools. But the head of the State University of New York’s only law school isn’t among them.

“There’s no question that we simply have a glut of law schools,” said Makau Mutua, interim dean of the University at Buffalo Law School. “There’s no shortage of access to legal education for New Yorkers who want to go to law school.”

He also makes the good point that NY State isn’t even funding our own SUNY-based law schools adequately, so what are we doing funding a private school?

Mutua said the state hasn’t done enough to support UB’s law school and doesn’t need to spend taxpayer dollars studying whether to establish more state-run law schools, let alone one that would be affiliated with a private college.

“It’s mind-boggling for the state to contemplate giving money to start up a private law school,” said Mutua, a UB law faculty member for nearly a dozen years before being named interim dean in December.

The state would be better off investing in UB to hire more faculty members and recruit students for its law school, where about 800 students must share a 35-year-old building with undergraduates, Mutua said.

“We need a completely new building,” he said. “We’re squeezed for space.”

And guess what? Even the state Bar Association doesn’t think a new law school is necessary:

Building more law schools isn’t on the state Bar Association’s to-do list. A spokeswoman for the organization said its legal education and admission committee hasn’t been called on to study whether New York needs more law schools.

“I have no idea why the state would consider three more law schools,” said Thomas Guernsey, dean of Albany Law School. “There’s no evidence in the job market that we need more than those 15 schools.”

No idea?  Ooh–Dean Guernsey– call on me, I have an idea or two.  How about: Are endangered Senate incumbents in the 3 districts where these schools are being considered?

This looks more and more like business as usual for the NY Senate– using taxpayer-filled slush funds to buy PR for Senate incumbents in an election year.

Spend our money responsibly on infrastructure and things the state actually needs, please.

This is kinda funny– SEIU 1199 just sent out a mailer with a pro-populist/middle class message:

It’s funny because up till just a little bit ago, Assemblymember Koon was a possible challenger to Sen. Alesi. Now, they’re sharing a mailer.

Here’s the back:

It’s also interesting given that, historically, Alesi’s voted against middle class issues, according to the Drum Major Institute’s rankings from 2001-2005:

Data from DMI Middle Class issue vote ranking, 2006.

So, has Alesi come into the light? Or is it just window dressing? Regardless, this mailer makes Bonnacci’s revenge run against Koon a little bit harder.

One theme we’ve seen time and again with the Brooks administration and the county GOP is that they talk a good show, and can be very smooth and smiley, winning over the D&C Ed Board and others who simply don’t have the time or inclination to follow local politics closely enough.

It’s tough to follow all the local stuff that’s going on, especially when the local GOP is really, really good at muddying the water, and fuzzying things up just enough to get 50+1% of folks. That’s where RT is trying to help, by remembering the stuff that’s easy to forget and putting stuff in context.

So…what do you folks think is going to be in Brooks’ speech today? It’s arguably the most important activity in her PR/photo-op based leadership. I came up with a short list:

• Smoke
• Mirrors
• It’s those partisan Dems’ fault
• Lookit those couple of baby-step environmental things I did. (As Rochester Colonial can tell you, it’s called “window dressing”.)
• Our economy has its challenges, but we’re working on it (by giving COMIDA grants and sweetheart deals to political cronies)
• Ren Square mismanagement is someone else’s fault, but I’m riding on my white horse to rescue it.

I’ve gotta get back to work– any other ideas?

The Rothenberg Political Report just updated its listings to include five New York House seats, according to Robert Harding over at The Albany Project:

Here are those seats as rated by Rothenberg:

NY-13: REPUBLICAN FAVORED (Incumbent: Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island) Challengers: Steve Harrison (D-Bay Ridge) and Dominic Recchia.)

NY-20: DEMOCRAT FAVORED (Incumbent: Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Hudson) Challenger: Sandy Treadwell (R-Adirondacks).)

NY-25: LEANS DEMOCRATIC (OPEN SEAT due to the retirement of Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Onondaga). Dan Maffei is the Democratic challenger and a few Republicans are said to be contenders, including David Gay.)

NY-26: PURE TOSS UP (Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-Clarence) has retired. Three Democrats are in the running for their party’s nod: Jon Powers, Alice Kryzan and Jack Davis. David Bellavia is the lone declared Republican candidate.)

NY-29: TOSS UP/TILT REPUBLICAN (Incumbent Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-Hammondsport) will face off with Eric Massa in the 29th, a rematch of the 2006 battle that Kuhl narrowly won over Massa.)

I have to disagree with their opinion on NY-26 and NY-29. In NY-26, Jack Davis has run and lost—twice. Jon Powers has 6 out of 7 county endorsements and has raised more money than Kryzan. Bellavia, the only declared Republican at this point, has a one-issue platform. I think it’s leaning Democrat and that Democrat is Jon Powers.

In NY-29, I think Kuhl is a much weaker candidate this cycle and his recent statements about why he won’t do debates with Massa hint at that as well.

Your thoughts?

Obviously, his campaign is toast!

Seriously, come on, people. (And by people, I basically mean his opponents, and anyone in the press inflating this story to more than it is.) I’m just coming back online after a few days on vacation, but it seems to me that this is the upshot:

Until they create a TurboTax equivalent for doing a campaign’s finances, I’m willing to cut some slack for a campaign that incorrectly categorizes <1% of the money they’ve raised and spent. As long as they correct the mistake when it’s found, no harm, no foul.

Let he who has tried to fill out their tax forms on their own, and not made a similar mistake, cast the first stone. And yeah, you probably did make smallish mistakes, but were too small a fish to fry for the IRS to care.

The fact that Powers’ opponents only have THIS to jump on indicates a the relative weakness of their campaigns. Maybe when you’re super-rich you can hire a CPA to do the filing, but I’m sure Powers’ multitude of small donors would prefer their money be used to you know, actually win or something. Call me crazy.

Update: someone wrote to let me know that those forms I mention in the title of this article are incorrect.  I’m not surprised, I totally made them up to illustrate the silliness of this whole story.   Anyone see Letterman’s top 10 list from 4/15?

Top Ten Reasons I Like Being An Accountant

…

3. “When some idiot asks me about a form 8038-G information return for tax-exempt governmental obligation, when they really mean a form 1038-R recovery of overpayment under arbitrage rebate provisions — that s***’s hilarious!”

I put this Powers story in the same category of importance.

From everything I’ve heard & read, the budget came together similar to how sausage is made, and like Paul McCartney once sang in “Ebony and Ivory”, “There is good and bad, in every [budget]”.

From the perspective of a movement progressive like myself, most efforts are going to be too little, too late for our crumbling infrastructure and struggling middle class.  The right wing has been too influential too long to change things overnight.

I think the Working Families Party put it best in their analysis of the budget:

The Working Families Party said the state needs to tax the rich, “Next year,

Holy crap! David Cay Johnson was right! We're getting fleeced by the wealthy!

we simply won’t be able to reduce the property tax burden that’s squeezing middle class families and make badly needed public investments in healthcare, education, and public transportation if we don’t repeal part of the excessive tax giveaways that New York’s super-rich have enjoyed for the last 15 years. This isn’t about punishing the wealthy. It’s a question of fairness and priorities.”

As we reported, NY-ers agree 4-1 with that sentiment.  Check out WFP’s site on the subject of fair taxation for more pretty graphs and analysis.

From the D&C political blog:

Senate Dems lay trap for Robach

State Senate Democrats plan next week to try to force a discussion on the Senate floor about a bill that would require companies to pay men and women the same for comparable work.

The idea is to try to embarrass Senate Labor Committee Chairman Joseph Robach, R-Greece, whose likely challenger in the November election is former Democratic Sen. Richard Dollinger of Brighton. Dollinger quit in 2002 after Robach announced he was running for the seat but now wants it back.

Robach told a rally of pay-equity supporters earlier this month that he was in favor of the concept of the bill, but later demurred when asked if he would try to get the bill out of his committee.

The measure is opposed by a majority of the Republican senators who hold a narrow 32-20 edge in the house, and who decide what bills come to the floor. Democrats hope to make pay equity an issue in the likely Robach-Dollinger race.

Because, you know, that’s what it’s really all about. It’s not about crazy stuff like women actually being paid the same as men for the same work.

I can’t understand what the opposition would be. It’s not the Dems laying a trap, it’s called “doing the right thing”. Robach talking a good show about it then not acting on it is consistent with other things I’ve heard about him, where he shows up and wows everyone with his smoothness then fails to act.

We keep talking about it because it’s all about local Dems being all they can be. It’s important, and this LTE in Sunday’s D&C does a good job of it:

Dunning sold out his support base

The April 6 editorial “Dunning’s new way” hit the nail right on the head. In a separate “News Beat” item, you quoted him as saying that he has developed a close relationship with the Republican members of the Chili Town Board, and couldn’t envision campaigning against any of them. I have to ask, if David Dunning had remained a Democrat and had run for a second term as supervisor, do you really think these people on the Town Board would not have campaigned against him? Moreover, he speaks of still being the same person who will always hold true to his values. At this point, what values does he have? He has betrayed his party.

They sum it up really well:

Furthermore, in my opinion, Dunning does not value those who elected him as a Democrat. Finally, I believe that Dunning is now in the pocket of the Chili Republicans. Are they going to allow him to hold fast to any values that he may think he has?

This, in a nutshell, describes why it’s not just enough to have a “Dem” run in every race, but we need them to articulate why they’re running as a Dem. I mean, sorry, having a pulse and registering as a Dem just ain’t enough. BUT, if you articulate what you’re all about, you’re making the most of the opportunity to advance core Democratic values and build up the brand locally.

Whether you win or lose. Not everyone made it up over those cliffs surrounding Normandy beach, but each wave of troops made it all the more possible for the next wave.

Weird stuff. First Channel 10 gets the scoop on Bellavia’s entry into the NY-26 race, and Exile makes the connection:

Bellavia’s wife is a reporter for Channel 10, which is presumably why the station got the scoop on this.

Then Channel 10’s Ray Levato awkwardly goes after Bellavia’s opponent Jon Powers, for something that Bellavia said. Corrected, he continued to go after him:

Then Levato asked Powers if by giving Bellavia a “mulligan” if he (Powers) was trying to inject race into the contest. The room fell silent. No one could understand what Levato meant unless he was implying that somehow the Scottish should be offended.

Heh. I’m no huge sports fan, but even I know what a mulligan is.

Does all this strike anyone else as a little weird?

Just got a press release from the Powers campaign:

Tomorrow, Monroe County Democratic Chairman Joe Morelle and Democratic
Leaders in New York’s 26th Congressional District will hold a press
conference for a major announcement regarding New York’s 26th Congressional
seat.

They don’t say what the announcement is about, but spidey sense says: endorsement. I’m not sure any other reason the campaign would be trumpeting the announcement with such fanfare. Maybe the DCCC announcing they’re staying out of the primary cleared the way for Morelle & his posse to jump in.

The only county in the 26th that hasn’t endorsed now is Erie, and Erie towns of Lancaster and Clarence have endorsed. I assume it would be hard for the town of Amherst to endorse since I believe one of the town board members has thrown his hat in the ring.

Update: as a bonus news item on the 26th race, Powers made a statement, taking the high road, about the whole Bellavia/Tiger Woods comment:

I’m going to offer David Bellavia a mulligan on this one and give him the
opportunity to clarify what he meant by comparing Senator Obama to Tiger
Woods. If this was a comparison based upon racial lines, David owes Senator
Obama an apology.

“Mulligan”. Funny.

This reminds me of when Eric Massa took the high road during a debate and said that a question directed to Randy Kuhl about domestic violence was inappropriate.

Exile reported yesterday that readers are getting push polled.

It struck me how much some parts of the poll are very similar to the one the Monroe County GOP did last September, as we reported:

We are not amused.

It’s a testament to the weakness of the Brooks plan [before we knew it was the so-called FAIR plan] that they have to resort to push-polling to sell it. It would be funny if it weren’t such a serious issue, that needs REAL ideas to be brought to the table.

(snip)

It then asks for favorable/unfavorable opinons about various local public figures, including:

Cheryl DiNolfo (probably wondering if she’s groomable for something else like Maggie Brooks)

Cara Briggs

Maggie Brooks

…

(snip)

They ask about likelihood to vote for Briggs or Green in the County DA race, about favor/oppose the county providing benefits to gay & lesbian partners, and then they dive into Maggie Brooks, asking agree/disagree that she’s doing a good job with the local economy, creating new jobs, keeping taxes low.

You know, the standard talking points for every Brooks’ photo-op.

Then comes the push part of the poll:

(roughly)

“Maggie Brooks has a plan which will solve the county’s budget deficit by … [long list of impressive and smart-sounding things]. Do you favor or oppose it?”

See how that works? It states as fact that the plan will magically solve the deficit problem. It makes assumptions like “…and by cutting funding to local schools by 50% which will be more than offset by record state aid!”

Sorry folks, that’s supposition. You can’t state that it “will solve” or “will be offset” as a fact. I’ve been burned by “the check’s in the mail” too many times to believe it.

The push goes on though, by repeating the “Maggie Brooks has a plan which will solve the county’s budget deficit by…” 2 more times! They have other questions that try to tease out which parts you dislike, so they know how to sell it better.

History has now shown that Brooks’ plan didn’t solve the deficit. It just played a shell game with the money, and that didn’t even solve the deficit. But, as we can see, it doesn’t matter if the plan works or not, it’s all in if it can be sold to enough of the public.

I wonder what those poll numbers look like for Maggie Brooks these days. My suspicion? Not good. Expect to see a bunch of photo-ops with Brooks in the near future. With GOP County Clerk Cheryl Dinolfo.

Speaking of Dinolfo, she’s up for re-election this year. Hey MCDC, where’s the Dem candidate to run against her? Or are we gonna let this go unopposed like the race for County Exec last year?

Because that works out great for all Monroe Countians when they don’t have a choice in the election.