I received an email this afternoon.  It started out like this:

We came across a very brief obituary notice this morning, about a curious individual with a single word for a name, in an obscure newspaper of diminishing circulation and soon to cease publication altogether itself. The notice read:

Hope, a professional political campaigner and poster model of
Washington, DC, dead at the age of 26 months, from starvation and
abuse. No surviving close relatives.

Then, it went on to discuss how the president never had any intention of letting a public option pass, let alone single payer.  It’s been a scam from the beginning and the Dems have been in on it.  So what does a good progressive Dem do?  How about, vows to never vote for a Democrat, or a Republican again?  Can this work?  I’m thinking that it has to.

As my brother-in-law told me, just the other day, historically, democracies do not last.

This may be the last stand.For their part the Democratic Party tied its wagon to a fundamentally corrupt health care bill, based on a secret deal made long ago by President Obama personally to kill off any prospect of a public  option of any kind. So cynical was the deception in which Democratic members of Congress also conspired that while 51 Senators stated they supported a public option of some kind, after being forced into the procedure of reconciliation (which would only require 51 votes) the Speaker of the House further conspired to suppress even the very weak public option passed in her own chamber, so that those Senators would never have to honor their pledges.

Check out the facebook page and join a movement to change the political landscape.  Our very democracy is at stake.

I haven’t had the stomach to write much about what is going on with Health Care Reform as I don’t see this bill moving us in the direction that we need to go.  Somebody, somewhere, thinks this this is a groovy bill.  I do not.  I’m sure we can find a little addendum in a hidden corner that is going to allow a few extra people to afford health care in 2014, but really, I mean, seriously, reform?  Government subsidies for private insurance?  Forcing people to purchase from private companies?  Seriously?

Dennis Kucinich got it, though.  He knew this was a bad move for the American people.  He supported single payer all along.  He and Eric Massa were our stalwart proponents for universal, single payer health care.

But, today, somebody got to him.  Today, Dennis has said he will vote for this bill.

In a big get for House Dems, Dennis Kucinich just made it official: He’s voting for the Senate bill, making him the first member to go on record fliping his vote from No to Yes.

“In the past week it’s become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close,” Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago. He acknowleged that he’d be voting “not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is.”

“However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi” and others, Kucinich said, “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”

Kucinich’s stance was being closely watched by both sides, partly as a test of President Obama’s ability to corral the support of reluctant Dems. Obama wooed him directly with a lift on Air Force One and gave a big health care speech in his district earlier this week.

I wonder if there’s a  shower on Air Force One.

Rahm must have a very big stick.

Louise Slaughter, chairman of the House Rules Committee is trying to use a legislative tactic which sends the health care reform bill back to the president without a direct vote.  The Republicans are not happy:

Republicans are bashing the tactic as the “Slaughter solution.”

Under Slaughter’s proposal, the Senate bill would be “deemed passed” if the House approves a rule for floor debate of a second bill. That second bill would contain changes that House Democrats want to make to the Senate bill.

“The only debate would be the customary 30 minutes per side on the rule itself,” said Rep. David Dreier of California, the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee.

Slaughter responded Monday that the procedure has been used by the House as far back as a March 16, 1933, vote on maintaining the creditworthiness of the federal government. “Republicans have used it; Democrats have used this for major legislation,” she said.

It’s a great idea, if it’s a good bill.  We’ll have to see what the House comes up with.  In order for my approval it has to have a public option which includes a medicare buy-in for those under 65 years old and it has to be available on day one.

Update:  I received this communication from Seth Samuel, Rep Slaughter’s online communications coordinator, and wanted to share it:

I saw your post on the Slaughter Solution and just wanted to clarify a
bit about the rule. It’s important to note that there hasn’t been a
final decision about the exact process. Right now, the two leading
options are to have the Senate bill passed when the Rule passes, or to
have it passed when the reconciliation bill passes.

Regardless of the procedural nitty-gritty, the overriding goal of the
Slaughter Solution is to ensure an up or down vote on the final health
care package, which includes both the Senate bill and the fixes
contained in the reconciliation bill. There will certainly be
appropriate time for debate before this up or down vote.

Everyone was waiting with bated breath to see if Scott Congel would come up with the funds needed to move ahead  on the project at the former Medley Centre.  Stlo7 wrote this last week:

…The question is how much does Scott Congel owe?  Is he still on the hook for $500K and is that on top of the $322K payment he just missed?

Yesterday afternoon,at the 11th hour, the #322K payment was made. YNN has the story:

There was a sigh of relief in Irondequoit Monday after the developer of the former Medley Centre made a critical payment, one that was originally due at the end of January.

It’s the deadline that had Irondequoit waiting all weekend.

[snip]

“At 2:00 today I received an e-mail,” said Irondequoit Town Supervisor Mary Joyce D’Aurizio.

Three hours before the 5 p.m. deadline, an e-mail informed D’Aurizio that $322,813 had been wired, plus nearly $10,000 in interest.

At this point, the PILOT program is intact.  D’Aurizio had this to say:

Had the payment not been made, the PILOT program could have been cancelled and the entire project put in danger.

“That payment had to be paid,” said D’Aurizio. “I think he knows now that we do mean to follow all of the articles of the PILOT and stay on track for this development.”

Last week we re-introduced you to Dick Ravitch, our current lieutenant governor, who is doing his best to put together a budget for New York State.  As we were reminded by commenter, Mike, his plan is to borrow, big time.  This is how PolitickerNY explains it:

it allows short-term bond issuance so that a gaping budget hole need not be filled this year, and it installs new controls on budgeting with a semi-independent board that must approve the budget and see that spending and revenue are generally in line over a five-year horizon. (This has been the problem of Albany and other governments: spending goes up faster than revenues, so five years out, the state has generally tended to face big gaps).

Underlying this plan is a very big implication: that Ravitch believes Albany cannot bridge the $9 billion gap in the budget this year, offering up the heretofore prohibited practice of borrowing to fill the operating budget.

I, for one, have no understanding of budgets or financing, borrowing or interest or anything involving numbers and $ signs.  Mr Ravitch, on the other hand, has a great understanding of economics and a record of pulling economies back from the brink of disaster.  He has a plan in mind:

A seemingly more likely possibility is that Ravitch sees this as his one window to reform Albany’s budgeting practices, and by tying it to the current year’s budget is his one and only chance at getting any of his ideas passed. Thus, in this tough election year, he is offering a trade for the Legislature, which presumably wants nothing less than an embarrassing long-running budget impasse. He offers the legislators the ability to get out of their responsibility to balance this year’s budget, and in exchange they must give up certain budgetary powers and controls that they otherwise would never be willing to cede.

Short term goals, long term goals- I say, let’s give him  a shot.  (If that doesn’t work, we can always get Mike in there to set things to right.)

TAP has a post up from Friday (thank you devtob) regarding a NYT story examining the relationship between NY mayor, Michael Bloomberg and our junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Being closer to the source, they were able to pick up nuances that I had missed.  Apparently, the potential contenders for Kirsten’s seat have all been encouraged by Bloomberg’s people.

Check this out:

The Times has always been close to Bloomberg, as is evident again in the story’s lede:

He gripes about her in private conversations with his aides and her colleagues on Capitol Hill. He has yet to take up her invitation to sit down for dinner. And his political team is constantly shopping for potential candidates to oust her.As New York experiences a tumultuous election season, one question is captivating political insiders: Why does Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg so dislike Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand?

The story never really answers that question, because to do so would mean bringing up the issue of Caroline Kennedy’s maladroit candidacy for the appointment.

The story recounts how Bloomberg and his minions have been advising/encouraging several potential Gillibrand challengers — former Bush/Cheney war-flack Dan Senor most lately, but also Long Island Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Harold Ford, and fellow Manhattan billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman. (Manhattan Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s short-lived, but nasty, challenge is oddly unmentioned, though Bloomberg types worked on that, too.)

So, is this all because of Caroline Kennedy’s failed bid for the senate seat?  Is it really all about who the Mayor can keep under his thumb?  Is it all about controlling the vote of one senator from NY? I hate to think so, but, politics being what it is, it makes perfect sense.

Repower America is hosting a townhall with Al Gore on March 15th. Read about it and sign up before 9pm this evening if you would like to participate.

I have long been a fan of the late, great Theodore Roosevelt.  Two weeks ago, while walking through the streets of Manhattan on a Friday night, we stumbled upon Roosevelt’s place of birth, a nation landmark.  Elated with our discovery, we returned the following day for the tour.

Having read several biographies on TR, there were still many things that I leaned from the tour, such as, he was an avid speed reader who read three books a day. Three books a day, and governed the country at the same time.  He had an amazing intellect, and at the same time was a great humanitarian who believed passionately in “Noblesse oblige”.

“Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense.”… “We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.”"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.”
New York State Fair, Syracuse, September 7, 1903

He also had a keen understanding of people’s motivation:

“The opposition to reform is generally well led by skilled parliamentarians, and they fight with the vindictiveness natural to men who see a chance of striking at the institution which has baffled their greed. These men have a gift at office-mongering, just as other men have a peculiar knack at picking pockets; and they are joined by all the honest dull men, who vote wrong out of pure ignorance, and by a very few sincere and intelligent, but wholly misguided people.”

(I bolded that last part as it reminded me of our “Tea Party” friends.)

Although Theodore Roosevelt’s platform for universal health care was not raised until his run with the Bull Moose Party in 1912, I read this week that Barack Obama has begun a study of Roosevelt’s rise to power with Edmund Morris’s book.  Morris comments here:

I’m flattered that Obama is reading The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, instead of those fascinating 15,000-page bills Congress keeps sending him. But I’d respectfully suggest that he will learn more about the Rooseveltian executive style in the book’s sequel, Theodore Rex. Perhaps just the opening chapters, Mr. President, describing TR’s first year (1901-1902) in office? They show how, in swift but carefully timed succession, TR—a consummate manipulator of the press—dramatized and identified himself with the major issues of his day: racial prejudice, antitrust power, reclamation policy, Supreme Court reactionism, labor/management strife, and so on. Some of the details are dated now, but what is dateless and of particular relevance to Obama is TR’s karate-chop style. He chose the issue, chose the moment, then struck with all his might. Having struck, he went on to other things, leaving the legislative and the judiciary and a wildly excited press to debate, and maybe push through, the reforms he sought.

Sometimes TR had to settle for less, or even abandon a cause he passionately espoused. But blow after blow established him in the public mind as a man of decisive courage, and the moral superior of those who liked to talk rather than act.

The book that President Obama is currently reading

My hope is that Obama will gain insight and inspiration from our 26th president.  This is the man to emulate, Mr Obama.  When you’re done with “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt“, pick up “Theodore Rex”

Then, get yourself a big stick.

City News addresses this issue: Criminal Justice: Terror in the courts in this week’s edition.

Donald Rehkopf, a Rochester criminal defense attorney, says the push for trying people like Mohammed in military courts is being driven by fear-baiting political forces.

“The federal criminal courts not only can handle these cases efficiently and effectively, they have a long history of doing so,” he says. “We’ve successfully prosecuted hundreds of quote-unquote terrorists.”

Coincidentally, Rehkopf is a panelist for next week’s panel discussion which has been posted in turning points for the last week.  It promises to be an interesting talk for those on both sides of the issue.  Although I can see the two sides, I agree with Rehkopf when he states:

“The Constitution applies to everyone, good, bad, and indifferent,” Rehkopf says. “Sometimes you have to protect the rights of the worst person in order to protect the rights of everyone.”

None of us is protected until all of us are protected.  That’s just the way it is.

This is the first, last and only post that I will write specifically about Eric Massa’s departure from Congress.

Eric is a hero, politically.  He took on a race in the GOP stronghold of NY’s 29th Congressional District which we were told couldn’t be won by a Democrat, and won.  He, for the most part was on the right side of wrong.  He had the intelligence and the fortitude to take on those who screamed at him at town-halls. His counter points were progressive, but respectful of other’s points of view.  He was respected, even by those who disagreed once they had met and talked with him.  He was a truly progressive voice where few are found today.

I believe Eric when he states that the administration wanted him out.

But now he is having a breakdown for all the world to see and from Charles Karel Bouley at HuffPo comes this insightful look into Eric Massa’s world.

Massa deconstructed on TV, including going on Glenn Beck, a move so ridiculous that the man is obviously having a breakdown and no one stopped him. Truly, when one is in a room with Glenn Beck and Beck appears to be the sane one, something is wrong.

His family must be in such an uproar, and his life is unraveling. The one thing this man has probably never dealt with, the fact that he obviously wants to explore men sexually on some level, has been ground in to grist for the media mill and he is literally falling apart under the glare of the spotlight. He is unstable, in huge denial, struggling internally to hold on the “self” he thought he had and the “self” that everyone now sees. He can’t reconcile the two and he’s come unglued in some areas. I’m no psychologist, I’ve just been gay my entire life and have seen this over and over again.

And the media, including liberals on liberal radio started screaming for him to come out, bringing more salacious details about past allegations to the foreground. Everyone began the horrible news cycle of replaying his rantings, the obviously unstable talk from a man trying not to drown. I feel nothing but pity for him. He has lived a closeted life and now the door is wide open. Not that he’s gay, he may not identify as such. There are 307 million Americans and 307 million different sexualities. But why the media is on a gay witch hunt is beyond reason at this point. Why they insist on not stopping until he is outed or outs himself even after he has resigned is just malicious. HE DOESN’T KNOW WHO HE IS YET, give him a minute to find out. And then, really, it’s none of our business unless he wants it to be.

I agree, can we leave him alone and move on?  Stop providing a spotlight for Eric to walk in front of.  He needs our well-wishes, not our admonishments.  He was a hero when we needed one.  He stood up to the powers-that-be for us.

Leave the marshmallows at home and grab a bucket of water.

Spitzer (glass houses, Eric?) Edwards, Rangel, Paterson, Massa.  Scandal after scandal is fast chipping away at any chance the Democratic Party may have had in maintaining a majority  in the state and federal governments.  Couple this with a Democratic Majority that believes vertebrae are best used for bending over backwards for corporate interest and this is what ensues…

From Swing State Project:

From Swing State Project:

NY-29: Former Rep. Randy Kuhl has decided he won’t try to win his old seat back. Instead, he’s endorsing ex-Corning Mayor Tom Reed.

Until we find a progressive candidate to run in the 29th, I guess you can file this under, “So what?”

Granny D has died.  How many of us remember this (at the time) octogenarian’s walk across the country in support of campaign finance reform?  An advocate of removing corporate influence from our electoral process, she was hailed as a hero by progressive activists and politicians alike. From John Nichols at “The Nation” comes this account:

On March 1, 2000, when she finished that walk in Washington, Granny D. told a crowd of more than 2,000 cheering supporters — including a dozen members of Congress — who had gathered on the Capitol steps:

This morning we began our walk among the graves of Arlington –so that those spirits, some of whom may be old friends, might join us today and that we might ask of them now, Did you, brave spirits, give your lives for a government where we might stand together as free and equal citizens, or did you give your lives so that laws might be sold to the highest bidder, turning this temple of our Fair Republic into a bawdy house where anything and everything is done for a price? We hear your answers in the wind.”

Former President Jimmy Carter hailed Granny D. as “a true patriot” and declared that “our nation has been blessed by her remarkable life.”

At a time when our voice is in grave peril of being drowned out by the well moneyed special interests, Granny D’s death should be a wake-up call to get us moving on the single most important piece of legislation which has the potential to save our fragile democracy.  Every other piece of legislation hinges on this.

I don’t need to remind you about Health Care Reform, Afghanistan, Cap and Trade and how corporate interest has taken us down the wrong paths.  Let Doris Hancock’s death be a reminder to us of our priority in bringing “Clean Money, Clean Elections” to the forefront once again.

RIP Granny D, may we honor your legacy and keep the fight alive.

Does the name Richard Ravitch mean anything to you?  We have written on him before, but I don’t think the name is ringing any bells for many of our readers.

Lieutenant Governor Ravitch

The New York Observer has provided us with a brief synopsis on Mr Ravitch called, “The Last (Good) Man Standing”.  That title is particularly poignant in view of one scandal, after another removing Democratic public officials from power in New York State.

Mr Ravitch has an extensive history dealing with troubling economic situations.  Our state is in dire need of a fiscal repairman.  Here is the resume he brings to the job of Lieutenant Governor,

Mr. Ravitch’s reputation as a civic rescuer has a long history. Governor Hugh Carey tapped him from the private sector in the 1970s to save the fiscally struggling Urban Development Corporation. During the city’s fiscal crisis in 1975, he worked behind the scenes to avert municipal bankruptcy. He ran the M.T.A. from 1979 to 1983, bringing the beleaguered agency a new flow of revenues and turning it around from an era marked by derailments and track fires. After the stint in government, he helped turn around the Bowery Saving Bank, and occasionally popped up as a reasonable voice in various public fights, be it the battle over a West Side stadium (he opposed it) or the rescue of the M.T.A. in 2008 and 2009.

It certainly appears that Governor Paterson chose wisely when he asked Dick Ravitch to take on the Lieutenant Governor’s mantel.  It wasn’t anything that Ravitch was looking for, but his does seem like a calm demeanor in a sea of economic catastrophe.  So, is there hope that New York State can mire through this , bruised, but not broken?  Is Ravitch the leader that we need?

He looks at politics as an idealist, a good-government type who believes— despite all evidence to the contrary—that rational policy is within reach, and he deeply respects the value of public service.

Sure looks good on paper.  I’m willing to go with him.

On March 25th at 7:30 PM Howard Dean will be speaking at The Smith Opera House in Geneva.  I can’t go, as I have a previous engagement.  I hope someone reading this blog goes as it looks like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean have become the two lonely voices championing progressive causes in this country.  (Not to mention that the Smith Opera House is a great venue.)  Here are the particulars:

Gov. Howard Dean joins the 2010 President’s Forum Series at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

On Thursday, March 25, former governor of Vermont and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean will join the spring 2010 President’s Forum Series at 7:30 p.m. at the Smith Opera House.

That’s it from ladkiddo for today.  In view of recent events, I am spent psychologically and emotionally.  In the words of Zack Mayo, “I got nothin’.”  So on advice from a wise master, I am disengaging and going out to smell the roses.  It’s a beautiful day.  I suggest you do the same.

TTFN