Replies to post #194739 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

Andrew Cuomo, fake Democrat

New York's governor might lead his party in 2016. So why won't he fight for a state Senate majority they earned?

By Alex Pareene
Monday, Nov 19, 2012 12:45 PM
Thanks F6, Let's get it up here all on it's own.


Andrew Cuomo (Credit: Reuters/Hans Pennink)

If the New York state Senate remains controlled by the Republican Party, it won’t be because of the voters. Democrats have 30 seats, with 32 required for a majority. They’re also ahead in two races currently being recounted. Simcha Felder, who won a Senate seat on the Democratic and Conservative Party lines in Brooklyn, has already announced that he will caucus with the Republicans. If the Democrats end up with a majority, there is a good chance a bunch of conservative Democrats will switch parties to ensure that the GOP retains control. One guy who’s staying conspicuously out of the fight: Democratic governor and 2016 presidential contender Andrew Cuomo. [ http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/state/1998-how-hurricane-sandy-has-upended-politics-as-usual-in-albany ]

“The Assembly will pick a leader, and the Senate will pick a leader. And I have no intention of getting involved in either situation,” Cuomo said at a press conference last week, while underscoring that he thought Democrats learned a lesson the last time they were in control of the Senate. “I think they learned the hard way. The Democrats were in power. The Democrats then lost power because of the dysfunction and I think they learned that lesson the hard way.”

But it’s not just that Cuomo’s not trying to help his party win a majority that voters actually voted for. He has at times actively hindered their chances. Cuomo signed off [ http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/01/5135748/cuomo-who-promised-end-gerrymandering-prepares-reformers-and-democr?page=all ] on gerrymandered state Senate districts and did not demand independent, nonpartisan redrawing. In doing so he intended to preserve the status quo — Republicans in charge of the state Senate, Democrats in charge of the more representative assembly — but voters in New York pretty clearly decided [ http://prospect.org/article/when-majorities-dont-mean-control ] that they preferred Democrats in charge of both houses, even with districts drawn specifically to make that nearly impossible.

And if Republicans get their majority, with the tacit support of Cuomo, the governor will have once again shown that he is not the progressive figure he will likely try to sell himself as if he runs for president. His tenure so far has been marked by flashy liberal victories on issues like gay marriage, along with a quietly conservative economic agenda: A property tax cap, total neglect of mass transit, and (partial) support for fracking. [ Three embedded links in bolded sentence ] Even on economic issues where Cuomo has more liberal priorities, he rarely pushes his Republican friends particularly hard. (A Republican-controlled state Senate will almost certainly block a minimum wage increase Cuomo ostensibly supports.) There’s a reason, in other words, that the National Review loves him. [ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258645/cuomo-conservative-michael-tanner ] Cuomo doesn’t hide his conservative tendencies — they’re part of his sales pitch, especially upstate and outside New York City — but he’s in an enviable position of being able to run and govern as a conservative while retaining a progressive reputation, because he’s, you know, a Cuomo and a big-city blue state liberal governor who got gay marriage passed. His response to Sandy has raised his national profile even more, and barring the sort of disastrous scandals that have sunk the last couple of New York governors, he’ll keep being mentioned whenever people bring up 2016 candidates until the day he announces his intentions. But Democrats ought to know what sort of Democrat he is. If Cuomo allows Republicans to subvert the will of the voters of New York, so that he has an easier time cutting taxes and rolling back regulations, he shouldn’t be allowed to sell himself to future primary voters as a progressive.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/andrew_cuomo_fake_democrat/

Well, Cuomo did allow republicans to subvert the will of the people ... SCREW HIM! .. We have Much Better Dems than him ... to run .... .. again! .. SCREW HIM!

[arizona1]

Will She, Should She? Media Speculation over Hillary in 2016 Begins -- (Poll: NY Voters Prefer Clinton Over Cuomo)
It's going to be a long four years until the next election.
December 5, 2012 |

According to The New Yorker’s David Remnick, Hillary is absolutely going to run for president in 2016. He couldn’t have stated it more clearly two days ago in a New Yorker blog post--“Hillary Clinton is running for President.”
OK Remnick says so, but is Hillary really gunning for the White House? So far, she’s discredited the speculation, but that hasn’t abated the media frenzy.

According to Errol Louis, a NYI political anchor speaking on MSNBC, “unless you see something written in stone, you have to assume she’s going to run for president.” On the same segment, Beth Fouhy, senior editor of Yahoo! News, said that the Democrat’s field is “frozen” until Hillary makes her announcement.

Adding fuel to the fire, a just released poll from Siena College says 54% of New Yorkers think Hillary should run for the White House in 2016, over 39% for sitting Governor Andrew Cuomo. She sports a 75% approval rating, her highest ever, according to previous Siena polls.

“What I think is going to happen is that Hillary has all the cards to her, she is going to take a year off ... and she can still decide to run, and this is going to kill all the other democrats that are hoping to run, because the field is frozen,” said Fouhy.

Meanwhile, some are already coming out to express their reservations about the early “announcement” of a Hillary run, which is--it’s worth remembering--a proclamation that is only real in the world of media frenzy, not in the actual realm of electoral politics.

As Salon’s Joan Walsh argues, Clinton will have serious challenges as the Democratic frontrunner, which are only exacerbated by the early speculation and discussion of her upcoming campaign. Plus she’ll have a host of things to answer for, from the success of Obama’s presidency to the White House’s controversial Middle East policies under her time as Secretary of State.

Walsh writes:

I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. Smarter people than I believe she will run in 2016, despite her protests, and I mostly hope she does. Chances are I would support her again. There is no other strong certain candidate in the field. Vice President Biden and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo are likely to stay out of the race if she runs. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley probably would, or should, too. He doesn’t have the stature to successfully challenge her. And there’s no obvious liberal or progressive star to date. Talk about a run by, say, Massachusetts Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren seems premature to me, as much as I admire her: Let’s give her a little time in the Senate to make a difference before pushing her onto the national stage. Of course, it’s still quite early, and an inspiring figure may well emerge who could give Clinton an energetic run from the left. Almost nobody was betting on Sen. Barack Obama on Dec. 4, 2005. So we’ll see.

I understand why some Democrats are giddy over the chance of a Clinton candidacy; I’ve gotten caught up in it occasionally, too. She’s the most popular political figure in the country, on either side of the aisle. And if Obama could pass her the baton in 2016, we’d get a chance at a 21stcentury New Deal, a 12- to 16-year Democratic era (maybe even more) that could eventually rival Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s in accomplishments. It would be powered by an electorate that polls say is more liberal than at any time in modern history, with an appetite for activist domestic government.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/will-she-should-she-media-speculation-over-hillary-2016-begins-poll-ny-voters-prefer?akid=9760.37251.XrLfRu&rd=1&src=newsletter755734&t=3&paging=off