Political blind item

A surprise candidate could be emerging in one of the closest watched races of 2009. Read More......

Ed Day will not run for Rockland County Executive

County Legislator Ed Day has announced that he will not run for County Executive. So, look forward to C. Scott Vanderhoef announcing his intent to run again.

"I looked at it from all angles and I realized that the opportunity just isn't there," Day said this morning.

Day, a Republican from New City, would have had to challenge incumbent C. Scott Vanderhoef, a Republican, for the seat in a primary if Vanderhoef chose to run again.

Vanderhoef, who has been county executive for 16 years, has not made a formal announcement about his intent to run again.

Day's posturing was odd to begin with. Why would a conservative Republican run in a primary against a moderate Republican incumbent in a County that has a Democratic majority?

Sources close to Day and Vanderhoef told LOTH that they did not believe that Vanderhoef was running and I think Day was working with the same information I had. These sources (who I cannot name) had hinted that Vanderhoef was waiting to hear about a private sector job or would step away from politics for a short time and run for another office.

While I'm now on the bandwagon with the overwhelming majority that Vanderhoef will certainly defend his position this November, I do not think my sources gave me bad information. My two sources came upon the same information by different means, and they both said that there was a lot of maneuvering and machinations in regard to Vanderhoef's future.

Also, Day's statement catches me as a little odd. He "looked at it from all angles and...realized that the opportunity just isn't there?" This must mean that Day was looking for an opening, and the only thing blocking him from that opening was Vanderhoef vacating the position. Days ruminations were that of a politician jockeying for position in case there was an opening. But what would make Day even assume that such an opening existed? Again, I am further convinced that he obtained his information from one of the same sources that I did.

So I remain convinced that Vanderhoef was seeking another job opportunity, but it just didn't emerge. But this doesn't mean that Vandhoef won't need to polish that resume again come Wednesday, November 4. And it's going to need a whole lot of polish.
Read More......

NYT: As New Lawyer, Senator Gillibrand Defended Big Tobacco

In the mid-1990s, Kirsten Gillibrand played a major role in battling government attempts to prove wrongdoing by cigarette makers. And it seems that she was much more immersed in this drama than I had reported before on this blog and on The Albany Project. I'm told by my detractors that we've got to become more acquainted with Gillibrand better before we start asking her the tough questions, so I encourage everyone to read this piece.

This is the most important point made in the article (for those of you that don't want to click the link):

Of course, many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work, Mr. Chang said.

So my question is why would she not have an objection to working for such a client at the time? It certainly does not jibe with her new squeaky-clean anti-tobacco image.

There is a real worry here: Does Sen. Gillibrand employ situational ethics and does she have a strong moral grounding on the issues.

I've had it with opportunistic politicians on both sides of the aisle who will say anything to get elected and really have no strongly held beliefs-and I'm not convinced Gillibrand is not one more of them. I think twice about voting for someone that shows obvious signs of being a weak and flexible politician and I think exploring Gillibrand's background is just the type of due diligence we need to do as voters. I want the politicians that represent me to have backbones and unwavering dedication to their beliefs.

Read the article in the Times Read More......

Secession bill introduced in New York State Senate

Here we go again. The age-old pseudo-feud between Western/upstate NY and downstate is again reintroduced. And as silly as it sounds, I've spoken to a few people that are taking these clowns seriously.

Should upstate New York go its own way? And what would we call ourselves — Upstatonia? Newer York? Adirondackiana?

These are just a few of the questions raised by a bill recently introduced by a handful of Republican state senators calling for a referendum that would ask, “Do you support the division of New York into two separate states?"

The bill, which you can read in its entirety after the jump, is co-sponsored by Joseph Robach (R-56th District), William Larkin (R-39th District), Michael Ranzenhofer (R-61st District), James Seward (R-51st District) and Dale Volker (R-59th District). Coincidentally, all are upstate legislators and represent largely rural districts.

Whenever I hear nonsense like this, and worse yet, when I think of the tax money wasted on nonsense like this, I am reminded that many of our elected officials are fools. And I'm not calling them "fools" as a taunt, or because I enjoy name-calling. I mean, these people are operating a few fries short of a happy meal.

Just off the top of our heads, we can think of a few implications of upstate becoming the 51st state — and we’re assuming that’s how it would be done geographically, as opposed to, say, drawing the border down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

Republicans would almost certainly find themselves back in power positions.
The governor of upstate would probably do most of his work at the Capitol.
The New York Times would need a new city to kick around in its editorial headlines (e.g. today’s MTA-related “Thanks a lot, Albany”).
The members of the Long Island branch of the state GOP would find themselves feeling very, very lonely.
The so-called “Bear Mountain Pact” — the unspoken rule that, y’know, what happens in Albany stays in Albany — would have to be renegotiated.

The idea of the state splitting into two over ideological reasons is nothing new, but there is no possible way that such an event (as unlikely as it is) would benefit any if its residents. Yes, upstate carried more than its share of the financial burden during some economic tough times for the city in the 1970s and in the 1980s, but in boom times downstate that debt has been repaid with the greater NYC area benefitting less and having a higher net tax burden than the remainder of the state. A few years ago, it was found that the City of New York gave $11 billion more in tax revenue than it received back.
If anything, Western New York/upstate and the downstate have a unique symbiotic relationship that you don't find in many other states, like my former home of Michigan where the Upper Peninsula has no natural relationship to the lower one.

In the end, the division of New York into two states is impossible. It would be crippling to New York get into some dysfunctional Western NY/upstate/downstate divorce where we would wrestle for custody of state assets. Do these State Senators understand what a very intricate puissance they would be disassembling?

And now, with much of Western NY in pretty much of a permanent recession, these areas need downstate more than ever. However, I think it is high time to discuss ways of rebooting the State's economic priorities to help give Western NY/upstate a needed shot in the arm. Putting a high-speed rail line to connect the entire state would help and extending this line down along Lake Erie into Ohio would help even more, as it will coalesce the nanotechnology alley that runs from Cleveland to Syracuse. And to do so, the western part of the state will need the tax resources from downstate. Read More......

Gillibrand's Rockland Q&A should be free to all

Many Rockland County Democrats and Progressives have been getting a variation of this e-mail from some of their local politicos:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand will be coming to Rockland in one of her first constituent visits! On Sunday, April 26 from 4-6 pm she will be at Riverspace in Nyack. The Q&A format will allow us to learn more about her while she learns more about the challenges and opportunities in Rockland County.

Join us in welcoming her to Rockland. General admission is $100, with $250 reserved seats to include a post-program reception. Please support us in welcoming our new Senator to Rockland County.

I was very bothered by some aspects of the e-mails. First of all, the rest of each emails contained supposedly heartfelt personal endorsements, but they all read pretty much the same. Second, I am still wary of Kirsten Gillibrand's history and worry about what it means for New York's future. Third, I'm wondering why this constituent meeting is a paid event, and an expensive one at that. So, I crafted a response to those e-mails that explains my concerns (and I hope you agree):

If Sen. Gillibrand is having her first meet-and-greet in Nyack, why is it a paid event to fill her campaign coffers? Is $100 needed for political access? I am concerned that this is but a campaign fundraiser masquerading as a question-and-answer session. Must Rockland County Democrats really fork over an admission fee to gain access to the Senator?

My wife an I have many questions, but $200 is a luxury that we can’t afford. I have met Sen. Gillibrand’s predecessor, Secretary Hillary Clinton four times and not once did I pay a fee to speak with her. So I, my wife, and several of our friends feel shut out. In the meantime, we have concerns that Gillibrand's history and her past policies don't really jibe well with the Democratic ideal and want to know more about the “new” Gillibrand.

Here are my concerns:

* Sen. Gillibrand is a protégé of former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, having cut her political teeth while working in his office. You may have noticed that it was Sen. D'Amato—and not a high-ranking Democrat—that stood at her right hand when Governor Paterson announced her appointment. This underscores that Gillibrand’s professional and legislative record are ambiguous at best.

* Gillibrand worked as a lawyer representing the tobacco industry. At her firm, Gillibrand worked for Philip Morris during major litigation brought by the victims of cigarette smoking. She also assisted the company during FBI criminal investigations. If you look at Gillibrand's campaign finance records, it will show that she had since received $23,200 in contributions from Phillip Morris employees. So, I would like to know if she will support FDA oversight of tobacco. As it currently stands, tobacco is the only product not regulated to protect consumers.

* In 2007, Gillibrand split from the majority of fellow Democrats to support a $100 billion Iraq funding bill without a timeline for troop withdrawal. (Clinton opposed the bill, along with Obama.) I want to know if and how Sen. Gillibrand will support President Obama’s policies on Iraq and Afghanistan going forward.

* Gillibrand was the only Congressional Democrat to stand against Maxine Waters' proposal to help states buy foreclosed homes and offer them at discounted rates to low-income families. Does she still feel the same way?

* Gillibrand has received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association and has backed them on every piece of legislation that the group has supported during her tenure in Congress. I understand that she claims to be shifting her policies on guns, but I want to hear what she specifically thinks about legislative measures. I am particularly interested to hear if she wants to extend the Brady Background Checks to gun shows, which are currently exempt from them. This loophole allows convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill to walk into any gun show and buy a great variety of weapons from unlicensed sellers without being stopped, no questions asked.

* Gillibrand has expressed support in extending the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the rich. I want to know if she still intends to extend those cuts.

* Gillibrand voted in favor of an amendment that increases funding for the construction of a fence along the Mexican border. The legislation, the Brown-Waite amendment to HR 2638, redirects $89 million used to create 700 miles of barbed-wire and chain-link along that southern border. Now that she’s repacked herself as the kinder, gentler Gillibrand, I would like to know if the xenophobic stance she took when she was representing the 20th Congressional District will continue during her tenure in the Senate.

* Gillibrand may be shifting more to the left on gay rights now that she’s Senator, but in 2007, she received an 80 out of 100 rating from the LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign—the lowest score out of New York’s Democratic representatives. She declined to cosponsor legislation repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. She voted against legislation to grant same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents the same immigration status of married couples. Now she flip-flops: the morning of her appointment to the Senate, she notified the Empire State Pride Agenda of her full support for same-sex marriage and her support of a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I am interested in knowing what prompted this change of heart and if her new support for Gay Rights is unwavering.

Paid access to politicians is arguably the root of all of our political problems today. I would love the opportunity to meet our new Senator and would like to discuss my concerns about our nation, the economy, and our community. However, my wife and I don’t have $200 to spare during these difficult times and don't think it's fair that a newly appointed Senator ask us to pay for access. So we are considering waiting outside Riverspace on April 26 and hope that the Senator will come out to talk with us as well. If you’re like my family, you’re filled with consternation about our future, but have little money; I hope you’ll join us outside Riverspace on that day.
Read More......

Gay politician mulls run against Gillibrand

He's here, he's queer, and he may be running for the Senate.

First it was Mineola Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who takes great exception at Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's rabid pro-gun stance. Then she was joined by fellow New York congress members Carolyn Mahoney, Steve Israel, and Jerrold Nadler. Now another Dem, openly gay Suffolk County Legislator Jon Cooper has shown interest in the Senate seat:

[The] move that could make him the first openly gay U.S. senator.

"I consider myself progressive on the important issues," said Cooper, alluding to gun control and gay rights. "And obviously, Sen. Gillibrand has not been a strong supporter in the past on either issue." He added he is "very concerned" that state voters may lack confidence in a candidate who makes "a 180 degree turnabout" on major issues.

Cooper's no stranger to the politics of change and may be linked in with the President's campaign machinery:

Cooper, 54, who was Barack Obama's Long Island campaign chairman in his bid to become president, said he is looking to hire a public relations operative to help analyze the chances of his candidacy. He said a crowded primary field might make the race more viable for him. "In a seven-way race, the winner doesn't need 51 percent, just 15 percent," he said.

Read More......

Two Democrats contend for Orangetown Supervisor

The e-mails came fast and furious late this morning. First, Orangetown Town Council member Michael Maturo who, at 24, markets himself as "New York's youngest elected official" sent off an e-mail blast to Orangetown Democratic Committee Members letting them know that he's testing the water:

I'd like to invite you to three discussions over coffee (I'm buying!):

-- Monday, March 23 at 6:30pm at Yogi's at Prel Plaza in Orangeburg (60 Dutch Hill Road).
-- Tuesday, March 24 at 6:30pm at Didier & Dumas on Main Street in Nyack (163 Main Street).
-- Saturday, March 28 at 11am at Yogi's at Prel Plaza in Orangeburg (60 Dutch Hill Road).

We will explore my candidacy and discuss some of the ideas that I have for the local Democratic Party and Orangetown as a whole. This is as much about you as it is about me. With about a year and a half in office, we have accomplished much, but experience has also revealed to me that we have much more work to do to make Orangetown a better and more affordable place for all of us.

Soon after, Suzanne Barclay, the mild-mannered and measured assistant to current Town Supervisor Thom Kleiner, officially launched her campaign with an e-mail to committee members that read:

For the past seven-plus years as Thom Kleiner’s assistant, I have been involved in the day-to-day operations of Town government. That experience, combined with my background managing programs and people in state government and non-profit organizations, I believe, is an important and essential foundation for serving as supervisor.

It’s important that we have a Democrat in the position of supervisor to ensure a town government that is accessible, responsible and transparent. Over the years I’ve worked for a number of candidates for various levels of government doing everything from going door-to-door to organizing phone banks and fundraisers. Although this will be my first run for public office, I have an idea of the level of effort required and the commitment it takes to actually get elected.

I am ready and excited to make that happen.

The early reviews are in: some of the Orangetown Democratic Committee is extremely excited over one of these two contenders. Read More......

Four Democratic candidates crowd the field in Nyack mayor's race

Rockland World Radio proprietor Richard Quinn announced yesterday that he will be seeking the Democratic nomination for Mayor of the Village of Nyack. Quinn told LOTH that he's running because he feels Nyack needs a break from the same old policies and political figures. Quinn indicates that he's a big supporter of local businesses, but told us that he's skeptical of the Riverspace expansion plans.

Village Trustees Denise Hogan and Marie Lorenzini have already announced that they are running for Mayor. Marianne Olive, owner of Olive's, a bar and music venue on Main Street, has reportedly told acquaintances that she is also running. Olive has used her venue for fundraisers for local Democratic candidates in the past.

Considering that Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 in Nyack, it's a safe assumption that the winner of a Democratic Primary would waltz to a November election as Mayor of the 7,000-resident village. Read More......

Vanderhoef to deliver State of the County report tomorrow

This should be a doozy. I can hear Scott now: "Well, I didn't get a raise for me and my buddies again and I've been frantically updating my resume on Monster.com so I'm not left holding the bag during the upcoming election..."

Vanderhoef to deliver “State of the County” report

Read More......

Get the picture?

Read More......

A political blind item

What local politician is being coy about his future because he's expecting a call from Giuliani Partners to come any day now?

You don't have to think real hard on this one. Read More......

GOP sleeper cells target Obama; Santelli went off first

If you thought Rick Santelli's infamous rant on CNN was spontaneous, you may want to think again. Some are questioning if Santelli was acting as an agent of a GOP sleeper cell and you'll see more of these sleeper cells waken and wage attacks as Obama's administration continues.

Could Santelli’s on-air call for a Chicago Tea Party be part of a coordinated effort to make him and an existing Chicago-based organization called ChicagoTeaParty.com look patriotic in the Samuel Adams mold?

Several other sleeper organizations across the United States are also awakening and are beginning to talk of nationwide protests over the administration's economic policies. I'm an ardent supporter of the First Amendment and have no problem if these combined groups want to organize and hold rallies and dump tea or derivatives (or whatever) from sea-to-shining-sea. But make no mistake; this is not some sort of grassroots movement. It is, in fact, an oligarchy-backed venture to discredit the President and Congress as they make a heroic effort to save the economy and the American way of life. And I'm not the only one to think so. Playboy, of all unlikely news organizations agrees that this movement seems rather fishy.

How did a minor-league TV figure, whose contract with CNBC is due this summer, get so quickly launched into a nationwide rightwing blog sensation? Why were there so many sites and organizations online and live within minutes or hours after his rant, leading to a nationwide protest just a week after his rant?

Uh, let me guess: Is it because Santelli is an unprofessinal media-whore with an agenda?

What we discovered is that Santelli’s “rant” was not at all spontaneous as his alleged fans claim, but rather it was a carefully-planned trigger for the anti-Obama campaign. In PR terms, his February 19th call for a “Chicago Tea Party” was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, one in which Santelli served as a frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for the some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.

Vast right-wing conspiracy? You betcha!

As you read this, Big Business is pouring tens of millions of dollars into their media machines in order to destroy just about every economic campaign promise Obama has made, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. At stake isn’t the little guy’s fight against big government, as Santelli and his bot-supporters claim, but rather the “upper 2 percent”’s war to protect their wealth from the Obama Adminstration’s economic plans. When this Santelli “grassroots” campaign is peeled open, what’s revealed is a glimpse of what is ahead and what is bound to be a hallmark of his presidency.

So, Santelli's rant on CNBC was an opening salvo, fired on a national cable channel and then repeated on every news channel, on every conservative blog, and by Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republikan Party. Limbaugh reported Santelli's comments on his show in a few short hours. The drug-addled talker was well prepared to back Santelli, arguing many of the same talking points. It was if Santelli and Limbaugh shared a brain. Oddly, a previously existing domain name (registed in August 2008), ChicagoTeaParty.com sprang into life as Web site that very same day. Read on....

ChicagoTeaParty.com was just one part of a larger network of Republican sleeper-cell-blogs set up over the course of the past few months, all of them tied to a shady rightwing advocacy group coincidentally named the “Sam Adams Alliance,” whose backers have until now been kept hidden from public. Cached google records that we discovered show that the Sam Adams Alliance took pains to scrub its deep links to the Koch family money as well as the fake-grassroots “tea party” protests going on today. All of these roads ultimately lead back to a more notorious rightwing advocacy group, FreedomWorks, a powerful PR organization headed by former Republican House Majority leader Dick Armey and funded by Koch money.

On the same day as Santelli's rant, February 19, another site called Officialchicagoteaparty.com went live. This site was registered to Eric Odom, who turned out to be a veteran Republican new media operative specializing in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns. Last summer, Odom organized a twitter-led campaign centered around DontGo.com to pressure Congress and Nancy Pelosi to pass the offshore oil drilling bill, something that would greatly benefit Koch Industries, a major player in oil and gas. Now, six months later, Odom's DontGo movement was resurrected to play a central role in promoting the "tea party" movement.

Up until last month, Odom was officially listed as the “new media coordinator” for the Sam Adams Alliance, a well-funded libertarian activist organization based in Chicago that was set up only recently. Samuel Adams the historical figure was famous for inspiring and leading the Boston Tea Party—so when the PR people from the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance abruptly leave in order to run Santelli’s “Chicago Tea Party,” you know it wasn’t spontaneous. Odom certainly doesn’t want people to know about the link: his name was scrubbed from the Sam Adams Alliance website recently, strongly suggesting that they wanted to cover their tracks. Thanks to google caching, you can see the SAA’s before-after scrubbing.

But that's not all that was scrubbed.

A cached page, erased on February 16, just three days before Santelli’s rant, shows that the Alliance also wanted to cover up its ties to the Koch family. The missing link was an announcement that students interested in applying for internships to the Sam Adams Alliance could also apply through the “Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program” through the Institute for Humane Studies, a Koch-funded rightwing institute designed to scout and nurture future leaders of corporate libertarian ideology. The top two board directors at the Sam Adams Alliance include two figures with deep ties to Koch-funded programs: Eric O’Keefe, who previously served in Koch’s Institute for Humane Studies and the Club For Growth; and Joseph Lehman, a former communications VP at Koch’s Cato Institute.

Read More......