Comments on: Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate?

By: charliehall

charliehall — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:13:04 +0000

His name was Guy Velella. He was an absolute master of pork, which he distributed liberally around his district, which consisted of Italian, Irish, and Jewish areas of the Bronx along with every Republican neighborhood in southern Westchester County in a particularly creative gerrymander . No way you could call him a fiscal conservative. He would be called a social conservative at least in terms of his positions on issues. But his personal life was not so clean. He admitted fathering a child out of wedlock after criticizing Democrats for moral laxity. (Take heart, David Vitter — Velella was re-elected over and over again after this came out!) His career ended, however, when he pled guilty to felony corruption charges. He headed the Bronx Republican Party, such that it is, for 18 years, and never got any Republican other than himself elected to anything. (Velella’s Senate seat is now held by a Democrat in spite of the gerrymander.)

But if Velella were not a convicted felon I am sure he would be elected again. It seems everyone personally knows someone Sen. Velella helped. And every community organization got money through him.

BTW, Riverdale voted Obama overwhelmingly — 68% to 86% depending on the election district. Even the Orthodox Jews seemed to favor Obama there.

By: eaglewingz

eaglewingz — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:18:58 +0000

The day any Repub is elected from Bronx County will be the day of the Rapture. NYC and Bronx in particular are so thoroughly brainwashed or brain dead, that the dead will vote for dems in greater numbers than the living. Perhaps Riverdale way up north might vote for a Repub (probably more RINO than anything else) but I wouldn’t hold my breath for anything other than a dem lite.
As for the Senate changing over gay marriage, not in my or your lifetimes. Or to put it another way, Harry Reid would sooner vote to impeach and convict Obama than the Bronx would vote to change to Republican Senators over gay marriage. Even if by some miracle the NYS Senate moved back to Repub, the NYS Assembly is so infested with liberal democrats that the issue is dead, and the liberal courts would most likely implement that policy (and with the NYS Assembly standing pat, whether or not the Senate is dem or republican would be moot).

By: BrianFaughnan’s blog » Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate? ::

BrianFaughnan’s blog » Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate? :: — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:20:47 +0000

[...] BrianFaughnan’s blog » Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate? :: And the Bronx Democratic party is badly split. (Not unusual in places where there isn’t really a Republican party.) Diaz and Espada are part of the group that overthrew the past chairman, who would love revenge. … [...]

By: BrianFaughnan’s blog » Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate? ::

BrianFaughnan’s blog » Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate? :: — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:54:32 +0000

[...] BrianFaughnan’s blog » Will Gay Marriage Cost Dems the NY Senate? :: Why would socially conservative Democrats be taken for granted by the Democratic party? Shouldn’t Republicans, who have social conservatism as one of the three legs of the party, as opposed to Democrats who stand against conservatism … [...]

By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller

LJ "Beaglescout" Miller — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:42:23 +0000

Charlie Hall has a good point. Why would socially conservative Democrats be taken for granted by the Democratic party? Shouldn’t Republicans, who have social conservatism as one of the three legs of the party, as opposed to Democrats who stand against conservatism with every fiber of their being, be able to appeal to socons in the Dem party? What has been missing from the Rep appeal? Is it the face of the party, represented by too many white males? Is it the perceived alliance of the party with big business and against popular economic measures, no matter how heinous populism is to a classical liberal? Is it the refusal to appeal to the traditional Dem “tribes,” while Dems gladly divide them and promise each “tribe” their own personalized copy of the moon? I think we can and should appeal to the tribes based on their narrow self-interest, though I don’t believe in promising gubmint money (as if there were such a thing). We appeal to all the Rep constituent groups for their narrow self-interest. Why not get our message out there and appeal to each group’s narrow self interest? I mean, it’s not like the Reps should be the weak party on the economy! Reps should be the strong party on security and are. Reps should be the strong party on ethics and aren’t (though the Dems don’t even try they somehow win this contest). The Reps should be the strong party on justice because the Dems are for criminal rights in every circumstance, but aren’t. The Reps should be the strong party on ecology, after all wasn’t every big piece of conservation progress advanced by Rep presidents from the park system (TRoosevelt) to the EPA (Nixon)?

Reps aren’t advancing Rep ideas in the national conversation, or in the Bronx.

By: charliehall

charliehall — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:44:11 +0000

Most of Diaz’ constituents probably agree with him in Gay marriage. But the Republican “brand” has never been popular in the Bronx. No Republican presidential candidate has carried the Bronx since Calvin Coolidge, and Fiorello La Guardia carried the Bronx in his two re-elections by getting more votes on the American Labor Party line than on the Republican line! Things have not changed even though the demographics of the Bronx are completely different today than they were in the 1930s. John Lindsay lost the Bronx twice, Rudy Giuliani three times, and Mike Bloomberg twice. Why Sen. Diaz’ socially conservative constituents vote monolithically Democratic is worthy of further investigation.

By: charliehall

charliehall — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:27:02 +0000

Sens. Diaz and Espada don’t have a lot of political leverage here. Remember that the Bronx was Obama’s second best county in the entire US, and the districts represented by Diaz and Espada were not the places where McCain’s 12% of the vote came from. Two past state senators — one of them Espada himself — caucused with the Republicans and were badly defeated the very next election. Ironically, it was Diaz who defeated Espada (when Espada was representing a different district) so they very well know what can happen if they stray too far. Smith knows this, Espada knows this, and Diaz knows this. And the Bronx Democratic party is badly split. (Not unusual in places where there isn’t really a Republican party.) Diaz and Espada are part of the group that overthrew the past chairman, who would love revenge.

The irony is that Smith is the first potential Senate leader in many decades who talks about changing the way things are done in Albany. Currently, all decisions of any importance are made by three people: The Senate President, the Assembly Speaker, and the Governor. The decisions are then presented to the respected legislative bodies for pro forma ratification. There has not been a single vote of consequence in the NY Senate since it approved a Gay Rights measure way back in 2002. Smith talks about making the NY Senate into a conventional legislative body with real committees with real chairmen with real power. This is a much needed reform; Republicans have held the Senate since the mid 1960s and should have instituted it decades ago.

Also, one should never assume that Republicans in New York are more conservative than Democrats, especially on fiscal matters. Most of New York State politics is about ethnic identity and pork, and the Republicans have maintained their Senate majority for two decades longer than should have been expected thanks to a combination of those factors plus some unbelievable gerrymandering. In this case, much of the pork has taken the form of large amounts of state aid to wealthy suburban school districts. And that is not limited to Senators: George Pataki offered more to unions in his last re-election campaign than any Democrat could have dared, Rudy Giuliani left New York City with a multibillion dollar fiscal shortfall, and we are still paying off the costs of the huge spending programs of Nelson Rockefeller and Robert Moses.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:36:20 +0000

Then we would be rounding up legislators by the truckload.

Typical D politics though: attack anyone in the way. You can’t be wrong; you have to be a bad person, too.