NY Democratic Party Becoming Laughing Stock?
By GordonTaylor Posted in Democratic Governors | State Politics — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Reprinted with permission from David Paterson Must Go
New York's powerful Democratic party is in danger of becoming the laughing stock of the nation if they allow David Paterson to continue as the place holding Governor of New York.
From very early in New York's history, the Democrats have dominated politics in New York State, and particularly New York City, because as New York City goes, so does the rest of the state. The machine known as Tammany Hall controlled all of New York politics until the mid 1960's as shown in the following account from The Eleanor Roosevelt Historical Site.
Tammany Hall was the name given to the Democratic political machine that dominated New York City politics from the mayoral victory of Fernando Wood in 1854 through the election of Fiorello LaGuardia in 1934. The eighty-year period between those two elections marks the time in which Tammany was the city's driving political force, but its origins actually date to the late eighteenth century and its fall from power was not truly complete until the early 1960's. The Tammany Society of New York City was founded in 1786 as a fraternal organization whose primary activities were social. By 1798, however, the society's activities had grown increasingly politicized and eventually Tammany emerged as the central proponent of Jeffersonian policies in the city of New York. Throughout the early nineteenth century Tammany continued to deepen its association with the Democratic party, emerging as the controlling interest in New York City elections after Andrew Jackson's presidential victory in 1828. Throughout the 1830s and 1840s, the society expanded its political control even further by earning the loyalty of the city's ever-expanding immigrant community, a task that was accomplished by helping newly arrived foreigners obtain jobs, a place to live, and even citizenship so that they could vote for Tammany candidates in city and state elections. By 1854, all these factors had combined to make Tammany a political force of hegemonic proportions in New York City, conferring immense power on the society's bosses and allowing them to enrich themselves and their associates through corruption and administrative abuse. William M. "Boss" Tweed's infamously corrupt reign was nefarious enough to incite an attempt at reform in the early 1870s, but Tammany was consistently able to function in spite of such efforts and continued to direct the flow of money, patronage, and votes into the early 1930s. Ultimately, even Tammany was unable to escape from the drastic social and cultural changes brought on by the Great Depression, and in 1932 the machine suffered a dual setback when Mayor James Walker was forced from office and FDR was elected president. The New Deal helped alter the demographic landscape of New York by restricting immigration and making people less dependent on Tammany for jobs and assistance, while the election of Fiorello LaGuardia removed the City Hall from Tammany's immediate control.
Despite these setbacks, the Tammany machine achieved something of a renaissance in the early 1950s under the leadership of Carmine De Sapio, who succeeded in engineering the elections of Robert Wagner in 1953 and Averell Harriman in 1954, while simultaneously blocking the successful candidacies of those who had not curried his favor.Perhaps most notably among these politicians was Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., whose defeat in the 1954 race for New York attorney general was related to De Sapio's downstate mobilization against his election. Inadvertently, De Sapio had sown the seeds of his own ruin. ER held De Sapio responsible for her son's defeat and grew increasingly disgusted with his political conduct through the rest of the 1950s. Eventually, she would join with her old friends Herbert Lehman and Thomas Finletter to form the New York Committee for Democratic Voters, a group dedicated to enhancing the democratic process by opposing De Sapio's reincarnated Tammany. Eventually, their efforts were successful, and in 1961 De Sapio was removed from power. The once mighty Tammany political machine, now deprived of its leadership, quickly faded from political importance and by the mid-1960s had ceased to exist.
If New Yorks powerful Democratic party does not do something to recover from the two individuals that they help elect in 2007, they risk losing control over the states democratic base for a long time. Their current power base will go the way of Tammany Hall, as outlined above.
Elliot Spitzer embarrassed the voters that elected him and now David Paterson is on the same path, as allegations begin to surface about campaign funds being misused and his lying to the public about his infidelities lying in the past. Since his heartfelt disclosure, 3 days have passed and each day brings us a new accounting of recent tryst's and misuse of campaign funds.
While the use of campaign funds is illegal, it is rarely prosecuted. It will be far better for the Democratic party to get him to resign quietly, before more wrong doings are uncovered, go into a new election, which will be within 90 days of his resigning based on the state constitutional law, and get someone in the State House that they can be proud of, not ashamed of.
He will have to be driven out of the office - if he leaves, then the Republican Bruno would hold the governorship for the next year, and then there would be a special election which a Republican, like Rudy, could very well win. No way the Dems allow this to happen, if they can help it.
stock and a POS at the same time! Some laugh with whores. Some laugh alone.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Sorry, that was a trick question -- when speaking of Democrats it cannot be done.
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
Between Spitzer and Patterson, this has probably been the best two week span of his life.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Is there a link to the law that requires a special election in 90 days? It is not in the Constitution - unless you totally misread it. The relevant section reads:
In case of vacancy in the offices of both governor and lieutenant- governor, a governor and lieutenant-governor shall be elected for the remainder of the term at the next general election happening not less than three months after both offices shall have become vacant.
.
That means a special election occurs at the next general election (in November) so long as the vacancies occur at least 90 days prior to that election day. The key phrase is that the "next general election" must not be "less" (read: fewer) than 90 days from the date the double vacancy occurs. The sentence does not mean that the election must happen within 90 days of the vacancies, and cannot be read to mean that. Given the constitutional language I would also be surprised if any statute purporting to alter the date of the special election were held to be valid.
If Patterson is ousted, the special election will occur in November and Joe Bruno will serve as acting governor until then, and presumably until the results of that election can be certified by the Board of Elections (a couple of weeks after election day). We should all move away from the misconception that there will be an election at any time prior to November.
In case of vacancy in the offices of both governor and lieutenant-governor, a governor and lieutenant-governor shall be elected for the remainder of the term at the next general election happening not less than three months after both offices shall have become vacant. No election of a lieutenant-governor shall be had in any event except at the time of electing a governor.
Article IV, Section 6 Link to same
You'll have to scroll down to the section...
I am looking at the same language you are. I just don't see how you are reading it to mean that a special election must be called within 90 days. I quoted the same language in my comment and noted why I believe that there is simply no way to construe that section to mean anything other than that the election must coincide with a general election (in November).
As I read it, this is only if the vacancies occur at the same time and not if they occur serially.
If Patterson resigns this situation will not arise. Bruno will become governor and his successor as President of the Senate will become Lt Governor.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
for clarifying that point. I am not alone in my mis-interpretation. I have seen the same conclusion I have come to, posted in various spots. Maybe, that is what tainted my opinion.
There is nothing to indicate that the vacancies must occur simultaneously, only that there be vacancies in both offices. And I don't believe that the reasonable interpretation of the provision is that there must be simultaneous vacancies. To write such a provision would be pointless - how many times in American history have both the Gov. and Lt. Gov. of a state died, resigned, or otherwise been removed, on the same day? The clear intent is to account for a situation in which there is neither a governor nor a Lt. Gov. elected by the people of the state. It is meant to avoid having an "acting Governor" who is really just a member of the legislature serve as governor for any extended period.
Since Joe Bruno is NOT the Lt. Gov., that office is already vacant. Bruno only ACTS as LT. Gov. when the state has a need of one - which really, is only when Patterson is out of the state and we need an acting governor. If Patterson resigns there will be vacancies in both the office of Governor and Lt. Gov. and the special election provision will kick in. I would be surprised if even Bruno himself believes otherwise.
then you are right.
But the language is plain that there must be vacancies for both offices, and that has to mean simultaneously. If there is a current vacancy for Lt Gov. and the Gov. position becomes vacant then this condition is met. However, if Bruno is the Lt. Governor and the Governor resigns then the condition described in this clause is not met.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Thanks for sending me the full text.
It looks as though you are right, and the office of Lt. Governor is currently vacant, thus if the Governorship becomes vacant this clause will apply.
As you pointed out above, it does not require an election in 90 days but that the election be at least 90 days away.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
It will be far better for the Democratic party to get him to resign quietly, before more wrong doings are uncovered, go into a new election, which will be within 90 days of his resigning based on the state constitutional law, and get someone in the State House that they can be proud of, not ashamed of.
It might be a sisyphean task for the NYS Democratic Party to find someone they can run without the imminent threat of scandalous implosion. I haven't been following the internals of NYS politics all that carefully, but a couple of days ago the Daily News IIRC ran a piece with a cursory sampling of the prominent politicians who are already indicited or under investigation...I'll try to find it...
Sen Clinton, 'People tend to vote for people they identify with.'
How does one relate to party leaders who are not only liars yet completely unconcerned with those they represent? What are they identifying with?


There is the enormous problem of entrenched unions who will have no trouble sabotaging attempts at reform. There is still the problem that any would be reformer/reformers need to get past the state legislature.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777