2017: President Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Sanders

There are many of those that voted for Senator Sanders and continue to #FeelTheBern, those that support him with the most passion have transitioned to #BernieOrBust. Susan Sarandon has intimated that it may be better for liberals to oppose a Trump presidency than try to get revolutionary change from a second Clinton Presidency.

"Well, you know, some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately," Sarandon told MSNBC journalist Chris Hayes. "If he gets in, then things will really explode." 

I could not disagree more, there is nothing scarier than the thought of the sociopath buffoon being inaugurated to highest office in the land and at the helm of the ship of state. But Sarandon, and other #BernieOrBust people could angle for a much better solution that will end up providing avid support for Clinton's election from even those that today swears to never hold their nose to vote for Clinton for their myriad of reasons: Clinton formally endorses Sanders to become the next Senate Majority Leader if the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016.

She could twist the arms of those Democratic Senators that had endorsed her, to commit to electing Sanders and not Chuck Schumer to become the majority leader if the Democrats win back the Senate in the general elections. Sanders would be committed to campaign for US Senate candidates in an effort to take back the senate (his advantage with independents would be welcomed to any candidate challenging a Republican) while at the same time it would allow Clinton to select whomever she felt best suited her to be her Vice President (a position that if Sanders was offered would become limited to only what the constitution provides breaking ties in the Senate and checking if the president was still alive).

Though Chuck Schumer would hate the possibility of having the Democratic Socialist rank over him, calls for party unity would be disingenuous if there isn't any actual attempt to corral those #BernieOrBust folks. Party unity is paramount to assure that Trump will be denied the White House, and as Barack Obama said in the commencement speech at  Howard University

And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right.  This is hard to explain sometimes.  You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you.  If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want.

Even if the intended target was the Sanders supporters who were dead-enders, the exact same logic could be directed towards the establishment and Clinton campaign that are reluctant if not adamantly rejecting to compromise what she will promise to earn the votes of those who do not wish to see a double-down of business-as-usual from yet another Clinton presidency. Yes even if you have won all the primaries, with assistance of mainstream media, and with the political and economic elites cheerleading you, 45% of the people is not something can be ignored even if you are 100% right. So the Clinton campaign should not continue to ignore those millions of voters that didn't vote for her, and instead seek out a means to genuinely earn their vote in November.

My proposal of setting up Sanders as the Senate majority leader seems eloquent and with nothing lost by Clinton, that is if she really is a "progressive that gets things done". A Democratic controlled Senate would allow her to accomplish all the things that she wanted to, and if it were blocked by the House it would be a great fulcrum in the mid-terms to win the House as well. Sanders would sufficiently placated no longer jockeying for the presidency and be given real influence in the Senate to affect national policy.

The only downside I could imagine is that the neoliberal Clintonistas, though giving all the lip service in the world otherwise, are not liberals and therefore would not want a liberal lion in charge of the Senate. This is very likely true, and undercuts any argument to those that want to bolt from the party establishment for not being liberal enough, to stick it out because "we in the establishment are just about deliver on some really progressive things".

"Democratic Nominating Convention" or "No Sleep Till Brooklyn"

New York City Attempting to Gain Hillary A "Home Field" Advantage

If there was any question about whether or not Hillary was going to run for president in 2016, or more pedestrian of a question whether or not Brooklyn would host the nominating convention. The answer can be deduced from the following news stories:

Hillary Clinton eyes Forest City Ratner properties in downtown Brooklyn for campaign HQ

Real estate insiders were thrilled at the idea of hosting Clinton HQ, and said the location makes perfect sense for a national campaign.
"There are 13 subway lines and 15 bus lines serving the neighborhood," said Tucker Reed, President of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. "Nearly 60,000 college students that could provide an army of campaign volunteers, and when the DNC convention comes to Barclays Center, headquarters would be blocks away."

Juxtaposed that with the visit from DNC Chairwoman in visiting  possible host cities of the 2016 Nominating Convention.
New York City Hosts DNC Chairwoman for 2016 Brooklyn Convention Bid

The de Blasio administration announced Thursday that it had raised roughly $20 million toward its $100 million target for the event, which would cost an estimated $140 million.
City officials also announced a group of 10 committee co-chairs, which included Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, and Ursula Burns, the chairman and chief executive of Xerox Corp.

Just as the party establishment in 2004 selected the host city to be in Boston for the establishment's favored candidate and eventual nominee John Kerry, it appears likely that the nominating convention will be hosted within a mile of the likely campaign headquarters of the party's favored presidential candidate: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It is of course highly desirable for Ratner Properties to land both Clinton's National HQ and the DNC convention in their properties. Having Goldman Sachs, Xerox, American Express, and the SEIU 1199 behind the effort to get DNC convention to be hosted in Brooklyn coincidentally will also be bankrolling Clinton's presidential campaign. 



P.S.
Not sure of the preposition choice was the Wall Street Journal reporter Mara Gay or Mayor deBlasio's, but no one grew up IN Long Island, people grew up ON Long Island

“I’m going to be spending time with her and updating her on our effort,” he said of the Florida congresswoman. “She obviously knows New York City quite well,” Mr. de Blasio added, noting that she grew up in Long Island.

Cuomo Wins, But Will Immediately Be Tested To Be Untrustworthy

Cuomo got a state senate that is on the cusp of going either direction just as he wanted. The IDC state senators can welch on their commitment that got them WFP to withdraw support for challengers in the general election, by rejoining the Republican conference. 

This is exactly what Andrew Cuomo wanted. He should be wary of getting what he wanted. The WFP, and the unions that pushed Cuomo into the WFP endorsement have painted themselves into a corner that they now have to lash out against corporatist Democrats or lose any credibility with the close to three hundred thousand voters that voted on either WFP or Green party lines which approaches the margin of victory in this election. Red meat will be demanded by the progressive voters that will not find it tolerable to support candidates just because he/she is the presumptive favorite though dismissive of the progressive agenda. Trustworthiness is a quality that in nearly any sector of society is desirable, but in politics it is manna from heaven and Cuomo will either follow through on his commitment that gave him the WFP ballot line or burn that bridge and the possibility of national ambitions in a presidential primary.

It is for certain that he can't have both, no matter how much Governor Cuomo wishes that he didn't have to be accountable to what he previously promised. Andrew Cuomo either will have to govern as a liberal or surrender the possibility of national ambitions and even re-election.

Cuomo Unavailable, Bring On the Astorino vs Teachout Debate!!

If Governor Cuomo Is Unable or Unwilling, I Will Debate Zephyr Teachout from Rob Astorino on Vimeo.

There are plenty of New Yorkers that would like to see Cuomo be challenged within a gubernatorial debate, but he seems afraid to let any challenge or public criticism even be in the same room as him (see the Moreland Commission). GOP gubernatorial presumptive nominee, Rob Astorino has offered to debate viable Democratic challenger to incumbent Governor Cuomo, Zephyr Teachout since Cuomo rejects the possibility of being on the same stage as Ms, Teachout.

Cuomo avoiding being seen anywhere near the Fordham Law Professor is a consistent activity of the governor, as he also refused to attend the Working Family Party's (WFP) State Convention while also assuming that the anti-establishment party would inevitably kiss his ring. Ms. Teachout also challenged him for the nomination of the WFP, while she actually attended the convention, speaking to the state delegates after being introduced by one of the party's co-founders Bertha Lewis, Governor Cuomo had to strong arm delegates to support his re-nomination by former WFP political director and Deblasio Campaign Manager Emma Wolfe. While the 1st term of Cuomo has shown him to be duplicitous and disingenuous proponent of the Democratic agenda, his promises to be committed to the Democratic Party and to assist Democratic conference wrest control of the State Senate from the Republicans (which is currently reliant on 5 senators that were all elected as Democrats but currently caucus with the Republicans as "Independent Democratic Conference") which would be the easiest litmus to anyone who self-identifies as a Democrat-- but Cuomo needs to be brow beaten to agree to support Democrats. Zephyr Teachout as the alternative in the gubernatorial primary will be heads and shoulders for average New Yorkers, as she is bent carrying out populist agenda if elected governor, a public debate with the GOP nominee, if Cuomo is too afraid to put forward his case to his fellow Democrats, benefits everyone but the scaredy-cat Governor: both Astorino and Teachout would receive greater name recognition and the voters would be able to see differentiation between moderate Republican and a truly progressive Democrat. If the conventional wisdom is right and Teachout is defeated in the primary then the New York electorate will be able to see 2 moderates debate both of whom are right of center, Astorino a bit more right than that of Cuomo.

IDC's State Senators Switching Sides, So It Must Be Election Time Again

The following is an excerpt from an email WFP sent June 26th (a week after NYS legislative session ended) claiming victory due to the IDC joining with the Democrats in the State Senate:

Sean,
BIG NEWS: the Independent Democratic Conference in the New York state Senate is breaking with the Republicans to form a new progressive majority coalition with the Senate Democrats!This is huge. Republican control in the state Senate has been the biggest roadblock to every progressive goal, from public financing of elections to raising the minimum wage to the Women's Equality Act. With this new coalition, the Republicans should be headed back to the minority.


But even with the IDC on our side, we still need to win in November. At this point, we'd be holding on to the majority by a thread -- a projected one-seat margin. We can't afford to lose a single seat.
There are three progressive Democrats in swing districts elected with the help of Obama's 2012 wave. Holding those seats will take real work. There are also three formerly Republican held open-seats that could be ripe pick-up opportunities to expand the majority.

So what does victory look like according to WFP? State Senators that caucused with obstructing Republicans while in session switch sides yet again to feign loyalty to avoid primaries and the only repercussion for being fairweather friends, why having their primary opponents lose financial support and be left free to switch back to the Republicans after the election.

In a state that often is pejoratively referred to a being liberal, the so-called liberal elected officials bear a striking resemblance to the Washington Generals with Republicans standing in for the Harlem Globetrotters. Liberal alternative candidates being outmaneuvered to ensure the intentionally-losing-on-policy Democrats remain to pantomime putting up fight for progressive values that they so reflexively betray. Majority of the voters of New York State voted against Republicans in the general election of 2012, and the Republican majority only existed by a handful of State Senators who ran as Democrats but then crossed the aisle as naked-opportunists.  
Leader of the IDC, State Senator Klein apparently is not very good at math as the NY Daily News reported him saying "Klein said it's not enough just having a Democratic majority. It's key to elect Democrats who support a more progressive agenda. A push to strengthen the state's abortion laws wouldn't pass currently because the Dems don't have the sufficient 32 votes." There are currently 5 IDC State Senators, 29 Republican State Senators, and 29 Democratic State Senators, so to state their wasn't enough Senators precludes the 5 IDC Senators is farcical at best. Were the IDC to remain with the GOP majority, while intending to wait  for the Democrats to take 4 or more seats from the GOP, why would the Democratic conference welcome back the IDC backstabbers? Why would the Democratic Party ever trust the IDC State Senators and withdrawal support of their primary opponents? Doing either would invite ever quicker dismissal of values the rank-and-file Democrats hold and the average voter is promised as the central motivation for voting Democratic in November.  

I Endorse Zephyr Teachout For Governor, Tim Wu for Lt Gov In The Democratic Primary

“I believe in democracy,” Ms. Teachout said, “not donors.”

People aren't happy with "concentration in the media industries and tech industry into political strength," Wu says.

These are the sentiments that will never come out the mouth of Governor Cuomo and the reason why Cuomo should not have received the WFP endorsement and should not receive Democrats vote in the upcoming September primary. Concentration of wealth, influence and political power is an anathema to our constitutional republic and our democratic institutions. On the right side of the aisle, there is feigning of outrage that the government is overreaching with regards to economic intervention but calls for unilateral restraint in the side of the least powerful. On the left side of the aisle, there is a predetermination of who gets the benefits of the government action but since it is not equally implemented it is intrinsically unjust metered out. Zephyr Teachout, admittedly by herself, is an underdog in the campaign to be governor it should not disqualify whether or not one is too vote for her. The prognosticators that assumed Eric Cantor's primary was a foregone conclusion were proven wrong, and I hope that Ms. Teachout and Mr. Wu will overcome poor odds and claims that it is quixotic to even attempt but our democracy is all that more stronger the more opinions that are expressed and the more ideologically diverse our candidates for public office are.

Even she does win the primary, she would then need to run a three way race against Rob Astorino and Andrew Cuomo yet again but the Governor would be depending on the Independent and WFP line.    

Should liberals vote for Rob Astorino?

There's been a lot of buzz recently about New York's next race for governor, and speculation about whether a progressive challenger will run against Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Here's how The New York Times described what's going on:1
    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has won significant support from traditionally Republican constituencies, including business executives who like his tax cuts and Wall Street financiers delighted with his support of charter schools. But this courtship has come at a price: As he begins his bid for a second term, he is struggling to hold on to support from the left wing of his own party.

We want to know where New York MoveOn members stand. This isn't a formal endorsement vote—just a statewide membership survey to get a sense of what New York MoveOn members are thinking as a potential race shapes up.
Do you think a progressive candidate should run against Gov. Andrew Cuomo this year?
    Yes, I want to see a progressive challenger to Andrew Cuomo.
    No, I support Andrew Cuomo.
After we tally the responses, we'll report back to MoveOn members across the state and share them with the media—so they know what progressives are thinking as the gubernatorial election gets under way. 

 -MoveOn.org Email Subject: New York Member Survey: Progressive challenger for Gov. Cuomo? (May 27th, 2014)

Friend,
Gov. Cuomo pushed through tax cuts for the super rich, repealed taxes on banks, and slashed funding for local schools -- all ideas Republicans really like.
It's no wonder there's been speculation about whether a true progressive will challenge him in the race for governor.
The New York Times: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has won significant support from traditionally Republican constituencies, including business executives who like his tax cuts and Wall Street financiers delighted with his support of charter schools. But this courtship has come at a price: As he begins his bid for a second term, he is struggling to hold on to support from the left wing of his own party.
We want to know where our New York members stand.
Do you think a progressive candidate should run against Gov. Andrew Cuomo this year?
We'll report back to you and share the results with the media -- so they know what progressives are thinking as New York's gubernatorial election gets under way.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-Bold Progressive's Email Subject: New York survey re: Cuomo (May 28th, 2014)

This Saturday night, Working Families Party State Committee members from across New York will gather in Albany to make one of the most important decisions we have ever faced.
Should we support Governor Andrew Cuomo's re-election or endorse a progressive challenger?
I’ve been with the Working Families Party for 15 years and know firsthand that the power of our organization comes directly from empowering supporters like you to make important decisions and take meaningful action.
That’s why it’s so important our State Committee Members hear from you before they make this important decision.
Let us know if you believe the Working Families Party should endorse Governor Cuomo’s re-election or endorse a progressive challenger to run against him.
While Gov. Cuomo deserves credit for winning marriage equality and passing gun reform, many New Yorkers are frustrated with his tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations and dramatic cuts to education.1
Since we last wrote about this race, another poll came out showing over 22% of New Yorkers would support a Working Families Party alternative this November — within the margin of error of Republican Rob Astorino’s 24%.
But before this decision is made, we wanted to reach out again to see what you thought our next step should be. Share your thoughts here:
http://action.workingfamiliesparty.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9926
We’ll be in touch over the next few days to keep you up-to-date on the latest news and information about this decision.
Thank you for making your voice heard,

-Working Families Party's Email Subject: Endorse or challenge Andrew Cuomo? (May 29th, 2014)

The proceeding three emails, were a selection of progressive organizations seeking feedback on whether or not Cuomo should receive each organization's support and especially whether or not a WFP should back Cuomo for re-election. They each allude to significant opposition within the self-identified liberal/progressive movement that Cuomo innately faces. WFP state convention occurred, and with lots of arm twisting by Mayor DeBlasio and his aides, the nomination was delivered to Corporatist-Centrist Democrat Cuomo.

The following emails I received in response to the Cuomo nomination by the WFP:

Sean,

Last night, we secured a major win. Not for the Working Families Party, not for Governor Andrew Cuomo, but for the working families of the state of New York.
Faced with a challenge from Zephyr Teachout -– a Working Families Democrat if there ever was one -- for the Working Families Party endorsement, Gov. Cuomo declared for the first time that he will join the effort to secure a Democratic-Working Families majority.
We have disagreed a lot with the Governor's economic and education policies over the last four years. On many issues, he has not governed as a progressive. But we do agree with the platform he committed to fighting for last night, which will help transform the lives of millions of people, and even set the stage for still further gains:
    *passing comprehensive public financing of elections to fight the influence of big-money in our democracy
   * passing the Dream Act, so all New Yorkers can access higher education
    *decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, so we can stop jailing our youth, especially young people of color
    *passing the full 10-point Women's Equality Agenda, to protect and ensure women's equality
    *raising New York's minimum wage to $10.10/hour, indexed to inflation, and allowing cities and counties to raise wages 30% higher than the state level
    *increasing the state's investment in community schools to improve educational opportunities in high-need districts. But the Governor still fell far short of what's needed -- we need to comply with the Campaign for Fiscal Equity court order and fully fund our schools.

     

The Governor's pledge to fight for this vision of New York is why the WFP State Committee voted last night to endorse Andrew Cuomo for Governor of New York. 

Now, the hard work begins. We will hold the Governor accountable to his commitment, but we'll need your help. Can we count on you?

Yes, count me in. I will work to hold Governor Cuomo to the promise he made for a more progressive New York. 

-Working Families Party Email Subject: Our commitment to New York (June 1st, 2014)

Progressives won a big victory in New York last weekend. The Working Families Party forced Gov. Andrew Cuomo to drop his support for Republican control of the State Senate and made him commit to a populist agenda to fight income inequality. In return they agreed to back him for a second term.
Gov. Cuomo didn't want to do it. We forced his hand. Our survey of New York DFA members last week found 82% of those who responded said they would back a progressive challenger to Gov. Cuomo.
We shared those numbers with the Working Families Party, helping give them confidence to support a challenger if Gov. Cuomo didn't meet their terms. It also showed Gov. Cuomo that we were serious about a challenge, forcing him to commit to a progressive agenda.
DFA was willing to back a progressive challenger in order to hold Gov. Cuomo accountable and to push him to the left. His agreement to support the Working Families Party agenda validates that strategy. But it's not the end of the story. DFA members are going to hold Gov. Cuomo to his promises. We will not let him backslide. We will not let him side with Wall Street and the rich. 

Democracy for America Email Subject: How Andrew Cuomo caved to progressives (June 6th, 2014)

Dear New York MoveOn member, 
Recently, we shared survey results with the media showing that 73% of responding MoveOn members in New York State want to see a progressive challenger to Gov. Cuomo.
Here are some highlights of Gov. Cuomo's commitment to progressives:¹

• Support for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and letting localities across New York—including New York City—set their own higher wages up to more than $13/hour

• Support for the Dream Act 

• Support for passing the full 10-point Women's Equality Agenda

• Support for decriminalization of marijuana

• Support for public financing of elections

• Commitment to working to elect a Democratic State Senate to turn these proposals into law, and a demand for the so-called Independent Democratic Caucus lawmakers to return to the Democratic Party

As with all political agreements, we can't take anything for granted, and follow-through will depend on two things: 1) Democrats must win the State Senate in November, and 2) there needs to be meaningful accountability to make sure Gov. Cuomo delivers on the agreement.
That's where all of us come in: Together with allies, we're helping form a Cuomo Accountability Team to make sure Gov. Cuomo knows progressives are watching closely and demanding follow-through on the commitments he has made.
Will you sign up for the Cuomo Accountability Team to make sure promises turn into action? Click here to join:

Here's an update: In order to win the endorsement of the Working Families Party—and faced with pressure from MoveOn members, law professor Zephyr Teachout, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, DFA, and other allies across New York—Governor Cuomo agreed to support a set of demands that progressives been making for years. 

 -MoveOn.org Email Subject: Update re Gov. Cuomo (June 13th, 2014)

Each of the emails after the WFP convention claimed victory and asked for donations (links to donation pages removed), but they also acknowledged that exact goal before the WFP convention (having an alternative progressive challenger to Gov. Cuomo) was wildly popular. There is such a thing as 'moving the goal posts' but this not 'moving the goal posts' but instead deciding there was never goal posts but if there were goal posts they were really popular goal posts if they ever existed. I know I stretched the analogy a bit far, but metaphysical twisting of logic to pull out a win from Cuomo eliminating any viable progressive challenger is equally a stretch.

Which brings me to the point that my title alludes to, if the progressive activists that were excited about a possible challenge to Cuomo (since he was characterized in May as a Republican Lite, but in June a strong fighter for the Liberal cause), couldn't they ensure that 4 years down the road that unseating a Astorino Governorship with a real progressive be better than handing over all progressive credibility to a Republican Lite Cuomo who have the WFP nomination as trophy of the Big Liberal Game Hunter when he runs for president in 2016? Should the 73%-82% of participants in the poll that wants a real progressive to challenge to Cuomo be better served by holding their nose and voting for Astorino rather than holding their nose and voting for Cuomo? Astorino, even if 200,000 people agreed with me and voted against Cuomo for the betterment of the Progressive movement, wouldn't win the governorship; but it would send a loud message to all those Democratic elected officials that presume they have to kowtow to the opposition's base because the Tea Party won't go along with compromise, that the Progressives are tired of being the only side that gives anything in political negotiations. That 200,000 vote number I'm using is a significant number only in that is the number of votes, if withheld from the WFP, would cause the WFP to lose their ballot access and have to wait 4 years to get it back. The requirement of 50,000 votes for governor on a party's line, and in 2010 WFP recieved less than 250,000. Even if somehow Astorino did win and Cuomo kept to his promise to beat both Independent Democratic Conference State Senators and poachable GOP state senators' seats, it would be assuredly better to have both houses safely held by real Democrats than the Potemkin village setup where the Republicans hold the majority and play bad cop to Cuomo's good cop.

Progressives lost when Cuomo received the WFP nomination, and the Progressive panhandling organizations (DFA, MoveOn.org, Bold Progressives, WFP, etc) irrespective of whatever the outcome turned out to be was going to ask for money to get "real progressive change." We've got big mountain to climb if we are going to get challenger Bob to defeat Cuomo! But there was no challenger so we get instead: Cuomo has really let us down, but if you give money now that will show him to change his ways and keep the promises that he begrudgingly made under duress. What is the difference, I don't think even the Progressive panhandlers know or care. 

The likeliest of the good scenarios is that the WFP losses it's ballot access it is narrow race (I'm indifferent to whether or not Cuomo wins re-election), with the narrative that would get widely reported is that the left were too unhappy with it's lone choice voted for protest write-in candidate or Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins getting a surprising segment of the vote.

Cantor Loses To Tea Party Candidate: Not Holding Breath For The End Of Crony Capitalism

Eric Cantor stepping down from Republican House leadership is being reported as sending shockwaves through political halls of power, I believe that it is actually not an indicative of things to come but rather a lagging indicator that the GOP's purity test is has the party on a trajectory to obliviation. When elected officials that are willing to compromise about anything are thrown out of the party, such as Arlen Spectre and Bob Bennett, there can be no debate or civil discourse between the parties. As the logjam becomes semi permanant, the voters will continually seek to 'throw the bums out' and as the primaries veer off to a more and more untenable obstruction for obstruction sake position the moderates that were thrown out of the party would either join the Democrats or start their own moderate party like the Likud party in Israel.

Starting a third party with centrist inclination while the Democratic party veering back to a populist left position would be best for the nation, having gradients of political policy among the three parties would give more choice to the electorate for having their voice represented while at the same time dissuade an absolutist purity of ideology due to an alternative viable option in the general election. Though that scenario would be best for the electorate and democracy, the more likely outcome is the lip service paid in campaigns against status quo crony-capitalism hegemony but govern to the whims of Big Business so that every election both Republican and Democratic politicians claim to be the savior of Main Street and bash the elite until they are sworn into office. For example, Barack "Change" Obama who repeatedly stated that you can keep sending the same people into office and expect different results-- then goes hires Clinton's old economic team and Bush's Military-Industrial-Complex team to carry out exactly the same policies.

To rebut the Chief Justice of Supreme Court in his McCutcheon decision, but it is absolutely within the role of government to fix the apparatus of democracy and whether the elected representatives decide that the fix is providing transparency of campaign contributions or restricting only constituents to contribute to campaigns or some sort of public financing of campaigns, to keep our democracy strong and transform an out-of-touch Majority Leader losing an election from shock to expected outcome we need to tackle this as an problem that needs a solution.

Zephyr Teachout for New York State Governor

The following is an email I sent to Zephyr Teachout yesterday after Cuomo's allies denied her the WFP endorsement and thereby denied the state a viable liberal alternative to Cuomoccio who has balked at every turn regarding progressive economic policy.


Subject:I implore you to run for Governor in the Dem, WFP primaries and as an Independent 

Ms. Zephyr Teachout, 

I know that a stranger emailing you to ask you to run for Governor of
New York state is quite the non-sequitur, but New Yorkers like myself
need you to be our next governor. New York state is the birthplace of
expanding civil liberties from suffragettes of Seneca Falls to LGBTQ
equality rights activists of Stonewall;  religious freedom under
Flushing Remonstrance and the freedom of the press of the Zenger case shows that New York State is home to those that challenge the conventional wisdom even before the American Revolution; Governors have a tradition of bucking the status quo and being muscular in intervening on behalf of the little guy whether it be DeWitt Clinton, Al Smith, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We need you as New York's next governor.

Though I admit I could be incorrect about this, you could collect 175
signatures of WFP enrolled voters and force a primary against Cuomo on
the WFP line while also running on the Democratic line after collecting
15,000 signatures. Also to assure that you appear on the November ballot collect 15,000 signatures of voters in August to run as an independent candidate.

I have included my resume that shows my extensive experience in
electoral campaigns especially here in New York. I first became aware of you as a volunteer for Howard Dean, though you are only first becoming aware of me, I have been aware of the good work you have done for more than a decade. I hope to be able to help you become the next governor of New York and look forward to hearing a response in the very near future.

Working Families Party: Like the Party's Name Constantly Being Duped By Elected Officials For the Sake of Uber Wealthy

This past weekend the Working Families Party (WFP) held their convention to endorse state wide office seekers and provide access to their fusion ballot line (candidates in New York are allowed to appear on multiple parties' ballot lines, when I ran for Clifton Park Town Council I was on both the Democratic and WFP ballot lines). Typically this is a mundane affair, but in recent weeks and months public polls (Quinnipiac and Siena) showed that an unnamed WFP candidate would take 20% or more support in the general election pulling down Cuomo from astronomically high margin of victory to a mere plurality. This is response to Cuomo's triangulation in a state that gets pejoratively put down for it's liberal tendencies despite the fact to the past 30 years that have shown right-wing plutocratic policy has been deleterious to Middle-American family but the conventional wisdom in the halls of power continues to hold that those that were successful in business or the progeny of those successful in business has special knowledge and wisdom when discussing how communities or nations should be organized (surprise they put themselves on top). 

We have seen on a national level in the previous 5 years Obama being elected on the electoral promises that you can't expect change by sending the same people to elected office and that he was going to change the game and not just play it better which in the wake of the Great Recession sounded intuitive-- then proceeded to carry out policy exactly in line with his predecessors; we have seen on the state level 4 years ago Andrew Cuomo was chosen as the Obama's preferred candidate and won election against far right-wing Tea Party backed Carl Paladino-- what could have easily been a clear repudiation of that mindset was instead taken by Cuomo as needing to given excessive deference to the point of view that he was instrumental  to ensuring GOP control of the State Senate relinquishing a vestigial and repudiated world view to be remain as an opposition for the sake of opposition; we have seen on the city level that Bill DeBlasio's being elected on an electoral promise to end domination of the economic elitism and raise up those in outerboroughs that have been dismissed, through policies like stop and frisk that routinely harassed young men and teens of color like his own son-- what might have been expected had the Mayor followed the intentions of the electorated that just hired him would be an immediate suspension of stop and frisks, what we got was hiring Bill Bratton who initiated the program under Rudy Giulliani.  What we might have also expected that the universal  pre-k that was promised to be funded by those earning more than $500,000 a year in the city that just chose him in large part because they wanted to see those that earned a disproportionate income while never receiving their justified comeuppance from their role in the creation of the Great Recession was bamboozled by the governor with a promise of temporary revenues from other parts of the budget (ie. promised matching funds for campaign finance) that could be yanked away at the whim of Cuomo or any other future governor rather than permanent source of revenue to ensure a permanent universal pre-k.

I provide this background not as to make a case as to how consistent elected officials' hypocrisy is but show how the institutionalization of policy making is directly in rebuttal to the will of the people. A minor party like the WFP would be expected to not ever be able to bring enough sway to anything about this situation, and with the eroding union membership the establishment left should be powerless to anything about this trajectory; and yet the WFP along with SEIU 1199, SEIU 32BJ, RWDSU, and Hotel Trades Union have made a concerted effort in getting the electoral promises to be more and more left of center. With WFP's endorsement of Cuomo at the behest of Bill DeBlasio and his top political aide Emma Wolfe (former Political Director at WFP) has commited a critical blow to the progressive/liberal movement. Though the promises continue to be leftward leaning, the delivery of those promises are never to come to fruition. The elected officials decided to pantomime shared beliefs with those self identify as left-wing and those that are activists, but when it comes down to brass tacks they are the Washington Generals to the right-wing plutocrats' Harlem Globetrotters; all the effort to show that they are attempting to win policy implementation but the game is rigged and the end results are already decided against the will of the governed. If the it is inevitable that the WFP will collapse, then they might as well flip the bird to those are decimating the party as they go out the door rather than being courteous and deferential to those will see to it the party no longer exists. The 40% of the state committee that voted to endorse Fordham Law Professor and campaign aide to Howard Dean, Zephyr Teachout might have had this in mind, it is a shame that she did not win the endorsement. I will likely vote for her as write-in candidate both in the primary (if there is one) and the general election.

Why would true believers still volunteer for WFP candidates when they refuse to withhold support after it has been demonstrated those elected officials dismiss demands of the activists the moment they are elected? Why would anyone continue to contribute money to the WFP of that money is going to be spent on candidates that are never to be held accountable, and actually work against WFP states goals? If Cuomo's unspoken threat that if the WFP were to withhold their endorsement would be that he would persuade the unions that supply much needed resources to the WFP to withdraw from the WFP altogether, then what good is endorsing an overt backstabber who has no loyalty nor any shared principle? Cuomo was central to the collapse of the Liberal Party when it was too late to get his name off their ballot in his 2002 aborted run for Governor, Cuomo withdrew from the Governor's race which ensured the Liberal Party wouldn't receive enough votes to retain ballot access, so it is well within Cuomo's modus oprendi to follow a 'Scorched Earth' policy in regards to his allies, but oddly not his opponents (at least not conservative opponents). If Bill DeBlasio knows that he will not receive full hearted support from Cuomo (as demonstrated by Cuomo killing any guaranteed revenue for universal pre-k) why work so hard to ensure attain the ballot line of third party if not squelch real progressive change?

If Cuomo thinks that a winning presidential strategy is to deride the left's most vocal activists, I'm not sure who's votes he's expecting to win in the primary, but I know it is not mine!

Steamroller Spitzer: Had To Go; "My Way or No Way" Cuomo: Can Stay Forever

So it was often referred to in 2008 and throughout Eliot Spitzer's governship that he 'did not play well with others' which was part of the rationale to why he couldn't weather out the storm of his perchance to use high end prostitutes like current Senator David Vitter did when he was outed as a family values politician that flouted his family obligations. Assemblyman Keith Wright in an attempt to collect endorsements from Democratic clubs around the city came across the problem that the Governor is not too popular among the most active Democratic activists, as seen in the below quote from Capital New York article:

Later, (satirist and protest candidate for governor Randy) Credico asked (former Assemblyman Peter) Grannis, “How is the comptroller’s relationship with Andrew Cuomo? Seriously.” After a few moments of silence from Grannis, who had a knowing smile on his face, Credico added, “Be honest.”

“I know the answer to the question," Grannis replied. "It’s a strained relationship and that’s unfortunate because we … could be a much more aggressive and productive partner with the governor.” He added, “the governor has this approach: my way or no way.”

AND

“Expectations have been high for this governor because of what he did with the Marriage Equality Act,” Wright told the crowd. “Why can’t he do that everywhere? I mean, that’s the question. This governor is in firm support of the Dream Act. I’m going to tell you quite frankly, the New York State Senate doesn’t like it. They hate it. And the Dream Act really doesn’t poll that well. So, you have senators that just won’t do it, just won’t do it. You’re giving tuition, financial aid to children of undocumented immigrants. Every place is not Greenwich Village."

So the styles of the Governors could be considered similar, if there was even a small smell of scandal would Cuomo be forced to resign as Spitzer did due to lack of support? Or would Cuomo weather the storm due to the support that his grating leadership style has lost him are the grassroots and not the big money contributors. In the documentary "Client 9", Ken Langone (billionaire founder of Home Depot) was shown in his own words to have inside information about investigating Eliot Spitzer prior to any knowledge of Spitzer's involvement with prostitutes, and demonstrated that his personality had nothing to do with his resignation but that his grating and obnoxious was merely directed towards the wrong segment of society, the organized money. Andrew Cuomo's obnoxious behavior is set against the least among us and those in the middle class, so he is secure in getting an insurmountable level of support and resources from those that are morbidly wealthy. Only those that have near infinite resources cannot be offended by elected officials that dare to seek out to carry out the will of the people and enforce the law indifferent to size of his/her bank account. When organized money screams for the heads of elected officials, get behind those candidates for office; when organized money get behind elected officials they find agreeable, scream for their heads and oppose them in every possible democratic institution.

But maybe the current New York State governor with future presidential ambitions should look to a previous holder of that office for some advice:

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace-business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Speech at Madison Square Garden"

Patrick Gaspard: Complicit in systemic homophobia

Sent: Thu 9/5/2013 12:37 PM
To: 'patrickg@1199.org'; 'patrickg@dnc.org'; 'patrickg@democrats.org'; 'pgaspard@dnc.org'; 'pgaspard@democrats.org'; 'patrickg@whitehouse.gov'; 'pgaspard@whitehouse.gov'; 'patrick.gaspard@democrats.org'; 'patrick.gaspard@dnc.org'; 'patrick.gaspard@whitehouse.gov'

Mr. Gaspard,

You very likely do not remember me or the incidents that occurred around May and June of 2007 while I was employed by SEIU 1199's political department, but as the forwarded email below shows you were aware of it at the time. With your likely appointment to Ambassador to South Africa I hope that the spirit of reconciliation, that could bring even F.W. de Clerk to admit his responsibility and apologize for his part  of Apartheid, would enter your heart so that you too would be able to own up to your part in a vastly smaller infraction to human equality. There is as Ms. Platt said five years ago professional repercussions to challenging someone as influential as you, but if it is more advantageous to buttress the status quo and let malevolence go unchecked I do not wish to profit from such systemic evil.  

I want to refresh your memory, that on the June 29th before the meeting of all the organizers (essentially a closing ceremony) you called me to further explain that you had not done anything wrong, and that it would be illegal to fire any of the organizers (under what I could only assume was the presumption that the organizers that were released from their contracts to work for your department still had some collective bargaining agreement with SEIU not just their union shops); I had even given examples of organizers refusing to work, sleeping on the job, and taking SEIU rented van to drive into Manhattan to complain about not being authorized to drive the SEIU van any longer (the last example was not fully fleshed out at the time). In each instance you held to your belief that they couldn't be fired. I stated that New York State was an At-Will Work State, and employers could fire employees at will just as employees could leave the employer, even after the declarative statement you still held to the belief that it was still illegal to dismiss these employees. You, within the course of our discussion, mentioned that you had been called the n-word in the work environment. We hold different opinions on whether or not that would be just cause for termination-- I would have no qualms about sacking an individual for stating such racial epitaphs and you have no objections to continuing that bigot's employment.

Yesterday a federal jury awarded Brandi Johnson $280,000 for her supervisor using the n-word towards her in one incident that happened to be recorded. The consistent culture and use of homophobic phrases within the department that you were head of, is your responsibility. I bringing this up not for litigious reasons, but to ensure you know the labor laws in New York State are the opposite that you so emphatically assured me, and you carried out in policy within the SEIU's Political department.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jury-n-word-workplace-article-1.1444600

Sean Finnerty

P.S.

Due to not knowing which if any of the emails I'm sending to you will reach you, I am also going to post tread of emails on my own website and send a link to your twitter.

-----Original Message-----

From: Sean Finnerty

Sent: Fri 6/29/2007 9:56 AM

To: Patrick Gaspard; 'kymplatt@gmail.com'; Joshua Gold; Van Parish; Betel Manjura; Robert Constant; Debra Pucci; Laura Santucci

Subject: RE: Kym Platt

Other than the pluralization of the homophobic comment from yesterday's 4:00PM meeting everything that was in Ms. Platt's email was consistent with the truth. The omission of Mr. Gaspard's squashing any intolerant language in Ms. Platt's email does not take away from the essential message. The greater issue that I believe Ms. Platt was referring to is the culture of intolerance that exists within the union membership as well as Friends & Family campaign employees. In large part the hateful outbursts that occurred May 31st was the catalyst to the June 6th meeting that was attended by Mr. Parish, Ms. Manjura, and Mr. Gold. The May 31st outburst was also witnessed by former SEQ Area Coordinator Mr. Daniel May who had commented to me afterward that he was shocked at how angry and hateful they were.

On May 21st the community organizers were directed to get confirmations from pastors for a church blitz for Sunday June 3rd and after getting a confirmation with a specific church that they would write which of the community organizers would be attending which church on piece of butcher paper on the wall. On May 31st, 3 days till the church blitz, there were only 2 churches written on the wall. As a reaction to the utter lack of initiative on the part of the vast majority of community organizers was that Ms. Platt and myself gave them the direction that the activity they would blitz on Sunday was the Queens Gay Pride Parade/Festival. Due to Ms. Platt's and my justified assumption that the community organizers already held homophobic beliefs I took it upon myself to be the only lead to give the direction, with the intent that as a heterosexual it would soften the community organizer's homophobia. Their intolerant outburst and hateful language would have ended in an immediate termination in other organization that I have worked with in the past, but the culture that permeates throughout the union of lax or non-existent discipline creates the effect of absence of accountability on the part of the community organizers.

The pliant attitude towards discipline that is held by Ms. Manjura, Ms. Pucci, Mr. Parish, and Mr. Gold causes the continuation of a work environment that is complicit of intolerance and bigotry. Mr. Gold and Mr. Parish were both aware of the behavioral problems from the South East Queens team previous to the beginning of phase 2. Ms. Manjura became aware of the behavioral problem no later than the morning meeting on June 6th in the Political Action Department’s office, which resulted in her attendance of the South East Queens team meeting at 12:00 of the same day.

Within the same spirit as Mr. Gaspard’s comments that ‘there are community organizers, and then there are community organizers-in-name-only,’ it is my belief that a substantial minority of the Friend’s & Family campaign’s community organizers are wholly unemployable, and that a majority of the  community organizers are incapable of performing tasks beyond that of a canvasser. Under serious scrutiny and a thorough interview those that are unemployable would have never been hired.  Under Mr. Gaspard’s tenure as Political Director the union delegates that are delegates-in-name-only continue to hold their positions, it would be counter-intuitive for any direct supervisor or objective outside observer to come to the conclusion that if the head of the political department is frustrated with dead weight within the organization and cannot do anything about it there is little if anything that direct supervisors can do about ridding the same dead weight that exists beneath them. 

As Ms. Platt had noted in her email, the 4:00PM meeting was simply a venue for sub-par employees to pile-on complaints towards their supervisors. I also did not feel comfortable in the room, but due to the futile belief that my staying and taking hypocritical and unjustifiable attacks on my work performance would show my ability to be the bigger man would accomplish anything. The complaints and the reiteration of incidents heard yesterday, as stated in the meeting by me, was nearly a daily occurrence. Nothing was resolved yesterday in large part because of the systemic problem that the union’s culture is counter productive. If a line worker chooses not to work, they can simply distract themselves, coworkers and their supervisor with petty interpersonal problems and not held accountable for his/her choice not to work. It was never expressed throughout the 3 hour meeting that the leadership style of Ms. Platt, Mr. Constant or myself detrimentally effected their ability to accomplish their work duties.

Sean Finnerty

Friends & Family Campaign

Area Coordinator

sean.finnerty@1199.org

(917) 612-9021

-----Original Message-----

From: Patrick Gaspard

Sent: Thu 6/28/2007 10:10 PM

To: 'kymplatt@gmail.com'; Joshua Gold; Van Parish; Betel Manjura; Sean Finnerty; Robert Constant; Debra Pucci; Laura Santucci

Subject: Re: Kym Platt

Kim, did Sean tell you my response to that derogatory language? I'm certain that he must have. I didn't tolerate a hint of homophobia in that meeting. I made it abundantly clear to all that we have zero tolerance for hate speech. And to be absolutely factual, this negative expression came from a single member of the team and others showed their disapproval when I chastised her. Sean would be doing you a disservice if he failed to communicate the incident in its full dimension.

This afternoon, I moved quickly in response to what I saw as a cowardly attack against you and Sean in the form of a petition. I clearly stated my displeasure with the organizers at the start of the meeting. I did not deprive you of the letter. You never gave me an opportunity to share it with you. You stormed out of the room after I asked every participant to be mindful of tone and language. You weren't robbed of the opportunity to defend yourself. You left when I asked you and all to refrain from cursing. That is a perfectly reasonable ask in a professional setting. I was disappointed when you indicated that you are unable to conduct a conversation without resorting to foul language. In your absence I spoke out vigorously on your behalf. Your storming out of the room was inappropriate and immature. Sean can attest to my defense of your leadership style and my promotion of your accomplishments. I hope that he will be honest enough to do so as a response to this email. Any repurcussions you experience as a result of your decision to exit today's conversation will be entirely unrelated to your performance in the field.

The details of the incidents in Southeast Queens that you allude to were not directed to my attention. I would never allow you to suffer such indignities in an 1199 space without addressing the offenders. Gary Hilliard and others who targeted you based on gender or sexual orientation will be properly addressed. Please accept my deepest apologies for any hatred directed at you by anyone on this organization's payroll.

-----Original Message-----

From: Kym Platt 

To: Joshua Gold; Patrick Gaspard; Van Parish; Betel Manjura; Sean Finnerty; Robert Constant; Debra Pucci

Sent: Thu Jun 28 21:37:27 2007

Subject: Kym Platt

This afternoon I was verbally abused and called a "dyke bitch" by community organizer Gary Hilliard, who called me this inches from my face in a threatening manner.  A few hours later, a meeting was convened as a forum for the community organizers to express their complaints against me and my co-Area Coordinator Sean Finnerty.  The impetus behind this meeting was a letter and petition calling for my removal from the project as the Area Coordinator.  I was never shown the letter or the petition, although both were sent to the entire leadership staff of The Healthcare Education Project, including George Gresham, the President of 1199.  This alone is character defamation.

I felt that from the moment that I walked into the room that it was nothing more than a venue for personal attacks rather than constructive criticism.  Still hurt and frightened from Gary Hilliard's offensive and bigoted comments, I chose to leave the meeting rather than further subject myself to the hostility and attacks of what felt like a homophobic lynch mob.  Especially, when I knew that I would be unable to defend myself properly, and had received no support from my supervisors.

It was later confirmed by my co-worker, Sean Finnerty, that several references were made by community organizers regarding my sexual orientation and gender expression, including being called "manly" by Yvonne Ming.  

Throughout this entire campaign I have worked in a charged and hostile environment in which there are documented cases of explosive behavior and near-violent incidents by several community organizers.  I have endured numerous personal verbal attacks and been made fun of because of my sexual orientation and gender expression without being allowed any professional leverage as a supervisor to counter any of it.  I had previously alerted Josh Gold and Van Parrish about the challenging conditions I was working under when community organizers Michael Harris and Anne-Marie Parris stated to me that they "hated gay people" and did not wish to attend the scheduled Gay Pride event in Queens.  Nothing was done about this.  I feel management has not defended me.  My complaints have not been dealt with and little support has been given to me to enforce my very basic human rights; rights supported by New York State Law.

I have worked extremely hard on The Health Care Education Project: Friends And Family Neighborhood Action Plan.  I strongly believe in the focus and goals of the project.  However staying for today's meeting to face more bigotry and anger was more than I felt I could do.  Now I fear professional repercussions because of the disempowering situation within which I was required to navigate.

Sincerely,

Kym Platt