Little Difference Between Ds and Rs

Seems there's very little difference between Republicans and Democrats these days, at least when it comes to money in politics. I mean, we've known for a while that our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo believes he flat-out cannot be influenced by money, and we now know that Republicans think they're not influenced by money either.

Cuomo made it very clear a while back in an interview with Susan Arbetter, host of  the Capitol Pressroom radio show, that we need campaign finance reform because elected officials can't be trusted and there's too much money in politics and we need to solve the problem by having tax payer dollars injected into the process to protect us from bad people - but not from the Governor himself, because he is pure.

Cuomo thought it was "baloney" that people would think he'd be more responsive to his donors (the majority of whom have given at least $10,000) or to New York City corporations (some giving "in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to his war chest) than he would be to you or me. When pressed, here's what he said:

s drummond photo

What the people want to know, what they say to me is, look, we want to know that you're working for us and you're not working for anyone else. Because there are some politicians out there who can be bought for $10, and some politicians who cannot be bought for $10 billion. It's a question of the person, it's a question of character, and it's a question of values. It's not how much does it cost to buy a politician, it's a politician who can't be bought. 

He added

I'm going to make the decision I think is right for them because at the end of the night I go home and I put my head on the pillow and I have to be able to fall asleep and I can't fall asleep if I don't believe I'm doing the right thing.  

You mull that one over, or picture him sleeping through the night on his pillow of righteousness, while I explain how he's just like a Republican.

Steve Kimatian, an occasional contributor to the Syracuse Post-Standard, wrote a recent article about how it was easier to be a Democrat than a Republican. He made it clear that Republicans aren't influenced by money either.

Kimatian's premise, as I noted last week, is that the Dems buy votes and campaign contributions with entitlements (and unfettered access to strip-joint ATMs), and by gutting welfare reform.  He also notes that the Democrat "platform of giving...can be a slippery slope to servitude."

While the Democrat position may appear altruistic, at its core it is essentially self-serving. To appreciate those who give you things is human nature. The Democrat offer encourages a complicit compact with the voter.  If you can befriend a voting block by giving benefits, then you can secure votes and contributions for your re-election. 

Let's replace the word Democrat in Kimatian's essential argument with Republican, and see what happens.

While the Republican position may appear altruistic, at its core it is essentially self-serving. To appreciate those who give you things is human nature. The Republican offer encourages a complicit compact with the voter. If you can befriend a voting block by giving benefits then you can secure votes and contributions for your re-election.

Wow -- that sounds almost exactly the same, doesn't it? And doesn't it ring equally true? Because we all know that the Republicans are not pure, any more than Cuomo is. They just get their influence from a different side of the fence, that's all.  For example:

• What about the Grover Norquist Tax Pledge? You know about that, right? Republicans at every level of elected office have signed onto this, swearing they'll not raise taxes for any reason. Let them even whisper about having a remote thought or a vision in the night about raising taxes, and their constituents will have an email telling them their taxes are going to go up, and suddenly the incumbent Republican is in a primary scrambling to hold onto office, to future security, and to continued altruistic opportunities. Does anyone wonder why the Rs are so afraid of raising taxes?

• What about political organizations, trade associations, unions, and 'social welfare' groups? According to Opensecrets.org, trade associations spent around $60M, unions about half that, and 501(c)(4) groups spent over $250M in the 2012 election cycle. By 'viewpoint', the vast majority of the money was in support of conservative issues. Kimatian raised the dastardly public employee union as one of the things that makes it easier to be a Dem;  and we know that one of those 'conservative issues' that's being addressed with this money is getting rid of public employee unions. No correlation here, right?

• Similarly, Super PAC spending by ideology significantly favored conservatives, $406.8M to $195.5M for liberal issues.  And certainly nothing to see here, either. 

Does the Norquist threat have no meaning? Do these hundreds of millions of dollars from support groups not have any influence on Republicans? Do they not help get Republicans elected, and help keep them in office? How is it that the Republicans can be immune to this?

If  "to appreciate those who give you things is human nature," is the lack of influence all from all this money proof that Republicans aren't human? Hmm...

Perhaps the most important question for Republicans, Andrew Cuomo, and voters alike is a simple one: would these groups be spending this kind of money if they thought there was nothing in it for them?

The answer, clearly, is no.  No person, union, trade association, social welfare group, or political action committee would spend this kind of money if they believed for one second that it wasn't going to benefit them.

As I noted (regarding Cuomo's sleeping habits):

I can't fall asleep at night because our house is noisy and our cats are restless and My Sweet Baboo snores and there's a firehouse down the street and because I lie awake at night sometimes wondering why a politician would take hundreds of thousands, no millions of dollars from corporations when it's people that vote.

You can be sure that the corporations and Super PACS  and unions and social welfare organizations and $10,000 donors wouldn't be sleeping well at night if they thought their contributions and lobbying and interest ads and smear campaigns were not money well spent.

Yeah, it's easy to be a Democrat.  And it sure is easy to be a Republican too.  It's getting hard to tell them apart, isn't it?

Fortune Favors the Bold (Pt 4)

One of the things Governor Cuomo is a big proponent of is ethics reform,  including public financing of elections. He included a reference to this in his State of the State Address -- take a look:

I propose new anti-bribery and corruption laws, public financing of elections, independent enforcement at the board of elections, and disclosure of outside clients with business before the state of New York.

He's been steadfast in his support of these ideas, and his Moreland Commission came out with recommendations similar enough to Cuomo's ideas that one can't help thinking either he had a hand in writing them, or the Commission plagiarized his writing.  And while his support for reform has not waivered,  his own fundraising has been prolific.  Cuomo has $33 million in his war chest for this fall's election, with who knows how many more opportunities he has on his calendar to rake in more.

In his now famous Capitol Pressroom interview with  Susan Arbetter last week, Cuomo talked about politics and money, in a most enlightening and bold manner. Arbetter noted his successful fundraising to date, and wondered if it was to scare off potential opponents. Cuomo noted (and I'm paraphrasing here) that someone with a ton of money could run for office and win, simply because they had a ton of money, not because of any ideals or anything.  He's not necessarily talking about Donald Trump, but Trump has suggested he'd spend a couple bucks of his own money, if he decided to run.

Where the interview got interesting is when Arbetter pressed the Governor on where his money is coming from:

NYPIRG (Note: that's the New York Public Interest Research Group) noted that 81% of your donors gave at least $10,000, and some of your largest donations are from corporations from New York City who are giving in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (emphasis added).  And the question is does that make you more responsive to those interests? 

In classic Cuomo style, our Sonofa Governor answered:

Well...I think a lot of this conversation is baloney, frankly.

Think about that: 81% of his donations are over ten grand, bigger than you and I could or would afford, and he's got corporations giving hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It's NOT baloney, the question she asked -- it's a great question.  And he didn't stop at the deli counter -- he kept going.

What the people want to know, what they say to me is look, we want to know that you're working for us, and you're not working for anyone else. Because there are some politicians out there who can be bought for $10, and some politicians who cannot be bough for $10 billion. It's a question of the person, it's a question of character, and it's a question of values. It's not how much does it cost to buy a politician, it's a politician who can't be bought.

Now you and I can guess where Cuomo thinks he is in this equation. He believes, "in his heart" that we know he can't be bought, that we know he's working for our best interests and for the best interest of the state, and where the money comes from doesn't matter a whole hill of beans in the overall scheme of things. Why?

I'm going to make the decision that I think is right for them because at the end of the night I go home and I put my head on the pillow and I have to be able to fall asleep and I can't fall asleep if I don't believe I'm doing the right thing.

I can't fall asleep at night because our house is noisy and our cats are restless and My Sweet Baboo snores and there's a firehouse down the street and because I lie awake at night sometimes wondering why a politician would take hundreds of thousands, no, millions of dollars from corporations, when it's people that vote.

Cuomo knows that people like me have perceptions like that, so he thinks that we need public financing of elections.  He does note however, that even making a change like that may not be enough. He can vouch for his own character, but not everyone else's -- and regardless of the dollar limit that ultimately gets attached to any public campaign financing legislation,

if we elect people who can be bought, we're electing the wrong people. 

On that, the Gov and I agree.

On the rest, well, I have different ideas on campaign finance reform, many of which I've shared before. And until we make some really big changes - term limits for starters -- many times, those whom fortune favors are not necessarily the bold.  They're probably just incumbents.

Round em up! Head em out!

Git along, little extreme conservatives! Git along right out of New York! We don't want your kind here!

That's what Andrew Cuomo said about them, on a radio interview last week.  I know it's true because I saw it on Facebook. See, it's right here in this post that was on a friend's page:

January 18th. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is the latest in a long line of oh so "tolerant" Dems. On Friday the possible 2016 Dem presidential nominee said this about the NY Republicans who are against his gun control SAFE Act: "Who are they Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that's who they are and they're extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York because that's not who new Yorkers are."  Wow, is this guy a Dem or a member of the National Socialist Party? So fair warning Empire Staters, if you're pro-life, pro-Second Amendment or pro-traditional marriage, Andrew says pack your bags and get out. Better do it quickly before the Governor puts you on a train and sends you to a "special camp." Time for Cuomo to build his socialist utopia without any more "extreme conservative" tax revenue. Good luck with that, Andy.

I also know it happened, that the extreme conservatives have to get out of New York because a local TV station showed a portion of the transcript with just the inflammatory words shown, and then went on to interview someone who, by his own admission does not meet all three of the qualifications, but the reporter ignored that fact and blithely carried on with the story. The best part was that, in the anchor chat following his story, both the reporter and the anchor talked about the importance of context -- not taking the words as a standalone comment, but that the full context needed to be considered in order to form an opinion. And then they ended the story without any context.

Well, here's transcript of the relevant section of Cuomo's interview with Susan Arbetter, host of the Capitol Pressroom. Note that the transcript was released by Cuomo's office in response to an article in the New York Post, which the Sonofa Governor thought presented his views in a 'distorted' way. I have listened to the tape of the broadcast and the transcript is very accurate; I tried to use some punctuation and to illustrate the emphasis you can hear in the recording.

To set the stage, Cuomo and Arbetter were talking about money, who's donating, and the fact that Cuomo seems to be getting money from many Republicans, not just from Dems.  Arbetter made the point that some might think Cuomo was moving away from his 'progressive roots' and Cuomo gave this long rambling answer:

I don't think that that is right Susan. I think it is a very important point, but I don't think it's that I'm less of a Democrat, I think what you're seeing is, you have a schism within the Republican Party. You have the Republican party searching for identity, they are searching to define their soul. That is what is going on. Is it the Republican party that is a moderate party or is it a conservative party? That is what they are trying to figure out and it is very interesting because it is a mirror of what is going on in Washington, right? The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It is more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans. And a moderate Republican in Washington can't figure out how to deal with the extreme Republicans. And the moderate Republicans are afraid of the extreme conservative Republicans in Washington in my opinion.

All good so far -- that same opinion has been expressed by many of the talking heads and yes, Republicans in DC, including in the House, where Speaker Boehner has very little control over his own party.

The answer goes on (as I said, it was long and rambling)

You've seen that play out in New York, their SAFE Act, the Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act.  It was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats, their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro-assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives they have no place in the state of New York, because that is not who New Yorkers are. 

Now, to this point the satirical blogger who was quoted on my friend's Facebook page has the transcript right -- the part she chose to pay attention to. But there's more:

Moderate Republicans like in the Senate (he's referring to the NY Senate not DC) right now and control the Senate. Moderate Republicans have a place in this state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican. But not as what you are hearing from them on the far right, not this clash that you are getting from the quote unquote "power brokers" of the party now. "We are right to life, we are pro- assault weapon, or anti-gay"....

Arbetter then asks Cuomo about comments from one of those Republican party "power brokers" who has asked Republicans not to endorse Cuomo.  Lets pick up there:

I think he did that in reaction to the meetings we were having. You know, moderate Republicans I work with; moderate republicans passed my agenda, for the past three years.  They want to criticize my record? My record was passed by the moderate Republicans, so they are criticizing themselves and this really isn't about me, Susan. This is "who are they?" And who is going to win between the conservative Republicans, the extremely conservative Republicans and the moderately conservative Republicans.  And literally, look at the issues they pick...

And here's where the crux of the issue comes in, folks -- not the comment about there's no place for them, which was a great sound bite, but here's why he said that:

 Are we right to life or are we pro-choice? Well, if you are right to life, that is your opinion and that's your religious belief, that's fine - but that is not the opinion of this sate, 70% are pro-choice in this state.

"Well, we are anti-gun control," that is fine. 70% of this state wants intelligent gun control. (Note: including, as I've pointed out before, many folks who are mostly unhappy with how the SAFE Act was passed, and who agree with two-thirds or more of the law itself - I have 'conservative' friends who would go even farther than the SAFE Act did in some areas).

 "We don't agree with gay marriage, we are anti-gay," that is fine, but 70% of this state (about), is now pro-gay marriage.

So figure out who you are and figure out if you are of an extreme conservative philosophy and if you can survive in this state. And the answer is no.  

Well, alrighty then.

There's the context that our news reporters didn't want to talk about, but wanted you to look up yourself. There's no trains to special camps, there's no rounding up conservatives and sending them on their way, no kicking them out of The Empire State.

There's just the numbers, expressed in opinion polls, that show that New York - gasp - is relatively liberal, and to Cuomo's point, it's a bunch of moderate Republicans who are making it possible for us to be such a bastion of liberal ideals.

The issue of extremism vs conservatism, of fiscal conservatism vs extreme social conservatism, is exactly what Cuomo said it was -- an identity crisis in the Republican party and one they have to solve if they want to make any headway.  It is, as noted in the interview, their problem to solve.