Will Senator Klein be creating, for the sake of accuracy, a new party? The Independent Democratic Conference For a Republican-Controlled Senate Party?
How many votes do ya think he'd get on that line?
“I consider myself a very good Democrat.” (Link)
Uh-huh. A very good Republican-controlled-Senate-supporting independent Democrat. One of the best, really. Easily in the top four.
Reality check for political reporters
Albany County district attorney wins big victory after a nasty primary race
By Robert Gavin
Nasty as defined by ... ... ... the wind, apparently.
That collective exhale you heard Thursday night came from Albany County prosecutors.
I wondered what that was! Strange, though, because I wasn't near the victory party. But apparently the reporter, who seems to have been there, wants to hand off the hearing on to you, as opposed to the telling on to himself, which, again, is strange.
District Attorney David Soares, the two-term incumbent, easily defeated challenger Lee Kindlon in a Democratic primary, but scars of the grueling nine-month race may not heal anytime soon.
I've heard that vitamin E is good for scars, but perhaps political, metaphorical scars are different. Also, we are not told about how or when the reporter viewed those scars, but I like to think it was in the late, late hours of the victory party, when things got a little crazy.
The political battle was marked by mudslinging, personal attacks and a hunch in some quarters that Soares was ripe to be defeated.
Which quarters? Some quarters. That's all we readers need to know.
It didn't take long after polls closed to call the race. By the time Soares, 42, arrived at the Taste restaurant on Beaver Street late Thursday, the nail-biting was over and there was jubilation in the crowd. Soares tallied 14,498 votes to Kindlon's 10,132, a decisive 57 percent to 40 percent victory.
How much nail-biting does one do, on one's way to a decisive victory?
[James] Long [Soares' election attorney], a veteran lawyer, said the nastiness of the race concerned some of Soares' team.
"I thought it was going to be closer," he said. "It happens in the national scene. That negative campaigning works."
Show us your scars, Mr. Long! Show us, show us, show us.
Some political observers say the challenge could serve as a reality check for Soares as he heads into his third term because Republicans have not fielded a candidate.
For now, Soares said, he does not plan any changes.
That is some reality check. I for one am glad to have spent this much time parsing the reporter's muddled description of stuff he talked about at a victory party, when we would have all been better off if he had just written it up as "stuff talked about at a victory party."
This is a fantastic essay. It provides a useful framework for interpreting the bullshit rhetoric that gets thrown around in political circles and in the media.
With that essay in mind, I will focus on one piece of this article, Broke cities: What's next?:
"The best option is to empower the local control boards we already have: the local government that was elected," said Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York Conference of Mayors. "But they don't have sufficient power to manage their workforce costs, and what we've seen in municipalities is that this lack of power leads to such a problem that the state has to come in with a control board."
I happen to agree with that first sentence, being a fan of democracy. But that's beside the point. On to the rhetoric: "[...] they don't have sufficient power to manage their workforce costs [...]"
I think it would be fair to read that sentence as: administrations don't have the legal right to break negotiated contracts. But, that doesn't have the muddled and middle of the road and reasonable-like tone that this person is going for. So it gets changed to sufficient power and workforce costs.
And there is the rhetoric that can move the discussion to ways in which to put the screws to working folks, while sounding nice and reasonable. See?
Voters can end company's political clout
OK, Mr. Advocate. You have identified a problem. That's all well and good. You also spend a lot of time lecturing Teh Voters of Albany County. As an Albany County voter, I kinda resent the lecture.
You failed to mention that if it wasn't for your colleagues, Gavin, Carleo-Evangelist, Hinman (and others I'm sure), Teh Voters would have no idea that all these contributions were from the same company.
Before you started your lecture, did you confirm that the TU has always and consistently informed Teh Voters about these contribution shenanagins? Are you certain that Teh Voters always have this information before we vote?
You also failed to discuss the mechanics of these contribution shenanagins. The muddying of the waters that occurs when donors set up LLC's for the purpose of making contributions and getting around contribution limits.
Does every voter need to become a campaign finance expert before he votes? Does every voter need to put in the time and effort that your colleagues did, when they pieced this puzzle together?
Why did you not feel the need to lecture the legiscritters who set up a system that is designed to disguise these campaign contributions?
Blame Teh Voters all you'd like. But we are not the ones who set up the system. We are not the ones who talk about reform and then use institutional inertia to keep the system just as it is. Put the blame where it belongs.
"Those doctors who want to collectively bargain want to do so simply to increase fees," said Robert R. Hinckley, senior vice president at CDPHP. "If that happens, there will be one inescapable result: Health care costs will rise, and those costs will be borne by employers and employees."Unsaid: "Because we in management at the insurance companies sure as shit will not be giving up any of our salaries or bonuses, so these alleged costs would definitely go on to the customers."
Montag picked a single small volume from the floor. "Where do we begin?" He opened the book halfway and peered at it. "We begin by beginning, I guess."[Link]
