Search
Democrats: what coup?
Just got off the blogger cal, and here's some meat (also on CapCon, here and here).
The emerging position of Majority Leader Smith and the caucus seems to be essentially procedural: since the Senate was not in session when Skelos and Espada pulled their stunt, none of this means anything. People get together all the time - usually in bars - and decide things. That doesn't give these things the force of law or create new realities in the legislature.
Meanwhile, the physical Senate remains locked. The keys are in the hands of the Senate Sargent [sic] at Arms and the Senate Majority Secretary Angelo Aponte, a smith appointee. Aponte will keep the Senate closed until the Majority Leader instructs him otherwise.
The truly pitiable thing about the Skelos/indictee Espada/Slasher Monserrate's failed coup is this: there are nine days left in the session. The Dems had planned to pass campaign finance reform, rules reform, and budgetary measures. It's all on the calendar. Not going to happen now, apparently.
It's a mess.
A bad argument
Without commenting on the legality, if any, of the coup attempt, because I haven't looked up the rules...
There is an argument going around that New Yorkers elected a Democratically-controlled state Senate, and Monserrate & Espada are defying the will of the people. This is not (exactly) accurate.
"New Yorkers" didn't elect a Senate; New Yorkers elected 62 separate Senators, each in a different district, and 32 of those individual Senators ran as Democrats. I voted for one of them, but had no choice regarding the other 61.
One could argue that in both districts there is no way a Republican gets elected. Monserrate's district (the 13th) is over 2/3 Democratic, with blanks outnumbering Republicans almost 2:1. Espada's district (the 33rd) is even more lopsided, with Democrats making up over 3/4 of registered voters, and Republicans numbering barely over 6% of the total. Clearly, had either one run as a Republican he would have lost, and lost big.
History shows this -- in December of 2002, Olga Mendez changed party affiliations, and was defeated at the next election (albeit by the son of a Congressman, but still...).
So the argument isn't that Monserrate or Espada overrode the "will of New Yorkers," but more properly could be that they overrode the will of their own district.
On the other hand...
In 2001, progressives cheered as U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party and began caucusing with the Democrats, changing the balance of power in the Senate. Do we have the moral authority, then, to denounce what Monserrate and Espada have done? Are we hypocrites for doing so?
I am very angry at Monserrate and Espada. I am confident that this is the last political stand for both of them, and good riddance. But I drank a (temporary) victory toast when Jeffords switched sides, and will not be the hypocrite when the tables are turned.
No hypocrisy required - on your part
The most disingenuous thing about this entire stunt is that neither Monserrate nor Espada have left the Democratic Party (at least according to them they haven't). If they did, I'd feel whatever is the opposite of what I felt when Jeffords switched, but this isn't that. They want to have it both ways.
My first furious impulse is to call for them to be tossed out of the party, and I'd cheer if they were. But I have a feeling that there's some good political reasons why they haven't yet been summarily expelled. (One may be Espada's co-sponsorship of same-sex marriage). I'm just too tired to think my way through to what they might be - I was out petitioning at 6:45 this morning.