NY-Sen: Meet Jon Cooper: Still Pondering Challenge To Gillibrand

Jon Cooper said it was an eye-opening moment for him. He was watching the press conference announcing Governor David Paterson’s selection of Kirsten Gillibrand to serve as New York’s junior U.S. senator. His spouse Rob inquired out loud if that was former Senator Alfonse D’Amato standing on the platform with her.

Last week, I spoke with Cooper about his possible candidacy, his career and why he is interested in running for a seat that was once held by Hillary Clinton, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Robert F. Kennedy.

At first, Cooper dismissed the notion that a former Republican U.S. senator from New York – the same man Senator Chuck Schumer beat in 1998 – would be at a ceremony for Republicans. But, much to his dismay, there D’Amato stood mere feet away from Gillibrand as she was introduced as New York’s newest senator.

Cooper makes it clear that he has ideas. He isn’t just going to run an anti-Gillibrand campaign, but he can’t help but point out her record. He mentions her past ties to Big Tobacco, the 100 percent rating she received from the National Rifle Association and her evolution on numerous issues that could be perceived as politically convenient.

“Her past position (on gun control) was of concern,” he said. “There are some people are distrustful of her evolution on this and other issues and are concerned about what they see as flip-flopping and see this as insincere or they question her character. I’m not saying I do. But there are those who do.”

For Cooper, however, it is different. He is not yet a declared candidate but he is touting his own record and why, if he were to run, he should be considered a serious contender to Gillibrand.

“I have, many times over the years, took stances that might not have been politically popular with my constituents but I believed it was the right thing to do,” he said.

As an openly gay and happily married man, Cooper is the father of five children he and his spouse Rob have adopted. He has served 10 years on the Suffolk County Legislature and currently is the majority leader for the legislature’s Democrats. He lists two key pieces of legislation as highlights of his career. He wrote the first law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving in the country. Since then, a number of states (including New York) have adopted such laws. In addition to that, Cooper also authored legislation that banned the sale of ephedra. That effort led to the federal government imposing a ban on the dietary supplement.

Jobs and the economy is an area that Cooper knows all too well. Cooper is running the family business, Spectronics Corporation, in Westbury. He said that while he is on the corporate side of things, he also is very much pro-labor and supports workers.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, Cooper backed an underdog named Barack Obama. Cooper was the first elected official from New York to endorse Obama and went on to be the Long Island chair of the Obama campaign. He said that, at the time, people asked him if he realized the political risk he was taking. Cooper said he had supported Hillary Clinton in the past but once he met Obama, he was sold. It was through the Obama campaign that Cooper met many grassroots organizers, some of whom are now aiding him in his exploratory efforts and organizing meet and greets throughout the state for people to meet him. Cooper was in upstate New York this weekend meeting voters in Buffalo and Rochester and will be back in upstate New York again, especially if he decides to run.

Cooper knows that he has a long way to go. He realizes that Gillibrand has millions in her bankroll. He realizes that she has received nearly every county chair’s endorsement to date. But one thing he references to is that Obama was counted out too. No one thought Hillary Clinton could be beaten. But with the greatest grassroots campaign ever, Obama pulled it out in the primary and won the general election.

A vast majority of Obama organizers and activists that Cooper worked with in 2008 are urging him to run and are supporting him. Democratic clubs have urged him to run. Progressives are supporting him. And while he says he isn’t comparing himself to Obama, the comparisons are glaring.

“The party establishment, for the most part, quite understandably is falling in line behind our Democratic incumbent senator regardless of how she got to that office,” he said. “But she’s the incumbent Democrat now and I expect most of the political establishment to back her. But a lot of the grassroots leaders that had been early supporters of Obama seem to be lining up behind me or at the very least, urging me to run so that we will have a choice, which is what this is all about: Offering Democrats in New York State a choice.”

While Cooper doesn’t have a full slate of issues on his platform yet (understandable at this stage), his platform stresses the importance of economic development, pushes for progressive values and support of the environment and the fight for health care, consumer protection, gun safety and middle class tax cuts.

So when will we know whether or not Cooper is running? He says by the end of the year he will have a decision. He is testing the waters right now to see just how much support he has and what the response is statewide. I spoke with him over the weekend and he seemed to be very pleased and excited by the response in Buffalo and Rochester. So we’ll see just how far he is willing to go and if he is going to make an upset bid for the U.S. Senate.

You Know You’re A Bills Fans When…

The Bills take a 24 to 13 lead with 5:32 left in the fourth quarter and you turn to your girlfriend and say, “They will find a way to lose this game somehow.”

Sure enough, they did.

A Public Option Is Necessary

There has been a lot of misinformation out there about the public option, which is a proposed measure that many are advocating to be included in any legislation that is considered “health care reform.” A lot of this misinformation has been fed through the media to everyday citizens who don’t know any different, so they believe what they hear.

That’s not their fault. We have grown to think that what we hear on television, on the radio or in print is fact. Of course, that is not always the case.

Here are some facts about health care: The cost of health care in the United States is tops in the world. Our quality of care? Not so much. As of 2000, we ranked 37th in the world in quality of care. Health care also has a tremendous impact on our economy. If you want to know what is a contributing factor in many people losing their jobs or people declaring bankruptcy, health care is it. Medical debt is the number one reason why individuals declare bankruptcy and the cost of health insurance for employees is a key reason why some employers need to cut the payroll or not offer health insurance at all.

What needs to be clear is that this doesn’t just affect progressive or Democrats, who seem to be more likely to push a public option than a conservative or a Republican. This affects us all. I know Republican friends and conservative friends of mine that either have gotten sick or know family members that have gotten sick.

Thus, this isn’t a political or partisan issue. This is an American issue.

The current debate, as was the case during the Clinton debate when actual universal health care was proposed (the current proposal is not universal health care), is all about politics. There was a time in American government when politics was separate from legislating. Now, politics dominates the whole landscape. Democrats and Republicans are more like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox than they are leaders who are supposed to come together for the benefit of our country.

So without diving into a political firefight, what is a public option? It is an alternative to private health insurance and meant as a way to provide competition where there is no competition. If you like your health insurance, you keep it. It’s that simple. But if you are uninsured or underinsured and don’t like your current health insurance plan, you can utilize the public option to receive health benefits from the government in a competitive market, which currently doesn’t exist.

I have heard Democrats and Republicans talk about their fears of such a plan. Words like “socialized medicine”, “death panels” and “rationing” have been tossed around.

This is not “socialized medicine” in the sense that this is not universal health care. This won’t be like Canada. This won’t be like Switzerland. Those are examples of a full-blown government-run health care system. Such a system, called single-payer health care, does not have enough support in Congress. While there is a single-payer bill, H.R. 676, it does not have the support of everyone, including many Democrats and several Republicans.

A public option is the opposite of “socialized medicine.” Instead of going to a government-run system, the public option merely allows individuals who don’t have insurance or don’t have good insurance to get coverage through the government. It is no different than Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for seniors or even programs like Child Health Plus, which covers children whose families might be alright financially, but still don’t have access to health insurance through their employers or don’t qualify for Medicaid.

The myth about “death panels” is absurd. According to those pushing the “death panel” myth, a “death panel” is when doctors meet with a person (and their family) who is nearing the end of life. Thus, it is a meeting to determine care in the last days, weeks or months of a person’s life. They aren’t going to “kill Granny.” The doctors, not the government, is going to make sure that Granny is comfortable and at peace in her final moments and that her family is involved in the sensitive care that is needed at that stage in life.

The claims of “rationing” are also absurd and untrue. You want rationing? Stick with the current system. My father had three attacks in five months last year that required two trips on Mercy Flight. The first trip was covered. The second trip wasn’t.

The reason? According to the private health insurance company, it was an “accident.” They claim that it shouldn’t have been covered before, but now that they apparently noticed their error, my dad would have to pay for his second ride. The cost? Over $8,000.

In the end, my dad did not have to pay for the trip (the insurance company, after a lot of fighting, did cover the ride).

Rationing is occurring now. The goal of health care reform legislation is to prevent such rationing and provide quality health care to as many people as possible and hopefully, everyone.

If you are like my mom and enjoy good health care coverage and are happy with your insurance provider or if you are healthy and young with a cheap insurance policy, you keep your policy. No government interference.

But if you are uninsured or don’t have a good health insurance policy provided for you through your employer (or you don’t have any health insurance offered to you), then you will be able to use the public option to get much needed coverage.

Those are the facts on a public option. No government takeovers. No rationing. No socialized medicine. No death panels. Just an alternative to employer-based coverage so the millions that are uninsured or underinsured can receive health care coverage that is not available to them now.

Rus Thompson, The Hypocrite

I am happy for Rus Thompson. It is always nice to see a local activist, whether a liberal, conservative or libertarian teabagger, make it big and appear as a guest on a news network.

My problem with Rus isn’t his activism. I find it great that he chooses to be involved in politics. I wish more people had his enthusiasm.

My problem is his selective targeting while trying to claim he targets all elected officials – Republicans and Democrats.

Rus’s latest target? Congresswoman Louise Slaughter. Why is Rus targeting her? Apparently, Rus thinks she gave “bizarre excuses” in a response to a question about why she won’t hold town hall meetings on health care. Those “bizarre excuses?”

You can listen to the full clip here.

Here is the text of Congresswoman Slaughter’s remarks (the portion that the conservatives are targeting), which came on the Ron Reagan Show last week.

I’m not doing town meetings. I’m not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill with the John Birch Society where we had to have police around and people were hysterically crying. I’m not – and frankly, to tell you the truth Ron, my own dignity and the dignity of the office I hold is important to me. I know what that is. It’s not a spontaneous uprising of my constituents. I have had the best relationship with my constituents that anybody could ever even imagine. I am known just as Louise all over from one end of it to the other. They know I’m not going to do anything to hurt them. I’m not going to give these other people who, when you really come down to it, a large number of them are just anti-government. They don’t want Medicare or Social Security either. And the notion that they show up with loaded guns I think is totally dangerous.

Slaughter’s refusal to hold town hall meetings was more based on experience. She remembers back when she hosted them in 1993 and some of the same tactics were used and some of the same people were spewing misinformation then.

So what is Rus so disappointed about? Maybe because Congresswoman Slaughter didn’t give Rus another meeting (or fundraiser) to protest at. After all, that’s how Rus gets all his glory. That’s how Rus ends up on Fox News. That’s how Rus ends up in the local media.

But the conservatives have been passing around this clip since last week and trying to distort the truth. Slaughter didn’t say that she didn’t hold it for her constituents. She didn’t want to hold meetings because of what we saw on TV and in the newspapers. People going to these meetings merely to disrupt (which is part of Rus and other teabaggers’ playbook) and misinform on health care reform and other critical issues. This isn’t about debate for people like Rus. This is about who can shout the loudest and get the most attention.

Here is my problem with Rus slamming Slaughter. Rus has also targeted Brian Higgins. But where is his criticism of Chris Lee? Lee did as much as Slaughter did. Slaughter, while she didn’t host an actual town hall meeting, did host telephone town hall meetings during the recess. Lee did the exact same thing. Yet, Rus has no problem with Chris Lee. Why? Why does Rus espouse such anti-government and anti-incumbent sentiments, yet fails to target Republicans?

He claims it is because there are more Democrats than Republicans, so naturally the numbers will be uneven. But there are more Republican state senators than Democratic state senators in the area. There are a number of Republican assemblymembers in this area. The County Executive of Erie County is a Republican. I could go on, but Rus seems to be making his arguments against Democrats while pushing an anti-government agenda.

Of course, if Rus was a true anti-government advocate, he would oppose everyone (including Chris Lee). But that wouldn’t get him on Fox News.

Paterson’s Rise And Fall

Not too long ago, I was asked by a friend for advice on what Governor David Paterson should do to raise his profile and the poll numbers that have dragged him down over the last seven months. I said that he needed to get out more, tour the state and make himself visible. He did that in 2008 after Eliot Spitzer’s resignation, but at some point, quit doing so.

Paterson’s poll numbers tell the whole story. After he was appointed in March 2008 until January 2009, Paterson’s approval rating was never lower than 48 percent and rose to 64 percent in November 2008. With numbers like that, a Democratic primary would be hard-fought and Paterson could probably avoid the possible showdown with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who has been said to have his eyes set on the governor’s mansion.

But in February 2009, everything changed. That poll was the first poll taken after Paterson picked Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The favorable rating for Paterson in Feb. 2009 was 40 percent – a drop off of 14 percentage points since the last poll in January, which has Paterson at 54 percent.

The reason for the 14 point drop? It wasn’t the selection (Gillibrand), but the process that Paterson tried to make a political gain for himself and instead ended up costing him. He dueled with Caroline Kennedy after his office leaked details about why Kennedy withdrew from consideration. He dragged out the selection process when it didn’t need to be dragged out and refused to be transparent about the process, essentially saying he had the right to keep it closed off.

Since that 40 percent favorable rating, Paterson has dropped off into the 20s and 30s.

March 2009: 29 percent favorable, 58 percent unfavorable

April 2009: 27 percent favorable, 63 percent unfavorable

May 2009: 27 percent favorable, 60 percent unfavorable

June 2009: 31 percent favorable, 57 percent unfavorable

July 2009: 36 percent favorable, 56 percent unfavorable

August 2009: 32 percent favorable, 55 percent unfavorable

Senator Diane Savino spoke about Paterson in a recent interview. In that interview, she said what a lot of people have been probably thinking but have not said out loud.

“David is one of those people who tends to rely on the staff around him to set policy and make decisions, and then he turns around and undoes things. The messaging and the policy development comes out in various conflicting forms.”"He’s disengaged some days That is part of his style.”

“We live in a digital age now, with e-mailing and Blackberrying. He is not able to do that because of his visual impairment. David cannot do those things. Also, he does not read Braille. He has people reading newspapers to him. He listens to tapes of staffers briefing him. All that takes an enormous amount of time.”

“As a result, he is not able to respond on the fly the way (former Gov. Eliot) Spitzer or even (former Gov. George) Pataki could. In some ways I think that has hindered him, in spite of everything he has accomplished in life.”

While I don’t believe Paterson’s visual impairment has anything to do with his ability to govern, I believe it is Paterson’s own approach that has failed him. In the New York State Senate, he was a leader on many progressive issues. Then when he became governor, he decided he was going to move to the middle and try to appeal to a broader base. But what he did was one without the other. He moved to the middle, but didn’t appeal to anyone. That goes back to him getting out more and traveling the state.

It was only a couple of months into his tenure as governor that Paterson, along with Sen. Chuck Schumer, made a trip out to Genesee County to talk to farmers about issues that impact them, including immigration. Before the governor arrived, the sentiment in the room was that these “New York City Democrats” didn’t know anything about farming and weren’t about to tell these farmers anything constructive.

But by the end of the hearing, Paterson changed their minds. He was successful in appealing to the crowd and talking issues. Why he hasn’t done more of that is mind-boggling. Paterson does have a sense of humor and can be quite charming. Yet, his handlers have not put that to good use.

You would think a governor with the poll numbers that Paterson does would be trying his best to get those numbers up. So far, that hasn’t been the case. He has chosen to sit back and do nothing about the numbers.

It would appear that Paterson is too stubborn to admit that he isn’t a viable candidate for 2010. Another thing those same polls show is that Paterson would lose a Democratic primary to Cuomo, lose in the general election to Republican Rudy Giuliani and is in a statistical tie with Rick Lazio. (Here is some perspective for you: Lazio would lose in the GOP primary to Giuliani by 65 percentage points.)

Paterson can serve it out through 2010, but running for re-election isn’t in the cards.

Sabres Should Dump Variable Pricing

You won’t see many of my posts on sports. But as a fan of Buffalo sports, occasionally I will use this platform to talk about the Bills and Sabres.

As a now former Buffalo Sabres season ticket holder (I had season tickets from 2006-07 to 2008-09), I am looking at possibly attending a couple of games. Before, as a season ticket holder, the price tag kept rising (my first year, tickets cost $680 per seat for the seats I had in Section 326). Now, I’m looking at the cost of tickets on a per-game basis.

And when reviewing the variable pricing plan the Sabres have used for the last several seasons, I came to this conclusion: It’s time to get rid of the variable pricing method.

Here are some thoughts:

- When the variable pricing plan started out, there seemed to be a balance of gold, silver, bronze and value games. As the seasons have gone on, there seem to be more gold and silver games than value games. This year, only four games are considered value games and three of those are in the 2009 portion of the schedule. Of those four games, none of them are on the weekend (when a family would be more likely to take their children to the game) and only one of them – versus New Jersey – is against a real quality opponent.

- The platinum level is a joke because it gives the Sabres an excuse to gouge for seats to Sabres-Maple Leafs games that is the most overhyped rivalry in the NHL and one of the most in all of sports. Other than 1999, what significant game (or games) have these teams played in? My point exactly. Paying anywhere between $78 and $233 per ticket to see the Sabres and Leafs play is overpriced, especially now that new passport rules are in effect.

- You could even debate why some games are classified what they are (aside from the obvious) just based on the opponent. For example, an early season Friday night game is a Silver night for fans. The opponent? The lowly New York Islanders, who won’t be any better this year than they were last year. They do have the top overall pick (with a connection to Buffalo) but they are still the Islanders: One of the worst teams in hockey. So why would fans want to dole out $47 to $132 a seat to watch the Islanders come to town?

- I am glad the Sabres brought back the mini packs. I think it is a reaction to last year’s issue with some games that they couldn’t sell out. Now, you (presumably) give a discounted rate if fans buy five games. That’s a good thing.

I don’t know how much better the Sabres are from last year. They didn’t get any better up front (at least, as of right now) and their defense is suspect now that their top offensive defenseman, Jaroslav Spacek, is playing for Montreal. I am happy about one thing: The Sabres didn’t raise ticket prices. They shouldn’t. If the product stays the same, so should the ticket prices.

Attention Buffalo-Area Progressives

In my travels, I have talked to a number of individuals who are progressives throughout New York State that find themselves disgusted with what happened in Albany beginning on June 8 and only was recently resolved (if you call that a resolution).

Since then, there has been talk of a statewide meeting of progressive minds to discuss our next step and what we should do going forward, including what we will do in 2010 to make sure that we have real reform candidates on the ticket and not candidates posing as reformers who really aren’t striving for change.

But before we have a statewide meeting, we are looking at organizing regional meetings. There will be a meeting in New York City. There will be multiple meetings in upstate and since I’m closer to the Buffalo-area (although, not a resident of Buffalo) I thought I would reach out to those in Buffalo who would be interested.

Keep in mind that this is a meeting for the progressive movement. So if you don’t align yourself with the movement, you might not want to attend.

I am also looking for a suitable venue to hold such a meeting. If you have any ideas, let me know. (You can leave it in the comments or e-mail me at robert.harding22@gmail.com)

Contact me if you’re interested. We want to have this meeting and we want to make sure it is a strong group of individuals who are willing to come together and change Albany for the better.

NY-Sen: Gillibrand’s Defense Of The Environment

There are certain issues that steal the spotlight for short or long periods of time. Right now, health care is the focus of the media’s attention and in Washington D.C., health care is the hot topic right now with Congress looking at reforming our broken system.

But one issue that should not be forgotten is the environment. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand hasn’t forgotten about the importance the environment plays and why keeping our air and water clean and addressing the issues with climate change deserve to be a top priority.

Last month, the House narrowly passed 217 to 205 key legislation that would provide for clean energy and a cleaner environment. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was a difficult sell in the House and will face an even tougher task of passing in the Senate.

But Sen. Gillibrand is hoping that it will pass, but not at the environment’s expense. Earlier this month, she spoke out regarding one key element in the House bill that would give coal-fired power plants less regulation and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate those coal plants.

Environmental activists already have complained that the House bill is too friendly to polluters and have been urging the Senate to toughen it by selling more emissions allowances — rather than donating most of them to businesses initially.Senate deal-making also jeopardizes some of the last-minute agreements that were key to passage in the House. For instance, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is worried about a provision added to the House bill that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants — language backed by lawmakers in coal mining states.

“The EPA has to have authority to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act,” said Gillibrand, who has promised “to use every bit of persuasive power” she can to ensure the bill “reflects the needs of New York.” Leaders in New York have been concerned about acid rain traced to coal-burning plants in the Midwest.

This provision was criticized by environmental activists for being too lenient on polluters in a bill supposedly touting clean (and green) energy. In response, progressives have led the charge to make sure that such a provision won’t survive in the Senate version (and the future agreed upon version) of the bill. MoveOn has a petition you can sign voicing your opposition to the provision and also sent out an e-mail to New York members of MoveOn asking them to send a note of thanks to Sen. Gillibrand for being “one of the very first senators to speak out publicly against rolling back the Clean Air Act.”

Here’s an excerpt from that e-mail:

For years, New York has had some of the worst air pollution in the country. On top of local pollution, New Yorkers get tons of smog and acid rain blown in from out of state.Now, coal industry lobbyists are trying to slip a provision into Obama’s clean energy plan that would repeal a key part of the Clean Air Act. This would bring about a whole new generation of dirty coal power and make New York’s pollution problems even worse.

But not if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has anything to say about it. She’s one of the very first senators to speak out publicly against rolling back the Clean Air Act.

…

Under the Clean Air Act, dirty coal-fired power plants are required to meet standards for their global warming pollution. The Bush administration refused to enforce these rules, but President Obama has already started taking steps to crack down.

That’s why coal lobbyists are trying to repeal key sections of the Clean Air Act, letting coal plants off the hook and sticking New Yorkers with lots more pollution.

This rollback is the wrong thing to do, and it certainly doesn’t belong in a “clean energy” bill. But the polluters might get away with it if champions in Congress don’t fight back.

Sen. Gillibrand is fighting. She told the Albany Times-Union in an article that got picked up nationwide that “The EPA has to have authority to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act” and promised “to use every bit of persuasive power” to ensure the bill “reflects the needs of New York” by cutting power plant pollution.

Gillibrand has been at the forefront of many progressive issues during her time as a senator. This isn’t the first time, but it is key since this legislation will be taken up by the Senate and there are already debates about what protections should be included (or excluded). Senators from coal-friendly states will be facing pressure to defend the interests of the industry. Gillibrand won’t face such pressure, but she isn’t going to let the best interests of coal be reflected in a bill that is supposed to be promoting clean and green energy.

Responding To Rus

Rus Thompson recently authored a couple of posts on Sen. Bill Stachowski and Sen. Antoine Thompson and started the title of those posts with the line “Who Owns…”, apparently because if you give a campaign contribution, it is like purchasing stock in an elected official.

Of course, this isn’t true. Sure, in New York, it is easy for corporations and wealthy individuals to influence lawmakers. But that has happened on both sides.

Rus, however, made an argument of convenience. His posts concerning the fundraising dollars and the money that Stachowski and Thompson raise from other parts of New York (i.e. Albany and New York City) went along with his protest of a New York State Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser in Buffalo.

Unfortunately, what Rus and others who like to spew the rhetoric about where the money comes from miss are the Republicans who do accept money from these same Albany and New York City groups. And in some cases, some of the groups that the Democrats are now being criticized for receiving money from were groups that once gave to Republicans when they were in power.

For example, during the election last year, I kept hearing from then candidate Mike Ranzenhofer about Joe Mesi’s acceptance of New York City and downstate money. Yet, as I showed in this post, Ranzenhofer had received a healthy amount of money from downstate donors.

In reviewing my senator, George Maziarz, and his campaign finance records I know that he has accepted money from New York City and Albany interests. He has held fundraisers in New York City before and I’m sure he will do it again.  Most, if not all of them do it. That is where the money is at.

So, the problem here isn’t money flowing in from New York City or Albany. That money has been flowing in for years to members of both parties, whether we are talking about Maziarz and Ranzenhofer or Stachowski and Thompson. The problem is the system that allows for large sums of money to continue flowing in.

If you look at any senator and where their money comes from, they do receive a lot of local contributions. But if you look at a lot of the contributions from a place like New York City (where there is a lot of money to throw around) we are talking thousands. Dean Skelos gave $9,500 to Ranzenhofer. That is a lot of money for one contribution. I didn’t hear Rus Thompson making a big stink about that.

The solution to all of this is clean money clean elections (CMCE). We need to implement a system of public financed elections that would eliminate the ability of a few wealthy individuals or groups to influence elected leaders in Albany with a campaign contribution (or multiple campaign contributions). It would also address this problem that some individuals have (I don’t want to say Republicans because Thompson isn’t aligning himself with “Republicans” necessarily) with downstate dollars and using it to attack Democrats, even though both parties are just as guilty.

I have known of Rus Thompson ever since I started writing as the lone liberal voice on Free New York nearly three years ago. I have read Rus’s posts whether I agree with him or not. He does have a lot of intelligent things to say and is independent of political parties. He has his own set of views and doesn’t want to be soiled by associating with a party that doesn’t necessarily represent his best interests.

But the protest last week missed the point. I hope Rus Thompson has the fortitude to do the same if and when the Senate Republicans come here. Because if the belief is that the Senate Democrats have run this state into the ground, I have a kind reminder: The Senate Republicans were in charge for over 40 years. There are many reasons why Democrats are now winning in districts they didn’t win in before. One of those reasons is the ineptitude of the Senate Republicans. They no longer represent the best interests of our state.

And while there are critics who will say the same of the Senate Democrats, the only problem with that logic is that the Senate Democrats haven’t even been in charge of the Senate for a full term (two years) and did not have the chance to pass the usual critical legislation we see at the end of the session. Instead, the New York State Senate spent their time fighting over who was in charge. I did not like what I saw from my own side, but remember who put us in that position.

If Rus really wants to see reform, instead of protests, let’s advocate for real reform. Let’s talk about key issues instead of dumbing everything down into cute catchphrases you can put on posterboard.

Democrats won’t fix New York’s problems. Republicans won’t fix New York’s problems. New Yorkers will fix New York’s problems.

With that said, it’s time to get to work.

NY-Sen: Dean Endorses Gillibrand

Following a conversation about health care with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean announced that he is endorsing Gillibrand for U.S. Senate as she prepares for the Democratic primary against Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Jonathan Tasini.

Here is the video featuring the conversation Dean had with Gillibrand about health care and at the end of the video, you will hear the endorsement.

From a political standpoint, Gillibrand couldn’t have received a bigger endorsement. This primary is heating up and Gillibrand has been picking up endorsement after endorsement. But Howard Dean’s backing is crucial. He is seen as a key player in Democratic politics and he also is seen as a key figure in the progressive movement – a voting bloc that will be helpful if Gillibrand succeeds in winning the primary next year.