the albany project - Recommended Diaries

A state Capitol without security theater

devtob — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:53:13 GMT

Robert is doing a wonderful job of updating TAP readers about Netroots Nation.

So I'll discuss a bit of Austin that has nothing to do with NN, but has a connection to Albany.

Austin and Albany are alike in some ways -- centrally located smaller cities that became state capitals, downtown party bar zones, and remarkable Capitol buildings.

There are, of course, some differences in those similarities.

Austin's downtown scene is much greater than Albany's, featuring incomparably better live music.

There were at least five cranes working on non-government buildings in Austin; the few cranes seen in Albany in the last decade were mostly doing government work.

And the Texas Capitol does not subject visitors to the ridiculous security theater that demeans the New York Capitol.

Details, below.
Lulu and I got into Austin Wednesday night, and Thursday's agenda, unfortunately, had little attraction -- we had done DFA campaign training and none of the caucuses seemed a good fit.

So we decided to see some of Austin, and as residents of New York's Capital District (i.e., we live near Albany), the Texas Capitol had plenty of attraction.

So that's what we did Thursday morning; and it was great.

First of all, the Texas Capitol has none of the absurd security theater of New York's Capitol (which once stole a Swiss Army penknife I really liked).

To get into New York's Capitol, an amazing building and the only state capitol without a dome, you have to go through metal detectors.

The NY Capitol security jobs program was, naturally, implemented after 9/11 by former, widely unlamented Gov. George Pataki, who also decided that the Hall of Governors would be verboten to the hoi polloi.

(Oil portraits of every Texas governor ring the rotunda under the spectacular dome.)

The absurd extra security was part of Pataki's plan to run for re-election as the 9/11 governor, like 9/11-war-president Bush at the national level.

Too many low-information voters bought that BS, in 2002 here and 2004 nationally.

Absurd extra security does little to deter real terrorists; all it does it deter people from flying, and from visiting Albany.

There's nothing like that at the Texas Capitol -- there were a few armed police keeping an eye on people, but anyone could just walk in and check the place out.

Even though Texas, unlike New York, has a remarkably expansive concealed-carry law for handguns.

Partly as a result of its sane security policies, the Texas Capitol is a major Austin tourist attraction. There were hundreds of people in the Capitol when we were there on a Thursday morning.

There is a visitor's center on the grounds, separate from the Capitol building, which has a gift shop and is staffed by helpful, friendly people.

Guided tours set off every 30 minutes, but self-guided touring is also encouraged, with a free pamphlet that explains just about everything.

We self-guided mostly, but hooked up with a tour group for the Alamo and San Jacinto paintings in the Senate chamber.

The Texas Capitol, unlike ours, had been recently restored -- everything was like new, though most of it was more than 100 years old.

Now that Pataki is, for most of both parties, remembered like a bad date in high school, it is certainly time to get rid of the ridiculous security theater around the Capitol, and work to make that marvelous building a major statewide and regional tourist attraction.

Some Really Huge News on Democratic State Senate Fundraising Advantages

politics64 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:22:54 GMT

After looking over some of the COH or Cash on Hand numbers posted in Robert Harding's State Senate Power Rankings post, I thought it a good idea to actually see how our top tier candidates fared against the incumbent Republicans they will face in the fall based on their most recent fundraising. Some really great news here. Based on the NYS BOE July Periodic Reports the following:

SD 56
Dollinger 157K
Robach 121K

More after the jump
SD 3
Foley 180K
Trunzo 45K
Dahroug 18k

SD61
Mesi 112k
Iannello 32k
Ward 9k
RANZENHOFER 148K

SD7
Johnson 314K
Donno 233K (180K from RSCC)

SD35
STEWART-COUSINS 217K
Murtagh 150K (140K from the RSCC)

SD37
Oppenheimer 62K
Feld 243K (150K from RSCC)

SD48
Aubertine 206K
Renzi 81K

SD51
Barber 142K
Seward 184K

SD54
Nozzolio 196K
Capanna 29K

SD55
Alesi 80K
Nachbar 226K

SD41
Dow 42K
Saland 150K

SD6
McElroy 30K
Hannon 123K

SD11
Padavan 51K
Gennaro 233K

SD15
Maltese 378K (220K from the NYS RSCC)
Addabbo 88K
Baldeo 114K

SD43
Premo 76K (75K personal loan)
McDonald 16K
* Bruno raised 445K has 1.7M COH, can he take it with him???

SD59
Volker 117K
* Konst news broke too recently for this period

SD53
Winner 138K
Tonello 5K

In SD3 we see Brian Foley out-raising incumbent Caesar Trunzo 4-1 and his primary opponent Jimmy Dahroug 10-1. Even better is Gennaro nearly 5-1 over Padavan.

Richard Dollinger, Don Barber, Joe Mesi all holding their own very competitively with their likely Republican opponents

I included four Democratic incumbent seats based on our periodic naysayer visitor noel predictions that these Democrats are endangered. We see Craig Johnson out-raising Donno in a district that now has about a 10K Democratic registration advantage and most of Donno's income coming from a huge lump-sum transfer from the RSCC. We see the same for Stewart-Cousins in a far more Democratic and African American District in a year that will feature Obama at the head of the ticket bringing out every single African American possible to the polls. Now I poo-pooed noels Suzi Oppenheimer prediction because the district is hugely Democratic but the periods fundraising shocked me and I hope our oldest Democratic State Senator is not falling asleep at the switch. Finally, our good friend Darrel Aubertine is far outpacing his low tier challenger in the 48th. It's the economy stupid that will win that district and that is the Democrats strong suit this year.

As shocking as SD37 was to me I was just as impressed to see Nachbars 2.5 to 1 advantage over Alesi this period!

We also see several of our other hopefuls in need of stepping up the pace. Addabbo and Baldeo have a lot of work to do. I only included SD6 because Phillip and Robert seem to think McElroy has something. I reported that I knew of no particular ground troops as I have seen in the Foley race and she has been out-raised 4-1 in the period. That is not to say you need to be the top fundraiser to win but like Don Barber, you need to be competitive and so far she is not. The same seems true so far for Dow and Capanna. Lets see how the pre primary reports look as our hopefuls get ready for the fall campaign!

UPDATE
The only reason several Republican candidates like Donno, Murtagh, Feld, even look competitive is that they all received huge transfers from the RSCC! The same for Serf Maltese which is very troubling for an incumbent to rely on the largese of the Senate Campaign Committee when they are normally expected to raise well on their own!

NY-21: Interview with Tracey Brooks

Soundpolitic — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:55:35 GMT

Columbia Street in Albany is one of those modern marvels of urban transportation. It's one of those streets that becomes a one way street in one direction and then in a different one. And a different one. I was wondering how I was to find Congressional candidate Tracey Brooks's campaign headquarters...

...in a torrential downpour, that is. For those who aren't film buffs, rain symbolizes change. Which is the big word in all 2008 elections. This includes the 21st Congressional District of New York where Tracey Brooks is one of five Democrats seeking to replace a Democratic veteran of two decades.

In the interview below the fold, Tracey goes deeper into her life's story and experience than ever before, and faces questions that may be the closest any candidate in the race gets to Hardball. Campaigns themselves can be an obstacle course, as can an interview, but as she says in the interview below:

"Never have I faced anything with an obstacle perspective, but rather a can-do, will-do, must-do perspective...just like we have approached this race."
I found the sign on her headquarters door before getting too drenched, knocked and hopped inside. At least one volunteer was still at work on a Sunday evening, and soon enough was sitting down with Tracey Brooks herself, despite what seemed like an obstacle course in getting there.

I decided to start at the very beginning, and asked Tracey Brooks to place herself back in the position of a little girl. What did she want to be when she grew up long before she ever considered running for Congress while growing up in Clifton Park? Her father had a car business, she said, and thought tinkering with cars would be cool. But at a relatively early age, she told her father about wanting to be an attorney.

"I thought that would be a really great profession, to have the ability to advocate for poor people." Brooks said. She prepared for this tough profession from that point forth, it seems, going through a long list of high school activities befitting a young person interested in law. But not only debate club, girl scouts, and student council...Tracey herself described her attitude as that of an "over-achiever." Tracey's extra-cirricular resume is packed with athletics, music, and community service experiences her family got her involved in.

"We did a lot of community service in my family," said Tracey, also describing her experience with infants as a child. Her parents were foster parents to infants, as well as very active in the community. "We were kind of the Kool-Aid house," she reminisced. She also mentioned the influence of her elder kin. "My grandmother taught us that there's more than enough hours in a day to get a lot accomplished."

Tracey mentioned how important it was for children to have experiences like these, to "accomplish feats." As Tracey headed out to accomplish her feat of becoming an attorney, she set forth to LeMoyne College and became a paralegal for a few years. She wanted to make certain she could make the lifestyle choice of becoming a lawyer. Tracey had expected to earn her law degree in Wahsington, but a bad fall fractured her leg - on the day she made her deposit to attend school in Washington - and changed her plans.

Brooks moved back to the Capital District and attended Albany Law School. Her leg, she pointed out, is just fine. Tracey would do a spin at the end of the interview, to show off how miles of walking door-to-door is her new athletic passion. At law school, she said, "there were a lot of opportunities that came my way that I was able to capitalize on."

All during this time, Tracey said, she took her childhood experience of community service and continued to work for the good of communities. I asked her to recall a few experiences, especially those that she indicated at a recent debate were "a different kind of experience" than the other candidates in the field. What came to mind was when she had a law practice in the town of Coeymans, the mayor came to her to bring legal action against teens that were spray-painting graffiti about the town. The tags were in memorial of a classmate who had died tragically on the highway. What Tracey did, instead of tracing the spray-cans, was organize efforts with the school and community to build a memorial so students had a place to remember class mates who had passed away.

"Instead of pointing fingers, we came together...to build a lasting memorial that can be built upon for decades to come." Said Brooks. I mentioned that politicians often get flak for the whole statue-building gig, but it seemed worth more with a story behind it. Yet Tracey was quick to point out she was not a politician at the time, just one member of the community.

She was, however, Counsel to the Codes and Judiciary Committee in the New York State Assembly. "It's the counsel's job to look at what's there, identify what the Assemblymember is trying to accomplish, and then accomplish that in a realistic way." she said of her old job. She described becoming an expert on bills, and cited one major legislative accomplishment: Education for Child Performers in New York. "It was a trust fund for the earnings of the child performer, so that something like Macauly Culkin did happen." Brooks said. The laws also makes sure student-actors get an education up to par with New York's public schools.

This accomplishment had a bit of personal meaning to Tracey: her sister was a child actress. But it's what she took from the job itself that had the most lasting impact. "What I learned was the practical value of the legislative process. How to work with advocates. How to look at the unintended consequences of a bill and be open-minded to what other people's perspective is of what you're trying to do." Tracey stressed the importance of remaining "open-minded" as well as her role in bringing differing camps to an accord in order to get bills to pass.

"In legislation, you have to be a personality that's willing to work with other people. Because the recognition is that we're all coming from different perspectives." Brooks said. "We need to work together to make sure that we're achieving positive goals."

Brooks said that the reason she chose to work in the legislature then is the same as she does now. To her, it's a combination of her community service experiences shortly after college and the policies of the Gingrich Congress. "The human effect of the implementation of policy was not being taken into consideration," Brooks said. "I was working the inner-cities. I was working with our low-income families, with our single moms and pregnant teenagers. And witnessing and identifying how Federal policies in particular were hurting the growth of our cities and the growth our families."

Tracey Brooks likened that period in history to George W. Bush's work. "14 years ago, I left hand-to-hand service work because of New Gingrich. And I have worked every single day from that day to be prepared and ready to run for Congress one day." She added that she did this, "never in a million year expecting Congressman Mike McNulty to retire this early."

Tracey Brooks got a chance to make a run to be not just Counsel to the Assembly, but to be a Member of the Assembly. In 2002, as Assemblyman John Faso left Tracey's district to run for Comptroller, she was encouraged to toss her hat into the ring. "And then," she said, "it was a redistricting year." She was moved into a race against former Assemblyman Pat Casale. When I asked how her first run might be impacting her second, Tracey said it had prepared her for her current race and that she had also left her mark politically.

"I'm a proven campaigner in a multi-county race," she said. "We lost by three points of an incumbent. And since then, many of the Towns that I ran have flipped Democrat. Bethlehem is the number one example of that." She added, "That town's enrollment changed too, as well as my own town (of Coeymans)."

After the Assembly run, Tracey went on to work as regional director for the 21st District for Senator Hillary Clinton in 2005. "I would say she's my Elanor Roosevelt." said Brooks. "The Senator asked me to come work for her." Both women have helped each other on their previous campaigns, but more importantly, Tracey said, "I never would have been as prepared as I am today to run for Congress."

"I've worked in every single community, in every municipality." said Brooks. "I've learned the Federal priorities of this district inside and out, and I've been fighting for them."

"Now I'd like to be the next natural progressive step to be the person who fights for us in Washington."
::
::
The first time I saw Tracey was last year, at an Albany County Young Democrats meeting. At the time, it was still very early in the 2008 presidential campaign, and she was speaking enthusiastically about her obvious presidential candidate of choice. As much as taking that next step and going into Congressional politics is just that...politics...I decided to delve into the world of the politics of 2008 with Tracey Brooks, starting with her unique position to share the thoughts of a very close, very involved supporter of Hillary's recent historic run for President.

"I was so proud," Tracey said of the "overwhelming" feeling she got the moment she found out the Senator was running, especially, she said, for her bravery. "It's a brave thing to put your name on a ballot." she said. "It's not an easy thing to do. And to see an opportunity but to be brave enough to take the opportunity," she said, was something to praise. Brooks pointed out this applied to the crowded primary for her seat as well.

"I really think the Senator transcended gender." Tracey said. "Senator Clinton was my pick. But I'm proud that Barack Obama is representing the Democratic Party " Brooks also described that it was also historic when all the candidates were considered and that every single state voted. "We put the Republican ticket to shame."

I've noted before that perhaps the presidential race was decided more on style than on issues, per se, as asked Tracey that since nearly all the Democratic candidates in this primary for Congress were so similar, was a decision based on the issues even possible?

"I don't expect that Democrats would be so different on the issues," Tracey said. "We all believe that there has to be health care for every person in the United States...we all believe that this country has be less dependent on foreign oil." She shared a story about going door-to-door for votes, and her observation that "The country is asking for a different type of political representation, a different type of policy representation. Someone who understands the human effect of our policies instead of these general policies." It was the difference in experience Tracey reiterated throughout the interview that seemed to her deciding factor of choice in the 21st.

On the primary at hand, I wanted to ask Tracey about a comparison I did between all the campaigns' literature they are now passing around to help spread their message. The Brooks brochures going out feature a quote from the Times Union in praise of the candidate, noting her grass-roots style and calling her "the appropriate successor to Mike McNulty."

Tracey Brooks pointed out that this was not an endorsement by the paper itself. The Brooks palm-card quotes a column by local commentator Fred LeBrun, and it even took Tracey by surprise. She pointed out that all of her endorsements, including those from the McNulty family and Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings, were unsolicited. "They came to me," she said "They believe that I can do this job and that I have the background for it."

While on the topic of newspaper articles, I let Tracey in on why I was interviewing her. Indeed, the history of my comments stand that I was of the opinion that unbalanced coverage of the campaign was unfair, in her favor. I put forth a few instances of what I thought were unbalanced coverage in the traditional media, including a virtual lack of coverage at a recent candidate's forum.

"I can't pretend to know what their evaluation of what's happening." Tracey said. "This is a very large community. I can tell you that we are also seven weeks out in this race. I can tell you about early on in my first race..talk about under-reported!"

Tracey also said "You also have to remember that last week was Joe Bruno's final week in office. There were a couple other stories that trumped a candidate forum, unfortunately." But, Brooks said, stories on the economy, jobs, gas prices, and the mortgage crisis were happening "simultaneously" and had relevance to the issues of the campaign. But she did point out that once the ballot choices have been finalized, print and broadcast media have to follow equal-time requirements.

I wanted to ask Tracey Brooks a little bit about the online world as well, as her campaign has been very visible on the internet. The Brooks campaign was the first to begin advertising in the Democratic primary, and chose the blogs as the premier market. Tracey described her campaign's movement on the blogs from rough beginnings to her present-day visibility.

"It certainly wasn't the most positive outlet for me when I first got into this race," Brooks said of the blogosphere.. "We've worked very hard to make sure I got fair, ample coverage, to let voters know who I am and what I'm about: that I'm a progressive candidate for Congress."

One issue that may have caused the netroots to be tough for Tracey in the beginning was a February controversy over charges that her campaign had cybersquatted some of her opponents' websites. This blogger covered this extensively, including strong commentary in condemnation of the Brooks campaign. With the opportunity to hear the candidate's rebuttal in her own words, it became clear why the netroots were tough in the beginning, but now a central asset to the Brooks campaign:

"There's certainly a lot going on the web," Tracey said, "Posters aren't kind. The one thing about the blogosphere is that we are all subject to complete unthruths," she said of all the campaigns. "We're running a campaign on the issues, so we're not responding," Brooks said of individual comments on the blogosphere. "And I don't have a team of people who sit there to say nasty things about my opponents." she added.

She did respond the particular issue of cybersquatting, pointing out that her campaign had in fact done nothing wrong, having not met the elements of the statute, and had caused no actual harm to any of her opponents campaigns. "I think it was an opportunity for a campaign that wasn't getting any press to get some." she added, referring to one of her opponents, Phil Steck.

She compared her situation to a recent Steck statement "blaming overzealous volunteers for signs" placed earlier than allowed that she "had a media company do something, which our campaign quickly corrected." Brooks added that she "would that voters are more concerned with the economy in the 21st district," and many other issues.

Upon this, I wanted to give Tracey the opportunity to perhaps put some non-issues to rest, as well as give her the opportunity to perform for the first time in what could be described as "under-fire". In particular, the old game of once-a-Republican-always-a-Republican is being played in the race, with three of the five Democratic candidates being former Republicans, including Brooks. Comments history will prove I've played this game, so I asked her if this was one of the things that voters cared about, and if time should even be attributed to it.

"What I hear at the doors," Tracey said, "is that voters are really disgusted to the point with the partisanship...what they say to me is 'I vote for the person, I don't vote for the party.'"

She also described her current affiliation: "I'm not a Democrat because I was just raised that way and went along with it; I'm a Democrat because I chose to be. Because I believe in the philosophies of the Democrat party." She pointed out she had worked in hand-to-hand community service and in the legislature on the issues of health care, equal pay, and basic quality of life issues that are central to the Democratic party even while she was registered as a Republican.

Tracey Brooks then offered an even stronger rebuke. "I know that people are saying I signed a Sweeney petition...I haven't even lived in Sweeney's district since I was a little girl." She said this was one of the untruths being pushed on the blogs and that her campaign was not going to respond to that. "I think this is a campaign about issues. And I will defend any of my opponents at a time in which a poster got out of hand and went after somebody personally, because I just don't find it appropriate."

"That's politics as usual, that people are crying they don't want anymore." Brooks said.

Since she spoke of politics as usual, I decided to press one more question about a campaign-related controversy in hopes of putting it to rest. When I asked her about the so-called walk-out of Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings upon vote that lead to the endorsement of Phil Steck by the Albany County Democratic Committee, Tracey Brooks were firm in her response.

"Mayor Jennings did not walk-out," she corrected. "Other people walked out long before he did...I think that's an unfair statement." Tracey said, "we were all asking people to sit back down and take the vote, including Mayor Jennings." And on the reason why we tend to get caught up in such politics as usual, Tracey answered simply:

"Why write about it? That's my question. Why perpetuate scandal that's not necessarily real, but manufacture it?" she said. "We shouldn't be covering people for any other reason except why they want to run for Congress." She then added, "I would ask you to pledge that to me, because I can promise to pledge it to you."
::
::
I agreed to the pledge, and in keeping it gave Tracey her pick of a list of issues to choose from. She had been itching to delve more deeply into these from the start, and was most enthusiastic about women's issues. But she told me up front she didn't want just something that can be gotten off of her website She desired a different angle. So I gave Tracey the opportunity to dispel any misconception that much of her financial support has come from PACs such as NOW, EMILY"s List, and Women Under Forty solely because of her gender.

Tracey explained in depth that not only did these organizations come to her, but that gender had little to do with it. She said that all these organization had received top level endorsements "right out of the box" and that "a lot of women never get endorsed but get helped," by EMILY's list in particular. Brooks added that these organizations were based raising support only for women, and sometimes men as well, based on the candidates' positions on women's equality, pro-choice, and LGTB rights. Tracey Brooks hopes to join over seventy other women sent to Congress with these organizations' support.

On health care, candidates have been proposing programs like a Medicare-for-All system or a Federal version of EPIC. I asked Tracey if we might ever consider a European model of system and what her response would be to critics of universal health care who deride the policy as "socialized medicine." Tracey said "I think probably the United States will never have a system that is 'socialized' because the doctors will never be employees of the federal government."

"I think single-payer is ultimately what we're going to move towards," Brooks said. "We'll have a uniquely American solution to our issue." She then launched into explaining how we spend 15% of our GNP on health care, as opposed to the 9% spent my other major nations. "We have the money in the system already. We can come up with a great system for the United States."

Large parts of the solutions Tracey noted were health care information technology, electronic records, and nano-technology solutions. Not only did she note the many educational facilities in the Capital Region that needed support from Congress and that she'd been working on, we both shared a laugh about our Legislature's need for electronic records when it comes to the bill drafting process.

Two major parts of the Brooks campaign has been making solving the problem of high gas prices a priority as well as demanding government accountability. I asked Tracey about a quote on her website that says "Here in NY, career politicians have promised energy plans at the federal and state level for years, but haven't delivered." I wondered if Tracey would be more specific about who we should hold accountable, but said she wouldn't name names.

Then, Brooks said "The fact that we don't have an Article 10 in the state of New York is very significant when talking about the energy crisis. The fact that we haven't passed comprehensive reform under George Pataki or any successor at this point, we haven't identified how we're going to handle New York State's congestion in the lower part of our state."

"I think at some point we have to stop burying our heads in the sand," said Brooks. She pointed to what she called an aged infrastructure that couldn't be relied upon to meet growing demand or tougher competition.

I asked Tracey Brooks a couple of questions about foreign affairs that didn't pertain to the Democratic primary candidates' overall unity in support for Iraq withdrawl. On that, Tracey is as firm as four out of five Democrats running. But the Brooks campaign website includes a section specifically on Israel and Iran, pledging her support of Israel. I asked Tracey about what she thought about recent indications by Israel that a pre-emptive strike against Iran was not off the table.

"Israel is a nation that is a democracy that we need to support and maintain a strong democracy in the Middle East," said Brooks. She added that the United States had to work with it's allies in the world, and that it was "hard to generalize" on the issue of a stance on what options are on the table between Irsael and Iran.

Finally, moving back home to violence in the district's backyard, the recent slaying of a 10-year old girl in Albany has put the spotlight on Albany's gang and gun violence problem. I asked Tracey about her hand-to-hand community service experience on this issue, and she said she certainly saw the effects of it when working in urban settings.

"I think having child safety locks isn't asking too much," Brooks said of the possible solutions she seeks for the problem. "Having gun dealers having an inventory...I don't think that's asking too much of any industry." She added that even grocery stores had to keep one, but why not gun dealers?
::
::
Soundpolitic Blogger's Note:

Brooks was being called for another late night-appointment, signaling a campaign that never sleeps. It was nearly nine on a Sunday night, and Tracey thanked me for the interview, mentioning in particular that her campaign had worked hard to get its message on the web already. It was the different angle and going deeper that Brooks thanked me for.

I also had to thank her for facing a blogger who had in the past been very vocal in opposition to the her campaign. Just as Tracey noted that getting on the ballot required courage, that courage must be maintained throughout an entire campaign. Sometimes, submitting to an interview means putting that courage to the test.

Because she did not back down and went the extra mile to ask the journalist, myself, to hold himself to the same standards, that courage was proven. In my previous interview with Darius Shahinfar, I was subject to a similarly strong answer to the same question. I advertise on these blogs that I began to cover the 21st New York because I saw a lack of adequate media coverage as an obstacle to making a good decision.

Many bloggers across New York and the nation are doing just this. For all of us, it's worth remaining civil and factual in our coverage. And we should own up to it as well if we haven't, which I note here.

And if this still read as though sought skeletons in Tracey Brooks's closet, know that my actual goal was to bury my own bones. I decided to keep the tough questions in, but also to make this interview more extensive than my previous ones to balance what I viewed as a past history of my own short-comings.

Did that history come out of having a certain kind of "obstacle" perspective at the outset? In the future, it's worth keeping Tracey Brooks' words in mind as we approach election day and continue to watch this election to its conclusion:

"Never have I faced anything with an obstacle perspective, but rather a can-do, will-do, must-do perspective...just like we have approached this race."

The more I get to know all these candidates, the better this field gets. Give them a look - the Democratic Primary is September 9th.

Tracey Brooks
Darius Shahinfar
Phil Steck
Joseph Sullivan
Paul Tonko

NY-26: Where does everyone stand on assault weapons ban?

fightingforchange — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:06:56 GMT

You know it seems that there is a lot of talk about gun control in campaigns. But frankly it is not the issue it once was, and has kind of fallen off the radar. But I think that the assault weapons ban is coming up for a vote soon isn't it?
Anyways, I do know it is one of the issues I know Congress-members do vote on. Unfortunately our current Congress-dweeb, Tom Reynolds has always been pro-gun including I think being against the assault weapons ban. I am sure whoever gets in there on our side will be better than him. But unfortunately all I can find is that Jon Powers supports gun rights and I think I remember from last time so does Jack Davis. No idea on Alice Kryzan. But besides supporting "gun rights" there is no specific on the assault weapons ban. So I wonder if these campaigns will come out one way or the other on this issue. It seems to me that would be a good first step to show they are different (read better than Tommy Boy). So who knows? Can anyone provide insite on this on the candidates websites that I am missing?

Barclay and Assembly Republicans up to Dirty Tricks

JustAStudent — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:24:59 GMT

One year ago, Jim Tedisco used a set of dirty tricks, Benedict Arnold Democrats (i.e. Tom DiMezza), and luck to elect right-wing extremist George Amedore. This special election was one of the few losses for New York State or National Democrats. A combination of Amedore's negative campaign and the beginning of the fall of Eliot Spitzer with the breaking of troopergate contributed to the loss, but we can win this seat back.

The district has a conservative lean despite its Democratic enrollment advantage. Montgomery County was carried by Bush in 2004 and Republicans have established a formidable machine in the town of Rotterdam with the help of Jim Tedisco. Even considering this, Amedore is to the extreme right of the electorate in the district and out of touch. Amedore is a proud attendee (he dropped out after only a year) of Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and brags on his website about being endorsed by New York for Constitutional Freedoms, an extremist group that actually fights to deny constitutional liberties such as marriage equality. Amedore has taken the most extreme position on many issues including voting against the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, child safety guards for firearms, opposing the millionaire tax that would require his fellow wealthy New Yorkers to pay their fair share and mircostamping to help police arrest the people who commit gun crimes.

This year Democrats have a true progressive community activist and experienced elected official, Mark Blanchfield, taking on Amedore. Mark played a key role in turning the city of Schenectady around and has roots in Montgomery County where his family is from. His reputation as a tireless campaigner is scaring the Republicans.

Amedore and Tedisco are resorting to the same old tricks in a desperate attempt to keep this seat. First, Amedore and Tedico staged a press conference attempting to politicize the shotting death of a young Albany girl. It is not unusual for Tedisco and Amedore to try to politicize everything, even with the extreme hypocricy involved in having two of the biggest opponents of sensible gun control trying to turn the issue in their favor as the Times Union Editorial Board pointed out. The real insult of this was that they timed it at the same site and mere hours before Mark's announcement (They of course set this up immediately after they found out where and when Mark's announcement was). They were so afraid of the media actually getting Mark's progressive message out to the voters they used this petty trick.

This was followed by a new mysterious website that has appeared which has dubious legality. The author of the site is hidden and the attacks on it range from outright lies to extreme stretches of the truth.

Then, Amedore got a prominent Republican politician Steve Tommasone to get his daughter's boyfriend to run on the Working Families line. Tedisco's personal counsel is the contact for this fake candidate. Worse yet, the Republicans think voters are too stupid to know they are behind this and are denying involvement. Even the local paper pointed out that this is clearly a ruse.

Now,= it appears Amedore and Tedisco have turned to their friend Will Barclay to pressure Mark out of the race and basically forced Mark to leave his current law practice.

In 2007, Amedore and his supporters used a campaign of fear and blatant defiance of campaign finance laws. Even Democrat DiMezza joined in this effort. Whether one agrees with the legislation that led to these attacks, the manner with which they were carried out was obviously illegal as supporters of Amedore placed signs and put up a website while failing to file campaign finance disclosures despite expressly calling for voters to vote against the Democratic candidate. These attacks were meant to strike fear into voters and did not even try to get people to vote for Amedore.

Mark needs our support to stop this from happening again. While the Democratic majority in the Assembly is overwhelming, a victory here is very important for several reasons. First, it will embarrass Jim Tedisco. Tedisco pictures himself as a future governor. He is working hard to hunt down every camera he can get in front of and is trying his best to stop the Progressive agenda. Second, taking out Amedore is important to taking and defending the State Senate. Rumors are already swirling around the district as to who will replace Hugh Farley. Farley has a strong Democratic challenger in Fred Goodman this fall, but still has a large incumbency and enrollment advantage. If he were to win this fall, it would likely be his last race and Amedore is considered the heir-apparent to the seat. Taking him out now makes this seat much more winnable in the future.

(Barber for Senate) a story that should be spread far and wide

Transplanted New Yorker — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:46:07 GMT

Hey Tappers,

This is just something I wanted to share that I heard about today.

So I am pretty sure TAP covered this a while back, but many of you probably are aware that Don has called for a moratorium on natural gas drilling, which is a big deal in a large segment of our district. It is something that affects all of us as New Yorkers, though, whether the drilling is directly in your own backyard or somewhere else in our state.

Here is the deal in layman's terms:

Basically you have this big natural gas boom taking place. Some of the potential spots in NY rival the size of oil fields in TX.

When the people know, however, about implications and are presented with knowledge and information, you get movements. We need one.

I hope I grabbed your attention...
You've got a lot of people, a lot of farmers with land who are sitting on potentially quite a bit of money. From Wikipedia, taking a look at the census results of Chenango County for example:

The median income for a household in the county was $33,679, and the median income for a family was $39,711. Males had a median income of $30,363 versus $22,429 for females. The per capita income for the county was $16,427. About 10.70% of families and 14.40% of the population were below the poverty line, including 19.50% of those under age 18 and 8.70% of those age 65 or over.

You have a representative of the gas company coming to the door and offering a lease to drill on their land either vertically or horizontally (the difference between having an actual drill on your land or not)that possibly includes a signing bonus, as well as a contract royalty on the gas that is pumped out.

This can be a lot of money, if you've got some acreage. Anywhere from $10,000-30,000+.

Item #1: As Don likes to point out, that gas isn't going anywhere. Just a few years ago the same companies were offering $5/acre, now they are offering $250+ an acre. Sitting on the (potential) gas is a better investment than the stock market by far. It'll only go up.

However, if a gas company gets signed leases for 60% of the land in a certain parcel, and you are part of the dissenting 40%, they can still take th e gas from under you thanks to the Oil and Mining Act of 2005 which James Seward signed.

Item #2: These are gas company lawyers writing these leases. How many of us could afford a $600/hour lawyer? How many people making under $30K a year can? Do you think that the gas company is having it's lawyers write these leases to best serve the landowner, or the company? Hello.

The laws on the books are from 1992 I believe, when the technology they used didn't come close to what is happening now. No horizontal drilling, no water...

Item #3: Speaking of the environment, we'll get to that. First I want to mention consumer protection. These folks are getting picked off one by one. It's like winning the lottery. But these are gas companies that we are talking about. If they want to break shale up underneath YOUR land then they need to take care of the consumer and take care of the environment while doing it.

Remember in Little League you're always supposed to take the first pitch? Or, "don't bite at the first thing you see?" etc.?

Imagine if as a community, or a network of neighbors, they banded together and demanded that if the company wanted to drill on their land, that certain requirements would need to be met. If not, they hold out. And each day the price goes up and up. Imagine the dairy farmer able to get all of his energy and a large generator to power all of his energy needs?

Don isn't against drilling for natural gas, but it needs to be done right.

A quick touch on the environmental concerns--the amount of water needed to be pumped into the ground comes from somewhere. Susquahanna, Cayuga Lake, etc.? It's a lot of water. Million gallons? More? So then the EPA has identified 250 potential toxic chemicals used in this process that then gets pulled back out of the ground after this hydrofracturing process and what do you do with it?

I know this is long but important and I hope I still have your ear..this is why we need Don Barber.

When everyone told Don not to touch this issue, that it was too controversial, etc., Don knew it was a potential large trouble spot with many concerns, and that people weren't being taken care of. That the environment could face trauma, that toxins could show up in our drinking water. So he issued the call for moratorium. He did what he believed in and was right in his heart. You don't see that in a lot of "politicians." But Don isn't your typical candidate.

Now this comes out from the Albany Times Union:

Upstate New York's looming natural gas nightmare
Regulators asleep as lawmmakers attempt to declare vast acreage open to the energy industry's iffy underground fracturing technique

James Seward called Don "irresponsible." Take a good look at this article and decide for yourself who is the irresponsible one. The one standing up for the little guys, or the one standing up for the oil companies?

Some choice selections:

On May 29, top state environmental officials assured state lawmakers that plans to drill for natural gas near the watershed that supplies New York City's drinking water posed little danger.
A survey of other states had found "not one instance of drinking water contamination" from the water-intensive, horizontal drilling that would take place across New York's southern tier, the officials said.
Reassured, the legislature quickly approved a bill to streamline the permitting process for a huge influx of wells which could bring the state upwards of $1 billion in annual revenue. Gov. David Paterson has only until Wednesday to sign the bill, and the state's Department of Environmental Conservation says drilling permits could be approved in as little as 12 weeks.
But a joint investigation by ProPublica and New York City public radio station WNYC revealed hundreds of instances of drinking water contamination in states where comparable drilling has been done.
In New Mexico, oil and gas drilling using waste pits like those proposed for New York has caused toxic chemicals to leach into the water table at some 800 sites. Colorado has reported more than 300 spills affecting its ground water.

and...

"When we say we are going to protect the environment, you don't have to trust us, you don't have to believe us," said Val Washington, director of the division of mineral resources at DEC. "But look at our track record. I think it's pretty good."
But the Marcellus development will be far more complicated than any previous drilling operations in the state. It will involve deeper, horizontal wells, possibly thousands of them. Each well could suck up, and later spit out, between one million and five million gallons of water. That would place an unprecedented burden on New York's watersheds, including those that feed New York City's reservoirs and farmland in Chemung, Tioga, Broome, Delaware and Sullivan Counties.
Some of the regional DEC offices that would oversee Marcellus wells have no experience with gas drilling at all. Yet New York officials said they see no reason to update their environmental impact statement, which was drafted in 1992, long before this form of drilling, called horizontal hydraulic fracturing or "hydrofracking," was feasible on the scale now contemplated.

and...

The gas in the Marcellus is held in tiny pockets, like bubbles in a brick of Swiss cheese. To extract it, a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals is shot into the earth with such explosive force that it fractures the rock, releasing the bubbles to the surface. Along with the gas comes most of the water that was shot down the well. But by the time the water re-surfaces, it is laden with natural toxics from the shale layer below, as well as the chemicals added by industry. The U.S. Department of Energy lists produced water from gas drilling as among the most toxic of any oil industry byproduct. When that water is returned to the surface, it must be dealt with as toxic industrial waste.
Waste water from the Marcellus formation may turn out to be slightly cleaner than that from other formations because the water pulled back out contains fewer of the naturally occurring toxins - early trials indicate this - but the U.S. Department of Energy lists produced water from gas drilling as among the most toxic of any oil industry byproduct.
According to a 2004 report from Argonne National Laboratory prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, "Studies indicate that produced waters discharged from gas ... platforms are about 10x more toxic than the produced waters discharged from oil platforms."

Even more...

As recently as last month, Bradley Field, the DEC's director of the division of oil and minerals - the agency responsible for overseeing resource extraction in the state - appeared unaware of these additives. At a meeting with conservation advocates and state legislators he said drilling fluids contained nothing more than water and sand, according to Roger Downs, a conservation associate of the Sierra Club's Atlantic Chapter.
DEC has since adjusted its stance.
"They add chemicals, we know they do that," said Tierney, the water division official, in a meeting July 4. "We don't know exactly what they are."
In part that's because the industry views its chemical recipes as trade secrets, akin to the formula for Coke or Pepsi, and the 2005 federal Energy Policy Act exempts the oil and gas industry from disclosing those recipes to the public. For the most part, states have learned about the chemicals by analyzing waste pits and the contaminated ground water around them.

It goes on and on. Give it a read, please. Thank you.

til next time,
nick

PS--Did you see what Jim had to say to the Ithaca Journal about the fact that over 72% of his money comes from corporations or PACs, including nearly over $300,000 from health insurance companies alone in the recent years? Enjoy...

Barber is looking at the source of Seward's money in an effort to paint Seward as a friend of special interests in the state. Seward raised more than $40,000 in corporate donations in the last period, and a press release from Barber's office says 23 percent of his contributions came from individuals.
When asked to comment on the amount he receives from corporations, Seward said he's more concerned with serving his constituents than eying where his money comes from. Yeah, I bet.