New York State

One Of The Last True Liberals, Mario Cuomo, Passes From The Scene On New Year’s Day!

Former three term New York Governor Mario Cuomo, one of the last true liberals in American politics, passed from the scene yesterday, New Year’s Day, just as his son, Andrew Cuomo, was inaugurated for his own second term as Governor of New York.

Mario Cuomo was a dynamic, charismatic, inspiring political figure, who flirted with the idea of running for President in 1988 and 1992, but ended up not running. He also was the front runner for a Supreme Court nomination by President Bill Clinton in 1993, but turned it down, in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and ran, instead, for a fourth term as Governor, but losing to George Pataki in 1994.

Cuomo was, without any question, the second greatest Italian American political figure in American history, only surpassed by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (1934-1945), and he will be much missed, as he was a rarity in politics–a truly decent, principled politician who cared about the poor and the oppressed of all races, both in New York and nationwide!

The Decline Of The New York State Government And Governorship!

New York State, the “Empire State”, is a victim of government decline in so many ways.

This was the state that gave us Presidential candidates in Alfred E. Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Thomas E. Dewey, and potential Presidential candidates in Averell Harriman, Nelson Rockefeller, Mario Cuomo, and George Pataki.

But now, we have had Eliot Spitzer, forced out of office by a sex scandal, and Andrew Cuomo, subject of an ethics investigation, who has displayed arrogance and entitlement about his control of who can investigate him, which has now blown up in his face.

Ironically, Cuomo seems an easy winner for his second term, but could be forced out of office during the next term, reminiscent of the circumstances of President Richard Nixon, who won easy reelection while under investigation, and then was forced to resign in disgrace.

This will end any hope that Cuomo could ever run for the Presidency, if for instance, Hillary Clinton chose not to run.

Having said that as reality, this author wishes to state that he has always had an uneasy feeling about Cuomo, over many years. It is something hard to pinpoint, but this blogger always liked Mario Cuomo, Andrew’s dad, but never felt comfortable with his son, even though he resembles him a lot in speaking manner and appearance!

Nations Breaking Up: Could It Happen Among American States?

We are living in a world where nation states have broken up, and where the potential for more such breakups is increasing.

Yugoslavia broke up into multiple nations in the 1990s, as did the old Soviet Union, and Czechoslovakia.

Sudan broke up into two nations in 2011, and Iraq seems on the road to a similar breakup, sadly through religious revolution, fanaticism and loss of life.

There has been the threat in the past of Quebec breaking away from Canada, although that seems less likely now.

Scotland will decide whether to split from the United Kingdom in a referendum this September.

There are threats of the breakup of Belgium and Spain, where strong nationality groups wish for independence.

At the same time, there has been secessionist talk by right wing groups in Texas, and even outgoing Governor Rick Perry talked up the idea a few years back, and then abandoned such talk.

But seriously, without violence, not like the Civil War in the 1860s, there are ideas floating out on the political wilderness of the possible future breakup of eight states, and the theoretical creation of an additional 16 states as a result, requiring an additional 32 US Senators, making the total possibly 132, instead of the present 100, in the upper chamber, while not changing the number of members of the House of Representatives.

These possibilities are as follows:

California–six states instead of one—Jefferson (rural Northern California); North California (centered about Sacramento, the state capital); Silicon Valley (San Francisco and San Jose); Central California (Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton); West California (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara); and South California (San Diego and Orange Counties).

Texas–five states instead of one—New Texas (Austin, the present state capital and College Station); Trinity (Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington and Tyler); Gulfland (Houston, Corpus Christi, Galveston); Plainland (Lubbock, Amarillo, Waco, Abilene); and El Norte (San Antonio, El Paso, Brownsville).

New York–three states instead of one—Suburban counties of Southeast New York (Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess and Orange Counties) and Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk); New York City (Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island); and Upstate New York (including the rest of the state, including Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton).

Florida—two states instead of one—South Florida (the Keys, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach); and Northern Florida (the rest of the state).

Illinois–two states instead of one—Chicago and near suburbs; and the rest of the state.

Pennsylvania–two states instead of one—Philadelphia and near suburbs; and the rest of the state, including Pittsburgh and Harrisburg).

Virginia–two states instead of one—Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC; and the rest of the state.

Maryland–two states instead of one—Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington DC suburban counties (including Montgomery and Prince George’s County) and three rural eastern shore counties; and Western Maryland.

Is any of this likely to happen? Probably not, but great food for thought. It would require revolutionary changes in the US Senate, and would create new issues of which party would benefit, the Democrats or the Republicans, since the major metropolitan areas would be separate from the more rural counties in these eight states, and it would create a new dynamic in American politics hard to predict long term!

Six Cities For Democrats and Four For Republicans Competing For 2016 National Conventions!

The bids are in for the two national conventions of the major political parties competing for the Presidency in 2016.

The Democrats have bids from Birmingham, Alabama; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York City (Brooklyn); and Phoenix, Arizona.

The Republicans have bids from Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Texas: Denver, Colorado; and Kansas City, Missouri.

It would be interesting if both parties chose Cleveland, as the parties have, occasionally, chosen the same city for their conventions, but somehow, this author does not see either party actually choosing Cleveland.

What makes the most sense is to choose a city in a state that is competitive, or significant enough to be considered possibly a win for the political party involved.

Going on that assumption, it makes no sense for Birmingham, Alabama to be chosen by the Democrats.

New York City (Brooklyn) would be a popular favorite, but New York is guaranteed to the Democrat Presidential nominee in 2016.

Philadelphia would be a good choice, in a state which could be competitive, although the Democrats are a heavy favorite to win the state, so it seems unlikely as the choice that will be made.

So that leaves Columbus, Ohio and Phoenix, Arizona as the remaining choices, as both states are highly competitive, but with Ohio more likely to go Democratic, and being, in many ways, the key swing state.

So the prediction of this blogger is that Columbus will be the host for the Democratic National Convention, the capital city of the state, and a better choice, overall, than Cleveland would be.

As far as the Republicans are concerned, the best choice, in the opinion of the blogger, is Denver, Colorado, a true swing state, but Dallas would be the backup if the GOP wants to send the message just how important Texas is, as the danger of an eventual move toward becoming a “blue” state becomes more possible as the years go by.

So the emotional favorite for this author for the Democrats is his home of New York, which he left for Florida 25 years ago, but the likelihood that Columbus will be chosen, with a backup of Phoenix.

While the author has no emotional favorite for the Republicans, the likely emotional choice for them would be Dallas, but with the likelihood that Denver will be chosen, and doubtful for Kansas City and, particularly, for Cleveland!

We shall see how accurate the author is in his predictions of Columbus for the Democrats and Denver for the Republicans!

Rick Santorum Bashes New York City And Los Angeles, And By Implication, Boston! What It Says About Him!

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, challenging Mitt Romney for the Republican Presidential nomination, has now gone on the attack against New York City and Los Angeles, and by implication, Boston, since Massachusetts is the state in which Mitt Romney was governor,

This reminds us of Barry Goldwater in 1964, suggesting that the Atlantic Coast of North America be cut off and sent out to sea.

It also reminds us of Sarah Palin in 2008, who criticized the coastlines of America, and claimed the “real America” was in the heartland.

The problem is that one can attack those three cities, and the states that they are part of, but there is no way to claim that the heartland of the nation matches the significance and influence of New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston, in the present, or historically!

These are the cultural, financial, business, intellectual and educational centers of America.

These cities have among the best universities in the world, and their states easily have had a greater impact on America than all of the heartland states combined, both past and present.

People can have proud regional biases, but the reality is that these three cities and states are the center of American progress and accomplishments, and that will not change.

So to condemn these cities and states is pure stupidity and ignorance, and proves that Rick Santorum, like Sarah Palin and Barry Goldwater, is not qualified for the Presidency, since he does not recognize the reality of the influence and significance of these coastline cities and states! And to pit a portion of the nation against other areas is also demagogic and despicable to the core!

IntraState Discontent: Suggestions To Break Up States Growing, But Unlikely To Occur!

A movement to break up states, and therefore create more Senate seats and overcome the influence of urban areas on rural and suburban populations, is starting to grow.

The suggestion has been made to create a new state of Southern California, consisting of 13 million people and 13 counties, but not including Los Angeles.

California is not the only state which has experienced this kind of movement. It is actually very common, at least in people’s imaginations.

Florida has seen the debate over creating a separate Southern Florida state. Upstate New York and downstate Illinois have long wished for separation from New York City and Chicago.

Northern Virginia has thought of itself as separate from the rest of Virginia, with the influence of Washington, DC over the area. And western Pennsylvania has wished to be separate from Philadelphia influences over state affairs.

Northern Ohio with Cleveland has long seen itself as different from Southern Ohio and Cincinnati, and Michigan is often seen as Detroit and a separate western Michigan.

And of course, the giant state of Texas has often been seen as multiple states, with the rivalry of Houston vs. Dallas-Forth Worth; the influence of Austin and San Antonio as the most liberal part of the state; and the Panhandle of Lubbock and other communities as totally different from the others.

So in theory, if all the wishes expressed for separation were to occur, we would not have 50 states, but more likely, at least SIXTY-ONE states!

But is this going to happen at any point in the future? Don’t put betting money on it!

Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court: Anthony Kennedy The Crucial Vote!

In 1967, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Loving V. Virginia, declaring interracial marriage constitutional. At the time, there was still widespread feeling among the American people, particularly whites, that interracial marriage should not be allowed, with three out of four in a 1968 poll so declaring. And nearly the same percentage, 73 percent, of all races felt the same way in 1968.

It is clear, also, that a majority of people, particularly whites, were not supportive of the Supreme Court decision in 1954, Brown V. Board of Education, which mandated the end of segregation of the races in public education.

Often, the Supreme Court is ahead of the country in formulating change, and of course, conservatives resent that. But without the Court intervening, progress would be slower or completely halted.

Therefore, with the decision of New York State to allow gay marriage, it is time for gay rights advocates to bring a case to the higher court!

But, of course, there is fear that the conservative Court would rule against it, but that is seen as highly unlikely.

No one can be sure how Justices would vote, but even if one considers that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts might vote against, the odds are that Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg would vote in favor.

That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, the true centrist on the Court, who more often votes with the conservatives, but often sides with the liberals. And when one considers that Kennedy was the decisive vote in Lawrence V. Texas in 2003, granting privacy rights to gay couples, one has hope that he would continue to support gay rights, including marriage.

Kennedy also supported the rights of gays to stop being treated as a group deserving discrimination in the Colorado Constitution in Romer V. Evans in 1996, and also in a Circuit Court case in 1980, he showed concern about mistreatment of gays.

The timing is crucial, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg may leave the Court soon, and in the next term in office, if a Republican won the White House, both Ginsberg and Kennedy might be replaced, based on their ages, and the opportunity for a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage might have passed!

And remember, unlike interracial marriage, a majority of Americans in a recent poll support the concept of gay marriage, a massive switch from just a few years ago!

So bring on a Supreme Court case and soon!

A Massive Victory For Gay Rights: Gay Marriage Becomes Law In New York State!

Late today, the New York State Senate, with a few Republican supporters, approved gay marriage rights in the Empire State, although allowing religious institutions to opt out of the requirement to marry two people of the same gender.

This is a massive victory in the march toward civil rights for gays, as New York is the largest state to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Iowa, as well as Washington, DC, now allow gay marriage, and California is still involved in litigation over the issue, after having allowed it for brief periods of time.

It is clear that gay marriage is becoming more acceptable, as shown by public opinion polls, as well as by legislative action, and while it may not be available everywhere anytime soon, we are involved in an irreversible course toward greater human rights!

It is the appropriate time for President Obama, who is said to be “wrestling” with the issue, and had earlier in the mid 1990s seemed to be in favor of gay marriage, to have the courage, finally, to endorse it, and stop worrying about a counter reaction by opponents!

If Obama came out squarely for gay marriage rights, his odds of winning re-election would increase dramatically, and he needs to show conviction on this issue, because speaking up for human rights is always the right thing to do, even if it were to lead to defeat.

There are more important things than just winning an election, Mr. President, so show some leadership and assert yourself, and you will have millions of people to back you up!

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich: “Carpetbagger” In Washington State?

With reapportionment of seats about to take place in the House Of Representatives, based on the census figures, some states are gaining seats, while others are losing seats.

The Sun Belt is gaining seats, as they have done every decade since the 1950s, while the Frost Belt Northeast and Midwestern states, specifically the large ones, are losing seats.

This leads to some House members being gerrymandered into races against fellow members of the House of the same party, leaving the reality that some will be pushed out of their positions either by primary elections, or by reality setting in that they cannot compete in a primary or election in the new district and have a good chance of victory.

Such a circumstance is now faced by Cleveland Congressman Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal and most controversial Democrats in Congress.

Kucinich, who was Mayor of Cleveland, acquiring the name “Dennis the Menace”; member of the Cleveland City Council later; and then has been a Congressman from Cleveland for eight terms, is faced with elimination unless he chooses to move somewhere else in another state which is gaining seats.

Kucinich, a national figure because of having competed for the Presidency in 2004 and 2008, was recently in the Seattle area of Washington State, which will gain a seat, trying to measure whether it was a good fit for a Congressional race, with Seattle being a progressive stronghold.

While it is required that a member of the House of Representatives must have a residence in the district he or she represents, in the year of reapportionment, the member can move into the district AFTER he or she has been elected, as often, even for members who keep their congressional seat, the boundaries have changed because of reapportionment, so new housing arrangements must be made, but it can be AFTER being elected to the new district seat.

The question is whether it is proper for Kucinich to do what he plans to do, and the answer is yes!

Why is that? Well, Washington State does not have a residency requirement in the state for someone to run for public office, much like New York State, which has had three non residents or “Carpetbaggers” run for and win a Senate seat–Robert Kennedy in 1964, James Buckley in 1970, and Hillary Clinton in 2000.

While there is no recent case of a “Carpetbagger” Congressman, it is not illegal or a first time situation, and what it all comes down to is that this is based on democracy! What the people of that particular new Congressional district in Seattle want, they are entitled to get. If the case can be made by a native Washingtonian that he or she should be elected over a well known Congressman from Cleveland, Ohio, it will rule the day!

The word “Carpetbagger”, originating as a derogatory term in the Reconstruction South, should not be looked at in such a manner, as even most of the so called “Carpetbaggers” in the Southern states, who were Congressmen, Senators, or Governors, actually performed well in office, and the term is therefore just political propaganda to be ignored as a myth of American history!

A Cuomo Governorship In New York State Again!

New York State is experiencing a return of the Cuomo family name to the executive mansion in Albany, with the smashing victory of Andrew, son of Mario, over Republican and Tea Party favorite Carl Paladino on Tuesday.

Mario Cuomo was Governor of New York for three terms from 1983-1995 and was often thought of as a possible Supreme Court Justice and Presidential possibility.

Andrew Cuomo was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bill Clinton from 1997-2001, and was Attorney General of New York since 2007, and won 62 percent of the vote for Governor!

Andrew Cuomo resembles his father in appearance and speech pattern and voice, and many political observers consider that he has the opportunity, if he can resolve the massive problems of New York over the next four or more years, to be a serious candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, when he would be only 58 years old!

His outstanding performance on Election Day certainly puts Andrew Cuomo on a short list of potential “new faces” that could have an impact on the future of the Democratic Party after the administration of Barack Obama!