Today's big news is obviously the decision by Empire State Pride Agenda to throw its considerable weight behind the Senate Democrats' efforts to retake the state Senate in 2008. This is part of a larger realization on the part of Progressives that, if we ever want to make progress in this state, Joe Bruno and the obstructionist Senate republicans need to be disempowered.

Gay City News:

With more than a year to go before New Yorkers return to the polls to vote on legislative candidates seeking office in Albany, the Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) has already directed upwards of $300,000 to the effort to shift control of the State Senate to Democratic hands.

The marriage equality bill that Governor Eliot Spitzer introduced in late April won approval in the overwhelmingly Democratic Assembly in June, and GOP leadership of the Senate is viewed by ESPA as the remaining obstacle to full relationship parity for gay and lesbian couples in New York State.

This is good stuff, and further evidence that a broad coalition is coming together for this purpose. Needless to say, this is also what's at the root of the current posturing emanating from Albany on everything from the non-scandal about Joe Bruno's misuse of state aircraft to the drivers license imbroglio. Say what you will about Joe Bruno, and God alone knows there's much to be said, but one thing you won't be able to take away from him: he's a streetfighter.

What's curious about ESPA's decision is that it seems to have been taken without much regard to the various less than gay-friendly stances taken by individual Senators and their campaign committee, the DSCC.

Just one example: Ruben Diaz. Suffice it to say that in the New York Progressive blogosphere, the term bigoted shitbag is held to refer exclusively to him on various blogs, as a kind of acknowledged descriptive shorthand. Per Liz, ESPA's Alan van Capelle would dearly love to see Diaz defeated, a sentiment in which he's most certainly not alone.

Then of course, since we're on the subject of individual failings, there is also Diane Savino's endorsement of Noach Dear, the prototypical fundamentalist bigot. On that subject, repeated requests for feedback from the DSCC have gone unanswered, if acknowledged.

Then, there is the simple fact that the DSCC has, for two cycles running, backed primary challengers against Jimmy Dahroug, arguably the most pro-equality Democratic candidate for state Senate.

There's little that can be done, in fairness, about Ruben Diaz, other than the occasional bit of scorching mockery. Incumbents are notoriously hard to oust, especially in a state where they draw their own district lines, and attitudes in communities of color being what they are, he's not going to be thrown out with a view to his medieval opinions on a minority to which he does not belong. As opposed to, say, his rather more enlightened stances on minorities to which he does. Then again, he's anti-choice, too, nicely outlining the Senator's concern for people like him and lack thereof for people who happen to be unlike him.

What the Dear and Dahroug episodes make clear, however, is this: the Democrats want power above all, and are occasionally none too delicate in the methods they employ as they reach out to seize it. Dear, for example, is being heaved on to the bench as a way to spare Senator Parker a primary, due process and equal justice under law for gays and lesbians in his court district be damned. Sacrifices to the greater good and all that.

What's truly interesting here is the ongoing evolution of Malcolm Smith; he had been viewed with some hesitation by the LGBT community and Progressives in general at his ascension to the leadership spot, in part because he was not previously known as much of a leader for reform, or equality, for that matter. Those misgivings seem to have been dispelled, and he deserves credit for it.

As to the others, Liz makes a very astute observation:

[T]hat has turned attention on the existing Democratic conference and has some so-called "progressives" [sic; it's usually capitalized] asking themselves: Do we really want these incumbents to be in the majority[?]

Few people are willing to talk on the record about this, but I have had numerous on-background conversations with folks who say there are interests out there quietly considering the merits of trying to get some friendlier Democrats into the conference before it's too late for them.

Already there have been some rumblings about Democratic Senate primaries next year in the 21st, 25th and 13th districts (those are the first that come to mind, anyway; there may be more).

Indeed. There are two critical dates here: one is the 2008 election, in which the Democrats hope to retake the Senate; the other is 2009, when members of the City Council will be out of a job in droves and looking for advancement. If the Democrats follow through on their repeated promises to reform the Senate, and the Assembly follows suit, the state legislature will suddenly be an attractive place for the ambitious.

New York could be in for a whirlwind of positive change. ESPA's decision to back the Senate effort may well represent the triumph of hope over experience, but it's clear that there's movement in a direction Joe Bruno has cause to be apprehensive about.

As Atrios always says: more and better Democrats, please.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |