For those using Cuomo's victory to attack Obama as weak, Yglesias has some points to consider

What A Difference Political Institutions Make
By Matthew Yglesias on Jun 26, 2011 at 8:30 am

-snip-
This is all true. Still, I would say that the bigger difference isn’t so much about the leadership style as it is that Cuomo won. Suppose that the New York State Senate operated according to the rules of the United States Senate and a bill failed unless it secured a 60 percent supermajority. What would people be saying about Andrew Cuomo now? Well, it seems to me that many people would be castigating his failed leadership. Instead of Michael Barbaro’s account of his behind-the-scenes leadership reading like a virtuouso performance it would be reading like a story of a failed inside game. The meeting with high-dollar pro-equality Republican donors would seem not savvy, but naive and weak. Conversely, if the US Senate operated on a 50 vote rule, then both the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank bill would have gone further in advancing progressive priorities, there would have been more economic stimulus in the 111th Congress, the DREAM Act would have passed, and it’s conceivable that some kind of nationwide carbon pricing scheme would be in place.
-snip-

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/06/26/254211/what-a-difference-political-institutions-make/

Those who want Cuomo to primary Obama don't seem to realize that he'd have to deal with the same rules Obama has to deal with.

Michael Barbaro wrote a blockbuster piece for the New York Times on the behind-the-scene story of how the gay marriage law was passed in New York. He suggests that on the surface, the story of gay marriage may be about about "shifting public sentiment" and "emotional appeals from gay couples." But behind this optimistic picture, it was really about "top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals."

Barbaro focuses on Cuomo's efforts behind the law, but without rich Republican donors, it would not be possible.

But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/new-york-gay-marriage-definitive-timeline/39266/

Insurance? Health Care?

Oh yeah, we already know.

It would be awesome if we could actually get them to align with us on some other issues. That is how politics used to work. The Republicans decided before Obama was even sworn in that they were going to have none of that.

sunshine and rainbows and starry eyes when some "D" says or does something attention-getting, and it's "Primary Obama" time in these parts.

But then said candidate would have to go and govern in Washington D.C. I don't know why it's conveniently forgotten how Washington works and what a president faces there.

:kick:

The truly disgusting part is many here on DU would rather Obama pass NOTHING vs compromise...However, had he done that then they would say he is useless at getting anything passed.

A compromised victory? Hell, No!

follow politics closely & should understand very well that the Right Wing in this country did not change America over night they did it bit by bit piece by piece as they continue to do...These changes can't & will never be changed in one 4yr term or even two. It will take slow change if we are to change anything at all!

"Purity" changes NOTHING! It just makes you look very weak when it is all said & done...Seriously, could you imagine the campaign after 4yrs of refuses to compromise..."Yes, Obama & the Democrats passed nothing & changed nothing but they did take a stand...Re-elect Obama he may not have changed a thing or helped America in the least bit but he did take a stand!" WTF? No, he would look very weak & the Republicans would look very strong!

what they believe.

Obama has said he is evolving on Marriage Equality.

It is illogical to expect someone wrestling with their
own beliefs to get out push something they are not sure of.

This has nothing to do with strength or weakness.

Obama is President of the country. There are states
which have tried to ban Same Sex Marriage.

Being Governor of NY is different from being President
of the US.

Yet he still passed the Civil Rights Act. That's what makes us Democrats. We push to pass laws that don't necessarily match our personal beliefs because it is the right thing to do. When President Obama says GLBTQI Americans deserve all the same legal rights, he means those rights included in marriage. It doesn't matter if it falls within his own personal beliefs.

You have a guy who talks a big game about bipartisanship, and a guy who delivered the bipartisan votes when the time actually arrived. An advocate and a guy who is kind of sort of not against us and kind of not for us either.
They compare and contrast. But anyone can tell what it sounds like when a person really cares about other people's rights. It is the side by side that points out the pablum in Obama's language.

Look at this document that does a side-by-side comparison of what Cuomo has forced one of the largest unions among state workers to accept by using the threat of massive layoffs - of the order of 10,000: http://www.csealocal1000.org/images/janicem/final_contract_side_by_side.pdf.

You can see here that what he, and his representatives, actually proposed was far worse than what was eventually agreed to. He wanted no raises till October 2015, and only a 1% raise then. He wanted to raise the employee contributions to health insurance premiums by 10% (eventually, a 6% increase was agreed to). Plus he wanted 20 furlough days. All the while, he steadfastly refused to consider continuing the millionaire's tax, has cut K-12 education, and pushed a bill thru the legislature to raise tuition in state colleges by 30% over the next five years.

Many of us here in NYS voted for Cuomo because voting for Paladino was unthinkable.

a well liked governor. i wasn't too keen on him but you can bet the thought of governor paladino was not thrilling to me. I hate that we get to pick who THEY want. At least the tea partiers forced a republican primary. I gave them credit for that. It just makes me think more and more that George Carlin was right... the illusion of choice. We got a democratic governor who is just killing the unions and seems to be on almost as much of a bender as his republican counterparts in other states.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but generally Cuomo brought this through -- that's one for him!

Keep your eyes open, however!

Lots of Trojan Horses around!

quick, attack!!11!! Oh noes, He's making Obama look bad!!!!111

pointing out that someone completely made up a quote and attributed it to the President.

They're sharp and you could put out an eye.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:thumbsup:

this is one of the lamest attacks on Obama ever.

Thanks

Senate and won. He managed to peel away 3 Republican votes for a very divisive issue within the Republican party. That's three more Republican votes that Obama could of ever have managed to win with his bipartisan approach for any of the bills that Yglesias mentions.

I admire the political courage that Cuomo used -- but let's be real, it was one issue. a BIG one, but it was one issue.

Obama is not dealing with one issue. He is dealing with a Nation's economy. It is apples and oranges. It is also layers, layers of bullshit.

make with them is why it was smaller and contained (and excluded) the things it did.

Obama also had a strategy to get the Pentagon on board so DADT could get passed. It made it take longer but it did work and get both Conservative Democrats and some Moderate Republicans to support it.

Good Lord, people. We really don't need to turn this into mass amnesia about the reality of the past few years. Geez.

Cuomo did a good job. Stop pretending if he was in Washington that Republicans and the media would all of a sudden become different. They wouldn't.

NY is NY. It isn't Kentucky or Florida or Ohio or Texas. It is friggin NY. It is different. That's what makes it great. It doesn't translate for most other states and certainly not the country as a whole.

I think Cuomo did an awesome job and has given himself a HUGE boost for 2016.

People need to stop turning something great into another reason to bash Obama. It is stupid and counterproductive.

(If you couldn't already tell, this comment isn't necessarily aimed at you but more at the generalized crap spewed after a great victory on Friday night.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yglesias is correct. Cuomo would never have been able to achieve what he did as a governor if he were President. ESPECIALLY the part where he brought in Republican donors. More that a few people would have blown a gasket over that.

doesn't work -- at all!

Especially when we are left to imagine that he's based this important

decision on his personal religious beliefs -- !!

Not sure what they are but I think he supports male-supremacist religion?

anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of consistency. No one cares about consistency.

He and his administration are doing the OPPOSITE of impeding LGBT rights.

The ACCOMPLISHMENTS - done legally and constitutionally - are what matters, or so people like to say about everything else.

"Actions, not words". People can ignore what this administration has accomplished, but that doesn't negate the progress that it HAS indeed made.

At least some organizations like HRC put stock in what's been done, not what they think the President ought to believe.

This article is an excellent description of political realities.

:kick:

He did a good thing here on marriage equality and deserves recognition for it. That said, he has a terrible record with unions and he has taken twice as much money as Scott Walker from the Koch Bros.

:thumbsdown:

:kick:

to make Mister "marriage is something sanctified" look better. Because you know the contrast is glaring, and it must really kill you to see what principled leadership looks like.

NYT to Obama: Evolve Already
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/opinion/27mon2.html?_r=1

Nate Silver: Cuomo's Presidential Moment Forms Contrast with Obama



http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/cuomos-presidential-moment-forms-contrast-with-obama/

appeal to a few R's who had a personal stake in the vote in a state already predisposed to vote Progressively.

Oh, and the promise of donations from high places from appreciate LGBTers didn't hurt a bit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/money-gay-marriage-bill-new-york_n_885546.html

He hit ONE relative softball thrown directly over the plate, and now he's Presidential?

Because Nate Silver spoke with some friends who think so?

Apparently "bipartisanship" is A-OK when it's not the President working it on a national level.

Good luck to Cuomo translating his success in a massively blue state to the national stage. Don't expect the magic to work as well in D.C.

Please stop repeating this falsehood. It has already been pointed out that New York State has plenty of archconservative Republicans. Hell, we even have archconservative Democrats. Instead of focusing on the votes he couldn't change, and instead of compromising his position into something unrecognizable, Cuomo put direct pressure where he could make a difference and it worked. Sorry a politician with intestinal fortitude and gamesmanship threatens you. I suppose it would; it's anathema to your chosen "brand."

"He hit ONE relative softball thrown directly over the plate, and now he's Presidential?"

Read the article about his lobbying efforts. This was no "softball." Nor was it a "softball" for Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, both of whom tried and ultimately were unsuccessful, but at least they TRIED. At least they moved the ball forward instead of making bullshit deals that set us back by moving the goalposts away from our goal.

"Apparently "bipartisanship" is A-OK when it's not the President working it on a national level."

Bipartisanship works when you LEAD. How many Republican Senate votes did Obama get for his health care bill, after starting from a weak position (sans public option) and then watering it down even further until it was mostly a kiss on the lips to big insurance? None. That's right, zero.

Again, the contrast is glaring.

Congressional Republicans band together in a unified effort to block everything President Obama does, but that's his fault? That's a reach.

The bottom line is that NY Republicans got something they wanted.

If the President gave that level of satisfaction to Congressional R's, a bunch of you would shit bricks. The R's in Congress are not getting everything they want, contrary to groupthink opinion.

And if you think that Congressional Republicans' motivation to unilaterally block everything Obama does so that they can project failure on him and regain the WH is a failure of leadership on HIS part, then you've done nothing but buy into the narrative.

Wow, you are really off base there. NY Republicans have opposed this legislation for years now. In '09, every Republican Senator (and not a few Democrats) voted against it. As I said, the effort to make this look like "no big deal" is a poor reflection on the denizens of this forum including yourself. You really should try to keep in mind that the Democratic Party is bigger than one politician. I know it's difficult for you. The fact is, there are leadership styles that work in this political climate and leadership styles that result in Dems ceding more and more ground and veering ever rightward. Instead of pointing to others' successes and calling them meaningless because they make for a harsh comparison with a certain person--and I understand you've invested a lot in him, as we all have--you should ask what we can learn from something that worked. The fact is, you always want to make it about "personality" or irrational hatred of Obama but it's exactly the opposite. Obama has earned his own reputation as a conciliator of the right and the corporate establishment, and it's getting us nowhere fast. And we really don't have any more time or money to waste, on several fronts.

I don't agree with everything Andrew Cuomo stands for. But to me, the methods he used here are a lesson about what works at this point in time. It's not time to be the "leader of everyone" and espouse muddled policy positions that are calculated to make sure no one in an expensive suit dislikes you too much. That's pointless and it's only making the situation worse. It's time to stand for something clear and unequivocal, to do so firmly, to use aggressive strategy and push every button until we get it.

The end.

You just can't seem to help it, but I'll be the better person. Again.

:hi:

C-ya.

Bye for now.

:hi:

country.

Wrong place.

Without the *constitutional* power to change the institution of Congress, he has no authority to make action. The Republicans don't give shit about the state of this country; all they want is to exploit the parliamentary rules of the institutions to block and stall legislation that will help this economy and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. They told us, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to do ANYTHING to destroy this president, even if it meant that Americans must suffer!!

And yet, we sit here, day after day on DU, pointing the finger at the president and the Democrats! We forget who the real enemy is. The hatred, anger, disdain for the president blinds us to this fact!

And here I thought he muscled the legislation through a Republican led state Senate.

You know, it is ok to praise Obama when he does something good and to speak out when he is on the wrong side of an issue.

It's actually, arguably, a sign of a robust, pluralist, democratic nation.

This was a politically expedient move that has already vaulted him into being a frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

Coincidence? :sarcasm:

"muscled"? Well, I guess one could say President Obama did a better job of muscling HCR, Wall Street reform, credit card reform, DADT repeal through Congress because he did it WITHOUT making deals via secret strategy meetings with Republican mega-donors.

In light of these facts and the huge campaign contribution by The Koch Brothers, it's easy to understand why Cuomo didn't bring the anywhere near the same passion and focus to raising taxes on the rich in NY, despite huge approval for the move by New Yorkers.

Business as usual.

We're also comparing a governor's powers to a president's powers. They are different and shouldn't be compared. The U.S. Constitution is very explicit on the limitations of that power vis-a-vis, "Checks and Balances." It's not so much so for governors. Also, you're talking about the governor of New York. Of all 50 state governors, New York has the most power granted to it by the state constitution. By contrast, the Texas state constitution gives the governor very weak constitutional powers.

The comparison shouldn't be made because it's like comparing apples and oranges. Again this is about the institution and the powers granted to it by the constitution, not necessarily the person. The person (governor) is only as strong as the power granted to him by the constitution.

it was a statute that needed to pass both houses of the NY state legislature, one of which is controlled by republicans. There was nothing out of the ordinary or remarkable here in terms of the separation of powers; except for the fact that Cuomo got the Senate to pass a bill they couldn't even pass two years ago when the Democrats had control.

This was one of three priorities he had for his first year as governor. Once he committed to marriage equality, that was it - he went for it heart and soul. For a lot of gay people, his commitment and passion have been an astounding thing to watch. I realize you are one of the folks here who actually are genuinely supportive of marriage equality, and I appreciate that, so rather than slide into an unproductive discussion, let's just leave it at the fact that a great thing happened in New York and we're both happy about it.

people are attempting to turn this into a discussion about Obama. Why? I'm not sure, other than the usual knee-jerk, anti-Obama rhetoric that gets thrown around here at DU these days.

Rather than bask in the happiness of what happened, it is they--NOT ME--who are guilty of this. We progressives can never be satisfied with good news. We always tend to find the "doom and gloom" undercurrent in any success that we've been handed.

Next on my agenda is to work to advance marriage equality here in Maryland. It is quite a shame that it only took one Senator--a woman of color who should know better--to block passage this year. Her reasoning is that her constituents are "religious" and against same-sex marriage. That's ridiculous and unacceptable!

I have to disagree with this article. What if Cuomo failed? Reality...he didn't. Paterson tried it before him & did fail, despite the fact that a lot of non NY'ers think republicans here are pushovers. Think again, they're not.

Obama & Cuomo have different styles of leadership. Let's take a simple issue like Elizabeth Warren. He can appoint her. So what is he waiting for? Is it because Republicans don't "approve"? What's the hold up? Or doesn't Obama really want her in that position? Who knows. The credit card bill he signed, is a joke, for all intents and purposes, it didn't stop usury & it didn't punish banks. It did however, allow firearms in national parks. Go figure that one out. And while waiting for this weak law to even go into effect, banks began raising interest rates on everything, anyway. Now you can clearly see how banks are screwing you, but they still are screwing you. We know he didn't clearly stand for single payer, he did, he didn't, whatever. It was hard to see where he really stood on the issue. And as far as results, no one is 100% sure of how it will effect their health care. But while we wait for it to take effect Insurance companies got a jump on it by raising rates.

We hear a lot about DADT being repealed, but when will it be certified? And how can you repeal DADT, yet not support the rights of the same people to get married? Are they only good as cannon fodder, to fight & die for their country, but not allowed to enjoy the same rights in their private lives? Where does Obama really stand on this? Who knows.

The difference I see between Cuomo & Obama, is you know what Cuomo stood for and he went after it, and he went after it with a vengeance. And that was not the only issue he had to deal with, but that was his priority and he made no bones about it. It passed and he signed it immediately. Signed, sealed & delivered. Done. And did he have more that one issue to deal with? Yes. Did he have to deal with a republican majority? Yes. Could they have held him at bay? Yes. They have done it before with Democratic governors. The majority of people here are very happy we finally have a budget, no small task. They are happy about first ever property tax caps. Talk about helping the middle class, taxes here are through the roof. He closed a 9 Billion dollar deficit. Did unions make concessions? Yes, a lot of jobs were saved, some not, but he didn't try to eliminate unions, but negotiate with them & we didn't have a mess here like they did in Wisconsin.

Cuomo is a Democrat, Obama is a Democrat. If either one succeeds at something it should be good for the party. But not on DU, it becomes a pissing match, guess that is no surprise, since the Primary wars continue, even though they are a total waste of time. Cuomo is not a threat to Obama, he has no desires to primary him in 2012. And what he chooses to do in 2016, remains to be seen. Right now he deserves to get praise for what he accomplished.

But I think what people really like about Cuomo is his demeanor. You know exactly what he wants, you know that he will fight for it and thats not what we are use to seeing with Democrats. It's a change from the "lets make nice" and it's refreshing. I wish more Democrats would take that attitude.

Ruben Diaz.

Despite the sacrifices Cuomo had to make to bring this to the floor, it's called leadership. Let Obama sacrifice one thing and he's called a traitor/sellout. Policy my ass.

and many here on DU let it slide. Had that been Obama, they'd be declaring that they won't vote for him.

Oh, wait... :(

for all the armchair quarterbacking to materialize into updates on the grassroots support for a primary challenger.

It ought to be easy, right? I mean, the sentiment here is the pulse of the nation, yes?

This "non-leadership" has gotten us nowhere fast, so the challengers should be coming out of the woodwork. Right?

...

Yeah. Right.

Don't get me wrong, I love Bernie and wish there were more like him in the Senate. But the bottom line is that there isn't.

And the irony here is: Bernie Sanders has consistently supported Barack Obama. That fact should make heads explode here.