Many political observers are of the belief that, for New Yorkers, the main battle in this year’s election is not the presidency (in the choice of whom we will play virtually no role), but control of our State Senate.
And the question for many in that election is not merely whether the Democrats will elect a majority at the polls.
For Democrats, the presumptive results of this year’s State Senate elections seem clear; to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: “A Majority…if you can keep it.”
Already, two Democratic State Senator, Ruben Diaz and Carl Kruger, have refused to commit their votes to whoever is chosen to be put up for Senate Majority Leader by the Senate’s Democratic Conference; Kruger even accepted a leadership position from the Senate Republicans. At least one incoming member, Hiram Montserate, has, in the past, played footsie with former Senate Republican Leader Joe Bruno, and another possible Senate Democratic Candidate, former State Senator Pedro Espada, has caucused with the Republicans in the past (while his primary opponent, incumbent Efrain Gonzalez, used to be known as Al D’Amato’s favorite Albany Democrat).
The last thing those of us hoping for a long overdue Democrat takeover of the State Senate need is one more Democrat in the Senate putting out feelers to the highest bidder.
Which is why I blew off John McCain to attend tonight’s 21 SD State Senate debate between incumbent Kevin Parker and challengers Councilmen Simcha Felder and Kendall Stewart, sponsored by Councilman Lew Fidler and his 41st AD Democratic Club. I was not disappointed.
This is a busy time, and I have more things to write about than time to write them, so while I have more to say about this race, this will have to do for now.
Confronted about their past support for Republicans, Stewart and Felder were asked whether they could be trusted to ensure that the Democrats controlled the Senate; the candidates responded very differently.
(Parker, who arrived about an hour late–though his large entourage arrived about an hour early—missed the question, but his position was clear–Kevin may need lessons in anger management, but not in party loyalty.)
Felder had stated he was a Malcolm Smith Democrat, but that left a large door open whether his promise applied if the Senate Democrats chose a leader other than Smith. Felder offered no apology for his support for Mike Bloomberg, but noted Bloomberg was the only Republican he’d ever supported, and strongly implied Bloomberg was the only Republican he ever would support. While it was clear Bloomberg could depend on Felder for support for policies both mostly good (congestion pricing) and mostly questionable (Mayoral control of the schools), Felder made it clear that the one thing Bloomberg could not count on Felder for was support for the continued Senate Leadership by the Republican Party led by Majority Leader Dean “The Dog” Skelos.
By contrast, Stewart, then and now a member of the Democratic State Committee, owing a fiduciary duty to his party, jumped ship not only to support Bloomberg (at worst, a venal sin), but also George Pataki (perhaps a mortal one). Defending his actions, he outlined a shopping list of the goodies which purchased that support.
Stewart went on to make it clear he had no commitment whatsoever to voting with the Democrats to organize the Senate, stating that he would base his vote entirely on what goodies he could bring home to his constituents. Given the past destination of some of Stewart’s member items, I’m not sure this alone could serve as justification.
Is the problem what Stewart asks for, or what Stewarts asks with (pun intended)?
But frankly, it does not matter. Let's say that Stewart did manage a few more computers or a new music program in some of his schools. It would be pennywise, but would still be pound foolish when one cosiders that continued Republican rule ensures that all our schools, including those in the district Stewart seeks to represent, will continue, as long as Republicans rule, to suffer from tremendous disparities in funding compared with schools elsewhere in our state.
Stewart's position is not merely morally bankrupt; it ultimately fails the coldhearted test of pragmatism as well.
In a stunning moment of candor for a Councilmember who changed his position on congestion pricing after promising for months to oppose it, Stewart even cited Carl Kruger as a role model.
Given the worries many have about Felder, this is big news, since even those who find him too conservative for their tastes (me among them) understand that his reputation for keeping his word is reminiscent of Mary Poppins: “Practically Perfect”. I’d probably not vote for Felder, but if one’s prime issue is Democratic control of the State Senate (and for me, it is), then Felder’s election is not worth losing sleep over.
By contrast, Stewart’s reputation for keeping his word is far less sterling. But, I’m going to stretch my neck out here, and say that on the issue of how Stewart will vote to organize the senate, one can take him at his word.
Therefore, if you are concerned, as I am, about ending divided government and giving the NYS Democrats the chance and the ability to be held accountable and finally deliver upon over 30 years of promises (or not, and suffer the consequences), but you also feel that the accusations of violence and other misbehavior by Kevin Parker are disqualifying, or if you feel as many do, that Parker is less than aggressive in bring home the bacon and less than zealous in delivering constituent service, then your only possible alternative to Parker is Simcha Felder.
In the end, I’d probably beg to differ (and support Parker), but at least with Felder, one could make the argument.