Cuomo Says He's A Calm Guy Who Never Takes Anything Personal

Governor Cuomo, responding to questions about Mayor de Blasio's critique from last week:

A week after Mayor Bill de Blasio eviscerated Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a pair of stinging interviews, Mr. Cuomo declined to punch back, telling reporters that the mayor was “obviously frustrated” with Albany.

“He chose to publicly vent his frustration. We all have our own styles and our own comportment and we all see our roles in a certain way,” Mr. Cuomo told reporters today after an unrelated announcement in Manhattan. “My father had one style, Koch had one style … that’s the mayor’s style, it’s not my style.”

Mr. Cuomo claimed that he often had to “bite” his “tongue,” implying that his more measured approach with the press today was an outcome of that tact.

“I try to bite my tongue once in a while,” he told the Observer.

More:

Cuomo says he gets things done in Albany by "staying calm, not getting personal" and finding common grounds with others.

— Tom Precious (@TomPreciousALB) July 7, 2015

Oh yeah, Cuomo's a real calm guy who never takes things personal and always tries to bite his tongue.

You know, like this example from June 1:

The long-simmering animosity between Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio flared after the mayor hired a former Cuomo aide as his press secretary, a move the governor viewed as a betrayal, sources told the Daily News.

The new details into the bad blood between two of the state’s top Democrats emerged Monday just as de Blasio and Cuomo privately agreed to bury the hatchet, with both men taking pains to praise each other in public.

“Bill and I are going to be friends after these jobs are over,” Cuomo said during an appearance on upstate public radio’s “The Capitol Pressroom.”

But privately, Cuomo has been seething over de Blasio’s decision to hire Karen Hinton last month, sources said.

Hinton, along with de Blasio, worked for Cuomo when the governor was secretary of housing and urban development.

She is also married to Howard Glaser, a former top Cuomo aide who stepped down from the governor’s office last year.

“The governor was incensed,” said one source.

“He was berating his staff, ‘How can you let this happen?’ He sees imaginary slights everywhere, especially from the mayor.”

Cuomo was particularly outraged that he didn’t find out about Hinton’s hiring until after it was leaked to the press, sources said.

Some close to Cuomo were “calling around to see if there was any way to back it off,” the source said.

“He treats it as an act of treason in the environment we’re in,” said the source.

A second source said of Cuomo’s reaction, “There was a lot of anger (over the hire).”
And it was directed squarely at de Blasio.

See how calm Cuomo is?

See how he never takes anything personal?

As for biting his tongue, here's an example of that from June 25:

A wide swath of local politicos believe New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) basically admitted that he was the anonymous official who criticized New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) in a newspaper story.

The story in question was published in the Daily News on Wednesday evening. In it, a person who was only identified as a "top" Cuomo administration official was extensively quoted accusing de Blasio of bungling his relationship with the state government. De Blasio and Cuomo have an infamously tense relationship and the mayor did not achieve many of his top legislative goals on the state level this year, including those related to affordable housing and education.

"He is more politically oriented in terms of his approach ... and then he makes it almost impossible for him to achieve success," the anonymous Cuomo official said to the Daily News.

The interview was striking to many of the Albany reporters most familiar with Cuomo. The anonymous official spoke with one of Cuomo's most famous mannerisms: asking himself questions before answering them in order to reframe the issue at hand.

Underneath the teasing Thursday morning headline "Cuomo impersonator attacks mayor," Capital New York documented several reporters calling attention to the "eerily familiar" quotes in the Daily News interview.

See, he bites his tongue.

That's Governor Andrew Cuomo for you - a calm guy who never takes anything personal and always tries to bite his tongue and live by the adage that if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, you shouldn't say anything at all about them - on the record, at any rate.

Dems In Legislature Try To Force Christie Resignation

Interesting gambit:

Democratic state lawmakers will soon introduce legislation that would force Gov. Chris Christie to resign from office because he is running for president, NJ Advance Media has learned.

State Sens. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), who are expected to co-sponsor the bill, said they are fed up with Christie's frequent absences from New Jersey this year in the run-up to last week's announcement that he's running for the White House. The bill would require Christie and any future governor to resign in order to run for president.

"He's not doing the state any good by spending the bulk of his time out of state," Lesniak said. "And even when he's in-state, he's focusing on what he has to do to get elected president — which often runs contrary to what he ought to do for the state."

Christie has been out of state for more than a third of his second term and more than half of this year.

In a Monmouth poll released last week, when asked if Christie should resign as governor now that he's announced a run for president, 57% said yes, 37% said no.

So there might just be enough ground support to get this legislation going.

Those numbers might go even higher when you tell people Christie's been out of state for more than a third of his second term and more than half of 2015.

Though to be fair, the more he's out of New Jersey, the less harm he's doing here.

Dems would need some GOP votes to override Christie'e inevitable veto.

They're likely not going to get those, but it'll be fun getting Christie on record defending his absences.

Hedge Fundie Who Made Homophobic Hillary Joke Holds Fund Raiser For Andrew Cuomo

Daniel Loeb, founder and chief executive of Third Point LLC, a New York-based hedge fund with a portfolio reported worth $14 billion, is holding a $5,000 a head fundraiser for Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The fundraiser will be held at Loeb's East Hampton residence on July 11. 

Loeb is quite a piece of work.

Loeb sits on the board of StudentsFirstNY and chairs Eva Moskowitz's Success Academy board.

He has given money to Cuomo before and was instrumental in helping Cuomo to push for legalized gay marriage in New York back in 2011.

But those are just the above-board descriptions of Loeb. 

The real Loeb is a vindictive, vitriolic sociopath who goes out of his way to destroy people.

Sounds like the perfect person to raise funds for Andrew Cuomo.

Loeb's reputation as a hedge fundie is that "he doesn't give a fuck" how he goes about making money.

Check out the whole Vanity Fair piece about Loeb I linked to above, but here's a little taste of how Loeb is perceived within the financial world:

A colleague who has known Loeb for decades says Loeb “can write the most obnoxious letters on the planet, make up shit—[because he does] not really care … whether or not you hurt people or don’t hurt people. You just don’t care. The only thing you care about is making money on their stock. . . . [His letters] were juvenile, sophomoric, and cringe-making. Horrible. If you’re a decent member of society you [don’t do] shit like that. But he did. That was his business strategy. He was very smart. Because other people—most of us—have certain values and certain norms, and there are certain boundaries we just won’t cross. And he just obviously doesn’t have those same kind of limitations. Never has.”

Loeb is also a hypocrite - he looked to manage some of the teachers pension fund as a hedge fund manager even as he worked as an education deformer to slash teachers benefits (from Vanity Fair piece linked above):

Loeb’s pugnacious side was also on view earlier this year when the powerful American Federation of Teachers—the nation’s largest teachers’ union—accused him of trying to solicit a chunk of the union’s $800 billion pension fund to manage while being an enthusiastic supporter and board member of StudentsFirst, a national organization that advocates, among other things, replacing teachers’ defined-benefit pension plans with defined-contribution plans. “Loeb has been soliciting the retirement money of public workers, then turning right around and lobbying for those same workers to lose their benefits,” Matt Taibbi wrote on his Rolling Stone blog. “He’s essentially asking workers to pay for their own disenfranchisement (with Loeb getting his two-and-twenty cut, or whatever obscene percentage of their retirement monies he will charge as a fee). If that isn’t the very definition of balls, I don’t know what is.”

Loeb got into it a bit with AFT President Randi Weingarten after she wanted a meeting with him:

When Randi Weingarten, the president of the A.F.T., learned that Loeb was giving a speech in Washington, at the April meeting of the Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit association of pension and endowment funds, representing more than $3 trillion of assets (where Loeb may well have intended to do a little soliciting), she suggested a meeting with him. “Given your strong support for StudentsFirst, an organization which is leading the attack on defined benefit pension funds around the country, I was surprised to learn of your interest in working with public pension plan investors,” she wrote.

Loeb agreed to meet with Weingarten, but in the end he canceled his speech and the meeting, saying that his plans had changed and he had to get back to New York. He offered to meet with her at another time. But that never happened. He also decided to give $3 million, instead of $2 million, to Success Academy Charter Schools, a network of 22 New York City charter schools, which many teachers see as undermining public education. “Rather than intimidate me, [the accusations of conflict of interest] had the effect of redoubling my commitment and making me realize how important our work is because these kids face such obstacles,” he told Bloomberg. Weingarten now says of Loeb, “He got very angry when Rolling Stone and others wrote about it, and he’s just been going after me ever since.” She says it was a shame that “he thought he was punishing me” by giving more money to charter schools, but “we should be working together” to improve education for all students.

Someone who knows Loeb asked him about his fight with Weingarten, and, the source says, Loeb replied, “She’s fucking with the wrong person.”

Dan Loeb is a vitriolic sociopath with no core values other than his own success and ego aggrandizement - sounds like a perfect fit for a Cuomo fundraiser.

But wait - it gets better.

You would think given Loeb's support for Cuomo's push to legalize gay marriage in New York, Loeb would be sensitive to homophobia, but you would be wrong about that:

Hedge-fund billionaire Daniel Loeb — one of the biggest and most feared investors on Wall Street and a vocal backer of same-sex marriage — posted a joke speculating about Hillary Clinton’s sexuality on his personal Facebook page.

“Dear Abby,” he posted May 9. “My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What’s worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating. Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn’t even look for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies, while I have to work to pay the bills. Since our daughter went away to college he doesn’t even pretend to like me, and even hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do? Signed Clueless.”

“Dear Clueless,” the post continues, “Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman! You don’t need him anymore! You’re running for President of the United States. Act like one.”

The anti-Clinton diatribe wasn’t Loeb’s own joke or words — it appeared to be a right-wing meme that has been circulating online since Clinton’s first run. The same faux “Dear Abby” column was also posted on the Facebook page of actor Kevin Sorbo, best known for his role as Hercules in the TV series “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.”

The resurfacing of the old attack on the Clintons this cycle — on the page of a prominent billionaire — indicates how ugly attacks could get if Hillary Clinton gets into the uncharted territory of a general election.

Loeb, who bundled money for Barack Obama in 2008 before turning on him and backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012, has shown interest in a few of the GOP candidates this cycle.

...

 

Loeb promptly deleted the Dear Abby post after POLITICO contacted his office about it.

“This widely circulated, old meme ended up on my Facebook page inadvertently and as soon as I was informed of it, I took it down,” Loeb said in a statement. “ As a longstanding public supporter of gay and women’s rights, it does not represent my views.”

The "widely circulated, old meme" ended up on his Facebook page "inadvertently"?

Add "full of shit" and "bald-faced liar" to the other descriptions of Dan Loeb like "sociopath...who doesn't give a fuck."

This is the guy Cuomo's allowed to host a $5,000 a head fundraiser for him.

Says an awful lot about Andrew Cuomo, doesn't it.

There are protests scheduled for the fundraiser by some labor groups.

Common Core Test Question Release Stipulation Allows NYSED To Hide True Quality Of Tests

Buried in Jessica Bakeman's Capital NY piece about how swell new state Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan is on education issues is this:

ALBANY—The first major piece of legislation approved under new Senate majority leader John Flanagan included funding for an obscure state Education Department priority and nuanced changes to policy regarding state-administered standardized testing.

...

For example, while the bill requires the education department to release more questions from state exams, the language doesn’t specify a certain percentage of questions that must be made public. Rather, addressing officials’ arguments that releasing too many questions would threaten the validity of future tests, the bill requires the department to release “a significant amount of questions.” The bill says, “The commissioner may limit the number of questions and answers released only to the extent necessary to avoid hindering or impairing the validity and/or reliability of future examinations.”

“It strikes me as careful, and that suggests an attention to not creating problems,” Lowry said, referring to the language. “He has been very engaged with these issues, and the broad benefit is just having a grasp of how schools work and how state education policies affect schools and potential problems that arise with changing state policies.”

So instead of requiring a specific number of percentage of questions be released, Flanagan gave NYSED the leeway to release “a significant amount of questions."

NYSED is given the power to release as many - or more likely, as few - test questions as they want.

The way to show the quality (or rather, lack thereof) is to release the whole tests so that the public can see exactly what timed duress children are up against with these tests.

But Flanagan and the Legislature didn't come through with enough money to do that and they've given NYSED enough cover to release just enough to make the tests look good without releasing enough to give the public a true understanding of how badly designed and unfair these tests are.

In short, the part of the omnibus bill that requires NYSED to release more questions from state exams is bullshit, devised to make it look like the state education apparatus is open about the Endless Testing regime when they are anything but.

You can bet the hacks at SED do not want enough money to be able to release the Common Core tests in their entirety but rather want to be able to release just eough of the tests to make themselves and the tests look good.

They do not want the curtain drawn back on the Endless Testing regime any more than the test companies who develop these garbage tests do.

John Flanagan, through political manipulation, enabled NYSED to continue to avoid scrutiny and accountability for these tests.

The Harm Technology Does To Children

NY Times piece, first of two, about the harm that screen technology does to children:

Parents, grateful for ways to calm disruptive children and keep them from interrupting their own screen activities, seem to be unaware of the potential harm from so much time spent in the virtual world.

“We’re throwing screens at children all day long, giving them distractions rather than teaching them how to self-soothe, to calm themselves down,” said Catherine Steiner-Adair, a Harvard-affiliated clinical psychologist and author of the best-selling book “The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age.”

Before age 2, children should not be exposed to any electronic media, the pediatrics academy maintains, because “a child’s brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens.” Older children and teenagers should spend no more than one or two hours a day with entertainment media, preferably with high-quality content, and spend more free time playing outdoors, reading, doing hobbies and “using their imaginations in free play,” the academy recommends.

...

Two of my grandsons, ages 10 and 13, seem destined to suffer some of the negative effects of video-game overuse. The 10-year-old gets up half an hour earlier on school days to play computer games, and he and his brother stay plugged into their hand-held devices on the ride to and from school. “There’s no conversation anymore,” said their grandfather, who often picks them up. When the family dines out, the boys use their devices before the meal arrives and as soon as they finish eating.

“If kids are allowed to play ‘Candy Crush’ on the way to school, the car ride will be quiet, but that’s not what kids need,” Dr. Steiner-Adair said in an interview. “They need time to daydream, deal with anxieties, process their thoughts and share them with parents, who can provide reassurance.”

Technology is a poor substitute for personal interaction.

Out in public, Dr. Steiner-Adair added, “children have to know that life is fine off the screen. It’s interesting and good to be curious about other people, to learn how to listen. It teaches them social and emotional intelligence, which is critical for success in life.”

Children who are heavy users of electronics may become adept at multitasking, but they can lose the ability to focus on what is most important, a trait critical to the deep thought and problem solving needed for many jobs and other endeavors later in life.

Ah, but in many public schools, computerized learning is pushed for students both at school and home, as one commenter notes:

Even when parents want to keep their children away from video games, they are undermined by the schools. Administrators and teachers love the computers because they push responsibility for learning and teaching to the students and parents. Once the students start using computers in school, it is impossible to keep them away from video games and other distractions. 

We're fast becoming a society of distracted, emotionally stunted, overweight humans with little in the way of social and emotional skills to deal with the serious issues that arise during our lives and without the attention span or critical thinking skills to deal with them anyway.

Funny how so many of the geniuses in the tech world send their kids to schools where technology is either absent or rationed.

Want to bet that's not an accident?

Who Turns First, Silver Or Skelos?

Albany Project on what last week's "Silver/Skelos had better heed the Malcolm Smith 7 year sentence" leak means:

Bharara's secured a 7 year prison sentence for a former majority leader, one of the five consecutive majority leaders indicted for corruption. Preet Bharara don’t play.

As I’ve mentioned before, it’s become increasingly obvious that the US Attorney is not conducting a series of unrelated investigations. He’s working one large one and he’s going about it in much the same way he would conduct a mafia investigation. He’s working up the pyramid to man at the top while putting as much pressure as possible and those further down the food chain to cooperate with his office.

The big question now is which one of these guys flips first. (My money is on Skelos.) Because two of the “three men in a room” are now already facing federal charges. There’s probably only one Get Out of Jail Free card on offer. Once one of them cuts a deal, there are likely no more musical chairs left to secure.

And then all bets are off. Then there’s the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence (Skelos) or the possibility of dying in prison (Silver).

That’s enough to make a man think long and hard about his options.

The pattern out of Bharara's office has been a series of leaks every few months that sets up the next bombshell arrest - it started with the Silver leaks in 2014, continued with Silver's arrest the day after Cuomo's state of the state/budget address in January, continued again with leaks about Skelos right after the Silver arrest, continued with Skelos's arrest after the budget was completed in March.

I'm with Albany Project here.

The leak that Silver/Skelos had best heed the Smith sentence is not some accidental occurrence.

It's meant to squeeze Silver and/or Skelos into dealing.

And what do either of them have to deal?

Can't speak to Shelly, but Dean's perhaps got this.

Over/Under On MaryEllen Elia's Resignation

Today is MaryEllen Elia's first day as NYSED Commissioner.

Hers should be an eventful tenure at NYSED:

Elia will be overseeing implementation of a controversial new teacher evaluation program and she will have to continue to straighten out the years-long and troubled rollout of a Common Core learning standards.

But just as important, she'll have to mediate relations between the Board of Regents, which hired her and oversees the state Education Department, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been battling the Regents and Education Department with no signs of a letup.

Top officials downplay the potential conflict.

"Let's welcome her and see what she can add (to the process)," Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said. Her advice: "Be yourself, do the right thing, listen carefully and communicate actively.''

But outside observers see the storm clouds only growing given the rift between Cuomo, as well as reformers such as charter school proponents and much of the education establishment.

"Elia is walking into a minefield. Her political skills will be tested," education analyst and researcher Diane Ravitch said in an email.

"She was chosen unanimously, but the board is deeply divided," Ravitch added, referring to the 17-member Board of Regents.

Cuomo has been happy to blame any problems in the education system on NYSED, Tisch threw former NYSED Commissioner King under the bus during the "Dr. Ted J. Morris Jr." mess, parents and teachers will be quick to show opposition to Elia if and when she chooses to follow a reformy course, the opt out movement is set to expand even more next year and the Board of Regents is engaged in internecine fighting over the future of the state's education policy.

On top of these external issues, Elia brings her own "issues" to NYSED:

Creating a fear-based workplace where subordinates felt "browbeaten" and bullied.

Accused of trying to cover up district complicity in the death of a 7 year old special needs child.

Was the target of parent protest for lack of district response after a second special needs child died at a Hillsborough school.

Oversaw a school district that has been accused of racial discrimination in its discipline policies and is target of federal complaint.

Oversaw a school busing and choice program that created a "reign of chaos" at McLane Middle School for ten years.

Was dubbed "MaryEllen EVILia" by some parents for pursuing district policies that harmed children with special needs.

Couldn't play nice with the school board and was ultimately whacked in a 4-3 vote in January.

She has reputation for vindictiveness, an inability to get along with others (like school board members) and an unwillingless to take responsibility for mistakes.

Given the room of vipers she's stepping into as new NYSED commissioner, with Cuomo ready to scapegoat NYSED for real and perceived mistakes, the Legislature piling on lots in the way of new mandates with little in the way of new money to carry out those mandates, a Regents board fighting amongst itself about the future of ed policy and many parents and teachers openly hostile to NYSED, it's difficult to see someone with Elia's personal and leadership flaws staying around too long.

The Rumor About Cuomo

Mary Ahern pointed out this article from the Buffalo Chronicle to me today:

William Hochul, Jr. is the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York. He is also the husband of Kathy Hochul, the Lt. Governor and Andrew Cuomo’s 2014 running mate. Last year, during the gubernatorial campaign, the US Attorney was criticized for not pursing a series of public corruption cases that exposed shocking conflicts of interest.

In recent months, he has been recusing himself from cases involving local political operatives.

A source close to the US Attorney tells me that he “fully expects” his wife to become the next Governor of New York, likely by the end of the year.

Cuomo is currently under investigation by the FBI and the State Attorney General’s office. Political operatives expect Cuomo to be pushed out of office under federal indictment later this year, and are wondering if Mrs. Hochul will have the staying power, tact, and political skills to build a governing coalition that secures her reelection.

Western New Yorkers from both parties have an extraordinary interest in ensuring that — when or if Hochul indeed becomes Governor — that her tenure is long and her political standing is formidable.

Some problems with this story:

First, it's sourcing is thin - "political operatives expect..." and "a source close to the US Attorney..." leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Who's the source close to the US Attorney? Someone who works with the US Attorney or the barista who serves him his morning coffee?

I realize Fred Dicker of the Post does the same thing in his Monday columns, but Dicker's been an Albany figure for decades, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there. Matthew Ricchiazzi, who runs the political blog The Buffalo Chronicle, is a 29 year old politician wanna-be who tried to run for mayor of Buffalo in 2009 before the Board of Elections rejected his petition to get on the ballot.

Maybe his sources are as good as Dicker's (or not as good - some people think at times Fred Dicker uses himself as a source!), but whatever the case, I'm not ready to put a lot of faith in them.

Second problem, Ricchiazzi been accused of misquoting people and "reckless reporting" in the past.

That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me about this report.

Finally, Matthew Ricchiazzi, has his own notoriety in the news this year - for a DWI charge.

So while I enjoy the surfacing of the rumor that Cuomo is to be indicted by the feds before the end of the year, I'm not ready to ride the Buffalo Chronicle report any further than "rumor."

It does bear watching, however.

The NY Post had a leak from what seems to be the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York urging Shelly Silver and Dean Skelos to "deal" now that former majority leader Malcolm Smith got a seven year prison sentence for his corruption conviction.

The pattern out of Bharara's office has been a series of leaks every few months that sets up the next bombshell arrest - it started with the Silver leaks in 2014, continued with Silver's arrest the day after Cuomo's state of the state/budget address in January, continued again with leaks about Skelos right after the Silver arrest, continued with Skelos's arrest after the budget was completed in March.

We have now gotten at least one more leak about Silver and Skelos needing to "deal" if they don't want to go away to prison for a long, long time.

Unless I'm way off the mark, that's part of the Preet Pattern and we may just get some more interesting leaks before all is said and done - but I'm pretty sure the Buffalo Chronicle isn't going to be the recipient of them.

Seven Years Prison Sentence For Malcolm Smith Should Give Sheldon Silver, Dean Skelos Pause

From the NY Post:

The seven-year prison sentence imposed on crooked ex-state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith was a shot across the bow of his former Albany associates, Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos — and one they’d be wise not to ignore, sources told The Post on Thursday.

“If they weren’t before, then they should be shaking in their boots now,” said a law-enforcement official familiar with Silver’s and Skelos’ corruption cases.

“Smith just got seven years [for trying to bribe his way onto the 2013 mayoral ballot] and he didn’t even steal money. What do you think’s going to happen to Skelos and Silver?

“They should both cut deals fast because they are going to get crushed and the lawyers are bleeding them dry,” the official added.

A law enforcement official familiar with Silver's and Skelos' corruption cases is leaking to the Post that Silver and Skelos should deal now or face prison terms as long or longer than Smith just got for his corruption case.

Interesting.

What exactly would Sheldon Silver and/or Dean Skelos have to deal to prosecutors in return for lesser sentences than they could get at a trial.

I bet I'm not the only one wondering that.

If This Is The Best Cuomo Can Do...

In the battle between Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo, I figured a few hacks would come out of the woodwork to back Cuomo.

David Paterson, Cuomo's handpicked head of the State Democratic Committee, seemed like a likely candidate.

Sure enough, we get this news on the NY Post gossip page today:

David Paterson, the former governor and current head of the New York State Democratic Committee, is being urged to run for mayor.

“He hasn’t said ‘no’ to anyone,” a friend of his told me. “He would beat the pants off [Bill] de Blasio.”

Paterson confirmed “a number of people have mentioned it to me out of nowhere,” but he told me he isn’t interested.

Oh, please run David, please!

I'm dying to see you get some more scrutiny for the witness tampering incident, where you talked the woman your aide beat out of showing up in court against him:

Last fall, a woman went to court in the Bronx to testify that she had been violently assaulted by a top aide to Gov. David A. Paterson, and to seek a protective order against the man.

In the ensuing months, she returned to court twice to press her case, complaining that the State Police had been harassing her to drop it. The State Police, which had no jurisdiction in the matter, confirmed that the woman was visited by a member of the governor’s personal security detail.

Then, just before she was due to return to court to seek a final protective order, the woman got a phone call from the governor, according to her lawyer. She failed to appear for her next hearing on Feb. 8, and as a result her case was dismissed.

Many details of the governor’s role in this episode are unclear, but the accounts presented in court and police records and interviews with the woman’s lawyer and others portray a brutal encounter, a frightened woman and an effort to make a potential political embarrassment go away.

If Paterson is the best Cuomo can do to take aim at de Blasio, Cuomo's in bad, bad shape...

Homeland Security Chief Andrew Cuomo Warns New Yorkers To Be Vigilant

Fresh from "playing Tommy Lee Jones in the upstate manhunt for two escaped killers," Governor Andrew Cuomo is now playing homeland security chief and he's got some wise words for New Yorkers:

“We are keenly aware that New York State remains a top target for terrorists,” Cuomo said. “In response to the warning by the federal government, New York State is taking steps to increase monitoring and communication with our local, state, and federal emergency management and law enforcement partners through the holiday weekend. As we celebrate with family and friends this Independence Day, I urge all New Yorkers to not only remember the freedoms that we hold dear, but also remain cautious of their surroundings and learn to recognize and report suspicious activity.”

While preparing for an attack, Cuomo noted, terrorists may “conduct themselves in ways that do not match the usual pattern of activity found within our daily lives, which makes them stand out from others.”

Gee, thanks for the advice, governor.

How lucky we are to have you.

You track escaped prisoners, you're the "great compromiser," and you help us spot terrorists.

Thank God you're our governor.

Union Leaders Work To "Quell Pro-Sanders Revolt"

Some of that vaunted union democracy in action:

Richard Trumka has a message for state and local AFL-CIO leaders tempted to endorse Bernie Sanders: Don’t.

In a memo this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation, and obtained by POLITICO, the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its bylaws don’t permit them to “endorse a presidential candidate” or “introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that indicate a preference for one candidate over another.” Even “‘personal’ statements” of candidate preference are verboten, Trumka said.

The memo comes amid signs of a growing split between national union leaders — mindful of the fact that Clinton remains the undisputed favorite for the nomination — and local officials and rank and file, who are increasingly drawn to the Democratic Party’s growing progressive wing, for whom Sanders is the latest standard-bearer.

The fix is in for Clinton, whether the unions endorse her in the primary or not, because union leaders will do as much as they can to undercut the surging Bernie Sanders.

It's kinda like how the unions helped out Cuomo in 2014, not by endorsing him, but by making sure Working Families Party did not endorse Zephyr Teachout.

Families For Excellent Schools Want More Students Held Back Or In Summer School

From the Daily News:

Pro-charter school group Families for Excellent Schools ripped Mayor de Blasio on Thursday after city Education Department officials revealed a steep decline in the number of kids held back a grade or forced to go to summer school.

“Socially promoting tens of thousands of students, and depriving them of critical learning, promises to deepen New York City’s failing schools crisis,” said Families for Excellent Schools CEO Jeremiah Kittredge.

Education Department officials Wednesday said city principals referred 19,422 students to summer school classes in 2015, down from 32,205 in 2013.

The officials also revealed that the percentage of students held back a grade fell from 2.5% in 2013 to 1.2% in 2014.

State test scores are often used to decide which students get left back a grade or have to attend summer school.

We know the Common Core tests were rigged for failure, with NYSED setting the scores such that failure rates would sky-rocket from the pre-Common Core tests.

And lo and behold, many more students failed the Common Core tests than the pre-Common Core tests.

Nonetheless, if you look at the chart linked above, you'll see there's progress, albeit incremental, in the test scores from 2013 to 2014.

Should the rates of students being held back improve along with the scores or should they stay the same because, you know, ed reformers think kids need to learn a little grit?

As for summer school, FES may not know that Governor Cuomo pushed through and continues to tout a rule that says the Common Core tests will not be used against students for a couple of years (although they are being used on teachers.)

Indeed, the NYCDOE pointed this out in their pushback:

Schools officials said de Blasio's policies are in accordance with a change in state law that requires educators consider multiple criteria in decisions to promote students or hold them back.

In fact, Cuomo called the test scores "meaningless" for students back in April as the opt-out movement against the state's tests was gaining steam:

Governor Andrew Cuomo on Friday said parents who have chosen to have their children “opt out” of taking this month’s state exams don’t understand that the scores are “meaningless” in terms of students' grades.

“That’s their option,” Cuomo, referring to parents who have participated in the unprecedented boycott of state exams, told reporters after an Association for a Better New York breakfast in Manhattan. “What I don’t think has been adequately communicated is, we passed a law that stops the use of the grades on the test for the student. So the grades are meaningless to the student.”

Cuomo was referring to provisions in the 2014-15 state budget that prohibited Common Core-aligned tests from being included on students’ permanent records or used in grade promotion decisions. He said that action was necessary because of the flawed rollout of the Common Core standards in New York, which he has blamed on the State Board of Regents and Education Department.

“My position was, the department of education had not done a good job in introducing the Common Core, and they had rushed it, so we said, for a period of five years, the test scores won’t count,” Cuomo continued. “So they can opt out if they want to, but on the other hand, if the child takes the test as practice, then the score doesn't count anyway.”

Would have been nice if the DN could have gotten into the story the part about Cuomo insisting that Common Core test scores were "meaningless" and would not be used in any punitive way against them.

Instead the DN story just makes it into a they said/they said thing, with FES vs. the DOE.

Nonetheless, that's another reason for fewer students going to summer school than in the past.

The media's got a bias here, to make de Blasio's NYCDOE look less "rigorous" than the Bloomberg NYVDOE, so they're happy to give Families For Excellent Schools the press to bash the NYCDOE and de Blasio, then half-ass the pushback.

Compromise, Cuomo-Style

Andrew Cuomo responds to Bill de Blasio's criticism that he's a transactional politician without  political core who governs by vendetta:

Cuomo, speaking with reporters on Wednesday night, sought to draw a distinction between his brand of governing — which has angered liberal advocates for what they say is working hand-in-glove with the GOP — versus embracing ideology.

“We had gridlock for many, many years, but under my administration it’s been different,” Cuomo said. “When there’s gridlock, it means nothing happens.”

For Cuomo, the choice is a binary one: He has to work with the Legislature he has, or nothing can be accomplished.

“We had a very productive session,” Cuomo said. “Did we get everything we want? No. We have in New York state a Democratic Assembly and a Republican Senate, so everything is a compromise. It’s a compromise or you go Washington style and you go gridlock.”

Cuomo sidestepped the broader criticisms the mayor leveled at him: Namely that in his aggressive pursuit to accomplish things in Albany, Cuomo has often run roughshod over his enemies and has a tendency to exact “revenge” on those who stand in his way.

“Everything is entitled to their own comments,” Cuomo said, before pivoting back to talk of “compromise” — a word he used multiple times in a brief gaggle with reporters.

Given the number of times he said the word "compromise" in his remarks, clearly Cuomo and his attack monkeys have decided to try and paint de Blasio as a crazy, bomb-throwing ideologue and Cuomo as a mature, rational adult who understands how to get along with others to get things done.

Such pushback is laughable on its face.

First, it ignores the de Blasio critique - echoed by other Dems on and off the record, not to mention teachers and state workers in PEF - that Cuomo governs by vendetta.

Second, it seeks to make Cuomo's brand of compromise like something people ought to want in Albany.

A commenter at State of Politics puts that into persepctive:

Compromise - the art of giving your REBNY overlords what they want, while stiffing the party you purportedly lead by watering down everything they want (minimum wage being the best example).

Indeed.

Compromise, Cuomo-style - cha-ching!!!!

Monmouth Poll: 57% Say Chris Christie Should Resign As Governor

From Political Wire:

A new Monmouth University Poll in New Jersey, taken after Gov. Chris Christie’s presidential announcement, found that “a large majority feels that Christie has abandoned his commitment to the state and few say he is a good fit for the Oval Office.”

Key finding: “Just 27% of New Jerseyans say Chris Christie would make a good president.  More than two-thirds (69%) say he would not.”

More findings:

Christie's job approval rating in the Monmouth poll stands at 36% approval, 58% disapproval.

Among registered voters, Christie's job approval stands at 34% approval, 60% disapproval.

When asked whether Christie cares more about governing NJ or his own political future, just 17% responded governing NJ, 76% responded his own political future.

And the clicker:

When asked if Christie should resign as governor now that he's announced a run for president, 57% say yes, 37% say no.

NY Times Editorial Unloads On Cuomo

The NY Times backs up on de Blasio in the Cuomo/de Blasio feud, mocking Cuomo in the process:

The immediate analysis focused not on the truth of what the mayor said, but on whether he was a fool and a noob for saying it, or whining, or showing weakness at playing Albany chess against a grandmaster.

The important point is that everything he said is true. By any fair reading of the events of the last Albany session, the governor has acted disgracefully toward the 8.5 million people of the city Mr. de Blasio leads. Though Mr. Cuomo poses as liberal and reform-minded when it suits him, his indifference to the city’s needs, and his poorly disguised disdain for the mayor, are further discrediting an already disheartening second term.

Mr. Cuomo’s hand was acutely evident when crucial goals for Mr. de Blasio — like extending mayoral control of the New York City schools, repairing crumbling public housing, investing in mass transit — became needless struggles. An important deal that Mr. de Blasio struck with the real estate industry this spring, to reform a tax break for developers called 421-a, would have added many thousands of units of dearly needed affordable housing. In Albany it was nearly sabotaged. Efforts to extend and update rent-control laws governing more than one million city apartments were similarly undermined.

When the governor wasn’t playing Tommy Lee Jones in the upstate manhunt for two escaped killers, he was saying it was too late to fix 421-a, although it was not, or challenging the mayor over managing wage rates for construction workers or costly disability-pension giveaways to police officers and firefighters. Mr. de Blasio said the governor’s vindictiveness had even extended earlier in the year to surprise state inspections of city homeless shelters.

Mr. de Blasio’s many critics say he was foolish to go on the attack and are waiting for Mr. Cuomo to bury the hatchet, in Mr. de Blasio.

But really — what should he have done?

State law gives the Legislature and governor far too much control over New York City’s business, and whenever the mayor — any mayor — takes his petitions to Albany, he has to beg, wheedle, cajole and bargain.

For a year and a half, Mr. de Blasio — maybe naïvely, maybe cunningly, maybe because he had no other choice — played nice with Mr. Cuomo, stressing their decades-long acquaintance and going out of his way not to pick fights. Sometimes it worked, as when the mayor won funding for a huge expansion of prekindergarten. Sometimes it didn’t. He was never going to eliminate longstanding mayor-governor tensions. But he has seemed to be making an effort to get past the nonsense, with a steadfast focus on policy over personality and power plays.

Some are now wondering whether Mr. de Blasio’s stand-up-to-the-bully tack will backfire. If it does, it will make clearer than ever who the bully is.

Very strong support from the Times editorial page.

De Blasio told the truth.

Cuomo's a bully.

De Blasio/Cuomo Feud Day Three: Cuomo Loyalists Worried About Cuomo's "Democrat Problem"

Day Three of the de Blasio/Cuomo feud and while there are still few prominent Democratic politicians publicly siding with de Blasio (I count just state Senator Mark Panepinto and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams for now), many are piling on Cuomo off the record or indirectly.

Here's Harry Siegel in the Daily News:

The phrase “nothing to lose” came up repeatedly as I asked de Blasio-aligned Democrats how, exactly, attacking Cuomo personally helps the city.

“It is cathartic, but I think it’s also politically smart,” said one City Hall veteran with extensive experience dealing with the governor. “What’s Cuomo going to do? Take the largest school system in America hostage? He’s already done that. Bill’s calculation was that he had nothing to lose.”

...

“This is not about the difference between a wide-eyed idealist and a clear-eyed pragmatist,” said the Democrat, in an assessment others sympathetic to de Blasio echoed. “This is the difference between someone who is not a psychopath and someone who is. Saying that clarifies the picture for voters — that the mayor is with the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who think Albany is a bad place.”

Strong word, “psychopath,” but it speaks to how the name “Andrew Cuomo” has become a slur in progressive circles, both because of his politics and what they see as his conniving nature.

Stephanie Miner, mayor of Buffalo:

Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner knows firsthand what it’s like to feud with the powerful governor.

Miner was Cuomo’s hand-picked co-chairwoman of the state Democratic party until she fell out of favor after publicly criticizing a pension plan by the governor.

For a while, Cuomo stopped talking to her and often did events just outside her city to which she was not invited.

“The blowback was a lot of anonymous ad hominem attacks and lots of threats,” she said. “I just said I wasn’t going to be bullied or intimidated.”

When Miner earlier this year called on the state to use a multi-billion-dollar surplus to help fund local infrastructure projects, Cuomo responded that Syracuse should pay for its own water projects by reviving the local economy.

“This governor in particular, when you have a disagreement with him on public policy, he views that as heresy,” Miner said.

Mark Panepinto again:

New to Albany, Sen. Marc C. Panepinto, D-Buffalo, said that there are many reasons for Cuomo’s problems with his own party. “He’s in the first six months of a second term. He picks unnecessary fights with key Democratic constituencies. His poll numbers are down, and his favoring of the moneyed interests of the state has made it easier for rank-and-file Democrats to stand against him,” the senator said.

Jumaane Williams:

Councilman Jumaane D. Williams, a Brooklyn Democrat, led a chant this week against Mr. Cuomo at a meeting of the Rent Guidelines Board, calling out: “Cuomo betrayed us. The R.G.B. can save us.” Mr. Williams, who declined to endorse Mr. Cuomo in the 2014 Democratic primary, said he now wishes he had campaigned actively against the governor.

“I think somebody has to run against him, and I think somebody will,” Mr. Williams said.

Progressives backed de Blasio in the fight:

Liberals who have long chafed under Gov. Andrew Cuomo's centrist governing are thrilled that Mayor Bill de Blasio attacked the governor Tuesday for stymieing the city's agenda in Albany.

"Democrats are angry with a governor whose word is not trustworthy, and who pursues Republican policies," said Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham Law School professor who challenged Mr. Cuomo in the 2014 Democratic primary. "Republicans are tired of him, too, as he seems less driven by ideas or governing and more by power and intrigue."

...

When Ms. Teachout bid for the Working Families Party endorsement last year, Mr. de Blasio helped persuade the party to give its ballot line to Mr. Cuomo. Still, she said she has no hard feelings for the mayor and is grateful that his dispute with Mr. Cuomo has finally spilled out into the public sphere.

"He made a big mistake [in backing Mr. Cuomo last year], I think, but I generally agree with him and am thrilled he's standing up," she said. "Punditry aside, New Yorkers really need leaders who are going to openly have their back, and say what they think. I liked him before, but I like him even better now."

...

 

"The mayor is reiterating what many of us feel," said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change and a member of the Working Families Party. "His comments were a breath of fresh air."

Mr. Westin spent much of this legislative session protesting against Mr. Cuomo for not pushing harder to protect rent-regulated tenants. He said the mayor's comments could prove to be a galvanizing moment for those on the political left, who until now have been flailing against the governor or felt snookered by him.

"When we actually have a mayor that has his soapbox and is calling [Mr. Cuomo] out when he is not staying true to his word, then I think we have a much bigger megaphone to go out and push our policies," he said.

And the biggest sign that this is a problem for Cuomo - his loyalists are concerned:

Once relegated to whispers, a growing number of Democrats no longer are afraid to publicly take on Cuomo. They say two factors are at work: what de Blasio described as an “accumulated experience” in dealing with the governor and the realities that Cuomo’s poll numbers have been diving and his re-election last year was less than overwhelming.

...

If the governor’s team is keeping a stiff upper lip about Democratic relations, the situation has Cuomo loyalists worried. They talk of another recent governor, Eliot L. Spitzer, who also had problems with fellow Democrats.

In interviews over the last week, key Democrats say 2015 is turning out to be Cuomo’s most challenging period in office as he walks the tightrope of serving as governor in a diverse state and also titular head of a left-leaning Democratic Party. They say their unhappiness is more complex than complaints by liberal Democrats that he is too cozy with Republicans and some deep-pocketed business interests.

The governor’s supporters also sound anxious.

Assemblywoman Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, D-Buffalo, who last year was co-chairwoman of Cuomo’s re-election campaign, said that she personally likes Cuomo but that he “really could afford better working relationships with Democrats.”

“Some people feel like he works against them, and that is a negative for our party,” she said, “and I think we could probably get so much more done if it didn’t always have to be one way.”

More and more, de Blasio's criticisms of Cuomo are looking like a watershed moment where the dam breaks and the tide turns against Cuomo.

The key indicator of that is not so much the glee of liberals at de Blaiso's criticism but the worry of Cuomo's dwindling loyalists that Cuomo's got to change but alas, he's probably incapable of it.

Eric Adams Backs De Blasio in Fight With Cuomo

Attorney General Schneiderman, City Council Speaker Mark-Viverito and Public Advocate James all declined to back Bill de Blasio for his comments yesterday blasting Governor Cuomo, but de Blasio did get public support from Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams:

One Democrat who did have Mr. de Blasio’s back was Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams. Mr. Adams, a former Democratic state senator, defended the mayor after he spoke at Mr. Schneiderman’s event, telling the Observer he was “grateful” Mr. de Blasio spoke out.

He blamed Mr. Cuomo for helping Senate Republicans gerrymander their districts, not adequately funding public schools, and failing to sufficiently strengthen rent regulations.

“We’re frustrated and angry and expect more from a Democratic governor,” he said.

I understand Dems like Scheiderman, James and Mark-Viverito not wanting to pick a fight with Cuomo that they didn't start, but this kind of caution veers into co-dependency when it comes to Cuomo.

So far, no prominent Dems have come out in support of Cuomo (despite his calling around to get some public support), a couple have backed de Blasio (state senator Mark Panepinto and now Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams.)

We'll see how this progresses.

Conjecture from some journos on twitter is that this battle will peter out as both Cuomo and de Blasio realize they have more to lose than gain, and that it will all end with some "beer summit" bro-hug.

Perhaps.

Nonetheless I think it was important for de Blasio to stop the abuse and take a public stand against Cuomo.

As Alex Balk wrote at The Awl today:

For those of us who have feared that, rather than craftily allowing himself to appear as an amiable dunce in an attempt to do liberalism by stealth, de Blasio actually is just a big fucking dummy who means well but couldn’t tie his shoes without asking for four different perspectives on whether you put the left lace over the right or the other way around, it’s a pleasure to see him finally stand up for himself, whether or not it will have a negative effect on how the governor treats the city from now on. (What’s Cuomo going to do, fuck New York over worse? He’s boxed out from running for president and if he wants a third term he’s not going to get it on votes from Utica and Plattsburgh alone.) 

Seriously, how much worse can Cuomo screw NYC over than he a;ready has?

Especially now that de Blasio has torn back the curtain and said "Hey, guy's a prick, he screws with us just to screw with us and we now expect more since I've gone public with the bullshit games he plays."

And especially since Cuomo's already roundly hated upstate and only survives with approval ratings above Spitzer levels because of the support he has in NYC.

Cuomo Calling Around, Trying To Get Dems To Stand With Him Against De Blasio

Well, that didn't take long.

Yesterday Mayor Bill de Blasio unloaded on Governor Andrew Cuomo, calling him a transactional politician who governs by vendetta and has no political allegiance to anything or anybody except his own career.

Today, Cuomo starts the counterattack:

2 Dem Party sources:Cuomo admin calling around today seeking Dems to publicly back Cuomo in fight w/ de Blasio.

— Tom Precious (@TomPreciousALB) July 1, 2015

So far, it's been de Blasio who's gotten backing from fellow Dems.

Yesterday there was this in Ross Barkan's Observer piece on the feud:

Among top Democrats in New York, Mr. Cuomo is virtually friendless. He has burned bridges with Sen. Charles Schumer, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. Ditto the rank-and-file party activists motivated more by ideology than Mr. Cuomo’s centrist pragmatism.

...

An Albany Democrat was similarly blunt.

“I think what you are seeing is that the governor has no friends and that is because he has no actual beliefs and vision,” the Democrat said. “He just wants to win.”

State Senator Mark Panepinto went on record last night backing de Blasio in the battle with Cuomo:

During a wide-ranging CapTon interview last night, Buffalo Sen. Marc Panepinto unleashed on the governor, saying he had “lined up with the Senate Republicans against the mayor of New York City” during the end of the 2015 session.

“Poor Mayor de Blasio,” Panepinto said. “There wasn’t one thing that the governor agreed with him on, even though they share a party affiliation.”

The senator’s comments echoed the mayor’s very public venting of his frustrations with the governor over the past six months, which included an accusation that the Senate Republicans were under Cuomo’s “control” when it came to thwarting NYC’s agenda.

Panepinto insisted he has a “great deal of respect for the governor, but he wants to rule the Democratic Party with an iron fist.”

“We’re a party of inclusion we’re a party of discussion…and it’s been my impression during my short time in state government that Governor Cuomo often doesn’t like those debates,” the senator said. 

Cuomo privately backed Panepinto's Republican opponent, former state Senator Mark Grisanti, last November as payback for Grisanti's backing Cuomo on gay marriage, so Panepinto owes Cuomo nothing.

Still, you've already got one Dem on record echoing de Blasio's remarks and at least one Dem off the record doing the same.

We'll see how many Dems come out to support Cuomo - I suspect we'll see a few who owe either their jobs or their political relevance to Cuomo back him.

That means the inevitable David Paterson statement of support (though as Louis Flores pointed out, Cuomo played games with Paterson back in the day too) and a few others.

Political consultants who've worked for Cuomo will warn us that de Blasio is wrong here (you know, like Hank Scheinkopf), but again, they'll have expedient reasons to do so.

Otherwise, I bet Cuomo's going to have some trouble getting fellow Democrats or party activists to publicly back him.

After all the years of screw jobs, Cuomo has alienated nearly everybody in the political establishment and sits isolated in his darkened room on the second floor making his phone calls that nobody wants to get or act upon.

The Bigger Risk For De Blasio Was Staying Silent While Cuomo Mauled Him

I keep reading this morning about the "risk" that Mayor Bill de Blasio took in publicly blasting Governor Andrew Cuomo as a transactional politician who governs by vendetta.

See here, here, here, and here.

But even a few critics of de Blasio's critique acknowledge how badly Andrew Cuomo has treated Bill de Blasio and NYC in the 18 months de Blasio has been mayor.

Josh Greenman wrote up a list of the barbs, arrows, slights and outright screw jobs Cuomo has sent de Blasio's way in the past year and a half:

In the midst of the Ebola crisis last fall, Cuomo failed to consult the mayor before making major policy announcements.

Ditto when Cuomo decided to shut the city’s subways before a snowstorm.

When de Blasio put forward a plan to build housing at Queens’ Sunnyside Yards — a goal Cuomo should have been able to work with — Cuomo snippily replied the space wasn’t available.

This year, agreeing with the state’s request, de Blasio and the city were set to pony up more money than ever to support the buses and subways — only to be attacked by Cuomo’s MTA as cheapskates after the budget had gone to press.

Against his better fiscal instincts, Cuomo fought against de Blasio in favor of hiking disability pensions for cops and firefighters — which would have saddled the city with huge bills.

Having previously been a champion of mayoral control of the schools, Cuomo gladly accepted Republicans’ insulting one-year extension.

And when de Blasio offered vital, pragmatic reforms to the 421-a housing tax credit, Cuomo had nothing to offer but out-of-character complaints that de Blasio was shortchanging construction workers.

And Ken Lovett gets an unnamed former Bloomberg aide to note that considering how badly Cuomo was treating his "friend" Bill de Blasio, the mayor had nothing to lose:

Seasoned observers understand why the mayor got fed up. A one-time aide to Michael Bloomberg, who as mayor had his own problems with Cuomo, said that the governor “never made Bloomberg feel like he had nothing left to lose, but that’s what he’s done to de Blasio and I think Cuomo will regret it.”

Don't forget too that Cuomo started the public feud by criticizing de Blasio to Ken Lovett last week, but doing it through the beard of an "unnamed" source in the Cuomo administration who turned out to speak exactly the way Andrew Cuomo speaks.

I think this tweet sums up the bigger risk for de Blasio than openly returning fire at Cuomo:

@joshgreenman the risk comes from staying silent. Cuomo already shunned NYC repeatedly, so may as well pull back the curtain for the public

— Blöke in Brööklyn (@BrooklynShaun) July 1, 2015

Sure, de Blasio's taken a risk by being so open and forthright in his criticisms of Cuomo (Elias Isquith tweeted that de Blasio had nuked the bridge between he and Cuomo - then nuked the ashes), but quite frankly, the bigger risk was, Brooklyn Shaun said, in staying silent as Cuomo took it to him over and over and over.

By calling out Cuomo as a vindictive politician who governs by vendetta, by pointing out all the ways Cuomo screwed NYC not because of policy differences or principle but simply because he wanted to remain top dog in the political equation, by saying that he expects Cuomo to retaliate and he will call him out publicly when he does so, de Blasio puts some onus onto Cuomo when he screws NYC going forward.

De Blasio is helped here too by the fact that Cuomo has destroyed every relationship he has with other prominent Democrats:

De Blasio joins a growing list of state Democrats, including Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Controller Thomas DiNapoli, Senate Democrats and many Assembly Dems, who are no longer afraid to speak their minds when it comes to Cuomo.

Other than party hacks who owe their employment/political relevance to Cuomo  (e.g., David Paterson, Chris Quinn, et al.) who's backing Cuomo in a fight with de Blasio?

No one from the list above, that's for sure.

I would add our two senators to the list of pols unlikely to back Cuomo as well, especially Schumer, who is said to loathe Cuomo with a passion Chuck usually reserves for camera opportunities.

Certainly not party activists, as I pointed out in a post last night - many are fuming over Cuomo's betrayal on rent regulations.

And by saying publicly that Cuomo governs by vendetta and he now expects a few aimed the city's way, de Blasio puts some pressure on Cuomo:

BdB predicting Cuomo would punish him was a pretty slick PR move. Prittay prittay prittay slick

— Elias Isquith (@eliasisquith) June 30, 2015

De Blasio in part enabled Cuomo by helping to engineer the Working Families Party ballot nod last May and by helping Cuomo win re-election.
 
De Blasio seemed to do this because he thought he would have some chits he could call on later with Cuomo, but as many of us pointed out at the time, Cuomo doesn't play that game and de Blasio was likely to lose it.

That's of course exactly what happened - Cuomo went out of his way to screw de Blasio and NYC every way he could.

De Blasio could have stayed silent and acted the co-dependent here as Cuomo continued to use and abuse him, but I give de Blasio a lot of credit for taking the gloves off, getting very pointed in his criticism of Cuomo and doing it openly.

Now it's important for activists, other Dems, and city residents to back de Blasio in this fight with Cuomo, not because they like or support de Blasio, but simply because de Blasio has become the face of the "Fight Cuomo" movement here.

Others have criticized Cuomo before, but none so openly and frankly as de Blasio.

Sure there was risk in this for de Blasio and NYC, but the bigger risk was continuing to stay in the abusive relationship with Cuomo.