Co-Dependent Albany Dems Cave To Cuomo - Again

This movie's getting old:

When the Senate Republicans made a surprise announcement of the memorandum of understanding they had signed with a top Cuomo administration aide that appeared to indefinitely delay a key provision of the SAFE Act, the Senate Democrats immediately cried foul.

The minority conference questioned the legality of the MOU, signed by Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and state Operations Director Jim Malatras, which seemed to derail creation of a database for ammunition sale background checks.

Deputy Senate Minority Leader Mike Gianaris said the Senate and Assembly Democrats were in talks about a potential legal challenge to the MOU, which he saw as a slippery slope and something that established a dangerous precedent.

Even as the Senate GOP declared victory – a claim gun rights advocates said was overblown – the Cuomo administration immediately downplayed the significance of the MOU, insisting the database would still go ahead as planned, though failing to explain exactly how and when that would occur.

Apparently, the administration’s assurances were sufficient to quell the Senate Democrats’ concerns – at least in the short term. During a CapTon interview last night, Minority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins revealed the conference is no longer planning to pursue legal action.

“At this point…I take him at his word that this will not stop anything,” the Yonkers Democrat said. “It will not weaken anything. And what I’m looking for is a timeline as to when we will be getting this done. That’s where we are right now.”

Leaving aside the issue of the SAFE Act (which is unworkable), since when does the state Operations Director get to sign a memorandum of understanding with just 1/4th of the state legislature - in this case, state senate Republicans - that derails some part of legislation that had been passed into law by 4/4ths of the legislature?

Senate Dems should be suing on the principle that the governor (or his state Operations Director) doesn't get to make MOU's with 1/4th of the legislature that affect legislation passed by 4/4ths of the legislature, but instead Senate Dems have caved to Cuomo and pulled back from the legal challenge threat.

You can bet there's some Quid Pro Cuomo between Senate Dems and Cuomo over the state Senate seat Tom Libous vacated after he was convicted of lying to the FBI last week.

Cuomo, who famously has promised to work for a state Senate takeover by Dems in the past, pushed former DMV commissioner Barbara Fiala for the seat.

Fiala is expected to announce that she will run for Libous' old Senate seat on Thursday.

Why Senate Dems would be bought off by Cuomo's promises is beyond me - his word is worthless, as is his backing for the Binghamton seat - it's a conservative district where Cuomo is not terribly popular.

Nonetheless we have another instance of the co-dependent Dems in Albany compliantly coming back to their abuser to give him what he wants.

Apparently the co-dependent Albany Dems will never learn.

Politico: Many Unions Tell Dems No On Convention Cash

Good for them:

The Democrats are hitting up unions — their go-to cash cows — for last-minute donations to help pay for next month’s convention in Charlotte.

The response from some big unions? Tough.

Union leaders insisted from the start that they wouldn’t help fill the piggy bank for this year’s Democratic National Convention after the party picked a labor-hostile location and at the same time made fundraising tougher by banning corporate contributions and capping individual donations. And with the event less than a month away, they’re sticking to their guns.

Labor unions aren’t slated to sponsor any official convention events, according to a recent convention itinerary obtained by POLITICO. Unions are also refusing to put up the money to back get-out-the-vote efforts they’ve funded in the past.

Heavy hitters like the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Laborers’ International Union of North America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers say they won’t be making big money contributions this year.

Other unions are toning down their convention involvement with many opting to send a few staffers to engage with union delegates. And some, like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, have said they are sitting out entirely.

“[T]here was a general disappointment in the selection because of the non-union hotels, the non-union accommodations in North Carolina,” said Chuck Rocha, president of the union consulting firm Solidarity Strategies and former political director of the United Steelworkers union.

You can bet that if unions starve the cash-begging Dems this time around, they won't be taken for granted next time around.

This is still a lesson the AFT and the NEA have yet to learn.

That's why the NEA said yes to the anti-union Dems and gave $1.2 million for this convention.

What a disgrace.

Oh Mr. Obama, do you want our endorsement three years out and our hard earned cash for your convention, even though you've pushed a pro-privatization, pro-charter, pro-testing agenda that hurts our members and you're holding your convention in a right-to-work state that pisses on unionized workers?

Please please please can we give you cash as you abuse us!

Ugh.

But many of the other unions have learned their lesson - you abandon us, we abandon you:

One Democratic lobbyist said the reason unions aren’t reacting to the arm twisting is that the Democratic National Committee and the Obama administration haven’t laid the foundation for a good relationship.

“One of the greatest frustrations with this administration is how they treat members and everyone else. It’s sort of this attitude that they’ll come because they are Democrats,” the lobbyist said.

Indeed.

Now if only the co-dependents running the teachers unions could learn this lesson.

Obama's Re-Election Chances

Not as good as the Sultan of Triangulation thinks:

A new McClatchy-Marist Poll finds 44% of American voters say they definitely plan to vote against President Obama in 2012, while 37% report they definitely plan to vote for him, and 18% are unsure.

If only progressives and union members would hold the president accountable by tying votes to policies, they might have him thinking twice about consistently screwing the liberal and union base of the party.

But that would mean progressives and unions would have to get over their co-dependency issues with the politicians they support and I just haven't seen any evidence that is going to happen - not on the left, at any rate.

That's why Dems take progressives and union members for granted and bash them again and again until GOTV time.

You'll note that ever since the right started to hold their politicians accountable for policy, Republicans FEAR their base.

Leave aside the policy stuff for a second - from a politics perspective, that is the best way to NOT get taken for granted and abused.

Obama Sits Out Union Fights

Barack Obama in 2007:

"If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States."

-- Barack Obama, quoted by Slate, while making a campaign speech in 2007.

Obama 2011:

Cricket, cricket, cricket...

The Murdoch Street Journal notices:

President Barack Obama, after initially lending his support to organized labor, has stepped back from the fights spreading in state capitals from Wisconsin to Tennessee, leaving union officials divided about his tactics.

Democratic officials said that with Mr. Obama heading into battles over the federal budget, a plunge into the fray over public-sector collective bargaining could weaken his position as a deal-maker in Washington.

Mr. Obama is eager to occupy the political center, Democratic officials said, to help him forge a bipartisan deal on the nation's long-term finances that could strengthen his position heading into the 2012 election. Mr. Obama has already tacked to the center on taxes, on trade and by working to forge stronger ties with business leaders.

As Lawerence O'Donnell noted on MSNBC last night, Obama sitting out these labor fights has everything to do with 2012 presidential politics.

Obama won Wisconsin in 2008.

He needs to win it again in 2012.

Republicans swept midterm elections in 2010 in Wisconsin.

Obama, calculated as always, said just enough about the Wisconsin fight to keep his co-dependent labor allies convinced he's on their side but not nearly enough to have any tangible effect on this fight.

The truth is, Barack Obama has no core belief system other than his own career advancement and ego aggrandizement.

He was full of shit when he talked the talk of labor back in 2007 and he is full of shit today when he makes little nods toward the labor movement while promoting policies that either harm unions (Race to the Top, Korean trade agreement) or ignore them (whatever happened to card check anyway?)

Until the Dems on the side of labor and the leaders of the labor movement call Obama on his bullshit, the Obama hypocrisy on labor will continue.

Because he knows that labor, like co-dependent battered spouses, will come back on election day to GOTV no matter how much Obama blackens their eyes or kicks their teeth in.

Therein lies the problem.

Tell Barack we're outta here UNLESS he supports labor and you'll see a different Barack Obama.

Unfortunately the labor movement does NOT have the stomach for this kind of fight.

And so the abuse will continue.