Google Ads


Site Stats

NY-23: Scozzafava's Record At A Glance

by: robert.harding

Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 4:41 PM EDT


Last night, Markos wrote that Republican Dede Scozzafava was "the most liberal candidate" in the 23rd congressional district race.

This doesn't surprise. A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call "liberal" and some progressives like Markos have called a "Blue Dog."

After reading Markos' post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his "liberal" labeling of Scozzafava.  

robert.harding :: NY-23: Scozzafava's Record At A Glance
- She has been endorsed in the past by the very progressive Working Families Party.

- She is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, which puts her at odds with the conservatives in the Republican Party.

- She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it.

First, those three points. The Working Families Party does endorse Republicans and allow them to run on their line. It happens, but they are more likely to back a Democratic candidate. Living in New York, my state senator is George Maziarz. He has been endorsed by the Working Families Party in the past because of his connections to people within the WFP.

For Scozzafava, being backed by the WFP can be contributed to a few things. She ran unopposed in 2008 and was not on the Working Families line when she ran for re-election in 2006. She also was not on the line in the 2002 general election. The only times since redistricting in 2002 that she appeared on the WFP line was in 2004 and 2008. In both elections, she ran unopposed. Therefore, the WFP endorsements were more by default than anything. It's not as if she had to fight for those endorsements with another candidate.

The pro-choice and pro-marriage equality positions are very good and is a breath of fresh air for a Republican. But just as we don't like it when Republicans try to define us based on social issues, we should not be guilty of the same when it comes to determining whether someone is progressive or not. Is she progressive on these issues? No doubt. But don't judge a book by its cover.

The last point of Markos: She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it. In New York, that can be seen as a good and/or bad thing. There are good taxes and fees, bad taxes and fees and others that are somewhere in between. Any good progressive in New York will tell you that not all taxes are good and that not all taxes are bad. There is a middle ground. The problem in New York is that we have had too many regressive taxes and not enough progressive taxation. So giving Scozzafava credit for being liberal on this is misguided for the reasons I have shown.

But aside from Markos' points, I also wanted to address some of the past votes Scozzafava has cast in the Assembly .

- An important issue for progressives in New York has been Rockefeller Drug Law Reform. A bill (A.6085) was passed in the Assembly and a deal was reached with both houses to reform the broken drug laws that led to extreme sentences for some of the most minor offenses. The roll call vote shows that Scozzafava voted against these reforms.

- Earlier this year, the Assembly passed a comprehensive gun package to combat gun violence and put laws in place to provide for better tracking of guns and provide for more accountability. The package includes 13 bills that were passed in the Assembly. Of those 13 bills, Scozzafava voted for only one. That bill was A.7733 and its purpose is to "Authorizes courts to revoke firearms license and seize the weapons of certain individuals." Essentially, if the person is a threat to the public, courts could take away the firearms license and weapons of that person.

It is safe to say that Scozzafava is pro-gun and clearly anti-gun control of any kind. (I would give her credit for the single "Yea" vote, but it was a unanimous vote in the Assembly. Every Republican voted for it.)

Also, keep in mind that the package came after the shootings in Binghamton, which was a national news story and led to immediate action in the Assembly.

- Scozzafava's record on the environment is mixed, at best. She voted against the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, but voted for the Green Jobs bill that was unanimously passed in the Assembly. The Assembly passed a package of environmental bills earlier this year. Of the 14 bills included in the package, Scozzafava voted for six of the bills and against eight of them. These were bills that were supported by progressives and the Democratic conference in the Assembly.

- Scozzafava voted against the Farmworkers Bill of Rights that passed the Assembly. This was seen as a pro-labor and pro-worker bill to support farm laborers who face unpleasant conditions in some instances.

- Voted against a bill that would provide additional compensation for police officers in New York City that use a foreign language in the course of their duties. She also voted against legislation that would give the attorney general jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute police misconduct.

- Voted against regulating the use of "no-knock" warrants and monitoring the use of all search warrants.

- Cast a vote against the 2010 Campaign Finance Reform Act, which would provide "for optional partial public financing of certain election campaigns in this state." (Here is more on this legislation she voted against.)

- Voted against a bill that would require restaurants (with 15 or more outlets in the U.S.) to post the caloric information of menu items. Also voted against a bill banning trans fats in restaurants.

- Voted against legislation that would strengthen New York's laws against unfair debt collection practices. Also voted against "legislation requiring debt collection firms to provide consumers a written "Debtor's Bill of Rights" along with their initial debt collection communication."

- Voted against expanding foreclosure protections. This bill included protections for tenants in property that is being foreclosed.

- Among the many areas, one area that Scozzafava seems to have a consistent record of voting "no" in is housing. This year, the Assembly has passed 20 pieces of legislation related to housing. Of those 20 bills, Scozzafava voted against several of them. The bills she voted against include: A rent increase cap, rent increases linked to inflation rate, Section 8 housing being included in rent regulation, landlord rental unit recovery, affordable housing preservation, excessive rent increase shield and expansion of the Loft Law.

The reality is this: When people say "don't judge a book by its cover", you should take their advice. The "cover" on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman's right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the "book" tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.

One more thing: This statement on Scozzafava's website came after President Barack Obama's health care address a couple of weeks ago. One of the ideas she pushes? Tort reform. Not exactly the progressive approach to solving the health care crisis, but it's one of the first (if not THE first) things brought up by Scozzafava.

The conclusion I draw from looking over numerous pieces of legislation is that Scozzafava on most issues is nothing more than your average Assembly Republican. Most of the votes that she did support the Democratic (or progressive) positions came when the whole Assembly voted unanimously for a bill. Scozzafava's conservative positions are not reflected in the mainstream media, where she is labeled a "liberal" because of her stances on two social issues that, while important, should never define any candidate and should never be the sole indicator of a candidate's ideology.

I see Scozzafava as someone who is far from the Glenn Becks of the world. But that doesn't mean she is not conservative. The modern-day conservative is a different breed, but a lot of what Scozzafava stands for resembles an old school conservative. At best, she's a moderate with conservative leanings. At worst, she's a conservative Republican whose liberal stances on two social issues have given her an inaccurate label.

Would she be a Susan Collins-type, as Markos suggested? Probably not. Her record has shown that she hasn't really been willing to buck the GOP party line on big issues (unless the whole GOP goes along with it). There are worse Republicans than Scozzafava, but she isn't someone I would depend on to cross party lines and vote on a Democratic (and/or progressive) issue.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

It would be nice to have an equally comprehensive write-up
on the independent-running-on-the-Democratic-line Owens. But unfortunately, there isn't a book or even book-cover on him.
This election is a crap shoot to pick a candidate.

Working on it...
I think there is some info out there on him that isn't well known. I also think there is a lot more to learn. He has some general issues out there, but I would like him to elaborate.

(Trying to get a conference call with him, which will hopefully net more answers.)


[ Parent ]
Thanks a lot for this, Robert
I look forward to your Owens piece.

[ Parent ]
Working Families Party.
BTW, can someone explain the WFP to a non-New Yorker?

The WFP...
Is very progressive. A few friends work there. They have a great organization and, when you're dealing with the state party, they back progressive Democrats 99 percent of the time.

They also do great legislative work. They spearheaded the effort to get our Green Jobs bill passed. That's just one example. They are very active on the legislative and political fronts.

Here is there website: Working Families Party. That's probably the best starting point.  


[ Parent ]
To elaborate
The WFP, as I explain below, is a party with a very specific legislative agenda. They usually support Democrats but have sometimes supported Republicans out of convenience. Their backing does not imply that a candidate is an across-the-board progressive or populist, or supports their entire platform. Thus, a Republican like Nick Spano got their backing solely because he promised to push a minimum wage hike in the Senate, and for no other reason.

[ Parent ]
Also because the GOP was a solid majority
WFP endorsed Republican state senators because they wanted to get in good with these guys since there was, up until recently, no change of the GOP majority being lost.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for this
The conservative candidate is polling in the mid-teens in a district that Obama won.  We don't just get a chance like this every election.  There's a very good chance whoever wins the seat does so getting a percentage of the vote in the low 40s.  If Scozzafava gets in now the seat is probably lost as long as she holds it.  Some have spoke of the likelihood of a GOP primary challenger to her next year should she win, and while that is possible, they haven't managed to primary her out from her state assembly seat.

Owens may not turn out to be the best Democrat in the House but I'd trust him to back Obama's agenda more than I would Scozzafava.  There aren't even going to be any marriage or abortion votes anytime soon, so her views on those issues are hardly the most important.


Good diary.
You have certainly proven that Scozzofava is a wolf in sheep's clothing or a snake in the grass (use the metaphor that works for you).  However, we can't keep pointing out how bad the Republicans are and how they don't care about farmers/students/parents/gays/women/minorities/etc. if we have people in our on Congress voting the same damn way, and I am in no mood to add another Blue Dog or DLCer.  

So, I second the request for a rundown on Owens as well.  Proof that he really is better.  We have the numbers, so "He's better just because he's a Democrat" won't work.  Show how he's better when we need him.

Otherwise, I'm thinking the best thing would be for the Conservative to win and then beat him next year.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


The little bits and pieces
I've been able to gather so far suggest that he agreed with the stimulus, supports EFCA, is serious about providing proper care for the armed forces during and after combat and that he is also in favor of farm subsidies. He is also supposedly pro-choice and pro-civil unions.

[ Parent ]
That's better, if true
Especially EFCA.  The veterans issues is the kind of stuff Republicans stall on but when it gets brought to the floor and it's in the open, they'll vote for it (or many will), a la minimum wage, pay equity, etc.  EFCA is something that will be a very partisan and ideological battle in general.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
My question is...
...if she's so right-of-center, why on earth did the Working Families Party ever endorse her?

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

I would encourage everyone
To stop making the same mistake that Markos did and decide that an endorsement by the WFP means a candidate is somehow "liberal." The WFP plays a very hard-nosed brand of politics in which they sometimes support Republicans to further their goals. Those goals tend to be very narrow. Therefore, a Republican can secure a WFP endorsement just by agreeing with them on a single issue.

A great example of this was Nick Spano, a Westchester state Senator who had pledged to push an increase in the minimum wage. (Of course, his Democratic opponent, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, also supported the hike, but Spano had more juice than Stewart-Cousins would have had.) The WFP gave him their ballot line, and he wound up winning in 2004 by just 18 votes (far more than he got on the WFP line). The WFP got their minimum wage hike.

So, that's all it takes. You don't need some great progressive pedigree, and you don't need to sign on to some broad populist platform, to get the WFP line. Furthermore, as Robert explains, Scozzafava only got the line in years when she was running unopposed, so it meant nothing. And on top of that, in areas where the WFP is weak, it's easy to hijack their nomination process.


[ Parent ]
DavidNYC, thanks for this explanation
it certainly clears up my confusion re WFP and their picks to support.
(All these various New York state parties, party lines, fusion voting, etc, are very confusing to non-New Yorkers.)

Just a thought:
I'm not sure if you still do front page diaries at dailykos, but this comment you've just written above would be a very good one.
(I guess I also don't know if they would allow a front page post that corrects something that Kos himself has written to run.)


[ Parent ]
I'm thinking about
Writing a post there on Scozzafava, in part based on what Robert has written about here. (And yep, editors at DK are free to differ with each other on the front page, and we often do.)

As for NY fusion voting, it's somewhat complicated, but not terribly so. These days, there are only three minor parties that really matter. One is the WFP, and the main reason why they matter is because of their very strong ground operations in some parts of the state. For Republicans, they also function a little bit like the old Liberal Party line, which mostly existed to make dyed-in-the-wool liberals feel better about pulling the lever for thugs like Rudy Giuliani. That is to say, I'm sure Nick Spano got some votes in 2004 on the WFP line that he never would have gotten had they non-endorsed in that race (which is what they did in 2006).

The Conservative Party seems to exist mostly to make life difficult for Republicans. They almost never endorse Democrats - in fact, until the topic came up with Mike McMahon last year, I had never even heard of a case where they had. Once in a while, they do us a real solid, like they're doing now in NY-23. They actually fucked things up for the GOP in the same part of the state several years ago in a state senate race. David Valesky eked out a super-narrow win in a tough district thanks to a Conservative candidate who took 11% of the vote. (Interestingly, the Republican incumbent he beat was named Hoffman.)

The Independence Party I believe is a relic from the Perot/Golisano days. They mostly seem to endorse Republicans and don't really seem to have much of an organization, or much juice. But being on that line is presumably thought to make you slighly more appealing to "independents," and in any event, the conventional wisdom is that the more lines you are on, the better. (Note that in NY, being a registered independent is different from being a registered member of the Independence Party, though surely there are some members of the latter who thought they were registering for the former.)

The other key thing to know is that in order for a party to have a permanent spot on the ballot, they need to get at least 50,000 votes in the most recent gubernatorial election. Apart from the Dems and GOP, the only three parties to do so in 2006 were the ones I just mentioned. But there used to be, for instance, something called the Right to Life Party. They fell off the ballot in 2002. Same with the Greens (who had hit 50K for the first and only time in 1998 - I'm sure lingering Nader resentment didn't help them). And of course, most famously, the Liberal Party finally collapsed that year. Huh, looks like 2002 was pretty killer for the small parties.

Not all of these lines cross-endorse major-party candidates. At the gubernatorial level, for instance, the RTL Party and the Greens never did. And sometimes, folks create fake parties just to give themselves more lines. For instance, Pataki ran on the "Tax Cut Now" Party line in 1994, and actually got some 54K votes (but didn't re-use it in 1998, for whatever reason).


[ Parent ]
AD-38
The Conservative Party reguarly endorsed Anthony Semenerio in AD-38 and I think endorsed Mike Miller who just won the special election there.

Also the Suffolk County DA was endorsed by the Conservatives.  


[ Parent ]
Okay
That is interesting to know.

[ Parent ]
You would be the perfect person
For that job. Maybe including stuff from Robert's latest piece on Owens. Who knows maybe even change Markos' mind.

[ Parent ]
In those years
the WFP endorsed Scozzafava with the intention of keeping Democrats out of the race. Her district had started voting for Democrats statewide (sans Pataki) in the 1990s when she won it and she feared she could be unseated. The WFP endorsed her with the deal that she would vote for some of their major legislation (not that it mattered since whatever the WFP wanted would either pass easily or fail easily in the Assembly anyway)

That's why I don't see her as a liberal vote in Congress. The same politics that got her the WFP endorsement in the Assembly don't exist in this race and the WFP endorsement to scare away Democratic opponents was the only reason she voted the way she did.

A friend of mine at the NY GOP suggested (and he's pretty close to the inside) that Scozzafava is running for Congress because she sees it as an opportunity to "be a real Republican"  


[ Parent ]
Because in most of the races when they endorsed her
she was running with no Democratic opponent.  

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox