Shocking: Republicans Take Back New York Senate

June 8th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , , , , ,

new york

This truly is shocking:

Democrats appeared to have lost their majority in the New York State Senate on Monday, in a stunning and sudden reversal of fortunes for a party that has controlled the chamber for barely five months.

A raucous leadership fight erupted on the floor of the Senate around 3 p.m., with two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, joining the 30 Senate Republicans in a motion that would displace Democrats as the party in control.

Republicans reacted immediately. They issued a statement saying: “A new bipartisan, coalition is being established that is bringing real reform to the Senate right now.”

This development is so shocking because Democrats only took control of the Senate a mere four months ago. Before that, Republicans had controlled it for four decades

They won the elections for two reasons: Bush’s low favorability ratings and massive public support for Obama.

Not anymore, it seems.

At least one reason Republicans rebelled against Democrats, and were joined by two Democrats, is the direction in which the latter have tried to take the state. They proposed terrible budgets and want to raise taxes. New Yorkers voted for change, but not of the far-left kind.

Additionally, Governor David Paterson (needless to say a Democrat) is incredibly unpopular. In fact, he is the least popular governor in history. Perhaps this too played a role; who knows?

Lastly, some say that the gay marriage issue helped the Republican opposition. The Democratic leadership wants to legalize gay marriage. Voters, however, do not. It could be that the two Democrats sided with Republicans today out of fear they would lose their seats during the next elections if they would allow their party’s leader to push gay marriage down voters’ throats.

More later. As I said, the news took me – and everyone else for that matter – by surprise. Perhaps we’ll find out later why this happened exactly, and why these two Democrats sided with Republicans. All the possible reasons mentioned above are merely speculation. Keep that in mind when you read this post.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Kastanj
    June 9th, 2009 at 00:13
    Reply | Quote | #1

    “The Democratic leadership wants to make legalize [sic] interracial marriage. Voters, however, do not. It could be that the two Democrats sided with Republicans today out of fear they would lose their seats during the next elections if they would allow their party’s leader to push interracial marriage through [sic] voters’ throats.”

    Yeah, let’s obey the poor lumpen with their half-cooked obsession with having the privilege to deny their fellow citizens their birthrights.

    Also, these two democrats are no more desirable figures than Specter, judging from their history.

    “They proposed terrible budgets that would, among other horrific ideas, raise taxes”

    Yes, lowering taxes worked for Reagan and increasing them harmed the economy under Clinton. During the 1947 to 1964 period, the high tax rate also prevented America from having a sustained boom.

  2. Michael Merritt
    June 9th, 2009 at 01:52
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Perhaps this doesn’t apply to you, Michael, since I believe you’re in favor of marriage, but is this a new talking point or something? Legislative measures are now pushing a gay marriage agenda down people’s throats? I thought that’s what the Republicans were screaming for? They don’t like judicial activism and wanted a legislative approach.

    And now that it’s happening, this is also suddenly passing an uber-liberal agenda as well?

    So I guess if all states start doing referendums on this it will then be tyranny of the majority?

  3. goy
    June 9th, 2009 at 04:01
    Reply | Quote | #3

    - … Bush’s low favorability ratings and massive public support for Obama.

    Guess what this tells us is that Bush’s low ratings were ephemeral (read: manufactured) and public support for BHO isn’t so massive anymore.

    All predictable. Hardly “shocking”, at least, given the lies required to create such a negative public impression of Bush and the level of misdirection required to hide BHO’s abject lack of experience and unfitness for the job.

    - I guess if all states start doing referendums on this it will then be tyranny of the majority?

    But gay marriage IS a liberal agenda, which apparently doesn’t have much popular support among the people, themselves (as opposed to politicians seeking MSM approval) if Prop 8 was any indication. That’s exactly why conservatives (don’t know about “Republicans”) want the matter decided legislatively rather than through judicial fiat. What’s been most interesting is the general quietude surrounding the legislative victories for gay marriage and the unhinged vitriol and outright mob hysteria that followed passage of Prop 8.

  4. Michael Merritt
    June 9th, 2009 at 04:17
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Yea, but my point is that some people suddenly seem to decide that the legislative process is also bad (only when controlled by the Democrats, of course).

  5. Interested
    June 9th, 2009 at 09:33
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Tad bit touchy on it aren’t you MM?

    I think you need to go back to basics.

    - Legislating via Judicial branch is wrong, flat out.
    - Since individuals are married in a State, it should be a State Issue. (never mind the whole basis for the Republic to begin with).
    - Just because legislation happens on the State level does not mean one should automatically say – ahh ya got me! and skip down the corridor merrily. One stands for what they stand for and one fights for what they believe in (and what their constituents voted you for)………. Just let them fight for it in the proper venue.

  6. Michael van der Galien
    June 9th, 2009 at 10:30
    Reply | Quote | #6

    This was extremely Democratic, Michael. DEmocratic leaders thought they could quickly pass a law, the state disagreed, Dems lost control.

  7. CStanley
    June 9th, 2009 at 15:49
    Reply | Quote | #7

    MM- Interested and MvdG are right- just because conservatives think that the legislature is the appropriate place to debate issues like gay marriage doesn’t mean that the liberal side is always going to win that debate. The Dems who were pushing for a referendum are within their rights to do so but they shouldn’t be surprised when they lose political support if that’s not what their constituents elected them to do.

    Kastanj- we’re talking about state taxation here, not federal. Since you’re not from the US you probably have no clue of the history of ridiculously high taxation in certain states like NY and CA.

  8. Interested
    June 10th, 2009 at 01:22
    Reply | Quote | #8

    The good news is the Left in NY is acting just like we all knew they would

    Coalition Denied Keys to New York Senate Chamber After Coup

  9. Rosemary K.
    June 10th, 2009 at 18:18
    Reply | Quote | #9

    You guys only have a small piece of the picture. Read about the billionare who helped facilitate this coup. He was whining about the thought of his taxes going up a little and stated he would move to Florida if something wasn’t done. Guess he can’t afford to pay anymore if he pays that much at all. Off shore tax havens come to mind….

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.