Showing posts with label Andrew Cuomo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Cuomo. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Cuomo's Tale of Two Cities



"So, here we are at this convention to remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and for our children. Today our great Democratic Party, which has saved this nation from depression, from fascism, from racism, from corruption, is called upon to do it again — this time to save the nation from confusion and division, from the threat of eventual fiscal disaster, and most of all from the fear of a nuclear holocaust."

Mario Cuomo
July 16, 1984
San Francisco

The keynote speaker at a convention is expected to establish the theme to be built upon.

In 1984, the Democratic Party was still demoralized from its loss of the presidency in 1980. The task facing New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, as he prepared to deliver the keynote address at the Democrats' convention in San Francisco, was twofold: to make the delegates feel better about themselves and to define their mission in 1984.

That was really a fine line to walk. At the same time Cuomo was building up his party and its presumptive nominees, he had to tear down an administration that had been getting approval ratings in the 50s since before Thanksgiving.

He succeeded on both counts with a speech that is rated the 11th–best speech in the 20th century by American Rhetoric. It really was one of the best rhetorical performances you will ever witness, and it was especially impressive given that his message was not the one that the majority of Americans wanted to hear — and it was one of several impressive speeches delivered at that convention.

At the time, Cuomo's address propelled him to the front of the pack of would–be candidates for the 1988 and 1992 presidential nominations, but he declined to run both times. There were even those who said — as people often do after hearing an inspiring convention speech — that Cuomo should have been on the national ticket in 1984, even though few outside New York knew who he was until 30 years ago tomorrow night.

Cuomo began by challenging President Reagan's assertion that America was a "shining city on a hill."

"[T]he president is right," Cuomo said. "In many ways we are a shining city on a hill, but the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. ... Mr. President, you ought to know that this nation is more a 'Tale of Two Cities' than it is just a 'Shining City on a Hill.'"

As I say, Cuomo's speech catapulted him into the lead in polls of Democrats just before the official starts of the 1988 and 1992 campaigns, but Cuomo was reluctant to enter either race — to the point that his indecision led to his being nicknamed "Hamlet on the Hudson." Actually, Cuomo's dawdling was a familiar refrain by 1992, but, in 1988, I knew many Democrats who fretted (perhaps correctly) that their party would lose the presidency for a third straight time because Cuomo would not seek the nomination.

His hesitance was baffling. The nomination seemed to be his for the taking — and I believe that one of the great what–ifs of history is the one about Mario Cuomo and the presidential campaigns of 1988 and 1992. I don't know anyone who thinks that George H.W. Bush — no matter what one may think of him in general — could have come close to matching Cuomo's eloquence in the debates in either campaign.

But there came times in both campaigns when his diffidence was too frustrating for Democrats who craved a leader.

Cuomo certainly was assertive 30 years ago. He sounded like a man warming up for the general election campaign as he criticized the Republican deficit.

"The president's deficit is a direct and dramatic repudiation of his promise in 1980 to balance the budget by 1983," Cuomo declared. "How large is it? The deficit is the largest in the history of the universe. ... It is a deficit that, according to the president's own fiscal adviser, may grow to as much as $300 billion a year for 'as far as the eye can see.' ... It is a mortgage on our children's future that can be paid only in pain, and that could bring this nation to its knees."

Speaking of children, there has been talk that Cuomo's son, Andrew, who now holds the office his father once held, may be angling to give the keynote address at the 2016 convention.

If he gets the assignment, will he do as well as his father did not once but twice? To be sure, if he does get tapped for the keynote job, he will face a far different set of challenges than his father did.

I imagine, though, that Andrew Cuomo wouldn't be likely to criticize the deficit spending of a president from his own party — unless, by 2016, deficit spending has fallen far from the voters' grace, and fiscal austerity is in style.

If that is the case, he can probably borrow very — pardon the pun — liberally from his father's speech 30 years ago, and few, if any, of his listeners will know that he didn't think of it first.

Friday, January 23, 2009

New York's Newest Senator

Well, perhaps now we'll see which is more important to feminists, especially those in New York — gender or philosophy.

Gov. David Paterson, who no longer had the option of choosing Caroline Kennedy to become Hillary Clinton's replacement in the U.S. Senate, has picked Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, 42, to fill the vacancy.

Almost immediately after Barack Obama nominated Clinton to be his secretary of state, female political activists made it known that if a woman was not picked to replace her, it would not be acceptable.

Well, they've got what they wanted. Or have they?

As far as gender is concerned, Gillibrand is just what the doctor ordered. But Gillibrand, who represents the upstate district that includes Albany, may not have the philosophical credentials that New York's female activists want. She is a Democrat, which means the balance of power in the Senate will not be altered, but she worked, at one time, for former Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, who is certainly no friend of Clinton.

At one time, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was mentioned as one of Clinton's possible successors, but feminists objected on the grounds that he was the wrong gender. However, the selection could be seen as more than merely a rejection of Cuomo. Gillibrand's father had ties to George Pataki, the man who unseated Cuomo's father as governor in 1994.

Gillibrand's congressional record is thin — she was just elected to the House in 2006, after launching what appeared to be a longshot bid to unseat four-term Republican incumbent John Sweeney. Sweeney had been considered a rising star in New York politics, but wound up being defeated after revelations that tied him to first the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and then to allegations of spouse abuse.

She is considered a member of the "Blue Dog Coalition," which is considered the philosophical descendant of the famous "Boll Weevils," whose support helped Ronald Reagan enact his tax cut plan.

Gillibrand was handily re-elected in November with 69% of the vote. In the past, her district (which has undergone frequent redistricting as the state has lost population) has been represented by some illustrious names — Republican Fiorello H. LaGuardia and Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. and Bella Abzug.

She is an opponent of gun control, although liberals may find some comfort in the fact that she has been a supporter of same-sex marriage and stem cell research.

Gillibrand has the backing of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which, as the New York Post points out, has many Democrats hopping mad — even though Sen. Charles Schumer apparently supports her selection, feeling that an upstater was needed.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the selection came from the Post's Jacob Gershman, who says that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, now facing the prospect of being removed from office, did a better job in picking Obama's replacement.

During last year's general election campaign, after John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate, many, including myself, believed it was a transparent bid to attract the votes of disgruntled Clinton supporters. The results confirmed that the choice of any woman was not sufficient, and that political philosophy was more important. Most of Clinton's supporters appear to have voted for Obama, in spite of their disappointment.

Although I do not live in New York — and, technically, my preference, or the preference of any non-New Yorker, has no relevance when it comes to choosing who represents New York in Congress — my position has been that, in such a case, when a governor must nominate the replacement for a senator who has been selected for a Cabinet post or a Supreme Court position or something else, the nominee should have the same political views as the person he/she is replacing because that's what the voters chose in the most recent election.

New Yorkers chose Clinton to represent them in the Senate. They are entitled to be represented by someone who shares her views on the issues.

The nomination of Gillibrand, it seems to me, will provide a true test. Like Clinton, Gillibrand is a woman, but do her beliefs mirror the woman she is replacing?

In hindsight, perhaps Cuomo, who served in Bill Clinton's Cabinet and is married to one of Robert F. Kennedy's daughters, doesn't look so bad.