I refer to Roger Stone's story, “Skelos Plot Against Espada Topples Coalition,” posted on his website on July 14, 2009. It's been two full weeks, yet I still can't quite get this story out of my mind. The story is still on Stone's front page, stonezone.com, so there's no dedicated link for the story itself yet. Based on how Stone's site has worked in the past, after it moves off the front page it will have its own, dedicated URL. Either way, I've copied and pasted the entire story as “Appendix One” of this commentary.
In brief, Roger Stone tells us that sources tell him (got to love Roger Stone's sources!) that Senator Pedro Espada went back to the Democrats after Senator Skelos attempted to sell out Senator Espada by trying to put together a different coalition, with Senator Klein (who represents northern Bronx and southern Westchester counties) as Temporary President of the Senate, and himself (Skelos) as Majority Leader. When Senator Klein couldn't produce any other Democrats to join the new coalition, Senator Skelos went to the “Gang of Four,” which included Senator Espada, and sought yet another deal. They, according to Stone and whoever his sources are, offered Senator Skelos a deal wherein Skelos remained Minority Leader, but acquired a fair amount of power. Senator Skelos rejected that deal. Senator Klein then informed Senator Espada of Senator Skelos' approaching him, and Senator Espada went back to the Democrats. The terms of his return are by this point well known; the new Senate Rules are likely to be the topic of a commentary in the near future. As may Senator Espada himself, who is a very interesting person to research and write about.
Stone's report astounds me because, no matter how you look at it, if the report is true, Senator Skelos comes off rather badly.
First, he tries to deal with with Senators Espada and Monserrate, both of whom are under different kinds of ethical or legal clouds, and one of which (Monserrate) a member of Senator Skelos' conference (Senator Golden) tried very hard to keep out of the Senate entirely.
(For a writeup on the ethical issues of Senators Monserrate and Espada, check this link. There's actually been a lot written about this but that link has an amusing quote from Tom Golisano in it; he refers to Senators Monserrate's and Espada's ethical and legal problems as “personal issues.” For some reason that gets a laugh out of me.)
Then, Senator Skelos effectively betrays one of his co-conspirators, the one of the two who had stuck by him (Senator Espada). Senator Espada, by contrast, had endured a smear campaign and vicious insults from his fellow Democrats, and protests from Citizen Action. This is a fact. Whether you like Senator Espada or hate him, it is a fact that he endured a lot of mud-slinging in his direction.
For more on what Senator Espada endured, deservedly or not, check here, here, here, here, and here.
In there, Senator Espada is compared to Evita Peron (not even Juan Peron, but Evita Peron) by Senator Liz Krueger, it's said that he left the Democrats over questions being raised about his member items, and his residency is questioned, among other things.
There's been lots written about Senator Espada's ethical issues. Maybe some accusations are true, maybe all of them are. Some, that he's had a troubled history with campaign finance filings for example, are pretty much beyond dispute! Either way, this was a lot of mud-slinging for one man, guilty or innocent, to endure, and Senator Espada endured it to stick by Senator Skelos.
So, first Senator Skelos arguably looks bad by dealing with Senators Espada and Monserrate at all, then he looks bad yet again by betraying the one of the two who stuck by him.
Then, Senator Skelos tries to put together yet another deal, this time with a group that contains Senator Espada (who, Stone implies, didn't yet know about Senator Skelos approaching Senator Klein). The deal Senator Skelos is offered grants him power, but not a title. He refuses. Roger Stone quotes Senator Carl Kruger as asking Senator Skelos if he wanted the "title or the power?" Ah, dreaded vanity. Frankly I'd have been happy with the power.
Basically Senator Skelos, if Stone's account is accurate, did the “wrong” thing at every turn. Executing a coup in the last days of Session that he couldn't possibly win (whether or not the Senate rules changes are worth the month stalemate remains to be seen, if they are I'll happily eat my own words); doing it with people at his side who were both under ethical clouds; then turning his back on one of them; then turning down a deal that gave him the substance he wanted, but not the title he wanted.
Let's now be fair to Dean Skelos. Let's talk about some matters lawyers might call “exculpatory,” meaning in this case stuff that might make him look less bad than I've painted him to be. I am nothing if not fair.
Firstly, Roger Stone could be flat-out factually wrong. There are plenty of reasons to not trust Roger Stone; some of them are outlined in “Appendix Two” of this commentary.
Secondly, I have to recall Senator Espada's early promises to bring more Democrats into the coalition, promises he failed to deliver on. So even if Roger Stone's account is 100% correct on the raw facts, it's possible that Senator Skelos turned his back on Senator Espada only after the latter's promises weren't fulfilled. If this is correct, then Senator Skelos' actions are less a betrayal than a combination of understandable retribution and political common sense.
Thirdly, perhaps the Senate rules changes will be worth it all. I'll be trying to study them more intensively soon.
I'm sure there's other ways to see it that don't make Senator Skelos look bad....But none of them come to mind right now. If I were a Senator in Skelos' Republican conference, I'd confront him about this.
The frustrating thing is we'll never find out if the revelations are true. Large chunks of the month-long stalemate will forever be blank spots.
But that's life in Albany.
Appendix One
Here is Roger Stone's story, copied and pasted directly from his website, stonezone.com. I think that once this story moves off the front page, it will have its own dedicated, archival link on the stonezone. Any spelling errors (who is Senator “Maziars?”) are Stone's, not mine.
“Skelos Plot Against Espada Topples Coalition: Republican Treachery Costs Them Power”
Republican State Senate leader Dean Skelos and his Press Secretary and Chief Political Advisor John McArdle attempted to stage a coup that would cast Senator Pedro Espada aside and make Senator Jeffrey Klein (D) the new Senate President. Klein was to bring a handful of other Democrats to the 'new' coalition with Skelos delivering all the Republicans. The plot brought the so-called bi-partisan coalition down and cost Skelos the Majority Leader's position.
When Klein was unable to deliver any other support, Skelos and McArdle opened negotiations with Senator Carl Kruger and the so-called 'Amigos' including Senators Rueben Diaz, Sr., Senator Hiram Monserrate offering to make Kruger Senator President if the Amigos would back a new coup. Kruger demanded both positions be filled by Democrats asking Skelos if he wanted the "title or the power?"
Despite Skelos effort to dump Espada with Klein, Espada tried to facilitate an arrangement with the Amigos to get a working majority in the Senate that was truly bipartisan. When Skelos insisted on retaining his title any chance collapsed.
The plots back-fired when Klein informed Espada of the treachery of his new Republican allies and the Bronx Democrat rejoined the Democrats with the inducement of the Senate Majority Leader's position. Democrats who were denouncing Espada and vowing never to recognize him as Senate President in that morning's New York Post, were electing him Majority Leader by lunchtime.
Espada extracted commitments that the reforms in the Senate passed to make the Senate more open and divide resources more fairly would stand and Upstate billionaire Tom Golisano extracted similar reform commitments from the new leadership. It was made clear that Smith will leave in January to make way for Sampson.
Skelos and McCardle conducted the secret talks that brought their rule down behind the backs of Senator Tom Libous and Senator George Maziars, the two senators most instrumental in staging the stunning and legal Senate take-over and without the knowledge of Upstate reformer Tom Golisano who was also key to getting Espada to join a coup and commit to a rapid reform agenda for the rotting Albany process.
Gov David Paterson was right when he said the perks being proffered to the turn-coats including those offered to Klein by Skelos to jump ship bordered on the illegal. Senate Republicans upset about being out of the majority again can blame Skelos and his clueless sidekick McArdle for ending their brief return to power.
Appendix Two
Reasons to not trust Roger Stone. Yes, I am debunking my own “source” for this commentary. Why would I do that? Because I believe in fairness and completeness, and in this case the “source” is part of the story.
Roger Stone is, I feel, not really as bad as his critics often say he is. He has his virtues. He's smart enough to know that politics is mean and physical, and a lot of very smart people tend to miss that. (The Senate Democrats, interestingly, have NOT missed Roger's lessons, as their conduct during the stalemate reflects.) Stone sometimes, but not always, has a degree of honesty about and perspective on himself that I find admirable. He, along with his then-employer, then-New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, stood up to Eliot Spitzer when so many others were....Doing something other than standing up. He recognized Spitzer as a bully, and he knew how to fight a bully. He is a very pro-Civil Rights Republican, and opposes the Bush-era trampling of Civil Rights, which is exactly where the Republicans need to be, especially in New York State. He's anti-Rockefeller Drug Laws. He trashes Republicans when he thinks they deserve it, and praises Democrats when he thinks they deserve it.
Those are his virtues. However, I don't like the man and find many reasons to mistrust him. Here are some of them. I'll try and document everything, even though most of this isn't in dispute, and Roger Stone would acknowledge most of it. In fact I'm pretty sure he'd admit to everything I'm saying here. I'm leaving off the sex stuff that's often discussed when his name comes up, and I'm also leaving off the threatenning phone call he's alleged to have made to Eliot Spitzer's father. (He denies it....I figure I'll stick to stuff that isn't denied.)
Roger Stone is friends with Al Sharpton. Because I personally don't like the Reverend Al, I find this to be a negative. (If you like Al Sharpton, you are likely to disagree.) See this article in the Village Voice. Stone even had a role in Sharpton's Presidential campaign.
If you thought President Bush 2 was bad, imagine President Sharpton. Probably not much worse, actually. But, as we'll see later, Stone was partly responsible for Bush 2. Al and Roger are said to share an admiration for Adam Clayton Powell, and to agree on Civil Rights issues (but nothing else).
Roger Stone has also worked for Tom Golisano, the Rochester (now Florida) billionaire who first helped to flip the Senate to Democratic hands, then was a driving force behind the June Senate coup. Note this New York Times article from 2002, referring to stone as Golisano's “Campign Advisor.”
As is the case with Sharpton, I have a personal dislike of Golisano, and thus find Stone's association with him to be a negative. Golisano needs to stay in Florida. He's already “helped” enough by helping to give the State Senate to the people he later felt the need to wrest it from.
Now, those who like Sharpton or Golisano of course see these as reasons to like Stone, not dislike him. That's fine. But let's go on.
Roger Stone has a tattoo of Richard Nixon across his own back. Never trust a man who has Richard Nixon permanently guarding his back. Do a Google image search if, for some reason, you want to see this.
Perhaps the most damning thing, since Stone's association with Richard Nixon, to my mind, occurred during the 2008 Presidential election. Watch this video, from Fox News, especially second 20 to second 55. Roger Stone stated he's heard a “buzz” that some “indelible record” exists of Michelle Obama “allegedly” (he uses the term “allegedly” twice!!!) making remarks that “could be termed racist.” Have you ever heard a more qualified statement than that? Oh, and by the way, the tape never surfaced.
Finally, Roger Stone had a substantial role in the events of Florida in 2000, resulting in the Presidency of George W. Bush....And thus all of the Civil Rights violations that Roger Stone later came to disapprove of. Note the mention of these events in this New Yorker article, and this article on Stone's own website.
Stone has, in that last link, repudiated his involvement and has trashed the Bush legacy. Great for him. That's to his credit. However, he's in part to blame for that legacy existing to begin with.
So anyway....Those are some of the reasons to doubt Roger Stone's credibility.
So why do I believe his story about Dean Skelos and the coup? It just feels right (same with a lot of his anti-Spitzer stuff, it felt right and it was later mostly confirmed by other sources anyway), and it explains things more fully than do more conventional accounts of the coup.
But like I said above, sadly we'll just never know for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment