The Governor (of NY) Was Right.

NYT on Mario CuomoMario Cuomo was right in 1984 as 30 years of Reaganomics has proven.

Sadly, Reagan’s narrative, still has credibility and sway over large swaths of our country despite the ample and increasing evidence to the contrary.

The NYT story linked by the image to the left has an associated shortened 8 min edit of Cuomo’s 1984 speech from San Francisco’s Moscone Center.  Here is a link to the transcript of the speech.

In this speech Mario strikes the essential cord of the differences between left and right, now and then.  It’s a shame he never ran for President.

It’s also a shame Senator Warren will not be running in 2016.  Like Governor Cuomo, she has the potential to rally the Democratic base while conveying the important message to the middle class and those striving to get there.  C’est la vie.

Here’s an admittedly imperfection-blurring view of Democrats v Republicans from Mario’s 1984 convention keynote.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans — The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. “The strong” — “The strong,” they tell us, “will inherit the land.”

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees — wagon train after wagon train — to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans — all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America.

 Updates below the fold… (1/4/15, 1/5/15)NYT Editorial on Governor Cuomo…

Mario Cuomo’s Life in Public Service

NYT Article on Covernor Cuomo…

For Mario Cuomo, Defeat in 1977 Mayor’s Race Cast a Long Shadow


7 thoughts on “The Governor (of NY) Was Right.

  1. Anonmously says:

    ” It’s a shame he never ran for President. . . . It’s also a shame Senator Warren will not be running in 2016.”

    Not according to him. As the reporter notes in the article, he made the decision to stay home and deal with the State of New York’s business. And Warren too has a lot of work to do in the Senate. What Democratic supporters are saying now, and said about Cuomo then, is out of 300+ million people in this country, they are pining for the one person who doesn’t want the job.

    1. Thanks …ly.

      “the one person ” Out of the three hundred million, if given the choice between president of the US and president of, say a leading multinational – with all that goes with each – very very few would choose president of the US.

      The difference between the right and the left, since Reagan as far as I know, is the left requires a leader of a bureaucracy. The right requires a leader of men (specifically men, women are secondary).

      Obviously a President from the left would have to be a leader of women and men as well, but we care about government and the public sector, since Reagan it seems, the right does not.

      So any demagogue from the right is fine as long as he (specifically he unless she is cute) can carry the right constituency. (period) Governing is secondary. The key to right wing ideology is outside of defense, cut cut cut and one of the ways to cut is to prove that the government does not work.

      Brownie as head of FEMA is not a coincidence, it is a policy decision. I don’t think it’s much different for the Republican nomination for President.

      1. Anonymously says:

        I understand the distinctions, but have to ask why you bother with the Reeps at all? If all the (good, wise, superior) ‘left’ has to offer is pointing to the (bad, ignorant, inferior) ‘right’, they will continue to lose national elections.

        ” . . the left requires a leader of a bureaucracy.”

        I mostly disagree. Both ‘left’ and ‘right’ require candidates who the electorate believe will best represent their interests, irrespective of their government or business experience. (As an aside, recommend you visit the party platform websites. It’s worth the trip.)

  2. If all the (good, wise, superior) ‘left’ has to offer is pointing to the (bad, ignorant, inferior) ‘right’, they will continue to lose national elections.

    But that is missing the point. There is good and wise policy and bad (I wouldn’t say ignorant, I’d say intentionally misleading) policy and the debate should be about distinguishing the two.

    I’ll take you up on checking out those platforms as you have shown an interest in following the links I’ve offered- and I appreciate the discussion. If you could give me a preview of what you feel is important about those platforms as I offer my ideas about the links provided. (Why is it worth the trip?) Gracias!

    “Both ‘left’ and ‘right’ require candidates who the electorate believe will best represent their interests, irrespective of their government or business experience.”

    Perhaps for the election. Which is important, but doesn’t really help after inaugeration other than having gotten the leader to that position. I’m speaking about the 365×4 days after the election.

  3. Anonymously says:

    “If you could give me a preview . . . ”

    Two examples of the tone and tenor of the respective parties. What needs to be changed, presented differently, and/or completely redone is in the eye of the beholder.

    Democratic Party: Lede is “PUTTING AMERICANS BACK TO WORK”, followed by a 300 – 500 word essay on what the Obama administration has done. Dated 2012.

    – Overemphasizes the current administration – which has done nothing without *substantial* help from the Senate since the 2010 midterms – to the detriment of the party overall.

    Republican Party: Lede is “Job Creation: Getting Americans Back to Work”, followed by a two-graph explanation, summed up by the first sentence: “The best jobs program is economic growth.”, with no specifics other than to slam the Democrats.

    – Scripted by the sycophant network available daily on FOX (all), and Rush.

    Clearly they each suffer from the leadership they are encumbered with, and neither manages to escape the ping-pong of s/he said, s/he said.

    “. . . the debate should be about distinguishing the two.”

    Absolutely. But compare, not tear down.

    1. Thanks …ly.

      So we are speaking apples and apples, here is where I went..


      based on a duckduckgo search (thanks Mary).

      Remember, these are platforms based on the 2012 convention. I think both are entirely appropriate.

      I think it is appropriate for the Dems to focus on job growth as a) it’s happening and b) it’s one of the most effective political tools – not to mentino one of the most important things government – and the policies we choose for it to create/follow/enforce – can do. Create and protect living wage jobs.

      I missed the GOP lede, but I do find this at the top of their principles that are important to their constituents. “”We are exceptional”.

      And I would find disagrement in all of the following conclusions…

      “Clearly they each suffer from the leadership they are encumbered with”


      “either manages to escape the ping-pong of s/he said, s/he said”


      ” not tear down”

      Shouldn’t we work to “tear down’ the argument, for example, that net neutrality is really about government controlling the internet when the exact opposite is true? That one rhetorical divice is to me is a simple and apt metaphor for what the GOP is currently standing for…creative narratives to push an agenda that supports their wealthiest donors while working against exactly those they are selling the agenda to.

      And they do this by telling the people what they want to hear..

      “Folks, listen, you ARE exceptional, now if we could only get rid of those silly communists and fascists and criminals on the left, we’ll be OK. See you in 2016. In the mean time pls listen to Rush, watch FOX and intertube with Michelle Maulkin and Matt Drudge. Thank you!”

  4. Anonymously says:

    I chose the Republican statement to in some way match the Democrats on the same point. To me it was obvious, and always is, that the Democrats take 500 words to explain an item, while Reeps just spout bumper-sticker slogans. In your example the correct response is to ask how – precisely – “the government” will control net neutrality. That’s it. Every day, every issue, every statement, across all media, ask for an answer.

    And for god’s sake turn off Rush, Malkin, Druge, and virtually *all* of FOX news. I don’t listen to or watch any of them (nor Kos, Huffington, ThinkProgress, etc. on the other side). Haven’t for at least the past 15 or so years. Waste of time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s