Examining Bruno's motives

Multiple connections to labor unions are coming up in testimony at the Joe Bruno trial. The prosecution is essentially contending that the longtime Senate majority leader helped the unions because he was getting paid off in his capacity as a private businessman -- or at least that he got much of his private income because the unions wanted the public benefit. And it's undeniable that Senate Republicans under Bruno's leadership became very helpful to organized labor.

But there's more to it than that. Bruno grew up poor, has a genuine connection to working people and seemed to believe in the legislation he advanced. Further, other Republicans including Gov. George Pataki were simultaneously heading in the same direction, having apparently calculated that the party needed to move leftward on labor issues. The defense's problem is that it may not want to put Bruno on the stand, so as not to subject him to cross-examination. How, then, will it present to jurors this alternative, non-corrupt narrative explaining Bruno's friendliness to labor unions?

Comments

[Brian]

So in your professional analysis, how do you explain the fact that he initially took control of the GOP conference as a conservative insurgent against the "overly moderate" establishment and then slowly drifted leftward during his tenure? He was in his mid-60s when he became majority leader so if his working class roots were as determinative as you suggest, then why did it not manifest itself until his majority got smaller and smaller?

[Bob Conner]

Well, as I said, Pataki drifted left too, and presumably political calculation had something to do with it. He and Bruno wanted the support or at least neutrality of powerful unions. But maybe Bruno's opinions did "evolve," as libs might say. Isn't that what you'd say happened with his position on gay marriage?