When I first read the story today about Andrew Cuomo, it seemed fairly in line with previous things he has said about his plan to attack the labor movement if he wins the election:

Andrew M. Cuomo will mount a presidential-style permanent political campaign to counter the well-financed labor unions he believes have bullied previous governors and lawmakers into making bad decisions. He will seek to transform the state’s weak business lobby into a more formidable ally, believing that corporate leaders in New York have virtually surrendered the field to big labor.

   Later on, he says:

“We’ve seen the same play run for 10 years,” Mr. Cuomo said. “The governor announces the budget, unions come together, put $10 million in a bank account, run television ads against the governor. The governor’s popularity drops; the governor’s knees weaken; the governor falls to one knee, collapses, makes a deal.”

   Again, typical Cuomo: blame the unions.

   That said, I’m not sure that the reporter–or the headline writer–wasn’t making more out of what he said than seems to be justified by the content of the entire article or the excerpts from the interview. Understand, I am making no excuses for Cuomo who I think is an ego-maniac (yeah, does not distinguish him from most of the crew in the state elected leadership) and is perfectly willing to throw unions and workers overboard if he thinks it will help him politically with the people who write checks for campaigns, current or future.

   But it seemed to me that he was basically tooting his horn as a "I’m going to take on the whole system". The first paragraph–which claims he said he was going to mobilize the business community to take on labor–isn’t supported by the rest of the story. It may in fact be true–and it rings true. But, something is missing.