Election Results from last night's primary. Most of my commentary will come when I have a chance to relax.
Mayor: Nothing to see here. Thompson trounces Avella. We all knew that would be the result.
Public Advocate: News Flash: CRIME DOES PAY! One of the few mild surprises was how well crime pays in NYC. Bill de Blasio, caught red handed violating campaign finance laws and one of the top slush fund culprits, not only makes it to the runoff but actually pushes Mark Green into second place. NYC does love its corrupt politicians! All it takes is a thousand mailings and some pretty ads and the voters (the ones who bother to vote, of course) forget the corruption. Mark Green will have a hard time here. Most of the developer and corporate money will be behind de Blasio because they want a Developer Advocate as Public Advocate, so they will push hard for de Blasio. Meanwhile, Mark Green, development friendly enough, will have to run on the strength of his personality and dedication to the public. Uh oh...Notice that the two who made it to the runoff are the two Atlantic Yards supporters. No coincidence that, I suspect. I endorse Mark Green of course, as the one who is basically pro-public and willing to go up against corruption on Wall Street while de Blasio will make Gotbaum seem good (at least she did nothing...I fear what Bill will do for his corporate cronies!).
Comptroller: Katz falls flatz. I had thought Katz would beat Yassky to the runoff with Liu. Her ads were good and she had even more developer money than Yassky or Liu. But being too obviously a shill for developers didn't do it for Katz. Yassky's weaseling, where he eagerly takes developer money, votes developers 90% of what they want, then presents the remaining 10% of concessions as some big victory to the voters, won over Katz's blatant shilling. Liu should be able to trounce Yassky. Liu is smarter, actually has financial experience (Yassky and Katz don't), is a much better campaigner an organizer, and isn't as blatantly corrupt as Yassky, whose slush fund participation rivals even Bill de Blasio's and included the infamous Steve DiBrienza pay-to-play scandal and an alliance with a Bruce Ratner front group. Now Liu has done his share of slush funding, but nothing as blatantly corrupt as Yassky's pay-to-play schemes. So Liu SHOULD be able to trounce Yassky. But Yassky will have Wall Street behind him (they want a Comptroller who recognizes the investment value of pay-to-play) and possibly most of the developer money. Both Yassky and Liu are developer funded, but Yassky more so. Since crime pays in NYC (see above) Yassky may have the edge. Liu needs better TV spots. The one I saw was boring and Liu is ANYTHING but boring. John Liu needs to connect directly to the public. Yassky needs to hide his basic sleaziness from the public.
Council District 1: Hey, I won one! Margaret Chin wins. I liked Chin on first glance, but never really got a second glance at the race. One thing I liked about Chin was some people were calling her "too liberal" and even, gasp, "socialist." These days I kind of like the idea of "too liberal" and "socialist" winning after so many years of America worshipping corporate corruption. But I have to say, I don't know enough about Margaret to really say if this was the best result.
Council District 3: Tsarina Quinn wins. See! Voters LOVE it when you screw them. Quinn has shown she cares nothing for voters, overturning term limits and making excuses for slush find corruption. And voters re-elect her. No surprise there. Yetta Kurland did well for an insurgent running against an incumbent. Yetta should be proud and should stay in politics. And voters? Well, maybe Quinn is just being hard to get. Keep re-electing her and maybe, just MAYBE, she will care about you.
Council District 4: I hadn't heard anything about this race before. Yesterday was the first time I saw a sign for Ashok Chandra (outside Curry in a Hurry). Guess something was going on here because Ashok won handily. This is one of the few Republican party primaries.
Council District 12: Another case of sleaze who cares nothing about voters wins big. Larry Seabrook won.
Council District 19: Well, although the most progressive candidate lost (Steve Behar...sorry, but not a surprise), the very worst candidates lost this one! Vallone running with Republican and conservative support and family name lost. Nasty Iannece lost. Kevin Kim won. I don't think either Gatemouth or I (both of whom do not want another DINO Vallone and thought Behar best position to block Vallone) saw that coming.
Council District 20: This also surprised me. I didn't follow this race closely, but I had thought Choe would do better. Chou won.
Council District 23: Mark Weprin won. The Vallone name failed, but the Weprin name still carries weight in Weprin's district...even if it meant nothing citywide. I suspect this is a reasonably good result.
Council District 25: Crime Pays Again...but that may be the best in this case. Daniel Dromm wins! I have mixed feelings about this one. I endorsed Daniel Dromm pretty much before anyone else...and I pushed him as one of my top choices. Until it turned out he was one of the six people involved in the WFP campaign finance law violations. I felt I had to back off from Dromm at that point. But I still felt he was a good guy. So crime paid off, but the crime was done by someone who otherwise is good.
Council District 26: Crime Pays Again...getting tedious, isn't it? James Van Bramer won. Seriously folks. This election makes a mockery of our campaign finance laws. The clearest message is you can break the law and still win. Well, Marrion Barry won after being convicted of drug charges, so what's a little election law crime among friends? In this race I am not sure who was the best, criminal conspiracy with WFP aside.
Council District 29: Karen Koslowitz won. The candidate I picked came in last. By the end I expected that. Gargarin didn't pick up many endorsements or support at all, so though he was a good candidate, he had little chance. Koslowitz picked up some good endorsements and seemed to have momentum, so I am not surprised. But I AM surprised that crime did NOT pay in this race. Lynn Schulman, another key figure in the WFP campaign finance scandal lost.
Council District 31: James Sanders wins...of course. Again, screwing voters is not a liability in NYC elections. I expected more of Marq Claxton. He was picking up some good endorsements. But he came in fourth in the race.
Council District 33: WAKE UP PARK SLOPE! VITO LOPEZ HAS CONQUERED YOU. You know, for all that this district loves to say they hate Vito Lopez, they sure seemed willing to vote for Vito Lopez's aide, Steve Levin. Had Levin lost, it would have been a considerable blow to Vito Lopez, particularly after his loss of both Surrogate judge races. Instead, Park Slope gives Vito's reign of corruption new life. This is about the best thing that has happened to Vito in years. Stupid bickering and vote splitting among the reformers combined with voter apathy and this year's Vito Lopez/WFP axis of corruption wound up making this an easy win for Levin. I had expected Jo Anne Simon to pull it off. With the endorsement of all reform clubs AND the NYT (the only race I know of where the NYT didn't endorse the most scandal ridden candidate) should have done it. But the fact that rival reformers spent most of their time attacking Jo Anne rather than Levin helped hand it to Levin. THANK YOU Ken Baer, Ken Diamondstone and Doug Whoever. Vito Lopez now loves you. Oh, and so does Bruce Ratner because now Ratner has a solidly pro-Atlantic Yards City Councilman in Park Slope (despite some slight lip service otherwise from Levin (lying???), the Lopez machine is so pro-Ratner that even Mayor Bloomberg balked at their giveaways to Ratner). That will make things easier for Ratner. And none of Jo Anne's reform rivals even came in third. That was left to conservative Isaac Abraham. Pathetic. I'll have more to say about this race in another post when I get around to it. Until then, this race is actually the biggest news of the day because it really does give the Vito Lopez machine a huge lift. Park Slope Saves the Vito Lopez Machine. THAT is news.
Council District 34: This one is one more example of the ONLY way reformers seem able to beat the Vito Lopez machine these days: when Vito and one of his minions have a falling out, we can back the minion. Vito Lopez has a history of betraying followers who don't toe the line enough. He then runs someone against them. Reformers then are stuck siding with a former machine politician over a current machine politician. And that is when we usually win. Diana Reyna, formerly a Vito Lopez favorite, became too independent. So Vito ran someone against her...and lost. Some reformers, myself included, sided with Reyna. Other reformers went for Gerald Esposito...who came in third. Thankfully, splitting the reform vote didn't hand the race to Vito Lopez the way it did in the 33rd, but the fact remains reformers can ONLY beat Lopez when they side with a former machine politician who has gone independent.
Council District 35: Easy win for Tish James. No surprise. So Bruce Ratner wasn't able to flip this district in his favor the way he helped flip the 33rd district. So now Park Slope, whether they want it or not, is pro-Ratner in the City Council and Prospect Heights is anti-Ratner.
Council District 36: I am shocked at how well Iglesias did. I only met him once and he seemed very earnest, but not very effective. He did still lose, but honestly did pretty well.
Council District 39: So South Slope now has a largely pro-Ratner, anti-Israel politician who like to make deals with homophobic reactionaries. And again, crime pays. Brad Lander, another participant in the WFP campaign finance scandal, won. Again, reform progressives split the vote and lost. But in this case I have to say that the reform progressives, though they split the vote, did not lose it by in-fighting the way they did in the 33rd. The reform progressives were the gentlemen in the race. The conservative (Heyer) and sleazy developer (Lander) candidates were the nasty ones in the end, their campaigns (supposedly without knowledge from the candidates) running virulently anti-gay ads in Boro Park. Heyer handily won the Boro Park competition, but Lander, in the end, didn't need it. So many liberal Park Slope voters seem to have forgiven him his anti-Israel beliefs (strongly held) and his anti-gay flirtations (contrary to his real beliefs but still something he will bargain with when it comes to votes). Had all the reformers united behind one candidate they may still have lost this one it seems. Corruption and sleaze beat out honest progressives in Park Slope even if the progressives aren't forming a circular firing squad as they did in the 33rd.
Council District 40: Another example of how honesty is NOT the best policy in NYC politics. The incumbent is a do nothing liar, but wins easily. Not surprisingly Rock Hackshaw, running on a campaign of pure, raw honesty, lost big. Voters want politicians to tell them sweet, sweet lies. Pity honesty is worth nothing in Brooklyn (and probably NYC as a whole).
Council District 49: One of the few good results. Debi Rose kicked butt. And well she should have. I kept out of this simply because I was overwhelmed with other races. But Debi Rose is one of the good people in NYC politics and North Shore recognizes that! To all those who put down Staten Island, I have to say SI did better in this race than most of the other boroughs did in their key races. Kudos to Staten Island!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
An Updated Rundown on the 33rd City Council Candidates
Next to the 39th City Council district, the 33rd district is also among the most closely contested races in the city. I personally know all the candidates in the 39th. In the 33rd I know some very well, have met another, and with one, Isaac Abraham, have only heard him speak, not actually met him. This race is a critical one in the fight against corruption in Brooklyn, as outlined in the Village Voice. Brooklyn Party Boss Vito Lopez is trying hard to take this seat and reformers are divided. Here's what the Village Voice has to say about this race:
For those who aren't familiar with the Brooklyn machine, keep in mind that the former boss, Clarence Norman, is in prison for corruption and Vito Lopez should also be in prison. Steve Levin, as Vito Lopez's right hand man, cannot have been innocent of the corruption Vito Lopez is known for (for more info, see here here, and here).
So we start with Steve Levin, the machine candidate personally put forward by Vito Lopez. My first encounter with Steve Levin was when he came to the CBID dinner, where he quite simply behaved rudely towards Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez. At that first meeting I wondered whether Steve Levin has anything else going for him other than the support of the corrupt Party Boss? After that first meeting, Steve Levin skipped most of the candidate forums held in the Park Slope area of the district. The Presidents of both CBID and IND felt outright insulted by his behavior in regards to these forums. Later I met Levin while he was campaigning and he was in better form than previously, acting graciously even though he knew I was a critic. But the fact remains, Levin has NOTHING in the way of experience other than a few years doing Vito Lopez's bidding. He's personable and bright, and the machine is pulling out all stops (and money) to get him elected. But this is the same machine that put Noach Dear (a known homophobe who has never practiced law in his life) in as a Civil Court judge. This occurred while Steve Levin was working for Lopez, so he was part of this effort to foist an unqualified homophobe on Brooklyn as a judge. This is really the only kind of experience Steve Levin has. I consider Levin one of two candidates in the race who has the least qualifications. Add to that coming from the center of corruption in Brooklyn, it is pretty important that he is defeated.
Part of Levin's strategy to win is to use political connections (and Vito Lopez is an expert at political connections) to win enough votes in the conservative Haidic part of the district to balance out the anti-machine vote in the bulk of the district. I have found that in Park Slope the name of Vito Lopez tends to be anathema, so Levin has to get conservative votes from the Hasids to balance this.
Competing with Levin for the Hasidic vote in the 33rd district is Isaac Abraham, a Satmar Hasid who is running on a combined platform of opposition to Vito Lopez (hence technically reform) and what, for the district as a whole, would be extreme conservativism. Isaac Abraham has been a supporter of Connectitcut Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Vice Presidential candidate who became a McCain supporter in 2008. Abraham, who is running in the Democratic primary, has gone on record urging Jewish Democrats to re-register Republican. Abraham supports tax-payer funded school vouchers for private schools, a tradtionally Republican stand. Abraham is also opposed to gay rights and is anti-choice. These stands put him at odds with most of the voters in the district but is in sync with the orthodox Jewish and old-school Catholic neighborhoods. I have seen Isaac Abraham speak and he is a dynamic community activist and entertaining speaker. So he combines a certain odd charisma with activism and...extreme social conservativism.
Levin is using Vito Lopez's extensive political connections and is exploiting personality conflicts among the Hasids to siphon away votes from Abraham. So Hasids have the choice of voting their values (and so voting for Abraham) or voting according to political alliances and exchange of political favors (and so voting for the machine's Steve Levin). It should be noted that Levin's boss has had a history of supporting Republicans over Democrats before he became Party Boss, and even after that has had a history of actively discouraging challenges to Republicans in Brooklyn, so Vito Lopez certainly has his connections to conservatives.
With Levin and Abraham competing over the conservative votes, the remaining candidates are battling hard over the progressive and reform voters in the district. All four of the other candidates are liberals and have little appeal in the Hasidic part of the district and are far more suited for the majority of the district which is mostly progressive and reform minded.
Among these four are two candidates that have little money and few endorsements. Ken Baer is former head of the local Sierra Club chapter. A nice guy and great environmentalist, he simply has been unable to appeal to many voters. He may come in last in the end. Competing with Baer for last place is a complete newbie, Doug Biviano. When I first met Doug I thought he was an earnerst, intelligent guy who, with some time and experience, would become a great asset to local politics. I just figured he was too new and unlikely to get any support. Of all the candidates, Biviano has run the nastiest and most negative campaign, largely alienating anyone who might support him now or in the future. His hope is that if he bad mouths enough people he will win. This is a losing strategy plain and simple and amounts to a crash and burn. Biviano will not only lose big, but will almost certainly ruin all future chances of getting any support in local politics. He claims to be someone with fresh ideas, yet most of what he says I have heard from others long before he came along. He has done absolutely nothing to show he has the skills to accomplish anything in the city council. His concept of the issues are caricatures of reality. One friend said of him in an exasperated tone, "he thinks he invented the word 'reform.'" His ideas are good and he is on the right side of pretty much all issues, but he thinks just because he says good things everyone will flock to him and he attacks you if you don't. I really wanted to like him and look towards future alliances with him. But he has basically claimed credit for ideas people have been advocating for years and he then attacks everyone who doesn't support him. Not only is this unappealing, but it is politically stupid. No one wants to play with the kid who offers nothing buy insults. And no one will give Biviano the time of day after September 15th. It's a pity because he definitely had potential and could have been a great ally. But you don't form alliances by being a dick. And Biviano has been a genuine dick.
Evan Thies is the guy I know the least about in the 33rd even after meeting him several times campaigning. My wife and several others say he reminds them too much of the uber-weasel David Yassky. I think the term used was "the shadow of Yassky hangs over him." But Yassky has not endorsed Thies, somewhat distancing Thies from his sleazy mentor. Looking over his questionaire for CBID, and from what I hear from others, he doesn't sound that bad. Meeting him on the street I find him personable and appealing. There is the real concern that he is exactly the way Yassky was when he was running for City Council, with strong potential but may ultimately become the same sell-out that Yassky has become. CBID found him too reminiscent of Yassky with all his baggage. I have the same bias, but I think this might not be fair. In my book, the fact that Yassky betrayed him is a plus for him. But his only experience is working for Yassky, so I would like to see more before I would support him. Among his endorsements Thies lists the Smolenski Democratic Club which I was unfamiliar with. A political friend (usually as an opponent) did know it and describes it as "reactionary." I doubt reactionary represents Thies' views, but I do take notice when ractionaries endorse a candidate and wonder why. Most of Theis' other endorsements are reasonable, though there aren't many. I think once Yassky betrayed him, he lost some of his appeal. But he has been endorsed by the Freelancer's Union, Citizen Union, Brooklyn Downtown Star and Brooklyn Paper.
My two favorite candidates, who unfortunately seem to hate eachother, are Ken Diamondstone and Jo Anne Simon. Ken Diamondstone essentially is very similar to Doug Biviano on all issues, but actually has years of community activism behind him to show his mettle. Biviano offers a warmed over platform right from Diamondstone, but has done nothing to show his abilities. Diamondstone has been fighting for the community for years. Anyone considering voting for Biviano should really be supporting Diamondstone. Unfortunately, Diamondstone also shares with Biviano a tendency to run a negative campaign. Diamondstone, who could campaign based on his history of fighting for reform and for progressive issues and his excellent ideas (which are so good Biviano wants to call them his own), but instead he has often favored attacking his opponent. This does a diservice often not just to his opponent, but often to himself. In essence, Diamondstone receives great respect among many reformers in Brooklyn, but has a hard time turning that respect into an alliance that can win an election. He came close against Marty Connor once, but Marty Connor is a sourpuss who wasn't very popular. Most of Diamondstone's opponents this year are far more personable than Connor, so Diamondstone has failed to get several key endorsements that he would have gotten had he been better at forging lasting alliances. CBID and LID could easily have endorsed Diamondstone. Instead they found Jo Anne Simon the candidate they feel can best stop the machine even though they both have long standing ties with Ken. WFP also, in my mind, SHOULD have endorsed Diamondstone, but instead have opted to side with the Vito Lopez machine this time around. NY ADA is the only long standing ally of Diamondstone who remained loyal. Had Ken been able to unite these four groups, he would have been the frontrunner. But instead, Jo Anne Simon has become the champion of the reform movement in this race. Ken does, however, have a respectable set of endorsements including Pride Democrats and Stonewall Democrats.
Which brings me to Jo Anne Simon. Of all the candidates, Jo Anne is by far the most experienced. As a lawyer specializing in disabled rights and as a district leader, she has been serving the community for many years. She argued and won a landmark disabled rights case. She has been one of very few district leaders who has reliably stood up to Vito Lopez (despite the claims of some negative campaigning). She is less inspiring than Diamondstone, but this is because she is far more cautious in her approach. This loses her some support because she doesn't have the fire that Diamondstone has, but it gains her the ability to forge the coalition that I think is likely to win. She has the endorsements of the three strongest clubs in the district: Independent Neighborhood Democrats, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats and Lambda Independent Democrats. Now whatever I have said about one or more of these clubs (and IND can be a real disappointment when it comes to reform), what I have seen is that when all three unite against the machine, they usually beat the machine. When these three clubs go separate ways, all bets are off. But when they unite, they are formidable. And Jo Anne Simon has all three clubs. I greatly respect CBID. I don't know enough about LID to judge. And this year I consider IND a disgrace. But the fact is, when they unite behind a candidate, they do very well. Add to this the fact that Jo Anne Simon also has the New York Times endorsement and I believe she will win. I may not personally respect the NYT that much anymore (like IND they have done better when it comes to reform in the past). But they are influential. More respeactable to me are CBID, Brooklyn-Queens National Organization for Women (NOW) PAC, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, State Senators Eric Adams and Velmanette Montgomery, Assembly members Joan Millman and Jim Brennan, and Councilwoman Tish James, all of whom have endorsed Jo Anne. Jo Anne Simon has united the reformers and the anti-Ratner forces in the district and added the NYT to boot. Her experience and the impressive alliance of reform and progressive endorsements will win out in the end I believe. Now I have been wrong before, but I think Jo Anne will pull it off.
Power Plays by Party Boss Vito Lopez
The Lord of Brooklyn, a Democratic powerbroker who is flexing his
political muscles these days like a gym rat pumping the free weights
By Tom Robbins - September 01, 2009 - The Village Voice
Say this for Vito Lopez, the Brooklyn Democratic powerbroker who is
flexing his political muscles these days like a gym rat pumping the
free weights: He is not one to let a few silly scandals knock him off
the game plan that has served him so well for so long.
Even as the investigation of politicians alleged to have steered government money to relatives and cronies is fast becoming a cottage industry for local prosecutors, Lopez has stayed the course. This year, the veteran State Assemblyman allocated another $350,000 in state funds to the organization he helped found back in the 1970s, the sprawling Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council. This was only the latest of many millions in taxpayer monies that Lopez and his political allies have sent the group's way. Given his many and tangled ties to the group, lesser politicians might hesitate to be so openly generous. But that is why they are not Vito Lopez, and not the leader of the Kings County Democratic Party, nor the powerful chairman of the Assembly's Housing Committee.
Yes, it is true he cohabitates with Ridgewood Bushwick's $190,000-per-year housing director, Angela Battaglia, the love of his life...
Yes, he personally makes sure that the city and state spend some $170,000 on the group's massive annual picnic at Long Island's Sunken Meadow State Park...
And yes, this year, Lopez is pushing the envelope even further, promoting not one, not two, but three of Ridgewood Bushwick's allies into elective office. He is seeking nothing less than a sweep, a kind of Vito-fecta that will further extend his political influence...
Lopez protégés are running for election in two adjoining City Council districts, and the assemblyman is pulling out all stops and twisting all arms to make sure his surrogates win office.
In the 33rd District, which skirts north Brooklyn from Union Street to Williamsburg, Lopez's current chief of staff, Stephen Levin, 28, is running to fill the seat being vacated by David Yassky. Levin's complete résumé is this: Brown University, B.A., classics and comparative literature; two years, Ridgewood Bushwick; three years, Lopez legislative aide. As soon as Levin went to work at Ridgewood Bushwick, he immediately enlisted as a campaign aide on various Lopez elections, the dividing line between politics and social work being remarkably thin in these precincts.
For those who aren't familiar with the Brooklyn machine, keep in mind that the former boss, Clarence Norman, is in prison for corruption and Vito Lopez should also be in prison. Steve Levin, as Vito Lopez's right hand man, cannot have been innocent of the corruption Vito Lopez is known for (for more info, see here here, and here).
So we start with Steve Levin, the machine candidate personally put forward by Vito Lopez. My first encounter with Steve Levin was when he came to the CBID dinner, where he quite simply behaved rudely towards Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez. At that first meeting I wondered whether Steve Levin has anything else going for him other than the support of the corrupt Party Boss? After that first meeting, Steve Levin skipped most of the candidate forums held in the Park Slope area of the district. The Presidents of both CBID and IND felt outright insulted by his behavior in regards to these forums. Later I met Levin while he was campaigning and he was in better form than previously, acting graciously even though he knew I was a critic. But the fact remains, Levin has NOTHING in the way of experience other than a few years doing Vito Lopez's bidding. He's personable and bright, and the machine is pulling out all stops (and money) to get him elected. But this is the same machine that put Noach Dear (a known homophobe who has never practiced law in his life) in as a Civil Court judge. This occurred while Steve Levin was working for Lopez, so he was part of this effort to foist an unqualified homophobe on Brooklyn as a judge. This is really the only kind of experience Steve Levin has. I consider Levin one of two candidates in the race who has the least qualifications. Add to that coming from the center of corruption in Brooklyn, it is pretty important that he is defeated.
Part of Levin's strategy to win is to use political connections (and Vito Lopez is an expert at political connections) to win enough votes in the conservative Haidic part of the district to balance out the anti-machine vote in the bulk of the district. I have found that in Park Slope the name of Vito Lopez tends to be anathema, so Levin has to get conservative votes from the Hasids to balance this.
Competing with Levin for the Hasidic vote in the 33rd district is Isaac Abraham, a Satmar Hasid who is running on a combined platform of opposition to Vito Lopez (hence technically reform) and what, for the district as a whole, would be extreme conservativism. Isaac Abraham has been a supporter of Connectitcut Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Vice Presidential candidate who became a McCain supporter in 2008. Abraham, who is running in the Democratic primary, has gone on record urging Jewish Democrats to re-register Republican. Abraham supports tax-payer funded school vouchers for private schools, a tradtionally Republican stand. Abraham is also opposed to gay rights and is anti-choice. These stands put him at odds with most of the voters in the district but is in sync with the orthodox Jewish and old-school Catholic neighborhoods. I have seen Isaac Abraham speak and he is a dynamic community activist and entertaining speaker. So he combines a certain odd charisma with activism and...extreme social conservativism.
Levin is using Vito Lopez's extensive political connections and is exploiting personality conflicts among the Hasids to siphon away votes from Abraham. So Hasids have the choice of voting their values (and so voting for Abraham) or voting according to political alliances and exchange of political favors (and so voting for the machine's Steve Levin). It should be noted that Levin's boss has had a history of supporting Republicans over Democrats before he became Party Boss, and even after that has had a history of actively discouraging challenges to Republicans in Brooklyn, so Vito Lopez certainly has his connections to conservatives.
With Levin and Abraham competing over the conservative votes, the remaining candidates are battling hard over the progressive and reform voters in the district. All four of the other candidates are liberals and have little appeal in the Hasidic part of the district and are far more suited for the majority of the district which is mostly progressive and reform minded.
Among these four are two candidates that have little money and few endorsements. Ken Baer is former head of the local Sierra Club chapter. A nice guy and great environmentalist, he simply has been unable to appeal to many voters. He may come in last in the end. Competing with Baer for last place is a complete newbie, Doug Biviano. When I first met Doug I thought he was an earnerst, intelligent guy who, with some time and experience, would become a great asset to local politics. I just figured he was too new and unlikely to get any support. Of all the candidates, Biviano has run the nastiest and most negative campaign, largely alienating anyone who might support him now or in the future. His hope is that if he bad mouths enough people he will win. This is a losing strategy plain and simple and amounts to a crash and burn. Biviano will not only lose big, but will almost certainly ruin all future chances of getting any support in local politics. He claims to be someone with fresh ideas, yet most of what he says I have heard from others long before he came along. He has done absolutely nothing to show he has the skills to accomplish anything in the city council. His concept of the issues are caricatures of reality. One friend said of him in an exasperated tone, "he thinks he invented the word 'reform.'" His ideas are good and he is on the right side of pretty much all issues, but he thinks just because he says good things everyone will flock to him and he attacks you if you don't. I really wanted to like him and look towards future alliances with him. But he has basically claimed credit for ideas people have been advocating for years and he then attacks everyone who doesn't support him. Not only is this unappealing, but it is politically stupid. No one wants to play with the kid who offers nothing buy insults. And no one will give Biviano the time of day after September 15th. It's a pity because he definitely had potential and could have been a great ally. But you don't form alliances by being a dick. And Biviano has been a genuine dick.
Evan Thies is the guy I know the least about in the 33rd even after meeting him several times campaigning. My wife and several others say he reminds them too much of the uber-weasel David Yassky. I think the term used was "the shadow of Yassky hangs over him." But Yassky has not endorsed Thies, somewhat distancing Thies from his sleazy mentor. Looking over his questionaire for CBID, and from what I hear from others, he doesn't sound that bad. Meeting him on the street I find him personable and appealing. There is the real concern that he is exactly the way Yassky was when he was running for City Council, with strong potential but may ultimately become the same sell-out that Yassky has become. CBID found him too reminiscent of Yassky with all his baggage. I have the same bias, but I think this might not be fair. In my book, the fact that Yassky betrayed him is a plus for him. But his only experience is working for Yassky, so I would like to see more before I would support him. Among his endorsements Thies lists the Smolenski Democratic Club which I was unfamiliar with. A political friend (usually as an opponent) did know it and describes it as "reactionary." I doubt reactionary represents Thies' views, but I do take notice when ractionaries endorse a candidate and wonder why. Most of Theis' other endorsements are reasonable, though there aren't many. I think once Yassky betrayed him, he lost some of his appeal. But he has been endorsed by the Freelancer's Union, Citizen Union, Brooklyn Downtown Star and Brooklyn Paper.
My two favorite candidates, who unfortunately seem to hate eachother, are Ken Diamondstone and Jo Anne Simon. Ken Diamondstone essentially is very similar to Doug Biviano on all issues, but actually has years of community activism behind him to show his mettle. Biviano offers a warmed over platform right from Diamondstone, but has done nothing to show his abilities. Diamondstone has been fighting for the community for years. Anyone considering voting for Biviano should really be supporting Diamondstone. Unfortunately, Diamondstone also shares with Biviano a tendency to run a negative campaign. Diamondstone, who could campaign based on his history of fighting for reform and for progressive issues and his excellent ideas (which are so good Biviano wants to call them his own), but instead he has often favored attacking his opponent. This does a diservice often not just to his opponent, but often to himself. In essence, Diamondstone receives great respect among many reformers in Brooklyn, but has a hard time turning that respect into an alliance that can win an election. He came close against Marty Connor once, but Marty Connor is a sourpuss who wasn't very popular. Most of Diamondstone's opponents this year are far more personable than Connor, so Diamondstone has failed to get several key endorsements that he would have gotten had he been better at forging lasting alliances. CBID and LID could easily have endorsed Diamondstone. Instead they found Jo Anne Simon the candidate they feel can best stop the machine even though they both have long standing ties with Ken. WFP also, in my mind, SHOULD have endorsed Diamondstone, but instead have opted to side with the Vito Lopez machine this time around. NY ADA is the only long standing ally of Diamondstone who remained loyal. Had Ken been able to unite these four groups, he would have been the frontrunner. But instead, Jo Anne Simon has become the champion of the reform movement in this race. Ken does, however, have a respectable set of endorsements including Pride Democrats and Stonewall Democrats.
Which brings me to Jo Anne Simon. Of all the candidates, Jo Anne is by far the most experienced. As a lawyer specializing in disabled rights and as a district leader, she has been serving the community for many years. She argued and won a landmark disabled rights case. She has been one of very few district leaders who has reliably stood up to Vito Lopez (despite the claims of some negative campaigning). She is less inspiring than Diamondstone, but this is because she is far more cautious in her approach. This loses her some support because she doesn't have the fire that Diamondstone has, but it gains her the ability to forge the coalition that I think is likely to win. She has the endorsements of the three strongest clubs in the district: Independent Neighborhood Democrats, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats and Lambda Independent Democrats. Now whatever I have said about one or more of these clubs (and IND can be a real disappointment when it comes to reform), what I have seen is that when all three unite against the machine, they usually beat the machine. When these three clubs go separate ways, all bets are off. But when they unite, they are formidable. And Jo Anne Simon has all three clubs. I greatly respect CBID. I don't know enough about LID to judge. And this year I consider IND a disgrace. But the fact is, when they unite behind a candidate, they do very well. Add to this the fact that Jo Anne Simon also has the New York Times endorsement and I believe she will win. I may not personally respect the NYT that much anymore (like IND they have done better when it comes to reform in the past). But they are influential. More respeactable to me are CBID, Brooklyn-Queens National Organization for Women (NOW) PAC, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, State Senators Eric Adams and Velmanette Montgomery, Assembly members Joan Millman and Jim Brennan, and Councilwoman Tish James, all of whom have endorsed Jo Anne. Jo Anne Simon has united the reformers and the anti-Ratner forces in the district and added the NYT to boot. Her experience and the impressive alliance of reform and progressive endorsements will win out in the end I believe. Now I have been wrong before, but I think Jo Anne will pull it off.
John Heyer in his Own Words
John Heyer and Brad Lander are fighting it out for the support of the conservative Hasidic vote in the 39th City Council district. Brad Lander has been hoping his ties to the ultra-orthodox, homophobic Dov Hikind will bridge the gap between Lander's anti-Israel views and his largely liberal views on gays and the Hasids. This devil's bargain between Hikind and Lander was at first working, bringing in Boro Park votes for Lander. But then Heyer came along. Heyer is being very honest with the Hasids, more honest about his conservative beliefs than he is on his website or when he campaigns in Park Slope. Some videos of Heyer discussing their social conservativism have popped up on Room 8 and on the Chaptzem blog. I think it is enlightening to hear Heyer in his own words, and comparing this with his website where he mentions little of his conservative views. So here he is, John Heyer uncut:
I find that Brad Lander's ties to Dov Hikind and his anti-Israel views don't play well in Park Slope. But I suspect neither will John Heyer's support for tax payer money going to private schools and his opposition to abortion. Three candidates fit the values of the majority of the district: Bob Zuckerman, Josh Skaller, and Gary Reilly. Lander and Heyer can compete over the conservatives. Hopefully the majority of the district will go for the other three.
I find that Brad Lander's ties to Dov Hikind and his anti-Israel views don't play well in Park Slope. But I suspect neither will John Heyer's support for tax payer money going to private schools and his opposition to abortion. Three candidates fit the values of the majority of the district: Bob Zuckerman, Josh Skaller, and Gary Reilly. Lander and Heyer can compete over the conservatives. Hopefully the majority of the district will go for the other three.
An Updated Rundown of the 39th City Council Candidates
One of the hottest contested races in the September 15th primary is who will be the next City Council representative for the 39th district (Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Columbia Street, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Kensington, Boro Park). I thought it was worth reviewing the candidates, all of whom I know at least to some degree, and all of whom I have heard speak and done some research on. Keep in mind I come into this as a supported of Josh Skaller for this seat. So I save my endorsed candidate for last.
Let me start with Gary Reilly. Gary is probably the only one in the race who has done no negative campaigning and who is liked and respected by everyone I know. But because he is a relative newcomer he has no real support at this time. Everyone agrees tha Gary is running mainly to introduce himself to the community and get his feet wet politically. Gary is smart, dedicated, honest and very progressive. All he needs to be an ideal candidate is experience, which is exactly what he is getting by running this year. It is very likely we will see a lot more of Gary in the future and I, for one, look forward to supporting him in the future. For now, though, he has little money, few endorsements, and is likely to come in last. But coming in last while establishing respect from almost all sides is actually a good strategy for someone who is looking towards his future. I put Gary first in my list because although voting for him this year would be a waste of a vote, I want to emphasize that he will one day likely be a candidate I strongly endorse.
Next I come to John Heyer, who is likely running fourth in this race but has a strategy that MIGHT work. John is the only true social conservative in the race, though, like all other candidates, he is economically liberal. Heyer is anti-choice and is for tax credits for private schools, two traditionally Republican stands (though you don't actually see this on his website!). He is also viewed as being the least friendly to the LGBT community, though his stand on this is not necessarily the same as Republicans since he believes government should ONLY do civil unions, leaving marriage to religious insititutions. Heyer's game plan is to win by solidifying the conservative pockets in the district--mainly Italian Catholics in Carroll Gardens and Hasids in Boro Park--while the other candidates split the majority progressive votes in the district. It is a long shot strategy, which is why most people would view him as running fourth in the race, but given how nasty things have become among the three front runners (Skaller, Lander and Zuckerman) it is far from impossible that Heyer could win. At first it seemed like Boro Park was being delivered to Lander by his deal with Dov Hikind (see below), but Heyer has run an excellent campaign among Hasids and has a shot at getting the most votes in Boro Park. If Heyer can hide his social conservativism in places like Park Slope (hence his somewhat misleading website) and pick up some majority progressive votes while solidifying the Hasid vote from Lander and Hikind's clutches, he just might pull off an upset. In which case one of the most liberal districts in the nation could be represented by a social conservative thanks to there being so many liberals running and spliting the vote.
Next I come to Bob Zuckerman. I had expected Bob to be the frontrunner in this race, but he is generally recognized as running third behind Josh Skaller and Brad Lander. Bob's original strategy was to solidify the LGBT vote along with the pro-developer vote with the help of Buddy Scotto of IND. His original ties with Scotto probably has cost Bob some progressive votes because Bob had to keep a fairly pro-developer stand on things like the Gowanus canal. But had Scotto delivered IND to Bob, Bob would have had a good shot at being the front runner or at least second. But Scotto betrayed Zuckerman and backed Heyer instead, prefering the Italian ties as he always does. So IND, which is generally seen as a liberal club, is backing an anti-choice candidate this year because of behind the scenes deals and Zuckerman was left in the cold. Given this loss of one of his main backers, Zuckerman has done well. In fact, Scotto's betrayal has allowed Zuckerman to abandon his more pro-developer stands and, I think, stick more to his real values than he could have had he remained beholden to Scotto. Zuckerman is endorsed by a respectable group of people, including district leader Alan Fleishman, the League of Humane Voters, and State Senator Tom Duane, but it doesn't strike me as quite making it within the district. He remains too much the LGBT candidate without as broad support outside this community as I think he needs to win. But, in a low turnout race anything can happen. I think any candidate that can rely on a solid bloc of voters has an edge if they can also take a share of other voters. Heyer has Boro Park and conservative Catholics, though Lander is competing with him for the conservatives. Zuckerman has the LGBT community though some are supporting Skaller. For both Heyer and Zuckerman this is not enough, so the only way to win is to also get votes from other groups. I think Zuckerman is more likely to appeal to a broader group than Heyer, but then again voter turnout in Boro Park is more reliable than elsewhere.
Brad Lander is arguably the most "experienced" candidate and arguably the front runner, though that may actually have changed in the last few weeks. Skaller, Zuckerman and Heyer have each been chipping away at Lander's base. Lander often comes off "too slick" to many people, and he has anger management problems (I have seen this personally and have been told stories by people who know him to the same effect). But he, like Skaller, Reilly and Zuckerman, is basically a progressive Democrat who I would be proud to support anywhere else in the country. But here in Brooklyn we always have a slew of excellent progressive Democrats, and I would say Skaller, Reilly and Zuckerman are all more reliably progressive than Lander and I trust their integrity more than I would trust Lander's. Lander is more obviously a politician than any of the other candidates and that cuts into his credibility at times (as described below). Next to Heyer, Lander is the most pro-developer candidate, though he is more thoughtful about his pro-developer stand than many NYC politicians (such as Marty Markowitz who never met a developer dollar he didn't eagerly dive for). Lander's main problem is he tries to appeal to everyone to get their votes and this gets him caught in some seemingly contradictary situations. He emphasizes his pro-developer stand to pro-development people and yet claims to be anti-developer when talking to groups that oppose things like Atlantic Yards. With Atlantic Yards Lander tries to portray himself as having opposed it all along, yet his record shows he has been weak in his opposition and quite possibly far more pro-Ratner than he claims. He has called into question some of the worst aspects of the project but has not backed any of the alternative, more community-friendly plans as far as I am aware. Nor has he been a supporter of the main opposition to Ratner's plan, DDDB. Similarly he has gotten himself into trouble in his attempt to win by combining support from liberal Park Slope with conservative Boro Park. His alliance with the homophobic and intolerant Dov Hikind has not played well in the progressive parts of the district, and Lander's anti-Israel statements from the past have not played well in Boro Park. His attempts to attract social conservatives led to a very embarassing incident where Lander's name was associated with an article, probably paid for by someone from Lander's campaign, that called homosexuals "abominations" and portrayed Lander as anti-marriage equality. This article does NOT accurately portray Lander's true stands on gay rights, which are very progressive. And Lander is understandably upset about his name being associated with a hateful position. However, it seems to me that his campaigns attempt to compete with Heyer for the votes of social conservatives was bound to lead to his being associated with stands that are more in line with those of his supporter Dov Hikind. And Lander's claims that the article was unauthorized suggests that either he runs his campaign poorly, letting people spend campaign money for ads without authorization, or he actually DID authorize it but hadn't paid attention to the content of the ad. Either way, the incident was an embarassment that Lander cannot afford in such a close race. Finally, Lander is also caught up in a major scandal with the Working Families Party which is costing him money in the last weeks of the race. Seems that WFP along with six of their endorsed candidates, including Bill de Blasio and Brad Lander, were caught violating campaign finance board laws in a big way. Lander has also received donations from sketchy sources, such as Josh Wolf-Powers of Blue Wolf Capital Management (which is at the center of Andrew Cuomo's investigation of Pensiongate, a major scandal involving the pension plans of several states) and an executive from Forest City Ratner, the firm behind the Atlantic Yards scheme Brad claims to oppose. Now Brad points out that he usually has given these sketchy donations back, but this does not change the fact that Brad is tied with many sketchy characters and situations. When you add up Dov Hikind, Blue Wolf Management (Pensiongate), Forest City Ratner, violations of Community Finance Board regulations (with WFP), and the "unauthorized" article wrongly linking Brad to homophobic beliefs, it adds up to a lot of uncomfortable people and situations surrounding one candidate. This just adds to the image of Lander as a typical politician who may be good overall, but whose integrity may suffer a bit from his willingness to skirt rules and core values to win. I would say that of all the candidates in this race, Lander suffers from this willingness to skirt rules and values more than any of the other candidates, though Zuckerman did alter his stands to please Buddy Scotto of IND and Heyer has tried concealing his more conservative values from Park Slope voters. Reilly and Skaller are the only candidates who I don't think have ever been anything but up front about where they stand on things.
Finally I come to Josh Skaller, the candidate I have endorsed. Josh is generally seen as running second in this race, though Zuckerman's recent gains and Lander's recent scandals may have shifted the rankings such that any of these three candidates could lay claim to front runner status. Skaller and Reilly are unquestionably the most progressive and most pro-reform candidates in the race, and unquestionably are the most trustworthy and up front of all the candidates. Skaller's campaign, like Lander's, Zuckerman's and Heyer's, has participated in the negative campaigning that this race has been known for and that has alienated some voters. But overall Skaller is generally recognized as being the most progressive, reform-minded and honest of the main front runners. Skaller and Reilly are essentially the same on all issues and in terms of having appealing personalities. The main thing Skaller has over Reilly is he has real support to win while Reilly has not picked up many endorsements. Skaller has been endorsed by Assemblyman Jim Brennan and State Senator Eric Adams (both far more likeable people than Lander's Dov Hikind!), Governor Howard Dean (see video below), Democracy for NYC and Democracy for America, Brooklyn-Queens National Organization for Women (NOW), the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, the NY Community Council, and a whole slew of others. A far more impressive list than Reilly's, and solidly progressive and reform. And no scandals like Lander.
Here is Howard Dean's endorsement:
The Brooklyn Downtown Star had this to say in their endorsement of Skaller:
And here is the statement from Brooklyn-Queens NOW PAC on their endorsement of Skaller:
Let me start with Gary Reilly. Gary is probably the only one in the race who has done no negative campaigning and who is liked and respected by everyone I know. But because he is a relative newcomer he has no real support at this time. Everyone agrees tha Gary is running mainly to introduce himself to the community and get his feet wet politically. Gary is smart, dedicated, honest and very progressive. All he needs to be an ideal candidate is experience, which is exactly what he is getting by running this year. It is very likely we will see a lot more of Gary in the future and I, for one, look forward to supporting him in the future. For now, though, he has little money, few endorsements, and is likely to come in last. But coming in last while establishing respect from almost all sides is actually a good strategy for someone who is looking towards his future. I put Gary first in my list because although voting for him this year would be a waste of a vote, I want to emphasize that he will one day likely be a candidate I strongly endorse.
Next I come to John Heyer, who is likely running fourth in this race but has a strategy that MIGHT work. John is the only true social conservative in the race, though, like all other candidates, he is economically liberal. Heyer is anti-choice and is for tax credits for private schools, two traditionally Republican stands (though you don't actually see this on his website!). He is also viewed as being the least friendly to the LGBT community, though his stand on this is not necessarily the same as Republicans since he believes government should ONLY do civil unions, leaving marriage to religious insititutions. Heyer's game plan is to win by solidifying the conservative pockets in the district--mainly Italian Catholics in Carroll Gardens and Hasids in Boro Park--while the other candidates split the majority progressive votes in the district. It is a long shot strategy, which is why most people would view him as running fourth in the race, but given how nasty things have become among the three front runners (Skaller, Lander and Zuckerman) it is far from impossible that Heyer could win. At first it seemed like Boro Park was being delivered to Lander by his deal with Dov Hikind (see below), but Heyer has run an excellent campaign among Hasids and has a shot at getting the most votes in Boro Park. If Heyer can hide his social conservativism in places like Park Slope (hence his somewhat misleading website) and pick up some majority progressive votes while solidifying the Hasid vote from Lander and Hikind's clutches, he just might pull off an upset. In which case one of the most liberal districts in the nation could be represented by a social conservative thanks to there being so many liberals running and spliting the vote.
Next I come to Bob Zuckerman. I had expected Bob to be the frontrunner in this race, but he is generally recognized as running third behind Josh Skaller and Brad Lander. Bob's original strategy was to solidify the LGBT vote along with the pro-developer vote with the help of Buddy Scotto of IND. His original ties with Scotto probably has cost Bob some progressive votes because Bob had to keep a fairly pro-developer stand on things like the Gowanus canal. But had Scotto delivered IND to Bob, Bob would have had a good shot at being the front runner or at least second. But Scotto betrayed Zuckerman and backed Heyer instead, prefering the Italian ties as he always does. So IND, which is generally seen as a liberal club, is backing an anti-choice candidate this year because of behind the scenes deals and Zuckerman was left in the cold. Given this loss of one of his main backers, Zuckerman has done well. In fact, Scotto's betrayal has allowed Zuckerman to abandon his more pro-developer stands and, I think, stick more to his real values than he could have had he remained beholden to Scotto. Zuckerman is endorsed by a respectable group of people, including district leader Alan Fleishman, the League of Humane Voters, and State Senator Tom Duane, but it doesn't strike me as quite making it within the district. He remains too much the LGBT candidate without as broad support outside this community as I think he needs to win. But, in a low turnout race anything can happen. I think any candidate that can rely on a solid bloc of voters has an edge if they can also take a share of other voters. Heyer has Boro Park and conservative Catholics, though Lander is competing with him for the conservatives. Zuckerman has the LGBT community though some are supporting Skaller. For both Heyer and Zuckerman this is not enough, so the only way to win is to also get votes from other groups. I think Zuckerman is more likely to appeal to a broader group than Heyer, but then again voter turnout in Boro Park is more reliable than elsewhere.
Brad Lander is arguably the most "experienced" candidate and arguably the front runner, though that may actually have changed in the last few weeks. Skaller, Zuckerman and Heyer have each been chipping away at Lander's base. Lander often comes off "too slick" to many people, and he has anger management problems (I have seen this personally and have been told stories by people who know him to the same effect). But he, like Skaller, Reilly and Zuckerman, is basically a progressive Democrat who I would be proud to support anywhere else in the country. But here in Brooklyn we always have a slew of excellent progressive Democrats, and I would say Skaller, Reilly and Zuckerman are all more reliably progressive than Lander and I trust their integrity more than I would trust Lander's. Lander is more obviously a politician than any of the other candidates and that cuts into his credibility at times (as described below). Next to Heyer, Lander is the most pro-developer candidate, though he is more thoughtful about his pro-developer stand than many NYC politicians (such as Marty Markowitz who never met a developer dollar he didn't eagerly dive for). Lander's main problem is he tries to appeal to everyone to get their votes and this gets him caught in some seemingly contradictary situations. He emphasizes his pro-developer stand to pro-development people and yet claims to be anti-developer when talking to groups that oppose things like Atlantic Yards. With Atlantic Yards Lander tries to portray himself as having opposed it all along, yet his record shows he has been weak in his opposition and quite possibly far more pro-Ratner than he claims. He has called into question some of the worst aspects of the project but has not backed any of the alternative, more community-friendly plans as far as I am aware. Nor has he been a supporter of the main opposition to Ratner's plan, DDDB. Similarly he has gotten himself into trouble in his attempt to win by combining support from liberal Park Slope with conservative Boro Park. His alliance with the homophobic and intolerant Dov Hikind has not played well in the progressive parts of the district, and Lander's anti-Israel statements from the past have not played well in Boro Park. His attempts to attract social conservatives led to a very embarassing incident where Lander's name was associated with an article, probably paid for by someone from Lander's campaign, that called homosexuals "abominations" and portrayed Lander as anti-marriage equality. This article does NOT accurately portray Lander's true stands on gay rights, which are very progressive. And Lander is understandably upset about his name being associated with a hateful position. However, it seems to me that his campaigns attempt to compete with Heyer for the votes of social conservatives was bound to lead to his being associated with stands that are more in line with those of his supporter Dov Hikind. And Lander's claims that the article was unauthorized suggests that either he runs his campaign poorly, letting people spend campaign money for ads without authorization, or he actually DID authorize it but hadn't paid attention to the content of the ad. Either way, the incident was an embarassment that Lander cannot afford in such a close race. Finally, Lander is also caught up in a major scandal with the Working Families Party which is costing him money in the last weeks of the race. Seems that WFP along with six of their endorsed candidates, including Bill de Blasio and Brad Lander, were caught violating campaign finance board laws in a big way. Lander has also received donations from sketchy sources, such as Josh Wolf-Powers of Blue Wolf Capital Management (which is at the center of Andrew Cuomo's investigation of Pensiongate, a major scandal involving the pension plans of several states) and an executive from Forest City Ratner, the firm behind the Atlantic Yards scheme Brad claims to oppose. Now Brad points out that he usually has given these sketchy donations back, but this does not change the fact that Brad is tied with many sketchy characters and situations. When you add up Dov Hikind, Blue Wolf Management (Pensiongate), Forest City Ratner, violations of Community Finance Board regulations (with WFP), and the "unauthorized" article wrongly linking Brad to homophobic beliefs, it adds up to a lot of uncomfortable people and situations surrounding one candidate. This just adds to the image of Lander as a typical politician who may be good overall, but whose integrity may suffer a bit from his willingness to skirt rules and core values to win. I would say that of all the candidates in this race, Lander suffers from this willingness to skirt rules and values more than any of the other candidates, though Zuckerman did alter his stands to please Buddy Scotto of IND and Heyer has tried concealing his more conservative values from Park Slope voters. Reilly and Skaller are the only candidates who I don't think have ever been anything but up front about where they stand on things.
Finally I come to Josh Skaller, the candidate I have endorsed. Josh is generally seen as running second in this race, though Zuckerman's recent gains and Lander's recent scandals may have shifted the rankings such that any of these three candidates could lay claim to front runner status. Skaller and Reilly are unquestionably the most progressive and most pro-reform candidates in the race, and unquestionably are the most trustworthy and up front of all the candidates. Skaller's campaign, like Lander's, Zuckerman's and Heyer's, has participated in the negative campaigning that this race has been known for and that has alienated some voters. But overall Skaller is generally recognized as being the most progressive, reform-minded and honest of the main front runners. Skaller and Reilly are essentially the same on all issues and in terms of having appealing personalities. The main thing Skaller has over Reilly is he has real support to win while Reilly has not picked up many endorsements. Skaller has been endorsed by Assemblyman Jim Brennan and State Senator Eric Adams (both far more likeable people than Lander's Dov Hikind!), Governor Howard Dean (see video below), Democracy for NYC and Democracy for America, Brooklyn-Queens National Organization for Women (NOW), the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, the NY Community Council, and a whole slew of others. A far more impressive list than Reilly's, and solidly progressive and reform. And no scandals like Lander.
Here is Howard Dean's endorsement:
The Brooklyn Downtown Star had this to say in their endorsement of Skaller:
The district must have a progressive-minded council member, capable of fighting for reform, who also understands the importance and distinct needs of the district’s more conservative and less affluent southern belt - an area made up of the neighborhoods of Windsor Terrace, Kensington, and Boro Park.
The job calls for a liberal but open-minded person of integrity, intelligence, and sound judgment. The job calls for Josh Skaller, whom this paper is endorsing for City Council...
Skaller, an outspoken civic activist for the past decade, has established a broad base of support through his commitment to a brand of progressive but pragmatic politics, a rare combination.
A proactive environmentalist, Skaller plans to use city resources to implement small-scale alternative energy projects to reduce carbon emissions and encourage residents to take environmental issues into their own hands.
From the start, he has supported the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to place the Gowanus Canal on the Superfund List. Skaller believes, rightly so, that the federal government - not the city - has the right tools to clean the polluted waterway once and for all.
He understands the need for community-based planning when it comes to the all-important issue of development.
Though Lander has more experience in this field, Skaller has shown a more-than-adequate knowledge of development policy, the ways in which overdevelopment harms neighborhoods, and the methods which can be used to protect communities from out-of-context, unsustainable growth.
And here is the statement from Brooklyn-Queens NOW PAC on their endorsement of Skaller:
Council District 39: (Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Prospect Park). Candidate JOSH SKALLER is running for the seat vacated by Bill DiBlasio. Unlike his opponents, Skaller accepts no money from developers and is upfront about his support for our issues. Contact information for Josh Skaller: http://skaller09.com; phone:(718) 568-9699; email: community@skaller09.com.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
NYC Public Advocate Race: One Clear Choice
In looking over what I have written about the Public Advocate's race, it strikes me that what I originally wrote about Public Advocate candidate Norman Siegel back in 2005 still applies now and is worth reviewing why I think there is only one candidate in the race worth considering. Since 2005 I have watched Norman defend the rights of bloggers, firefighters and so many othres and to stand up during each and every major civil liberties battle in the city that to me it is inconceivable that anyone else should be our Public Advocate. But my best piece on him was back in 2005 and best expresses why I still think he is the ideal Public Advocate for NYC. So I want to update a piece I wrote back in 2005 when my son first went out campaignig with me:
Public Advocate: this office is, as far as I am aware, unique to NYC. In a city where the mayor has so much (almost dictatorial) power, the Public Advocate is the counterbalance to the mayor--the person who stands up to the mayor on behalf of the people. At least that is the ideal. Our current PA is Betsy Gautbaum. I voted for her when she first ran. For the life of me I have no idea what she has done for the past 8 years. When Bloomberg refused to give people permits to protest the invasion of Iraq, Betsy wasn't there for us. When Bloomberg arrested and illegally held hundreds of protestors during the Republican Convention, Betsy wasn't there. When Bloomberg wanted to use eminent domain to take private property to give it to developers, Betsy wasn't there. When Bloomberg started routinely arresting the Critical Mass bicyclists, Betsy wasn't there. Many New Yorkers have felt helpless as financial scandals eat away at our pension funds, slush fund scandals run rampant, the school admissions process becomes increasingly insane and divorced from the actual needs of children (as opposed to the needs of companies Bloomberg outsources the process to), ground zero remains an empty hole in the ground, the subway system gets cut back more and more while fees climb...all under the watchful eyes of Michael Bloomberg, Betsy Gotbaum and Christine Quinn.
You know who WAS there at each of those violations of civil rights that Bloomberg was responsible for? Norm Siegel. He was out there defending protestors when Betsy was nowhere to be seen. Norm Siegel has helped communities fight to keep firehouses open from Williamsburg to Staten Island. Norm Siegel has helped communities from Prospect Heights to Harlem try to stop the government from using eminent domain to take their homes for the enrichment of private developers. Norm Siegel has helped firefighters seeking the implementation of a skyscraper safety program and provisions for our firefighters to guarantee they have proper working communication equipment. Norm Siegel has helped families who lost a loved one on September 11th, 2001, as they seek the public release of materials from that day, including 911 emergency tapes and transcripts. And, here in 2009, Norm Siegel stood up against Michael Bloomberg's putch to arbitrarily extend term-limits against the explicit vote of the people. Norman has been there for protesters, bloggers, bicyclists, firefighters, 9/11 families, homeowners, renters and just about every single New Yorker at one time or another.
Back in 2005 when I met Norman Siegel, I also met another man, Paul Wooten. Paul Wooten was one of the people who wrote the law that created the Public Advocate's position, or so he told us. He said that when they wrote the law, they envisioned someone just like Norman Siegel in the position. Now, I had the impression that he also thought Mark Green had been a reasonable Public Advocate, so I can't speak to how the writers of the law creating the Public Advocate's position would choose between Green and Siegel. But Wooten specifically mentioned Norman Siegel as the perfect Public Advocate as the job was originally written.
Norm Siegel has ALREADY BEEN the public advocate for New Yorkers even though he hasn't yet held that office yet. He was Executive Director of the NYCLU from 1985-2000 and even afterwards has been standing up for the civil rights of New Yorkers to this day (including winning a case for bloggers getting their rights when it comes to press credentials). Siegel has actually been working with the ACLU and Southern Justice and Voter Law Project since 1968, so his civil rights credentials go all the way back. He even spearheaded the New York campaigns for the impeachment of Nixon. I cannot think of a better advocate for the people of NYC.
Norman Siegel has also been endorsed by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Democracy for NYC, Park River Independent Democrats (Upper West Side), the Village Reform Democratic Club, the Grand Council of Guardians (an organization of African-American law enforcement officials), Room 8 blogger and Brooklyn City Council candidate Rock Hackshaw, the New York Metro Area Postal Union (APWU, AFL-CIO), Audubon Reform Democratic Club (Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights), and Brooklyn Democrats for Change (Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights, Fort Hamilton, Bath Beach and Gravesend).
I should also add that fellow blogger Rock Hackshaw saw this one as a given and endorsed Norman Siegel early on. I have had the pleasure of Rock and Norm interacting at a BBQ at Wellington Sharpe's place and have reported on the mutual respect Rock and Norm have for eachother even if they don't agree on all issues.
Among the other candidates I have nothing negative to say for Mark Green, who showed he was a capable Public Advocate before, or Eric Gioia, who I have personal reasons for not supporting but may well be a decent Public Advocate. Only Bill de Blasio seems unqualified for the position both because of the major scandals he has been involved in (slush fund scandals and the WFP violations of campaign finance laws) and because he is widely known as being the advocate only for developers, not the people. But of the four, Norm Siegel stands out as being the MOST qualified and the STRONGEST advocate for the people. If we can elect Norm Siegel as Public Advocate, we will go a long way to restoring some common sense and honesty to this city government even if Bloomberg manages to annoint himself to a third term.
Public Advocate: this office is, as far as I am aware, unique to NYC. In a city where the mayor has so much (almost dictatorial) power, the Public Advocate is the counterbalance to the mayor--the person who stands up to the mayor on behalf of the people. At least that is the ideal. Our current PA is Betsy Gautbaum. I voted for her when she first ran. For the life of me I have no idea what she has done for the past 8 years. When Bloomberg refused to give people permits to protest the invasion of Iraq, Betsy wasn't there for us. When Bloomberg arrested and illegally held hundreds of protestors during the Republican Convention, Betsy wasn't there. When Bloomberg wanted to use eminent domain to take private property to give it to developers, Betsy wasn't there. When Bloomberg started routinely arresting the Critical Mass bicyclists, Betsy wasn't there. Many New Yorkers have felt helpless as financial scandals eat away at our pension funds, slush fund scandals run rampant, the school admissions process becomes increasingly insane and divorced from the actual needs of children (as opposed to the needs of companies Bloomberg outsources the process to), ground zero remains an empty hole in the ground, the subway system gets cut back more and more while fees climb...all under the watchful eyes of Michael Bloomberg, Betsy Gotbaum and Christine Quinn.
You know who WAS there at each of those violations of civil rights that Bloomberg was responsible for? Norm Siegel. He was out there defending protestors when Betsy was nowhere to be seen. Norm Siegel has helped communities fight to keep firehouses open from Williamsburg to Staten Island. Norm Siegel has helped communities from Prospect Heights to Harlem try to stop the government from using eminent domain to take their homes for the enrichment of private developers. Norm Siegel has helped firefighters seeking the implementation of a skyscraper safety program and provisions for our firefighters to guarantee they have proper working communication equipment. Norm Siegel has helped families who lost a loved one on September 11th, 2001, as they seek the public release of materials from that day, including 911 emergency tapes and transcripts. And, here in 2009, Norm Siegel stood up against Michael Bloomberg's putch to arbitrarily extend term-limits against the explicit vote of the people. Norman has been there for protesters, bloggers, bicyclists, firefighters, 9/11 families, homeowners, renters and just about every single New Yorker at one time or another.
Back in 2005 when I met Norman Siegel, I also met another man, Paul Wooten. Paul Wooten was one of the people who wrote the law that created the Public Advocate's position, or so he told us. He said that when they wrote the law, they envisioned someone just like Norman Siegel in the position. Now, I had the impression that he also thought Mark Green had been a reasonable Public Advocate, so I can't speak to how the writers of the law creating the Public Advocate's position would choose between Green and Siegel. But Wooten specifically mentioned Norman Siegel as the perfect Public Advocate as the job was originally written.
Norm Siegel has ALREADY BEEN the public advocate for New Yorkers even though he hasn't yet held that office yet. He was Executive Director of the NYCLU from 1985-2000 and even afterwards has been standing up for the civil rights of New Yorkers to this day (including winning a case for bloggers getting their rights when it comes to press credentials). Siegel has actually been working with the ACLU and Southern Justice and Voter Law Project since 1968, so his civil rights credentials go all the way back. He even spearheaded the New York campaigns for the impeachment of Nixon. I cannot think of a better advocate for the people of NYC.
Norman Siegel has also been endorsed by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Democracy for NYC, Park River Independent Democrats (Upper West Side), the Village Reform Democratic Club, the Grand Council of Guardians (an organization of African-American law enforcement officials), Room 8 blogger and Brooklyn City Council candidate Rock Hackshaw, the New York Metro Area Postal Union (APWU, AFL-CIO), Audubon Reform Democratic Club (Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights), and Brooklyn Democrats for Change (Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights, Fort Hamilton, Bath Beach and Gravesend).
I should also add that fellow blogger Rock Hackshaw saw this one as a given and endorsed Norman Siegel early on. I have had the pleasure of Rock and Norm interacting at a BBQ at Wellington Sharpe's place and have reported on the mutual respect Rock and Norm have for eachother even if they don't agree on all issues.
Among the other candidates I have nothing negative to say for Mark Green, who showed he was a capable Public Advocate before, or Eric Gioia, who I have personal reasons for not supporting but may well be a decent Public Advocate. Only Bill de Blasio seems unqualified for the position both because of the major scandals he has been involved in (slush fund scandals and the WFP violations of campaign finance laws) and because he is widely known as being the advocate only for developers, not the people. But of the four, Norm Siegel stands out as being the MOST qualified and the STRONGEST advocate for the people. If we can elect Norm Siegel as Public Advocate, we will go a long way to restoring some common sense and honesty to this city government even if Bloomberg manages to annoint himself to a third term.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Corrupt Party Boss Flexes His Muscles in Brooklyn
I recently wrote about the fierce competition between corrupt Party Boss Vito Lopez's aide, Steve Levin, and social conservative Isaac Abraham for the conservative votes in the 33rd City Council district while progressive reformers Jo Anne Simon and Ken Diamondstone fight over the majority progressive votes. Interestingly, my piece got picked up by several Hasid-targeted blogs as a way of plugging Isaac Abraham among the conservative voters. (The other part of the article covered the 39th district where a parallel fight between Dov Hikind-endorsed Brad Lander and social conservative John Heyer is taking a similar course with progressive reformers Josh Skaller and Bob Zuckerman battling over the progressive majority votes).
Here's what I wrote (in part) about the 33rd District race:
The Villiage Voice has an article that goes into some detail about Steve Levin's candidacy and how it represents a power play by Party Boss Vito Lopez. Here's what they have to say about this race:
I should note I long ago characterized Steve Levin's whole resume as basically doing the bidding of Vito Lopez. Here's what I said back in April:
The Villiage Voice article goes on to cover two other Vito Lopez power plays:
So, to summarize, Reyna refused to go along with the most blatant of Vito Lopez's corruption, and so Lopez is running someone against her he hopes will be more compliant.
I should note that running unqualified judges is a Vito Lopez specialty, it seems, since a couple of years ago Vito Lopez, backed by Marty Markowitz, ran the virulently homophobic Noach Dear, who was also declared unqualified and had NEVER PRACTICES LAW IN HIS LIFE, as a Civil Court judge as a political favor to others. I covered that travesty of a judicial race in some detail at the time. To me foisting unqualified judges on our community is one of the WORST things Vito Lopez, Steve Levin and the whole Brooklyn machine does since when we go up before judges, we don't want political hacks determining our fate. But that's often what we have thanks to Vito Lopez and Steve Levin. Two other candidates running in the 33rd district have been among the leaders in trying to stop Vito Lopez from foisting these unqualified judges on us: Jo Anne Simon and Ken Diamondstone.
Jo Anne Simon is a local district leader, has the backing of Joan Millman, probably the most popular Assembly member in the state, and is the only woman in the race. She has reasonable reform credentials which play well in the district. And she has a long history of advocacy for the disabled, which also plays well in the district. She has been endorsed by all three of the local reform clubs (IND, CBID and LID) and few candidates that have the backing of all three lose. She also has the backing of other very popular local politicians, including Councilwoman Tish James (one of the main opponents of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards scheme) and Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez.
Ken Diamondstone has made a name for himself as being the guy who almost deposed Senator Marty Connor before Dan Squadron successfully finished off Connor. In fact, Diamondstone did very well against Connor in the Brooklyn end of that district. Diamondstone has fewer endorsements than Jo Anne Simon, but has gotten endorsements from Stonewall Democrats and Americans for Democratic Action.
I happen to be backing Jo Anne Simon, but my main goal is to keep the corrupt machine candidate, Steve Levin, and the social conservative, Isaac Abraham, from taking the seat.
Here's what I wrote (in part) about the 33rd District race:
In the 33rd district, Isaac Abraham is a Satmar Hasid who is running on a combined platform of opposition to Vito Lopez (hence technically reform) and what, for the district as a whole, would be extreme conservativism. Isaac Abraham has been a supporter of Connectitcut Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Vice Presidential candidate who became a McCain supporter in 2008. Abraham, who is running in the Democratic primary, has gone on record urging Jewish Democrats to re-register Republican. Abraham supports tax-payer funded school vouchers for private schools, a tradtionally Republican stand. Abraham is also opposed to gay rights and is anti-choice. These stands put him at odds with most of the voters in the district but is in sync with the orthodox Jewish and old-school Catholic neighborhoods. I have met Isaac Abraham and he is a dynamic community activist and entertaining speaker. So he combines a certain odd charisma with activism and...extreme social conservativism.
Competing with Abraham for these conservative votes is the machine candiadte Steve Levin whose boss, Vito Lopez, has connections in the conservative neighborhoods and is pulling strings to get the conservative vote for Levin over Abraham and is exploiting personality conflicts among the Hasids to siphon away votes from Abraham. So Hasids have the choice of voting their values (and so voting for Abraham) or voting according to political alliances and exchange of political favors (and so voting for the machine's Steve Levin). It should be noted that Levin's boss has had a history of supporting Republicans over Democrats before he became Party Boss, and even after that has had a history of actively discouraging challenges to Republicans in Brooklyn, so Vito Lopez certainly has his connections to conservatives. For those who aren't familiar with the Brooklyn machine, keep in mind that the former boss, Clarence Norman, is in prison for corruption and Vito Lopez should also be in prison. Steve Levin, as Vito Lopez's right hand man, cannot have been innocent of the corruption Vito Lopez is known for (for more info, see here here, and here)...
Meanwhile the true progressive reformers, like Jo Anne Simon and Ken Diamondstone in the 33rd...compete over the majority of the district with eachother and with the machine candidates who try to downplay the scandals their respective machines are associated with.
The Villiage Voice has an article that goes into some detail about Steve Levin's candidacy and how it represents a power play by Party Boss Vito Lopez. Here's what they have to say about this race:
Power Plays by Party Boss Vito Lopez
The Lord of Brooklyn, a Democratic powerbroker who is flexing his
political muscles these days like a gym rat pumping the free weights
By Tom Robbins - September 01, 2009 - The Village Voice
Say this for Vito Lopez, the Brooklyn Democratic powerbroker who is
flexing his political muscles these days like a gym rat pumping the
free weights: He is not one to let a few silly scandals knock him off
the game plan that has served him so well for so long.
Even as the investigation of politicians alleged to have steered government money to relatives and cronies is fast becoming a cottage industry for local prosecutors, Lopez has stayed the course. This year, the veteran State Assemblyman allocated another $350,000 in state funds to the organization he helped found back in the 1970s, the sprawling Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council. This was only the latest of many millions in taxpayer monies that Lopez and his political allies have sent the group's way. Given his many and tangled ties to the group, lesser politicians might hesitate to be so openly generous. But that is why they are not Vito Lopez, and not the leader of the Kings County Democratic Party, nor the powerful chairman of the Assembly's Housing Committee.
Yes, it is true he cohabitates with Ridgewood Bushwick's $190,000-per-year housing director, Angela Battaglia, the love of his life...
Yes, he personally makes sure that the city and state spend some $170,000 on the group's massive annual picnic at Long Island's Sunken Meadow State Park...
And yes, this year, Lopez is pushing the envelope even further, promoting not one, not two, but three of Ridgewood Bushwick's allies into elective office. He is seeking nothing less than a sweep, a kind of Vito-fecta that will further extend his political influence...
Lopez protégés are running for election in two adjoining City Council districts, and the assemblyman is pulling out all stops and twisting all arms to make sure his surrogates win office.
In the 33rd District, which skirts north Brooklyn from Union Street to Williamsburg, Lopez's current chief of staff, Stephen Levin, 28, is running to fill the seat being vacated by David Yassky. Levin's complete résumé is this: Brown University, B.A., classics and comparative literature; two years, Ridgewood Bushwick; three years, Lopez legislative aide. As soon as Levin went to work at Ridgewood Bushwick, he immediately enlisted as a campaign aide on various Lopez elections, the dividing line between politics and social work being remarkably thin in these precincts.
I should note I long ago characterized Steve Levin's whole resume as basically doing the bidding of Vito Lopez. Here's what I said back in April:
Levin's only claim to fame is that he is Vito's little boy. My one observation of Mr...Does he have anything else going for him other than the support of the corrupt Party Boss?
The Villiage Voice article goes on to cover two other Vito Lopez power plays:
In the adjoining 34th District, which encompasses a swath of Williamsburg and Bushwick, Lopez is pushing the candidacy of a young woman named Maritza Davila, currently a project director at Ridgewood Bushwick. Lopez is such a Davila fan that he allocated $45,000 in funding for her job there. The money, according to Lopez's legislative initiative form, pays for Davila to take residents to museums, aquariums, and sporting events. She also does double duty: In addition to her day job, Davila serves as a Democratic district leader in Lopez's political club.
Bushwick is Lopez's home base. OK, not his actual residential home. He lives blissfully with Battaglia far from his district in a Queens condo. His political home. He has long controlled the local Council seat, but sometimes, his protégés disappoint him and he is forced to seek their removal. For instance, the incumbent Council member in the district is Diana Reyna, whose training came—where else?—from being a Lopez aide.
Reyna, however, ran afoul of her mentor when she dared to disagree about a large tract of undeveloped land known as the Broadway Triangle. Thanks to his great clout with city and state officials, Lopez arranged to have all of the housing development opportunities there routed to Ridgewood Bushwick and a kindred group, the United Jewish Organizations, which controls social service funds in the Orthodox section of Williamsburg and whose executives happily carry Lopez's election petitions. Lopez has long been a big booster of Mayor Bloomberg, and his influence is such that the city didn't even bother holding its usual competition among would-be developers. It simply
designated Lopez's chosen groups...
So, to summarize, Reyna refused to go along with the most blatant of Vito Lopez's corruption, and so Lopez is running someone against her he hopes will be more compliant.
The third candidate on Lopez's team is a bit of a sleeper. Even inside the district, few are aware that the county Democratic leader has placed an old friend named Pam Fisher on the ballot to be a civil court judge. Fisher lives in Whitestone, Queens, but her local ties are golden. Her sister is Christiana Fisher, the executive director of Ridgewood Bushwick, who pulls in $234,000 a year from the main group and an added $89,700 from its home-care division. She has her political duties as well, serving as records custodian for Lopez's campaign organization.
Pam Fisher, also a Ridgewood Bushwick alumna, has no primary opponent, so her name will automatically appear on the November ballot. This is lucky for her, since she was declared unqualified for the bench by both city and Brooklyn bar associations after she refused to submit to screening. Not that it matters. She is guaranteed to win since Republicans don't even bother running candidates for such posts.
I should note that running unqualified judges is a Vito Lopez specialty, it seems, since a couple of years ago Vito Lopez, backed by Marty Markowitz, ran the virulently homophobic Noach Dear, who was also declared unqualified and had NEVER PRACTICES LAW IN HIS LIFE, as a Civil Court judge as a political favor to others. I covered that travesty of a judicial race in some detail at the time. To me foisting unqualified judges on our community is one of the WORST things Vito Lopez, Steve Levin and the whole Brooklyn machine does since when we go up before judges, we don't want political hacks determining our fate. But that's often what we have thanks to Vito Lopez and Steve Levin. Two other candidates running in the 33rd district have been among the leaders in trying to stop Vito Lopez from foisting these unqualified judges on us: Jo Anne Simon and Ken Diamondstone.
Jo Anne Simon is a local district leader, has the backing of Joan Millman, probably the most popular Assembly member in the state, and is the only woman in the race. She has reasonable reform credentials which play well in the district. And she has a long history of advocacy for the disabled, which also plays well in the district. She has been endorsed by all three of the local reform clubs (IND, CBID and LID) and few candidates that have the backing of all three lose. She also has the backing of other very popular local politicians, including Councilwoman Tish James (one of the main opponents of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards scheme) and Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez.
Ken Diamondstone has made a name for himself as being the guy who almost deposed Senator Marty Connor before Dan Squadron successfully finished off Connor. In fact, Diamondstone did very well against Connor in the Brooklyn end of that district. Diamondstone has fewer endorsements than Jo Anne Simon, but has gotten endorsements from Stonewall Democrats and Americans for Democratic Action.
I happen to be backing Jo Anne Simon, but my main goal is to keep the corrupt machine candidate, Steve Levin, and the social conservative, Isaac Abraham, from taking the seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)