Search
Lingering bitterness
As Mole333 points out below, much bitterness remains in the Eleventh District; not so much directed at the victor, Yvette Clarke, or even Carl Andrews, who came in third, but between supporters of David Yassky and Chris Owens respectively.
This perhaps because had either of them not been in the race, the other would have won handily. But as always, there is more to it; and as I originally noted here, this is not entirely unexpected. There is always - always - a price to pay when politics becomes a discussion about race.
We are paying that price of bitterness because David Yassky, Esquire, decided that the weight of American history, the still-fraught state of relations between whites and blacks, the legislative intent of the Voting Rights Act, and the history of the Democratic Party after LBJ's Presidency, were as nothing to the consuming fire of an ambition that has led him to run three campaigns in two years. It seems that he is determined to represent us in some form, whether we like it or not; the sheer scale of his brilliance and his bulging rolodex demand nothing less.
To achieve this goal, he threw himself into a Congressional race where he could reasonably expect to split the vote with four, then three, black candidates. Yassky supporters believe that David was denied the nomination because of reverse racism; what they forget is that many blacks place a high value on seeing other blacks in office. Competence - and I take a jaundiced view of Yassky's claims to that quality - is not sufficient to make up for a lack of life experience; and I'll just come right out and say that if you're not black, you have no idea what the black experience is like. That statement isn't racism - it's experience. Take a walk in Brownsville.
It's tempting to compound the bitterness of the Yassky folks with some unrestrained gloating, if only as payback for their god-damned nastiness (an exception to the rule was Marcie, a freshly-minted and utterly charming lawyer whom I met wolunteering at a polling place in the 44th). So you spent how much to achieve what? Pardon me as I laugh in your face, folks.
Tempting, but unwise. It's over. I'm sure the Councilman is working his rolodex right now, and maybe even has his U-Haul at the ready to find more promising territory; but he will run again, for something, of that I am sure. Somewhere there is a district just calling out for him, certainly in the vast, glittering edifice that is the Councilman's sense of himself. The man at first refused to concede after a clear defeat, for crying out loud. Like a bad boyfriend who just won't go away, Yassky will be again vying for the affections of the electorate - somewhere, for some office. I'd say it's a good bet that the black community will take an unfriendly stance towards any such run.
Unfortunate, really, but there you have it. Bitterness, dear Yassky folks, runs both ways. It is what it is, and it's not unexpected.
If this is what bitterness is like when its over
I'd hate to see it in full flower.
I still blame Carl Andrews
He cannibalized a lot of votes that could have gone to Chris. It was so obvious at the temple that he was just not into it that, honestly, I have to question his motives.
Bouldin and Mole333
You guys are unreal. Your candidate loses (excuse me, comes in dead last), so what do you do? Do you accept the will of the people? Of course not. You go on a ridiculous tirade against someone who didn't even win. Let's be clear, Chris would have NEVER, EVER won this race, no matter who was in the field. Why? Because not only does he have NO record or experience, he's arrogant and a total turn-off to voters. Accept it and move on. As for Yassky putting out the disgusting fliers that marred Election Day, you've gotta be kidding. Everyone inside and outside the district knows that it was Chris' "volunteers." Maybe you guys are just upset that EVERY SINGLE ONE of your candidates lost. But can't you move on, get a grip and get to work on running your next losing race?
YOU are part of the problem
You see, I have accepted that Yvette won. I have also accepted, and always accepted, that Yassky was not himself racist. I also have never said that it is Chris' defeat that I am angry at. I was never expecting him to win, as I wrote in an earlier diary. The result came as no surprise and only moderately as a disappointment. The surprise for me was that Yassky's $1.2 million wasn't enough to buy the 11th.
But here you are displaying exactly the comeplete lack of understanding of what these issues mean to the majority of people in the district that I am talking about. You completely fail to understand what it means to face such pervassive racism then have someone MOVE INTO YOUR DISTRICT specifically to run against a split black vote.
Another thing you ignore about at least my efforts is that more candidates that I was pushing for won than lost. I am proud that Eric Adams, a candidate I wrote enthusiastically about some time ago and included in my election efforts, won with an overwhelming 76% of the vote. My state senator, Velmanette Montgomery, who I contacted specifically so I could help her as the election approached, wiped the floor with Ratner pawn Tracy Boyland. Finally, I put in some effort pushing the reform judicial candidates, Dena Douglas and Jackie Williams, both of whom won. Getting the good judges elected is a HUGE accomplishment in corrupt Brooklyn and I am proud that I personally got these two excellent women more than a dozen votes with my efforts.
So I did pretty damned well this year. Yeah, Bill Batson and Chris Owens lost. I am never surprised when the grassroots candidates, no matter how brilliant and dedicated, lose to better financed candidates who have the resources of big business interests. Since when is that something to be proud of about America? Yet you seem proud of the fact that money dominates over passion, idealism and ideas. Wow, that sounds like a Republican.
Let me spell something out to you: You don't get it. You are missing the point by about a mile. I strongly suspect that Yassky himself, though he may not fully agree with us, is reading and considering what we are saying with far more understanding than you are. You are far more a part of the problem in America, whether you call that problem class or race, than Yassky is.
Spin, spin, spin,
Spin, spin, spin, spin.
Yeah, I saw you posting every day on behalf of Adams and Montgomery. Right. All you did was serve as a shill for Owens, day in and day out with absolutely no mention of the Voting Rights Act (same thing with Chris), until you decided to push the theory that Chris enabled Yvette's victory by taking votes from Yassky.
Does it really matter? Chris will never serve the people of the 11th district in any capacity, and for that, the people are thankful.
Oh, and what's your excuse for the flyering that went on forging Yvette's signature? Are you telling me David Yassky and his people (many of whom I know and respect, despite not working with them) put those fliers up. If so, YOU ARE WRONG. It was Chris, who journalists, voters and consultants alike know was responsible for a large majority of the Election Day nastiness. It was gross, and you know it. Good riddance.
You are ignorant
I plugged Eric Adams in extremely positive terms as far back as March. I also plugged him, along with Bill Batson and Chris Owens, on Daily Kos. His name was included in the flyers I made, printed at my own expense and distributed. I personally talked several people into voting for him. His campaign noticed and thanked me.
I called Velmanette's campaign myeslf and met Velmanette personally to get some flyers to distribute. When I needed more I got more from her campaign. Her name was also on my flyers. And I personally convinced several people into voting for her. They also have thanked me, though they may not know the person who contacted them was also mole333.
So, yeah, I did help them out and I am proud of it.
As to Chris' service, again you show your ignorance. The man has served in many capacities already. On school board he earned an awared of excellence from PFAW. He served on the board of NARAL-PAC, or do you not consider standing up for a woman's right to choose to be of service? He fought the Iraq war before any of the other candidates and he fought the closing of firehouses, something I never saw the other candidates do.
In all honesty, I have no idea what flyer you mean. On election day, from what I saw from South Slope up to Prospect Heights, there was far more friendship among campaigners from all camps than there was nastiness. I spent more time talking with Yassky supporters than with Chris supporters. Yassky supporters were using my flyers as reference for judicial candidates, spreading the word on those candidates to other Yassky supporters. So THAT was my election day experience.
More generally, I was fed information from many sources. I never found anything fed to me by Chris (or, for that matter, Yassky supporters) to be nasty. Critical, sure, but not nasty. Nastiness was never the M.O. of the Chris campaign or the Yassky campaign. Your saying otherwise strikes me as either ignorance or an outright smear.
Personally I am happy with my coverage of the race and other races. I maintained ties in more than one camp, got to hear and, in some cases, know personally the candidates. People who are critical of some of my choices have nevertheless told me (and others) that my reporting was fair and accurate. You, on the other hand, probably know none of the candidates, probably have never met Chris or know anything about him, and clearly have no intention of being fair or accurate. If you ARE involved then I will be seeing you around. If not, then you are insignificant.
This is exactly the problem
No idea what flyer I mean, huh? Well, let me refresh your memory. A flyer was put out on Election Day, with Yvette's signature forged, claiming the she'd dropped out of the race. You can find it in Errol Louis' column today (he's a columnist for a reputable newspaper if you haven't left blogland for awhile). This flyer also, in bold, referenced Yvette's mother's "close ties" to "Republican Governor George Pataki." Hmmm. Who's MO does that sound like? Sounds awfully familiar to Major's campaign against Una, no?
In fact, you should feel lucky that Chris came in dead last. For if by some miracle he won, I have a feeling he'd be before a judge answering questions about forging someone's signature.
As for Chris, "fighting against the closing of firehouses," and nobody else doing so, talk about ignorance. Yvette chaired the Fire committee on the Council and openly went to the mat against Bloomberg and everyone else who fought for these closures. She also fought for, and was victorious, the hiring of more people of color within the ranks of the FDNY.
Iraq: Though Owens erroneously claimed that Yvette had done anything to oppose the war, she signed a resolution in the Council -- one of the earliest in the country -- calling for withdrawal, she also signed a resolution calling for Rumsfeld's ouster and had the support of Rep. John Murtha, the leading Democratic voice in Iraq.
Also, the fact that you claim you were "covering" the race is an absurd slap at every journalisitc ethic ever created. A journalist is (at least supposed to be) someone who covers an issue, event, candidate, etc... without showing favoritism for one side or the other. How does your shilling for Owens, Batson -- and everyone else you've now suddenly recalled -- jibe with being a journalist?
You are still showing your ignorance
Okay, let's do this bit by bit.
The false claims that someone dropped out has always been a Clarence Norman machine tactic. It was pulled on Chris himself early in the race but got no legs. It was pulled on Paul Wooten at several times during the DAs race. It is an old tactic that has always been associated with the machine. Now I did not SEE this flyer, nor have I heard any accusation that it is from Andrews' camp. But, when you ask whose MO it sounds like, it sounds like the Clarence Norman MO which means I would guess it is from Andrews' camp.
Second, Una did have close ties with Pataki. That is factual and was never any big secret. As far as I know the Clarke family isn't embarassed by that, though you seem to be implying that her ties with Pataki are some deep dark secret to be hidden.
Third, you are being very misleading in your characterization of what I said. My point was that Chris has served the community already. At no point, contrary to your assertion, did I say anything what so ever about Yvette's service. I was answering your falsehood. You clearly have NOT followed my diaries. I have more than once highlighted Yvette's leadership against DRE machines in the City Council. At no point prior to the exposure of her pattern of lies did I ever say anything particularly negative about Yvette. You are speaking from ignorance and misrepresenting even what I say in my comments to this diary. That will only weaken your arguements since it will be plain to people that you are doing so.
As for covering the race, I want to point out several things you get wrong. First of all, I am not a journalist. I am a blogger. No one pays me for this, so I pretty much write about what interests me and what I consider important. I have ALWAYS made my biases clear, and yet have indeed been called fair and accurate by even some of those who disagree with me some of those I have opposed. I will also point out that those who I have complained about what I have written have included members of IND (though they admit I was largely accurate, they just didn't like the publicity they were getting), DDDB (they claimed something I wrote was inaccurate...to this day I am not sure one way or the other), the Owens campaign (for being critical of them at times) and one member of Yvette's campaign and several Yvette supporters who were mainly nasty and inaccurate in what they were saying.
Let me emphasize that my main criticisms of Yvette and her supporters have been their tendency towards nastiness and towards inaccuracy. On and around election day I was revising my view of her supporters as I had excellent discussions with one of her supporters from IND and with Bill DeBlasio. However, you are displaying here EXACTLY the kind of inaccurate, nasty rhetoric and false accusations that I found disturbing about many of her supporters. Rather than finding common ground you attack. That has been the MO of many of her supporters I have encountered. Furthermore, you are choosing to attac someone who has written the most positive pieces about Yvette that have been on Daily Gotham, particularly regarding voting machines. If this is the pattern that Yvette herself will take, then I am concerned. However, I am hoping Yvette herself is smarter and better informed than you are.
Wrong.
I found some of those flyers ina building that contained only Andrews lit; and I was the first Owens person there. Sorry, no dice.
Bitterness
As you well know, I have never disliked Yassky or found his intentions as bad as others have found them. But my wife and daughter in particular have experienced some of the fallout from Yassky's actions. What Yassky has done is to inadvertantly stir up latent racism. Yes, some of it comes from the black community. But a great deal of it comes from the rich whites in Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope who resent any suggestion that perhaps whites need to yield a little bit to blacks from time to time in an attempt to rebalance our society.
When you look at the conditions many blacks suffer under, it is easy to understand a certain amount of resentment which easily becomes racism. When you see the comfortable, wealthy and powerful whites in Park Slope it is much harder to understand their outrage and racism. Both are racism and both are wrong. But somehow, it is more disgusting when the racist person is rich and powerful.
My wife is looking around Park Slope today and finding herself deeply disturbed at the attitudes around us. For the first time in her life, my wife is starting to see the rich whites around her and think "limosine liberal." For the first time she sees what that might mean and why it is hard for blacks to look with any confidence at the promises made by the Democratic Party. Sure, the Republican Party openly despises minorities. But the Democratic Party pretends to be the party of equality but only when it is convenient. Should equality become an inconvenient goal, then many wealthy liberals revert to a form of "White Man's Burden" attitude that probably is well meaning, but also is regressive, not progressive.
My wife and I are far less bitter towards Yassky than we are towards our neighbors. Personally (not speaking for my wife) I strongly suspect that the racism on both sides that Yassky has unleashed may come as a surprise to Yassky himself. But as I stated in an earlier diary on election night, Yassky really needs to learn some lessons from his defeat. Learning humility is one lesson. Learning that to minorities who are disadvantaged at every moment of their lives, race does matter.
Not Surprised
I agree with you mole but I am am not surprised at the subtle racism that has emerged from this race. As a black man living and working in the Slope, it is a fairly comfortable existence for me and my wife (who isn't black) but I work in an industry where those who come to Park Slope for its "liberal" environment often show their hidden, and maybe unconscious, mindset. how many times do I hear folk not wanting to live above Underhill in Prospect Heights or when they get too far down 5th Ave (as its gets browner) say "I can't live here." Who look scared as hell when they see three or four black kids hanging out on a corner and make up some lame excuse for why the house or apt. isn't for them, but never blink an eye at the cussing and pot smoking 20 white teens in front of Pino's on 7th on any given night.
The unstated but implied belief among many of my neighbors and co-workers that somehow Yassky was better merely because he was white and jewish still leaves a sense of sadness in me. I love this neighborhood in so many ways and hate it in others.
Lastly, for me Yassky really was never a choice for this race. He's a decent legislator and councilman. I like him and have met him on many occasions, but I couldn't stomach a man who claims to be a liberal but never seemed to understand why blacks were offended by his candidacy. Not becuase he was white (we vote for white folks more than white folks vote for us) but becasue he failed to see the significance of for us of losing a black face...a black experience... in Congress.
By the way, hope to get to know Mole and I am a new member of IND and CBID. You seem to be a neighbor. Plus, we will need to work pretty hard to keep Yvette honest (pun intended).
Cool
By all means, let's get to know eachother. I may not go to CBID meetings as much because I want to focus on pulling IND back together. My wife will be going to CBID. I also invite you to the Brooklyn New Democratic Majority meetings co-hosted by Michael Bouldin, Marjorie Gersten (formerly THE Kerry campaign organizer in Brooklyn) amd myself. The next one is Sept. 21st, 7 PM at Ozzie's on 5th Ave and Garfield. Hope to see you at one of these.
I'll certainly be there on
I'll certainly be there on the 21st and will send you an email so you'll know who I am.
Oh come on
Please - "subtle racism?" People want to live in a safe neighborhood.
Those neighborhoods get rougher the further you go.
Mole, Chris lost and Yvette
Mole, Chris lost and Yvette won accept it. Papa lost his grip. Your boy came in last. Out with the old and in with the new.
Dirty campaigning was his MO. He took two shots back to back (diploma - fliers) and missed.
Mole, Clarke might not have graduated from Harvard or Princeton, but she did graduate from the University of life. She stood up strong and fought. The final result checkmate.
Very bad strategy -> His wife standing in front of P.S. 181 and saying I am Chris Owens wife please vote for Chris Owens. People were actually laughing. She should have been handing something out or at least singing the this is Chris Owens song.
I read your congradulation post to Clarke. It just proves that at the end we all love a winner.
I am one of Clarke's nasty supporters.
L.V.
You are indeed...
You are indeed one of Yvette's nasty supporters and I sure hope Yvette really is smarter than you.
You are, in fact, an asshole. The ENTIRE discussion had to do with ethnic divisions in Brooklyn and Yassky's inflamation of tensions. Yvette had very little to do with the discussion. In fact, the discussion by both Bouldin and myself were supportive of Yvette over Yassky, more or less. Your insistence on turning it into a nasty smear attack on Chris is counter productive...and just plain stupid.
Chris played a clean game. If Yvette's campaign is going to continue to be based on lies and smears, then I think she will crash and burn. It is customary at the end of a divissive campaign where you win with a mere 31% of the vote to try and heal wounds. You, on the other hand, would rather be a prick and liar. Once again, I hope Yvette is smart enough to cut people like you loose and choose the high road.
As to diplomagate, even Bill DeBlasio called it "dumb" on Yvette's part and admitted she lied. To blame THAT on Chris borders on insane. The woman lied about several things. You are defending lying. Why? You appear to have no ethics or sense of politics...or, for that matter, knowledge of the players in the game.
I am certainly not going to judge Yvette on your behavior. But it has been kind of the MO of Yvette's campaign to lie and turn nasty. Does that come from her? I hope not. So, once again, little man. Yvette is my Congresswoman and I probably accepted that well before your slow mind grasped the fact. Chris ran a clean campaign, and if you can't handle Yvette getting called on a lie, I can only imagine your tears and rage when she has to face Republicans who will make your lies and spite seem amaturish. So better grow up fast. As to the topic at hand, you have contributed nothing of substance to the discussion of race and Yassky's tactics. So, either get an account here and start your own diary of shut up.
Oh, poor Moley. You ever
Oh, poor Moley. You ever read Shakespeare? Thou doth protest too much. However, I've had a ball watching you get so riled up today. Do you work?
Not riled
More like repulsed by your lying and smear tactics. Way to build support, Iago. And yes I know its a different play.
As to do I work, normally I answer such questions. But in your case it's none of your business.
Lingering bitterness
The fact is that in a congressional district, you expect and hope that candidates run for office who reflect the diversity of the district. That means that in the 11th CD, which is 28% white and growing, you should have expected there would be a white candidate running now or later. If it wasn't Yassky it would have been somebody else. He represented parts of the district, saw a base he thought he could build on for a district wide race, and he moved two blocks from his house and ran. I see no reason whatsoever to blame him for this. This is america, and in this country people should feel WELCOMED to run for office, not criticized, spit on and called racist. If Yassky was a black man in a white district running, and got the treatment he got from some of you here, people would be up in arms. You don't fight racism with reverse racism. The way you fight racism is by accepting people as they are, and for the content of their character.
If Chris Owens, Yvette Clarke, or Carl Andrews were out there saying "vote for me and not Yassky because *I'm* black!", thats just wrong and insulting to the voters. I really think the ugly rancor of this race, the bile thrown at Yassky in particular, turns people off. No wonder voting turnout was so light. Why should people vote if they inspire personal attacks if they vote the wrong way.
The voting rights act does not mean that ONLY blacks, now and forever, can or should be elected in districts drawn to be minority majority. The purpose of that act was to increase minority enfranshisement, and it was far from a perfect Act (the way some of you talk you'd think the VRA was part of the Ten Commandments its so sacred) Actually the net effect of that act in a lot of places was to make many districts whiter, and more often than not more conservative.
Again, someone else who
Again, someone else who misses the point. You lost me at "reverse racism".
Also....
Bouldin, I really don't think that you or I would be any more of an expert on the VRA than say, the New York Times. They did those reports, and they also endorsed Yassky. Seems they endorsed him because their editorial board honestly thought he was the best candidate, and just as they did with the three other candidates, they judged him on his character, skills, and experience. Not on his race. I thought Yassky was too moderate for the district myself and that he could turn into Joe Lieberman on foreign policy. So I didn't support or vote for him. But I respected his right to run. I think the district is enriched anytime we get good minds, good legislators who want to move here and take part in the community, and I don't care whether those people are black, white, chinese or eskimo. The problems of the 11th district aren't going to be changed by the skin color of the congressman, they are going to be changed by what that congressman does. I hope Yvette Clarke is a good congresswoman, and I don't care what race she is frankly.
Yvette won with only 6% of the vote
Some quick math:
Yvette got 31% of the vote
turnout was 25-30% of Dems
Dems are about 75% of the registered voters in the district
therefore Yvette won a congressional seat (probably hers for decades b/c of the unwritten rule about dems challenging incumbents in Brooklyn), by winning only about 6% of the registered voters in the district.
Not to take anything from Yvette, she won fair and square under the system as it exists, against 3 quality candidates, one of whom had more than a Million dollars at her disposal, but...
Does anyone else have a problem with this?
this says three things to me:
1) people are just done with politics as usual, and this goes for Dems as well as rethugs and independents. There were four candidates in the race, there should have been at least one candidate that everyone could have gotten behind, and yet turnout was just slightly higher than the number of singatures submitted (which begs the question - how many of those signatures were actually valid?), and only slightly higher than the pathetic turnout in 2005.
2) we need a 2nd party in the district. Whether it's the WFP or the Greens or some other independent party - the one party boro has got to go
3) we need IRV or a similar run-off system BADLY, not to mention election day registration and easier absentee or advanced voting.
runoffs
It would have been interesting if Yassky had won and the other candidates started screaming for runoffs, because do you know why runoffs aren't held? Because minority leaders have for years and years called runoffs racially exclusionary. You have a runoff in some districts and it becomes difficult for minority candidates to win.
Yet what was going to happen here? With no runoff setup, a white candidate had a shot to win and the same people who are against runoffs would have been crying for one here. Its a double standard.
Is it time to give peace a chance?
When is it that we may be able to focus on our Bush problem and not on the people closest to us?
focusing
(When is it that we may be able to focus on our Bush problem and not on the people closest to us?)
Because it is EASY to focus on larger issues like a war. When the war is the focus, you can bring progressives and reformers together. But when you get down to the nitty gritty of domestic problems, you get real divisions, and people tend to want to avoid the arguments. The Bush administration knows this and it is using the Iraq war, because it knows that the war unites the left and also diverts and eventually saps its energy, and they can be left free to pursue their right wing domestic agenda. The left is so focused on the war in Iraq that all the crap thats been going down in Congress BESIDES IRAQ gets pushed to the side. Some on the left want to basically villify good liberals like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry over their votes on the war, and ignore everything else they've ever done and anything else that they've ever voted on.
Its wrong and it needs to stop. I wish I saw half the people at the DDDB rally or the other various community meetings I've attended that I saw at the anti-war rallies. Here's the reality of the situation over the next two years:
If the main issue is the war on terror, the war in Iraq, WAR in general, the republicans are going to win, because it is too easy to make people feel unsafe now. All it takes is a well timed Bush speech from the oval office. But if the main issue is domestic policy and making our towns and communities better, the Democrats will win.
But in order to make the main issue domestic policy, you have to do it in a way that does not alienate anyone. Calling people racists who don't for a candidate of the right race isn't the way to advance any good agenda.
You still miss the point
You should by know be well aware of my tendency to focus on defeating Republicans and my lack of enthusiasm for attacking Clinton, etc.
But the racial issue is one that is alienating a substantial population. It is about access to power. It is about role models. It is about feeling a part of the process.
Instead, blacks in general have in every single aspect of their lives less than those with less skin color.
And what you miss is the fact that it NEVER was Yassky's skin color per se. It was MOVING IN to the district with the intention of running against a split black vote. That in itself was the first racial statement of the entire campaign. And he followed it up by DEFINING himself as "I am the white candidate in the race."
To someone who has been on the receiving end of racism all their lives, that hurts. And in turn it hurts the Democratic Party, losing us black voters who give up on the process.
It isn't about skin color. It is about power games played at the expense of a disadvantaged group. That is what you never seemed to grasp.
THe rancor that some of us are getting from Yassky supporters who feel we are "dupes" and "racists" because we voted for a black candidate is the, probably unintended, result of Yassky's power games.
OK, Wallner
...let it go. Election's over, and you're still wrong. You just don't get it. End of story.
moving into the district?
If he moved into the district from say Omaha, I would understand, but he moved from two blocks away and he represented a percentage of the people who lived in that district. He had every right to run and it wasn't racist of him to try. Yes there were calculations made, but any politician makes those. All of the candidates, before they decided to run, looked at the demographics of the district and decided where there base was and if their chances were realistic. That is how the game is played!
Bouldin, I fail to see how treating one group of residents in a district as second class citizens in any way makes up for the other group of citizens being treated as second class elsewhere. It doesn't. Also if you REALLY cared about the black constituents of the cd 11, you wouldn't be favoring moderate to conservative democratic presidential candidates like Mark Warner and Wesley Clark. You want to make sure some districts have the most liberal representation possible, yet you specifically don't want that liberal representation on the national level. You vote for one part of the political spectrum in some races, and other parts of the spectrum in other places. It shouldn't work that way. We don't need white districts and black districts and hispanic districts, we need PROGRESSIVE districts, LIBERAL districts, and we need that regardless of the skin color of the electorate or its representatives there. In fact when other underrepresented demographics groups have candidates running, (say like women, who are dramatically underrepresented considering they are the MAJORITY of the demographic) you don't get on your soapbox and preach that if you don't vote for women candidates you are sexist. You have in fact viciously opposed the woman running in cd 11 (Yvette Clarke) and the woman planning to run for president (Clinton) You have a double standard bouldin.
you can say I'm wrong all you want, but bouldin if I'm wrong, so is the New York Times, the NYCLU, other civil rights groups, and a lot of others that all said that the district's interests were best served by electing the BEST PERSON, not the best black person or the best white person, but the BEST PERSON to serve.
Still wrong
Wallner, you have the rare talent of repeating the same things endlessly without getting that what you are saying is beside the point. I'll say it one last time: sharing the black experience is an important criterion in representing this district. You think that's not a valid argument to make, I do, you are wrong, I am right, and now, let it go.
Wallner,I'll make this
Wallner,
I'll make this brief. What you propose is that we disregard the history of the different ethnic groups that make up the congressional district, the city, state, and country. You want us to pretend that there is one criterion by which we can all determine who the "best" candidate is.
In my view, some of the most insidious racism is inadvertently practiced by people who want to pretend that we can ignore 200+ (or 2000+) years of history and adopt some new view that begins at an imaginary year zero. We cannot and should not try that. That is not to say that we should not give everyone the benefit of the doubt and live with love and compassion. Obviously we must battle prejudice and racism with all our strength. To do that we must recognize our own biases which stem from our ethnic histories and personal experience. You seem to want to negate that, to impose some imaginary clean slate that we can all begin from, but that's impossible.
In my opinion, Bouldin is taking the long and sympathetic view on this matter and you seem to prefer an imaginary view that discounts history and difference.
Well put
You put it better than I have. I see stark reminders of that 200+ year unfairness and it disturbs me deeply. And what disturbs me even more is the inability of so many Democrats to see it. I thought Katrina was enough of a wake up call to America to see that ethnic inequality was so stark that American citizens would be left to die because they weren't deemed worth enough to society to save.
There is an importance for minority communities in seeing a minority in Congress that is ignored by whites, conservative or liberal. My Park Slope neighbors sneer at us as "dupes" on election day because we supported Chris. Wallner sees me as practicing reverse discrimination because I feel we lose something if we lose minority representation in Congress. He accuses me of having a racial litmus test or some such. I have never said Yassky didn't have a right to run and even started out pro-Yassky. In fact it hasn't even been Yassky that I have been anrgy at so much as those who assume that if my wife and I, as white and Jewish, SHOULD support Yassky and are shocked and disdainful that we supported a black candidate.
It is time to move on and defeat some Republicans. But the inequalities remain. They were not created nor even exacerbated by this Congressional race. But the anger and undercurrents of racism were brought to the surface by this race.
Mole333, Thanks for the
Mole333,
Thanks for the support. I think you mean to say "...move on and defeat some Republicans", not Democrats."
Ooops!
Thanks for the correction. I do indeed mean defeat some Republicans! I plead extreme fatigue.