Search
They debate
Culled from various emails, here are some debates upcoming in various Democratic primaries; expect fireworks.
Citizens Union is sponsoring a debate between Marty Connor and Dan Squadron, Wednesday, September 3, in the 25th Senatorial District.
St. Francis College, 180 Remsen Street, between Court and Clinton Streets
Brooklyn Heights, 7:00 -9:00 PM
In the 21st Senate District, Kevin Parker, Simcha Felder and Kendall Stewart will debate one another as well. That should be of interest.
Thursday, September 4, 8:00 PM at the 41st AD Democratic Club, 2942 Ave R cornier of Haring Street one block east of Nostrand
Also, while we were all in Denver, there were several debates between Steve Harrison and Michael McMahon for the NY-13 Congressional seat. One such debate, if that's the right term, can be read on the web site of the Brooklyn Paper, here. While you're there, also check out the Connor-Squadron debate in the paper's editorial rooms.
You won't, however, be treated to a similar experience in the Tenth CD race between Ed Towns and Kevin Powell, for the simple reason that incumbent Congressman Towns didn't quite deem it worth his while to actually debate his opponent. There are two transcripts, one for Powell's endorsement interview, one for Towns.
Towns and the 10th
LOL! Well, why would Towns ever consent to debate as unprofessional a candidate as Powell anyway?!?
Over and over, Kevin Powell has shown that he is simply not qualified (by intellect or temperament) to sit in Congress, period. He has a history of violence that he has never fulled dealt with (as recent as 2004); he lacks realistic plans to help the folks of Brooklyn; no one contributes to his campaign; his campaign has admitted that Powell tried to bribe Towns’s campaign workers (see: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/slothman8888/kevin_powell_likes_demeaning_teena...); he is insensitive to other cultures ("Hey, Hassidic Jews of Williamsburg, I'll bring home the bacon!!”). And now, Powell is out there offering false "fellowships" for people who agree to work polling stations on Primary Election Day ... and he's doing it on Craigslist!! That is the hallmark of a desperate campaign led by a desperate candidate. See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/etc/819039882.html
If I were Towns, I would not stoop to debate Powell either. All Powell would do is show disrespect for a sitting Congressman (as he has constantly, to Towns AS WELL AS his volunteer staff) and turn the election into a circus. The people of Brooklyn deserve more than to have a candidate turn their race into the Farce of the Country. I'm sure Towns would have debated Powell, if Powell showed even a shred of integrity and seriousness about being a candidate, and much less arrogance about needing to run his mouth off for the cameras.
Well...
...that's a nice barrage of talking points expertly delivered, but if Powell is so unprofessional, then Towns should be able to wipe the floor with him. The fact that he's avoiding a closed-door debate may mean many things, but I doubt one of them is his confidence.
In a democracy, debates are a good thing.
Talking Points?! LOL
Actually, no talking points at all. I'm not affiliated with either campaign and don't even work in politics. However, I do care enough about Brooklyn to follow its politics, and I care enough about Brooklyn to be compelled to raise the alarm on Powell.
You say, "debates are a good thing." But, fact is Powell doesn't want a debate, he wants a media circus to up his profile. I trust you have seen the campaign's poorly worded "Press Release," Bouldin?
Here's the link: http://www.1888pressrelease.com/congressional-candidate-kevin-powell-rel...
First off, I don't think I need to re-state that a sloppy candidate foretells a sloppy representative, period. I mean, in 2008 we have the first viable African-American running for President. And while Powell is desperately trying to cling onto Obama's coattails, his campaign doesn't even care enough to spell his name right? "Barak?!?" Or, how about, "Don't Act, Don't Tell" as the name of a famous (or infamous) legal position? Give me a break.
And spelling besides, Powell's "platform" positions DON'T EVEN FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFER FROM TOWNS'S?!?! So, what could they possibly debate? "Hi, I'm Ed Towns and I believe in A, while my opponent believes in A ... which is wrong. Thank You." Talk about a frickin' waste of time.
Second, this weekend, after promising the voters of Brooklyn "3 weeks, of nonstop campaigning," what does Powell do?!? He takes off on a vacation to Texas for 4 days (yes, this current weekend) to appear at a book show and promote a book HE DIDN'T EVEN AUTHOR OR EDIT, but which he will financially benefit from (I understand he wrote an essay in there). So much for 3 weeks of "nonstop" campaigning, huh?
There's his promise: http://www.kevinpowellforcongress.org/featured_blogs2/2008/08/20/kp82108...
There's his itinerary in Texas: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-bk_authortour...
I believe in debate, 100%. But there is a reason that ultra-Right Wing candidates and ultra-Left Wing candidates are not given a platform. And, likewise, there is a reason that nuisance, self-interested candidates don't get one either (Remember the lovely Mark Carey, in the CA Gubernatorial Race?!). Yes, Towns would mop the sh*t out of Powell. But that 30 or 60 minutes of Powell's rambling would only serve to cheapen Towns and raise Powell's profile. And since Powell has already put his own financial interests above delivering for Brooklyn, I feel confident in saying that is the only reason he is keeping this pathetic campaign going anyway.
But, now I'll let you put together some talking points for Powell. I just hope you'll spell better than the Powell campaign, because sloppiness doesn't beget confidence.
After all, we're auditioning a serious representative for the Brooklyn 10th, not for a remake of "The Distinguished Gentleman."
Heh.
Quite the contrary, I haven't made a position clear in this race, in part because I don't have one. My view is rather more simple: I believe in primaries, and I believe in debates, because they help the voting public make smarter decisions. Apparently, Ed Towns doesn't share that belief in smarter decisions. Nor can it be about a media circus, simply because the BP debate would have been closed-door.
Barack said in his acceptance speech that this was a big election, and that we shouldn't waste it on little things. So why are you hyperventilating about spelling mistakes, Texas book tours and California porn stars?
Brown Bag, please ...
Hyperventilating? Hardly. But, to think the BP coverage so far has *NOT* been about trying to create a "story" would be really naive. Practically all of its coverage has been about calling Towns out and making it seem like he's a coward for not debating.
Still doesn't change the fact that Powell's a desperate, sloppy candidate with a sloppy organization that cares less about differentiating himself from Towns's positions, and more about drumming up business.
When a candidate comes out with a "platform" that doesn't differ from the incumbent, yet the candidate has the audacity to call the incumbent "out of touch" for those positions, it upsets me. When a candidate doesn't care about even small details (and spelling Barack Obama's name correctly is NOT a small detail) that shows a carelessness that will be brought to Congress, and that upsets me. And when a challenger makes promises to the voters that he never intended to keep in the first place (3 weeks of campaigning), that upsets me.
I don't think any of that shows why Powell has earned entry to a forum for serious discussion of issues. Maybe I'm hard-line about that, but I believe Democracy is a two way street. If you cannot bring respect for others to the marketplace of ideas (both other contenders as well as voters themselves), what right do you have for others to hear your ideas?
Nonsense.
Towns voted for the bankruptcy bill and for CAFTA, Powell opposes both. Towns voted against net neutrality, Powell supports it. So when you say their positions are indistinguishable, you're at best very badly informed.
As to the rest of it, the point isn't that Powell needs to somehow earn the right to appear on the same stage as Towns. The point is that every two years, the voters make a choice about who's going to represent them, and they, the people, have a right to hear their candidates explain themselves to them even under challenge. If Towns thinks it's beneath him to debate some upstart, as is apparently the case, maybe he should retire. Because if he can't face an opponent who's in his own party, it's hard to imagine how he can be effective against republicans in Washington, isn't it? And if he thinks he's owed deference in an election, as is apparently also the case, his constituents should consider whether they're electing a representative or a king.
Talk
Well put. Of course the Powell campaign must feel these positions are so compelling a differentiator as to be part of Powell's official "Statements On Major Policies And Platforms?"
Except, none appear. Isn't that a bit odd? A campaign running on "time for change" and they don't want to trumpet te major things that Powell would do differently? CAFTA and the bankruptcy legislation don't even appear on his core platform (http://www.kevinpowellforcongress.org/our_platform/) let alone in the spelling-challenged Press Release I posted. Don't you find that a bit odd? I am at least glad to see someone knows about positions that Powell doesn't even view as key to his platform
And as for debating, why stop with the BP? As you said, the voters "have a right to hear their candidates explain themselves to them even under challenge." If anything, Towns should be out there fielding questions from the voters directly then, so they get direct democracy. Maybe Towns should spend the next 3 weeks on a street-corner debating everyone and anyone over every vote in 25 years representing the 10th? It shouldn't be Powell making wild, unproven accusations about Towns's "wrong-headed" votes on CAFTA or a militaristic Iran (without articulating any alternative position himself).
Personally as a voter, though, I hope Towns doesn't. It's great to be reminded of a Tocquevillian view of democracy, but that really only matters when someone's willing to roll up their sleeves and make the sausages. And election year or not, there's a job to get done representing Brooklyn in Congress. And whether Towns debates Powell or not, it doesn't change the immovable facts. Powell can't raise a dime, his platform is devoid of detail, and his congressional organization is extremely unprofessional. Perhaps you've seen his campaign manager's famous rant on "haters?" Worth a read: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/slothman8888/kevin_powell_likes_demeaning_teena....
Yeah, that's the same one where she declined to refute the accusation that Powell was trying to buy-off Towns's campaign volunteers. And we're arguing about debates? Maybe we should be more focused on campaign ethics first, and then let's worry about debates. Maybe Powell could boot Towns and put the seat up for a potential GOP pick in November. At least that would REALLY be a movement for change
Trust me, Towns is not the greatest Congressman that America's ever seen. But I think Towns's time is better spent meeting voters and representing them in Congress, not debating someone who puts so little faith in the voters that he feels he can take a vacation a week before the primary to pad his bank account.
Again...
...whether Towns or Powell choose to highlight the stances I outlined has no bearing on whether they hold them. Your argument makes very little sense. So if I were trying to make the case that there's little or no practical difference between the contenders, I'd reconsider that, because it's manifestly false. It's also quite funny to see an incumbent adopt a me-too strategy; that just reeks of desperation. If there's no difference between the two, as you claim, voters have no reason to retain Towns.
As to the rest of it, you've now gone from "Towns won't debate because it would be undignified" - because elections are a Windsor Castle tea party, I suppose - to "Towns is too busy to face his opponent and the voters". Those are two structurally completely different rationales, united only by their condescension towards the voters. A majority of those voters voted against Towns two years ago; they're the ones to whom the Congressman owes this debate, not Kevin Powell. It's a very legitimate issue as to whether or not people should vote for someone who is so afraid of defending his record and positions that he will only face the voters in ways - mailings, ads, etc. - that he completely controls.
Little anecdote: some time ago, Towns missed a very important vote, leading to passage of some really odious legislation. I called his chief of staff, who explained that he's old and was too tired to hang around the Capitol until two in the morning. I said to her then that that was a piss-poor excuse. Such excuses seem to be the Congressman's main strength, as the chatter on why he won't debate illustrates.
Bouldin, You Have Alot to Learn
Actually, Bouldin, you might want to re-read your posts next time if you want readers to think you know anything about how Congress works.
"If there's no difference between the two, as you claim, voters have no reason to retain Towns." Hmmmmm, except for seniority on the third oldest (and one of the most powerful) committees in all of Congress. Yeah, the 10th's representative is the 4th most senior Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee ... out of 56 representatives. So, yeah, chuck him out and Powell will take his place, right?
What a good choice for Brooklyn.
That is what is at stake, Brooklyn's having a responsive representing with a Congressional seniority that comes with representing your constituents for 25 years and delivering lots of goodies for the district. Don't you know anything about how committee assignments work?
And, no, I have not backed off my position. Powell is an ignoramus with no defensible record and no tangible positions that differentiate him from Towns - at least, not any he considers to be a "major platform." Now, you may think that is orthogonal to the issue, but that just shows that you are not qualified to make this call. If Powell doesn't think he has anything to trumpet as a "major" differentiating issue, then what ground does he have to demand a debate? What would there be to debate?!? I definitely think Powell needs an apologist, but I thought you might want to avoid the role.
So, what's the point for Towns to debate someone like that? All it does is open Towns to be mocked by someone who has already shown no respect for the democratic process, by even trying to bribe his opponent's campaign workers! How can you actually defend that kind of personality, jeez.
So, is that structurally comprehensible enough? Perhaps you need it presented in a syllogism or symbolic logic? Anyway you slice it the reality remains the same:
1. Powell has shown no respect for Towns or his campaign workers
2. Powell has no "major platforms" that differentiate him from Towns's legislative record (certainly none his campaign is articulating)
3. Ergo, debating Powell would only come at Towns's expense with little opportunity to gain anything (not like Towns's is competing for legions of Powell supporters)
And thanks for the anecdote you offered, but a pity it doesn't come with any proof, or verification. So, I'll respond in kind with my own anecdote: I happen to know that in the last 2 years, Towns has interacted with the majority of those who voted against him and has assuaged their fears.
Hard to believe, right? But, as there is no way to prove me right or wrong (just as there is no way to prove you right or wrong), then I guess the truth is truly relative in the end.
I have enjoyed the debate though. If anything, perhaps you and I could stand in proxy for the candidates if they don't want to
Heh.
Actually, Towns almost lost his committee seat for disloyalty; Nancy Pelosi had a come-to-Jesus meeting with him about some of his votes and threatened to strip him of his committee assignments. So that seniority argument is a little tenuous.
This was a pretty high-profile story, so maybe, if you don't know about it, you might want to be a little slower in accusing people who know more than you do of ignorance.
And again, your "arguments" why Towns shouldn't debate merely demonstrate how arrogant and out of touch that campaign is. Some people around the Congressman seem to have forgotten that he serves at the pleasure of the voters and is answerable to them. Like Barack said, this is a big election that shouldn't be wasted on small things, and here are the Towns apologists, whining that their guy is being "disrespected" by someone rude enough to run a primary against him. I'm not sold on Powell by any means, but this kind of contempt for voters says everything anyone needs to know about this race.
A 3-Year Old Story
Bouldin, yeah, it was a high-profile story ... 3 YEARS AGO!!!
Jeez. So, wait, before the last election. And yet, Towns was re-elected, he retained his post, and now with Pelosi as Speaker, he is still continuing to retain that post for the people of Brooklyn. So, without any inkling that he is on probation with Pelosi, why the hell would any sensible voter bounce him and his position on one of the most powerful committees in all of Congress?!?! It is absolutely mental!
So, again, I refute your claim that as there is no difference, then there is no incentive to keep Towns. If Brooklyn boots Towns, even if Powell holds the seat against the GOP, he is going to be low on the totem pole. And, that means Brooklyn is gonna wallow in no-man's land, hoping for any scraps left over when more senior Democrats AND Republicans get theirs for their districts.
And, no, I don't have contempt for voters. I am one! What I have contempt for is half-a**ed, wannabe politicians who run on fumes and tissue paper, and think that old=bad and that longevity is a disease to be cured, without thinking through the implications. And I have contempt for ill-informed commentators who fall for the same stupid rhetoric. Your audience (including me) expects more of you ...
Okay.
So now, the argument shifts to "but he's been there so long he can do stuff". By that line of thinking, people should retain their long-serving legislators even if they're republican, such as Chris Shays, of Connecticut's Fourth. Most Democrats would argue that performance in office counts a bit more than longevity in a safe seat. It's also worth noting that the Democrats have been very good about showcasing their freshmen, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi - who, as noted, is not a fan of Towns. To turn your argument around, 10th-CD voters might want to consider sending someone back to D.C. who's apparently on the Speaker's shitlist.
So let's review: you started out whining that Powell has been less than acceptably groveling at Towns' feet, and proceeded to then compare Powell to a California porn star. So obviously, You really don't care about tone.
Then, you proceeded to claim that Towns and Powell have the exact same platform. I gave you three major policy areas where that is simply not true. Instead of acknowledging your argument's failure, you slithered over into "oh, but that doesn't matter". Problem is, it does. And that's without going into the staggering weakness revealed when supporters of a 24-year incumbent claim that he's just like his challenger.
And now...
And I have contempt for ill-informed commentators who fall for the same stupid rhetoric. Your audience (including me) expects more of you ...
...come the ad hominems.
Give my regards to Ed, and tell him he needs better help on the blogs.
Correction: Talking Points ...
Sorry, I meant "Mary Carey," the porn-star-turned-gubernatorial-candidate in the CA recall election a few years back. Yes, another wonderfully serious candidate maliciously prevented from having an audience to air her goods to the public ...
Mainly because her views would have to be shown after 9:00pm and probably involved a gang-bang or lady-on-lady action. LOL!
Ad Homines & Unicorns
First off, no, I didn't compare Powell to a porn star. Comparisons are done via similes and metaphors; I used neither. I said a debate should be a serious discussion of issues between serious, credible candidates, otherwise it’ll become a farce or PR stunt (as happened in CA). If you don't know what a simile or metaphor is, I encourage you to check the nearest OED. I also don't appreciate your being overly anxious to cry wolf and scream "FOUL!"
Secondly, on the ad hominem attack. Actually I didn't attack your character (that IS the definition of an "ad hominem" attack). I do find your analysis ill-informed, I did think that you were duped by "stupid rhetoric," and I stand by flagging you constant evasion of the key questions. I am, however, ready to revise my position on your motivation, as I don't think you were duped. I now find you more calculating than I gave you credit for, so I apologize for thinking you were buying into "stupid rhetoric."
Fact remains: you got caught out. Case in point, your comment:
"If there's no difference between the two, as you claim, voters have no reason to retain Towns."
So I pointed out that longevity=seniority, seniority=influence, and influence=power to get federal grants/assistance from colleagues.
Your response: "Actually, Towns almost lost his committee seat for disloyalty; Nancy Pelosi had a come-to-Jesus meeting with him about some of his votes and threatened to strip him of his committee assignments."
Not even a "Granted, that's true, but ..." A total swing-and-a-miss.
All you did was change the subject with a red herring about an intra-party squabble from 3 years ago. But, you never answered a question very relevant to TODAY and to what voters can expect TODAY. So, let me help you out and answer them for you.
1. Did Towns lose his seniority? No.
2. Is Towns currently under threat of losing his seniority? Not Likely.
3. If Towns is not re-elected, will Brooklyn lost its seniority on that "coveted" committee? Most likely Yes.
That, Bouldin, is what the 10th stands to lose. Unlike you, I'm not going to talk about what-might've-beens from 3 years ago. RIGHT NOW he is a senior member of one of the most powerful committees in Congress. And RIGHT NOW, if Powell defeats him, Brooklyn loses that influence.
Yes, Pelosi has been good at showcasing freshman. But, do you really think she'll say, "Well, that old fart Towns is gone, so who will I fill his high ranking position with? Hmmmmm. I know! This young, never-held-elected-office upstart from Brooklyn who has a history of violence towards women! He'll be perfect to sit in this newly-vacant yet much coveted committee seat."
That doesn't even make sense.
And THAT is why people like Kennedy, and Towns, and Shays, and Lieberman, and a host of others get sent back term, after term, after term. They vote in ways that their voters more or less accept, and they have the seniority to bring federal monies and attention to their districts. That happens because over time they develop the seniority and relationships in DC to make things happen at home.
Towns has that now.
The question you could have responded with is, “Granted, Towns does have seniority, but what has he done with it for Brooklyn?” Have you shown how he has NOT delivered for the 10th? Has Federal spending decreased? Federal contracts? Federal jobs? I'm not being antagonistic here. But if someone is going to say, "maybe it is time to change Congressman in the 10th," you think you might have more than dusting off a 3-year-old intra-party squabble that amounted in nothing. You think you might at least show how the people of the 10th have suffered under Towns's watch, or ways that he's failed to use his influence to bring monies and attention to the 10th.
At its core Powell's campaign is really only running on a single plank: Towns supported Hillary, while the 10th and Powell wanted Obama. God forbid a congressman support someone from the same state, especially someone whose family (which includes a former US President) had been very good to the Congressman's district! Heaven's to Betsy!!! I guess honor, integrity, and a person’s word do mean so little nowadays.
That is the issue I have with Powell. Obama is out there trying to preach unity, trying to unite folks after a divisive primary. Sure, feelings hurt and healing takes time. But given how easy it is for Democrats to fracture (as opposed to Republicans, who can more easily rally around guns, religion, and lower taxes), helping the healing process is critical.
But Powell is out there every day tearing the stitches at the lowest grassroots level, trying to crucify Towns by sowing the seed that he’s "out of touch" for supporting Hillary. Hillary released her delegates to Obama, so Towns should be able now to endorse Obama (and has) just as millions of Democratic voters are being asked to back Obama with a promise they won't be reviled for having supported Hillary. But that means jack-squat to someone like Powell. He wants to make Towns suffer, just as he apparently would want all Democrats who supported Hillary to suffer.
What Powell is pushing is a sure-fire way to guarantee Democrats will lose the WH this year.
(Aside: for my $0.02, it actually winds up being a brilliant move on Towns's part. Towns has strengthened his relationship with a sitting NY Senator and with a former President (hence why Clinton turned out for Towns's event a few weeks back) and (like many millions of Americans) is still free to support the Democratic nominee. It might actually enhance Towns’s position in NY politics. But Powell wants to damn him for that? So much for party unity and putting Brooklyn first.
I need to wrap this up though, because I'm tired of having to think for two.
You could have just said, "True, he does have seniority. True, he does have very good relationships with both senators and every member of the NY delegation. But, Brooklyn could use change for X, Y, and Z reasons." Or, you could have said, "Towns could have used his seniority to help in instance X, Y, and Z, but he chose not to." You could have done that (which would have been constructive), but instead you just ignored the 800lb gorilla in the room.
I'll let you have the final word and I'll make you this vow: I won't be responding. I'm sure you'll trot out statistics, pull some more X-year-old stories out. But you are missing the point: Towns losing TODAY means Brooklyn losing its influence TODAY. Clearly you think that is worth putting Powell in, a man with a chequered personal history, no "major platform" differences from Towns, no concrete initiatives for the 10th, already a sprinkling of broken promises, and several cases of putting his own wallet ahead of spending time with voters at decision time.
I just have a sense that you don’t want to address the crucial issues, and that you don’t want to answer precisely what Brooklyn stands to lose in getting rid of Towns, and what Brooklyn stands to gain by electing Powell. Sure, you are all about “change.” But, is change-for-change’s-sake worth it when the costs outweigh the benefits?
And this brings me back to why I took back my comment. I was wrong; you are not duped by "stupid rhetoric." Instead, for you this a personal vendetta against Towns over a vote from 3-years-ago. I personally prefer looking forward when I consider what's important for the 10th, and what it stands to lose by sending Powell forward.
And let me set the record straight. I am not an employee of Towns, of his campaign, congressional office, or any consulting firms hired by and/or otherwise associated with him. I'm just a simple voter with Brooklyn's interests at heart. It's sad that when you're incapable of responding to an informed voter, you need to assume they work for the campaign.
Heh.
Honestly, unless this is some kind of "but I must have the last word even if I'm completely lost" contest, none of that makes sense. No, that's not at all surprising, but worth pointing out.
Sorry Michael, There Are No Debates Between Harrison And McMahon
Yes, they both were on NY1 on Friday and today on WABC but there will be no debates between Harrison and McMahon in front of an audience with voters asking questions. Steve proposed 5 debates, 3 on Staten Island and 2 on the Brooklyn side of the district, but McMahon doesn't seem to feel he has to debate Harrison. Guess he's afraid of Harrison and having the truth come out on his voting record. He even told someone at an SIDA Meeting that he would not answer any questions on his voting record and there's a UTube on it.