Until Wednesday, New York does not matter
We New Yorkers, with our penchant for self-absorbed navel-gazing, may not like it, but right now, the only race in the country that truly matters is that in the second Congressional district of Ohio. The critical issue here is not just that this race represents a real chance to pick up another House seat and wittle down the razor-thin repug majority. Rather, the benefits that could accrue to Democrats if our candidate, Paul Hackett, wins over his brittle, corrupt opponent, are legion.
First, if you've somehow missed the firestorm in the blogosphere over this race, the basics: OH-2's former representative got kicked up to a cabinet position, leaving the seat free and thereby triggering a special election. Normally, because this district is so dark red, Democrats would only have put up a token challenge. This time around, however, with Bush's poll ratings tanking, his legislative agenda stalled and deeply unpopular, things are different.
We're also in the fortunate position of having a really good candidate, Paul Hackett, a former marine who was in Fallujah until four months ago. His opponent, Jean Schmidt, by contrast, is closely connected to Ohio's corrupt right-wing power structure.
If Paul wins this race - and there is a good chance he might - he'll be the only Iraq War veteran in Congress, and that brings with it a number of political changes. First of all, we'd be able to point to him when the repugs next try to paint us as hippie draft-dodgers and the like. Second, if we win this race, it will finally show the Democrats, with a real-life example of success, that we can compete, and win, everywhere. Third, because this election has been largely fought over Bush, a Hackett win will stand as a decisive rejection of the Bush agenda. If you want to help, go to his web site and make a donation or volunteer, pronto; the NRCC just dumped a half-million dollars into this race.
By contrast, the question of which Democrat exactly will get his or her ass kicked by Bloomberg seems quaint, doesn't it?
There's a deeper reason why this race matters more than the tedious Democratic primary. It's not that the question of who the next mayor of the country's largest city (and prime terrorist target) will be does not matter, far from it. The problem in this town is that our local Democratic Party has not produced a credible, let alone exciting, mayoral candidate in many, many moons. Yes, Freddy, this means you.
We're presently being offered a weak stable of timid, mealy-mouthed non-entities, with the possible exception of Anthony Weiner - who, of course, has all the charisma and pull of a worn door-knob on the stump, not that you'd be able to tell, because the man is in Washington most of the time. Freddy Ferrer, of course, is in his third run and third personality, without understanding that the voters still don't like him - maybe because most reasonable people don't think too highly of the Bronx machine, perhaps? As to Gifford, who would win if shameless pandering were the sole criterion, well, just ask one of his petitioners, who are currently lobbying to get him an independent spot on the November ballot, what they think of his chances. And Virginia Fields should of right be in an encyclopdia next to the entry Woulda Shoulda Coulda.
New York progressives should turn their eyes to the state of our party, and start looking for the Hacketts of the world, if we ever want to win in this town again. The current crop makes me want to move to Ohio, and I never thought I'd ever think that.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2005 Elections | New York City | Democratic Party | George W. Bush
Well, yes and no.
Submitted by Bouldin on 1 August 2005 - 2:16pm.
Mole, I'll agree with you on some points, not on others.
As far as the Brooklyn D.A.'s race is concerned, one problem for candidates in that race is that they risk getting indicted by the incumbent, as happened to Sandra Roper. That kind of stuff, coming from a Democrat, no less, isn't suited to get anyone excited about this race, is it? As far as I'm concerned, if the topic is problems of the NYC Democratic Party, the Brooklyn machine is Exhibit A. But it goes further and deeper than that.
Nor are the candidates per se the problem, and that is not my argument. I've met all of them myself, and they're fine people as individuals. The problem is that the culture that produced them, the entire in-bred NYC Democratic hothouse, just is not that conducive to developing strong personalities, or, God forbid, what is called "vision" in other parts of the country. Witness their positions - I hear they all want to make education better, which is quite the controversial goal, isn't it?
If you think of the issues we actually face, I am just depressed by this campaign. How about a debate about, say, what our economy should look like? We're overly dependent on Wall Street, so how about a bold proposal to pump city money into, say, stem cell research and biotech? We wouldn't even need state approval for that. Or how about some real debate about home rule and getting Albany out of our hair? Cities and states across the country are implementing the Kyoto protocol, and as a coastal city (last I checked), we have cause to be concerned about global warming, no? How about a debate over public authorities like the MTA? What about preventing the next terrorist attack, and dealing with the aftermath?
These are the kinds of debates we as a city should be having, and that we're not going to get from any status-quo pol, Bloomberg included. The only one who is really making substantive proposals, as far as I'm concerned, is Weiner. Granted, you can argue over the details - I still haven't figured out just how he wants to pay for that tax cut if he considers the city's budget projections, but hey - he's at least putting out things to debate.
The underlying issue is that these are the candidates our party has seen fit to produce. The lack of enthusiasm from our volunteers isn't the problem, methinks - consider the extravagant efforts we all poured into the campaign last year. There's more where that came from, but I don't think these four have whatever it is that is needed to rouse that spirit. You're right when you say that's not the candidates problem: it's our problem, because as Democrats, we're a part of the party that produced them.
Another difference
I agree that the Ohio race is extremely important. But I want to point out that a BIG difference between their race and our races here is that THEY ACTUALLY ARE BEHIND THEIR CANDIDATE in Ohio.
What do we New Yorkers do? We bitch and moan about our candidates and give them no backing. Whether it is our mayoral candidates (who are a Hell of alot better that you, in your frustration, portray them) or the Brooklyn DAs race where the best candidate you could ever find had to drop out for lack of backing.
NYC Democrats don't go to bat. That is as much of a problem as any problem with our candidates. Because GOOD candidates get as little or less backing as the bad candidates.
I have met some of our mayoral candidates. And I can assure you you do them and our party an injustice with your words. But what is even worse is that candidates like Paul Wooten (Brooklyn DA) get NO HELP from the grassroots even though someone like Paul represents exactly what we claim we want in a candidate.
If we are failing in our bid to take the mayor's office from the dictatoral CEO who now runs our city, then we are at least as much to blame as our candidates. But it is easier to blame the candidates, I guess.
As to the Ohio race, that is a wonderful connection between the candidate and the activists. And more power to them! We need one more push there, and, for all of you who are sitting out the NYC races this year, at least give some cash towards winning OH-2.