Okay...I take a stand
So my goal of sitting out the 2007 elections in NYC is now out the window. I have had many conversations about the Brooklyn judicial elections and, in preparation for the CBID and IND endorsement meetings coming up this week and next week, I want to take two stands. I am tentatively supporting Diana Johnson for the second surrogate seat in Brooklyn and I am supporting Devin Cohen for 6th Civil Court.
I agonized about the Surrogate race in a previous diary, and won't go into the gory details here. The gist is that all of the candidates have some good and bad going for them, but in the end I have heard the best things said about Diana Johnson, even by those who aren't supporting her. Miller is too immersed in the Brooklyn machine, more so than Johnson, at least now. The other candidates just don't do it for me, though Graham might be my second choice largely because I have known him, liked him and respected him. But Diana Johnson is more experienced than Graham and less tainted by the machine than Miller. She is a good judge and seems to have the respect even of people who have previously been on opposite sides from her. So, for now I am supporting Diana Johnson and have agreed to be on a letter to that effect within CBID. My main hesitation is that I want to hear and meet the candidates before I feel fully confident in that choice, but the more I have talked to people, the more I have liked Diana.
My support for Devin Cohen is more personal and required far less in the way of gory details. Devin is a good friend, having known my wife for many years, and is the reason my wife and I got involved in local Brooklyn politics. It is quite possible I would not be blogging here and certainly would not have gained quite the infamy I did during last year's elections had Devin not gotten me interested in IND. Devin is smart and his integrity is respected even by those who don't agree with him on issues. He has shown a large, if quiet, commitment to the community as a volunteer ambulance driver and medic. He has done more community involvement than I can ever remember, including through his judo dojo. Simply put, whatever differences I have on political details with Devin, he is someone who is extremely dedicated and someone I trust more than anyone else in local politics. Perhaps that sounds like damning with faint praise, but it isn't intended to be. He would make a great judge and I am confident in my support of him.
So, looking towards the CBID and IND endorsement meetings, I am personally supporting these two candidates. I should note that being a board member of IND, I will ultimately have to support IND's endorsements or resign from the board, one reason I had previously hesitated to take a stand in advance. That is a decision I will have to make at the time and will also partly depend on what I think of the other candidates once I hear them. My current decision is based on lots of discussion and lots of homework, but to date I have only met Bernie Graham in the Surrogate race and Devin Cohen in the 6th.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
election 2007 | judicial elections | Devin Cohen | Diana Johnson
Heh
Submitted by mole333 on 22 May 2007 - 6:22pm.
So that makes us two hacks? And Michael has been accused of being the same as well. Makes a nice trio.
I of course am swayed partly by loyalty to a friend. I have no reason to deny that. I would say that I support him also because he mixes intelligence, moderation, community dedication and integrity. All good characteristics in a judge and of all the people I know in Brooklyn politics Devin has perhaps the best mix of them. However, I admit I have no specific beef against Kathy Levine. I can vouch wholeheartedly for Devin as can my wife and many of our political friends. He has impressed all of them with his honesty.
Whoa, this is news! I don't
Submitted by Gary Reilly (not verified) on 22 May 2007 - 5:25pm.
Whoa, this is news! I don't know anything about Diana Johnson (yet) but I will heartily second your endorsement of Devin Cohen.
Devin made me feel welcome when I first wanted to join a Democratic club (IND) and to my surprise, when I dropped in to a CB6 meeting Devin was chairing the session. He's extremely involved in the community, and strikes me as the type of guy who will do what's right. Honorable.
Anecdotal but for me, conclusive: My wife met Devin at the IND dinner last month and liked him immediately. She's an excellent judge of character, and described him as warm and genuine.
A view from afar
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 22 May 2007 - 9:40pm.
This is why I'm glad I live in Queens, where we've never had problems with judicial selections -- they are always made with the best interest of...
Uh, never mind.
mole333, your previous diary
Submitted by downtown72 on 24 May 2007 - 12:54am.
mole333, your previous diary looks all closed for comments, but I just can't help but jump in on this surrogate race issue. I know Miller, and as you conceded in one of your earlier posted versions of the previous diary, he IS the most qualified candidate for Brooklyn surrogate. A lawyer for well over 30 years, partner and head of the NY litigation practice for a 1500 person international law firm. He's also done pro bono work for a long list of neighborhood groups, which is how I'm privileged to know him. So that's for starters. And in addition to proving himself as a community activist, yes, he's been active in politics. It was hard when Miller ran and lost the city council race against Noach Dear, who was backed by the organization-- Howie Golden and Clarence Norman. He also ran and lost a city council race to Simcha Felder-- a candidate supported by Dov Hikind. So what is Miller's crime? He helped to establish a legal defense fund for two indicted pols-- Norman and Hikind-- so supposedly he believes that even pols are entitled to a fair trial. And what was his reward? When he ran for city council in 2001, Hikind ran his chief of staff against him. And when Miller sought the Supreme court nomination last year, the organization did NOT to my knowledge support him. From what I know of his potential opponants, Beitner apparently advised the disgraced Surrogate Feinberg on the law, and Bernie Graham's a wise guy whose campaign for civil court was dominated by his major supporter Carl Andrews, Clarence Norman's right hand man. Diane Johnson's a much reversed supreme court judge who was NORMAN'S candidate for surrogate last year and whose campaign was run by the recently indicted assemblywoman Diane Gordon. So your current take on the "machine politics" and its workings doesn't ring true for me on this one...
Well said
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 24 May 2007 - 6:22am.
Perhaps a little harsher than I'd get on Johnson and Graham, and a little easy on Beitner, but the point is that it's laughable for folks who spent a whole summer calling Johnson the devil incarnate to suddenly find her the exemplar of all things pure, especially in comparison to a blue ribbon guy like Miller who's basically Spitzer's choice, with Viot going along for the ride.
In the end, neither the Surrogate's race of the 6th really has a moral dimension; one candidate or another might be better, but there's no clear cut side of the angels here.
What I said
Submitted by mole333 on 24 May 2007 - 7:04am.
In the end, neither the Surrogate's race of the 6th really has a moral dimension; one candidate or another might be better, but there's no clear cut side of the angels here.
Basicly that's largely what I have been saying, I just decide on a different candidate. After looking into Miller's record I can't say that I see him as so blue-ribbon. He's good and qualified, but aren't they all basically good and qualified? In the end Miller's more consistent machine connection and Graham's lack of experience and Beitner's social conservativism on some issues weigh them down while Johnson just overall seems the best combination of qualifications. I don't remember ever calling Johnson the devil incarnate during the first surrogate race...I was against the way the machine was targeting Margarita. And I am not calling her the exemplar of all things pure. I am calling her the best of a field where everyone is basically qualified and none are really as independent of political connections as I would like. Had I been convinced by people's claims that Miller was by far the most qualified I might have come down differently, though honestly I think as long as someone as corrupt as Vito runs the machine I am not likely to side with any candidate he is currently backing. Miller would have to be pretty stellar to overcome that connection in my book even if Vito is just along for the ride as you say. Backing his candidates helps to perpetuate his influence. As to Graham, I was considering him by default until I heard more about his relative qualifications vis a vis the other candidates.
fair enough
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 24 May 2007 - 8:19am.
Fair enough, but even you admit that there are those among Johnson's supporters who venerate her today, but had previously reserved her a spot in Dante's Inferno. Since these folks include some of Brooklyn's most self righteous, you would think at least a moment's contrition and reflection would be in order. The spectacle of some of these folks now arguing that the sacred cause of reform requires Johnson's election is so nauseating as to almost compel the election of someone else. But, that would be stupid, as the idea is to support the person who'd do the best job, rather than to slect judges on the basis of politics.
Which is why I'll probably vote for Miller, warts and all.
Fair enough
Submitted by mole333 on 24 May 2007 - 4:08pm.
I still have not had anyone give me convincing reasons why Miller is more qualified than Johnson...but if that is what you think, you should vote for him. I remain unconvinced and see them as being sufficiently closely qualified that a vote against someone Vito supports as a way of chipping away at his influence is the deciding factor.
As to the sanctimonious people you refer to, I can only think of one who might fit the bill of both ends of views towards Johnson. And you know that person is not one who sways me...one way OR the other. Those I talk to never were so down on Johnson per se so much as either for Margarita or against the actions of the machine, which were using any means necessary to defeat Margarita because of a vendetta. When I urged people to help Margarita back then, I don't think (check this if you like, I could be wrong!) I vilified Johnson so much as the actions of the machine and their poor reasons for attacking Margarita. Those I know supporting her now who had supported Margarita in the past haven't glorified Johnson so much as said she's the best of the pick and in terms of representing the community she came a hair's bredth close to winning twice before, indicating community support. Those are their arguments in my presence, anyway.
Arguing based on qualifications, both Miller and Johnson are reasonable candidates. Arguing based on independence, neither of them is an ideal candidate. I can only pick one and in the end Johnson is my choice, Miller is yours. Fair enough.
6th
Devin and her opponent Kathy Levine are both former Presidents of reform clubs (Devin-IND; Kathy-CBID), both adeqately qualified and committed to good works. Both would be OK. Your endorsement seems little more than "vote for him because he's my friend and a decent guy, and tae other one may or may not be decent, but I don't even know her."
Hack logic. Then again, loyalty to friends is one of the less egregious hack qualities; at least if, as in this case, the friend meets the entry requirements. As someone who knows both of them, and is probably voting for Levine on much the same criteria, I am hardly in a position to argue about it.
Although the public would probably be well-served by either, it's a little sad. Back in January, the potential candidates for this seat included such legal all-stars as Steve Banks and April Newbauer of the Legal Aid Society. But now it's May, and brilliance has yielded to talent as the public interest lawyers have demurred leaving only the former club presidents.
We'll do well here; but we could have done so much better.