Five days until the election.

Today's poll tally from ElectoralVote.com reads 50 Democrats, 49 republicans for the Senate, with one tie, and 241 Democrats to 193 republicans in the House, also with one tie. Almost there.

George Bush gave up on rescuing an American soldier from Moktada Al Sadr's terrorist militia under political pressure from the Iraqi government, reports AmericaBlog. Are we still winning?

Breaking news from The New York Times: voters want a new direction in Iraq. Shocking; the Bush strategy of 'stand and lose' seems discredited.

Also in the Times: the return of Helmut Lang. Hallelujah.

From The Washington Post: "Scandals Alone Could Cost Republicans Their House Majority" is the headline.

Via DailyKos, republican Politruk John Boehner blames generals, not Rumsfeld, for the Iraq mess. Scumbag.  read more »

In 2005, after the primary, I wrote something of a scathing article criticizing the NYC grassroots for failing to put up a good fight and suggested that if we don't work harder, the only candidates who will ever get anywhere are the big money candidates like Hillary Clinton, Betsy Gotbaum (whose that?) and the like. Michael Bouldin's tirade about progressives this year has similarities with my 2005 rant. In many ways I agree with Michael.

But, 2006 is different. Unlike 2005, the grassroots worked extremely hard this year. We have matured since 2005, I think, and we did far more than we did in 2005 to win. We fought for a better mix of candidates, from the very progressive Bill Batson to the more mainstream but still kick ass Velmanette Montgomery and Eric Adams. We also, to a small degree, helped in the reform victory for civil court judge, helping Dena Douglas and Jackie Williams win. But I don't think I can say we won in 2006. We grew, but it wasn't enough.

I think Michael's article failed to recognize that we have come a few steps further since 2005. And I will note that some of the factors that helped us do so include the personalities of our best candidates, particularly Chris Owens, as well as the horror at the mess Ratner, Pataki and Bloomberg are shoving down the throat of Brooklyn. But Michael is right that those few steps are far from enough.  read more »

Last year, Marty Markowitz broke party ranks and endorsed Republican Michael Bloomberg. In response, many of us progressive activists in Brooklyn broke ranks with Marty and supported Gloria Mattera, the Green candidate.

For me it was a very hard choice to support a Green since I have a fairly dim view of the Greens in general, though am respectful to specific Greens. In the end, I felt Marty Markowitz, who I used to like a great deal, had become a mere opportunist and had lost my support. I went Green and many others, Dean-supporters, Kerry-supporters etc., did as well. Chris Owens was one of them.

On election night I met Marty Markowitz and showed him my Ferrer and Mattera sign. I told him I used to be a big fan but he lost me with the Bloomberg endorsement. He shrugged and indicated he didn't care.

I guess he did care. Because the man known for his smile is proving to be hypocritical, vindictive and petty.

The NY Carib NEws reports that Markowitz holds a grudge against Chris Owens for his endorsement of Mattera. Mr. Smiley said of Chris Owens:

"This guy is an opportunist. That's all he is. I don't wish anyone ill, except for him to be defeated which is what he wished me in my campaign (for Borough President). He endorsed the candidate outside of the Democratic Party against me, which is his right to do. He sucks up to the affluent minority. That's who he does the dance for. That's his thing, the affluent minority. He is turning his face on the majority" in the 11th Congressional District and in Brooklyn as a whole.

Ummmm...Marty Markowitz calling someone else an opportunist??? He is criticizing someone else for endorsing outside of the Democratic Party??? And in what way does Chris suck up to the affluent minority? Chris, at least as much as Marty, has a good connection with regular voters of all groups. If anything, Marty sucks up to the affluent far far FAR more than Chris ever does. What a giant hypocrite! Behind that smile is a very petty man. Marty, you took opportunism to an art form and you were the first to break not only party, but ideological ranks when you endorsed Bloomberg...the REPUBLICAN. Chris (and myself) may have broken party ranks but at least stayed true to our ideals as progressives. How can Marty DARE to criticize for breaking party ranks? Before he does that he needs to apologize to Freddie Ferrer and the Democratic Party for breaking ranks himself. Otherwise, Marty, you have NO RIGHT to criticize.

Chris Owens' response was far more gentlemanly than Mr. Smiley's petty rant:

Reacting to Markowitz' strong assessment, Owens said in statement that he "disappointed that Marty takes criticism of his work so personally. It's unprofessional and petty. I have been supportive of Marty in the past. While we disagree strongly on the Atlantic Yards project, I only considered Marty a 'traitor to the Democratic Party when he endorsed Mayor (Michael Bloomberg) for re-election, rather than endorsing Democratic Mayoral nominee Fernando Ferrer or staying neutral."

When I first moved to Brooklyn, I really liked Marty. I didn't necessarily think he would be good in any other office, but he definitely seemed like an ideal BP for Brooklyn. Either I woke up or he changed. In the crowd I run with, no one would have endorsed Mattera had Marty stayed loyal to his party. He chose, as is his right, to endorse the Republican. We chose, as is our right, to endorse the Green. Marty is asking us to respect his choice but is not willing to respect our choice. THAT is disgusting to me.

Behind the smile, Marty Markowitz proves to be petty, vindictive and hypocritical. As Michael Bouldin would say, Feh!

In a large, well-appointed, oak-paneled office in Albany, filled with all the trappings of power, sits a very worried man. That man is Joseph Bruno, Majority Leader of the State Senate, now contemplating how he could have lost the biggest gamble of his life.

The Majority Leader risked open warfare with the incumbent governor to push Golisano into the race; he needled, cajoled, called in favors, did, in fact, everything a seasoned and powerful Albany politician can do when he sees a threat to his power glaring on the horizon. Golisano with his millions was to have been the rainmaker that would allow Bruno to cling on, in spite of demographics, against the will of the voters in a blue state, to his fragile Senate majority.

Golisano announced today that he would exit the race.

Pollsters have been softly singing dirges for our local republican party for the last two years; the newest numbers from Quinnipiac testify that this is not premature. Running against Eliot Spitzer is a money-losing proposition. Golisano, as a businessman, presumably understands this. It's noteworthy that he polls a full third better than the other contenders on that side of the aisle against Spitzer; however, that still translates into a 25% to 56% losing margin. The other wannabes don't even break 20% in the Quinnipiac poll. Yes, it truly is that bad.

Consider Texas, Senator Bruno. It's over. You're done.

Well, one upside to the NYC mayoral election is that we now know that you can buy NYC for $74 million and change. Somehow I am reminded of the towns that sell themselves on eBay. I feel like our city has been put on eBay and Bloomberg bid and won. I guess this election is quite a victory for capitalism--we find out that even the nation's largest city has a finite price tag. Good to know should you ever have an extra $74 million to spend.

What has happened to NYC? First off, I think we need to stop blaming our candidates. John Kerry got a lot of flack (still does) for losing in 2004. Al Gore was blamed for 2000 (even though he really won), and the Greens STILL blame Gore. Democrats blame our candidates almost from the start, but I have learned from Mondale on that by and large our candidates are pretty good. They are good people who would do a good job and would be far better than the opponant they lose to (or sometimes win from!). Freddy Ferrer was not ideal, but I learned over the course of the election that he was far better than many give him credit for. And much, MUCH better than the NYC media gave him credit for. Don't blame Ferrer, because our candidates are, first of all, CHOSEN by ballot and second of all are ours to make or break to some degree. People who deride "The Democrats" for "Picking" the wrong candidate ignore the fact that "The Democrats" includes all of us and the candidates aren't "picked" but are ELECTED. Ferrer won the primary. Period. He was the elected candidate of our party. Blame the Democratic voters, if you want but not "The Democrats" as if the party is an entity unto itself. What was Ferrer's weakness? Mainly it was his campaign. A campaign is NOT the person. A campaign is run by and organized by others. They are almost a marketing team for the candidate. Ferrer did FINE when he was on his own meeting people on the street. But Ferrer's CAMPAIGN was terrible. Perhaps the worst I have seen. I worked with folks from it and phone calls weren't answered, polling places weren't covered, local groups were left to their own devices. How much of that was organizational, how much was a
dismal lack of money, and how much was media hostility is open to
debate. But the bottom line is, without an excellent campaign, no one
is going to do well against a $74 million media blitz and a media that
is kissing the ass of your opponant. A shoddy campaign against big money is going to fail.

So what is going on in NYC? I am seeing a drift to the right. Wedge issues and a weak local Dem party is opening up the city to Republicans. If the Democratic party doesn't clean itself up (Clarence Norman's conviction should only be the beginning!) and if local Democrats don't get more active, the creeping Republican trend will continue and NYC will no longer be "safely" blue. I see this trend particularly in Brooklyn whre the Jewish vote and the more religious black vote are drifting towards the right because of wedge issues like gay rights. I know Brooklyn better than the other boroughs, so it may be happening there as well, but it is very clear in Brooklyn. We are also seeing a trend where NYC Democrats are becoming more like Republicans with blindly pro-business and pro-development stands and a support of Bloomberg's anti-First Amendment stands that is disturbing.

But what is happening with the rest of the state? If this last election is any indication, New York STATE is drifting left even as NYC is drifting right. NY State gave Democrats many resounding victories. From an article from the NY State Democratic Committee:

Resounding victories include Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Albany, Binghamton mayor’s races; Brookhaven upset; Gentile, Lappin, Garodnick, Vacca in NYC; Ulster, Nassau, Suffolk legislatures; Saratoga sweep; Erie County Comptroller surprise...

Following the national trend that saw Democrats affirmed throughout the country, the New York State Democratic Party enjoyed a virtual sweep last night of all major races in the state, sending a clear sign that the Democratic Party in New York is stronger than ever. Democrats swept every major upstate Mayor’s race, every competitive New York City council race, and key legislatures and upsets throughout the state.

Beware NYC Democrats! Shape up or find yourselves marginalized by a very savvy, very determined Republican party. NYC Democrats are being shown up by our NY State counterparts.