Fossella [is] anything but the independent fighter for constituents that he claims to be in this campaign. He has been a real water-carrier for the Bush administration and the Republican leadership, staunchly backing the war in Iraq while at the same time denying health benefits to National Guard and Reserve members who make up much of the American force there.
The congressman...has been unsympathetic to environmental concerns and has opposed a woman’s right to choose. He does his constituents no favors by his support for privatizing Social Security. He has voted to protect gun makers and sellers. While Mr. Fossella has lately sought funding to deal with health problems related to to the attacks of Sept. 11, he has largely been missing on important local issues. His Democratic colleague, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Sixth District, has often been left to advocate Staten Island’s many transportation needs, including the North Shore rail.
Mr. Fossella has offered only lame excuses for improperly using his campaign funds for skiing holidays in Vail (including lessons and equipment), as well as vacations in Florida — transgressions first reported by the Daily News. He has received donations from a lobbying firm with ties to Jack Abramoff. Earlier this year, he was fined a reported $60,000 for misusing his taxpayer-funded official mailing privileges.
— NY Times Editorial Board in 2006
Sorry Rock, I never though I'd say this but...
...you should ease off on the lefites. If Ed Towns were being challenged by the local equivalent of a Donna Edwards, the local left would be swarming to help her, and I'd probably be rooting for her myself--of course, I'm not a poor person who benefits from one of the programs Towns funds, but I have just as much right as the poor do to support candidates who reflect my priorities.
Moreover, CAFTA accepted, I mostly agree with the reasons stated by Bouldin for objecting to Towns---bankrupcy, net neutraility, etc (I have trouble believing Towns actually opposed ENDA--as opposed to some amendment which I think even Barney Frank tried to stop--Towns is acutely sensitive about not alienating any organized consituency, and Gays qualify as such, plus they raise mucho dinfero, so if Towns did actually vote against it, he must have accidently pushed a wrong button--I think it's more likely that Bouldin's information was wrong).
On the other hand, I find that there are issue-based reasons to support Towns. Having searched Powell's websiite, I am pretty sure he will never under any circumstances, support the use of US forces anywhere in the world for any reason, even to stop genocide. By contrast, I know where Ed Towns stood on Afghanistan (as opposed to his weird position on genocide in the Balkans), because he voted to send troops there, which is also my position and Barack Obama's. But, it is not the position of much of the left.
For the left, the problem with opposing Towns is that his oppostion keeps coming from psychopaths--I find it important to oppose such folks, but if the left finds their priorities elsewhere, one can hardly blame them. For many of them, Powell's issue positions are a better match (hell, on domestic issues, they are a better match for me). Why should they go out of their way to support Towns, even if they cannot bring themselves to support Powell?
Stopping Kevin Powell from serving in Congress for 20 years (as opposed to the two or four years Towns has left in him), or running for higher office seems to me a worthy endeavor, but for folks like Mole and Bouldin, I think the most we have the right to expect is one line buried in a larger piece saying Towns is the lesser evil.
So, stop picking on Frenchie.