The latest brouhaha in the race to replace Bill deBlasio (who is lagging in the race for Public Advocate, but still in the running) was one candidate, Brad Lander, attacking another candidate, my friend Josh Skaller, for sending his kid to a private school even though the reason for sending him to a private school was due to special needs that the public school could not fulfill. Josh's wife's mother-bear defense of their choice to do what was best for their child has been covered both on Daily Gotham and on PolitickerNY. And it has been having at least some impact. [THREE UPDATES ADDED BELOW]

Over at Politicker, "Erik from the Slope" [UPDATE 3: I have been asked who this is...I have heard speculation but I do not know] had this to say about Lander's attack on the Skaller's decision to do what is best for thier child:

I was at the 5th Avenue Street fair back in May in Park Slope. I had the chance to speak to both Josh Skaller and Brad Lander. They seemed like similar candidates so I asked both of the an obvious question, "what's the difference between you two?"

Josh Skaller was a bit uncomfortable talking about another candidate but he did say he was the only candidate who never took any money from developers. I told him Brad says the same thing. He grew a little more animated and said that Brad returned some donations recently but is on record saying he is proud to take donations from affordable housing builders.

Brad Lander was much more confident and to the point. He said he has a record of results including building affordable housing. I told him I lived in Park Slope and affordable housing isn't an issue for me. He asked if education was. I said of course. Lander then told me that his kids go to school "just up the hill" at PS 107 and that Josh's son goes to an elite private school.

I have to admit, it made a bit of a difference and I was leaning toward voting for Brad. I will also say that if Brad had just said, "yes, I have said that on occasion" I would have still voted for him probably.

But he is being dishonest now. With all the scandals and slush funds (including one in this district), honesty is a must.

I've already ruled out John Heyer. I am now ruling out Brad Lander. Its between Bob Zuckerman and Josh Skaller now.

I think this comment gets at several aspects of this race. First off, John Heyer stands out as the one least in tune with the neighborhood due to his realatively conservative views, despite the fact that he far more decent than Brad Lander. Many who consider themselves mainstream, liberal or progressive Democrats have already ruled Heyer out, though I am sure he has his base in the old-Italian and possibly the Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods.

Second, other than Heyer, the candidates (Skaller, Lander, Zuckerman and, left out by Erik, Reily) are all very similar in their basic positions. Lander, Heyer and Zuckerman lean more pro-developer, Skaller and Reily lean more pro-community, but their positions definitely overlap. I could argue that the fact that a Forest City Ratner executive tried to max out on Lander (but Lander demured) shows which candidate is viewed by most as being the most pro-developer, but the fact remains that all of the candidates overlap in their views on almost all issues. Lander stands out as the only (as far as I know) who is on record as being anti-Israel and Heyer the only one on record as anti-choice. Heyer's marriage equality stand has been somewhat misunderstood because although he IS against gay marriage, he is also for government only authorizing civil unions with marriage being left to the individuals and their religious leaders. That is indeed, if carried out, marriage equality. [UPDATE 1: A reader has a minor correction to this: Heyer's suggested plan allows religious leaders to convey a civil union as part of the "marriage" they officiate, but government would no longer convey something called marriage. The reader claims that atheists, agnostics, and freethinklers would not recive equal treatment under Heyer's plan. Arguable, maybe, but worth keeping in mind].

Other than these sparse differences (some of which may be critical to some voters), the candidates are largely in agreement on most issues.

Third, Brad is indeed a smooth talker when compared with Josh under most circumstances. One of the things I have been pointing out is that while Josh maintains his cool, even if initially awkward, even when challenged. My personal experience, as well as that of many who I have talked to, is that Brad blows up and throws a tantrum when challenged, even if his initial style is smooth. [UPDATE 2: I should note that Brad has been keeping his cool better these days from my personal observation...I have not heard stories of him blowing up for a couple of weeks now. Perhaps he is dealing with his anger management problem? If so he deserves credit for recognizing his problem and addressing it.] But this gets to the key of "Erik from the Slope's" comment. How far can we trust these candidates in the long run.

The district has seen the DiBrienza scandal, which directly involved neighboring councilman Yassky and happened practically under the nose of current councilman deBlasio's office. People want an honest, upfront candidate. When a candidate misleads (as "Erik from the Slope" feels Brad did regarding why Josh and his wife made their decisions regarding what school would serve their son's special needs) or blows up at every little criticism (as I and many others have found regarding Brad's attitude towards challenges), it is hard to be comfortable with that candidate representing you. Heyer, Skaller, Zuckerman and Reilly are honest and upfront and open to criticism. Brad Lander is not. Ultimately I chose Skaller as my candidate of choice. "Erik from the Slope" remains undecided between Skaller and Zuckerman (and I understand perfectly his choices). Both of us are uncomfortable with Brad. And THAT is the overwhelming consensus of those I have talked to who have had any dealing with Brad where they have the slightest disagreement with him.

But I go beyond this one race. Erik's comment that "Honesty is a Must" really defines this year. Steve Levin's close ties to Vito Lopez (as his aide) in the 33rd City Council district calls his honesty into question given the widespread corruption of the Vito Lopez machine. Mattueu Eugene's dishonesty as to his supposed "doctorate" calls his honesty into question in the 40th City Council district. The city's rampant slush fund scandals call into question most current council members, including specifically Bill deBlasio, Christine Quinn and David Yassky all of whom have clearly funnelled money through fake non-profits. Honesty is key this year and honesty is scarce in NYC these days. So take it into account when you vote and challenge EVERY candidate when you meet them regarding the slush fund scandals and honesty.