Last night was the Rumble at IND. Most of the excitement came during the closed door, members-only discussion and I will not (unlike some so-called "journalists") violate the integrity of such a private discussion. But for those who stayed to hear the results, there was a great deal of yelling after wards as well.

Statements from two candidates in the 39th race can be found at the end.

Some very deep betrayals played out at IND last night and some very deep resentment has been built and it will hurt the club and it will hurt Assembly member Joan Millman. And there are some who will slam Jo Anne Simon with this, fairly or not, and she had better be prepared. Can they survive it? Quite probably. But, IND's impact on this year's election will be about equal (maybe a little more) than when they endorsed Suozzi for Governor, and there are some of their constituents who are now deeply, bitterly angry.

My wife epxressly invites all who are dissatisfied with IND's actions to come to CBID's brand new storefront at 548 10th St. right off 7th Ave. in Park Slope, Phone: 718-788-3409. CBID's general meetings will still be at the Isaac Abraham free space at the basement of Park Slope Methodist Church, 6th Ave & 8th St in Park Slope. Next general meeting is Jun.25, 2009 7.30 PM.

Click on "READ MORE" for the details.

Already the word is that the opportunistic and unscrupulous Working Families Party (no insult to Tish James and Daniel Squadron here) and the corrupt and even more unscrupulous Party Boss Vito Lopez were celebrating last night because IND just dealt itself, Joan Millman, and reform in Brooklyn a serious blow last night.

At the center of this is the gentlemanly, but conservative for all but the Boro Park end of the district, John Heyer and his backer, the not-so gentlemanly but fascinating character, Salvatore "Buddy" Scotto.

IND may be the next body to pass through Scotto's funeral home, once that body is removed from the Gowanus canal.

Last night in a very long (nearly 4 hours) meeting that by the end had devolved into several separate yelling matches and some long-time members shaking their heads exclaiming "this is a disaster," IND endorsed Jo Anne Simon in the 33rd City Council district (fully expected and appropriate and not a disaster) and John Heyer in the 39th City Council District (a definite surprise and shock to the many pro-choice and pro-LGBT members of IND and most definitely a disaster).

The basic facts are Old-time member of IND, Salvatore "Buddy" Scotto, blatantly packed the club with people who have not previously been active in the club. Some long-time members commented that there were many people there who they had never seen attend before. They came out for this endorsement meeting at Buddy's request. Scotto used this packing to push through the endorsements of Yassky and de Blasio at the last endorsement meeting. This caused some anger in the club, but to me was not outside the normal workings of the club. The anger at those forced endorsements was because it showed that people's participation on the club was no longer worth anything because Buddy would ensure enough bodies to endorse whoever he likes, democracy be damned. But the Heyer endorsement actually blatantly violates the ideals of many in the club, and many of those people showed their anger last night.

To me the actions of Scotto's faction is also hypocritical. Last night, in response to accusations of packing, Scotto's faction basically said a.) there was no packing (patently untrue), and b.) EVEN IF THERE WAS, it is a GOOD thing because it brings more people into the club. Fine. I have always said the same thing about packing not really being such a bad thing. But in the past Buddy and his people screamed like the shades in Circle VIII Blogia 6 of Dante's Inferno in their gilded leaden robes. If anyone else packed it is horrible. If Buddy packs, it is a GOOD thing. Buddy in particular has been nasty and insulting in his outrage about anyone else packing.

The reason for Scotto's actions, despite the fact that it will hurt IND, Millman and Simon, were his single-minded obsession with the Gowanus canal. He wants to leave it to individual developers to clean up the toxic pollution, virtually ensuring that it will not be done adequately. Who will ensure efforts are coordinated? Who will ensure clean up is done safely and completely? The city? The same city whose politicians are elected largely by money from the same developers who will be trusted with the cleanup? Or will the developers be trusted so much that they will self-regulate their efforts? Buddy opposes a complete, comprehensive cleanup coordinated by the Superfund and directed by Obama's EPA. We are not talking about Bush's or Reagan's EPA. We are talking about Obama's EPA.

This one issue led IND to throw away their dedication to a woman's right to choose, to gay marriage and even loyalty to a past president of their club. IND has been drowned in the Gowanus canal.

All of the candidates came off very well last night. In fact, all of them have refined their message quite well over the weeks. Except, of course, for the eternal no-show Steve Levin, the kid I saw behaving like a sullen teen at CBID's dinner and my wife calls "Vito's Pet." He seems to not want to participate in any of these forums, presumably relying on donations from Vito Lopez's wide network of allies to try and buy the election. Well, in a city bought and sold by Bloomberg routinely, this may not be a bad tactic.

Many journalists have called these candidates "boring," but I disagree. Steve Levin aside, who remains in my memory as only the kid kicking his heels impatiently while Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez talked enthusiastically about how great it is working with the Obama Administration in Washington, the candidates in both districts are a dynamic, articulate, enthusiastic bunch of people. Several have some problems. Brad Lander has some shady donors and some have told me he is too slick, but others see that as speaking well. Evan Thies comes off very sincere, though my wife kept seeing David Yassky gestures and mannerisms in his delivery in the past and I saw what she meant. That association isn't endearing to many, but otherwise Thiese comes off well. Isaac Abraham and John Heyer are a tad too conservative outside of Boro Park but also both came off very earnest. Others in both races are a bit too inexperienced seeming or a bit too scattered in their message. But all basically came off well overall.

Some choice quotes (good and bad) and observations. Of course the best quotes were during the closed session, so I can't quote them (let me just say, if Heyer wasn't already happily married, he'd be getting some very unexpected proposals!). But Isaac Abraham declared that he would stand up to Bloomberg, who he referred to memorably as "the King and his Quinn." Jo Anne Simon said we don't need more half-baked ideas and she wants to fully bake them. And Ken Diamondstone says Brooklyn doesn't need anymore half-filled luxury apartment buildings. Gary Reilly was well received by all and many expressed hope that whatever happens he sticks around in local politics. All I can say, Gary, is that some pretty well seasoned people are expecting great things from you in the future. Biviono was described as a "sweetheart" and John Heyer frequently referred to as "handsome." For what it's worth.

As I predicted early this week, John Heyer has toned down his response to criticism. Rather than flouncing off and protesting over imagined anti-Catholic attacks, Heyer seems to have realized if he wants to run in such a liberal district, he has to convince pro-choice and pro-gay marriage voters that he can still represent them. And, in all honesty, Heyer gave an excellent speech. He was visibly nervous when he began, clearly knowing that although the fix was in thanks to Buddy, people were paying closer attention to what he had to say than ever before and he had better make it good. And he did make it good. As he continued, he calmed and gave a very reassuring speech that despite his conservative views, he was still a loyal Democrat and could represent a liberal district. My advice to Heyer is keep that speech. It is good material and came from the heart.

I will say, however, that many women and many gays were in no way convinced and were furious at IND for what they see as a betrayal. And I think voters in the district will still remain unconvinced as well, but a good, reassuring speech from the heart will blunt opposition and will reduce hostility.

Truth is, Heyer's conservatism should make him the chosen candidate of the Boro Park end of the district since Heyer's attitudes match those of the Hasids bettern than any other candidate's in the race. Now I know Brad Lander is making inroads among the Boro Park voters thanks to a supposed alliance with Dov Hikind, but Brad's past anti-Israel statements should somewhat limit Hasidic support for Brad, and Heyer is a far better fit for that community to support given his views on choice, gay marriage and Israel are similar to the general view of the Hasidic community while Brad's are not.

Now I should note I am no longer calling Heyer anti-marriage equality because this isn't quite an accurate term for his position. Heyer does NOT support extention of marriage rights to gays. He IS in favor of civil unions. But, and this is where his position returns to a form of "marriage equality" at least in theory, he is also for ending government marriage altogether, favoring ONLY civil unions. This is, in my mind, a reasonable though probably unachievable position. The idea of having government do only civil unions and leave marriage ceremonies exclusively to religion is an idea I first heard in 2004 advocated by Al Franken on Air America Radio. I would in theory support that position...except I don't think it is possible. What should gays do in the meantime while a long, probably impossible battle to establish civil unions as the only government recognized union between a couple? Be satisfied with separate but equal which even Heyer agrees is unfair? And what is Heyer's fallback position if his position can't be achieved? Will he THEN support marriage equality of the more traditional sort: extension of marriage to gays? In essence, Heyer supports separate but equal until such a time that a nearly impossible ideal can be achieved. This position does not satisfy the LGBT community who rightly take a position similar to those who founded the nation Brad Lander seems to oppose: If not now, then when? WHEN will gays be treated equally to heterosexuals? Heyer tells them to wait. Though that is better than the right wing extremist view that gays should, literally, go to Hell, it is not going to satisfy voters in the district.

Bob Zuckerman, former president of IND, is probably the angriest at the result since it represents one of the many betrayals that went on last night. It also is a blow to his campaign, though not one that, by now, they couldn't have expected since the betrayal really happened some time ago. Here is former IND president Bob Zuckerman's statement:

STATEMENT BY COUNCIL CANDIDATE

BOB ZUCKERMAN ON INDEPENDENT NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOCRATS ENDORSEMENT

“I am disappointed over last night’s vote, but more deeply troubled that the Independent Neighborhood Democrats decided to endorse a conservative candidate who is anti-choice and anti marriage equality. This club is in danger of becoming an irrelevant voice because of its endorsement process over the last few years.

IND is made up of many wonderful and smart people who are committed to the progressive values it was founded on over thirty years ago. But the actions of some have continued to tarnish the progressive reputation of this club and it saddens me to think, as last night’s vote demonstrated, it’s no longer independent or reform.”

Josh Skaller, probably the most progressive and liberal candidate in the race, has issued this statement about IND's endorsement:

"It is sad that a majority of IND's voting membership insulted many IND members and community residents by choosing to support a conservative Democrat for City Council who opposes Superfund relief for the Gowanus Canal and whose opinions on choice and marriage equality are confusing, at best. The residents of the Boerum Hill, Carroll Gardens and Gowanus communities want progressive leadership committed to reforming City government and unafraid of marriage equality, a woman's right to choose and a real, federally-supported clean-up of the Gowanus Canal. That is why organizers of a recent candidates' forum decided to endorse my campaign for City Council. I welcome grassroots support from all over the 39th Council District, but I will always prefer the support of community residents whose perspectives are free from the developer dollars and entrenched business interests."

I support Josh Skaller for that City Council seat. But I was fully prepared for IND to endorse Bob Zuckerman. It was a much better fit for the club for both reasons of loyalty to a former president and because his values match those on which the club was based back in 1970. But Scotto, blinded by his obsession with developing the Gowanus canal as fast as possible, abandoned the ideal IND candidate in favor of Heyer.

And Joan Millman, a genuinely good person and an Assemblywoman I have loved, went along with this. She will have to live with this betrayal of Bob Zuckerman and of a woman's right to choose. I cannot imagine she is very comfortable with this, but it seems Scotto's hold on the club and her desire to stay on Scotto's good side have overshadowed her loyalty and her dedication to a woman's right to choose. Joan is an extremely popular politician. She may not be hurt by this, I suspect. But it is the first time where I can say she has betrayed her core values. I never thought I'd say that about her. And she did it for Buddy Scotto. Joan, I honestly think you are better than this and you are stronger than Buddy. He needs you more than you need him. But the power balance has not followed that. So Joan winds up taking a very disappointing stand. And, again, never thought I'd be saying this, but I recommend that people in her district call her office and express their opinion on the endorsement. Her office number is: 718-246-4889. Be polite!

And I will take an official leave of absence from IND, so for now, I say so long, IND, and thanks for all the fish...