Odd choices
[Update: The Squadron campaign emails over their endorsement by the Communications Workers of America (CWA, Local 1), and I now have my own tag with the New York Observer.]
This has already been discussed here and here, but I'd like to chime in along with Messrs. Anderson and Harding on some recent developments in the Progressive Movement.
First, on DFNYC's primary endorsements: I'm not sure I get it. That organization, the local chapter of Democracy for America, adds to its list of incomprehensible endorsements - Tasini over Clinton comes to mind, because that was such a winnable fight, or DFNYC's phase as the committee to elect Norman Siegel - with their newest round, in which they decided to back Powell over Towns in the Tenth CD, Henry over Newell and Silver in the Sixty-Fourth AD, and took a pass on the Twenty-fifth SD, featuring Connor versus Squadron. I'm going to reserve judgment on the Tenth, given that neither of the Democrats running is really all that much to write home about; Towns has been co-opted by a Washington culture of the moneyed interest and regularly votes against the interest of his constituents, and Powell has a history that is marred by some episodes best not discussed. In the Sixty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth, however, the choices are clear: Luke Henry is a very pleasant guy, no question, but there's a discernible gravitas gap, organizational gap, stature gap, money gap, and any number of related gaps between Henry and Paul Newell, the Blue to Bluer netroots candidate. Maybe the good people at DFNYC see something I don't, but what is clear is that their Henry endorsement splits the Progressive community on the arguably most important race in this state. I fail to see how this helps in the larger strategic effort, frankly.
As to the Squadron-Connor race, there's a strategic imperative as well, and it runs like this: Connor is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst of Albany's incumbents. But the Albany incumbency as a whole could use some shaking up, insulated as it is from the concerns of the citizenry. We need, as a state, to infuse fresh blood into both chambers of the legislature; Dan Squadron's campaign could be the first ripple of a wave of new fresh faces who are suddenly considering public service. With the Senate about to flip, membership in that body will become very attractive to some smart younger people who could transform it into a bastion of Progressive leadership. First up to the bat is Dan Squadron. There's a reason the Working Families Party is practically entranced by that race, and this is it.
Then, of course, there's the newest Dahroug email from the Third SD, which reads in part:
Literally 30 minutes before the Suffolk County Democratic Convention, Brian Foley announced to me that he was throwing his hat into the ring for this race. This news also came as a surprise to local activists and Democratic Party leaders.
I'm sure the Republicans in Albany let out a big cheer when they heard the announcement. After all, Brian's last-minute entry into the race is certain to distract voters from our real opponent: Senator Trunzo and the Republican majority in the Senate.
Even if it isn't a wise choice, Brian has every right to run. It may mean just a bit more effort on our part, but such is the small price for democracy. With your help, we can - and will - win the Primary.
I'm pretty sure the republicans in Albany didn't cheer, frankly, because Foley will put together a better, and better-funded, campaign than Jimmy could or ever has. But the larger question is, again, one of strategic choices.
Now, we can have a hard-fought primary with all the vitriol that is characteristic of this race. Or Jimmy can decide whether the effort involved here - and he's very good and very smart when he's backed into a corner - is the best use of everyone's time. Brian Foley is no Chris Bodkin, and I'm pretty confident that he's going to outraise, outspend, out-organize and out-work Jimmy Dahroug. Whether this is a fight that New York's Progressives should engage, I'm not sure, not least because Jimmy really does not, right now, have the campaign in place to wage it. And with the Powers That Be lining up against him, witness the recent spate of endorsements for his opponent, I'm not sure that's going to change for the better. That in turn makes Jimmy a weaker candidate than he could be, for the primary and the general. So the question becomes whether this race is really the one where we need to plant the banner of the Progressive Movement.
Overall, I'm detecting something very troubling in New York's Progressive Movement, and that's a discernible lack of focus on winning. Now, winning is by no means everything in politics; some fights you get into because it's the right thing to do. This is right and fitting and proper. But conversely, you can't lose every fight you get yourself into, and these fights, Powell, Henry, Dahroug, I'm pretty sure we're going to lose, because we're out-organized, out-raised, out-everythinged. It's not the case, certainly, that there is no competition in the political marketplace for the dollars and shoe leather of Progressives.
And given how desperately New York needs a vibrant and effective Progressive Movement, one that is taken seriously in Albany's marbled corridors of power, that's not a good thing.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Democratic Party | Progressive Movement
Just briefly...
Submitted by Bouldin on 18 June 2008 - 4:49pm.
...the remark about 'the committee to elect Norman Siegel' was made to me back in the day by someone with DFNYC, as self-deprecating humor. The point isn't that Norman's either a bad guy or even necessarily a bad candidate, but that the organization devoted disproportionate resources to his campaign and emerged, after and owing to his defeat, as less consequential than it might otherwise have been.
Let's be really clear here: I'm not slamming DFNYC. I'm critiquing some broader trends that go beyond that organization. And since we're not republicans, I think that's a discussion well worth having.
Well on Conner vs. Squadron, I prefer Conner but not because I
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 18 June 2008 - 2:08pm.
like him much.
Mr. Squadron did not know, for example, when he spoke at my local group, that his district included public housing projects. His main claimed achievement was working with NYC's Department of Education. No one I've met who has a child in NYC's public schools thinks Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein have done anything but mismanage the schools. When I talked to Mr. Squadron, following a CODA meeting, he was opposed to congestion pricing. I'm in favor of congestion pricing.
Mr. Squadron may be smart, but I don't like the record he's amassed so far, don't agree with the one position I've heard him articulate and do not think he understands vast portions of the district he wants to represent. Mr. Conner articulates progressive positions but has not been forceful as a representative in my view. I'd rather work to improve Mr. Conner than to start over again with Mr Squadron (even though I knew slightly and admired greatly his father, Howard Squadron).
Is Connor a Progressive/Reformer? It depends on his audience.
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 19 June 2008 - 12:05am.
As I understand it, both Squadron and Connor were asked at the CODA endorsement meeting whether there were housing projects in the smaller BROOKLYN side of the district. They both got the answer wrong. Squadron couldn't remember any. Connor responded that there were TWO. There artually are THREE. I don't understand why such an issue would be held against Squadron, considering that he hasn't represented the district and is making his first race, but what's Connor's excuse for getting it wrong?
I"ve lived in Connor's district for the past 20+ years, and I'm amazed
at how well he convinces the progressives/reformsers that he's with them and the conservative/Democratic machine that he's with them. Who is the REAL Marty Connor?
In my view, Connor is part of the problem with the way Albany operates
(remember his complicity in the repeal of the commuter tax?) and it's time to get someone new to represent us.
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 19 June 2008 - 6:49am.
Again, I am no fan of Connor...and I may well agree he is part of the problem with Albany. But I do know Connor and his voting record. You can't claim that someone who has consistently been in favor of marriage equality (to take one example) is conservative. I also do not believe he got the number of housing projects wrong, though let me be clear I wasn;t there. And it sounds like you weren't either. But I do know, like him or hate him, Connor knows his stuff and knows it well.
I would accuse him of being too weak in his willingness to stand up for progressive issues and too weak standing up to the machine. But I don't think you can honestly consider him either ignorant of the district or conservative. Those accusations are just plain wrong. And please remember that I have been highly critical of Connor in the past. But I want that criticism to be acurate.
You're correct about the CODA meeting, Conner did miss one.
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 19 June 2008 - 6:50am.
I took and take Mr. Squadron's idea that there were no Brooklyn NYCHA sites to be his vision of the district: No NYCHA, no lower income people.
I stand corrected
Submitted by mole333 on 19 June 2008 - 7:01am.
If true, this is one of the rare cases I know of when Connor gets the facts wrong.
My view
Submitted by mole333 on 18 June 2008 - 2:23pm.
As a somewhat inactive for now DFNYC member, let me put in a few cents.
First off, the bulk of the efforts of DFNYC people (as individuals perhaps more than as DFNYC officially) have been fundraisers for people like Begich and Benson in Alaska and other out of state people as part of a larger win in November nationally strategy. There was a large DFNYC participation, to name one example, in the Diane Benson fundraiser featuring Jon Soltz. They have also been bringing Jim Dean to NYC for this kind of nationally focused fundraiser as well. Their efforts aren't always just what you see in their endorsements.
As to Tasini, well...no comment.
As to Norm Siegel, it seems to me he is precisely the kind of candidate that the progressive grassroots should be pushing hard as hell for. This endorsement was a no brainer and should be in 2009 as well.
As to Powell...I have heard him speak and he is compelling. Towns often doesn't bother. Personally I am not sure Powell can do what Charles Barron couldn't nor am I convinced Powell is the man for the job. I have remained neutral in that fight, but Powell is very good with a group and Towns has disappointed (though I give him full credit for supporting impeachment and opposing the war...and I admit that perhaps those should be defining stands for the progressives).
As for Silver/Newell/Henry: I have not met Henry so I can't comment. I have met and liked Newell. Beyond that I cannot comment.
As for Connor and Squadron: I have made clear over the years that I am not a real fan of Connor's. But my impression of Squadron was pretty low when I heard him speak. He has failed to convince IND (not surprising, but Connor really did outshine Squadron there), CBID (who are, like me, not fans of Connor) and DFNYC. A comment I heard after the DFNYC forum was that it was a contest to see which of them could underwhelm more. Personally, I have leaned towards Connor this time around because I do not see Squadron as either trustworthy or progressive. I can't say I am not still open to Squadron's challenge of Connor, but he in no way has yet convinced me he is superior to Connor or, and here is the key to many who have heard him speak, even as good as Connor on key issues. We are seeing the next generation of Schumer kids, following the past generation of Weiner and Yassky. Squadron and Thies are of the Schumer lineage, directly from Schumer of via Yassky. I remain open to both yet remain unconvinced that this lineage is quite what I am willing to put my effort into.
I think it is telling that most DFNYC organizers are focused mostly on outside races. The inside races this year are striking people as either unwinnable or uninspiring (2009 will be different with Josh Skaller running for City Council and Norm Siegel for PA). CBID has gotten some crap (including from me) for some of their endorsements and non-endorsements this year. This year the races that progressives like the most semi-locally are Dahroug and Harrison. Nothing else has caught fire. I am somewhat surprised Newell hasn't caught fire more among DFNYC types, but, perhaps for the reasons Dan outlines, he hasn't.
Correction
Submitted by mole333 on 22 June 2008 - 11:27am.
Let me correct one thing I said here: I am reminded that I HAVE met Luke Henry. In fact I have met both Newell and Henry involved in grassroots events. I have run into Newell at development related events (like DDDB events) and fundraisers for candidates put on by DFNYC connected people. I have run into Luke Henry also at fundraisers for candidates put on by DFNYC connected people, specifically a fundraiser for Jimmy Dahroug. In fact Henry's working with DFNYC people at fundraisers may help explain his endorsement.
Henry Endorsement
Submitted by politicalanimal (not verified) on 18 June 2008 - 2:52pm.
Can you produce any evidence of a money gap? My understanding is that the candidates don't file their fundraising numbers until July. Do you have any way of knowing how much money either Newell or Henry has raised?
On organization, it seems like Henry has a pretty aggressive outreach effort going on in Chinatown, with Mandarin and Cantonese speakers working on the campaign, and key alliances with Fujinese business leaders. He's also really focusing on getting volunteers out to Battery Park where there are a lot of new young families who are not in the bag for Silver. I feel his organization is hitting the right pressure points to put together a coalition that can unseat Silver.
And isn't that what the early stages of primary campaigns are all about? I really don't understand this hostility between the Newell and Henry camps. Each side seems to think it's entitled to take on Silver. The filing deadline has not even passed. There is plenty of time to figure out whether Henry or Newell is better positioned to beat Silver. That's what these endorsements are for. That's what fundraising disclosure is for. That's what community forums are for.
If both sides are going to get bent out of shape over every single endorsement, then this primary is going to be about Newell and Henry instead of Silver. Can the Newell camp just take stock in it's endorsement from Blue to Bluer and the Henry camp tout it's DFNYC endorsement, and then we can all move on?
Wake up! Bouldin's right...
Submitted by nync on 18 June 2008 - 4:22pm.
I read with interest Michael's comments and the comments that followed from the rest of you, and I got to tell you that I find it rather distressing that the rest of you are just not getting it.
Michael's right. The progressive movement has got to get serious about picking and supporting candidates who can WIN, or the movement will be meaningless and completely ineffectual. You cannot keep asking people to volunteer their time and give their hard-earned money to candidates who are going nowhere. They're not going to keep following you if you keep presenting them with one losing candidate after another.
But some of you just won't let up. When Michael mentions Norman Siegel, some of you react with "oh, we GOT to support Norman." No, you don't. Look, I like Norman, too, and I hosted events for him in 2005. But no more! Norman needs to stick to what he does best, which is defending the public interest, defending the little guy against the powers that be. Being a candidate is not something he excels at, and he NEEDS to get over this pipe dream about getting elected. It AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. And the best thing Norman can do for the progressive movement is to stop sucking up our money and labor so that we can concentrate on candidates who actually have a shot at winning. I mean, the guy has run twice already and his numbers are abysmal. What's he going to do to change that? Nothing.
On the Newell/Henry/Silver race: It is quite unfortunate that Silver has two opponents. And it is unfortunate, I think, that DFNYC has decided to back the weaker of the two, Henry. Ditto what Michael said about this. Newell has a LOT more going in his favor. It's a no-brainer. Henry, an attorney, has had 5 jobs in 5 years, and he has a baby on the way, and he picks NOW to run against Silver! And he didn't even live in the district until a few months ago. Something doesn't look right here.
On Squadron vs. Connor: I'm sorry, but Connor has got to go. He's been in office for 30 years, and what has he done? You know what he's known for? He's the guy that people like Sheldon Silver go to when they need help kicking their opponents off the ballot. Is that the kind of guy you want representing you? Not me. And I watched this guy in action in the last election, and I was appalled. The guy is sleazy. You guys mention that Connor supports this and that position that you agree with. Well, sure he does if he wants to get elected. But you need to consider his character, and I submit to you that it is less than desirable.
He needs to go, and we need new blood, and you guys need to get over your obsession with Chuck Schumer and quit dismissing everybody who has been associated with him. I don't agree with Schumer on some things, but I think he's a pretty good Senator. And even though I was a strong supporter of Chris Owens in 2006, I still think David Yassky has done some good things. And the same goes for Anthony Weiner.
In order for the progressive movement to prosper, it has to win at least occasionally. Our track record here hasn't been so hot. You just can't keep asking people to give money and time to candidates who can't win because eventually they will begin to feel that you've been using and abusing them. And then you will lose them forever.
winning candidates
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 19 June 2008 - 3:02am.
First, I disagree with some of the characterizations of Norman Siegel's campaign.
Siegel has been a very good candidate, but because he does fight for the 'little guy' over the corporate/big govt. powers, he has been outspent. Despite this, he made it to the 2001 runoff, even though his other opponents (including Scott Stringer) had raised much more money. In 2005, Siegel was polling well during the campaign, but in the last two weeks the do-nothing Betsy Gotbaum raised and spent a fortune broadcasting what seemed like 4 ads an hour on 'mainstream media' stations and channels. I feel if Norman can raise the money this time, he will be able to get his message out to the universe of city Democratic primary voters and he can win.
He has started fund raising earlier this time around, and I hope he will get the funds that he needs to put on a winning campaign.
Second, on Connor-Squadron: I do not believe that you just vote someone out because he's been there for many years. If we want to try to get term limits for the state legislature, that might be fine, but in the mean time, each race should be evaluated on a candidate-by-candidate basis. Nonetheless, I came to the DFNYC forum prepared to vote for Squadron-for many reasons. But after listening to the debate, I concluded that Connor really knew his stuff, was the most qualified, and actually had many progressive instincts. I felt that I could therefore rely on him more than Squadron to protect my and my family's interests, so he got my vote-much to my shock.
Re: Harrison: I am not that convinced that he is the 'true progressive' here or that he is more progressive than Council Member McMahon.
McMahon had courage as a 'non-Manhattan' legislator to vote for congestion pricing- a vote that Harrison has been slamming him on. Interestingly enough, Harrison presented a much more nuanced perspective on congestion pricing when he addressed the DFNYC endorsement forum in April-prior to Rep. Fossella's implosion and McMahon's entry into the race.
And yes, as Harrison repeatedly notes, McMahon voted for the 18 1/2 percent property tax increase. But Harrison - who has no legislative record - does not say what he would have done as a Council Member for the Council's first post 9/11 budget-passed at a time when Bush had not kept his promise, or had not completely kept his promise, to fight for billions of dollars for the city's recovery. Where would Harrison had taken the money from? From the schools, the police dept. or the fire dept?
I mean, Harrison come across as a non-progressive, as fiscally irresponsible and two-faced.
Thanks
Submitted by mole333 on 19 June 2008 - 6:57am.
I am interested in your story of planning to support Squadron and changing your mind. Were there any specific things that changed your mind or was it just a general gestalt about each candidate?
As to Harrison/McMahon, I am not really here to slam McMahon. But I can't agree with your characterization of Harrison. His statements are about as unequivocal and clear as you can get. He is definitively against the Iraq Quagmire and was one of the first to sign on to the "Responsible Plan to end the War" plan that progressives have loved so much. McMahon's stand on the war has been, shall we say, as yet unclear and poorly articulated. Harrison takes public stands that are unquestionably liberal, which is his preferred word for his stands. He strikes me as having conservative personal values, and he is pretty open about that. I know one person who described him as a "choir boy," a good Catholic with strong values. But his stand on legislation is very progressive. I urge you to talk with him personally about your concerns if you can. And, of course, I urge you to do the same with McMahon. And feel free to report back here what you think.
The 18 1/2 percent solution
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 19 June 2008 - 8:26am.
One of the few things that troubles me about Harrison's campaign is his attack on McMahon for voting for the 18 1/2% property tax increase in 2002.
Under state law, almost every change the city makes to its tax code must be approved in Albany. At the time, NYC was facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, and George Pataki was too dogmatic (or just plain stupid) to see that taxes had to be raised in order to close the gap (remember, we're not allowed to run either a surplus or a deficit). While Pataki eventually approved a small sales tax increase, he clamped down on all the other proposals.
The only tax that NYC can change on its own is the property tax. This left the Mayor and City Council no choice -- the 18 1/2% increase became the only option. (Remember, at the time there were major protests across the city over some of the spending cuts, such as closing down several firehouses, so the gap wasn't closed with tax increases alone.) McMahon's vote was the difficult, but correct, thing to do, and Harrison should know better than to attack him for it.
That being said, Harrison has every right to attack McMahon on congestion pricing. McMahon's vote in favor of the plan may or may not have been wrong, but it is certainly debatable, and elections ought to be about debating issues like this, where the voters get to decide which set of stands on the issues they prefer. Yes, McMahon had to cast a vote, whereas Harrison didn't, but Harrison was on record staunchly opposed to the plan before the vote took place, so it's a legitimate campaign issue.
The real problem here, as I see it, is the DCCC. They have listed McMahon as one of their "red to blue" candidates, even though there is no Democratic nominee for that race yet. This is a classic example of the kind of party machine politics that keep the party from moving forward, and exactly what grass roots organizations like DFNYC were created to fight.
dfnyc endorsements
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 19 June 2008 - 5:58pm.
At the last DFNYC meetup, I heard a couple of people propose that two endorsements be re-opened for new votes because other candidates have gotten in the race. One is CD-13 where McMahon is now running, and the other was Jimmy Dahroug's state senate race on Long Island where he also has a primary opponent. In both cases re-opening the endorsements makes sense becuase there are new candidates to consider. But the problem is that Jimmy Dahroug is a DFNYC member and DFNYC has a long committment to Steve Harrison. In fact Jimmy's race isn't even IN New York City, so if he was not in the race they would not be endorsing that contest in the first place.
I do not think either endorsement will get re-opened therefore, because it would not suit the agenda of the group organizers.
reopening DFNYC's endorsement on the 13th CD race?
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 20 June 2008 - 10:18pm.
As a DFNYC member, I am not aware that the organization has a "long[-standing] committment" to Harrison. I know that Harrison spoke at a forum that the DFNYC co-sponsored with other organizations in mid-April at a time when Council Member Recchia was still in the race and prior to Rep. Fossella's implosion. Post-implosion, Council Member McMahon entered the primary race and Recchia dropped out.
After McMahon entered the race, Harrison - who had presented a somewhat nuanced view on the congestion pricing proposal in April - started slamming McMahon for his support of it. Harrison also slammed McMahon for his vote to raise property taxes during the Council's and Mayor's first post- 9/11 budget. Harrison never raised the issue of the property tax increase when he spoke during the April forum.
I feel that since we not only have a new candidate configuation but also new issues or new spins on issues emerging - including issues that the DFNYC either never discussed (the post 9/11 budget/tax increases) or had discussed in a much more nuanced matter (congesion pricing), I think it is only fair to both candidates and DFNYC and the general public that we re-open discussion on this race.
DFNYC choices
I'd like to answer Bouldin's comments from the perspective of a DFNYC organizer -- not as their spokesperson, but just as an "insider."
I have problems with the DFNYC endorsement process. I won't go into detail, for several reasons, but I believe it is flawed. That being said...
Regarding Tasini over Clinton -- he was against the continued occupation of Iraq, while she was in favor of it. Her position "evolved" as she ran for president, perhaps too slowly for her to win the nomination, but she was very much a hawk in 2006.
Norman Siegel is very much the type of person who should be in the office he's running for. He's a true reformer, a true progressive, and the exact opposite of the hack politician who holds that office now. That's why he has DFNYC support.
About this year's endorsements:
Towns/Powell -- I'm not familiar enough with the candidates to have a position; truth be told, I abstained from that race when I voted.
Silver/Henry/Newell -- It was a foregone conclusion that Silver was not going to get our endorsement. Luke Henry got it over Paul Newell primarily (I believe) because he worked to get it. He courted DFNYC voters assiduously, whereas Newell's efforts were minimal. Does that mean Newell was spending his time courting other voters? Most likely. Is that a good thing? Possibly -- and we'll find out on September 9th.
Connor/Squadron -- I moderated the forum we held in conjunction with Manhattan Young Dems. At the time, I had met Dan Squadron but didn't know him that well, and had never met Marty Connor. I was surprised by both of them -- Connor for his progressive stands on issues, and Squadron for his lack of attention to issues beneath the surface. In addition, Squadron's attacks on Connor smacked of the kind of phony politics that we despise. (Did Connor "allow" landlords to get all sorts of breaks in 1997? No -- he didn't have the power to stop Joe Bruno and George Pataki. But Squadron attacked him anyway.) It is my view that DFNYC'ers who saw the two of them were affected the same way, which is why Squadron did not get our endorsement. The prevailing view may also be that Squadron is merely Chuck Schumer's latest fair-haired boy, and we're not overly fond of Schumer for several of his votes in the Senate (caving in on Michael Mukasey comes to mind).
In short, while I believe several changes need to be made in the DFNYC endorsement process, there are reasons why we endorse the way we do.