One morning, in a prior life, I was dispatched to work on a campaign in Queens. Another “volunteer”, similarly dispatched from my office, had been sent out to buy bagels, and had returned with two dozen, all plain.  

Queens Assemblyman Rory Lancman’s name first surfaced in New York politics in late 1999 or early 2000 when, as a totally uncredentialed unknown with a bit of money, he declared himself a candidate for the Citywide office of Public Advocate; the few news outlets which bothered to pay attention immediately mistook him for a State Senator from Brooklyn named Seymour Lachman.

Among those who noticed the mistake were the State Senate’s Democratic Campaign Committee, who, turned on by the impressive bulge in Lancman’s  pants (or at least that much of it which was attributable to his wallet), immediately recruited him to run for the State Senate against Republican relic Frank Padavan, who'd nearly been caught asleep two years before.

In what soon was to become a Queens Democratic tradition, the last election's surprisingly successful losing candidate of  Indian sub-continental origin (in this case, Morshed Alam, who, like Mr. Lancman, would also surface later) was unceremoniously dumped for one deemed to have paler skin and greater electability. Unlike in the current year (G-d willing), the cooler heads which ultimately prevailed were proven quite wrong and Lancman was beaten in a landslide.   

McLaughlin, who, simultaneous to his Assembly service, headed the City’s Central Labor Council as well as an Electrician’s Local, now works 48 stories below the ground a sandhog on one of the City’s water-tunnels, while awaiting sentencing.

Given the depths to which he’d previously descended, which included stealing money from a Little League, this actually represent a rise in McLaughlin’s prior elevation. By contrast, Lancman has only just begun to demonstrate the depths to which he is willing to descend.

Just recently, Lancman sent a letter to Barack Obama, modestly  offering his advice on how to speak to “my community” in advance of Obama’s trip to the Middle East.  

“My community”. To whom could Lancman be referring?

Certainly, Obama does not require Lancman’s advice on how to talk to those who think they are God’s gift to mankind.  And, presumably, when referring to “my community”, Lancman is not talking about the 65% of his Assembly district which (like Obama, but not Lancman) is non-white.  

I guess Lancman must be speaking of “the Jews”; “my community” too. 

Lancman asks Obama to “say loudly and clearly to the world” the words “Ani Yisraeli,” meaning "I am an Israeli." And, who knows, maybe Obama can convince Jews that his father was an Ethiopian Jew, although frankly, I think that idea may just be a Falasha in a pan.

Given the legths to which Obama has been forced to prove his Americanism, proclaiming this sort of dual citzenship is probably not the best stratgic move Obama could untertake. This is not 1963 Berlin and Obama is not a jelly-donut; nor is he a collard green knish.     

Lancman also suggested that Obama “challenge the Palestinians to build their nascent nation instead of building homemade missiles to launch into Israel," and to say that “Jews can live in Hebron or anywhere else, and Israel has the right to protect them if the Palestinians won’t.”

Later, Lancman attended a meeting of Jewish Obama supporters to proclaim he was not one himself.

He’d "love to be a card-carrying Obamanian," but feels there are some outstanding issues, including  whether Obama "will take whatever action is necessary, including military action if all else fails, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," and "understands the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same terms we do, i.e., that the key to resolving the conflict is not by forcing Israel to make ever-more concessions to a terrorist, theocratic proto-state, but it is instead the Palestinians developing the considerable territory they do control into a peaceful, democratic, law-abiding society and not a violent theocracy, i.e., Gaza.”

Now, as someone a “progressive” blogger once compared to the traitorous Jonathan Pollard, I find much to agree with in Lancman’s policy prescriptions, as well as some things with which to take issue.

In Hebron, 79 years ago this August, a bloodthirsty mob (to call them animals would invite a rebuke from the ASPCA), encouraged by their “clergy”, killed 65 members of a Jewish community which dated from Biblical times, while the British authorities did nothing but imply that the Jews had brought it upon themselves; 58 others were wounded and those who survived were psychological dogmeat; they left and did not return.

Today, Hebron's Jewish populations consists of a small group of deranged fanatics living lives of Russian roulette, who tax the resources and risk the lives of an Israel force several times their size whose job is to protect them, much to the consternation of most Israelis.

George W. Bush has never promised to protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron; John McCain has never promised to protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron; Ehud Olmert wishes with all his heart he did not have to protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron. G-d him or herself probably cannot protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron, or in a piranha tank.

Rory Lancman knows this; so why is he lending credence to the rhetoric of those who wish to portray Obama as a less than full-fledged supporter of Israel by making this one of his lines in the sand?  

Rory, if you think it's such a holy obligation for Jews to live everywhere where Jews once lived, why don't you move to Brownsville?  

Likewise, a promise of military action in Iran seems over-the-top. Obama should not, and has not, ruled out military action; no one wants a nuclear-Iran, but experienced card players know brinksmanship works best when one can keep ‘em guessing.

Anyway, the far right-wing branch of the Zionist community such statements would be targeted too is not going to won over by Obama, even if he swallowed dead sea saltwater and pissed it out as pesedich Manischewitz Cream White Concord, while dancing the horah with Golda Meir’s ghost.

I find the balance of Lancman’s ideas I’ve seen reported, give or take some rhetorical twists, to be not only unobjectionable, but possibly laudable. I’d love to hear Obama say some of the things Lancman advocates him saying, though I’d prefer hearing them in Obama’s language rather than Lancman’s.

Actually, though, I believe I’ve actually heard Obama say many of those things already. Given Rory’s vaunted concern for Israel, it’s funny he hasn’t noticed them, since I’m sure he reads “The Forward” and “Jewish Week” just like I do.

And, while I have no problem with many of the policies Lancman advocates, I find the way I learned about them to be obnoxious and repugnant.

Lancman says he’d “love to be a card-carrying Obamanian”. I have my doubts. One who wishes to become a “card-carrying Obamanian” might very well send Barack Obama a letter filled with advice; perhaps someone wishing to become a “card-carrying Obamanian” would even offer Obama the exact same advice offered by Lancman. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

But, someone wishing to become a “card-carrying Obamanian” would be offering that advice in private. Not releasing the letter to the public, and certainly not releasing it before anyone on the candidate’s staff even saw it.

And certainly, someone wishing to become a “card-carrying Obamanian” would not attend an Obama event for the sole purpose of airing his qualms about Obama all over the Jewish media.

In 2006, I endorsed Lancman against an equally pompous blowhard (Mr. Alam) because Lancman seemed the better Democrat, but now, in an effort to crown himself king of the Jews and gather a few lines of type in the Jewish media, Rory Lancman chooses to score points by using his party’s presidential nominee as some sort of a straw man, while crying crocodile tears about how much he’d like to help elect him, if only he could.

Such self-serving balderdash probably causes Obama little damage among the Jewish right, but non-specific allegations concerning qualms about Obama, without reference to the actual issues, when raised by Jewish Democratic elected officials, could damage Obama among Jewish voters who may not learn that the qualms are about issues where they themselves have no differences with Obama, and sometimes concerns issues where Obama has no differences with the Republicans.

As such, I put the following curse on Rory Lancman’s head:

“May Congressman Gary Ackerman live for 120 years and four months (so he shouldn't die suddenly) and serve in Congress for every one of them.”                   

Full disclosure also demands that I admit that I first met Steve Harrison at a Christmas party in Bay Ridge for the American Heritage Democratic Club sometime between 1998 and 2002, and that in the course of a conversation lasting less than five minutes, including time for a vigorous handshake, he managed to convey to me that he was a “conservative Democrat” who opposed abortion and gay rights. Sometime thereafter, we encountered each other again when, in his capacity as Community Board Chair, Mr. Harrison was carrying then Republican-Conservative-Right to Life Councilman Marty Golden’s water in an effort to dump the traffic problems of Bay Ridge upon the streets of its poorer, darker neighbor Sunset Park. Still later, in 2002, I encountered Mr. Harrison when he was working in the campaign of Mr. Golden to oust an incumbent Democratic from a newly gerrymandered State Senate seat, so that Joe Bruno’s Republican majority could feel a little bit safer. As such, I cannot say that I am without bias in the matter of Mr. Harrison.

My admittedly seat of the pants impression of both these gentlemen was that Mr. McMahon was a pleasant enough, hail-fellow-well-met attempting to convey as little of substance as possible, and that Mr. Harrison was a pompous egotistical blowhard always ready to tell you more than you wanted to know. But personal qualities aside, neither of them would get my vote in a primary for Congress in my reliably liberal home Congressional District, but both would be perfectly acceptable to me as Democratic candidates for the far more conservative 13^th CD.
 

Normally, my preference in this race would be to nominate the candidate who seemed in the best position to beat the Republican. 75% of this district is in Staten Island, an area so parochial that 75% of its residents once voted to secede from the City of New York. Mr. Harrison is from Brooklyn. Mr. McMahon is a well known and popular elected official on Staten Island. Moreover, Mr. Harrison has shown he cannot raise money, while Mr. McMahon has shown he can do so. While Mr. Harrison brags about his strong showing last time, he got beaten by 14 points in a Democratic landslide year, running far behind the rest of his party’s ticket; no one sane is predicting a top of the ticket Democratic landslide this year in the 13^th CD. By every measure, Mr. McMahon is the stronger candidate.

However, given the current disarray in the Republican ranks, it seems clear that, barring a miracle, a well-groomed chimpanzee running on the Democratic line for Congress in the 13th should manage to get 55%. As such, Mr. Harrison should be capable of getting 51%.

Why then, am I still taking Mr. Harrison to task? Varied reasons.

First, vendettas of this sort send an object lesson. The nasty things I’ve written about Mr. Harrison and others (Carl Kruger, Dov Hikind and the Garsons) concerning their conduct in the 2002 Golden Senate race sends a message that such action are not without consequences. Given the likelihood of similar treachery as the Democrats attempt to capture the State Senate, that message is one worth conveying.

More importantly, I find Mr. Harrison untrustworthy. Let us try and assume that somewhere between 2002 and 2006 Mr. Harrison had an epiphany and became far less conservative. Would that not be a great story?

What a great narrative it would be for Steve Harrison to show that the crazed lunacy of the GOP drove him to change his politics; this is the narrative that the Democrats need to show to the country. It is the narrative of Wesley Clark (even if it is not his week), Jim Webb, and my favorite upstate Congressional candidate, Jon Powers.

But, it is not the narrative of Mr. Harrison, because Mr. Harrison refuses to acknowledge that he ever evolved in his views. In 2002, Mr. Harrison gave money and sweat equity to Republican candidates for statewide office, State Senate and Congress, even after the vote authorizing the Iraq war, yet he has the brass balls to claim he was against the war along. He now makes the war the centerpiece of his campaign, but in 2002, he expects us to believe that a local zoning issue was so important that he felt compelled to hand out palm cards bearing the name of pro-war Congressman Vito Fossella.

The same monumental insincerity comes across elsewhere. When I met Mr. Harrison, probably in the late 1990s, he was a pro-lifer. In 2006, he’d evolved enough to tell to the Brooklyn Paper, "I fall somewhat in the middle...I think a woman has the right to choose, but not to rely solely on abortion for birth control." Today his supporters insist he is 100% pro-choice, and trumpet an endorsement by Gloria Steinem, who surely never saw the 2006 remarks. Similarly, in 2006, he also told the Brooklyn Paper that he favored the death penalty under certain circumstances, but now complains that his opponent supports capital punishment. And yet, no one acknowledges that any evolution has taken place. What’s up with that?

It may very well be that Mr. Harrison has decided to parrot the positions of the "progressives” who’ve taken him in as one of their own. If so, then voters can rest assured that as long as Mr. Harrison’s been briefed on a social issue which concerns them, he’ll say the right thing. But surely, such a shotgun wedding of candidate and principal has its limits.
 
As I’ve pointed out before, even a pol as personally honest as Peter Vallone., Sr. (who Mr. McMahon's brother used to work for) could not be trusted to be maintain his insincerity in the face of a contrary belief system. A devout Catholic and social reactionary, Vallone's ambitions ultimately led him to become a timid supporter of gay rights and choice, but while he mouthed the right words, he could never really dance to the music. When carefully prepped, Vallone regurgitated his liberal talking points without passion, but if something new came up, he fell back on what he really felt; at one point in his 1998 governor's race, he was caught off guard during an interview and came out for school prayer. That was the real Peter Vallone, and the I suspect that the real Steve Harrison isn't too different in his views, although Harrison does have the virtue(?) of being able to articulate his newly discovered social liberalism with some passion, something Mr. Vallone could never manage (in fairness, he could never manage to convey passion for the things he really cared about, either).  

I am not saying Mr. McMahon is superior in this regard. I suspect that Mr. McMahon’s liberal positions on some social matters like abortion may also be the product of calculation, although McMahon does seem to have been more consistent (though I would not go into shock if someone proved this were not the case). But in many ways these two candidates are like peas from the same pod; as I’ve noted previously,  Mr. Harrison discovered he opposed the war in Iraq about five minutes after first deciding he was running for Congress; it appears to have taken Mr. McMahon almost twice that long after making his decision. That is almost a dime’s worth of difference, although in both cases, better late than never.    

I will also concede that the fact that Mr. Harrison has locked himself into more enlightened positions on some issues is a point in his favor, and will continue to be so for at least as long as he finds it politically convenient. Remember, another local zoning issue could arise at any moment.

Mr. Harrison’s supporters have made a big deal in the blogocracy about McMahon’s co-sponsorship of an idiotic resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. Now, flag-burning is a politically counterproductive activity engaged in by imbeciles. It is unpopular because it should be. But, it is also protected by the First Amendment. In fact, it exemplifies why we need a First Amendment—except in a totalitarian society, no one needs constitutional protections to express views which are popular. 

I am proud to live in a country where I'm allowed to burn my flag--it's what makes my flag worth saluting. It perturbs me that some people want to prevent desecration of the flag by instead desecrating the Bill of Rights, and I’ve taken candidates to task for it previously. 

But, those people include not only opportunistic or misguided politicians, but liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who, unlike Antonin Scalia, would not even read the un-desecrated First Amendment to protect flag-burning. Moreover, the best way to keep such an execrable constitutional amendment from passing is to keep it from coming to a vote; the best way to keep it from coming to a vote is to expand the House's Democratic Majority, and the best way for residents of the 13^th CD to ensure the expansion of the House’s Democratic Majority is to nominate Mr. McMahon for Congress. However, it is certainly fair game for “progressives” to criticize Mr. McMahon on this issue, provided their candidate has a different position. Does he?

I'll make Steve Harrison this offer. Produce for me a clear unequivocal statement by in which you state your opposition to any legislation or constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, and I will reprint it on my blog, with a completely non-sarcastic statement hailing you for your courage. Really.
 

Is Steve Harrison ready to make Gatemouth eat crow? Don’t hold your breathe.

But the fact that I doubt Mr. Harrison will embrace a potentially politically suicidal position is not why I worry about what lies beneath Mr. Harrison’s newfound liberalism; I’m glad to overlook a prudential sin of omission. Sins of commission are a different matter, and Mr. Harrison has quite clearly shown a continuing ability to embrace reactionary positions when they might prove to be politically popular. By contrast, Mr. McMahon, whatever his other feelings, has shown a willingness to take a politically unpopular position for the long-term good, and the backbone to aggressively defend such actions.

Two examples come to mind which illustrate both points. The first is congestion pricing. “Progressive” bloggers like Michael Bouldin call for Shelley’s Silver’s head because of  Silver’s failure to bash in the brains of his conference members in order to pass congestion pricing. Yet, they give Mr. Harrison the political equivalent of a free EZ-Pass for taking the Vietnamese position of destroying the village in order to save it. Talking out of both sides of his mouth, Mr. Harrison says he favors congestion pricing, but opposed the Mayor’s once-current plan, in the same manner in which he once opposed Vito Fossella by sending him a check. Mr. Harrison has been excoriating Mr. McMahon for voting for the Mayor’s plan, usually mentioning his own support for the concept itself only in pantomime.

By contrast, Mr. McMahon, who ,when he cast the sole Staten Island vote for the Mayor’s plan, was a candidate for Staten Island Borough President, has loudly defended himself by educating the public to the fact that the absorption of the Verrazano toll into the fee virtually held the Borough harmless from the plan’s monetary impacts, and then pointing out that the plan would pay provide revenue for several transportation projects important to the Borough. Since, at the time of the vote, Mr. McMahon was not intending to be running in Brooklyn, one can speculate upon whether he would have shown such fortitude had he known that many of his future voters would be held far less harmless from the plan’s new fees. But, McMahon has nonetheless shown an ability to take the far less easy position–the one that requires explanation, rather than a simply feeding popular ignorance as Mr. Harrison has done.

Finally, and most disgracefully for Mr. Harrison, we turn to the matter of property taxes.

I know Mr. Harrison is the favored candidate of those who believe 9-11 changed nothing (as well as the candidate of many with far less objectionable beliefs–I myself think the pendulum has swung way too far away from protecting our civil liberties), but there are limits; limits of decency.

When Michael Bloomberg (and it could just as easily been Mark Green) took office on January 1, 2002, New York had just been devastated by the first foreign attack upon our mainland since the 1812 war. A large part of Lower Manhattan and all that it meant for the city economy, lay in ruins, eviscerating tax revenues, while the costs of coping with the damage ate further gaping holes into the City budget. It was anticipated that there would be a six billion dollar revenue hole to accompany the hole we already had in the ground. The only options were to raise taxes or drastically cut services.

The City attempted to enhance its revenues, but was stymied at every turn by the need for cooperation from George Pataki and Joe Bruno. There was only one tax increase the City could enact for itself without their cooperation which would do what was necessary; it was the property tax. The new council voted a record-breaking tax increase of 18.5% because it had no choice. Mr. McMahon knew that voting for such an increase was politically risky, but he did it anyway, despite the fact that the two other Councilmen from Staten Island (Republican-Conservative Jimmy Oddo and Republican-Neanderthal Andrew Lanza) behaved like sniveling, simpering cowards.   

By contrast, in early 2003, Mr. Harrison ran in a special election for City Council opened up by the election of Mr. Golden to the Senate, which he’d helped to facilitate, making opposition to the 2002 tax increase the center of his campaign.

In that race, Mr. Harrison ran to the right of every candidate, including the Republican. The literature Mr. Harrison paid for and distributed illustrates once and for all that those “progressives” like Michael Bouldin who defend Harrison’s prior support of the Republican and Conservative Parties as being solely a pragmatic response to a local zoning concern are either ignorantly chanting the party line dogma without concern for the truth, or are purposefully spreading lies knowing they are not so.

One of Harrison's mailings was  entitled "This is what Republicans and Conservatives are saying about Steve Harrison" from either different members of the Republican and Conservative parties (one of them a Priest), and continually mentions the word “values”, as in “It would be easy for me to say that the reason I am voting for Steve is because he is the most conservative candidate running and that he share are values. But it goes beyond that”. Other code words also make cameos, “we know that in the City Council he will put us, and not some other agenda, first”. As George Wallace's literature used to say, "The Courage of Your Convictions".   

Another mailing was entitled "Who are Republicans really voting for on February 25 for City Council?". Most of that piece was a reprint of an article from the Bay Ridge Courier about the race, and featured a quote from one local wag which Harrison thought important enough to blow up and point in its own box, “There are a lot of Republicans who are actively supporting Steve already, and since Steve is running the more conservative campaign, he may pick up some of the Conservative vote, too.”

As I said, Harrison's number one issue was the 2002 property tax increase, the City may still have been on the balls of its ass, but Mr. Harrison was “the only person who wants to roll back the highest property tax increase in New York City history.”   In demagoging against the tax increase. Harrison showed no shame whatsoever. Perhaps this was understandable in 2003 Bay Ridge, though even the Republican managed to show a little more class.

One would think that, in light of Mr. Harrison’s unacknowledged political evolution, the “peasants with pitchforks” crusade he ran against an emergency measure in a time a grave crisis would be an episode he’d like to forget; one would be wrong.  Like in 2003, Mr. Harrison is still rousing rabble about the 2002 tax increase, spewing vile invective against Mr. McMahon for having had the good sense and cajones to do what was necessary.

Apparently, the real reason Mr. Harrison cannot acknowledge his political evolution is because it never took place. Today, Mr. Harrison is still the Steve Harrison of the nineties and 2002-03, still demagoging against the property tax increase the City had to swallow like castor oil. Mike McMahon, aggressively defends the necessity of the 2002 tax increase and makes no apologies. Steve Harrison also holds to his old position and makes no apologies.

The difference is, that on property taxes, Mr. Harrison owes apologies to all of us whose intelligence he’s insulted with his willfully ignorant, overheated Buchananistic pandering.

Sadly, Mr. Harrison really appears to believe the stuff he says. Which is gets to the core of my problem with Steve Harrison.

Is Bill Clinton still fuming over the outcome of the primary contests?

Although he has yet to pick up the phone when Barack Obama calls, a close associate said Sunday that the former President is ready to make nice this week.

---

McAuliffe said he spoke with Bill Clinton Sunday and the former President would be ready for an Obama phone call within 24 to 48 hours.

(more)

Local TV newscasts and the internet are now the public's number one source of news.  While there are signs that newspapers, magazines and cable TV are using their internet sites to expand news coverage, most local TV news stations do little more than repeat the limited news they cover on the air, on their station’s website. 

In the early days of TV to obtain a broadcast license to operate a station the government forced the owners to include public service and community news on their programming schedule.  When the FCC was created by the 1934 Communication Act there was strong support in congress led by New York’s Senator Wagner to make sure the airways were used to inform the public.  The public services requirements in the act was a compromise betweens Wagner’s supporters who wanted to give 25% of the airways to non profits and educational institutions and those who wanted complete private ownership of the airways.  Wagner followers were continuing the will of the founding fathers who believed it was government’s role to design institutions to keep the public informed.  The First Amendment protects freedom of the press not because the Founding Fathers valued words, but because they valued truth.  Does anyone believe New Yorkers can vote in 2008 with some understanding of who they are electing or understand the extent of corruption in their government from watching local TV news?   

Deregulation of the FCC, which started during the Nixon era, eliminated the fairness doctrine and rules that pressured owners to serve their communities' needs and interests.  Congress recently continued the deregulation process when it allowed every TV station during the change over from analog to digital signals to create several new stations in their bandwidth without any fees or conditions to serve the public good.   In effect, Congress gave the TV stations a license to make money, while turning its back on the intent of the writers of our constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Local TV news focus is frozen in Nixon’s 70’s where consultants, developed the "Eyewitness" and "Happy Talk" news formula the standard.   The top news stories are always on crime, sex and weather  . . . Stories about animals often dwarf matters of social and economic significance. "Missing in action," are any "investigations or analysis about the New York State Legislature, the City Council, or the ongoing corruption in government." "If you want to hear about any intelligent insight of the political scene," catch Leno's monologue, the Daily Show or David Letterman's 'Top 10 List' - because you won't find it on your favorite station's late news."

On a typical night of watching local news, crime and storms outside of New York occupied 30 percent of what little time was actually devoted to the news (40 percent). Commercials and promos consumed an almost equal amount of time (36 percent). Sports and weather filled 22 percent; anchor chatter, 2 per cent.  Gone are the local TV news editorials of the past which are so important to a functioning democracy, according to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne.

Why in the era of the greatest breakthroughs in new communication technologies since the Guttenberg press is local TV coverage dominated by boiler plate crime, weather and sex coverage?  News directors and station owners love these types of stories, because they have a one-to-one ratio between making the assignment, getting a story on-air and receiving high ratings.  The crime scene or weather slot, marked off in yellow police tape, doesn't move; no matter when the reporter arrives there's always a picture to shoot, preferably live. No needs to spend off-camera time digging, researching, or even thinking. Just get to the crime scene, gets the wind blowing through their hair, and the rest will take care of itself.  For the sex stories, just have an intern pop up the TMZ website then print and read on the air the latest scandal.  Other non research fillers of local news are the coverage of press conferences by connected local elected officials who are running for higher office or need to be on TV.   The absurdity of an elected official telling us of some problem at a new conference that they were elected to solve is lost by all involved; especially the reporter who reads the news release written by some flack paid to fool them, as their own investigation.

With this dumbing down era of research and limited news coverage, the stations are discovering that they can replace their high paid veteran anchors with low paying young people that happen to be pleasant on the eyes and require much lower salaries.  The ratings actually went up when Channel 2 put a good looking sportscaster on their news programs, as their anchorman.  Too many TV reporters started out as models or actors, rather than reporters for local newspapers or students in journalism school.  A reporter with Tim Russert skills could not get pass the guard station, yet stations constantly hire good looking reporters from out of state who have no clue to New York’s culture, neighborhoods or government.  Clueless reporters are the major reason why many news reports contain one line comments from two New Yorkers that often contradict one another.  A reporter who knew the facts would be able to analysis the issue and not need to use this boiler plate formula.

Gone are experienced anchors and reporters like Andrew Kirtzman, who along with a good salary, has a good understanding of the politics and government he covered – he knew who to make phone call to get the facts.  One of the greatest local news reporters of all times, the late Jerry Nachman, learn the ins and outs of New York with a decade of local radio experience, would never make it on the air today, because he was too fat.  Now when a governor gets drummed out of office, a TV station sends an inexperienced reporter whose story is based on the newspaper accounts and the ever increasing public relations flacks and consultants who can spin these new, inexperienced reporters effortlessly.  Noting is ever said about the consultant agenda or how appearing on TV gets the consultants more work.  It makes us in the know crazy when they turn into NY1 and see consultants like Alfonse D’Amato getting paid for spinning comments favorable for his clients on the air.

Trading reporters between stations does not seem to have any effect in getting more viewers.  Ernie Anastos who has been on WABC, WCBS, WOR and WNBC is now with Fox 5 where his show’s ratings are down.

It is not only musical chairs with reports and anchors; it is also with local news management on all the stations as ratings go up and down.  In some sought of weird dance, owners of local stations hire the same new smoke and mirrors executives who worked for a competitive station to deliver the same limited product on theirs.  The secret about the ratings that nobody talks about is that the viewership of Eyewitness news at 5pm has more to do with how many people are watching Oprah at 4pm than with the happy news content that is available on every channel.

All these local management wonder-boys and girls give same excuses why local TV stations don’t cover the news better.  They say their station spans too much territory to be truly local, covering overlapping cities, counties, towns, wards, election districts, boroughs, and even states. New York City's stations reach deep into Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. As former NBC programmer and researcher wrote with only a touch of hyperbole more than thirty years ago, "There no longer is a New Jersey, New York, or Connecticut - only a series of roughly circular areas, each with transmission towers at the center. In the technology age it is the TV signal.” 

Thirty years of amazing technology advances about the only thing that has not changed is the content and quality of local news.  In this age the TV signal and the Internet, the area of coverage is meaningless if they are used to their proven potential.  Today’s local news executives and owners act clueless about how the Internet blogers have expanded and created a news revolution, which is destroying the newspaper, magazine business and changing cable’s 24 news networks. 

Local TV newscasts are relatively cheap to produce and a major profit center for stations owners - there is plenty of money to improve their content.  Why have they not tried to adapt to the new technologies like the newspaper and magazine business?

Nixon’s deregulation and broadcaster’s greed are the main reason for lack of change of content.  It will cut into profits for stations and the high salaries management receives to expand their news coverage on the Internet.  Local TV has become a willing enabler of our dysfunctional government and campaigns.  In fact, they count on the broken campaign system, like the 30 second campaign commercial for their profits.

Will the wretched TV news picture change in the Internet era?  Stations still don't know what they'll actually do with the new government donated digital spectrum, which creates several new channels for their use and bring viewers movie-quality, high-definition pictures and sound, which will improve the stations' look but not their content.  A sign of hope, though, is WNBC decision to make one their new digital channels into a 24 hours local news station.   Little is known about how this new channel will operate, but the competition against NY1 and other news outlets will increase the pressure on all to do more investigative stories and objective analyses.

Another problem to be watched are the new low paid reporters, who because of the higher salaries of government flacking and lobbying, allow their news reporting to be influenced by their search for a new higher paying job in those fields.  Davidson Goldin, who was co-anchor of NY1's "Inside City Hall," now hopes to help himself by helping some of the very people he once interviewed by opening up his own political consulting firm.  Dozens of former journalist are now working as high paid flacks all over government, private business and politics.  Many of the performers in the Inner Circle, the journalism organization that puts on an annual dinner that parodies local politics, are former reporters who work in public relations or other fields.

Someone better step up soon because the city’s only source for investigative, objective reporting and editorial power, the city’s dailies are after years of steady decline, fading fast.  All are cutting staff and news coverage as costs rise and their readership moves to the internet.  If something does not happen fast, elections will be manipulated out of the public sight and government will be run by consultants and political leaders making millions for their clients and friends.  If one wonders why State Senator John Sabini was appointed to take over a state run OTB agency to end a completive re-elections against a candidate chosen by the Queens Democratic machine, one can easily conclude we are already in the era of soviet style elections and government.  Thomas Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

There are rumors that if the Democrats get the presidency and veto proof control of congress, they are going to restore the Fairness Doctrine to go after conservative talk radio, which has done a good job mobilizing its listeners against the democrat’s agenda.  Maybe the new leaders of the government should end all of Nixon’s deregulation of TV and the news media to allow Jefferson’s democracy of a free independent press that does it job to inform, be restored to the people of the City of New York and America.

                                —Staten Island Advance- June 15, 2008

 
City Council and State legislative resolutions about foreign policy or national defense are mostly a matter of eunichs attempting to wank with both hands. The City Council surely does not have the ability to undertake in-depth examinations on such matters. Frankly, the there are times when it seems like can barely handle investigating important matters within their own purview. Apparently though, such matters are far more glamorous than overseeing the mundane tasks of city or state governance, especially to those members who’d rather be serving in Congress, which may be most of them.
 
In some constituencies, it is even what the voters want most. Assemblyman Dov Hikind’s constituents want him to spend his time railing against any attempt by the Israeli government to rid itself of the cancerous tumor called the West Bank, and given such activities keep him from trying to advance his mostly conservative agenda at his place of work, I’m inclined to agree with them. Likewise, until they find themselves with a child of school age, most Brownstone Brooklynites probably think the most important thing their Councilmember can do is vote against the war.
 
Staten Island Councilman Michael McMahon excuses his vote against the 2003 Iraq antiwar resolution saying, "we were elected to deal with the problems of the City of New York, not render opinions on foreign affairs, of which we did not have sufficient data.."
 
This did not stop McMahon from co-sponsoring some idiotic non-binding resolution of other kinds, but he seems to have drawn a line with regard to foriegn policy. And, clearly there is a difference: except if one is either a pacifist or a monster, one would not expect lawmakers to vote upon matters of war and peace without sufficient date. By contrast, there is no conceivable objective data that could help one sort out why they would vote for some of the crap Mr. McMahon has put his name on in the name of what passes for politics in the County of Richmond. But that is a topic for another day.
 
McMahon has since declared himself to be against the war, and has outlined a rationale for what he acknowledges is a change of position. McMahon said that nobody expected the Bush administration "to occupy Iraq and totally mismanage the operation....like most Americans, I felt somewhat betrayed by his abuse of my trust".
 
Let me be frank, if one wants a candidate who’s endorsed a immediate withdrawal in the manner of Dennis Kucinich, then Steve Harrison is your guy. If, however, one would find sufficient a candidate whose ideas about withdrawal from Iraq bear more resemblance to those of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, then Mr. McMahon would appear to be quite acceptable, perhaps even preferable.
 
Still Mr. Harrison feels the 2003 vote is disqualifying. Many local activists agree, even though many of the same folks excused John Edwards for doing something similar.
 
Although I opposed the war from the beginning, I happen think that a lot of good people, like Edwards and John Kerry (along with a lot of not so good people) were wrong on the war, but I think that the good people who were wrong on the war, were wrong for the right reasons. They believed, based on the doctored data they had seen, that granting the President the authorization he sought was justified under the circumstances.
 
This was the wrong position, but not one which in and of itself was inherently evil. Of course, I also happen to think that not all the people opposed to the war were so good either, ---Pat Buchanan comes to mind, as does ANSWER. 
 
Harrison not only questions McMahon's vote on the war resolution, but he also questions the sincerity of McMahon's current position on the matter. Is he correct?
 
We know that, in 2003, McMahon cast his one and only vote which might indicate a position, failing to support a symbolic anti-war resolution at the City Council. We also know that, in 2004 McMahon supported ultra-anti-war candidate Howard Dean for President, which seems to indicate a shift in his sentiments. Finally, we know that, in Brooklyn Conservative Party Leader Jerry Kassar has stated that, in 2008, McMahon made statements which seemed intended to convey his support for the war.
 
To some extent, none of this really matters if one is going to hold against Mr. McMahon his vote on the 2003 resolution. However, even those who would do so must concede that that vote is only relevant to be held against McMahon if his opponent took a different position at the time. The evidence indicates this was not the case.
 
There is no public record of any anti-war statement by Harrison from that time. In 2002, at the time Congress took its vote on the war, Harrison was openly supporting pro-war Congressman Vito Fossella's re-election. On the very day Congress voted for the war resolution, Harrison was so outraged at the Republicans that he wrote a $250 check to the Republican-Conservative candidate for State Comptroller, John Faso. Shortly thereafter, Harrison wrote another in a series of checks to Joe Bruno’s hand-picked, pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-school prayer State Senate candidate, Councilman Marty Golden, who was running against a Democratic incumbent.
 
Harrison’s explanation for all this is that he did so to advance an important local zoning proposal; however, that miserable excuse fails to explain (1) that the Democrat Golden ran against favored the same zoning change, (2) that Golden was surely more effective working for that change on the Council where he was sitting, rather than in the State Senate, and (3) that zoning can in no way explain Harrison's contributions to the Conservative Party, a Statewide Republican, and Vito Fossella.
 
Frankly, all the donations in that pattern (Conservative Party, Statewide Republican, Golden and Fossella) are better explained as an effort to buy Republican and Conservative support for Golden's open Council seat if and when Golden won the Senate race (he did). In fact, Harrison's donations follow almost to the letter the exact pattern in which Brooklyn Republicans and Conservatives extort suckers for their support, for positions as various as races for the City Council and appointments to the Court of Claims.  
 
I recently heard a speaker at a local political club describe how it worked. The amounts seem to vary, depending upon the office and the finances of the mark being conned, but the pattern of donations apparently remained the same, as I suspect did the pitch (never a straight quid pro quo; it is merely suggested that such financial support would be "helpful") and the result (most of the suckers seem to get the rug pulled out from under them--which is what eventually happened to Harrison).
 
On election day 2002, in the aftermath of the war vote, Harrison, an important Bay Ridge civic leader, stood outside a polling handing out palm cards with Vito Fossella's name on them, even though Fossella had just voted to authorize a war in Iraq. It is inconceivable that a person morally outraged by the war vote in 2002 could have handed out palm cards on election day with Vito Fossella's name, just because of some attenuated connection to a local re-zoning.
 
At the very least, such activities would indicate something less than moral indignation. Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that Harrison came around on the war sometime later than 2002. But when?
 
I’ve searched and could find no public record of any Harrison statement against the war until 2006, when he started running for Congress. Better late than never, I suppose.

Certainly, there was no effort by Harrison, then Chair of Brooklyn Community Board 10, to introduce any anti-war resolutions at his Board, even though similar resolutions passed at the City Council and other Community Boards. Likewise, though Harrison was President of a local Democratic club, and plenty of Democratic clubs passed anti-war resolutions in 2002-2003, there is no public record that the club Harrison lead ever took such a position.
 
So, all we know is that Harrison continued to support Congressman Fossella election in the aftermath of the war vote; after that we have nothing. Surely, if Harrison was as passionately against the war as he would have us believe, there would exist one letter to the editor, one name in an ad, one resolution at a Community Board or a political club, one contribution to an-antiwar group or candidate, or one photo at an anti-war rally, prior to 2006. But no one has been able to produce any such documentation.
 
And no Steve, a statement by Marty Golden saying he heard you (presumably from across the table when you were working for him stuffing envelopes) speak against the war in 2002, would not count.    
 
So, it appears that like Mr. McMahon, Mr. Harrison was also a Johnny-come-lately to the anti-war cause. Neither candidate could be bothered to make an anti-war statement until they starting running for Congress, but I'm glad that they've both done so, now.  But let's face facts, neither of these guys has the standing to claim that they are the moral equivalent of Wayne Morse or Ernest Gruening (read your history, folks).

Of course, only one of them does.

The article regurgitated the flatulent gasbag conventional wisdom that we are better off with divided government than one-party control. Michael Bouldin at “The Daily Gotham” and Phil Anderson at “The Albany Project” gave terse responses most notable for their dismissive brevity.

Doubtless, the article’s contents are not really worth much more, but the fact is that the viewpoint expressed within is widely held, and not just amongst the bagmen of the Albany chattering classes and their admiring chroniclers, who most resemble piano players in a brothel (although every once in a while they get a sudden urge to take a side gig in a local Salvation Army band until the latest scandal blows over). Most importantly, polls indicate it is a viewpoint with some salience among the general populace.

But Bouldin and Anderson are preaching to their “Amen Corner”. I prefer to sermonize to a wider audience beyond the choir, feeling that those who prefer speaking to an echo chamber are destined to keep on doing so. Goodwin’s “ideas”, to the extent one can dignify them with that name, must be engaged and deflated, not just dismissed, however overwhelming and justified is the temptation to do so.

“File this one under ‘Be careful what you wish for’”, says Goodwin, “It's where Albany Democrats find themselves today.”

File that one under “be careful what you wish for”. It’s where establishment media editorial boards find themselves today.  

After years of endless, but usually justified, whining about the depravities of the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle, and the need to replace the “Three Men in a Room” who run the place, they’ve taken a look at the promise land and pulled back from the abyss and decided they prefer to return to Egypt.

After years of complaining about gridlock and lack of accountability, while their reporters looked the other way, the Editorial Boards have had an epiphany, and become the Albany Village Green Preservation Society, “God save little shops, china cups and virginity, God save the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle!”      

“With the 79-year-old Bruno gone and some of his aged survivors facing stiff challenges, the November election could make the capital a one-party town” says Goodwin, “That could spell trouble not just for taxpayers, but also for Gov. Paterson and other savvy Dems who have counted on Republicans to help stop the irrational exuberance of their freer-spending colleagues.”

This is wrong on so many levels, one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, as I’ve documented here (a far better article than this one), the Albany Republicans could be counted upon not to stop the “irrational exuberance”, but to belly up to the table and demand exactly as much for their own pet projects, which differed from those of the Democrats only in being targeted far more at the greedy than the needy.  

However, sometimes the Republicans were capable of surprises, such as when they engaged in bidding wars with the Democrats in order to buy the support of constituencies thought to be outside of their normal purview. Say “1199” to the Senate Republicans, and they’ll shout back “1200”.

Goodwin continues, “Many Dems watched in horror as Eliot Spitzer played Ahab and became obsessed with ousting Bruno and taking over the Senate.”

Yes, the prospect of a government where the public is able to determine accountability, a government where the party in power has no excuses for not enacting its program and can’t shift blame on those evil Senate Republicans, a government where one can no longer pass one-house bills giving away non-existent gifts to every special interest does  horrify many Democrats.

A Democratic Senate would put an end to the days of promising wine and roses and bringing home Ripple and dandelions. Putsch would finally come to shove, choices would finally need to be made, heads would eventually have to roll; Peter Pan would have to grow up because Captain Hook is dead.

Goodwin continues, “The relief that many Dems felt over Spitzer's downfall reflected more than their dislike of him. They also thought he was crazy to want all the power, and all the responsibility for government that goes with it.”

No argument there.   

He continues thus, “Without being able to use the excuse that Republicans were blocking them, Democrats would face the impossible task of saying no to organized advocates. Even though Bruno survived by copying some special-interest, high-spending ways, Albany would go completely off the rails if the Dems' far-left wing called all the shots.”

Or not.  As I wrote previously, “for the most part, this won’t happen, because it can’t happen; but a lot of people rue the day when they are called to account for this.”

In truth, resources are finite, and the means to attain them are finite as well. Political courage only goes so far, especially in a bad economy.

In other states, facing similar problems, liberal Democrats were forced to become prudent and innovative while still embarking on a legislative agenda that advanced social and economic justice—not merely the “Just-us” of public employee unions and other special interests, although surely they are entitled to fairness as well.

The results have been stronger and better Democrats with ideas that have advanced and improved the party’s profile, both locally and nationally.  

Republican’s believe government spending is all a waste of money, and in New York, they’ve been true to their beliefs, wasting it like no tomorrow. Democrats believe that government can do good, and when pressed to the wall, the best of us will find a way to maximize results with the resources we have, even if we can’t always maximize our resources.     

Goodwin continues, “The irony is that Bruno's retirement could give Paterson the political situation Spitzer craved. Yet Paterson doesn't share the craving, a reflection of his personal friendship with Bruno and his healthy respect for the constitutional virtues of checks and balances.”

Yes that’s what one thinks of when David Paterson’s name is mentioned, “respect for the ... virtues of checks and balances”. Well despite his best efforts, recently demonstrated in the Aubertine Imbroglio, to avoid the opportunity to do so, David Paterson is going to get an chance to balance implementing his virtues while we all check. I can’t wait.

"...Republicans have a fighting chance of holding their Senate majority”, says Goodwin, “There is even talk in GOP circles of adding one or two seats. We should hope for such an outcome. For as bad as things are in Albany, they would get worse under one-party rule.”

You wouldn’t know that from previously reading Goodwin, or his paper’s editorials, or the reports of any of dozens of good government groups regularly cited on those pages.

“Divided government works best” said Goodwin, “because it is more balanced between competing constituents and leaders.”

That’s right, because the Democrats are the heterogeneous party, always marching in unified lockstep. Never having to balance a thousand different balls in the air, hoping none of them will fall, or notice they can’t get along with each other. What utter tripe.

Not to mention that the Senate will still have a potent Republican majority, which, having been cut off from the honeycunt, might just grow a pair of balls and a set of principles themselves.

“[Bruno] was in truth a compromiser by instinct”, said Goodwin, “His negotiations weren't aimed at winning as much as creating a win-win situation. He wanted his share, and was happy to give you yours. That many of those deals were cut secretly in backrooms and the messy tangle of his private business interests prove the old-fashioned ways he championed weren't always the best ways.” 

How true. There was no principal, no matter how deeply held, which Joe Bruno was unwilling to compromise if the price was right. He was happy to slice up the New York pie like it was Hyman’s Roth’s cake with the map of Cuba. The Lakeville Road Boys need never worry about getting their share. As Groucho Marx once said “bring your dog around, I’ll give him a bonus too.” The old fashioned ways he championed weren’t the best. It’s time to end them.  

“Albany won't be the same without him.”  

We can only hope.   

WRONG!

Michael Kinsley’s famous rule that “the scandal isn’t what’s illegal, it’s what’s legal“, now has “Gatemouth’s converse“: “the ideal imperfectly replicated in a reform may be preferable to the status quo (or status quo ante), but it is not to be mistaken for the ideal itself.”

Take public financing of presidential campaigns, a reform enacted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. The idea was to eliminate many evils: the nefarious influence of special interest pay for play money; the nefarious influence of big donors with disproportionate influence; dirty tricks, often untraceable to their source; etc., etc.
The reality was a bit different. Primary season, even with matching donations, was still an orgy of special interest bundling, and the special interests found ways to contribute in-kind which alluded any violation of the rules. Most importantly, thank to the wonders of the First Amendment, both the rich and poor shared the same right to spend unlimited amounts of their own funds to propagate their own views, as long as they did so “independently” of the campaigns. 527s take such costly free speech to entirely new levels of disgust, as the public gets taken for a ride on a battalion of swift boats.

Nonetheless, efforts for reform take on a talismanic quality among good government types. “Reform” efforts like “McCain-Feingold” become mantras to be chanted by do-gooders until they fall into a trance under its mystical hypnotic spell, even conveying the magical illusion of integrity and independence upon its co-author, once know for his role in a major Senate scandal, and a man whose own campaign might better be renamed “The K Street Project”, as he rides freely upon the loamy loams of the friendly skies of campaign planes and campaign staff supplied by all of DC’s usual suspects.

Meanwhile, liberals who should know better go into apoplectic shock when they come out of the mantra induced trance to discover that printing a campaign palm card for candidates endorsed by their political club may result in the commission of a felony. Nonetheless, the Talisman remains unassailable, as if it actually embodies the ideals supposedly advanced by its enactment.

Let’s get back to the unattainable ideal for which public financing is supposed to substitute.

The idea would be a campaign financed almost entirely by small donations, none provided by any lobby or special interest. Moreover, in the ideal, not only the candidate, but the candidate’s party would forswear entirely contributions from such sources. Finally, the candidate would publicly discourage his supporters from contributing to 527s set up to work in the interest of his campaign.

Of course, this ideal was impossible to enact into law, not least because of problems with constitutionality; but we can dream, can’t we?

Well, the dream has come true. Barack Obama is raising money from small voluntary donations, rather than lobbyists or the taxpayers. He’s barred the DNC from accepting lobbyist money either; this may not be wise, but it is inspiring. Finally, he’s asked his contributors to give money to his campaign rather than those evil 527s.
The unlikely appearance of the ideal, rather than the pantomime horse made in its image, has so spooked some good government types that they are screaming for the Talisman instead. This is like asking for Pat Boone when you can have Little Richard.