The hysteria of Owens pere and others (Rock Hackshaw picks on a couple others in a post just below yours) that Yassky might win the seat strikes me as unnecessary.  Even if he does have the most money, Ed's analysis here seems pretty accurate:

Yassky is extremely hawkish on the Middle East, which cuts against the grain of white voters in the distict. The only polling done shows him getting a large majority of the white vote and no african-american votes, however his percentage of the white vote can only go down (the three African-American candidates are almost completely unknown north and east of the park. Also, whites make up only 30% of the district. The African-American vote would almost have to break evenly three ways for someone to win with only white votes, and that isn't going to happen.

 Major and others could save themselves the embarrassment.  It's annoying for me because I think Owens is clearly the best on the issues and this business from his father and his father's supporters does put him in an awkward position.

What is the source of that quote?

Good to see you back kid.

Not sure Chris likes this one though.

It is funny that Major et al seem to be doing Yassky a great service and leading most people following this to ask why the seasoned politicos at that event don't just get organized behind one candidate.

As someone who was accused yesterday on the Daily Politics of disliking Chris (not true), I have to say I've never agreed with you more regarding who should drop out if the goal is to keep the seat held by a black person.

I've also said time and time again that Chris just isn't qualified for the seat. If he wasn't the son of the incumbent he'd be a total joke with only members of Don't Build Anything in Brooklyn Ever (DBABE) supporting him. Is he smart? Yeah. Well informed? Sure. Good speaker? Uh huh. Progressive? Yup. But has he ever held elective legislative office, as all his fellow candidates do? Nope. That combined with his pathetic fundraising, inability to attract local black leaders' support and focus on winning clubs by packing them with DBABE members really says it all.

Chris, give it up.

Major must really be regreting not resigning mid-term and installing Chris in the seat!

I'm getting a strong sense that Yassky is running a couple of elections ahead here. Between Weiner's, Nadler's, Velasquez's, the 11th and even Fossella's district, something is going to give eventually. All of these districts are gentrifying rapidly, and Yassky and DiBlasio are the class of the brownstoners.

I think Yassky has tapped into a genuine sense of disenfranchisement in brownstone brooklyn, and it will pay off eventually.

(I think Yassky has tapped into a genuine sense of disenfranchisement in brownstone brooklyn, and it will pay off eventually.)

It is true that an area of Brooklyn with increasingly similar people (sigh) is chopped up into several congressional and state senate districts, and always has been.  Anyone know the history here?

First off, Gatemouth, as someone who came out very strongly against your "retirement", publicly and privately, I'm glad to see you're back.

I would be more glad if you hadn't come back with this vindictive drivel.

Considering that you recently had to publicly and widely grovel for falsely imputing anti-semitic 'blood libel' to Chris, perhaps you should have chosen less vituperative terms, or even another target. But then again, the only fun mistake is one that one can make over and over again, like a cartoon mouse running against a wall.

The first thing missing in your screed is the one-sentence note "I support David Yassky's candidacy in the NY-11 primary". Helps to put things into context, I find, lest people think you are a disinterested observer.

Next up,  I am wondering what evidence you have that Major Owens is acting at his son's behest when he, with such bad taste, comes out and states the obvious: that Yassky is playing on a divided black electorate to win in a divided primary and then, presumably, go on to Congress.

You say this is bossism at its finest - Tammany Hall in black. Black empowerment must be just an excuse. My experience with hacks - like you, Gatemouth - is that they simply find it impossible to credit any motive that does not fit nicely with their own hackery.

And that's the problem with your screed - other than the absence of qualifiers, sourcing, any note on your electoral preference, the promiscuous use of innuendo, the basic incomprehension of why blacks might feel disinclined to contemplate a fine wealthy white candidate like Yassky as a gift to themselves - right there. The idea that Owens and Vann  may see a principle at stake here is seemingly intolerable to the likes of you.

Going on to the bosses and your jawdroppingly asinine (and self-serving, cuz ya do have a horse in this race) contention that criticism of Yassky's cynical and divisive candidacy heralds the return of Tammany Hall, let's examine that a bit. Or is it enough to say that the party has methods that are perhaps a little more nuanced than knee-capping to express its displeasure? How many people of incluence do you think have told Yassky to stay out of this race? I know several personally - as do you, I'm sure, except that wouldn't quite flow with your self-serving argument here, now would it? Which is why you posit the false choice between the bosses and that paragon of democracy, David Yassky, who inconveniently happens to be counting on getting elected with a bit less than a majority, but why quibble with the details, eh? Especially when the donors, not the bosses, have already spoken so loudly on his behalf?

I'll be eagerly awaiting your next post on the subject, which, if past is precedent, is likely to be about the inherent anti-semitism of pointing out that Yassky is running in a majority/minority district. Have a go at it; you seem eminently qualified for the job.

Perhaps you might even do a co-production with NYCWanker, on why a Harvard grad, successful business and NFP executive like Chris Owens is just not good enough for Congress in your eyes. That should also be of considerable interest, methinks.

Bouldin: you still haven't dealt with the only real points made by the article:

1) If Chris Owens is a process reformer, how can he support intervention by the likes of Vito Lopez?

2) If issues are what's paramount, how can Major talk about deals with the Republicans, and how can Chris countenance it?

3) If the issues is really empowerment, then how can Chris Owens stay in the race? 

     I'm sorry for the lack of truth in labelling here, Mike. Two thoughts: (a) Pat Buchanan does't begin each column cay "Warning: I am a raving bigotted lunatic"; he is a known comodity. So am I. This is a post amongst all the other columns on my blog; my rather mild, critical, nuanced, and somewhat regretful support for  Yassky (as well as a painstaking analysis of what I like and don't about Chris Owens; to whom partisans of the other black candidates probably feel I've mostly given preferential treatment) is there for all to see. (b) The posting isn't really about my preference. It is about the hypocacy of those who call themselves "reformers", but refuse to live up to the standards they decry others for failing to adhere to. Carl Andrews and Yvette Clarke are not targets, because their efforts at claiming the refom mantle have been pro forma at best and laughable at worst. By implication, another target is folks like those at CBID who scream loudest for "reform" but turn a blind eye to actions by their freinds they'd never tolerate otherwise. If Vito follows Major's advice and intervenes, his implementor will be Jeff Feldman, who CBID's called upon to be fired; strange bedfellows indeed. Yassky is almost irrelvant to the piece.

Also nearly irrelvant is my past criticism of the theory that, as a VRC district, the 11th should automatically be held by a person of color.For the purposes of thediscussing the  points that interested me, I've almost assumed its validity for the purposes of this piece, and moved on to talk about "means". In fact, if the Owens family followed my advice, which I sincerely feel is politically logical, it would definately not inure to the benefit of the candidate I find preferable.

Honestly, Michael, if the issue is empowerment, what's the rationale for Owens remaining in the race? By any empirical measure, he's the weakest black cqndidate left, and the logic of empowerment is that he should go for the greater good, a martyr to a cause more important than himself. Once you open the genie's bottle and bring the bosses in, don't think they won't see that as well. The distasteful tactics I've spoken of can be implemented against black candidates, as well as the white own, and, in this case, far more effectively. If they are (and threats of politcal blackmail have been publicly made in an effort to ensure this), isn't it a near dead certainty that Chris Owens is the person most likely to be their target?

Pretty funny, huh? Hoisted by the petarded fired by his dad; almost oedepis in reverse. Do you not find the whole thing just a little disturbing? Charlies Rangel's comments on the subject are most instructive in their contempt for democratic process; but they are refreshingly honest. Chris and Major want to have their reform cake, while banging for admission to the bosses banquet; if successful in this effort, they shall have neither. For Chris, this will be one more opportunity to ponder exactly what he means when he says "reform". Read his post on the topic, and tell me that he doesn't needs to give the matter a little more thought.   

There is another way to view the empowerment issue in this district. 

Most incumbents are invulnerable and do not face real elections, and can thus serve a few narrow special interests.  Bu if Yassky were to win, he'd face a Black challenger every two years, and could only stay in office by attracting Black votes.  One could argue that Yassky would thus be more likely to serve the whole district than an entrenched Black political relative, because he actually lose if he didn't.

But Yassky is unlikely to win.

One could also argue, therefore, that his candidacy disempowers Park Slope.  Let's say he wasn't there, and you had  two or three Black candidates duking it out east of the Park, spitting the Black vote.  The one who was able to reach across the Park and get that 30 percent of the vote would win!  Park Slope would be the swing, and we all know either the swing gets served or no one does..  As it is, the Black candidates -- including whoever ends up winning -- are ignoring the White areas, and of course will continue to do so once entrenched in power.

Just a thought.

Michael: Having just read Mike Tomasky's informative debate on Slate, which turns out to be far more about the consequences of punditry than about Beinart's book (which I think you should read and engage with in writing), I think I owe you perhaps a little more.

I consider this blog the "Gatemouth of Record", and try to avoid the immediate reflexive responses I've often posted in other places; while the spontanaety of my posts on other forums is useful in that it often leads to observations I later develop more fully, and never would have made otherwise, it also leads to enourmous errors of fact and judgment. I've sort of considered such posts notebook entires for the real deal, which is here. Clearly, that is a mistake; they are also "the Gatemouth of Record". While such have posts have mostly been without much consequence, the inital blaming of Chris Owens' campaign  for the despicable Yassky/Arson "blood libel" posts was not. As you know I  forcefully (a) retracted this within a couple of ours once I learned the truth,  (b) apologized profusely everywhere it seemed appropriate, and (c) published  an explantion of how this error occured on "Daily Gotham" (I didn't publish it here, because to raise it here would have given it undue memorialization; perhaps I should rethink this; it might make an interesting topic for an essay). I am duly chastened, but do not blame you for rehashing it. Certainly it merits being raised in this context, although I think my thoughts are still valid.

As far as the use of the term "blood  libel", given the results of the police investigation, it seems more accurate than ever for the persons responsible for these posts, which I add continue to this day, many bearing the unmistakeable imprimatur of a particular individual. You know why I thought this individual had a continuing Owens connection, and why I thought the posts benefitted Owens (which they do, regardless of their origins, though this is hardly his fault).

Anyway; if this is about empowerment, then Owens should get out. If, as Mole (and, to a lesser extent, you) seem to think, it is about ideas, then he should stay in, because no one else in the race has his world view. As you know, I do not share this worldview; we are just different kinds of liberals. Ultimately, for reasons I've stated elsewhere, and in great detail, on this blog, I find Owens' ideas lacking, Yassky's ideas preferable to Owens', and the other candidates not really a factor. I would certainly, as I've also made clear, prefer otherwise, but we are left with the choices we have.          

Alrighty; now that I have recovered somewhat  from a nasty summer cold, let me address some of these points with as much grace as I can muster. I'll also look up the Slate piece.

First, to condense your points: it seems you  believe that bringing up the issue of race is a mere function of calculated electoral  convenience, that the messages from Major/Vito/Barron/Vann against Yassky indicate a community of interest with Chris, that Chris is the least qualified candidate, and that he should in consequence drop  out.  

I think the conversation about race and the VRA is one that the situation dictates. It does not benefit any one candidate, and frankly, I think it would have begun no matter which white candidate entered the race. Had De Blasio decided to run, as was briefly rumored, he would have faced the same inquiries.  This discussion is entirely legitimate in my view; what with affirmative action before SCOTUS and the VRA  renewal just having been shot down by the forces of darkness, I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise. Granted, it's not a comfortable discussion; but it is a necessary discussion. As I've said elsewhere, what does it mean  if we try to be colorblind at the expense of communities of color?

Re: Major/"Lopez"/Barron/Vann, that's a simple question of an argumentum ad hominem. I'm not the biggest fan of any of these gentlemen, but the fact that some of them may or may not be hacks has no bearing on whether their opinion is valid. More pertinent is the question of cui bono, and it's hard to see any of them,  except obviously Major, benefitting from an Owens victory. If anything, the other three are rooting for Andrews (whom, incidentally, having met him recently, I found extremely pleasant personally; far more than Yassky, whose handshake is womanly).

 Re: Chris' qualifications, that would depend on how you  define qualified. I think a Harvard degree and a successful career in the NFP sector, plus the work he did for his father, is enough to qualify Chris for the post. What you're postulating is that holding elected office is the only valid criterion for holding elected office, which is not only circular, but makes no sense. If you make the argument for reform, as you do often and eloquently, I'm surprised that you rigidly adhere to the prior-elected-experience standard. Experience suggests that New York legislatures don't often produce reformers; indeed, Vann, "Lopez" and Barron make that quite clear.

Should Chris drop out? Perhaps, perhaps not. What I know is that he is not going to do so. That speculation is based on the CBC/Perry polls, released some time ago; I'm  somewhat skeptical  of whether those numbers provide a pertinent snapshot of the race. By the way, I'm not calling for Yassky to drop out; he has every right to run, I just believe he shouldn't, and that we should all be clear what this race means.

There are many arguments to be made for Chris, or against Yassky, that  do not refer to race. What I am not willing to do is to stop talking about the necessity of black representation. How many black governors have there been? The answer is one; we have one black US Senator, no black Presidents (or Vice-Presidents) ever, a total of two black members of the Supreme Court in history, and all of 42 black Members of the House. That's a very thin background to have when demanding 'fairness' for David Yassky, gilded child of privilege that he is.