" Tell me, how would he get over the hurdle of not living in the district when (as you stated) 3/4's of the voters wanted to succeed?  Staten Islanders are very protective of their Island and those representing their interests.  They do not accept outsiders telling them what to do and wanting to represent them.  This is a major reason DiBlasio didn't take up the challenge in 2006."

Staten Islanders aren't wary of non-residents of the 13th, Rosie; they're wary of outsiders PERIOD; they couldn't give a damn about the CD lines, they want to know if you live on The Rock. Maybe if Recchia were from Park Slope, that would be worse, but given that he's from Bensonhurst-Gravesend, it makes little or no difference which Congressional District he lives in. And it makes no difference to Brooklynites in this district which part of Bensonhurst/Gravesend he lives in either. 

BTW, I've said many times, in this piece, and elsewhere,  that a Brooklyn candidate is not preferable if we want to win. Therefore, Harrison is not the best candidate, and neither is Recchia. However, given that they are our only choices, we have to determine which Brooklynite will do the best for the Dems. 

"You know, had Steve gotten support from Recchia and Lopez in 2006 he would now be in Congress."

If you'd actually read the piece, you'd know your assertion was practically a mathematical impossibility. Harrison would have needed about 80% in Brooklyn to win, and that wasn't going to happen, even  if he were running against Charles Barron.  You must have your head up of your ass sucking on a crackpipe to believe such assertions.

"As for the fact that Recchia is Italian, these 2 neighborhoods have drastically changed, no more are Italians in the majority.  You now have many Russians,Asians and people of other ethnic backgrounds living here and I would say Italians (and being Italian and from Gravesend and knowing Bensonhurst I'm very familiar with this) are the minority. "

Being Italian is still an advantage of being Irish, whose population in the district has dropped even more; plus, who is it that has the experience representing and catering to the interest of the Russian, Asian and Sephardic communities? It ain't Harrison. In fact, in the past, you yourself have mentioned (in a negative manner) Recchia's influence among the Sephardim-Query: ain't that an advantage? In additon, the Russians have a further incentive to pull out the votes for Recchia in a big way: they get the Council seat.

I agree Recchia is not the best candidate for the Rock; he's just better than Harrison. As to raising money, you may be right that Recchia is overrated, but if Recchia is Dave Kingman, Harrison is Marv Thronebury.       

again, I see; Lopez and Fossella both. And somewhere, Noach Dear is chuckling.

The simple truth is that Harrison is a good and effective campaigner. He's well-known and well-liked. His performance in 2006 put the district on the map of the DCCC. And if he hadn't been outspent and out-slandered - a job the Vitos have now pawned off to Gatemouth, it seems - he'd be in Congress.

This piece, as ever, says more about Gatemouth than about his ostensible subject. Gatemouth hates this new Progressive movement thing, being of the machine variety himself; ergo, he needs Harrison to fail and the flabby machine candidate to succeed. This is what happened to Chris Owens and Ken Diamondstone, as well.

Now, the funny thing is that in Gatemouth's endorsement of Harrison last year, he wrote:

But let’s face facts, no one from Staten Island was willing to step up to the plate, and Harrison is a far better fit for the district than Park Slope’s Bill DeBlasio, who’d have raised far more money and have been blown out of the water as a "colonizer" and "interloper" (to quote one of our esteemed members of Congress), not to mention a "liberal" .

In short, the reasons Gate gives in 2007 for his support of Recchia directly mirror the reasons he gave for not supporting Bill deBlasio. They are the same, but the outcome this time is different. If I were Bill, I'd be somewhat offended. But if Bill deBlasio is wrong for the 13th, an arguable case, Dominic Recchia, recently distinguished by the Noach Dear endorsement, is wronger.

Heh. My friend Gatemouth is on a vendetta again, I think. Take it for what little it's worth. And now, let me duck, because I'm sure there will be a wall of froth forthcoming shortly.

You can do better, and you have.

Btw, I noticed you pulled this piece off "The Daily Gotham". I'll defend your right to do so; it's your house, and you're allowed to determine which guests are not welcome. But it's an interesting choice. You leave the Room 8 links to two pices that are far more imflamatory, but delete the piece that is nothing but numbers, and which merely makes an inoffensive argument that, in the cause of victory for Democrats, one candidate is better than another.     

I THOUGHT SUCH DISCUSSIONS WERE THE WHOLE REASON PROGRESSIVE BLOGS EXISTED!

Bouldin, maybe I owe Steve an apology; it is you who are the "HARRISON FRAUD".

Anyway, unlike you, I'm not inclined to respond to something I don't like with insults, while ignoring the substance.

I'd rather respond with insults and substance.    

As I just said to Rosie "Staten Islanders aren't wary of non-residents of the 13th...; they're wary of outsiders PERIOD; they couldn't give a damn about the CD lines, they want to know if you live on The Rock." By that criteria, Recchia is no better, or worse than Harrison

But I also said "Maybe if Recchia were from Park Slope [A SPECIFIC DEBLASIO REFERENCE], that would be worse, but given that he's from Bensonhurst-Gravesend, it makes little or no difference which Congressional District he lives in. And it makes no difference to Brooklynites in this district which part of Bensonhurst/Gravesend he lives in either." PEOPLE DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS, PEOPLE IDENTIFY WITH COMMUNITIES!

Just as it made no difference which side of Henry Street David Yassky lived in, when, like Recchia, he represented much of the district on the City Council, it makes no difference here.

By contrast, as I also pointed, back in February and March 2006 on the "The Politicker" (you can google it, but I have a feeling I'll eventually be pulling the quotes), DeBlasio didn't represent one single solitary block of the Congressional District the sought to run it, a distinction with Yassky then (and Recchia now) that I also pointed out in those threads. DeBlasio also shared no cultural affinity for the district, something Recchia has in carloads. You are comparing apples and oranges.  ON THE COMMUNITY TEST, DEBLASIO FAILED AND RECCHIA PASSES (albeit, only to the extent that any Brooklynite could pass)

Typical Bouldin. Michael Bouldin would walk into Madison Square Garden and say there are three chairs in the room, which would be technically true, but highly misleading.    

And fuck yourself about Dear. I returned to blogging, after nine months absence, specifically to post against Dear, something you never managed to do while a primary was still in progress.

And fuck you about Lopez, who surely did not appriovre of my Dear posts (or my posts about Carl Kruger). But, I suppose it is easier to say someone is speaking for Vito Lopez than to go through the mental labor of disproving their analysis of the numbers. Whatsamatter, Mikey, you have math anxiety? You too fucking lazy? Or do you take a Groundhog Day approach to facts you don't like?

Snivelling coward!  

And fuck you about Fossella; I've said more than once that Harrison is preferable to him in a general, and I endorsed Harrison in the general the last time despite my obvious distaste for him. When was the last time you had the integrity to endorse a candidate you disliked because it was the right thing to do. You'd fucking endorse Noach Dear against David Yassky if the opportunity presented itself.

And where, pray tell, do you find any Gatemouth posts with anything more than a couple of mild digs at  Mr. Diamondstone? It is Mr. Diamondstone who has an obsession with Gatemouth; there's really no indication that the obsession goes the other way around. 

To the last poster: Recchia is LOVED by his constituents. The Delia Shack reference is absolutely irrelevant. You posit this view and offer no evidence for it.

To Rosalie: Will you recant and sing adifferent tune about fund raising if Recchia in fact files huge fund raising numbers at year end and Harrison does not?

Gatemouth actually makes many very legitimate points aboutt ehe electoral results here. Harrison's numbers are not good inwhat was the best Dem year we have had in many many years---espcially on the Cognrssional level where Fossella types were swept out across the nation.

Harrison ought to step aside and let a strogner challenger take the shot if he is a true believer---which he is clearly not---especially if the fund raising numbers at the next filing are lop sided.

Keep your minds open until we sww.

Harrison done a poll? Where did the money come from?

Of course, he can afford a straw polls, which has about as much value as his prty loyalty 

Few points:

1. The decision to pull was, as far as I know, Michael's alone. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but Gatemouth's blaming the whole editorial staff is typical misleading info by him. Yes the editorial decision was made and yes the DG staff pretty much stand together. That said, Gatemouth had no reason to imply Liza Sabater, Daniel Millstone, etc....or myself for that matter, were involved.

2. Daily Gotham does like to allow opinions we don't agree with to generate controversy and readership. However, sustained, borderline smear campaigns against personal friends are, shall we say, discouraged. We did let the tirades go for awhile, with our own comments. I was fine with that up to a point. But I do think a sustained attack, inspired by, as you specifically said to us personally, the Kruger-attack cover  notwithstanding, our support of Harrison and opposition to all who endorsed Dear, is expecting a bit much from us.

3. If Vito doesn't appreciate your attack on Dear or Kruger, maybe that should tell him something. Even one of his most frequent apologists doesn't like Kruger or Dear and maybe that is a further indication of his grip slipping. Gatemouth may be driven to the side of reform yet! But the main push would come from the machine hacks who don't appreciate that you can only go so far before even your friends will get uncomfortable.

 4. I, for one, do hope Gatemouth continues to post...preferably on DG, but even if we pulled him out of hiding only to have him return to his old home and friends, I'm down with that.

5. Fundraising: Yassky and Simpson (and many Republicans as well) can tell you that fundraising isn't everything. If you fail to make a connection in the district, you won't be able to buy the race. Or maybe you can, but not reliably. Given the complete no-show from Recchia in 2004 and 2006, I see no evidence to date that he can connect with the district.

6. As to the wishes of Staten Island, Harrison was chosen by the Staten Island Democrats and put in a better showing in Staten Island than any previous Democratic candidate for the seat. He has the better SI credentials compared with Recchia who has only the McMahon's to surrogate for him (if I can use that word in the presence of machine hacks these days). Harrison's biggest mistake last time around (other than starting late, which he already has learned from and corrected) was not shoring up his Brooklyn support. He did better than Barbaro in SI and worse in Brooklyn. With an earlier start, more money and a learned lesson, he can build on the name recognition he made last time. Recchia starts from scratch and with little respect within the district. Recchia has almost no crossover appeal, while many of the very things Gatemouth is saying will help Harrison's crossover appeal...and the Republicans I personally know in the district HATE Fossella, like Harrison and ask "Recchia who?"

Mole: When something happens on "The Times" editorial page, you say "The Times", not Gail Collins. I didn't name names, but if you read this thread, it is clear who my beef is with. Sorry for the collateral damage, but it was a decision on behalf of the publication, not in Mr. Bouldin's capacity as an individual blogger, so the publication must take the heat. Btw, I didn't notice that you or anyone else launched a protest. When they came for Gatemouth, you did not speak up, because you were not a blues gutarist. Dr. NeiMOLE333er, I presume?   

I announced at the beginning of the Harrison series that it was a two-parter. No one objected to a two-parter about Carl Kruger. It only became three parts because of Mr. Bouldin's efforts to trump up a red herring, which required response. As to the Kruger attack being "cover", it was far harsher than anything I said about Harrison, and far riskier. I've explicitly pointed out that my problem with both men stem from the same series of events (the Golden/Gentile race in 2002), so how come my beef with Harrison get's dismissed as a "personal vendetta", and my beef with Kruger as "cover"? As a progressive, do you not find such conduct repugnant? Or will you join Bouldin in defending the support of Marty Golden as laudable?

I hope my position on Dear sends a message. I appreciate that you chose to send yours in a different way. Why I think your method is counterproductive is another discussion for another day, but I must say, that like the "Bruno Dems" series, I appreciate that it is intended to prevent further outbreaks of such outrages. As to Vito and Kruger, I'm not so sure that Vito is necessarily a fan of Carl's, but my guess is that he nonetheless would prefer that such attacks were not launched on the web. However, it's not as if he's passed a message onto me (I can't say that from everyone I dissed recently).

Rock:You are correct that I got out of hand. I'd fix my response, but it would re-arrange the order of the comments, causing no little confusion. I think Bouldin purposely waited til right before my bedtime, so I'd be at a disadvantage. Nonetheless, if you delete the obsenities, I think my points are valid. He linked me with Dear. I think you can vouch that's not fair. He said i was an agent of Fossella, even though I am committed enough to beating that SOB, that I endorsed Bouldin's DINO traitor the last time, and would do it again, if necessary. He linked me with Lopez, because it was easier to do that than to deal with the substance of this post, which is that his guy is a loser, and the numbers show it. 

Your point to Bouldin about winning some district leaderships is more aptly directed to Mole, who cares much more about the Brooklyn stuff. Incidentally, I made the exact same point to him on Gotham months ago, and was forced to explain, like a first grade teacher, why organizing clubs on a basis other than ADs wasn't thinking "out of the box", it was just stupid white-boy liberal self indulgence. Want to change the party? Elect some party leaders; they're elected by AD. To Mole's credit, he eventually assimilated the point. Good boy!

Rock, you may not have endorsed Dear, but you were dismissive of Karen Yellen on more than one level, seemingly based upon some old faraway stuff. This is an attitude more worthy of a southern Brooklyn hack. Moreover, I spent  a whole evening arguing with you about why Dear's gaybaiting was wrong. I might not have minded so much, but i was simaltaneously defending myself from attack by Bouldin on the basis that I was some sort of Dear sychophant. Go figure.

Btw, i love Bouldin. He defends Israel on Daily Kos, thereby qualifying as a righteous Gentile, and earning an invite to Gatey's Seder. I agree with him more than practically any other blogger. I think he's a great writer. But sometimes he get get under one's melanin deprived skin.

Anyway, did you catch the Melvin Van Peebles reference in my title? This could really be called "Sweet Gatemouth's Badass Song". Or would you prefer a reference to "The Harder They Come"?

Most of this went under my radar, initially. I am giving a major talk tomorrow and have lots of experiments demanding my attention at the same time...so this all took second tuba, or whatever. Besides, I take the lead on Culture Kitchen and Boulin takes the lead on DG. If you want me to take more of a part, come to Culture Kitchen. There is little talk of Vito there. But much talk of Jews.

That said, I am willing to share the blame, if blame it be, with Michael. Daily Gotham has gotten kudos from many politicians, including some we do not generally agree with, for our editorial policy. For now I am happy to stand by it. Wallner, I am sure, will agree with any objections you have.

As to this series, I remember specifically when you announced your intentions in emails. I know why you are doing this. Be honest. Kruger may have been in your mind to start, and may have been a big part of it, but the trigger sure seemed to be Harrison and Bouldin and myself. At least that is how I remember you threating it. Nothing wrong with your doing it, but don't be shocked when that is how we react to it.

As to District Leaderships, I sure don't remember any lectures from you. Nor have I suggested club organization changes of any particular approach...being part of one that is xenophobic to the extreme, one that is expanssionist and several organizations that aren't "clubs" but could overlap. I don't feel any particular model has proven itself as all that great. Are you sure this didn't have to do with a certain person recommending a new, supra-Prospect Park club to rule all clubs? That wasn't me. If you are referring to my comments on who is capable (theoretically) of ousting Vito either before or after Vito chooses to be out of it for obvious reasons, that had nothing to do with clubs. It had to do with leaders. Or maybe I have no idea what of our many debates you are referring to because they all blend together.

 As to white boy liberal self indulgence, interestingly you are simultaneously accusing me of supporting someone too conservative for your self, I was once accused of being reverse racist for only supporting (in one particular year) black candidates (not by you), and you seem to forget that I have never jumped on every liberal bandwagon that comes along. So I don't really feel I have engaged in white boy liberal self indulgence. Jew boy liberal self indulgence maybe, from time to time, with my advocacy of things like saving Latvian synagogues and planting trees in both Israel and Palestine, but that's a whole other ball of challah.

I had the series in mind, With Harrison as a part, before you and Bouldin brought it to a head. The First Kruger piece was substantally written in December of 2006.

All in all, given the unanamously bad response from everyone but advocate, it appears to have been an error in judgment, but it was nothing, if not sincere. And, on the whole, my guess is that the Vito faction of the party would have chosen to live without it as well.

See, you agree with them on something.  

Hey, Rock, don't inject me into this one!  I refuse to believe that the Bouldin/Gatemouth epic battles revolve around my political past.  Maybe they're in love -- you remember that kindergarten love ("I kick you, I love you ...").

Hey Gatemouth, isn't it "Throneberry"?

Christopher: It didn't come up on my spell-check.

And you are correc. It is not only love; it is gratitude. Only Bouldin could have taken this dull, technical, by the number, post about targetting, and made it sexy, by deleting it from his site. No adverstsing tag line ever sold better than "Banned in Bouldin"

Rock: Did you not get it when I responded "what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Obviously, we still do.  

When I post on a Blog I watch the language I use and believe me there have been times when I wanted to tell someone where to go.  You, on the other hand, are a vile mouth pig.  Don't you every make a comment to me like you did about the crackpipe.  Show some respect even though you may not agree with what I write. 

I would have loved to reply to your answers to me but a pig like you doesn't even deserve any additional comments I have to make. 

Sign your name and admit that you're Dominic Recchia but afraid to identify yourself.

Oh, by the way, we'll see who wins after the Primary in September.

How convenient. Gatey's foul mouth gives Rose the excuse she needs to avoid answering the question for which there is no reponse. Thanks Gate! Counterproductive as usual.

But Emily, if I'm nice, will you tell me how Dom R and Vito L were supposed to improve Harrsion's Brooklyn performance by 30%? Vito couldn't even win the Surrogate's race and you expect him to perform miracles?