The Cassava-McMelon Ticket

AZI PAYBARAH: Scott Stringer’s long-shot Republican opponent is trying, at least.

David Casavis, a locally well-known Republican personality on the East Side and a
foreign service buff, emailed friends and reporters the layout of a flier he plans to hand out shortly, which includes a New York Post editorial about the departure of Lee Landor, who worked for Stringer. Below it, Casavis writes:

Why let politicians cut our jobs? Cut the politicians instead!

Casavis for Borough President

David Can Save Us

Casavis makes another pitch in this little-watched
June 4 video, in which he stands next to a statue of a boar to contend that borough presidents waste too much money.

"Washington will give us a lot of money. It's going to do a lot for us. It will have no effect if the hogs slurp it all up," he says.

It now seems like only five days ago since
I reported on the unusual alliance between psychotic anti-Semitic lunatic Jimmy McMillan of “The Rent is Too Damn High Party” and Eugene Myrick, the “Chocolate Brides” publishing magnate attempting to challenge Marty Markowitz for Brooklyn Borough President.

Today, I report much the same about a candidate for Manhattan Borough President.

I think it is fair to say that this Department has not been particularly kind to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, although in the interest of full disclosure I should make it clear that there was a time when I was known to write Scott a check. Frankly, this was only because, back in his Assembly days, Scott used to run these $25 fundraisers which pretty much resembled Jewish Single Events, the only difference being that, at Scott’s parties, one had a far better chance of getting laid.

These days things are different.
Instead of getting laid, political contact with Scott is far more likely to get one screwed. The article where I explained this contained the following passage, which I thought was not unsympathetic:

The first time I read of Stringer was in a scurrilous and unfair Village Voice article which accused him of being a "Cohn-head", a claque of Manhattan politicos supposedly part of an evil plot by sleazebag attorney Roy Cohn to take over the New York County Democratic party.

Certainly, Stringer, then running for District Leader, had a strange pedigree for a West Side Reformer. His parent were both regular Democrats of the old school, his father Counsel to ultra-hack Mayor Abe Beame; his mother a regular District Leader, and City Councilwoman for about 15 minutes, before she was beaten by the late great Stan Michels, who Scott later beat for Borough President. Then again, Scott was also a cousin of Bella Abzug, although she was always more a radical than a reformer (and would be proud to say so).

Perhaps because of his pedigree, Scott excelled at the politics of the job. More conventional reformers such as Curtis Arluck may have regarded him with suspicion, but they had to be impressed by his knowledge of nuts and bolts and his operational efficiency. Scott served honorably both as District Leader and a staffer for his Assemblyman, Jerry Nadler. In 1989, he placed a very poor second to Ronnie Eldridge in a multi-candidate race to succeed Ruth Messinger on the City Council (Stan Michels must have breathed a sigh of relief).

As I later recounted, Scott saw things a bit differently. The next time he saw me, he screamed at me for writing bad things about his parents and loudly promised vengeance upon all my friends, such as they were. I looked back at the piece in question and found that all that I had said about his parents was that they had been regular Democrats, after which I named the positions they had held.

I know that being called a “Regular Democrat” is considered a damning insult at The Daily Gotham, but I myself have never thought that being a regular Democrat was conclusive proof of evil, as opposed to merely being evidence of it. Personally, I’ve been called a “Regular Democratic Hack” so often, I’m thinking of having it printed it on my business cards.

Scott’s run for Beep was a pioneering example of the repugnant manner in which the Working Families Party launders outside money in mass quantities and “independently” expends it in the internal elections of other parties, thereby alluding both the standard contribution limits (because the laundered money is plowed through “Party Housekeeping Accounts” with far higher limits) and the accountability meant to be fostered by our Campaign Finance Laws. This is especially egregious because the WFP claims to be working for “real campaign finance reform.”


In the same manner Phil Spector is working for real gun control.

The fact that such fund were used to defeat a neo-con like Eva Moskowitz does not diminish the problematic nature of what was essentially a gang-bang of the law accomplished by feeding it first amendment based roofies.

I can’t say that since his election, I’ve had any major problems with Scott’s performance. Unlike Marty Markowitz, Scott does not undertake big grandiose projects which might not please everyone. He’s far more interested in using the office to issue statements designed to please his constituents, mostly concerning matters not within his purview.

However, one does not have to favor any of Markowitz’s projects to concede that his vision of the office may be the superior one, even as one also concedes that Scott’s vision is much more in line with the Hippocratic Oath’s injunction to “First, do no harm.”

Still, it is Markowitz’s vision of the job which better makes the case for the Office’s continued existence, the bugaboo of Mr. Stringer‘s opponent, Mr. Casavis.

I would like to be kind to Mr. Casavis. Before last year’s election, I wrote
an article bemoaning the failure of the local Republicans to offer even token candidates for local office in great swaths of our City. As I noted then, there used to be an age when parties rewarded those who stood tall and accepted the party’s nod in districts where victory was unlikely.

Now, for the most part, such candidates are treated as pariahs, and often actively discouraged. For instance, Bloomberg minions initially filed objections against blogger Robert Hornak, the only person seeking the Republican nomination for Queens Borough President---shame on you, John Haggerty.

as I’ve also noted, folks undertake such candidacies, and do more than just stick their name on the ballot, are true heroes to democracy. I feel honored to be able to cast my vote, time and again, against such wonderful Americans.

Mr. Casavis, who ran for Assembly last year, would normally qualify as one of those heroes.

Casavis is clearly very serious about building broad coalitions; in his effort this year, he has been endorsed by the Conservative Party and also
attracted the support of the Libertarian Party, which seeking as it does to eliminate government entirely, probably considers abolishing the Borough Presidencies as the equivalent of a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean: a good start.

But even a good idea like coalition building can go too far.

You guessed it: Casavis is also
the running mate of raving psychotic nut job Jimmy McMillan of “The Rent Is Too Damn High Party.

One must congratulate Casavis. Libertarians are usually most concerned about property rights, and yet Casavis has attracted support from both them, and a “party” which, at first glance, seems most concerned with imposing strong government restrictions on just such rights.

Would that this was what “The Rent is Too Damn High Party” was really most concerned about.

A couple of
excerpts from Jimmy McMillan’s campaign website tell a different story. “The Rent is Too Damn High Party” seems most concerned about blaming the Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism for 9/11.

This takes “Coalition Building” a Bridge Too Far.

Query: when Azi called Casavis a “foreign service buff,” did this mean that David’s expertise was in the Jewish plans for world domination outlined in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” ?

Perhaps that’s unfair. But if Casavis' done this without ill intent, innocent of who and what he's hooked up with, then, as with Eugene Myrick, he's just TOO DAMN STUPID to hold important office. Perhaps the Borough Presidency doesn't count as such, but Casavis has already shown his willingness to run for something important, like State Assembly.

Can you imagine someone so stupid serving in the legislature?

Perhaps I should rephrase that. Still, I promised Domestic Partner that I’d complete this article without any misogynistic references to feminine hygiene products, but guys like Myrick and Casavis make it hard.

More importantly,
if Michael Bloomberg is given a free pass by the media for making sleazy deals with raving anti-Semitic lunatics, why should Casavis be treated any differently?

As far as I can see, the only difference is that Bloomberg can afford to buy the Mercedes-Benz of anti-Semitic political parties, while Casavis got stuck with the 72 Plymouth.

Anyway, I agree, we should treat Casavis and Bloomberg in exactly the same manner.

And I also agree with Casavis’ platform--if Casavis is ever elected to any office, that office should clearly be abolished.

In election for the Presidency of the Borough of Manhattan, Gatemouth endorses Scott Stringer.

And I don’t even expect to get laid this time.

Just screwed.