|
|
The Gateway ("Progressive" Blogger Circle Jerk Edition)
“Progressive” Bloggers Take on the 27th SD: Mole 333 says progressives and reformers should get behind Lew Fidler, instead taking the swan dive they did on David Weprin. I don't agree with every word here. Mole goes several bridges further in linking Storobin with white supremacists than even I think is justified (and my articles are the sources for his assertions!). Further, he ignores the importance of Israel in the Weprin/Turner Congressional race and exaggerates somewhat the weakness of Weprin. That being said, Mole does get that this race is no lock for Fidler, and is in fact an even tougher seat on the numbers than NY-9. Further, not only does Mole make the case very well that progressives should endorse this decidedly moderate Democrat, but he makes the case better than anyone I’ve ever seen that Fidler has courageously stood up to County Leader Vito Lopez time and again on important matters (my only quibble here is to note that this did not begin with Lopez, Fidler also stood up to Clarence Norman. By contrast, while Rock Hackshaw clearly likes Fidler, sort of endorsing him, and in fact speaks more eloquently about Fidler’s virtues than even Fidler himself, he is far more of a skeptic than Mole (who is not without some skepticism of his own), and that is fine. The problem here is that Rock seems to believe his race is a lock, when it surely is not. Rock has clearly not looked the numbers, and instead proceeds feelings and instincts (which admittedly are often pretty savvy) in the same manner that led him to predict the Democrats would hold the House even though he admitted to not taking a district by district look at each important race. I think his unfounded certainty of a Fidler victory allows Rock to proceed to some moderately sharp criticism without asking "Compared to What." Further, Rock is on record opposing the Senate Republicans, and this race is a potential opportunity for them to expand their majority. That alone should motivate support which, whatever its caveats, is a bit less equivocal. Instead of focusing on the important tax and budget concerns facing the State (Storobin favors a flat tax, massive budget cuts and eliminating the City’s painless Hotel Tax), Rock focuses on term limits. If ever there was a less significant issue in the realm of what is going on in Albany today, this is it. As Rock notes, Fidler voted to modify the term limits law. As Rock fails to note, Fidler ran everyone one of his races stating that this was his position, was challenged on it in successive elections, and won, again and again. Fidler did not, like Bill DeBlasio or David Yassky, try to be all things to all people, depending upon the political convenience of the movement. Clearly, Fidler’s voters, when given the chance to weigh the issue in the context of Fidler's entire record, chose to support him in spite of his position. That is what is sometimes known as a mandate. Rock asks Fidler "are you going to oppose the movement to bring twelve-year term limits to both Albany and Congress?" Query: where in Albany does this movement exist? Who exactly is Fidler to join with? Rock seems to be under the impression that the answer is his favorite, John Sampson, who, with the enactment of such term limits, would have to leave his job immediately. Where is the evidence that John Sampson favors any sort of term limits? I don’t mind Rock putting all his caveats in a row (it actually reminds me of me), but I do think priorities lack a bit of perspective. A couple of the more interesting contributions from Carl Kruger's campaign committee:
BROOKLYN REPUBLICANS 3029 AVENUE S BROOKLYN, NY 11229 1,650.00 07-APR-02 FRIENDS OF CARL 2002 July Periodic BROOKLYN REPUBLICANS 2950 AVENUE S BROOKLYN, NY 11229 250.00 29-SEP-05 FRIENDS OF CARL 2006 Jan Periodic Correction Time: The other day, in taking apart David Storobin's assertion that four of the last five Kings County Democratic Leaders had gone to jail (the actual number was one, which was bad enough), I said that the County Leader before Stanley Steingut was Tony Travis--I based this on a line in a 1968 New York Magazine Article by the former Manhattan Democratic Leader, but his language was ambiguously misleading, and the real answer was Joseph Sharkey, who also never went to jail (except to visit friends).
I also failed to note that Steingut's Mickey Mouse indictment, which was thrown out, came long after he left as County Leader.
|
|
delicious
digg
