The Gateway (Thankful 2012 Edition)

This year, I am thankful for Domestic Partner, Dybbuk, Cerberus, the Triumph of Sanity in America, the fact that there is a place called Israel and the fact that I’m not living there.  




Though he is often called anti-Israel by idiots on Zionism's far right, no one makes the case against Hamas more effectively than Richard Cohen.




Goldberg wonders if those who cluck their tongues at disproportionate casualties believe "that there is a large moral difference between attempted murder and successfully completed murder."




Beinart says Israeli policy is functionally pro-Hamas.





Dybbuks and Golems infest the Jewish Press comments section, but G-d and Azi Paybarah see all.




Bill Thompson: I think the mayor...Misses that that is part of being the mayor. It isn't just a job where the city runs well. It's a job where you inspire and lead the city.

Marc Lavorgna: Ironic criticism coming from the invisible mayoral candidate. When I think inspirational leader, I think Bill Thompson. Don’t you?

 Gate: The entire Bronx (plus Marble Hill) could retire comfortably on what it took to beat Billy Thompson--someone brought themselves a house just on what fell behind the couch unnoticed. I would say that a Bloomie flack does not have the standing to joke about Billy Thompson's lack of charisma.




Michael Benjamin expounds on Carrion's "conversion" with such venom and hatred that one must assume he's just jealous he couldn't pull it off himself.




Much ado about very little. 

Since Vito Lopez can run in a Council primary without moving, Erik Dilan's moves ensures what? That Vito doesn't need to move from a place he doesn't live at until after a primary he may not win?

Now if they moved in 1000 Hasids, that would be significant, and I'm sure Vito would gladly trade the apartment for them.




Election Law Gurus continue to expound on punishing Felder and other Party deserters:

"About your post: different standards apply for party officers and others (including public officials). A party official can be removed from party office, after hearing, etc. by a vote of the party committee. Thus, a Brooklyn district leader can be removed from the County Executive Committee by a vote of that body. But, only a vote of the State Committee can remove them from that office.

 Dis-enrollment of a Brooklyn Democrat requires a complaint from an enrolled voter to the Chairman of the party (That's Charlie Ragusa, the Chair of the County Committee, not Frank Seddio, the Chair of the Executive Committee). The Chair may then conduct a hearing (or appoint a sub-committee to do so). Then the chair issues a ruling which is reviewed by Supreme Court to insure it is "just". The court looks at notice and procedure--it may not substitute it's judgment for that of the chairman. (No Executive Committee vote is necessary)."




Less informed opinion opines as well:

JOE HAYON: Felder may be able to re-enroll immediately, but it wouldn't take effect until one election passed.

GATE: Would depend on the timing, wouldn't it?

HAYON: I guess it would depend on when the disenrollment would take effect. I would assume immediately. Then he would be a blank voter. even if this happened in September, he would not be a Demcorat again until after the elections. I wonder if there is any law banning a person from joining a party once disenrolled.

GATE: Well, if Felder was disenrolled today, he would be back before his eligibility for re-election became an issue (if he even wanted to)--as to the prohibition to re-enrolling, my whole point is that it is gone.

HAYON: Then wait a year to disenroll

GATE: Frank Seddio should hire you to be Law Chair

HAYON: Then I would be facing disenrollment.

GATE: Luckily, your Party lacks a competent Law Chair.




The Smartest Man in America throws a wet blanket on 2014.




Same Sex Marriage as ”The Triumph of the Conservatives” (Part 10,879).




Don't Believe the Hype: "The Untold History of the United States is a doorstop of a book...all assembled to prove that the 20th century was a one long spasm of American treachery. The authors are not offering, as Politico described it, “a liberal interpretation” of American history but a radical one, with particular contempt reserved for liberal anti-communists and mainstream Democrats."