- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
AdvertisementAround Room EightGot Something To Say? Blog It on Room Eight Subscribe
Want a Daily Digest of Room Eight by Email? Sign-up Here! AdvertisersRecent Posts
Advertising SpaceRoom Eight is a member of the NYC BlogAds network. BloggersBlog RollNew York Politics National Blogs Misc New Yorkers |
Revisiting the 10th Congressional District: Ed Towns v. Kevin Powell
The last time we visited the 10th congressional district, incumbent congressman Ed Towns was facing challenges from assemblyman Roger Green and councilmember Charles Barron; that was two years ago. Towns won re-election with about 46 per cent of the votes cast. He wasn’t as satisfied with the victory as he should be, but in the words of a very wise person: a win is a win. In that race the missing candidate was Kevin Powell, who withdrew at the last moment in order to support Barron; this time around he is being reciprocated since Barron has endorsed him here. Powell is the solitary opponent for the congressman this year; that in itself gives him a long-shot chance, since Ed Towns has been in office for more than two decades, and many people are caught up in Barack Obama’s theme of “change”.
Towns - who is in my opinion, one of the most amiable electeds around- tends to get very serious once challenged; suddenly he stops the levity and gets focused. In a strange way this is good for democracy to have these incumbents challenged. I wonder if the congressman will agree with my assertion here. He is expected to raise wheelbarrows full of cash for this race. This will put him at a distinct advantage beyond the naturally built in incumbency factor. Powell will have many challenges to surmount; this race will be uphill all the way. The first challenge for Powell is “mullah”. Can he raise about half a million dollars to be competitive in the ads, mail, media, on the streets and on the phones? Many are saying that he can, but this is more wishful than realistic. He has to do it to prove he can. Then there is the challenge of getting institutional support. Who amongst the elected officials in NYC will endorse/support him? Which unions will help him? Which of the local political clubs, key community activists, churches, pastors and local political operatives will cover his back? Very few. Will he get major newspaper endorsements? I doubt it. Another challenge for Powell is in getting voter recognition. Sure he is known in hip-hop circles, but the last time I looked, about 65% of the voters in this district are over 50 years old; they don’t know him, he has never faced them for any office (higher or lower). He reminds me of Barry Ford who challenged Towns in 1998 and 2000. Back in those days, former assemblyman Roger Greene (yes) used to represent Ed Towns at many a candidate forum. He once asked Barry Ford why he didn’t run for city council or state assembly first, as a prep before trying for congress. Ford replied: “I graduated from Harvard sir”. Powell could face the same question; but unlike Ford, Powell is a college drop out -far less a Harvard grad. In fact Powell was thrown out of college for pulling a knife and menacing a female co-student over some silly and meaningless argument. He claims that back in those days he had a bad temper, and that he has worked on developing himself, and that he has changed for the better. He most likely has changed for the better; but that was the neither the first nor last time that his temper eroded into some type of violent outburst, which later created PR problems for him. Herein lies Kevin Powell’s biggest challenge: how do you get voters to come your way, when your initial introduction to them will be a on a negative plane? If you really think that Ed Towns will not highlight the sordid details of Kevin’s past, then you have another thought coming. Here Powell’s written revelations of abusing women, drinking, drugging and partying, will come back to haunt him like Banquo’s ghost. Sure enough Barack Obama was able to overcome some of the autobiographical revelations from the books he wrote; but can this hold for Kevin Powell? Personally, I doubt it can. He hasn’t spent enough time out in the political hustings of the tenth congressional -earning the voters trust, admiration and/or respect. He is likeable, and that’s a plus, but wining congressional seats in Brooklyn isn’t easy folks; ask Chris Owens if you don’t believe me. The baggage that Powell is traveling with -in a district where females vote at a higher clip than males- could give him a political hernia, especially if Towns were to go negative early. Even if Towns went ballistic in the late going, it still has the potential to be very damaging for Powell; his past could turn out to be ruinous I for one am willing to redeem Kevin from his wild days of youth, given that he has done some good work amongst inner-city youngsters over the last dozen years or so. He has been a motivational speaker and an inspiring media personality/figure. Yet some see his work in this regard, as being self-serving, egotistic, self-aggrandizing and celebratory; more so than being altruistic. Celebrities have a way of eliciting different feelings from different people; especially when generational gaps become cleavages. Kevin Powell will probably do well amongst those under forty years of age, but those under forty represent fewer than forty per cent of the turnout. Herein, he again has another problem to overcome. Then there is the question of preparedness: is Kevin Powell prepared to go to congress? Is he boned-up on the contemporary issues? Does he offer imaginative solutions to some of the problems facing us? Can he articulate policy positions with the historical background knowledge of a policy-wonk? We know that he has no experience in government, having not been elected before; and we also know that he never worked for an elected official -as even a community liaison far less chief-of-staff. And then where has he been on issues like the environment, education, the Iraq War, police brutality within the minority communities, economic development and the like? Where does he stand on the Ratner Atlantic Yards project? And so on, and so on. And what about foreign affairs and issues like immigration reform? He has a lot to do to fill in his blank slate; the problem (for him) is that he has very little time to do it. In exactly 8 weeks the voters pull levers. In the meantime, Ed Towns is a known product. His voting record is long and wide. He has more than a few detractors; that’s true, but he is also unlikely to do something bizarre, amateurish or outlandish, as say some rookie or someone unknown and/or questionable. He has turned out to be relatively safe and steady over the years. He never had a marvelous public relations staff -with the capability of making him look better- but he is quite accessible and nearly always available. I remember when we used to slam him in the Fort Greene News newspaper that Eric Blackwell published, way back in the early nineties. That was when Niger Campbell, Eric and I, uncovered the fact that there was a high infant mortality rate in the area. We felt that Ed’s responses to that issue (plus high asthma rates) were too slow in coming. He eventually picked up the pace and started responding to issues in the district at a much faster clip. Today he has three constituency offices in three different parts of the horse-shoe shaped congressional district, and a much more aggressive staff than at times before. In a district where about a quarter of the voters will be white, Towns will get a big head start with the Jewish vote. He should also win the senior vote handily, and he probably has an edge in the Hispanic vote which will then leave him quite close to a resounding victory. As I said before: this is uphill all the way for Powell. Kevin Powell has a lot to do between now and September 9th to convince many that he is up to scratch, and that he is ready to go to Washington replacing Ed Towns. Many of us are waiting to see what he says and does in this campaign. I know many friends who are supporting him, and they all keep wishing him good luck. Well, he is going to need it: lots of it. Unless he brings out many new voters (youngsters) on Election Day, it will be a hard day’s night. Stay tuned-in folks; the race has just begun. Ed Towns has consistently supported the cigarette industry. Your mention of asthma and infant mortality only highlights the failure of Towns to disassociate himself and stop carrying water for big tobacco. When asked why he did so at a local community meeting at Scotto's in Carroll Gardens, Towns responded that he was from North Carolina (this was covered by The Brooklyn Paper). He lives in Brooklyn now, not NC, and his district's needs are to stop supporting big tobacco. Look at his past PAC contributions, too, from big tobacco. For Shame, Congressman, for shame. Signed, Anybody But Towns Powell should already have 500K in the bank. And Obama's change theme may not work in a Democratic Primary in Brooklyn, especially against an incumbent who has as many advantages as Towns appears to have. If Powell raises $1M, campaigns 24/7, morphs into a polished political pro and sets up a top-shelf campaign apparatus...he will be competitive but still lose 60-40. typicla of a certain generation, Powell wants it all NOW. It will be an expensive lesson to learn for him, but he'll be all the better for it the next time around I guess.
typicla of a certain generation, Towns wants it all NOW and FOREVER. It will be an expensive for his constituents, but he'll still have his nice home in Florida. What does he care? Very nice piece...enjoyed reading it. You didn't mention Job Maharishi's run against Towns? If memory serves me well, he gave Towns a run for his money. The truth of the matter is that no one's going to unseat a 20-year incumbent. Besides we all know that seat is ermarked for Darryl Towns. Ed will do for Darryl what Owens was not able to do for Chris.
In your article you mention Kevin Powell performing good work with community kids but it is my understanding that when it comes to his own children that he is a dead-beat dad and is far behind in his child support payments...I for one believe that if you can't keep your own house in order, that you shouldn't be trusted to take care of the work of the people in Washington, DC or any other political capacity...What if anything do you know about this Rock..?
 I know nothing about Kevin Powell's personal relationships beyond what was published in his books.
Powell made an ass of himself on on the Real World. If he is to be a Congressman let's only hope he has matured some since then.
Give me a damn break! Speaking out against violence towards women is so hypocritical. How do you speak out against beating on women when you hit a woman in the head with a can of soda? How do you compare your impulse to beat on a woman with an impulse to drink? Alcoholism is an ADA recognized disability. You don't go to jail for drinking unless you commit a crime, but it is not a crime in and of itself. Beating on a woman is a CRIME, not a disability. This guy is a fucking joke. Running your mouth around the world does not qualify you to represent us in Congress. Why should we force an example for birth control on to the whole country? The commenters keep focusing on Powell, but interestingly not on Towns, who has given no justification for his remaining in Congress. What are his legislative accomplishments? With all due respect to Mr. Hackshaw, the following is not enough to remain on my payroll:
Where is Brooklyn' return on its investment? There is no greater money into the district than someone else couldn't get. No bills or laws have Towns's stamp on them that, but for Towns, would not exist. Towns supports big tobacco, to the detriment of his constituents with some of the highest US asthma rates. The past and current electeds have failed. Powell may not be the perfect candidate, but anyone but Towns is good enough.
There is absolutely no reason to vote for Kevin powell!! Except voting for change of course.......but then what do we get? Kevin, EXACTLY what are we voting for? The guy's personal record is spotty, and has no public record unless making a clown of yourself for an mTV show counts as a public record..... I hear he's helped the kids.......oh, god people, we can't be that silly......there are tons of good people in my district in brooklyn who have dedicated their lives to helping youth in East, Central and North Brooklyn, and Kevin Powell's name really doesn't ring out as one of them......it's because they do it because they love kids, they love their families, and their communities, not as a pretext for running for a position that they are not qualified for.....honestly, he may or may not be the worst/best guy on the planet, but he hasn't got the chops (or the money or community background or the incumbency or the body of accomplishment, etc.) to be congressman. He does however, have the inflated ego. IF the vote goes up on that issue, Ed's in trouble. ed towns is an old politician, and i'm not talking about age.....he is tired.......but he does bring home a little pork for a desperately poor district, is not going to make a GRAND ASS of himself in washington, and is probably on his way out soon anyway......his cigarette fetish is abominable, has little legislative accomplishment over decades in office and he reminds me of the corrupt alderman on "Good Times".....the people of my district do deserve better than old ed, and one day soon someone else will be there, but it will certainly not be kevin powell...... It seems anyone with a pulse and a ballot line who runs against Ed can pull a consistent 35 to 40 percent on him, which is a true indictment of my congressman. People in that district really don't like him that much.....but Kevin Powell? I'll be generous to the young buck and call it 60-40 for old Ed....saying so and so went for our hometown US Senator (gasp) is not enough to have people pull for you kid, and doesn't resonate with the 35-40 percent of the electorate that ain't black, and a good portion of the rest that are.
PS....thank you for reminding me of old Barry Ford. It was good to bring back that type of laughable hubris...since i graduated from the ivy league, (but not Harvard), can I have a State Senateship handed over to me please? I like Obama, and was always down (i swear) from jump. Also, since i am not an elceted, it would be a change....honestly.....lol The only Powell that I'm aware of in Brooklyn that has helped kids is Ed Powell who founded UMMA and currently works for Rhoda Jacobs.
I know Ed Powell personally. Now, there is a community activist. He has been an activist in the true sense of the word. He has sacrificed time, energy and money, for the betterment of his community. He has done that for years.
People keep referring to Powell's violence as being "in the past" but from what I read in the Daily News today (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/19/2008-07-19_chris_rock_dave_chapelle_and_other_stars.html) Powell was arrested as late as 2004 (!!) for getting into a bar fight. Isn't that something you're supposed to stop doing after college? I mean, come on!! I hardly think that 2004 is long enough for Powell to proclaim he is "reformed." Plus, comparing domestic violence and a general problem with temper/aggression to alcoholism is naive at best, as someone said above. I'm not saying Towns is the best rep we could have in Brooklyn. I'm just saying that it seems like there are plenty of other local electeds (and not just his son, like the writer mentions) that would be far better suited for the job in 2010. Towns is bound to retire at some point... And I would be much more comfortable having a local elected with a strong track record like Hakeem Jeffries or something taking over in federal office than some guy who has never been in office before and gets tossed in jail for a bar fight like a frat boy when he's a grown man. Rock finally came clean that his is on the paid staff of the Ed Towns campaign. So did he get paid to write this post? I have disagreed with Rock on many things, but I find this especially disturbing. I come to Room 8 for strong opinions by passionate individuals, not by people who are paying their bills. I have been working with candidates for the past 35years. Anyone worth his or her salt in politics knows this. Once in a blue moon I get a lil money to defray my expenses. MOST TIMES I DO IT FOR FREE. I CHOSE TO DISCLOSE THIS BECAUSE OF THE E-MAILS AND PHONE CALLS I WAS GETING FROM PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CANDIDATES I AM IN CONTACT WITH. And no I don't pay my bills through politics. My average after 35 years in this buisness (in NYC) is less than a 100 dollars a month. You figure.
You write this column and then six days later become a paid consultant to Towns? When did you have your 1st discussions-before, during or after you wrote this hit piece? You've previously earned my respect for your views and your cogent analysis, but this is really atrocious. To compound matters, you haven't had the courtesy to amend this and fully disclose in the 1st paragraph that you're now a paid consultant. It truly pains me to say this, but have you no dignity? To 2:39 pm..... you are entitled to your opinion, and that's fine. But if you consider this a "hit piece" then you have no idea of what the hell you are talking about, and as such I will suggest that you read it again, or go get your brain checked. Also, don't try to butter me up with all that "earned my respect" crap, you guys attack me all the time on this site, so stop the bullshit. I don't have to even disclose who I work against, for or with politically. And I surely don't have to go back to every piece I have written this year and do a preface; the column from last night will suffice. This is a blog site. I can write anything I want -including a 'hit piece' if I so choose.
"Also, don't try to butter me up with all that "earned my respect" crap, you guys attack me all the time on this site, so stop the bullshit." Like 2:39, you had finally gained a bit of respect from me, Rock. Whatever you had, you've lost it now. It looks like you've lost your own self respect, judging from the fact that you're cursing at people who disagree with you. It's also very telling that when you announce to world that you're actually a paid flak, you don't allow comments. And I'm not buying your self-pity that you aren't getting paid. There's probably a reason for that. You don't know me. You don't know who or what I am. So ask me if I care that anonymous cowards come up here trying to pontificate: I DON'T. As I have said a million times: none of you have to read what I write. However all of you -like the tens of thousands out there- that are so fascinated with what I write can't get enough; can't stop; like the political junkies you are. I don't have to disclose a damn thing to anyone. I did because I wanted to and I articulated some of my reasons why I have done this, here and now, and also in years past. So go judge your own cowardly anonymous asses and leave me alone. I will blog till I feel like stopping; you fools can't run me off this or any other site. Only the editors can do that, and if they ever do I might just open my own blog site. And I bet you will all show up to read my stuff cause you can't get enough. You don't have to buy anything because I am not selling a damn thing to you or anyone. I do what I want here and I express myself freely; why don't all of you detractors start writing your own blog(s) and leave me the pluck alone. In politics, I could work for whoever I want to, anytime I want to. That's my prerogative. So all of you people (white, black, brown, whatever) can kiss my black you know what. I have announced to the world many times before that there are campaigns that I work on professionally others I work on pro-bono; you must be the only ones who never read those columns or never got the office memo. I don't have to hide a danmn thing from you or anyone; what can you do to me? Maybe stop reading my stuff: whoop-dee-damn-doo. That will be a relief. I have closed my comments section many times before. That usually happens when stupid shit like this starts, or when I anticipate that stupid shit like this would start. See, I was right again. LMAO. You fools are so darn predictable.
I'm glad that you're such a great example of anger management. Is that why you're so upset?
I am upset because it has beem more than 3 years now that people like you come up on the blogs and rag me. I am upset about the incessant attacks on my character by anonymous cowards who know nothing about me. That's why I have closed out my comment section about 5% of the time. All this is so predictable. I am a blogger. I don't work for a newspaper, radio station, television station and such, whereby I am handcuffed by certain legalites and certain rules drawn up by such entities. I can do political work for anyone I want too. I am not restricted or limited by fools like you. If I choose to disclose this then that's my option not yours. Anonymous commenters like you don't dictate to me.
Mr. Hackshaw, I am the 2:39pm commenter. I've never attacked you previously and I don't wish to be lumped in together with any of your other detractors. I am not with them, I don't know them and I don't wish to know or be with them. I was sincere when I wrote that you had earned my respect because you have stood up for things that you believed in and had not given in. I still believe that. I've never posted any negative comments against you and I may have posted some interesting tidbits within my field of knowledge. I didn't make any personal attacks against you, even while I commented anonymously, and it would have been easy to do so, but that is not appropriate for me or for you. I acknowledge that it is your blog, and you can do what you want with it. I did read your post again, but I still stand by my opinion that it is a hit piece, especially so since your professional work relationship makes your pre-conceived preference into a bias. You're entitled to a bias, as we all are, but netiquette exists even for bloggers and if someone is in the paid employ, blogger or not, netiquette generally requires that disclosure. It wasn't done here and my request was to put it at the top of the piece so that all readers would know it upfront. I didn't ask you to do it for every piece, just this one. If you don't wish to do so, then don't, but don't attack me personally. Finally, I note that you never answered the question of when did you have your 1st discussions-before, during or after you wrote this hit piece? Finally, I have no affiliation with the Towns or Powell campaign and I approve this message. Usually the pieces/columns I do here here (for the most part) take time to reach Room Eight, sometimes I am working on various pieces for weeks. I did an interview with the congressman on immigration and other issues and he later invited me to do lunch with him (it didn't materialize). I have been relatively tight with Towns since 1992, and I have had opportunities to work with him politically long before this. In fact I have been in communication with him for months now on totally unrelated matters; the question of working on his campaign never came up. I was totally surprised when he offered me the chance to come aboard his campaign while he reorganized it. I have never recieved monies from him for political work before this campaign. I made a decision to work on the campaign long after I initially started this and many other related pieces (some of which I won't put up now for reaosons inherent in this thread). And he asked me to come aboard the campaign and not the other way around. I don't hustle political work, it comes to me through recommendations or connections that go back years. In this campaign I will be working with mutual friends of us both that are running it. I will play a minimal role at best. If you look into my archives here (by clicking on my photo, or by clicking on my name under "Bloggers") you will see that I have written extensively on races where he has been challenged before; like two years ago when Charles Barron challenged him. I find it insulting for people like you (and others) to even question my motives for writing any fucking column here; especially when you haven't an iota of evidence or proof as to what you are saying. And for you to even suggest it was a hit piece when you offer no evidence of lies, untruths, unfair innuendo or embellishment, makes it even more unnerving. The things I wrote were all written before by many others (including Kevin Powell himself), all I added were my insights as to what his challenges were in winning this race. THAT'S ALL.
Mr. Hackshaw, I am the 2:39pm commenter. Thank you for your response and additional information. Had you not worked for Towns, I wouldn’t have thought it a hit piece but your strongly held opinion. You have strong opinions and you’re entitled and encouraged to share them. From my point of view, what made it a hit piece was that you were in apparent discussions with Towns and then in fact started work for him. Even if unpaid, your actual collaboration with Towns changes the equation. I appreciate your long history with various political campaigns and the possible difficulty in remembering and/or including the affiliations in each piece. Part of what makes your insights so valuable and persuasive are those very affiliations. Even if the piece was gestating or in various drafts before posting, or was simply a compilation of other publicly available facts, it was the temporal proximity of the piece and your affiliation with Towns is what I found to be very troubling. A much smarter person than me wrote that (paraphrasing) disclosure is best disinfectant. You obviously disagree, and like you, I get to voice my opinion (admittedly on your blog, which you allowed others to comment upon). I apparently can’t convince you of the merits of disclosure, which is done by others in political (i.e. talk show talking heads have their affiliations noted orally or on screen) and non-political (i.e. notation of a paid spokesperson in a commercial or that drug research was sponsored by XYZ company). I (apparently) wrongfully thought disclosure would be done as a matter of course, which is why I found the lack of it to be so atrocious. I’m just an average ordinary reader, who like you makes my living elsewhere (and I don’t participate in politics but do live in the 10th CD), so perhaps I come at it from a different angle. I’ve now adjusted my expectations. I don’t quite understand why you found the comment insulting, and I was surprised by the personal attack, but I take your last post as an opportunity to exhale and respond in your usual way. I’ve not suggested any lies or untruths, or of the sort, but I again emphasize the temporal proximity and the lack of disclosure, which was my main point in the original comment. Again, you obviously disagree, but given your lumping me with your detractors (which I am not a part of), I wanted to at least clarify my point so you know where I was coming from in my comment. Thank you for listening. I did not collaborate with the congressman on this or any other column I have written. He has never requested that I write such and such, or pressured me to write such and such. I am an independent writer. Look at my piece on immigration today and tell me (based on my recent revelation) that I am still not an independent writer despite this. He took a slight hit in that column based on my quote from another legislator. I could have left it out. I have had clients before and I will have clients after this year's primary and I will still write what and when I want on the blogs, newspapers or wherever. I can seperate my campaign affiliations from my stories. I await your reply.
I’m talking apples and you’re talking oranges. The issue of disclosure is about an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The conflict (actual or apparent, or even perceived) exists regardless of whether you are paid, asked to write a column, pressured to raise a particular point, or if something is offhandedly stated. It exists even if nothing is said, as a reasonable reader may understand that you have withheld a punch, or included a punch, because of or in spite of your affiliation. The whole purpose of disclosure is to alert the reader and let the reader make his/her own decision. I appreciate that you can separate the campaign affiliations from your stories, but the reader may not know of your affiliations and the lack of disclosure precludes that reader from knowing (of course, this assumes that there are newer readers coming in who are not familiar with your extensive background). There was no suggestion (in my comments at least) that you’re not an independent writer, or that you are unable to write what you want. Like your stated belief that I had questioned your motives for writing “any f------ column” or failed to offer “evidence of lies, untruths, unfair innuendo or embellishment” is besides the point and not anything I suggested or raised. This is the oranges part of your responses, which you keep raising as a response to perhaps other commenters but not to my central point. You can respond as you see fit to the comments, but an opinionated writer is perfectly fine as long as there is disclosure about the person’s affiliation. I would hold you to no different standard than James Carville, for example, criticizing Senator Obama during the primaries. He is free to do so, as most all would know of his past Clinton connections, but the moment he is in negotiations or is part of the Clinton campaign, that needs to be disclosed. I’m not here to stand watch over you and see if you act fair in each of your articles or to second guess who you quote or not quote, favorably or unfavorably. I found the article, read it and took your points seriously. But the strength of the argument differs if the reader knows of your affiliation. Not to conflate a life and death situation with political commentary, but if you were diagnosed with an illness and prescribed a medication from Merck, wouldn’t you want to know if your physician was a paid spokesperson for Merck and perhaps might have had a financial interest in prescribing a Merck medication versus a Pfizer medication? If you’re before a Judge, wouldn’t you want the Judge to disclose that s/he is personal friends with your adversary? The doctor may have perfectly good reasons to prescribe the Merck medication, and the Judge (Brooklyn judges excepted-lol) may have good reasons to rule for your adversary with controlling caselaw, but sunlight is the best disinfectant. You don’t fall under the same medical and legal standards as they, but you do repeatedly hold others to ethical standards in your commentaries and you demand accountability from others. You are right to do so, which is why you made for a good read. But to not hold yourself to a standard, and to hope to get away with the lack of disclosure, is to me not the right tack. This isn’t a personal attack, but just a belief that certain standards are good and all should abide by them. Even worse is to personally attack those who raise the issue (though I understand there is a long history here with anonymous commenters, but I stress again I am not of them) and to use inappropriate language. Again, you are free to do so, but is that the standard you want to create and expect others to abide by? At bottom, I believe I’ve raised and made my points. Obviously, in hindsight, my original post was not as clear or pointed as my subsequent posts, which I regret. Perhaps now that there has been some time and further explanation you’ll also reconsider your prior posts and position. Disclosure need not be a long detailed piece for each article. A short reference, and perhaps greater disclosure on your bio page (with a link in each article) could suffice. Regardless of the form, as a person of good will I’m sure you’d be amenable to a reasonable solution once we get past the apples-oranges issue.
Firstly; I believe that I have met your disclosure requirements. Once my relationship with the congressman changed I disclosed it after the check cleared/lol. This happened after the article was posted. Secondly (and this is a serious point); I really don't believe that a blogger is mandated to disclose all his political relationships. This could be devastating to his ability to get the kind(s) of information that I have been divulging on the blogs for more than three years now. The main reason I have enjoyed this popularity and success is because of my sources. Then beyond those, my first hand knowledge of the players, issues and history, add to the content of my columns and the quality of my delivery. My insights and analysis come from a lifetime of political involvement, many years of study, my long stint in academia and my basic political instincts. If I were to give up everything and everyone I know in politics, including people I deal with, talk too, get info from, etc., I will be severely compromised. I think what you and others will have to ascertain is whether or not my professional relationships (temporary campaign year clients) have hurt the quality, quantity and integrity of my products. Given that I have had at least one (usually more) client every political season, and continued to blog and maintian the high standards I have always set, then I expect that the responses to my columns will stay the same: sometimes great, generally good, and occassionally some detractors. I think my readers should be happy to know that I do (mostly) divulge the names of some of the candidates that I have relationships with, wheerein I may be compensated at some later point. It is my option -and mine only; unless the candidates request otherwise- to disclose such info. Do you know who others writing on the blogs work for and with? Do you know what they get in return; where, when and why? Do all the bloggers of the world divulge such private info? I do think that you and others have tried to take this too far. And with that I must sign off. Keep on trucking though. Thanks for the high quality of this discourse (at least from your side/lol). I do suggest that you write a blog yourself (right here) since my suspicion is that you have a lot to offer. ADIOS.
At this point it seems like it is just us chickens on this post. I’m still on apples and your still on another fruit, albeit a different one from oranges. Now your defense is that you’re a blogger and operate under a different set of rules. You may be correct, but is that the blogger you want to be? It is your call, not mine, and as I’ve noted, I’ve now adjusted my expectations. You also conflate another issue (creating another fruit image of your own choosing) regarding your inability to disclose your sources without compromising your (implicit journalistic) integrity. This is a straw person argument. No one asked you to disclose any or all of your sources or any or all of your entire history. Keep that confidential all you want. But, if you want to “continue[] to blog and maintain the high standards I have always set,” disclosure of your paid employment during that and past political seasons is the way to go. Trust me, when you become as famous of a political pundit as James Carville it will be easier not to disclose your past Clinton connections. But, in the interim, your work connections may not be well known and work (paid or unpaid), as opposed to your sources and who you may speak with, should be disclosed. I simply can’t put it any plainer than that. I note that you still haven’t provided the dates of the check payment and when you began discussions with Towns. To the extent my attention span remains on this issue, I guess I’ll wait for the FEC reports for the payment date and amount (I’ll likely forget). I appreciate your suggestion that I blog. It would be a great deal of fun, but how does one find the time and work as well? The work-life-fun balance is tough enough to juggle without adding more, let alone satisfying my curiosity by reading political blogs. Prior to these postings, I’ve rarely posted to a blog, I’ve rarely read comments to any blog posting, and these posts may have doubled the number of total postings I’ve done to a blog. I recall coming to your post after reading about Ben and the Bronx DA (I believe it was highlighted on the right hand side and hence my funny name on the comment). I had read prior postings of yours and this one particularly intrigued me as I thought it was an honest dialogue on the political race. Hence my posts specific to the race and my concerns about Towns. As a real world practical matter, and for what it is worth, had I known you were or were about to be a paid consultant, I likely would have never read the post and I certainly would not have commented. Finally, as a paid consultant to Towns, perhaps he’ll listen to you if you urge him to stop with the tobacco votes and to stop accepting tobacco PAC money (for the record, I am also 12:37 p.m. and 4:25 p.m.). His votes and attitude on tobacco is simply offensive and no attempt by him to rationalize can take that away. Perhaps some good will come out of this further back and forth and he’ll listen to you. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 I revealed all the candidates I worked with professionally and pro bono. Click on my photo and it goes dircectly into my archives. Just as I did here, I did there and then -except within my "Vines" columns usually. I have never hidden my paid stuff unless (as in one or two instances) the candidates asked me to. I don't know what's your motivation in all this, but this was not a "hit piece". I started about four pieces on Towns and this race long before I even put up the one on immigration. I am shocked to hear you keep repeating that it is, which suggests that you are a Kevin Powell person on a mission to try to discredit me; just as they have tried to do on the Daily Gotham blog to no avail. The tens of thousands who read and enjoy my columns know that sometimes I work as a paid political technician, or as a paid political consultant/advisor from campaign to campaign. I have stated this many many many times on these blogs. GO CHECK FOR YOURSELF. This is neither about apples, oranges or any other fruit; I did not do a hit job on Powell, and the more you and others taunt me, the quicker you will find that I am quite capable of doing one. And if I ever do it will be worse than what happened in the Sunday Daily News, or in Newsday, or any of the media sources that have listed his flaws and past indiscretions. I have all the negative opposition research on KP. I just don't want to go there. Please don't piss me off because you really wouldn't want to see my pen smoke. Go look at my Hillary Clinton columns from January on and you will understand better.
Mr. Hackshaw,
I am not trying to discredit you or attack you personally. I hope my prior posts made that clear. I ‘m also not a KP fan or partisan, as my immediate prior post made clear that I’d support anyone but Towns. I’ve read your prior posts and I understand why you’re quick to attack someone back, but I’m not that person. You’ve made your points about disclosure, which I disagree with, and, and we’ve come to a standoff. No further posts would be helpful, and as you’ve stated that you’ve disclosed previously (and presumably would disclose in the future), so be it. I’ll close on what I stated just before: as a real world practical matter, had I known you were or were about to be a paid consultant, I likely would have never read the post and I certainly would not have commented. I don’t watch Sunday or other talking head talk shows because I consider the speakers partisans and on a hit job to get across their talking points: they’re sent by the campaign to make a point. It may have been your own thoughts and ideas, but in hindsight I view your piece in the same view. I understand you feel differently, and as a reasonable people (you write much better when you’re not angry), we can agree to disagree. I’ve continued the conversation because you made for a good read in the past and were a straight shooter and held the various electeds accountable. I’m not trying to butter you up, I’ve not taunted you, and I’m not going anywhere else on this, and had I known of an email address for you, I likely would have communicated this to you privately (and anonymously) instead of on a blog (feel free to delete all these posts if you want). In the end, I’m just a civilian (do the others write in full sentences and paragraphs and make cogent arguments instead of personal attacks?) and a registered D-voter. I know this may be hard to believe given the past history of commenters, but it is true.
I wish you the best of luck and I’ve got to get back to work.
I guess we could leave it here. TY. One thing though: because someone is a paid consultant to a candidate, elected official, firm or television station, that doesn't mean they don't offer or share valid and profound insights.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Political Update
Gov WireGoogle AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
I had no idea that Roger Greene ran in the last election. Did he get as many votes as Roger Green?
Kevin Powell, on the other hand, has proved himself to be a serious candidate. He's someone who has spent years fighting for African-American men to be responsible fathers, as well as acted for many years against violence against women. He speaks frankly, candidly and honestly on the subject- you have to give him credit for that. He is his own strongest critic on his record.
Of course, some people will not support Kevin Powell because he never supported Hillary Clinton. Some people will not support him because, unlike Ed Towns, he has not taken money from far-right Republicans.
But my experience with him shows that he is a serious, committed activist. After years of experience in the community,I can't respond to the claim that Ed Towns is ambiable. He's never in town.