Rock Hackshaw's blog
A NOTE TO NEW YORK DEMOCRATS: WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND VOTE NEXT MONTH LIKE BOTH SENATES DEPENDED ON IT.
I am sure you have heard all the recent predictions from so-called political experts: of gloom and doom for democrats in next month's nationwide elections. They have been saying that polling results are showing a large enthusiasm gap between democrats and republicans in near every state, which would translate into gains for republicans in both federal and state legislatures. They say more republicans will turn out to vote than democrats, and that this has been fueled by the Tea Party movement. I caution people to consider this: polls are just snapshots in time, and as such they are subject to overnight change. I also caution people that the same movement (Tea Party) ostensibly driving republican turnout, could likewise motivate Dem turnout. Perceptions that President Obama is being disrespected by certain elements within the Republican party, will surely spur turnout in this midterm election, and as such I expect that there will be a slightly higher nationwide voter-turnout than what historically occurs in mid-term elections. I predict that election-night results will show democrats in surprisingly good shape compared to the predictions: there will be some hemorrhaging as expected, but it wouldn't be a bloodbath as the pundits predict. I expect Democrats to retain both houses of Congress.
As a political-commentator, it is never advisable to make predictions that can be seen as “out on a limb”, but many of us do it anyway. The fact is that even a supposedly safe prediction can backfire and undermine one's credibility in just a single special-election, far more a whole national election-cycle. It's probably always better to couch your predictions a bit: a lesson I learned again recently.
You see, a few months ago I appeared on a BCAT cable-television program in Brooklyn, with Tom Robbins (staff writer/ The New York Village Voice) and Tom Tracey (The Brooklyn Paper). We were discussing the then upcoming primary elections. I am sure one can “Google” and find the show on the Internet. In that discussion I told the viewing audience that Carl Paladino was going nowhere fast. I essentially felt back then -and still do now- that he is totally unfit to be the governor of New York State. I thought Rick Lazio was going to clean his clock in the Republican primary: boy, was I wrong!
I am told that one has to officially get in a pardon request before October 1st, 2010; so let me write this column as a formal request to our present governor David Paterson. I want to go on record as another who joined the chorus: PARDON JOHN O'HARA; PLEASE.
By now most readers to these blogs know the story of John O'Hara, but let me do a synopsis for the edification of those who don't know too much about him. John is an attorney and a political activist. There was a time when he was a perennial challenger to the Brooklyn political establishment and status quo: back then he ran hard and often. Some detractors thought he ran too much. Sometimes he ran others as challengers; near all the time he would be challenging some lackluster incumbent representing the powers that be. As a democrat (and insurgent) he stepped on many toes; sometimes he “mashed corns” without apologizing. He even supported challengers for offices as high as Brooklyn District Attorney -despite warnings from some concerned folks, that vendettas and reprisals are likely. What happened to him smells of a reprisal, or a vendetta, or just plain old-fashioned human revenge for something or the other.
Brooklyn's minority voters have a history of puzzling votes: no doubt. You can go back to the days of Shirley Chisholm, Vander Beatty and Waldaba Stewart, to find some strange results recorded: yes indeed.. There were times when you could only scratch your head and wonder what the motivations were, when voters elected certain folks (some repeatedly). And as time went by one hoped that minority voters in Brooklyn would evolve into rational-actor voter-models: demonstrating a higher level of critical-scrutiny for wannabee electeds. One hoped that the vetting process would be rigorous and extensive, and that the standards would be set real high for office-applicants. One hoped that qualified, educated, competent, capable, intelligent candidates would emerge to lead some of these districts sorely in need of dynamic leadership. Leaders who could articulate their way out of a phone booth; who could think creatively while they chew gum and walk straight. People of integrity. People with impeccable character traits and with very little or no “personal baggage”. People that can be examples for our hungry minority youth: too many of whom are grappling with the “missing-father syndrome”. People who could go to high places and make the case for better government-action more beneficial to the needy. People who could build coalitions and minimize isolation and alienation. People who could aspire, inspire and perspire, not disappoint and corruptly conspire. Alas, it seems as though one can only dream for the day when minority voters in Brooklyn would make better choices and be consistent in their reasoning: but we dream on; nonetheless.
POST-PRIMARY MUSINGS: The fingerprints of Vito Lopez; Evans v. Barron; plus some other interesting tidbits.
Whenever I endorse a candidate on either the Room Eight New York Politics, or on the Daily Gotham blog-sites, what I am saying is simply that if I had a vote in that race, this is how my vote will go. At no point am I predicting that the person I am endorsing is going to win the race -unless I so specify. In actuality, there are many times I feel strongly that my endorsed candidate will lose the race. I even said so in one of my recent endorsement columns (see comments-section also) regarding one candidate (Nelson Denis).
Thus, it was a bit frustrating (after I did my last two endorsement columns) for me to field a bunch of
Let me preface this column by saying that I have always been committed to getting term- limits legislation enacted for ALL legislators (federal, state and city/local). I go back many years fighting on this issue. I have written and spoken extensively on this issue: in media, in academia, in public and in private; on radio, on television, in newspapers, magazines, newsletters and on blogs.
Since Mayor Bloomberg’s hijacking of the expressed will of New York City’s voters in 2008, I have now arrived at the position that a 12-year limit should be uniform. Why should he get twelve years, when other mayors cannot?
If you had asked me about four months ago, what were Michele Adolphe’s chances of defeating 32-year incumbent Rhoda Jacobs in the upcoming primary, I would have told you she had two chances: very slim and none. In fact, I had spoken to Mr. Very Slim quite early in this contest, and he told me that he was going on vacation: so go figure.
Of course this was based on a very objective analysis of previous races between these two candidates. Ms. Adolphe has faced the voters twice, and was soundly defeated by Ms. Jacobs both times. In one race there was a third candidate on the ballot (Zacary Lareche), and Michele ran dead last. Then there was at least one other time when she was knocked of the ballot, after her signatures (petitions) were challenged in court. So Michele’s record is spotty at best.
I am doing these columns now, in order to set the record straight and clear up some misconceptions out there. I want to believe that most of those who are seriously involved in NYC politics, know that I am an insurgent to the core. I hardly ever endorse electeds. There have been one or two exceptions over the years, but for the most part I feel strongly that most incumbents (especially the black ones) are incompetent, inept, unimaginative, trifling and corrupt. Thus I have written extensively about the need to replace most of them. Nothing has been done over the last decade to make me change this point of view.
On January 15th earlier this year, I wrote a column inspired by a press conference which was held a day earlier, at Brooklyn’s Borough Hall. You see, an avalanche of elected officials had converged on us here in Brooklyn, in response to the natural cataclysm in Haiti: the devastating earthquake of 12th January, 2010.
Congresswoman Yvette Clarke had convened the event, and anyone who was anyone in politics was there. They all made grand speeches pledging to help the suffering Haitians. From Senator Kirsten Gellibrand; to congressmen Meeks, Towns and a few others of that ilk; to state senators; state assembly members; city council members; and various district leaders; they were all in unison with their pledges of aid and support.
The constitution of this country reserves a special place for newspapers in this unfinished democracy: a special place which comes with specific responsibilities to the polity. Newspapers are expected to inform and edify the masses beyond the mundane day to day events of life in this city, state and nation. Its columnists, free-lance journalists and editorial boards are also expected to take positions on issues, in order to stimulate debate and discussion amongst elites, professionals and ordinary folks alike. Thus the roles and functions of any newspaper are quite important to the theory of democracy. And despite the fact that television, radio, the internet and other contemporary mediums within modern communications technology, have altogether surpassed newspapers as the main mode of information-gathering for most people, the responsibilities mandated by the constitution remain the same.
On any given day, one can create a checklist of issues facing us in this state: issues which need addressing by our Albany legislators in a timely manner; issues which affect millions of New Yorkers in profound ways. And yet, Albany’s collective response over time has left a lot to be desired. It is no secret that between the Senate (now 62 members) and the Assembly (150 members), Albany has been dysfunctional for years: very little gets done. It’s a joke that isn’t funny anymore: it’s an ongoing situation of which most serious political people have become frustratingly inured.
Over the years, there have been too few individuals who intermittently jumped up to seize the mantle for change in Albany. Over the years, there have been too few individuals willing to articulate a framework for reforming the way business is done up there: Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi was one. And there have been too few elected officials willing to fight to change the sterile leadership of Speaker Sheldon Silver (as a precursor to real reform): Assemblyman Michael J. Bragman was one. The point is this: Albany harbors too many political cowards and convenient opportunists.
LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE: SENATOR KEVIN PARKER VERSUS WELLINGTON SHARPE (AGAIN). Remember to vote on Tuesday Sept 14th
In New York City, political activists know that September is primary month; and soon enough Democrat State Senator Kevin Parker faces an old nemesis (Wellington Sharpe) in a primary for Brooklyn’s 21st senatorial district. It will be an intriguing contest: so fasten your seat belts all you political junkies.
The relationship between these two individuals has been “volatile” (to say the least). They have been in and out the courts for various reasons -with criminal, civil and political charges flying left and right. Sharpe has filed two legal actions against Parker: one civil and the other with criminal implications. Senator Parker has also filed twice in court: both times he attempted to knock Sharpe off the ballot. Parker has failed in both his legal political attempts to avoid a primary battle with Sharpe. Sharpe’s actions are a bit different in terms of results.
Of all the well known black leaders in this country, Al Sharpton has been one of the most enigmatic. Who else could have worn an FBI wire and still maintain a certain level of credibility in black nationalistic circles? Who else could be so flawed in character -over his years of activism- and still have candidates such as Hilary Clinton (and now Andrew Cuomo) kissing his ring? How the hell he has managed to stay out of prison is in itself a mystery: but then mysterious too have been all those fires that seem to have sprung up around him over the years; especially when the FEC, IRS, or some other governmental regulatory agency was on his back, or on the back of one of his organizations.
There will always be politicians you like, and there will always be politicians you dislike; and then there are some that fall in between like and dislike: that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Many, you may like, not because of their sterling accomplishments, but more because of their personalities: and this is the category in which I placed Charlie Rangel years ago. He has done a few good things in Congress but he is overrated like hell.
RAMBLING THOUGHTS ON A SCRAMBLED BRAIN: I AM BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN; BUT I AM STILL “SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED”.
It was more than 2 months before I sent my editors a new column for publication on Room Eight New York Politics (www.r8ny.com); and now, over the last week I have submitted two columns for publication: so I am back in the saddle again (so to speak).
I must admit that over that period I did consider walking away from writing here or anywhere. I stayed because I have always refused to end this blogging thing on anything but my terms: thus I will be sticking around a bit longer, since the last blog-flare up left me more convinced than ever, that there have been elements committed to chasing this audacious black Caribbean-American man off the NY blogging-scene: and that’s not going to happen. I presume it will be much to the chagrin of my “haters” for now.