NEW YORK TIMES: Two months later, Mr. Salinger is back at the typewriter thanking his friend for an update he devoured “greedily.” This time, though, he reports that he has become less enamored with New York’s charms. “Meaning,” he writes, “that there aren’t any places I like or love there any more. With the exception of the Museum of Natural History.”
While that was also a spot that Holden found comforting, Mr. Salinger also fantasizes about visiting Williamsburg, Brooklyn, in “the faint hope that some kindly old Hasid from the eighteenth century” would invite him home for matzoh ball soup or a cup of tea.
Faint indeed.
Sadly, if Mr. Salinger ever attempted to put his fantasy into practice, he would likely have been SOL, and I do not mean the King of Israel after David. Perhaps if it were Friday, and it were Crown Heights, instead of Williamsburg, JD could have pretended his mother was Jewish and copped a Shabbos dinner, but otherwise his best bet was likely to have been Borough Park’s Masbia Soup Kitchen, where these days his soup would likely be served to him by a City Council candidate promising to bring home more pork to the neighborhood.
Of all the candidates whose name were raised as possible successors to Simcha Felder in the 44th Councilmanic, only one caused me even momentary enthusiasm, former State Senator Seymour Lachman, and even that was only in context.
Back in 2008, the last time Lachman’s name was being bandied about for a Council seat (then the one he actually claims to live in, as opposed to the 44th , where he does not even claim to reside–of course, neither did either of the frontrunners before the campaign started), Lachman was being talked up as the Working Families Party’s magic bullet against Dominic Recchia in the aftermath of the evisceration of Term Limits. Lachman was the candidate of “change;” “change” apparently having become a synonym for nostalgia.
An extremely pompous former President of the NYC Board of Education, and the author of many books, one of which someone has actually read, Lachman’s claim on being the exemplar of democratic outrage against the oligarchy had a long history, starting with his being foist upon the public as the handpicked choice of Howie Golden and Clarence Norman in a special election for State Senate which occurred only because they’d previously engineered the incumbent’s selection as a Supreme Court Justice.
The Democratic County Committee meeting in which the seat was essentially handed to Lachman (with the support of Dov Hikind and his handed picked candidate in the present race, Joe Lazar) had its climax when the third-place candidate, Adele Cohen, in exchange for nods and winks implying a promise of future support (which, in a first for Norman, was actually delivered), switched just enough votes to Lachman to make the nomination litigation-proof, causing Lorraine Coyle-Koppell, the election attorney for the runner-up, Marty Levine, to do a very convincing imitation of Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.”
An election was actually held, but its pretense of being anything but a formality was mooted by an inspection of Levine’s petitions, leaving Lachman essentially unopposed. Lachman then went to Albany for a few years and wrote a book outlining how shocked he was that the legislature was run just like the meeting where he was handed his seat.
At the time, I called Lachman “a moderate social reactionary,” citing his endearing habit of telling pro-choicers, “I’m with you almost all the way on that one,” while rarely having seen an abortion restriction he couldn’t support.
But in the race for the 44th Councilmanic, being a moderate social reactionary would practically qualify Lachman for endorsement by the Lambda Independent Democrats.
Above all things, Seymour Lachman was an old-fashioned New Deal/Great Society Democrat with an unfailing sense of party loyalty, something sadly lacking amongst the candidates remaining in the race (except for the one who admits to being a Republican).
Moreover, even on social issues, Lachman really tried to reach out as far as he thought his Orthodox Jewish beliefs permitted him, and maybe a bit more. When he told pro-choicers “I’m with you almost all the way on that one,” he wasn’t dissembling; he really meant it.
It is hard to picture Dov Hikind or even Simcha Felder making such an effort.
Unfortunately, Lachman, dropped out almost as quickly as he dropped in. Reached by reporters at his year-round “summer home” in Long Island, Lachman cited “personal and familiar reasons,” probably meaning his wife was not interested in moving their Brooklyn pied-a-terre from Bensonhurst to Borough Park. “It does not mean that in the future I will not consider running for public office; I will consider things that come up, as they come up, in the next year or two.” Perhaps the Nassau Democrats are looking for a strong candidate for the Long Beach seat in the County Legislature.
On social issues, the best one can probably hope for from this field is lack of interest, in the manner of Simcha Felder, who’d just as soon change the topic and hope it never comes up again. David Greenfield and Joe Lazar might vote “no” on issues of interest to the LGBT community, and make a little speech, but they are probably not going to expend any political capital or use such topics to inflame the passions of their constituents.
Concerning Jonathan Judge, President of the Brooklyn Young Republicans (and the only candidate who actually lived in the District before the seat became vacant), I’m not sure I can promise even that. His campaign seems mostly a matter of trying to stir up resentment against Orthodox Jews: “Not all the communities have been represented as much as some,” says Judge, “and we’re working to make sure everyone is represented in the same way,”
Who between the two civilized candidates would be more tolerant? Well, Greenfield is surely more modern and worldly, while Lazar is more black-hat, but on the other hand, Lazar seems to have a slightly larger number of liberal friends (mostly courtesy of a quid pro quo for his and Dov’s endorsement in a City Council race; excepting Jim Brennan, who has high regard for Lazar’s work in the field of Mental Health)–probably a draw.
I will say that, as someone who spent his life working for a Democratic majority in the State Senate, and would now like to see that majority become “Amigo Proof” in time for the Congressional reapportionment, this field does not offer much hope.
The one Republican office holder with an all Brooklyn seat is State Senator Marty Golden, whose seat overlaps parts of the 44th. An “Amigo Proof” majority would be far more likely if Golden could be beaten. However, none of the candidates in this race are likely to be of any assistance in that endeavor.
Take Joe Lazar. Along with his mentor, Dov Hikind, Lazar worked in 2002 for Golden’s election against incumbent Vinnie Gentile (I had an Election Day encounter with him on a street corner). Further, Lazar’s contributed to Golden’s campaign committee as recently as 2008, and he‘s been endorsed by Assemblyman Peter Abbate, who openly brags about his successful efforts to make sure Golden’s had no Democratic opposition, and Councilman Matthieu Eugene, a Golden contributor. Moreover, Lazar’s joined Dov Hikind at the hip practically every time Dov’s jumped ship on the Democrats, which is quite frequently.
While David Greenfield has been endorsed by three Democrats who worked for Gentile in that race (Lew Fidler, Dominick Recchia and Gentile himself). He has also been endorsed by two who jumped ship for Golden (Mike Nelson and Carl Kruger), as well as by Golden himself.
Would a loyal Senate Democrat’s endorsement help clear the picture? After Lazar announced he’d been endorsed by Kevin Parker, Parker sent out a press release denying it, while, in the span of a few short weeks, Diane Savino has in rapid succession endorsed Greenfield, then Lachman, and then Lazar (it‘s a good thing the campaign is not longer).
No help there.
Given Hikind’s mercurial nature (he endorsed longtime enemy Noach Dear for Judge and tried to get him to run in this race; he was a strong supporter of Vinnie Gentile until he suddenly decided to endorse Golden against him for Senate and then immediately followed up by supporting Gentile for Golden’s old Council seat; he mentored both Felder and Greenfield, who are now his mortal enemies), and Lazar’s tendency to follow Dov Quixote like a Sancho Panza (a Sandor Pupa?) perhaps there is some chance Lazar will end up working against Golden, but I wouldn’t bet the tzedakah box on it.
Truth be told, the only result which would discomfort Marty Golden in this race would be a victory by Jonathan Judge (who is affiliated with an anti-Golden Republican faction), and he thinks Golden is too liberal.
Nor are endorsement by other reactionaries a reliable guide.
Greenfield’s been endorsed by the Executive Committee of the Kings County Conservative Party, a group traditionally more interested in a place at the trough than ideology, but still somewhat distressing.
However, Lazar may have beaten it by appearing at a meeting of “Igud Harabonim,” where sources say he promised to take a “firm stand against any issues that are against family values.”
“Igud Harabonim,” has been called a “hate group“ by “HateWatch” a branch of the prestigious South Poverty Law Center, one of America's leading tracker of hate mongers, including anti-Semites. HateWatch called Igud "an extremist organization opposed to basic human rights."
How bad is Igud? According to HateWatch, it has espoused anti-gay bigotry in the teaching of Holocaust history. In 2000, even a hardcore right winger like Dr. Laura Schlessinger found the group’s praise so embarrassing, she removed the group's letter of support from her website. Igud’s Executive director, Hikind pal Gershon Tannenbaum, has called homosexuals “deviants” and “anthropological misfits.” Igud has also organized against Jerusalem’s Gay Pride Parade, using the sort incitements that led to the stabbing of three young men.
In 1997, Igud offered testimony before Congress that it would boycott the U.S. Holocaust Museum if it referred to gay victims of the Holocaust. In testifying, an Igud spokesman said such material would be “a perversion,” adding, “Do we have a prostitutes’ exhibit?” This nicely Dovtails with Hikind’’s opposition to acknowledging homosexual victims of Nazi persecution at Brooklyn’s Holocaust Memorial.
Did I mention Igud’s crusade against “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”?
Going to Igud and talking about “family values” is like chumming shark infested waters with fresh blood.
And, most famously, Igud’s President, Rabbi Abraham Hecht, successfully called for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
I’m pretty sure Igud trumps the Brooklyn Conservatives (though maybe not the State Party), but in fairness, I’ll call that one a draw.
Looking at the candidates’ websites for clues on non-social issues, I found that Greenfield favored a lot of new spending, a tax cut and fiscal responsibility, while the only issues Lazar mentioned were better Holocaust education and less parking enforcement on Saturdays (Greenfield seems to favor less enforcement on the other six days as well).
So perhaps it is best to focus not on the political beliefs of these gentlemen, but on what sort of legislators they would be.
Joe Lazar is a very nice man, who’s been active in the community for nearly as long as David Greenfield’s been alive, but while one could call him an “Activist,” what he really stands for is stasis.
A speaker at the Belzer Hasidic community’s endorsement of Lazar summed it up beautifully:
“We don’t need change. Over the last year we’ve seen a lot of change and all our Mosdos are left with is change. We need continuity of service and Joe Lazar, the choice of the majority of the Mosdos Hatorah, and the choice of the Belzer Mosdos, will give us that continuity.”
Joe Lazar is the candidate of the Borough Park status quo, which can be summed up in two words: Dov Hikind.
As I stated in part one, Lazar is a Dov Hikind sycophant. How close are they? One elected official told me:
“How could Dov Hikind's candidate be reform? The guy is a lobbyist [Lazar Consulting Group]. Hikind directs people to him. They pay him a fee. He advertises on Hikind’s radio show. Hikind gets them funding.”
But I find another, more verifiable example far more illuminating.
In the original drafts of this piece, I included an anecdote which, including the necessary introductory material, ran nearly four pages. It illustrated the willingness of Joe Lazar to serve Dov Hikind’s interests by helping Hikind to obscure the truth about the stance of a politician on an issue both Hikind and Lazar held near and dear (not Noach). Israel.
While I am not so sure many of my readers share their passion, it is without a doubt that many, if not most voters in the 44th Councilmanic do.
More importantly, as I stated in my original drafts, if Joe Lazar is willing to prostitute even his deeply held right wing Zionism at the behest of Dov Hikind, is there any shred of independence in the man whatsoever?
My belief is that one could be Noam Chomsky and still find that behavior problematic.
Unfortunately, telling the story properly threw this piece way off balance. My initial response to this criticism from a few friends I previewed this article with was to quote the words sung by another yiddishe boy chick, “Sue me if I play too long,” but in the end, it was clear that I was going to have to publish it under separate cover.
One may well argue that David Greenfield would be just as subservient to Vito Lopez as Lazar is to Hikind. I have argued that that is surely a lesser evil, but even if it is, I’m not sure the accusation is true.
The truth is that Greenfield appears to be one ballsy sun of a bitch.
The issue on which Greenfield displayed his testosterone is one in which I fervently disagree with him: Tuition Tax Credit–I oppose them, Greenfield supports them, as do Hikind and Lazar.
It is the manner in which Greenfield worked for tuition tax credits which I find positively refreshing.
As reported in City Hall News, in 2006, Greenfield formed a coalition across the religious spectrum called Teach NYS and began a lobbying and mail campaign in support of a plan to give private school parents a $500 yearly tuition tax credit. The plan was opposed by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the New York State United Teachers.
Greenfield shocked and rocked Albany by breaking the rules and sending mailers into Silver’s Assembly District, asking private school parents, including Silver’s fellow Orthodox Jews, to contact Silver about the issue.
My G-d, you would have thought we were in America instead of New York!
Greenfield’s tactics, which could have come out of a grade school civics lesson, infuriated Silver, though they eventually resulted in the symbolic victory of a $330 a year tax credit to all school parents (which I also oppose). Teach NYS later went on to help win $30 million in extra funding for special-needs schools in New York City (which I favor).
Silver has gone on to make destroying David Greenfield a personal crusade, at one point intervening to prevent him from getting a top staff job with Council Speaker Christine Quinn (the fact that Greenfield came so far in the selection process for a job working for a lesbian is at least evidence of Greenfield’s personal level of tolerance for diversity).
And now Silver has pulled out all the stops to stop Greenfield’s election.
Email circulated in political circles, and then misreported on Room 8, has stated that Vito Lopez tried to prevent an endorsement of Lazar by Borough Park’s favorite shabbes goy, John Heyer, by sending emissaries to Heyer's house.
I have it on the word of one of Heyer’s closest allies, Mark Shames, that this is a lie.
However, apparently someone did call Heyer and asked him to reconsider.
Gee, how thuggish can you get? (that was snark).
If one wants to see thuggish, I suggest one explore the role here of Shelly Silver.
A Borough Park based real estate lawyer named Nachum Caller also wanted to run for the seat and was perceived as a threat to Lazar among the ultra-Orthodox vote. Silver met with Caller, and gave him a “frank assessment” of his chances. Shortly thereafter Caller withdrew. Silver denies urging Caller to withdraw.
Caller’s son was quoted as saying his father’s candidacy was “terminated.” “Terminated with extreme prejudice” might be a more accurate description.
Sources tell me that Silver’s summoning Caller to a meeting was not a case of an intervention by a friend. Caller’s law practice is J-51 and 421-a development work, and Silver was apparently not subtle in making it clear that he would regard Caller’s candidacy as the act of an enemy. Whatever the words used, Caller got the message.
And others are getting the message as well.
It is no coincidence that every Assemblymember who’s endorsed in this race has endorsed Joe Lazar; even Felix Ortiz, whose Assembly District does not overlap this Councilmanic one block, has been dragged out to appeal to the district’s six Latinos.
Even those Assemblymembers rightfully scared by Greenfield’s tremendous following in the Sephardic community are nonetheless even more scared of Shelly Silver. Despite the real risks at home, Steve Cymbrowitz, whose late wife was Egyptian, has endorsed Lazar, while Bill Colton has somehow managed to remain neutral.
Meanwhile, according to Vos Is Neias, Hikind “appears to be pulling out all the stops in getting the word out that whoever backs Greenfield will have no access to him or State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.”
In a community where elections are almost all dominated by arguments about who can bring home the most money, that is surely a frightening promise.
All for urging some voters to contact their Assemblyman.
(By contrast, the same article’s report of a purported offer by Vito Lopez of peace to a Hasidic faction he’s been fighting with, if they support Greenfield, at least documents the use of the carrot rather than a dynamite stick.
What can I say?
I cannot find it in me to endorse either of these men. Both seem likely to be as tolerant as one can hope for under the circumstances, but they are both a repudiation of nearly everything I stand for.
It is clear that Joe Lazar will be a competent and controlled plodder perhaps making a useful contribution on mental health issues, and that David Greenfield will be an aggressive and possibly even independent go-getter, who is likely to be a really substantive player in the legislative process.
Given the politics they both adhere to, I’m not sure that gives Greenfield the advantage.
However, if I lived in the district, I’d likely feel differently.
Seymour, where are you when we need you? [Probably in Long Beach].