GATE (6/15/11): Kalman Yeger says it would be outrageous to eliminate Weiner's district.
Really. Has he seen a map of it?
What's outrageous is that it exists at all. In actuality, it’s elimination could actually lead to less political fragmentation of Brooklyn and Queens’ Orthodox communities, rather than more.
KALMAN: Most respectful disagreement Gate. The outrage to which I referred was that eliminating the 9th would necessarily result in the Brooklyn portion of the district being attached to at least four other districts (Clarke, Towns, Nadler and Grimm), in which none would have a substantial voice of Brooklyn Jews. I still think that would be outrageous. And, yes, I'm sure you know that I have seen a map of the 9th.
GATE: Grimm's grabbing of whatever he wants of the Brooklyn Orthodox was (and is) happening regardless of what happens to Weiner.
What remains will be divided three ways, instead of four (which is the case now). I have to believe that at least one or two of the others will therefore have nearly, if not more, Brooklyn Jews than are currently represented by Weiner.
That all having been said, more and more, I'm thinking David Weprin should be the guy.
Kalman, an Orthodox Jewish political/governmental operative with strong ties to the (not necessarily Orthodox) Jewish social services establishment is reflecting an anxiety among Jewish leadership which is being exploited for their own reasons by the Republicans, ambitious potential candidates like Dov Hikind and Noach Dear, and whores like Gary Tilzer. As I’ve noted before, Republicans have already made strong showings in this areas and have also improved their standing nationally among Jewish voters, especially the Orthodox and Russians.
There are several reasons for this, and Israel is very prominent among them.
I think Orthodox and Russian voters last year were, in part, voting against Democrats–even demonstrably right wing Zionist types, like Anthony Weiner, to send a message about Israel.
And recent statements by the President have made things worse.
Every administration has given lip service to the idea that Israel should not further expand its West Bank Settlements, but none, not even the fairly Arabist George H.W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, who negotiated the return of nearly the entire West Bank, ever actually took any concrete steps to see that America’s position on was implemented on the ground before negotiations were completed.
Obama did.
I do not see Obama’s policy as a bad thing. Israel cannot continue as a state both Jewish and democratic if it continues to hold these territories. The settlements are not the cause of the conflict; other issue must be resolved first before there is peace. But once there is a resolution, the settlement are an impediment to implementation of any workable solution. Their further expansion makes resolution of a solution even more difficult, and at some point, it may make it impossible.
And that would be the death of Israel.
I find Obama perhaps overoptimistic about the prospects for a solution, I sometimes cringe at some of his rhetoric, and I don’t necessarily agree with each and every detail of what he’s done, but in the broad sense, it is hard to argue that he is wrong.
And most American Jews would appear to agree; according to the Forward’s JJ Goldberg:
“Obama, despite all the thunder and lightning around him, didn’t ring many bells. Israelis might not like the president’s hard-nosed stand on settlements, but American Jews don’t agree. Both of the post-election surveys actually gave him high marks for his performance in Israel and Middle East affairs. J Street found solid Jewish support for a two-state solution and for vigorous American leadership to bring the parties together — even if it means pressuring the two sides or openly criticizing Israel.”
The political problem is multi-dimensional.
The first dimension is that a significant minority of the Jewish community does not agree. And that minority is overrepresented in the 9th Congressional District, where it might not even be a minority.
The second is that those who do agree with Obama don’t care as much.
Some of this is just lack of enthusiasm for their own position. Like me, they don’t like all the Obama bells and whistles. Or they know Obama’s right, but prefer the Alan Dershowitz position of opposing the settlements, but not actually wanting to do anything about it. Or they oppose the settlements, but still want to bomb Iran.
More importantly, they don’t care enough to vote on that basis.
Jews who are support liberal Zionist positions are often unwilling to punish candidates who hold anti-Israel positions. Further, they are often unwilling to punish candidates who hold right-wing Zionist positions (see Weiner).
Many just care more about other issues.
The upshot is that Obama’s position on Israel may be the more popular one in the Jewish community, but it won’t get him any votes.
It only loses him votes, and it loses them for other Democrats as well.
A J Street poll says that Democrats won the votes of Jews who consider Israel the most important tissue by a margin of only 53% to 42%. Those who discuss Israel every week supported Democrats by a margin of 50% to 48%.
And this is not exclusively an Orthodox phenomenon.
Even with the Orthodox excluded, the J Street poll showed Jews who considered Israel the most important issue supported Democrats by lackadaisical margins; among Non-Orthodox Jews who discuss Israel every week, Democrats won by a margin of 54% to 44%.
Now move this phenomenon to an area with heavy Orthodox and Russian populations, and add in a special election with nothing on the ballot but judicial races (except for two Assembly specials–one a snoozer; the other, in the Rockaways and vicinity, with a strong Republican bringing out Irish Breezy Point and Broad Channel Republicans, while the Dems are stuck with a guy whose base is in a different Congressional District).
Orthodox Jews daven twice a day; they are easy to pull. And they are raring to send President Obama a message.
Everyone else may still be away on vacation.
The Democrats must nominate a candidate who can appeal to the Orthodox and Russian Jewish communities.
David Weprin was raised as a secular Jew, but he became Orthodox. Already deeply connected to the Queens Jewish communities, as the City Council’s Finance Chair, he served as the Citywide conduit for massive infusions of cash into the City’s network of Jewish social services, where he was considered a hero (a point brought home to me by Domestic Partner, a member of that world, who didn’t speak to for a week once after I published a joke about Weprin’s toupee).
When Weprin ran Citywide for Comptroller, he mostly got his clock cleaned outside of his Councilmanic District, but carried Dov Hikinds AD and some surrounding Orthodox areas, many of which are in this district.
The same Jewish establishment, as manifested by types like Yeger, will have a very tough time opposing David Weprin for Congress.
And without a strong Orthodox and Russian Jewish vote, there is no GOP scenario for victory in this district.
Weprin has some other advantages as well.
With a mom from Cuba, Weprin is more authentically Latino than Vito Lopez, so he might be able to rouse some interest in some of the district’s newly Latino areas in Queens. He’s acceptable to liberals on all the hot button social issues and can also play nice with the City’s various establishments (he was the City Council Finance Chair).
He also can be sold to voters as a guy who might stay, because he just might.
But as I’ve outlined, there are also decent alternative scenarios.
The nomination for an Assembly vacancy in Queens is determined by the area's Democratic District Leaders, who, in Weprin’s AD, are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Weprin family.
Assemblyman David Weprin goes to DC; loyal District Leader Martha Taylor fills out his term in Albany. The Congressional seat gets eliminated and Martha takes a dive, and David goes back to Albany, with the lifetime honorary title Congressman in the manner of Al Waldon.
There are also other possibilities. Weprin’s late father Saul was practically the only outer-borough Jewish state legislator to back Mario Cuomo against Koch in the 1982 primary for Governor. David ended up Deputy Banking Commissioner at age 28, and Saul ended up Speaker.
The Cuomos are a family known for keeping their friends close.
I’ve often made fun of David Weprin in the past; he does remind one of Rupert Pupkin in “The King of Comedy.“ David Weprin’s a classic nerd even though he is as comfortable cutting a rug as he is in wearing one.
But this is his right race, in the right place at the right time.
And though I like his brother Mark a lot more (he’s a friend), and consider him a far more saleable candidate under normal circumstances, these are not normal circumstances.
Mark has a far less plausible fall-back scenario in case his seat is eliminated (he does not control who will go to the Council in his place). He is not Orthodox, and lacks David’s close ties to the Orthodox establishment and the Jewish social services establishment, ties which in this race are key.
Gatemouth endorses David Weprin for Congress.