Before I start this two-parter, let me first disclose that in the past I have worked for Senator John Sampson’s Campaign Committee on a pro-bono basis. Let me also sate that I once had a one-year advisor/consulting contract with said committee, which I will probably try to renew soon enough.
I have known John for about twenty years now. Back in those days he was a young attorney with the law firm of Barbaro and Alter. His boss (Mitch Alter) is the amiable and venerable election-lawyer who plies his trade in Brooklyn’s courts (mainly). Mitch is an icon of Brooklyn’s politics. Mitch alone is good for a thousand political stories from this half-naked city: most of them will have you in stitches. One of these days I will write some of those Mitch Alter political stories if the trolls here were to ever stop messing with my blog (and comments-section).
The first time John Sampson ran for the senate, he was the classic rookie. He attended events but stayed in a corner as shy as any thirty-something year old virgin about to be deflowered. He surprised most pundits by winning the race, and in so doing he became the youngest member of that legislative body.
When I say I did pro-bono work for him, I mean this: I used to move him around events while introducing him to many of the political players in Brooklyn. Back then I was probably a little less popular than I am now: but much more liked by establishment-types. John Sampson has been forever grateful. Back then he used to call me:”Mr. Hackshaw”. I almost had to slap/smack him around to get him to call me “Rock”. LOL.
He was really over-polite then (probably still is). You could see he had a proper upbringing. That’s one of the first things I liked about this kid. He was never one to raise his voice. He wasn’t braggadocios or cocky. He wasn’t one to say stupid things. He was thoughtful before he spoke. He was no extremist.
I would run into John at political, cultural and social events where he knew no one. He was the classic “deer in the headlights”. He was awkward and stuttering: no kidding. He has come a long way baby: a very long way. I even called him a neophyte back then, and it got me flak from some folks: especially from a few of his main early supporters. There were a few veteran political activists from the New Era Political Club who really liked this young kid: it helped get him the victory. John campaigned very hard. He was pushed by that wily veteran political operative named Omar Boucher.
Early in the campaign, John’s handlers had thrown him into the ring without corner-man or mouth-guard. By the time the campaign got to the home stretch, John was as polished a campaigner as you could get from a rookie. And of course my intros helped; what did you expect? LMAO.
I instructed him on how to work the crowds. I gave him pointers into how to break the ice (so to speak). He was a real quick learner. I never got paid and I never asked for money. Later that summer I went to work on another campaign as Director of Field Operations (Reggie Bowman). That campaign endorsed one of John’s opponents. Because of that endorsement, I deliberately avoided contact with the Sampson campaign from late August to the primary election. I did stop in to wish him luck on the last weekend though; and he truly appreciated that.
John started coming around the political clubs (“Marcus Garvey” and “New Era”) back in the early nineties. He was well-mannered, soft-spoken and humble beyond belief: given this game of politics and big egos. That’s why he is so well liked. He is still that way to much extent.
And this is something rare for me since I don’t like too many electeds. And before you guys go off on your usual tangents, let me emphatically state that I don’t hate anyone. I may dislike quite a few (for various valid and solid reasons) but I hate no one. I do think people are redeemable and that’s why I engage near everybody.
Anyway back to John Sampson. His personal life-story is highly inspirational. I will write some more of it one of these days. I know many strange things happen in this the only game in town (politics), and I also know that there were media reports that imply John was a bit over-zealous in trying to help some friends get a contract in the “Aqueduct casino imbroglio”; but if that’s all they have on him, then he is relatively clean as I suspected.
Sometimes we all make mistakes trying to help friends. I can forgive that to some extent. And let me say this: if they come for John tomorrow on that casino stuff, then I will personally go to the pawn shop if his bail is called for. Between myself, the wife, kid, son-in-law and grand kids, we probably could raise a thousand or two from hocking the jewelry, the silver, and other valuables including the fine-china: and every little bit helps. I might even sell a pint of blood (or two) along the way. What can I tell you? I consider John a political friend. I like him: so sue me.
When I wrote a recent column commending John for his courageous stand on same-sex marriage, I took the usual flack from those who troll these blogs seemingly all-knowing while attacking me. You see, there are times when you are hand-cuffed in your writings, because there are things you are instructed not to say.
In John Sampson’s district, his position on same-sex marriage is a minority position. This is where the trouble could come. In fact, it is a highly unpopular position in a district where Caribbean-Americans live in huge numbers.
A couple years ago -when John became conference leader of the democrats in the senate- he could have done the usual tango, while keeping the marriage-equality bill bottled up in committee. He didn’t. He chose to get it out to the floor for a vote; knowing full well that there were possible ramifications as to his own personal political future because of this bill.
John lost that particular vote; but he surely opened up the debate and started a process leading to the bill’s reintroduction in this legislative session. It was recently passed in a close vote. That was when some people started plotting against him politically. Some of these people live in (or is connected to) his East Flatbush/Carnarsie district.
I recently wrote a column cautioning the LGBT crowd about this recent victory. You see the info I am getting is telling me that one charismatic religious leader could come along to lead push-back on this legislation in New York. I am also being told that DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) is the law of the land; and that the highest court in the land -the (federal) Supreme Court (as presently constituted) – will uphold that federal law which states (and defines) marriage would be an agreement/ritual between a man and a woman (exclusively).
What I didn’t write in the previous column was that it is highly likely John Sampson will get a primary challenge because of his support for same-sex marriage legislation. The same can be said for Assembly member Nick Perry and State Senator Kevin Parker -all elected officials operating in the same general vicinity. The vote to support the same-sex marriage bill may have some serious ramifications for all three elected officials here.
Perry has two challengers in the wings. Of the two potential challengers, one is against same-sex marriage laws. A group of people recently approached me about running against Kevin Parker; however the conversation abruptly ended when I stated my position against same-sex marriage had changed. I now support the initiative since I don’t see where it can (or should) be constitutionally prevented. I have no plans to run for anything right now: but that can change.
Look; I am no lawyer but I think the SUPREMES will turn back same-sex marriage because of DOMA. I say that because this court has a conservative leaning. Despite this gut feeling, I still think supporting it was the right thing to do. I also feel that opponents and proponents have every right to agitate for their position(s) via the democratic route of debate, agitate, mobilize, protest, vote, do the legal challenges, and etcetera.
Anyway, back to John Sampson. In 1996 when he first ran for the senate, he was introduced to a pastor named Reverend A.R. Bernard. My politically active friend Francisco Hall -an elder in Bernard’s church- made the introduction. Rev. Bernard heads up the Christian Cultural Center which boats a membership of over thirty-three thousand Christians. Eventually, John Sampson joined the congregation.
Over the years Sampson and CCC have had a lovely relationship. He has attended many services there. He has developed many supporters there. He is well known there. He is seemingly at home at CCC. The problem for Senator John Sampson starts with Rev. Bernard’s opposition to the same-sex marriage law. Some speculators are saying that Bernard will run against Sampson, or put up a candidate against him. A large segment of Bernard’s congregation lives in Sampson’s district.
The reverend himself lives in a mansion on Long Island, but in a redistricting year like 2012, one doesn’t have to move in to the district till after the primary. Personally, I don’t feel that Bernard will seek political office this low on the totem pole (maybe mayor or congress).
Last week, another charismatic and articulate (like Bernard) man of the cloth named Pastor Gil Monrose wrote something significant on his Facebook page. He said;”If God doesn’t destroy America, then he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology”. Part of this remark obviously refers to the vote on same-sex marriage. There is talk of serious pushback on this bill by men of the cloth willing to organize and reverse the legislation.
Rev. Monrose is another one of those politically connected ministers who proactively works in the Caribbean-American community on all sorts of everyday life-issues. He also hosts a radio program which isn’t beyond covering political issues. He has exceptional leadership qualities and unlimited potential.
In John Sampson’s district, a Roman Catholic priest recently returned a community-service award he had received from the senator’s staff; it was a sign of discontent with the senator’s same-sex marriage vote. Another minister recently returned monies obtained from the senator’s discretionary funds- for maintaining social-service programs in the district. Phone calls have come in from all corners of the district from voters dissatisfied with the senator’s support for the bill. When you combine all these factors, you can see why some of John Sampson’s political advisors are concerned.
Don’t be surprised if you see a flurry of fundraising activity from the Sampson, Perry and Parker camps. We are fourteen months away from primary elections. Some folks even say that we could have June primaries next year.
One minister even utilized the local media to express his discontent with Sampson’s vote. I won’t be surprised if John isn’t snubbed at some local churches in the near future. So when you see some pundits on this blog -who just love to ridicule anything I write- say stupid things like John Sampson didn’t really take a courageous stand (since his district is overwhelmingly democratic); please pay them no mind. John Sampson has risked his political future on a principled position. He may need the help of gays who tend to be ungrateful at times.
If either one of (or both) reverends Bernard and/or Monrose rise up to lead this political push back on the same sex marriage legislation, then don’t be surprised to see a challenge to John Sampson (and a few others in the black community) next year. If this happens then John Sampson is going to need all the help he can get. Don’t let anyone fool you by saying John’s stand on the issue wasn’t courageous. Let’s see what Governor Andrew Cuomo will do if a challenger comes John’s way.
Stay tuned-in folks.