A slogan for Hakeem against Towns (and maybe Barron):
“You may not always agree with him, but you'll be ashamed to admit he's your Congressman far less frequently"
Works for me. Details on Hakeem Jeffries Fundraising Haul Trickle Out | PolitickerNY www.politickerny.com
ET: phone your contributors. With challengers circling, Towns reports $11k on hand | Capital New York www.capitalnewyork.com
I dreamed last night that I had a conversation about redistricting with the late Bernie Catcher.
Sad to say, this seems a far more viable way of influencing the process than testifying before LATFOR.
Is Brad Lander on some sort of Tshuva ("repentance and return") tour?
First stop Gatemouth, second stop “The Jewish Press”? (Clearly, the man has his priorities in order).
While, as I've previously observed, there is a reticence by Lander to deal with the full implications of the anti-Israel article he once published, I've now concluded that this is not solely because Lander is trying to soften those implications for his (in this case, Orthodox) audience.
Clearly, in the context of some of the brave things he says here (considering his audience) Lander is not pandering.
My conclusion is that Lander’s reticence stems from a bit of embarrassment at having said such things.
It is hard to read his statements in this context and doubt Lander's sincerity about his regret. 'I Regret Some Of The Language I Used': A Conversation with New York City Councilman Brad Lander,Ell www.jewishpress.com
A reader’s response in defense of John Liu (the opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gatemouth):
"NYTimes is full of shit. While CFB Han handbook says "contributor should fill out the contributor card and sign it" —the law and rules do not require that—only that contributor signs the contributor card.
Furthermore, signed contribution cards are only required for cash or money order contributions; they are optional for contributions by personal check. Liu has them for all contributors.
Further, to say some contributors do not exist is total bs, when the reporter was shown a cancelled personal check from the contributors. Last time I looked, certainly since 9/11, non-existent people don't get to have checking accounts.
This is a real hatchet job, probably a Bloomberg operation. Problem is with 2100 contributors so far, how does a campaign track all this down without spending lots of money? Compliance costs are no longer exempt and they count against caps.
Of course, Chinese contributors at the door of a fundraiser often dictate name, address, etc. to the people at door—the only way to get legible English information.
Undoubtedly some Chinese business people screwed around. But, campaign told them not to and donors signed card and check saying it was their money. How does a campaign vet that?
Finally, does it surprise you that Chinese people deny making contributions when a stranger shows up at their home and asks if they gave money to a political campaign?”
Further, to say some contributors do not exist is total bs when the reporter was shown a cancelled personal check from the contributors. Last time I looked, certainly since 9/11, non-existent people don't get to have checking accounts.
This is a real hatchet job, probably ae Bloomberg operation. Problem is with 2100 contributors so far, how does a campaign track all this down without spending lots of money. Compliance costs are no longer exempt and they count against caps.
Of course, Chinese contributors at the door of a fundraiser often dictate name, address, etc. to the people at door—the only way to get legible English information.
Undoubtedly some Chinese business people screwed around. But, campaign told them not to and donors signed card and check saying it was their money. Hoe does a campaign vet that?
Finally, does it surprise you that Chinese people deny making contributions when a tranger shows up at their home and asks if they gave money to a political campaign?
Petition from the WFP: “Mayor Bloomberg: Respect Occupy Wall Street's right to peaceful assembly. Allow them to demonstrate without intimidation or removal and to take any necessary action to defend against winter weather.”
Hesh Rabkin: How do you think they want Bloomberg to "take any necessary action to defend against winter weather". Should he build a dome over the park or fly them to Bermuda?
Actually, the Bermuda thing might be win/win for all concerned. The fight for OWS continues action.workingfamiliesparty.org
Ellen Freudenheim: "Now wouldn't that be the irony of all ironies, if Occupy Brooklyn were to occupy Atlantic Yards? A bloggling thought…"
Yes, irony of ironies would be the operative term. Especially when Bertha Lewis of the Working Families Party asks Bloomie to have the demonstrators removed so the site could be cleaned. Occupy Brooklyn Arrives Saturday, Oct. 15 at Grand Army Plaza brooklyn.about.com
Vito organizing a march in support of OWS?
My first thought is to ask how many clubhouse hanger-ons can make it across the bridge without oxygen?
My second thought is that his idea of actually harnessing the protest to an issue like the “millionaires’ tax” is the most sensible idea I've heard so far for making the protest useful.
My third thought is that introducing an actual legislative proposal into the mix will probably be seen by the most vocal OWS protestors as some sort of a sell-out, but that it couldn't hurt to find out (especially if one's instincts were proven wrong)
Just between us though, I think a visit to by Vito to Park Slope might be ill-advised. Vito Lopez hopes Occupy Wall Street takes up the millionaire's tax, says the mayor pulled back | Cap www.capitalnewyork.com
I do not understand why the GOP so objects to OWS. The 90 threshold for something to be approved would be far more effective than the filibuster in achieving the GOP's goal of making sure nothing is done to help the economy or reform Wall Street. It’s time to Occupy Brooklyn www.brooklynpaper.com
Sam Hudis: OWSers did not deny the podium to John Lewis, they asked him to wait his turn to speak just as anyone else would have to. He refused.
Gatemouth: While helping to lead the Selma march, Lewis endured brutal beatings by angry mobs. On a day known as “Bloody Sunday,” Lewis led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. There, the marchers were met by Alabama State Troopers, who ordered them to disperse. When the marchers stopped to pray, the police discharged tear gas and mounted troopers charged the demonstrators, beating them with night sticks.
Lewis's skull was fractured, but he escaped to a church and then to a hospital. The scars on Lewis’s head are still visible today, but equality is equality and what makes him think he's better than the rest of us? Let the old sellout wait his turn.
OSWers who disgraced themselves denying the podium to John Lewis redeem themselves by heckling Charlie Rangel. OWS: Do You Want Rep. Charlie Rangel? www.nydailynews.com
Interesting analysis, mostly derived from smart left sources, about where OWS may end up going.
Contra to my friends, at least one of the possibilities (a third party movement) would be decidedly awful for the Democrats (not to mention the country) What Will Become of Occupy Wall Street: A Protest Historian’s Guide nymag.com
Stray OWS thought: a big difference between OWS and the anti-war movement was that we knew what the anti-war movement wanted to stop, leaving all the rest as commentary.
“Stop the War” is pretty easy (give or take the timetable); “Stop the Plutocracy” begs a few somewhat difficult questions which do not necessarily build consensus.
In response to my complaints about the muddled message of OWS, Dan Millstone sent me this (which I'd previously acknowledge by linking a Chait piece which criticized much of its neo-Marxist thinking).
I do not think it makes much sense to include things (whatever their virtues) like animal rights in such a statement, unless one is trying to confuse the message.
More importantly, as Chait pointed out, a lot of this statement sends the message that the goal is not to reform capitalism, but to destroy it.
In that sense, maybe a muddled message would be a better one.
But most importantly, would it hurt to include a couple of immediate policy prescriptions?
How about this: "Though we agree that they these proposals do not really go nearly far enough, Congress should immediately pass the President's new Jobs plan, and stop blocking the implementation of the Dodd-Frank law. On a local level, NYS should reinstate the ‘Millionaires' Tax’ and New York City pass ‘The Living Wage Bill.’”
Though I'm not sure where I stand on the latter, it seems to me that OWS should be for it and doing something about it.
You can't hold the bastards accountable until you state your demands.
No? YOUR GREAT STATEMENT; PLEASE POST IT TO YOUR SITE! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum www.occupywallst.org
The headline in the print version says "Romney Beating Obama in Fight for Wall Street Cash"
Under the circumstances, why is this necessarily seen as a negative? Romney, Perry and Cain Open Wide Financial Lead Over Field www.nytimes.com
I link this because of my rampant annoyance with John Fund's comments re the filibuster of the Jobs bill:
1) Fund defends the filibuster by citing numerous instances of the constitution providing for super-majorities. But this actually serves as proof of the exact opposite of this point.
A limited and specific list of such exceptional instances is almost always taken in the law to mean that they are the ONLY exceptions to the general rule (i.e., a simple majority).
In this case, to add additional instances, so that the exceptions almost completely swallow the rule, is tantamount to amending the constitution without following the specified supermajority process (something conservatives generally object to).
2) Fund says the filibuster did not matter, because the Dems didn't have the votes anyway.
He may be right, but I'm dubious.
If the GOP was so certain the bill would fail, why didn't they just allow the vote and increase the President's embarrassment?
2) Fund says the filbuster did not matter, because the Dems didn't have the votes anyway. He may be right, but I'm dubious. If the GOP was so certain the bill would fail, why didn't they just allow the vote and increase the President's embarrassment? HBO: Real Time with Bill Maher: Ep. 228 October 14, 2011 www.hbo.com