This is part two in a two-part series illustrating why almost everything you know about recent events in Brooklyn politics is wrong.
As I noted in part one, the currently accepted narrative one hears in the press and among “reformers” is some version of the following:
“Vito Lopez is still alive and somewhat well, trying to continue his control over the Brooklyn Democratic Party through proxies. Last week’s election proves it. The machine, embodied by the likes of Lopez’s handpicked puppet, Frank Seddio, proved its resilience by stealing an election from Lincoln Restler, and Lopez tried to steal a judgeship in Brownstone Brooklyn as well.
The rule of Frank Seddio as County Leader is only going to be more of the same”
As I also noted, almost none of this resembles the truth.
The apparent (but by no means certain) defeat of Lincoln Restler augers nothing about the future of County politics.
At most it harkens to the past.
"Lopez is loaded for bear to prove his power–probably even if he's dumped as leader before the primary . This means protecting Marty Dilan and beating Lincoln Restler. Lopez will likely pour all his resources in those races (although this may have also been true before his troubles)."
It is a story of almost Biblical proportions. It is not so much about David going after Goliath and (as so many in Williamsburg do) getting stoned.
The story is not really about Restler at all, but about Vito Lopez.
The story is most akin to that of Sampson (not John), who, brought to his destruction, partially by a woman (or women), but mostly due to his own actions, especially his overdeveloped hubris, decides to bring the house down on those he sees as his oppressors with every ounce of what remains of his once overwhelming, and still formidable but rapidly waning strength.
Sampson may have taken a few hostages to fortune in his fall, but no matter how big his victory; Sampson ain't coming back.
Dead men can’t rule by proxy.
In the long term, the only real message delivered by the apparent defeat of Lincoln Restler fall is that the Zali Satmar stick to their commitments come hell or high hands up the skirt.
As I also noted on 8/28/12:
"As Colin points out, without his Housing Chairmanship, Lopez has far less in his quiver to motivate the Zali Satmar Hasidim to turn out in force. However, I expect the Zali will turn out anyway. The Zali have traditionally stuck by their friends who've stuck by them, even when those friends are going down. Further, it serves the Zalis purpose in showing the world they dance with those who brung them, even in the worst of times, and that they can deliver for their guys, even under the worst of circumstances. For the Zalis, Lopez is both the right choice, both ethically and pragmatically"
And that would appear to be that.
As I noted on 6/30/12:
Albert Friedman, publisher of Der Tzitung asked me an interesting question.
Assuming the elevated Hasidic vote which turned out Tuesday comes out again in September (admittedly a big "if" to assume) is it really possible for Lincoln Restler to overcome his vote deficit in the rest of the AD when there will be nothing else on the ballot in most of the area?
As a great Rabbi (not David Niederman) once said, “all the rest is commentary”
I should note that Joe Lentol, who finally liberated from the yolk of Vito Lopez, an old poker buddy who turned on him and threatened to expel him from office, has been walking around these days like a man who’s just gotten a reprieve from cancer.
By endorsing Restler, Joe Lentol made the right political choice for Joe Lentol.
Lentol’s future threats will come from Greenpoint and the Northside, not the Satmar. The Aronis will now be stuck on his side, and Lentol also faces no danger from the Zalis.
With Lopez's loss of his power positions, the Zalis now need Joe Lentol even more than he needs them.
But aside from the Zalis proving themselves the alpha-dogs of Villiamsburg, this was all about the past.
Hasidic fraud, if it did occur, is not a reflection on Lincoln Restler (though it may be on Vito Lopez), but it does reflect upon the ethics often displayed by political Hasidim on both sides of the political divide.
I will defend to my death the ethics of pro-Lopez Rabbi David Niederman, who spoke at my wedding, but will not vouch for the ethics of all his side's operatives, especially if they are named Joseph.
Further, the political operatives on the Aroni side are often people with all the qualities of dogs, except loyalty, who are often literally common criminals.
Blogger Mole333 recently published a devastating indictment of Lopez on the newly revived “Daily Gotham.”
I could quibble with some of it. Mole properly nails Lopez for baking a third party candidate against a Democratic nominee in a City Council race, but seemed to think it was dandy when Lincoln Restler and Chris Owens did the same last year in a race for State Assembly.
But mostly Mole is right.
But Mole goes a bridge too far in treating Frank Seddio and Vito Lopez as one and the same.
Mole cites Lopez for taking a dive against Marty Golden; Seddio is supporting Andrew Gounardes.
Mole says Lopez did too little to help Lew Fidler’s campaign for State Senate; Seddio delivered Fidler 75% in Seddio’s home AD.
As I noted in part one, Frank Seddio had nothing to do with the race against Lincoln Restler and does not regard the ultimate result of that election as a defeat or victory for himself personally.
Frank Seddio, though a jolly man, and a hale fellow well met, probably does here and there harbor the occasional grudge or two, but if Frank Seddio has a few grudges, they are all his own.
Frank Seddio has no interest in holding any of Vito Lopez’s grudges.
As I also noted, Seddio supporter Lew Fidler put it this way:
“I think we should find a way to include Lincoln Restler and his supporters. We could use the dynamism that they bring to the party. That is not something we should be afraid of, it is something we should embrace. You might have noticed we have some Republicans we need to beat, and we could use the help.”
Fidler added that, when he lost his recent State Senate race, he had probably received more help from Restler’s club than from Lopez’s.
Another Seddio supporter, Joe Lentol, may be mourning the loss of Lincoln Restler, but he is not mourning the loss of Vito Lopez.
In fact, Lentol is preaching the good news to all concerned.
Speaking of Lopez protégé Councilman Steven Levin, who Lentol is clearly fond of, Lentol said:
“He’s upset about it, but he really shouldn’t be upset…It’s an opportunity for all of us to move out from under the yoke of the county leader. I include myself for that. Like it or not, this county leader wields a lot of power because of his sheer personality and his position. It’s good for Steve Levin and it’s good for Joe Lentol too…It’s good for us to be out from under that so that we can all be our own persons.”
And that feeling is nearly universal.
As I noted from the start of the Gropez scandal, the usual suspects who called for Lopez’s resignation on a weekly basis were nearly trampled getting to the microphone by terminal cynics like Marty Markowitz and Christine Quinn.
Even before the incidents multiplied, virtually no one was giving Lopez any benefit of any doubts. In fact, there were no doubts, and even if there were, everyone was holding their tongues hoping they’d go away.
Writing in advance of the 2010 primary, I wrote:
Brooklyn District Leaders had long gotten used to County Leaders who served the function of Paul Sorvino in "The Goodfellas." When the organization was in a non-war setting, local crews were allowed a great deal of autonomy, paid the boss his tribute and came to him to settle disputes. An effective leader kept the peace and divided up the pieces, and was usually allowed a second helping for his troubles.
The prior leader, Clarence Norman, was thought a little too accommodating, perhaps because primaries were seen in the Leader’s shop as generating profits for the "operations" run by the Leader’s friends. Lopez was seen as more effective on behalf of incumbents. Sitting judges no longer had to engage in unseemly fundraising to pay off parasitical “consultants” who would otherwise run primaries against them. The quashing of such activity served a good government purpose, though this fortuitous by-product was probably just an inadvertent bonus rather than the real intent.
Whatever his accomplishments, the Lopez honeymoon was now over. The complaint was that, rather than imposing peace, Lopez had started trying to impose candidates, in baronies outside his home turf. He even started going after incumbents. Grumbling ensued from many hardcore regulars who were once his strongest supporters.
In the Vito Lopez catechism, it seemed that one could not suffer a slight deviation from the County Line and still be considered 99.44% pure, anymore than one could suffer a touch of pregnancy and still be considered chaste.
Emboldened first by the obsession to put his protégés into the local City Council seats that most impacted his home turf, then by his victory in one of those races, and later by the Borough Park victory, this spring Lopez embarked upon what at first looked to be a Stalin-like series of purges, in which not only enemies were targeted, but friends as well.
I also noted:
But, with Lopez studiously trying to leave no corner of the County without an enemy, Cohn, known for easygoing generosity and an ability to agree with everyone about everything while freely bestowing checks as if they were dollar bills being handed out to beggars at an Hasidic wedding, was widely considered the one person in the Party capable of serving as the figurehead of any anti-Lopez coalition.
Lew Fidler would have to give up his Council seat to be County Leader and had no interest in doing so. Darryl Towns was interested in going to Congress or the Borough Presidency, and a failed attempt at becoming leader would not help him attain these goals, and neither would a successful one.
To beat Lopez, one needed a candidate, for you couldn’t beat someone with no one.
Further, you couldn’t beat someone with someone when no one trusted each other. As the sage political boos John Gorman put it in “The Last Hurrah”:
“Many’s the time in the ward and in the City too I’ve seen all the boys all split up and without a chance to win, and still you couldn’t get them to join hands. And that’s because no man is willing to give up his enemies unless he’s a saint or unless he’s sure of the payoff…I don’t know what we can eliminate the saints from our discussion here today. As for the payoff, there’d be no payoff unless they won.”
There were other problems; one was that Vito’s power didn’t emanate from his position as County Leader, Vito’s position as County Leader emanated from his power. Eliminate Vito, and one still would have Vito to deal with, only he’d be angrier.
If the leaders ever stopped being too afraid to share what they actually all thought with each other, then a coup would actually be a lively possibility; and once those barred from the race by position or personality were eliminated, Cohn would pretty much be the last man standing.
And once again, the leadership would go from dictatorship to figurehead. It would be the restoration of Clarence Norman, except the organization would probably not restore its extortion operation, instead leaving it entirely to the freelancers. Still, for the process junkies a weak leader would surely be preferable to a strong one.
As I said a few weeks ago, the names of some of the players at the table have changed (for instance, Cohn and Towns have gone), but so have some other things.
Though some wounds became less raw with the crawl of time (while others grew worse), Lopez had enemies all over the place. They didn’t like each other and they didn’t trust each other (and prior to Gropez, they did not think they could beat Vito), but they probably constituted the majority of the Party’s Executive Board.
Further, one could no longer say that Vito’s power didn’t emanate from his position as County Leader, Vito’s position as County Leader emanated from his power.
While it would be an exaggeration to say the County Leadership is all that Vito has left, it wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration, and now it is almost gone and his Assembly seat is next at bat.
The falling of dominoes soon became a self fulfilling prophecy.
And the boys and girls of the Kings County Democracy don’t merely want the end of Lopez personally; they don’t want a leader who resembles him in any regard.
But folks like Joe Lentol are kicking up their heels about the rise of Frank Seddio.
Vito Lopez wanted to be feared; Frank Seddio wants to be loved, and he’s making it real hard not to love him back.
Another old Lopez adversary now supporting Seddio is Councilman Lew Fidler.
Two years ago, when Vito Lopez proposed adding eleven pet horses of his own choice to the Party Executive Committee, Lew Fidler gave a speech boiling with outrage, attacking the effort as un-democratic and un-Democratic.
Fidler even invoked the sacred and holy name of Frank Seddio’s mentor, Tony Genovesi, who would have been appalled by what was transpiring.
Alas, Fidler was trying to shame those who had no shame.
Lately, Fidler has been the victim of a vendetta by Courier-Life, which has run two different stories falsely portraying him as “one of the few Lopez supporters left” and “ in Assemblyman Vito Lopez's corner” because Fidler had the temerity to thank Vito for making sure Fidler got to see a doctor who told Fidler that the diagnosis he’d received of a fatal case of leukemia was wrong.
Hack apologist Fidler actually had the nerve to say that, “despite the fact that we have had sharp differences in the past,” ….”“We should never judge someone as all good or all bad.”
And that is the sole basis for the Courier’s assertions.
There are no other relevant quotes in either article.
Talk about the exact opposite of the truth.
Lately, Fidler has now been negotiating on behalf of Seddio with the “reformers.”
Stop and re-read that sentence.
Can anyone imagine Vito Lopez every conducting a negotiation with "reformers" that went on any longer than "either your signature or your brains is gonna be on that contacts" ?
This alone is a significant mark of progress; but there's more.
Seddio has already agreed to the demand of both Fidler and the “reformers” to eliminate the voting powers of the eleven horses Lopez put on the Party Executive Committee, thereby restoring power to the actual elected leaders of the party.
Most of the New Kings Democrats reform proposals made in 2010 are also on the table.
As I’ve noted before, most of them are unobjectionable, and a slyer leader than Vito would have pulled the rug out from under the “reformers” and proposed them as his own.
Problem was, Vito saw being sly as a sign of weakness.
While I doubt the Party is ready to adopt the NKD suggestion that “…the Kings County Democratic Party should be mandated to follow the recommendations of an Independent Judicial Election Qualifications Commission,” I will gleefully note that, if they had, the Party would have been compelled to officially endorse Lara Genovesi for Judge against “reformer” Richard Montelione (something they never did).
Fidler’s reform proposals include many of the ideas emanating from NKD and elsewhere. He has asked “reform” District Leaders Chris Owens, Jo Anne Simon and Lincoln Restler for their input, and has also solicited former “reform” District Leader Alan Flieshman and blogger Mole333.
Here’s a draft “in progress,” which bears a striking resemblance to much of the old NKD agenda:
The County Committee directs the Chairman of the Executive Committee to appoint a Temporary Committee on the Rules to review the party rules with the expressed direction that changes be made to both increase transparency and promote increaed participation.
Additionally, the Committee shall promulgate rules to effect the following changes:
1. The elimination of all voting powers for At Large Members of the Executive Committee; and
2. Creating a system whereby proxies for the organizational meeting be assigned to that member of the Executive Committee on whose petition the member was designated, provided, however, that the Member pays the cost of mailing said proxies; and
3. Establishing working committees and considering a method by which the County Committee can meet more than biennially and the Executive Committee can meet regularly; and
4. Requiring a schedule of Financial Statements to be delivered to the Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee is directed to enact such rules changes with all deliberate speed, and timely seek pre-clearance for these changes from the United States Department of Justice.
“Reformers” have now upped the ante, adding some other ideas, none of which Fidler found problematic, except for their idea that the County Leader be prohibited from raising money for the Party.
In most places, that is the County Leader’s job description. There is rent to be paid, staff to be hired, and most importantly, Republicans to be beaten.
Other than that, Fidler told me his major concern was that the “reformers” had a lot of great ideas that cost money, and he hoped they were willing to help raise at least some of the money to help to pay for them (especially, I would think, if the County Leader were barred from doing so).
But we are near the point where the "reformers" might want to consider George Aiken’s old proposal to end the Vietnam War:
“Declare victory and go home.”
Lincoln Restler did not die in vain.
To repeat myself, Frank Seddio’s ascension as County Leader is not the dawn of “reform,” but it is the end of autocracy.
“Reformers” can have as many seats at the table as they can win at the ballot box, and will be welcome. Their voices will be heard and reflected in the policies adopted.
In fact, it appears as if they already are.
“Reformers” have to understand that, if they don’t start taking “yes” for an answer, people will eventually stop giving it to them.
As John Lennon once said, “war is over, if you want it.”
Reformers, our great local nightmare is now over.
Get with the program!