"See, these are the perks of having the Senate majority, more or less: for the first time in the eight years I've lived here, we got not one, but two mailings from our state senator, Malave Dilan. The cheap mailing is dated June 26th, when the chamber was divided; the expensive, nice, four-color brochure in English and Spanish arrived today, so it was probably sent after the Dems, cough, "returned to power". I'm unaware of any prior outreach by the Senator, and I haven't seen him in the community, either. Ever.
Coincidentally, I think Dilan is probably the incumbent Senator most likely to face a primary. His district has changed so much since he entered politics that he's ripe for a challenge; if, say, the Polish community comes up with a nice, young and attractive bilingual Progressive, someone who can forge an alliance between the Poles and the hipsters in Williamsburg, he's toast.” —MICHAEL BOULDIN ON "THE DAILY GOTHAM” 7/12/09
If I were still allowed to post comments on "The Daily Gotham," I would be posting this there, on Mr. Bouldin’s thread, and not be wasting space in this department. As I am banned from that venue, my only alternative is to respond here, which may cause some to read Mr. Bouldin’s uneducated rant who would have otherwiise avoided it; as such, you all have my sincerest apologies in advance.
It is difficult to even enumerate the ways in which this piece may be the stupidest thing Mike Bouldin has ever written, though for once, it is not in contention for the most libelous.
While Bouldin has littered the web with many examples of his libel, which, when pointed out, he will usually handle by leaving it unchanged, or by changing it without printing apology, acknowledgment or clarification (while demanding "a groveling apology and retraction, publicly” from others), his instances of out and out stupidity are quite rare; he is usually one pretty smart dude– and witty as well.
Strangely, all the examples I can remember of Bouldin stupidity involve either State Senator Martin Malave Dilan (D-Brooklyn) or the County Leader to whom Dilan is a loyal ally, Vito Lopez (although the Lopez-Dilan alliance has not always existed; if memory serves, Lopez very strenuously opposed Dilan’s initial 1991 election to the City Council).
Late last year, talking about the Governor’s budget cuts, Bouldin has this to say:
"If that seems reasonable and doable – we're talking about a cut of $5 billion out of, as noted, $200 billion – you don't know New York. The unions are already screaming at the top of their lungs that whatever cuts need to be made need to come out of a slice of the pie that is not theirs. The Senate republicans dragged the legislature to Albany, threw a hissy fit, and sent everyone home. Our friends at WFP have an answer as well, and it's the familiar one: raise taxes on millionaires. Meanwhile, Bigoted Shitbag – that's Martin Dilan to those unfamiliar with the loving nom de guerre – is holding the entire state hostage to his fear that the Democrats may give the queers basic civil rights."
The problem was that Martin Dilan, whatever one thinks of his other qualities (and I think his shrewdness and savvy are way underrated) is not a bigoted shitbag–he even supports same sex marriage. Bouldin meant to say Ruben Diaz.
Some would say that Ruben Diaz is not a bigoted shit bag, but merely a crazed religious fanatic, but at least the point is arguable–with Dilan it is not.
And some would say that a bigoted shitbag is someone who thinks all Latino State Senators look alike. However, I don't think Michael is a bigot, he just forgot that he hated Dilan for entirely different reasons: Dilan’s closeness with Vito Lopez; and since Michael believes that evil is a seamless garment, there was really no malice aforethought.
This may account for Michael's response. He did not, as he once suggested to a detractor, "offer up a groveling apology and retraction, publicly;" he merely deleted Dilan's name and substituted that of Diaz, without any effort to repair the damage he had done to the reputation of a man without a bigoted bone in his body.
Of course, Michael never apologizes in his columns, except for really important mistakes, like mixing up when La Guardia died. He certainly never "offer[s] up a groveling apology and retraction, publicly" when he prints slanderous lies about people he doesn't like–at best, he just removes them without acknowledgment and moves on. Called on a lie last summer that Marty Connor had endorsed George Pataki against Carl McCall, Michael did the exact same thing.
The difference in Michael's situational standards is accounted for by the fact that Michael believes that only the Progressive Elect like himself are worthy of a "groveling apology and retraction, publicly", while evil Democratic regulars deserve what they get.
Early last year Michael published a similarly screaming piece of idiocy about Lopez called
“How Vito Cost Hillary Votes”:
"… Hillary Rodham Clinton spent some time that day, as her hosts made it out, paying her respects to the Brooklyn machine, as represented and headed by one Vito Lopez, Assemblyman in the 53d District.
But for Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, the Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, Mrs. Clinton’s visit to Brooklyn apparently represents far more than that. He said it was a sign of newfound respect for the party organization.
Now we learn how Vito decided to acknowledge that respect – by costing Hillary votes for her delegates….
It appears [an] altered palm card – and if you look at that, this was done by hand with scissors and magic marker, probably thousands of times – was distributed exclusively in the parts of the 12th CD represented by Lopez; similar alterations were apparently made for the customized palm card in the 10th CD.
…Hillary's campaign should be asking itself why it paid good money to have these cards produced, when they can be cut down and have names of her delegates crossed out at the whim of a local Tammanyite.
If there's one thing the New York Democrats don't like, it's disloyalty to Hillary Clinton. Well, here's a clear case of it. Brooklyn machine pols are tolerated by the party because they reliably deliver votes…"
The problem was that, the maneuver, whatever it's morality, cost not one delegate, nor could it have done so.
Delegates are allocated to Presidential candidates by the proportion of votes the candidate gets in the Congressional District. The votes for individual delegates only determine which delegates from that slate get to go to the convention once the delegates are allocated. There was no way Clinton could possibly win all the delegates in the 12th CD.
Therefore, it made no sense for anyone to vote for all the delegates from one slate. Smart voters vote for their favorites, or against their non-favorites on all the viable slates. In my own CD, I myself strategically voted against Kenneth Parker on the Obama slate, and anti-gay Nick Perry on the Clinton slate (without success in either case), by voting for all the males on their slate but them (delegates are also allocated evenly by gender).
Since that's all the delegate vote does, Lopez was perfectly within his rights to support those delegates on the Clinton slate he preferred. As would have been Nydia Velazquez, if she has chosen to run a similar operation.
In point of fact, the operation probably increased Hillary’s vote. The incentive of electing one's friends as delegates surely motivated Lopez (and others, because, similar operations took place among both Hillary ands Obama supporters in other places) to put more people on the streets. In Lopez’ case, the street operation was probably bolstered by calls and pulling into the areas where they covered polling place, as well as rides to the polls, both for individuals and en masse from friendly senior centers.
As such, Hillary only benefited. Thus, her campaign likely had no complaints; in fact, they were probably quite happy about it.
This tactic was old news. My only complaint is that the shredding of palm cards was surely the cheapskate's out. The classy way to do it is to pay for your own palm cards when you pull such a tactic. However, it is unlikely that Bouldin would have found a story entitled "Vito Lopez: Cheapskate" worth his efforts.
In the Clinton-Lopez matter, Bouldin’s initial response to the truth was to go into denial and print an angry response reiterating his ignorance. Later, when the truth became apparent, he deleted the response, but left the piece intact without a correction.
Needless to say, there was no "groveling apology and retraction, publicly."
Now look at the present incident. This time, at least, Bouldin seems to have learned who Dilan is, though he seems to have forgotten Dilan’s’s first name, and also seems unaware that Dilan was not in the Senate, and had never represented Bouldin’s area, for the first couple of years Bouldin was lived there.
Bouldin complains "I'm unaware of any prior outreach by the Senator, and I haven't seen him in the community, either. Ever." This seems unlikely, given that Dilan’s an obsessive computer-addicted campaign mechanic, unlikely to ever let a newsletter budget or postage stamp go unused. As to not seeing him in the area, this is far more credible–though Dilan is probably a regular at the "Polish and Slavic Community Center" and the "Swinging Sixties" senior’s facility, and the Giglio lifting, he’s probably been a little less diligent about covering the hipster’s scene (and this is to Dilan’s detriment).
However, it is the other assertions in Bouldin’s piece which boggle the mind with their complete and utter cluelessness: "His district has changed so much since he entered politics that he's ripe for a challenge; if, say, the Polish community comes up with a nice, young and attractive bilingual Progressive, someone who can forge an alliance between the Poles and the hipsters in Williamsburg, he's toast."
Let’s start. The entirety of the 17th Senatorial district’s Polish population is located in the 50th Assembly District (Greenpoint-Williamsburg–North Bed-Stuy). In the last Senate Primary held in the district (2004), the 50th accounted for 10.8% of the district’s votes. Significant amounts of the 50th’s population within the 17th SD are Latino, African-American, Italian, Hasidic, hipster; there are even a cluster of Chinese in one particular hi-rise.
Of those residents who are Polish, significant amounts are not citizens; many are undocumented. Of those who do vote, a higher proportion than is present in the rest of the district’s population enroll in parties other than the Democrats. In addition, the Polish population is being pushed out of the area by hipsters and moving to Ridgewood and places beyond. It is unlikely that Poles account for even 5% of the Senate District’s population. In fact, at present, Jerry Skurnick, who, in addition to blogging, sells mailing labels, says less than 1% the 17th SD’s prime Democrats have Polish or Slavic surnames
Much of the hipster population of the district is also in the district’s 50th AD portion. In determining how much of AD 50’s portion of the 17th is hip, I used the Obama vote for the 50th AD portion of the 12th congressional District, which pretty much tracks the 50th AD portion of the 17th. Obama got 53% of that area’s primary vote, meaning that 50th AD hipsters account for approximately 6% of the 17th SD’s Democrats (provided we stipulate that black voters don’t exist).
In addition, the hipster population of the 53rd AD (Bushwick-Williamsburg–Northern Ded-Stuy, and located entirely within the 17th SD) is growing by leaps and bounds. In the 2000 census, the 53 AD, as presently drawn, was 73% Latino. Let’s be generous and stipulate that the 53rd’s 2000 white population of 10.5% has more than doubled since 2000 to 25%. However, some of that white percentage is non-hipster, as the 53rd AD includes a small but significant (but declining) Italian population and a small but significant (and growing) Hasidic population.
Like in the 50th, a pretty a decent way to measure the hipster population of the 53rd would be to be to use the Hillary/Obama figures. Hillary got 69% of the AD’s votes and Obama 30%. Doubtless the 30% included the almost all of the nearly 10% of the district’s residents who are black, while the 69% included the Latinos, Hasids and Italians probably most influenced by the area’s Assemblyman, Vito Lopez (imagine how well Hillary could have done here if Vito hadn’t cost her any votes!).
Thus, the hipster population of the 53rd probably figures to be only about 20% of the area’s vote tops. Given that the 53rd AD accounts for 54% of the vote in the 17th SD, we can generously estimate the hipster population of the 53rd at 11% of the Senate District’s total vote in a Democratic primary.
Moreover, the five ADs outside the 50th and 53rd (mostly East New York, Cypress Hills, Brownsville and Bed-Stuy) account for 35% of the votes in the 17th SD, and the entire hipster population of those areas could probably fit into a large casket (which would be a highly likely result if any of them moved there).
Thus, using these generous calculations, we would come up with a hipster plus Poles population of around 18% of the Senate District’s total vote in a Democratic Primary. This would hardly seem to seem to make Dilan toast, or even to slightly singe his edges.
It looks to me if the person who has not been out into this district’s community is not Mr. Dilan, but Mr. Bouldin, who clearly has no clue where the district is or who lives there. (Here’s a map, Mike).
Is it any wonder why the County Leader and his crowd do not take "Progressives" seriously?
Just for Mr. Bouldin’s’s edification, in the 2000 census, the 17th Senatorial district, as presently drawn, was over 56% Latino. At present, Jerry Skurnick, says 47% of the 17th SD’s prime Democrats have Hispanic surnames. Some of this lower number may be accounted for by losing their homes to hipsters (a phenomena not conducive to friendly coalitions) and some to the fact that there are among Latinos a high percentage of non-citizens.
Still, a Latino candidate is clearly the one to beat here, especially since the blacks, Hasids and Italians who make up most of the balance of the vote are unlikely, at first glance, to prefer the mythical Polish hipster of Mr. Bouldin’s dreams to an Hispanic incumbent.
What is clear from all these figures is that the 17th SD is intended to be a Voting Rights Act (VRA) district for Latino empowerment. And, it seems unlikely that a non-incumbent non-Latino could ever win such a district unless the Latino vote was fragmented by multiple Latino candidates.
Perhaps Mr. Bouldin is not a fool. Perhaps, he understands this, and this is the dream scenario he anticipates for the victory of his mythical Polish hipster.
If so, let me apologize to Mr. Bouldin for casting aspersions on his intelligence and instead let me cast aspersion on his intellectual honesty, for here are just some of the many really nasty things Mr. Bouldin had to say about the mythical Polish (albeit Polish-Jewish) hipster who tried running that kind of a race in 2006:
"We are paying that price of bitterness because David Yassky, Esquire, decided that the weight of American history, the still-fraught state of relations between whites and blacks, the legislative intent of the Voting Rights Act, and the history of the Democratic Party after LBJ's Presidency, were as nothing to the consuming fire of an ambition that has led him to run three campaigns in two years. It seems that he is determined to represent us in some form, whether we like it or not; the sheer scale of his brilliance and his bulging Rolodex demand nothing less.
To achieve this goal, he threw himself into a Congressional race where he could reasonably expect to split the vote with four, then three, black candidates. Yassky supporters believe that David was denied the nomination because of reverse racism; what they forget is that many blacks place a high value on seeing other blacks in office. Competence – and I take a jaundiced view of Yassky's claims to that quality – is not sufficient to make up for a lack of life experience; and I'll just come right out and say that if you're not black, you have no idea what the black experience is like. That statement isn't racism – it's experience. Take a walk in Brownsville [Given Bouldin’s lack of knowledge of the 17th SD, perhaps he should take his own advice]
And"But the fact is that Yassky's campaign is an utter fucking disgrace.
The basic game plan is this: the district contains a black majority of 61%, which is likely to vote for a black candidate. With several such candidates, all you have to do to win is pick up enough of the 39% of voters who are not black to come out ahead in a five-way primary. It's fair to say that this negates the intent of the Voting Rights Act, the letter and spirit of which created the 11th Congressional district.
Utter. Fucking. Disgrace.
I've asked the councilman myself what he thinks of the Voting Rights Act, and whether it should be renewed. His response was an enthusiastic Yes. You see, the VRA ensures "that communities of color get good representation," which is a ludicrously misleading and self-serving distortion. By this logic, the VRA is race-neutral, a novel interpretation, to be kind. It's also, for any Democrat, a stunningly shameful and debased statement. We gave up the solid South and locked ourselves out of power for a generation precisely because we believe otherwise.
David Yassky presents us as Democrats with a unique and unforeseen challenge, and it is important, for our sake, that we understand the nature of that challenge. We are being asked to elevate the incandescent ambition of one man over a central piece of our legacy; that is what the councilman's amoral calculus of power demands of us. Welcome to the Yassky Exception….
We are being asked to be color-blind at the expense of communities of color.
The Yassky Exception requires us to embrace a campaign whose only chance for success lies in pitting Jew against Gentile, black against white, a minority of district voters against the majority, in a country where the district majority in turn is a minority, the interests of which we claim to hold dear…
The Yassky Exception wants you to be fashionably blase about the worth of the black experience in America; that experience need not be heard in Congress, certainly not when benevolent white men have so much to offer. After all, why should an ongoing history of black disenfranchisement stand in the way of such exalted dreams as animate the white councilman, whose supporters openly mock what they call "pigment politics"?…Is the VRA negotiable, or is that all oh-so-last-year pigment politics?…African-Americans are an integral part of the Democratic coalition because we actually believe that our One America is not and cannot be monochromatic. I'm not willing to toss all that into the gaping maw that is the heedless ambition of one man aiming to exalt himself. The Yassky Exception is not worth its price tag."
In fairness, there are differences here.
The first is that the 11th Congressional District is majority black and the 17th SD is majority Latino. Perhaps this accounts for Mr. Bouldin’s moral distinction between them.
Or perhaps, it is a matter of proportions. After all, in 2002, the 11th CD was 78.56% non-white (albeit, the white portion was growing), while, by contrast, the 17th SD was …..83.65% non-white (albeit, also growing).
Most likely of all, Mr. Bouldin doesn’t really care about the Voting Rights Act, except as a bludgeon to use against his enemies.