David Weprin is, on paper, as close to an ideal Democratic candidate as one can find in today’s Ninth Congressional District.
The problem is that he shares some of paper’s qualities, in that he is bound by four corners and has trouble conveying more than two dimensions.
One can picture Weprin at a late night budget negotiating session, his index cards perfectly in order, calculator in hand, working out a last minute compromise to get the budget done on time, while ensuring that the interests of the poor and middle class are not ignored.
I submit that such qualities may be more useful than the ability to go on MSNBC and scream in favor of a health care plan which is no longer even on the table.
But whatever David Weprin’s useful qualities, one cannot picture him adlibbing a fart after a 12-course Hungarian banquet.
Without his index cards, Weprin tends to malaprop.
Fourteen becomes four; trillion becomes billion. A brave, but perhaps ill-advised speech explaining his support for same sex marriage becomes a landmine that his mere yes vote might not have been; an effort to explain that speech to those offended becomes an opportunity to offend the LGTB community as well.
Weprin’s well-tripped upon tongue has apparently become contagious, infecting his campaign staff as well.
Weprin’s recent bow-out of a debate at the Juniper Park Civic Association is a case in point.
The debate was a booby trap, and should never have been agreed to in the first place.
All this week we’ve been treated to the self-righteous bleats of Juniper Park’s President, Robert Holden, proclaiming himself a “Democrat” driven to supporting a Republican because of Weprin’s insult to his community.
The facts, as embodied by the “expenditures” section of the NYC Campaign Finance Board’s Searchable Database tell a different story. Holden is a Republican political consultant, often working for prominent Republicans in the ambit of the 9th Congressional District, including Turner buddy Eric Ulrich:
| HOLDEN, ROBERT | Gallagher, Dennis P City Council (2001) |
09/10/2001 | $1,500.00 | Campgn Lit. | ||
| HOLDEN, ROBERT | Gallagher, Dennis P City Council (2003) |
05/28/2003 | $200.00 | Campgn Lit. LITERATURE |
||
| Holden, Robert | Gallagher, Dennis P City Council (2005) |
06/16/2004 | $250.00 | Other: explntion Newsletter Fee |
||
| HOLDEN, ROBERT | Conley, Joseph T City Council (2001) |
09/03/2001 | $1,000.00 | Print Ads PRINTING |
Expenditure Payments St#: 15 ID: R0001101 |
|
| Holden, Robert F | Ulrich, Eric A City Council (2009A) |
02/28/2009 | $1,800.00 | Campgn Lit. Design of Literature |
Expenditure Payments St#: 4 ID: R0001466 |
|
| HOLDEN, ROBERT F | Oddo, James S City Council (2003) |
10/27/2003 | $2,000.00 | Campgn Mlngs DESIGN OF LITERATURE |
Expenditure Payments St#: 10 ID: R0001305 |
|
| HOLDEN, ROBERT F | Oddo, James S City Council (2003) |
11/05/2003 | $2,450.00 | Campgn Lit. DESIGN OF LITERATURE |
Expenditure Payments St#: 10 ID: R0001361 |
|
| Holden, Robert F | Oddo, James S City Council (2005) |
11/08/2005 | $5,680.00 | Campgn Lit. Design of Literature |
Expenditure Payments St#: 16 ID: R0001173 |
But instead of toughing out a bad decision, or laying their cards on the table and saying “we tried to work with these people, but it became abundantly clear we had walked into a set-up,” Weprin’s campaign blurted out some pathetic excuse about his campaign being impacted by the hurricane (and yes, poor Corey Bearak did lose power in his home) even though Bob Turner was the candidate who was evacuated from his residence.
Doubtless, some events from the weekend important to Weprin (and probably some important to Turner) had been rescheduled to conflict with the Juniper Park debate. But any campaign staff worth their salt had to understand that ducking out of the debate at the last minute was going to result in sustained public embarrassment.
But, bad as the decision to duck the debate already was, the ham-handed handling of that bad decision by Weprin’s staff clearly turned the merely miserable into the truly horrible, and turned Weprin into a citywide punchline.
He deserves better.
Though portrayed by his opposition as some sort of leftist menace, Weprin, though clearly imbued with a liberal sense of social justice, and more than a bit of courage about it, is at heart a deeply conservative man, an Orthodox Jew by choice, family centered and at heart a preservationist—a worldview very much in line with the values of the people of the district he seeks to represent.
Despite the efforts of Republicans to paint Weprin as an Obama clone, his mantra is not “change we can believe in,” but rather “change we can avoid.”
Weprin is not above a pander, and by this I do not mean his right-wing Zionist views on Israel, which, unlike the rote recitations of same by Turner, are clearly deeply held.
But Weprin’s answer at the Manhattan Beach Civic Association about Health Care Reform does qualify. Weprin was fine outlining what he liked about the plan, which Turner had dismissed without discussing the details, because discussing “Obamacare” by its contents rather than its name would not have been productive for him.
But then Weprin outlined what he disliked about the plan, citing its cuts in Medicare Spending.
I would call this answer the worst sort of reactionary liberalism, if Bob Turner had not for weeks been citing these same cuts as evidence that it is the Democrats, rather than the Republicans who are out to cut benefits for the elderly.
Given Turner’s professed desire to save Social Security and Medicare, even at the cost of cutting over half of what remains in the rest of the federal budget, it would seem that squeezing out what experts on all sides agree is wasteful and inefficient deployment of taxpayer money, which does not benefit public or individual health, would seem to be something a real deficit hawk would support.
Instead, Turner has been acting like the worst sort of liberal Democrat scaring the old folks.
So, what for Weprin is only an example of liberal hackhood becomes for Turner something which is deeply shameful, and therefore earns Weprin a pass.
Watching Weprin in debate can sometimes be painful, adhering to his talking points with tenacity in a voice alternatively whiny and reedy.
Sometimes I think what he needs is for someone to give a good turn to the stick up his ass.
But, at the bottom line, David Weprin is an extremely capable man, with a good heart, and an uncommon sense of decency about matters of principle (though not about campaign tactics) who is a good match for the people he seeks to serve.
Too bad what looks so good on paper has turned into a paper tiger campaign.