Author: Rock Hackshaw

I did a post-primary election column last month that drew many inane comments from some of the anonymous jackasses who love to peregrinate these NYC blogs, essentially to torment those who are strong enough to put their thoughts in writing; and brave enough to have their views/opinions published. The thread was somewhat disconcerting, given what I think is the overall objective of this site: to educate the public politically. After viewing the official results released by the Board of Elections recently, I have decided to revisit two of the races on which I commented. 

I am sure you have heard all the recent predictions from so-called political experts: of gloom and doom for democrats in next month's nationwide elections. They have been saying that polling results are showing a large enthusiasm gap between democrats and republicans in near every state, which would translate into gains for republicans in both federal and state legislatures. They say more republicans  will turn out to vote than democrats, and that this has been fueled by the Tea Party movement. I caution people to consider this: polls are just snapshots in time, and as such they are subject to overnight change. I also caution people that the same movement (Tea Party) ostensibly driving republican turnout, could likewise motivate Dem turnout. Perceptions that President Obama is being disrespected by certain elements within the Republican party, will surely spur turnout in this midterm election, and as such I expect that there will be a slightly higher nationwide voter-turnout than what historically occurs in mid-term elections. I predict that election-night results will show democrats in surprisingly good shape compared to the predictions: there will be some hemorrhaging as expected, but it wouldn't be a bloodbath as the pundits predict. I expect Democrats to retain both houses of Congress.      

As a political-commentator, it is never advisable to make predictions that can be seen as “out on a limb”, but many of us do it anyway. The fact is that even a supposedly safe prediction can backfire and undermine one's credibility in just a single special-election, far more a whole national election-cycle.  It's probably always better to couch your predictions a bit: a lesson I learned again recently.

You see, a few months ago I appeared on a BCAT cable-television program in Brooklyn, with Tom Robbins (staff writer/ The New York Village Voice) and Tom Tracey (The Brooklyn Paper). We were discussing the then upcoming primary elections. I am sure one can “Google” and find the show on the Internet. In that discussion I told the viewing audience that Carl Paladino was going nowhere fast. I essentially felt back then -and still do now- that he is totally unfit to be the governor of New York State. I thought Rick Lazio was going to clean his clock in the Republican primary: boy, was I wrong!

I am told that one has to officially get in a pardon request before October 1st, 2010; so let me write this column as a formal request to our present governor David Paterson. I want to go on record as another who joined the chorus: PARDON JOHN O'HARA; PLEASE.

By now most readers to these blogs know the story of John O'Hara, but let me do a synopsis for the edification of those who don't know too much about him. John is an attorney and a political activist. There was a time when he was a perennial challenger to the Brooklyn political establishment and status quo: back then he ran hard and often. Some detractors thought he ran too much. Sometimes he ran others as challengers; near all the time he would be challenging some lackluster incumbent representing  the powers that be. As a democrat (and insurgent) he stepped on many toes; sometimes he “mashed corns” without apologizing. He even supported challengers for offices as high as Brooklyn District Attorney -despite warnings from some concerned folks, that vendettas and reprisals are likely. What happened to him smells of  a reprisal, or a vendetta, or just plain old-fashioned human revenge for something or the other. 

Brooklyn's  minority voters have a history of puzzling votes: no doubt. You can go back to the days of  Shirley Chisholm, Vander Beatty and Waldaba Stewart, to find some strange results recorded: yes indeed.. There were times when you could only scratch your head and wonder what the motivations were, when voters  elected certain folks (some repeatedly). And as time went by one hoped that minority voters in Brooklyn would evolve into rational-actor voter-models: demonstrating a higher level of critical-scrutiny for wannabee electeds. One hoped that the vetting process would be rigorous and extensive, and that the standards would be set real high for office-applicants.  One hoped that qualified, educated, competent, capable, intelligent candidates would emerge to lead some of these districts sorely in need of dynamic leadership. Leaders who could articulate their way out of a phone booth; who could think creatively while they chew gum and walk straight. People of integrity. People with impeccable character traits and with very little or no “personal baggage”. People that can be examples for our hungry minority youth: too many of whom are grappling with the “missing-father syndrome”. People who could go to high places and make the case for better government-action more beneficial to the needy. People who could build coalitions and minimize isolation and alienation. People who could aspire, inspire and perspire, not disappoint and corruptly conspire. Alas, it seems as though one can only dream for the day when minority voters in Brooklyn would make better choices and be consistent in their reasoning: but we dream on; nonetheless.

Whenever I endorse a candidate on either the Room Eight New York Politics, or on the Daily Gotham blog-sites, what I am saying is simply that if I had a vote in that race, this is how my vote will go. At no point am I predicting that the person I am endorsing is going to win the race -unless I so specify.  In actuality, there are many times I feel strongly that my endorsed candidate will lose the race. I even said so in one of my recent endorsement columns (see comments-section also) regarding one candidate (Nelson Denis).

Thus, it was a bit frustrating (after I did my last two endorsement columns) for me to field a bunch of
e-mails, phone calls, text and verbal messages, plus subtle warnings from various individuals: including electeds, their minions, staffers, operatives and the like. In fact, I had intended to write a follow up column explaining at length, the reasoning behind my endorsements: but alas, I did not. I hated all the bitching that was coming my way, and I felt another column would only exacerbate the situation. And you all know that I am a non-controversial kinda guy. Right?

Let me preface this column by saying that I have always been committed to getting term- limits legislation enacted for ALL legislators (federal, state and city/local). I go back many years fighting on this issue. I have written and spoken extensively on this issue: in media, in academia, in public and in private; on radio, on television, in newspapers, magazines, newsletters and on blogs.

Since Mayor Bloomberg’s hijacking of the expressed will of New York City’s voters in 2008, I have now arrived at the position that a 12-year limit should be uniform. Why should he get twelve years, when other mayors cannot?

If you had asked me about four months ago, what were Michele Adolphe’s chances of  defeating 32-year incumbent Rhoda Jacobs in the upcoming primary, I would have told you she had two chances: very slim and none. In fact, I had spoken to Mr. Very Slim quite early in this contest, and he told me that he was going on vacation: so go figure.

Of course this was based on a very objective analysis of previous races between these two candidates. Ms. Adolphe has faced the voters twice, and was soundly defeated by Ms. Jacobs both times. In one race there was a third candidate on the ballot (Zacary Lareche), and Michele ran dead last. Then there was at least one other time when she was knocked of the ballot, after her signatures (petitions) were challenged in court. So Michele’s record is spotty at best.