Category: News and Opinion

Last week in response to an entry of mine about Andrew Cuomo, someone wrote:

AGAIN this 1977 thing comes up. Why?

THINK FOR A MINUTE: Not one person in this whole wide world has ever kept a copy of any of those so said posters. How come? Wouldn’t they be collector’s items? And also different people who recollect seeing them have diff descriptions . It’s another URBAN POLITICAL LEGEND.

I direct all to this Daily News column –

"Alas, there is still one big sore spot, and Cuomo raised it yesterday: signs that appeared on Queens lampposts in 1977, saying "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo." The issue threatened to derail Koch, who denied on TV he was gay. Koch believed the Cuomo camp was behind the signs, while Cuomo has always denied it. He said yesterday he thinks he knows who did it, but that there is no point in identifying the person now."

Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, whose party has a much slimmer 35-27 hold on the Senate and faces a greater threat to holding the majority this fall, denied there will be raises this year.

"There has been no discussion of pay raises, other than for judges," Bruno said. "We’re ruling it out. It’s never been discussed."

(Part Three in an Occasional Series on the Race in New York’s 10^th Congressional District)

Re-reading my two prior posts (See, Curse You Chuck Barron and  Edolphus Towns And The Limits Of Pork) anticipating the nauseating battle between Ed Towns and Charles Barron, it occurred to me that this might be that rare contested race that did not involve mudslinging. I mean, why would these guys need to lie about each other when the truth will suffice?

Rarely do I harbor thoughts of divine intervention, but after spending over two hours composing, refining and polishing a study of the failings of Congressman Edolphus “ET” Towns, only to have it disappear in a matter of seconds due to my computer illiteracy, I am now almost convinced that there is a God, and that God firmly supports Ed Towns as the lesser of the evils in the 10^th Congressional District. So, before I try again, let me make this offering to the force Reform Jews refer to as “Our Parent, Our Ruler”: "Ed Towns is the political equivalent of indigestion; Charles Barron is a heart attack. Supporting Charles Barron as a cure for the ills of Ed Towns is like curing a hangnail by amputating your foot." That offering being done, I will now proceed.

Since there has been a lot of talk recently about whether statewide Democratic candidates will get 25% of the vote at the State Committee or will have to petition and whether receiving the designation of the State Committee was worth anything, I thought it might valuable to look at the history of Statewide Democratic Primaries.

The history does not go back far. Statewide Primaries began in 1968. Up until then, each party’s State Committee chose candidates with voters having no direct say in the process.

The change continued the Committees having a role but not a decisive one. Each Committee would have a meeting (or convention). Candidates receiving 50% or more of the vote became the Party’s designated candidate. Any candidate receiving 25% or more could also run in the Primary. Others could submit petitions signed by enrolled Party members to vote. The original petition requirements were harsher than they are. But it is still a difficult task. Now candidates in the Democratic or Republican parties must submit at least 15,000 signatures, with at least 100 signatures from ½ of New York’s congressional districts.

If you haven’t seen it, liberals should read this item from AMERICAblog.

In it, John  Aravosis takes his felow liberals to task for their knee-jerk defense of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who makes our own Ada Smith seem sane.

It’s good to see at least one blogger criticize those on his own "team".

The NY Sun has a column today by Michael Barone

In it, Barone says – 

"I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago.

"Doesn’t the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?" I asked.

"Oh, no, no," he said. "Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don’t affect the news."

"So what you’re saying," I said, "is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans."

Last week I criticized the Post. Today I’ll go after the News for an article in Sunday’s paper – “War Chests as Toy Chests”. The article claims state legislators are using their campaign accounts for “exotic travel, champagne lifestyles and personal pleasures”. And some of the examples, like Joe Bruno’s trip to Italy do sound like abuses. But many of the others sure look like legitimate expanses to me.

 For example:

 Assemblyman Richard Brodsky uses campaign money to buy meat that he then serves at a barbecue for his supporters. That’s clearly a campaign expense. The News complaint seems to be that he buys the meat while in Montana visiting his wife’s family.

 An excited Charles Barron called early this morning, to inform that he has raised more money in 2 months running for Congress, than he had raised in 2 years running for Mayor of  New York City. Barron said that when he files for his congressional committee next week, it will show a total of around seventy-five thousand dollars raised in the last 2 months ( Feb. and March/2006). In his excitement, he forgot to mention that he had personally loaned the campaign twenty thousand dollars to kick-jump its late start. He stated that  he finally made his mind up about entering the race on 1-22-2006, and has been fundraising mainly over the phone ever since. He still has no official fundraiser and is running a typical unorthodox "Barronesque" campaign, relying heavily on grassroot popular support and committed volunteers. 

      Domestic Partner was in an uproar. “Gatemouth should write about immigration. It’s the biggest issue in the country! And it’s a moral issue.”

     Not surprisingly, Domestic Partner has both a heart of gold, and a card of green. Domestic Partner’s Domestic Helper has the former, but lacks the latter. For now, this bothers Domestic Partner far more than the prospect of Domestic Helper’s prices accelerating should she become legal; and, the question of actually paying for Domestic Helper’s Social Security appears to have not yet acquired a moral dimension.

       I demurred. Gatemouth, the character I play in print, is an agent provacatuer. He wants to make people angry, as many as possible from all sides. Immigration may be the hottest issue in the country, but in New York, Kennedy-McCain is the closest one can get to a matter of political consensus.  Gatemouth does not write columns in favor of the prevailing consensus. What’s the point?