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. 

Favorite Brooklyn Quote of the week:

 Reasons to vote against Charles Barron #476:

"Just 42 members of the House are black. And only one Senator is black – some guy named Barack Obama, and I don’t know who that is. Some guy they stuck in there." – the Councilman at Grace Baptist Church, March 25, 2006.

(Bill Batson, you better watch out!)

                                        *

 Whilst the US Congress debates the thorny issues  of immigration and national security, all rolled into one great immigration reform package , the silence in Brooklyn of so-called Caribbean – American leaders is deafening.  But then: what’s new? In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed a supposed anti-terrorism bill, that turned out to be the worst piece of legislation afflicting the Caribbean, in the then 220 year history of this country. Ten years after this signing, the "islands" ( and all the mainland countries touching the Caribbean Sea), are suffering a crime-wave of anarchic porportions. For those unfamiliar with the issue, the US government  started a systematic deportation of lawbreakers, with no regard for  the impact. It has been devestating, especially in Trinidad, Haiti,Jamaica and Guyana.  

 Everyone surely knows by now that Assemblywoman Diane Gordon ( 40AD/ East New York/Brooklyn), has been directly linked to the whole sordid Clarence Norman  corruption mess. What is also known is that Ms. Gordon had failed to file campaign finance reports for almost 6 years or so.  Rumor has it that Ms. Gordon is close to an indictment for various political money shenanigans , especially when she pleaded "the fifth"on the stand, as a witness during one of Norman’s trials. It was stated some time aback that Ms. Gordon asked for immunity when Norman was before the Grand Jury. It was also stated that DA Hynes refused to grant her request.

Former College President and candidate for Governor Bill Weld probably thought he had a full proof way to jump start his sinking campaign. Propose a stupendous tax cut and Republican & Conservative base would swoon. After all it worked before for Reagan, Pataki, Tom Kean, Christie Whitman & both Bushes among others. But poor Bill, the normal cheerleaders for any tax cut are complaining his numbers don’t add up. Funny the fact that the numbers didn’t add up any better for the before mentioned candidates didn’t seem to matter before.  But Bill is being criticized. See Wednesday & today’s NY Sun. If former editors of the Wall St. Journal won’t salute a tax cur it’s time for Bill to quit the race. Maybe he can use his experience as a educator and go back to Massachusetts and apply for the Harvard Presidency.