Forgive my relative ignorance of Brooklyn politics, but how can the son of Major Owens be wholly independent of the machine?

I'm beginning to understand that Carl Andrews owes his career to the establishment, and Clark has also certainly played the game, so it may be just a question of relativity. Is that your point?

And on a related note, aren't you at all bothered by the prospect of turning our congressional seat into a dynastic position? The more I learn about Chris Owens, the more I like. But I'm having trouble getting past that issue.

Joy predicted this months ago and I have assumed it was a given. Yassky is exactly the kind of person the NY Times loves--a white, wealthy and purely establishment Democrat who won't rock the boat much. I would have been astonished if they had endorsed anyone else. Plus Yassky is pro-Ratner, despite his recent claims to the contrary, as indicated by the BUILD endorsement followed by his proposal to give $3 million in tax money to BUILD, a Ratner front group.

The big surprises in my mind were the NY Times endorsements of Lamont in CT and Diamondstone running for SD-25. I did not predict those.

I am, in fact, kind of charmed by your shock and disappointment - I thought you were more cynical than that. I would have bet my mother's virtue that the Times would go for Yassky, for all the reasons mole outlines, but most importantly because of the Ratner connection.

I don't have all that much respect for the Times any more; I guess I am very cynical.

It's really too bad that Chris is the son of such an inept Congressman, because he is obviously the best candidate. If it weren't for the anti-Major element, Chris would have most of Clarke's base, some of Andrews' and all of Yassky's. If Major had retired 4 or 6 years ago, Chris would have had this locked up.

In the interest of fairness, I'm posting below the entire text of today's New York Times endorsement of David Yasskey for the controversial 11th Congressional district...just in case some poor soul reading this is swayed by the non-objectivity of the post today by Bouldin.

When the Times discounts other candidates for nepotism, misrepresenting credentials and corrupt cronyism, it's a sad song to sing that the endorsed candidate jumps at an opportunity when he sees one. I WANT someone in Congress who will jump at the opportunity to make things better.

HERE FOLKS IS THE UNABRIDGED, UNEDITED NEW YORK TIMES ENDORSEMENT OF YASSKY AS IT APPEARED TODAY.

August 30, 2006
Editorial
For Congress in Brooklyn
Brooklyn’s 11th Congressional District has had black representation since a court-ordered reapportionment in the 1960’s. Shirley Chisholm represented the area when she became the first black woman ever elected to Congress. So it was not surprising that black leaders reacted with some pain when a white city councilman, David Yassky, announced he was moving a few blocks to establish a home in the district and run for the seat.
Mr. Yassky is pitted against three black candidates in a Democratic primary that is the equivalent of election in their highly Democratic district. While we agree that having good minority representation in Congress is critical to a healthy democracy, the political organization of Brooklyn has miserably failed the goals of the voting rights law by treating the district as a fiefdom. Instead of leadership, the machine has cranked out corruption.
The incumbent, Representative Major Owens, is retiring and wants to hand the seat to his son, Chris, a former health-care administrator and community organizer. The idea of handing political office down the family tree like an antique watch has become something of a tradition in Brooklyn, and not a good one. The younger Mr. Owens is extremely well-educated and likable, but he seems to have neither the political base nor the passion to become the kind of congressman the district needs.
Carl Andrews, a state senator, owes his job and lucrative patronage work to Clarence Norman, the former party boss convicted of corruption. That relationship raises serious concerns, as does Mr. Andrews’s lack of transparency over estate work given to him in the Surrogate Court by a judge who was forced to resign amid scandal. The last thing needed on Capitol Hill is a franchise of the Norman way of doing business.
Yvette Clarke has tried to link herself to Ms. Chisholm, but aside from Caribbean West Indian roots, there is no comparison. Another political heiress, Ms. Clarke faces term limits on the City Council seat she won when her mother vacated it. Her lack of attention to important details borders on alarming. A challenge to Representative Owens in 2004 was marred by poorly answered financial issues. This time she falsely claimed to have graduated from college and then pleaded memory loss.
Ms. Clarke has been among the most vocal critics of Mr. Yassky, whose entry in the race she ascribed to some sort of anti-black motive rather than what was clearly the attraction of a rare open seat. Representative Owens also set a mean tone early on, calling Mr. Yassky a “colonizer.”
Mr. Yassky is undoubtedly an opportunist, as are most politicians and certainly all those in this race. But far more important is his stellar record on the Council, leading groundbreaking work on gun control, affordable housing, the environment and jobs creation — all important to the 11th District.
There are many, many intelligent, hard-working and high-achieving young African-Americans in central Brooklyn who once considered careers in politics and then moved on when the party machine proved unenthusiastic or downright antagonistic. That failure of leadership is reflected in the current race. The residents of the 11th District deserve the best representation possible. In this race, that is David Yassky, who gets our endorsement.

Clarke blew her chance at the endorsement when the diplomagate mess hit the fan. Andrews, correctly noted as the machine candidate, was never going to get it. So that left Yassky and Owens. Since the NYT board doesn't know Chris well, and he doesn't hold public office, what could they judge him by? His last name and the fact that there is a closed, dynastic way of running things in Kings County politics. Without knowing Chris, it isn't an unreasonable assumption that a man looking to replace his father in a public office is part of the same machine to which his father belongs. In this case I don't think its entirely accurate though.

What disturbs me is they said Chris lacks "passion", which clearly shows me they don't know him. But I can't blame them for that, are they supposed to KNOW every candidate?

... I think it's time that you identify yourself. You signed up with this blog, which has been generally unfriendly to David's aspirations, a few days ago, and spend your time shilling on his behalf.

Do tell us why.

There's some disagreement on other blogs about what this endorsement means. Some saying this sews the race up for Yassky, others saying it doesn't. The Times endorsement usually carries a lot of weight, in particular in races where there's no incumbent, because the most active, likely to vote, constituents put a lot more weight on it than any other endorsements.

I remember when volunteering for the Norman Siegel campaign, he had near unanimous, passionate support from the progressive side-- just as Chris Owens does-- and we all got caught up in the energy and enthusiasm thinking our hard work would make it a close race. It wasn't. The Times strongly endorsed Betsy Gotbaum, and bashed Norman, and that killed the momentum. Most informed voters who didn't care about that race were either going to vote for the incumbent or the Times endorsed candidate, who in that case turned out to be the same person. The sad fact was Norman couldn't win that race without the Times endorsement, and the race turned out to have been effectively over the day the Gray Lady endorsed Gotbaum for another term.

The dynamics of the 11th CD race are different though, I don't think the Times endorsement is a killer here necessarily, but Chris needs to get a head of steam from somewhere that has cred-- that isn't just wide eyed supporters like us on the ground. I think Clarke and Andrews are mortally wounded now, Chris needs to work on getting their supporters to jump ship and fall in line behind him. The race is coming into focus now.

Bouldin said [quote]this district doesn't lie in embracing opportunism. It lies in electing someone who is independent of the existing machine - and that would be, ladies and gentlemen of the editorial board, Chris Owens[/quote]

I agree Chris is independent but the Times clearly wasn't sold on the idea. The problem is that Major Owens has embraced the Clarence Normanites in recent years. He was front and center at the Stop Yassky meetings organized by the Machine. So how could Chris convince the Times that if his father is now, even if he wasn't always, a part of the Kings County Democratic Party political machine, that he would not be also? Its a fair assumption, not true in this case though, that most fathers take after their sons in the ways they go about business. Its a difficult problem particularly when Chris hasn't held a public office where he could visibly be seen fighting The Machine.

The question is what the Times have to go by to determine that Chris wasn't part of the Machine? They don't know him like we do.

For liberal whites who wanted to vote Yassky but felt conflicted about voting for a white man in CD11, the Times endorsement just washed away any guilt they might have felt. Owens is the best candidate but this one's between Clarke and Yassky.

I disagree that this race is between Clarke and Yassky, as I have seen no indication-- none whatsoever-- that Yvette Clarke can expand beyond her base. She'll get her 22 or 23%, but thats all she'll get and thats third place, not first. She only scored well in early polls because she ran two years earlier and the people polled had nothing else to go by. Clarke is not the favorite, nor will she win IMO.

Andrews has always been the one with the potential to win, because he's the machine candidate and has Spitzer's endorsement. His candidacy is not gaining traction though, and has been hurt by revealations of the payolas he took in the past. Had the Times endorsed Andrews, that along with the Spitzer endorsement, would have brought him support beyond his base and he could have won.

That didn't happen though. Yassky is the clear favorite now and the only candidate who isn't stained by his/her own scandals and can come across as the consensus alternative is Chris Owens.

Also Yvette Clarke no longer deserves the vote of any loyal democrat, because in a debate last week she flatly said she will not support the winner of the primary if it is not her. She announced she will run third party. If a candidate seeks the Democratic Party's nomination in a primary, they should be willing to support the winner of that primary. It is called having respect for the process (and the party). For Yvette to say she's running a serious third party campaign, win or lose, proves she's a fair weather democrat, one who walks the party line when its convenient to her, but doesn't walk the walk when its not. This lack of party loyalty is not what we need in a congressman in the 11th district.

I've been lurking here for a few weeks and this is the most despicable "blog" I've seen in quite some time.

Selective quotes? If you want to use selective quotes from the NY Times endorsement of Yassky to push your candidate, you are simply part of the problem, not the solution.

Chris Owens? Yeah, he has the experience in DC of Yassky. He worked for his father? That's experience? Experience in doing NOTHING for the district. He's part of the machine, as is Andrews. And let's not even deal with MS. Diploma herself.

come on you guys-either be honest or shut the hell up.

So first, Yassky's people call us to offer interviews, and now, they're sending over the YasskyBots to argue his case. David must be way overstaffed; the Owens people don't even have the time to leave comments on blogs.

Heh.

Rather than be selective let me post what you "snipped" including the part about Chris Owens not having the qualifications to be a congressman that the district sorely needs, given the work, or lack thereof, of his father.

(Oh, and by the way, I don't work for Yassky, have met him a few times, and yes, I have donated money to his campaign, as I have to Mark Green's. But I'm no "bot" and hardly work there. Staff? I have a real day job.)

Herein, from the NY Times Editorial Page August 30, with portions clipped (you can find them in post way above...)

For Congress in Brooklyn

Brooklyn’s 11th Congressional District has had black representation since a court-ordered reapportionment in the 1960’s. Shirley Chisholm represented the area when she became the first black woman ever elected to Congress. So it was not surprising that black leaders reacted with some pain when a white city councilman, David Yassky, announced he was moving a few blocks to establish a home in the district and run for the seat.

SNIP

The incumbent, Representative Major Owens, is retiring and wants to hand the seat to his son, Chris, a former health-care administrator and community organizer. The idea of handing political office down the family tree like an antique watch has become something of a tradition in Brooklyn, and not a good one. The younger Mr. Owens is extremely well-educated and likable, but he seems to have neither the political base nor the passion to become the kind of congressman the district needs.

Carl Andrews, a state senator, owes his job and lucrative patronage work to Clarence Norman, the former party boss convicted of corruption. That relationship raises serious concerns, as does Mr. Andrews’s lack of transparency over estate work given to him in the Surrogate Court by a judge who was forced to resign amid scandal. The last thing needed on Capitol Hill is a franchise of the Norman way of doing business.

Yvette Clarke has tried to link herself to Ms. Chisholm, but aside from Caribbean West Indian roots, there is no comparison. Another political heiress, Ms. Clarke faces term limits on the City Council seat she won when her mother vacated it. Her lack of attention to important details borders on alarming. A challenge to Representative Owens in 2004 was marred by poorly answered financial issues. This time she falsely claimed to have graduated from college and then pleaded memory loss.

Ms. Clarke has been among the most vocal critics of Mr. Yassky, whose entry in the race she ascribed to some sort of anti-black motive rather than what was clearly the attraction of a rare open seat. Representative Owens also set a mean tone early on, calling Mr. Yassky a “colonizer.”

SNIP

But far more important is his [Yassky’s] stellar record on the Council, leading groundbreaking work on gun control, affordable housing, the environment and jobs creation — all important to the 11th District.

SNIP

Yah - good thing Yassky isn't running on Chuck Schumer's record or anything like that. This endorsement isn't altogether expected, and I suspect that Gail Collins is fielding any number of angry phone calls.

We'll revisit the issue after he comes in in third place. Until then, let me just state unequivocally what I have said before: David Yassky will never represent this district in the House.

Funny, a Times theatre or film review used to carry more weight, too. In a democratic primary, tho, I think those most likely to go to the poles are the ones least likely to take the Times very seriously, on anything. Their abdication of any resposible journalism when it comes to thei buddy Ratner gives them zero credibility in the area.

I say achhhhhpffftt!!!!

Chris Owens for Congress
Howie Hawkins for Senator
Malachy McCourt for Governor (50,000K for Green party ballot status)