The Yassky Exception
Since I'm already reasonably well-established on the shitlist of the Yassky campaign and its supporters – after a description as a 'neo-bohemian aristocrat', which does sound more polished than 'faggot', that seems a valid conclusion – well, why not go all out. And yes, I do support Chris Owens, but that's if anything secondary to my thinking on the 11th district contest. Nor do I belong to the angry anti-development subculture; I happen to think Yassky negotiated a reasonably adequate public benefit on the Williamsburg waterfront. I'd also prefer not to join the inevitable chorus of derision that by custom greets higher ambitions on the part of members of the City Council. He's a decent legislator, if not quite the Solon that he paints himself as.
But the fact is that Yassky's campaign is an utter fucking disgrace.
The basic game plan is this: the district contains a black majority of 61%, which is likely to vote for a black candidate. With several such candidates, all you have to do to win is pick up enough of the 39% of voters who are not black to come out ahead in a five-way primary. It's fair to say that this negates the intent of the Voting Rights Act, the letter and spirit of which created the 11th Congressional district.
Utter. Fucking. Disgrace.
I've asked the councilman myself what he thinks of the Voting Rights Act, and whether it should be renewed. His response was an enthusiastic Yes. You see, the VRA ensures "that communities of color get good representation" – which is a ludicrously misleading and self-serving distortion. By this logic, the VRA is race-neutral, a novel interpretation, to be kind. It's also, for any Democrat, a stunningly shameful and debased statement. We gave up the solid South and locked ourselves out of power for a generation precisely because we believe otherwise.
David Yassky presents us as Democrats with a unique and unforeseen challenge, and it is important, for our sake, that we understand the nature of that challenge. We are being asked to elevate the incandescent ambition of one man over a central piece of our legacy; that is what the councilman's amoral calculus of power demands of us. Welcome to the Yassky Exception.
The Yassky Exception posits that the councilman is such an exceptional legislator that his presence in Congress is almost a gift to a district containing not a soul with his dazzling qualities. So clearly does Congress require his presence that it means nothing if African-American representation in that body is lessened. We are being asked to be color-blind at the expense of communities of color.
The Yassky Exception requires us to embrace a campaign whose only chance for success lies in pitting Jew against Gentile, black against white, a minority of district voters against the majority, in a country where the district majority in turn is a minority, the interests of which we claim to hold dear.
The Yassky Exception negates the idea that we stand for bringing a community together, of ensuring that everyone has a seat at the table. That bedrock Democratic value of joining together for the greater good? Say goodbye to all that, as his campaign expressly exploits and exacerbates divisions within the district with a flood of hard dollars.
The Yassky Exception expects you to believe that ethnicity is not a proper factor for black voters to consider, but that a ridiculously pandering mailer – "a nurse in every Yeshiva" - to Hassidim is just business as usual.
The Yassky Exception wants you to be fashionably blasé about the worth of the black experience in America; that experience need not be heard in Congress, certainly not when benevolent white men have so much to offer. After all, why should an ongoing history of black disenfranchisement stand in the way of such exalted dreams as animate the white councilman, whose supporters openly mock what they call "pigment politics"?
The Yassky Exception should be at the back of your mind when you hear that Congress is debating the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act. Why even bother, with this calculating mockery being made of it? Is the VRA negotiable, or is that all oh-so-last-year pigment politics?
If Yassky – and I still don't think it will happen - prevails in this primary, the black population of the district will have every right to feel screwed by a Democratic Party and an establishment that let it happen. African-Americans are an integral part of the Democratic coalition because we actually believe that our One America is not and cannot be monochromatic. I'm not willing to toss all that into the gaping maw that is the heedless ambition of one man aiming to exalt himself. The Yassky Exception is not worth its price tag.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 Elections | African American | Ethnicity | Race | New York City | Brooklyn
You're missing my point
Submitted by Bouldin on 17 May 2006 - 8:34pm.
... and that point is that in a majority-minority district, different rules apply. You say in an ideal owrld, race wouldn't matter, and I agree. But in the world we have, it does, and I make no apology for being appalled at this divisive strategy.
different rules
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 23 May 2006 - 11:04am.
Different rules apply to minorities? The VRA was designed to allow minorities to play by the same rules, to unstack the deck against them. When you argue that the district cannot be trusted to vote its interests you necessarily debase the very population you claim to want to protect. The Voting Rights Act is about voting, not for whom votes may be cast.
the truth on the deal
Submitted by i am an Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 17 May 2006 - 6:50pm.
but saying that yassky got wburg a good deal? well no one has delivered on any of the so called community benefits of that deal for us yet.
http://www.greenpointstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=3&NewsStoryID=3751
as the article above shows, the community is still waiting for all that affordable housing to be planned, we are still waiting for our firehouse to be opened, we are still waiting for enough park space to offset the increased population AND the small manufactoring businesses that are being displaced are still waiting for new space to rent. those jobs are in limbo!
part of getting a good deal is making it actually come true. its called accountability.
I'd vote for Yassky in a heartbeat...
Submitted by mole333 on 17 May 2006 - 9:11pm.
If he was running in Iowa...or in Missouri...or in practically any district in the nation I would be happy with Yassky. In fact if we went only so far as NY-13 I would think he was an excellent candidate.
But that would apply to most if not all of the candidates who are Yassky's rivals as well. Let's face one fact...Brooklyn has candidates who would be good anywhere in the nation. Even our machine candidates would measure up anywhere else in the nation.
But this is NOT anywhere in the nation. We are in a district that should be one of the most progressive in the nation. It should be one of the most AGGRESSIVELY progressive districts in the nation. We should expect a Congressperson who can stand up and take a LEADERSHIP role as a solid Liberal and be proud of that. We need someone who, because the distict would support it, takes the STRONG stand and be a progressive leader.
I do not look at this race racially. Maybe because "my people" haven't been excluded for some time, though once we were. And as to the accusation that Yassky is "in the pocket of developers" I don't necessarily see that.
But my problem is this. For the candidate that has the most money and is part of the in crowd politically, I expect far more leadership than I have seen from David Yassky. I know he wants to be a leader. But I have yet to see it!
In terms of one of the most important issues facing America today--voting integrity--Yassky has failed to take a leadership stand even as his rival, Yvette Clarke, has led the way. When confronted with this at a candidates' forum he was dismissive of the issue. Yet after 2000, 2002 (in Georgia) and 2004 we know full well that the issue of voting integrity is critical. When it comes to the issue of war and peace I have heard a mixed bag from Yassky. He seemed to at times take a strong anti-war stand, going so far as to criticize Chuck Schumer for not being strong enough against the Iraq war. Yet at other times I have heard him seemingly take a Hawkish stand. He needs to be clearer on this issue because right now there is NOT any room for straddling the fence on this issue.
I don't want just another run of the mill Democrat. This nation is faced with a regime that cheats, lies and routinely violates the Constitution. This nation is faced, quite honestly, with the Death of American Democracy and the rise of what just might be a dictatorship. Under these circumstances I look for someone who looks beyond compromise, whose default is to stand strong against dictatorship. I look for someone who I feel recognizes the extreme danger this nation is in and will fight tooth and nail, at all risk, to preserve our freedoms and our Democracy.
I have yet to see David Yassky recognize this danger in any aggressive way. I have yet to see any indication that he is going to do anything but seek a compromise from the start. I don't want compromise when it comes to Constitutional rights. I want a fiery, angry, determined fighter who will stand up in no uncertain terms against the assaults against our freedoms we are facing.
When I look at the whole field of candidates I see that Carl Andrews has been willing to be arrested standing up to state level Republicans. I see that Yvette Clarke has taken a leadership stand on voting issues. I see little strength on critical issues from either Nick Perry or, I am sorry to say, David Yassky. I see that Chris Owens recognizes full well and is very vocal about the dangers that the Bush administration present to this nation.
Sometimes you need the most vocal, most aggressive candidate. We needed Patrick Henry when we sought independence. We probably needed a John Brown to take a strong role against slavery. We need a leader now. We need someone whose stand is more aggressive than David Yassky's. Chris takes that stand. It remains to be seen if he can follow through. But he is the ONLY one who recognizes and publically states the danger we are in and opposes it in clear and strong terms. THAT is what I need in a politician right now.
I know Yassky reads at least some stuff on Daily Gotham. Chris Owens also does. If you guys are reading, I want to make clear that what we need in Congress are more and more people who will take very strong stands against Bush's advocacy of torture, violations of the Constitution, failures in dealing with terrorism, etc. Basically I want someone who is pissed off and ready to fight. Chris has taken this position from day one. But to me who wins is not as important as what the winner actually does. So I want to say to ALL the canidates that we do NOT need another Hillary CLinton, another Chuck Schumer, another politician who votes well but mostly sits back impotently as the Republicans destory all that America stands for. Whoever wins, show me that you are willing to do WHATEVER it takes to defeat the Republican attack on America.
Michael:
Submitted by Gatemouth (not verified) on 18 May 2006 - 7:45am.
Michael:
"If Yassky ...prevails in this primary, the black population of the district will have every right to feel screwed by a Democratic Party and an establishment that let it happen."
And how are they supposed to not let this happen? Kidnap his wife and children? Blackmail his contributors? Strip him of his committee assignments? Block his ballot access? What do you propose they do? Are there are measures they could take which could effectively accomplish this that you would find acceptable in another context?
Michael, it's your page, and your argument, though I don't buy it, is not without its salient and compelling elements. But, it would be better served if you eliminated the the nonsensical automatic pilot stuff. I mean, really, if you thought about the above quote for more than the time it took to write, you couldn't possibly mean it, could you?
Mole:
It's not necessarily "fence straddling" to support certain military actions and oppose others. Pacifists can be consistent; for those of us who are not pacifists, nuance is the only alternative to moral reprehensibilty. I supported Clinton's commitment of military force in Bosnia and Kosovo; I support Bush's commitment of force in Afganistan. I oppose the war in Iraq. You may disagree with all, none or several of my stances, but I am not fence straddling by making distinctions. Do I need to support all military actions to support any? I dare say, that would make me a monster.
Again...
Submitted by Bouldin on 18 May 2006 - 9:42am.
...what I am saying here is that Yassky's personal ambition will extract a price, and I for one do not want that price to be paid. This campaign is explicitly based on getting elected in a black-majority district with white votes. Hey, sure, what's not to like?
If anyone thinks this will not cause a furious backlash and very real feelings of betrayal, they are naive. As Democrats, we ignore the likely consequences of this cynical campaign at our peril.
Thank you for your response
Submitted by mole333 on 18 May 2006 - 10:02am.
And for once you are sounding fairly reasonable.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant Yassky seemed fence sitting because he came off differently regarding the same actions of Bush, namely Iraq and Iran. I wrote about this before and how I don't think his more hawkish statements really reflected his beliefs, but that they were giving the impression that he a.) saw the war on Iraq as linked to the war against terrorist and b.) he was ready to support bombing Iran. I think in both cases his comments (made to a New Democratic Majority audience) contradicted more dovish statements made on the same issues at a Democracy for America meeting. I felt the statements made to a DFA audience probably reflected his sentiments more than his statements made to a NDM audience, but either way I think he needs to clarify.
I know he reads Daily Gotham since he has commented to me on stuff written here, so I wish he or his staff would clarify his stances on Iran and Iraq.
So, again, to be as clear as possible. I was referring to statements David Yassky made regarding the same military actions that seemed to contradict eachother and hence suggested fence straddling. Nor would it be unlikely for him to fence straddle to some degree publically since he is trying to appeal to BOTH Park Slope liberals (in general anti-war) and Crown Heights Hassids (in general pro-war). I do suspect though that his underlying beliefs are thought out and consistent. He just needs to state them more clearly.
GOOD representation???
Submitted by 11th district white voter (not verified) on 18 May 2006 - 11:06am.
Does the councilman understand how stupid that makes him sound? It's as if the VRA is not about race at all. The VRA ensures that minority communities have the ability to 'elect representatives of their choice' and the 11th was created because gerrymandering had historically split black communities.
Is there any question in the Councilman's mind that he would be the fifth choice for most of the black voters in the district? Is there any question that if there were runoff elections in Congressional races he wouldn't stand a chance?
In a majority black district what would his approach be to empowering his constituents? Does he understand the concept? How seriously would he take prioritizing diversity in any appointments or distributions of authority he is engaged in? What is Yassky's position on affirmative action? On reparations?
Yick, but almost more important are the motivations of the big money behind Yassky. This election is going to be about whether our neighborhood groups and voters have the wherewithal to resist gentrification so complete it extends past the streets of prospect heights right into a seat in the House of Representatives.
Who's side are you on?!
Submitted by atomicBirdsong on 18 May 2006 - 4:13pm.
"angry anti-development subculture"
Ok, What the hell is this supposed to mean? This actually smacks of the Rush Limbaugh type derision so commonly slung at "angry" "america-hating" Democrats. Basically what you are doing right here is you are characterized people who are actually trying to do their community a service as 1. Marginal, and 2. Without Merit.
This is very below your arguement which otherwise is right on.
Of course they are not marginal, they are not small in number, they are not a "sub-culture", they do not live in subway tunnels or in basements, they do not burn buildings down (that's left to the developers). The Westside Stadium was not defeated by a bunch of "outside agitators" and Atlantic Yards won't be either. If you didn't notice Bouldin, most of NYC politics is run by the landlords of this town. It is not a coincidence that every major fucking land deal around here has been an insider job. Atlantic Yards, Yankee Stadium, West Side Stadium, Williamsburg, LIC, Willet's Point, Greenpoint, WTC, MSG, jesus knows what else! Yassky, Quinn, the whole Bronx deligation, Stringer, they are all part of the same big game. You want to understand the corruption you are so interested in fighting, you have to look at the land deals going on - what am I saying? you know this.
But here you come along and in your opening paragraph so casually deride one of the most energetic groups of people who are fighting the machine tooth and nail and even winning at times!
Why do you do this?! We are not fighting these deals because we are so called "anti-development" and you know this! We are fighting the machine because we see what is happening for what it is - a huge landgrab that is marginalizing one income class for the benefit of another. By and large the people fighting these projects are pro-development. But we want development to benefit regular folk, not just the sunday afternoon condo shoppers. I know it is a crazy idea, "communist" comes to mind as another label that could be used here.
I will give you angry. Developers are stripping NYC of it's best - the variety and diversity of people that have made up the city for a long time. That makes me angry, and very very very sad, and it makes a lot of other people sad and distrssed too.
You should take back your slight, it ruins an otherwise good post.
Will
onNYTurf.com
Well...
Submitted by Bouldin on 18 May 2006 - 11:34pm.
...that was a lot to read out of a total of four words. In especially into four words that are intended to be descriptive; as far as angry goes, to do the requisite parsing, obviously you are angry and say as much. As far as the term subculture goes, it's my understanding that it denotes a sub-set of the larger culture. I think you're misunderstanding the expression as carrying a value judgment, which in my understanding it does not. I'd guess that you're thinking of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine", perhaps, with its serf cave dwellers?
So really, there is no slight to take back. And if there were, frankly, I would expect to be extended the same freedom of opinion and expression you claim for yourself. People can and do disagree on matters of the public interest and how it is best served, as I do occasionally with other editors on this site; however, one does not make apologies for opinions, period, end of story. I don't even broadly disagree with your analysis above, but if I did, I wouldn't render an apology for it, nor would I expect one from you for not treating my issues as paramount.
The reality is there will be no mandate
Submitted by rwallnerny (not verified) on 18 May 2006 - 4:30pm.
The reality is that in the 11th district race there will be no mandate this year. This is a five person race and there is no runoff. The winner will probably get the seat with less than thirty percent of the vote. Unfortunately, given the demographics of the district, if this contest is racially polarized and the results fall along racial lines, and the turnout is really low, Yassky is going to win. Because he's the white, jewish candidate and he's raised far more than the other candidates for a get out the vote operation. This is why the "Yassky Exception" post in my opinion doesn't help things.
There are some valid points being made, but that kind of talk about Yassky and the race issue only alienates most voters. Alienated voters don't vote. And those it doesn't alienate are being pushed to vote on racial lines.
I have to believe that most voters in the 11th district simply want the best, most progressive representation. If the best representative of the district was white, or chinese or black, it doesn't matter to most people. The point of the Voting Rights Act was to facilitate the election of progressive leaders, not necessarily black or white leaders, but PROGRESSIVE leaders who represent the community. By your logic, it sounds like if Alan Keyes moved to the 11th and ran, he'd be more acceptable than Yassky because he wouldn't qualify as a "Yassky Exception"
Short and sweet, your post IMO HELPS Yassky, it doesn't hurt him. In a five person race if the district is racially polarized, and race is the overriding issue, he'll win. Therefore the issue of whether the person representing the district is white or black cannot be the issue. Even though I don't support him, I certainly don't believe David Yassky is running for congress BECAUSE he's white and feels entitled to some kind of an exception from the standards of the voters of the district.
Black voters?
Submitted by Bouldin on 18 May 2006 - 11:46pm.
I think you'll find that black voters do indeed care. Quite a bit, actually, if some conversations I've had over the last few days are any indication. Like I said, being color-blind is a fantastic idea, but to be so at the expense of the electoral representation of people of color is ludicrous.
And no, the VRA was not intended to elect Progressive legislators, because that would be unconstitutional on its face. The VRA is intended to ensure the representation and voting rights of people of color.
The bigger issue here is that the racial polarization you speak of, which I deplore, stems from Yassky's involvement in the race. This because he is the one playing the race card - "hey, white people, vote for me, I'm white too!" - another thing nobody seems to be noticing.
IRV
Submitted by Green in Brooklyn on 18 May 2006 - 5:55pm.
If the primary in the 11th district isn't an argument for Instant Run-off voting, I don't know what is.
In my mind, no way is Yassky gonna win a majority of the vote, but he does have a chance of winning a 35-40% pluraility, despite the fact that he is probably the 4th or 5th choice of a majority of the voters.
One possibility that I've been floating, tho, is that Yassky wins the primary, but that Owens will still be on the ballot in November as the Green candidate (and possible as the WFP candidate? I don't run in those WFP circles, so I'm not as aware of this).
IRV now!!!!
Vote Malachy McCourt for Governor, Howie Hawkins for Senate, and Chris Owens for Congress!
voting rights act
Submitted by rwallnerny (not verified) on 19 May 2006 - 6:58pm.
The Voting Rights Act was put into place to try and ensure the election of people who would BEST REPRESENT minority voters, in districts where the minority would be the majority. This does not, does NOT mean, nor was it intended to mean, to facilitate the exclusive election of black or other minority representatives.
In fact a white person, if that person had the best progressive views, could easily represent a majority black district. If you disqualify Yassky on the basis of race, then some people might say that you are exhibiting racist attitudes.
I'll ask again, if Alan Keyes, the conservative BLACK perennial presidential candidate, moved to the 11th district and ran for congress, is he more qualified than Yassky because of his race? Would electing Yassky over Keyes be wrong because Yassky, even though he's more liberal than Keyes, is white?
Clearly your interpretation of the VRA seems to indicate you think a black person, any black person, is preferable to David Yassky. That thinking is not what the VRA was all about.
My personal view...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 May 2006 - 9:24am.
I am not speaking for Michael...merely for myself.
I agree with you as far as it goes. I do not think that ANY black would be preferable to ANY white in a VRA district. But...that isn't really the case here.
In this race there are preferctly good black candidates and ones who represent the district more than Yassky does. All personal preferences aside, I could make an arguement that EACH of the black candidates represents the district better than Yassky. Not that Yassky is my personal last choice...but I could make that arguement. Yassky is NOT the most progressive candidate in the race. There are at least two other candidates who could make a case for being more progressive, though I think only one of them really is.
So your arguement, while true per se, does not apply here. And I think Michael's point really is that GIVEN that there are SEVERAL good black candidates in the race, it would look bad if the Democratic Party has a white represent the district.
Look...
Submitted by Bouldin on 20 May 2006 - 1:19pm.
... do I really need to go into all the many ways that African-Americans get shafted every day in this country? Like in Ohio and Florida, 2004 and 2000 respectively? And now, we propose doing the same thing in New York?
This is not about who the most progressive candidate is - it is about race, as uncomfortable as us white Progressives are with acknowledging that it is an issue. We can't, if we claim to be progressives, just overlook what message we're sending by backing a white guy who is expressly trying to get elected against the wishes of the black majority of that district.
That's not Progressive. That's worse than anything Alan Keyes stands for - by far. And I want no part of it.
what are the wishes of the voters?
Submitted by rwallnerny (not verified) on 20 May 2006 - 9:48pm.
bouldin said:
"white guy who is expressly trying to get elected against the wishes of the black majority of that district."
I think some black voters might take offense at the implication of your above statement, which is you seem to think that black voters by due nature of the color of their race, want black elected officials. That kind of implication is condescending, I mean do you think the black majority voters of the 11th are shallow enough to vote based on race and not on views?!
Since the election hasn't taken place yet we don't know what the wishes of the black majority of the district are. I think black voters in the 11th want progressive candidates with progressive views, and taht most of them probably don't care whether that candidate is black or white. As said, I support Chris Owens, but is he more acceptable than Yassky because he's half-black or because he's more progressive. I say its because he's more progressive. If people vote against Yassky because he's white, they are showing themselves to be shallow and making decisions for the wrong reasons. If they vote against him because he's too moderate for a liberal district, they are showing themselves to be intelligent, and making decisions for the right reasons.
I think the voters of the 11th are intelligent. They'll vote for the best candidate, regardless of, and hopefully without much consideration of, race.
What's shallow?
Submitted by Bouldin on 21 May 2006 - 11:30am.
I have to disagree with your analysis simply because you say that race isn't a legitimate issue. Says who? And why? What's shallow - taking into account the history of a lack of black representation by other blacks?
In a perfect world, sure, it's not an issue, and would that it were so. But again, when you have a white candidate in a primary who makes race an issue by proposing to win without majority votes - though of course that would never be said publicly - race is the central issue.
Blacks have a claim - not a right, true enough - to elect one of their own in this district - that's the whole idea of a voting-rights district.
This is not about pro-Owens partisanship. It's about equity for African-Americans. If the vote splits as it would have to for Yassky to win, it's hard to see that equity being preserved.
Not clear
Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 23 May 2006 - 2:27pm.
ZAP! Keep it clean, people.
who is more qualified
Submitted by Jim Prideaux (not verified) on 29 May 2006 - 11:02pm.
I've been following this site for some time... and I keep coming back to the question: who is most qualified to represent the district in Washington.
It seems clear to me that Councilmember Yassky is the most qualified.
I don't really hear anyone here contradicting this statement.
If there's another candidate in the campaign...who is better qualified to fight in Washington for the people of the 11th, with both a local and a national sense of priorities, then I would genuinely like to hear an argument for that person on the merits...
Many thanks.
jbp
Nope
Submitted by Bouldin on 29 May 2006 - 11:27pm.
Since you've posted this before, I'll simply refer you to the previous reply debunking the "most-capable" claims.
Yassky is at best a mediocre legislator. That's the general consensus, even, as I understand it, among his peers.
dialogue
Submitted by Jim Prideaux (not verified) on 5 June 2006 - 1:44am.
I really would be grateful for any data you have to support that conclusion -
David's been recognized not only locally but nationally as a highly capable, innovative, and results-oriented legislator.
He genuinely seems the most capable person to represent the 11th district in Washington.
I just haven't seen any issues-oriented discussion in any forum that supports the idea that he is not the most capable candidate.
Best
jbp
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 5 June 2006 - 7:19am.
What are Yassky's qualifications? He worked for a sitting Rep. and has been a City Councilman. That's it. It is adequate, but nothing so stellar. No one says he isn't capable. But few would deny that Chris Owens is also extremely capable, possibly more so. I see nothing innovative about Yassky. He is fine, but not that innovative. What has he done that has been innovative? Even when he is bragging about his City Council experience most audiences are underwhelmed. When it comes to the number one issue facing the city council right now--voting machines, something that might be a major cost, major headache and a threat to the accuracy of our vote if they make the wrong decision--Yassky has shown no innovation, no leadership and has, in fact, been dismissive of the issue. Yvette Clarke has shown more leadership and vision on that issue. I would say that NO ONE on the City Council strikes me as all that innovative or that strong a leader. Yassky may be one of the better city councilmembers, but that is not necessarily that impressive.
As to a results-oriented legislator, that means a compromiser, right? That is a code word for someone who is quick to compromise. Yassky is very good at rushing to compromise. That has its good AND BAD points. I think in the atmosphere of Bush-era Washington, it would be disasterous. How do you compromise on invading Iraq? How do you compromise on letting New Orleans drown?
His number one bragging point about his City Council stay is Willamsburg development. My problem with that is that it was a compromise that set no precedents. We are still faced with the same secretive, overbearing, over development as we were before he compromised. Whether he brokered the best compromise is open to debate, and I have seen him debate it with others. But even if he DID, it was not that great or innovative a compromise because all over the city we are still faced with the same problems with little City Council leadership against abuse by developers.
And where has the city council been regarding the civil rights of New Yorkers? Largely absent. New Yorkers have been illegally imprisoned for protesting and the City Council, as well as the Public Advocate, have been absent. Nothing from Yassky there.
Yassky is fine. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying, as some do, that he is the worst of the field. But he does not stand out as being the best. He tells me he is, but I have yet to SEE it.
thanks
Submitted by Jim Prideaux (not verified) on 5 June 2006 - 3:57pm.
Thanks for the thoughtful and civil response.
I think that this is what we need more of in this forum.
I am curious if you have surveyed the various legislative initiatives that Mr. Yassky has pursued To me, he seems to be the most capable and experienced candidate.
I think it's an important job, and we need someone who can develop a strong consensus of opposition to the Bush White House.
Jim P.
You're welcome
Submitted by mole333 on 5 June 2006 - 5:24pm.
I know Yassky, have had several discussions with him and have heard him talk at several groups. I hear what he brags about and why. I hear how he answers questions on a wide range of issues. My wife and I have become increasingly convinced that, though we like him and consider him a reasonable legislator, he is locked in a Clinton era view of politics where you begin by planning your compromise with the other side. This theme prevades his discussions with us. Development? Find the best compromise you can make with the developers. Attack Iran? Well, let's just make sure we keep an eye on how Bush does it. Voting machines? Even now he claims he doesn't know enough about it even though it has been an issue since 2000, was thrust upon local governments by the State, and there are two proposals right now before the City Council. When I asked him about the lack of action on the part of the City Council facing Bloomberg's attacks on Civil Rights, he responded by admitting it was weak but saying that he has on a case by case basis helped people out.
He allows developers to make the rules on development, then tries to mitigate the damage. On Iran, he used Bush talking points when discussing it, thus allowing Bush to dictate the dialogue. On voting machines he is allowing the machine vendors to have their way without even bothering to check up on it. On Civil Rights he allows Bloomberg to determine the rights New Yorkers have, then helps his own constituents get their rights back. This is not an awful record. But it certainly is not an inspiring record.
All of that is fine, but it cedes the dominant role to your opponants. If he is unable to take the initiative, take leadership in the environment of a moderate Republican like Bloomberg, how can he possibly stand up to the corrupt and nasty Republicans in Congress?
The other candidates have their plusses and minuses. I think Chris Owens is what we need because what we need is a stronger, more articulate and more forceful advocate of our values and beliefs, not another compromiser. Democrats are perceived as not standing for anything because too often they compromise themselves into irrelevance. We need people who can seize the dialogue and help shape the debate, not compromise out of debate. We need firmer stands.
But my point to you is NOT that Chris is the best candidate. My point is that Yassky isn't any better than the rest of them. Or, at least, not better than all of them. Chris is so articulate I have seen him sway audiences with ease. He answers questions extemporaneously and brilliantly. In terms of framing and delivering a message, the very thing that the Democrats are so criticized for not being able to do, no one else in the race beats him. He also has proven his dedication to community issues better than Yassky. Carl Andrews, I have problems with him. But he can deliver a firm record on standing with Civil Rights leaders even to the point of getting arrested. Yvette Clarke has taken more of a leadership role on voting issues than Yassky, doing her homework and taking the stand that protects our vote. She is criticized for being distant from her constituents and not being innovative, but I don't see much more innovation from anyone else on the City Council.
So what you have is four candidates. I can give you good and bad on each. Yassky has good and bad about him. But I have not seen the leadership and innovation you claim. I see someone who would be one more good Democrat, whose voting record I could defend but who doesn't inspire. I have seen him speak to crowds and none of them have been inspired. They have either been turned off or, like me, mildly impressed. None of those audiences have been roused by him.
So by all means support Yassky and advocate. But don't try to inflate his modest accomplishments into any kind of bold, impressive thing. He has accomplishments, but they are not bold nor massively impressive. They are in line with the other candidates.
thanks
Submitted by James Prideaux (not verified) on 5 June 2006 - 11:12pm.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I would be interested if you think there is another candidate who genuinely has better qualifications.
And as to the idea of being a "compromiser..." I have a few thoughts I'll submit for the group's consideration -
I recall that Councilmember Yassky was in fact quite frequently a rare vote in opposition in a number of Council votes that were dominated by the Speaker's office.
I think it was frequently quite difficult to vote independently in that era, and I believe that Mr. Yassky did so consistently.
He also built independent coalitions with councilmembers from Queens and Manhattan in order to form a prudent counterweight to the Speaker's influence. In fact, he began in the Council as an outsider, because the Speaker actually endorsed Councilmember Yassky's opponent in 2001...
So I think it took a fair bit of confidence to stand up to the influence of the establishment, and I think Councilmember Yassky deserves some recognition for that. Will you grant him that?
Jim P.
Recognition
Submitted by mole333 on 6 June 2006 - 6:44am.
I have always given him recognition for being an adequate candidate and legistlator. Just not a strong leader or advocate for progressive values. And I maintain that belief.
As to who else has equal qualifications: arguably ALL of the other candidates, as I extensively discussed above.
legislation
Submitted by Jim Prideaux (not verified) on 6 June 2006 - 9:29pm.
May I suggest as a example, Councilmember Yassky's proposal that convicted felons be permitted the right to vote? To me, that seemed progressive and independent.
It was a proposal that goes to the core of citizenship. It would permit someone who has served his or her debt to society to participate again in civic life as a voter.
We have to learn to recognize that rehabilitation, in fact, is possible, and that incarceration need not be designed solely for punitive purposes. And that civility is not a sign of weakness.
I thought it was a principled position to take, because by definition, Mr. Yassky stood up for those without the franchise -- individuals who could not possibly pay him back politically.
It was also a progressive (and potentially unpopular) position to take, because the typical punitive position in law enforcement is to "throw away the key" on convicted criminals.
So I thought the proposal showed compassion, a progressive spirit and a willingness to take a principled, potentially unpopular position, and to do so without fanfare or press conferences.
It impressed me, but I don't know that many other people noticed.
What was your view? I think the legislation was introduced last winter. Does anyone else on this forum have a view?
JBP
What's he done for us lately : -)
Submitted by mole333 on 7 June 2006 - 7:20am.
Yes, of course it was good. And he should probably tout it more in the audiences I am wont to hear him speak at. So far he hasn't.
But it really does seem like you, and Yassky himself, do seem to have to wrack your brains to find examples. Examples exist. And I do not want to denegrate those examples of Yassky's legislative efforts. But I do not find that record quite lives up to what you and he claim. Again. He is an adequate legislator. He is qualified for the job.
But he has his weaknesses as well. I do not envision him as having a strong impact in Congress or succeeding in the current political environment. Chris will be better at putting forward a real agenda (my wife already thinks he has the best stated, most consistent agenda) and framing that agenda in a way that will get noticed. I consider that more important in today's climate than yet another solid Democrat who can legislate well. We HAVE that. We DON'T have many people who can state a progressive agenda in a way that enthralls crowds. Chris can do that and we desperately need it.
The Yassky Exception?
Are you saying that the voters of the 11th district shouldn't simply be trying to pick the best candidate? If you are voting for a candidate because he's black or whatever his race is, that is the wrong reason to vote for that candidate. And if you are voting against Yassky because he's white, thats the wrong reason to vote against him.
David Yassky has raised a lot of money from real estate interests, the substantial majority of whom I have to believe do not live in the 11th district. The 11th district, and Brooklyn as a whole, need candidates who are not in the pockets of the real estate developers who would turn the whole borough into communities of expensive high rise condos. Yassky was in on the ongoing fourth avenue and greenpoint construction projects, both of which don't offer enough affordable housing, and where the developers seem to have different definitions of "affordable housing". These are in my opinion, serious issues and Yassky's ties to the real estate interests make voting for him inadvisable.
But that has nothing to do with his race. I support Chris Owens as well. But because he's the best candidate with the best views, not because he's black. I don't believe that Chris would want you supporting him because he's black. Or voting against Yassky just because he's white. In fact Chris is half white, his mom is jewish. That doesn't mean he can't represent black constituents' interests. That doesn't mean he can't represent white constituents' interests. I don't think that Chris being half white, and Yassky being all-white, means either of them by definition can't represent the interests of ALL the diverse constituents of the 11th district. Of course either of them can, if they have the right views.
I say vote for or against a candidate for the right reasons, don't base your vote on the color of their skin. In an ideal world, ethnicity would not be a factor in any voting decisions.