Defeat Vito Fossella; Diane Savio on Steve & Domenic
Interested in assisting the defeat of Vito Fossella, NYC’s only GOP member of Congress, I’ve been watching developments in NY’s 13th CD (Staten Island & parts of Brooklyn) from a distance. Ten days ago, or so, I attended an event on Staten Island where I met Steve Harrison and many of his SI supporters. To keep up on events in this race try NY13 Blog Retaking NY-13 From Vito Fossella or you could try Richard Reichard's Rm 8 Blog (not kept quite so up to date).
I liked Harrison. He seemed articulate, focused; ready for prime time. The gossip of the gathering, however, was the rumor that some progressive Democrats – for example State Senator Diane Savino -- were supporting the possible candidacy of NYC Council Member Domenic Recchia.
I asked Savino, a progressive trade unionist and formerly Working Families Party activist why she would consider supporting Recchia in 2008 when she’d supported Harrison vigorously in 2006. The rumor specifically was that Senator Savino was introducing Council Member Recchia to her SI friends and supporters.
She said:
For me, the question is which of them can win. On their worst day, either Steve or Domenic would be better much than Vito Fossella. Electing either Harrison or Recchia would be a great victory. I campaigned hard for Steve in 2006 and, if he’s the candidate in 2008, will do so again.
Domenic’s Council district overlaps a lot of my Senate district so I know him well. My sense is that he would be a more formidable candidate than Steve.
The way I judge that is by the candidates’ fund raising abilities. In January, I met with Steve and more recently with Domenic. I told them the same thing. You need to show that you can raise enough money for the race. I believe that a truly formidable candidate will have raised in the neighborhood of $500,000 by the end of the Quarter [Jan. 15, I think]. I think Domenic can do that. The reason the race will be so expensive is the need to reach out to SI voters by mail and TV ads.
Senator Savino intimated that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was especially interested in this race as well as in efforts to defeat NY Republican Congress Members Reynolds and Walsh. The DCCC idea of a viable candidate, I am told, in the 13th is one with a minimum of $250,000 in hand by Jan. 15th -- with a plan to raise $500,000. How close will either of these candidates come?
[Some experienced campaign people tell me Sen. Savino's estimates of the costs of a Congressional race are on the high side.]
The possible DCCC role in the 13th brought to my mind the 2006 primary race to replace Sue Kelly. There, the DCCC facilitated fund raising by one of the candidates and then effectively stayed out of the election (until the very last minute) when, another, John Hall, won the primary. From all that I drew the inference that Recchia might get some help from the DCCC.
Savino expressed disappointment at the vitriolic atmosphere, name calling and hostile remarks which the supporters of Harrison & Recchia had resorted to. (This, too, brought to my mind the ’06 primary during which, by contrast, none of the prospective anti-Kelly candidates attacked each other). I myself have been mystified by it. Is it generated by the fact that Harrison supporters think he's entitled to the nomination and Recchia supporters think he should be handed the right to run?
With Senator Savino's civility standards in mind. I will ask each candidate to explain why he should be supported. I will try to focus them on how they differ on the issues and how they plan to run against Mr. Fossella. My calls are in to Domenic Recchia and email sent to Steve Harrison. Stay tuned.
DCCC
The idea that the DCCC would make any decisions on this race before the primary is a little bit rediculous. I've talked to a high-up DCCC official who didn't even know Recchia's name correctly when I asked about the race. "Recchio or something like that is interested" was the response.
Savino, and anyone else that intimates Recchia has received or has been told he will receive DCCC support, is grandstanding. The upstate races are more on the map than this one is for now. That being said, the premise that raising a lot of money is what will get DCCC's attention is true, and will be a large component of what decides the extent of DCCC's involvement.
So far, Recchia hasn't done anything to prove he's a substantially better fundraiser than Harrison, and both of them have a chance to put up sizable numbers. This line of attack from either camp as a justification for why their candidate should get the nomination is fairly silly.
At this point both candidates should focus more on a positive message about themselves and on why Fossella is so bad, and less on explaining why their fellow Democrats are not viable in the general election against Fossella. I've heard a lot more talk along those positive lines from the Harrison people. Dominic, at this point the only argument for your candidacy that I've heard is that you have a better chance at beating Fossella. That doesn't bode well for getting my support, and I don't think it will play very well among voters.
A primary can raise a challenger's name recognition,
which is vital in beating an incumbent. So I think the DCCC is right to get involved early in primaries where it thinks the incumbent is beatable.
And looking at fundraising numbers and number of donors seems reasonable to me. Not the measures I'd choose first, but I don't see much activity in this race (compare it to Massa or Powers), so it seems reasonable enough. Anyone got a sense of what those numbers are?
"Savino, and anyone else that intimates Recchia has received or has been told he will receive DCCC support, is grandstanding."
Something of a straw man argument, isn't this?
To be fair, for a change, what's so,
Nothing I wrote about Sen. Savino implied that Mr. Recchia had been promised DCCC support -- only that DCCC viewed fund raising ability as the measure of a candidate's viability and that -- in their view -- $250,000 was a magic number. Sen. Savino said she thought closer $500,000 should be in hand.
In previous elections, I am told, DCCC-favored candidates were directly introduced as such to donors in pre-primary situations such as this one.
In the meanwhile, I am working on comparing Mr. Harrison and Mr. Recchia with Mr. Fossella on the issues. I have not, however, received, as I hunt and peck, any calls returned from Mr. Recchia or his supporters.
Recchia should respond
it's a mistake on his part not to.
Ah, yes...the old arguement...the passionless arguement
First off, in the interests of openness, let's bring up that Savino will naturally have a real beef with something Daily Gotham has been trying to do: hold accountable those Democrats who endorsed Noach Dear for judge. Noach Dear is a known homophobe and was rated as unqualified to be judge by the NY Bar Assn. There is no evidence anyone has given me that he has ever practiced law. So Daily Gotham editors consider an endorsement of Noach Dear to be a serious error in judgement at best, or an actual sign a politician cannot be trusted at worst. The endorsement by Dominic Recchia was the final straw for me in deciding that I actively oppose him, rather than merely supporting Harrison. And the Dear endorsement by Vito Lopez and Dominic Recchia seems to have been the final straw for Bouldin to reject the lousy way the machine runs Brooklyn, or so it has seemed to me. In this context, I have to mention that Diane Savino, whatever other qualities I might admire about her, endorsed Noach Dear, at least according to Lambda Independent Democrats and Stonewall Democrats. She will have reason to be concerned about the depth of feeling the Dear endorsement has roused among progressives. So it could be spun (and people will spin it this way whether I bring it up or not) that this is merely one Noach Dear Democrat supporting another...but honestly I don't think that is all it is. I think it is something else that I actually find more disturbing if at least more honest and understandable. It is the continuation of a flawed logic that kept Democrats from winning for years: the idea that money is a primary method for choosing candidates.
This thinking is the kind of passionless, valueless thinking that led many Americans to (WRONGLY) believe that Democrats lacked values and Republicans were, in some Alice Through the Looking Glass way, the party of values. This passionless thinking has its merit, since money DOES of course help win an election, but if it was the primary concern then Democrats would never win against Republicans because until this very year Republicans consistently outraised Democrats. One can also ask Shawndya Simpson and David Yassky whether money is all you need to win an election. MONEY IS IMPORTANT. But raising money is a team effort. The quality of the candidate is as important as money, as is the connection the candidate has with the voters in the district. These two things can trump money and Democrats should be thankful that they do because it is through connecting directly with voters on a personal level that Democrats win over better funded Republicans.
If the best we can say about Recchia is that he can raise lots of money, that isn't a glowing endorsement. Savino did not say she thought he had better character than Harrison. Nor did she say he had better name recognition. Nor did she say he has a better connection with the voters. She says he can raise more money.
That may be true, but what does it mean? It means he has more big money sources behind him. Is that the best we can do? We have the candidate that has more big money behind him! That doesn't inspire voters to come out.
What inspires voters? We don't have to speculate, because the research has been done. The book I keep suggeting people read (and only a few politicians listen to me, but really...it is the book that can tell you how to win and win honestly as a Democrat!), Drew Westin's The Political Brain, shows the scientific data. People predominantly vote based on emotions, and the dominant emotional feeling they vote based on is emotional tie to a particular party.
Let's look at the district in more detail and think about our situation. The district is a Democratic district according to voter registration. On both sides of the district, there are more Democrats than Republicans. Yet Republicans keep winning. That means the emotional tie to the Party is weak. This has been the case REGARDLESS of who ran. Steve Harrison did better than any other candidate in like 30 years. But STILL, the PARTY is failing to connect with voters. This is NOT Harrison's fault. It is the Democratic Party's fault, both in Brooklyn and in Staten Island. Money can't buy you love, whether romantic or political love. Now any guy who has ever dated or any candidate who has ever run can tell you, money can sure help. But it cannot outright buy it.
There could be a very real parallel between David Yassky's Congressional run and Domonic Recchia's Congressional run. Now let me just say that personally I trust Yassky more than Recchia, but for a moment leave machine connections aside. Both Yassky and Recchia have reasonable progressive credentials. Both have the connections to big money sources to raise money. But both had little connection to the district they wanted to run in and were DEPENDING on money to win. Money seldom will completely trump a personal connection to the voters. Yassky learned that they hard way. Recchia is potentially making the same mistake that Yassky made, though in a two person primary that may well succeed...in the primary. But the same kind of bad feelings Yassky left behind his run for Congress will dog Recchia, should he win the primary, into the general election. He will be seen as the passionless, valueless carpetbagger who could just raise more money. It is HIGHLY DANGEROUS to support candidates primarily on their money raising abilities. This is the mistake the DCCC made in 2002 and 2004. The message sent to the voters when this is the primary criterion is a bad one and often a losing one, particularly in a relatively long shot election.
As to fundraising, so Recchia has more big money connections. Fine. Money helps. But where were these big money connections in 2004 and 2006? Had they come forward for Harrison, there is a damned good chance he could have won. Fundraising is not solely the responsibility of the candidate. It is also the responsibility of activists and Party leaders. The party leaders are as much to blame for poor fundraising as the candidate.
As to the issue of re-running a candidate. Again, let's learn from 2006. All over the country candidates who had run and failed one, two, three times in the past won in 2006. The fact that they had failed in the past and had been unable to raise funds in the past did not mean that they failed when activism and the Party finally got behind them...and Republicans imploded enough. Ask Loebsack in Iowa. You could have said the same things about CONGRESSMAN Loebsack people are saying about Harrison until about a year ago. Same with Ciro Rodriguez. Same with many other freshman Congressmen. What was different in NY-13 is the party failed to come together even at the end. Candidates who have run in the past have developed some name recognition. Then, when the party finally gets around to bringing the money and phonebanks to bear, those candidates win. Backing Harrison strikes me as backing the candidate who has more name recognition, has more of a connection to the district, and arguably is easier to sell as the man with character since party insiders like Recchia are harder to sell in longshot races. If WE as members of the party, can bring the money to bear the way we did for Ciro Rodriguez and Dave Loebsack and Jerry McNerney and...well you get the point.
As to civility, as long as there is the machine/reform/progressive split in Brooklyn this will be the norm. I know players on both sides of the split who resort to lousy tactics, but I ultimately blame a very, very nasty machine for the nasty politics in Brooklyn at least, just as they are ultimately to blame for the abyssmal voter turnout and lack of effective Democratic voter registration in Brooklyn. I would suggest that Daily Gotham has at least been honest about our biases and why we have those biases. I do not feel anything said by the Daily Gotham editorial staff has been out of line on this subject, though I am sure some would disagree. But let's face facts. The nature of machine politics in Brooklyn (can't speak for SI) does not lend itself to civility. And I don't think they ever will as long as the machine functions the way it does.
Bottom line, Savino is right that money matters. And I do not question her right or motives for backing Recchia. But when money is our primary criterion for choosing our candidates we lose. Consistently.
Mole is wrong
Mole says: "The district is a Democratic district according to voter registration. On both sides of the district, there are more Democrats than Republicans. Yet Republicans keep winning. That means the emotional tie to the Party is weak. This has been the case REGARDLESS of who ran. Steve Harrison did better than any other candidate in like 30 years. But STILL, the PARTY is failing to connect with voters. This is NOT Harrison's fault. It is the Democratic Party's fault, both in Brooklyn and in Staten Island."
WRONG. Every Democrat running throughout that ditrict won last year, except one: Harrison. Obviously if every party candidate but one is victorious, it is not the party which has failed to conect with the voters, it is the losing candidate.
Dear Gatemouth, this is a more debaters point.
You write: "Every Democrat running throughout that district won last year, except one: Harrison. The "throughout" makes it sort on an empty, trick, point.
Other Democrats lost on SI in 2006; notably Titone who, like Harrison, ran a in a campaign which was (as I saw it) lacking (or deprived) of resources. You are assuming the outcome of the argument here. If Harrison cannot raise enough money, he'll have a very hard campaign. But if he's fairly funded, based on the issues he's articulated, can he win? Should he win?
Have you talked with Domenic Recchia? I've tried. So far with no success. Do you have any idea what sort of campaign he might run? Is he for the war, against the war? etc. Trust me, I've tried to find out and for a putative candidate, so far he's been quite quiet. I cannot imagine people like me being attracted an issueless campaign.
It would be interesting to see
a more thorough run down of how candidates in the CD did in 2006, as a measuring stick for how Harrison did.
I do not love thee, Noach Dear, the reasons, they are very clear
But let's not mix them up in this discussion about Steve Harrison and Dominic Recchia. A candidate good on the issues without the support of voters and funders is a bad candidate.
A candidate bad on the issues with money or political support is worse; such a person must be defeated. Indeed the current office holder Vito Fossella is, as I see it, bad on the issues and yet endowed with both some money and some support.
I've spoken to a number of people on Staten Island who support Fossella (This can even happen to leftists. For example, I liked Susan Molinari, Fossella's predecessor, even though I disagreed with her on many issues). Vito Fossella will not be easy to defeat.
Progressives will need to work hard to elect a candidate good on the issues who can muster financial and political support.
As I type, I am trying to learn Dominic Recchia positions on issues. I do wish he'd call back. Oh well.
Sorry...it's relavent
When someone endorses a highly despicable and unqualified person for an important position, it reflects on their character. Look, they could have sat it out. Instead they chose to attach their name to Noach Dear. That sends a message to gays and to anyone who might have to have their case heard in the 5th district that they don't count. It is not appropriate according to either a reform or a progressive ideology to endorse a homophobe who has never practiced law for a judgeship.
I am not a purist. I won't say I will never support a Noach Dear Democrat. But it DOES bear on how I view that politician because it reflects on their character. When you are faced with candidates who are going to be very close on most issues, character becomes important as does connection with the district. As, for that matter, does fundraising. So I might give one to Recchia and three to Harrison in my rough calculation of who I prefer to support.
And, of course, well into negative digits for Fossella. Who has his own character problem that I have aired repeatedly in the past.
So I guess I would rank the three like this: Harrison (the guy who did better than anyone in the past 30 years in the district and has ties to both sides of the community and can speak passionately about things I am passionate about); then Recchia (the Noach Dear Democrat who has money to try and buy his name into the district but will vote adequately); then Fossella (the Bush Lap Dog).
Savino
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Comment zapped because it makes accusations with no backing. The anonymous commenter was given time to back up his accusations and didn't...see Rosalie's comments below for more substative comments covering similar ground]
Look
Look. I may agree with you...I may not. But if you are going to get nasty, you need to identify yourself. I do not approve of people using anonymity to hide behind while they yell insults. Be polite and anonymous or tell us who you are and have more lattitude regarding attacks. Anonymous attacks are not respected at DG.
Well, I learn a lot more if the "anonymous"
could state the basis of her/his claim about what Sen. Savino did in 2006. For me "bullshit" is more an emphatic way of saying "untrue," but the vagueness of the charge is -- for me -- what weakens it in this case.
Yep
Don't mind the language necessarily...I just don't like people using anonymity as an excuse to be obnoxious. I have heard that many, Savino, Lopez and Recchia included, did little in 2006. I do KNOW that Lopez and Rechhia did little...were nowhere to be seen. I don't specifically know about Savino and so prefer that people who make accusations back them up and also realize that anonymity doesn't mean blanket permission to be rude.
Some Answers
I don't believe Diane Savino donated one dime to the Harrison Campaign. She ran unapposed and had a ton of money. Recchia donated about $250 but did nothing to help Harrison in Gravesend and Bensonhurst or anywhere else for that matter. I'm not sure what if anything Lopez donated but he did nothing. Nadler donated but I'm not sure if it was $1,000 or $500. The Clintons helped also. Hillary donated and Bill did a robo call. Therefore, had Harrison gotten more support on the Brooklyn side he
As for Harrison being the only candidate besides Titone to lose on SI there are a few more like Janelle Hyer-Spence and Manny Innamorato.
The one thing that seems to be forgetten, and this is the biggest, is that Recchia is not from the district. Even if he wins the Primary he will get slaughtered in the General. Not even 10 million dollars will help him there. Harrison connected with the people, people know who he is and starts with a 43% (votes he got in 2006). He can build on that and the DCCC should recognize this. Stand in the SI Ferry Terminal and ask people who Dominic Recchia and who Steve Harrison is and I know you'll find that Steve is the one they know.
You know, had John LaValle lived we wouldn't even be having this conversation. He would have told Recchia, Lopez and their supporters where to go and what to do when they got there. He told DeBlasio and his supporters just that 2 years ago and they backed off. The club members know this and they've been telling their leadership how they feel.
It's not an empty debating point, Dan
I make the comparison of Harrison's vote to those running "throughout" the district because otherwise one is comparing apples to oranges.
You can only compare Harrison's numbers in his turf to other candidates who ran in the same turf. Titone ran in a very Republican District. Al Gore won the Congressional District in 2000, but he lost the Senate District Titone ran in. Titone did not get the benefit of landslide victories in places like Stapelton and Park Hill Houses; Harrison did. To compare Titone's performance to Harrison's is just inapposite. As it is, I would bet that an ED by ED comparison of the turf where both districts overlapped would show that Titone outperformed Harrison. But comparing their overall numbers to each other is highly misleading and of no real use.
If you want to talk about an empty debater's point, how about your assertions that "if Harrison's] fairly funded, based on the issues he's articulated, can he win?" Talk about a hypothitical based upon a premise which may never occur. If he's "fairly funded" (whatever that means), can he win? I don't know, could Freddy Ferrer have beat Bloomberg if Fernando had Mike's money? If my bubbe had cojones, would she be my zayde? What does it matter? The question is, can he get fairly funded?
Incidentally, though, yours is the fairest piece yet on this race in TDG.
this seems pretty much on target
more comments like this, from both sides, please
Wow! Compliment from Gatemouth! Now I'm really in trouble.
The issue about which candidate is more viable from a fund-raising point of view is an empirical one. We'll see where they are at the end of the quarter. That, of course, is only the beginning of the inquiry for me -- even on the issue of viability. For example, John Hall was behind in fund raising much later in the cycle than we are at now. I don't think he ever caught up from a cash point of view with either his principal primary opponent or his GOP-office-holding opponent; he just got more votes.
At least as important to me is whether Mr. Recchia planned campaign (if any) will make him out as an opponent of
Mr. Fossella or a clone? Will he campaign as a war supporter, a patriot act and torture enthusiast? From a technical point of view, some professionals might advise running as far to the right as possible. Will Recchia do that? If he does, he'll not be the guy for me , obviously. The question as to which candidate will run a campaign which will attract progressive supporters like me is also empirical.
But I've not been able yet to discover Recchia's views on the issues (Not, mind you for lack of trying). So my plans to compare Recchia's views with Harrison's cannot be carried out at present.
Recchia really should respond to you
Still, the point about John Hall isn't comparable here, since no one argued that Hall was underfunded. If the argument for another Harrison run is that Harrison would have won but for money then you need to show that he can raise the money he needs. Savino's done everyone a favor by laying down a measuring stick on that score. The more interesting thing to look at and debate, I think, would be is the length of her stick - the amount of money she thinks the race will take - right. Particularly since each candidate seems focused on fundraising and, as you say, we'll know how they're doing on that end when they report the numbers.
NY-13 CD; Basic Facts on the District
According to America Votes 2005-2006 and the Almanac of American Politics, the Dem candidates got 28.9% in 2002, 41.0% in 2004 and 43.2% of the major party Congressional vote in NY CD-13 (Vito Fosella's District). Gore carried the District (before the 2001 post-Census redistricting) over Bush 52% vs. 44%, but Bush beat Kerry, 55% vs. 45% (one of Bush's biggest increases in the country vs. 2000 and "strong evidence of the Sept. 11 effect"). In 2002 Fosella outspent the Dem candidate $1,134,213 to $423,793 and in 2004 he outspent Harrison $1,639,598 to $132,454.
A fundamental problem for Harrison appears to be that the Brooklyn portion of CD13 constitutes only 24% of the voters and the Staten Island portion 76%. With 3/4 of the voters in Staten Island, and the incumbent being from Staten Island, ANY Democrat from the smaller Brooklyn 1/4 of the District will have an uphill climb, regardless of money raised or name-recognition. Someone from outside the District totally could have an even steeper climb in the general election. Maybe Harrison should move to Staten Island ....
After reading this article,
After reading this article, I have lost a lot of respect for Ms. Savino...
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Part of comment deleted since it consisted of attacks not backed up with facts and made anonymously. We allow a fair amount of dirt to be thrown...but we like that dirt to be thrown either with facts to back it up, or by someone who is brave enough to say who they are, or preferably both]
...She's upsetting many voters who back Harrison and may want to put up someone to take her on. No one is infatible.
Dear anonymous,
other than the fact that you are mad at Sen. Savino and Mr. Recchia, I haven't learned from your comment. Why do you think he's an opportunist? Why do you think Ms. Savino is kissing his butt? Whether anonymous or by name, your comment helps me most when you state the facts and views underlying your conclusion.
My respect for Sen. Savino has increased. She seems smart and straight-forward. She may be wrong but at least she's in the discussion.
One more thing Dan
The name Gatemouth is in, perhaps permanent, hiatus. I didn't want to announce it, but I wish you'd do me the respect of not identifying my posts when I choose not to do so myself. In this thread, I've observed Mole's rules of civlity, so there's no justification for the outing.
But, as long as I'm around, the post directly above is an example of the rampant idiocy afoot among some of Harrsion's most fanatical supporters. Savino's is not a safe seat, and the Republicans would savor a divisive primary, especially if it resulted in her defeat (and no, this is not analogous to the challenge of Harrison, Harrison is not the incumbent). To challenge Savino is to do Joe Bruno's dirty work. And for what? Her voting record is almost entirely unobjectionable to "progressives", and what little is not unobjectionable is still less so than Harrison's qubbling about the manner in which he would regulate legalized abortion (where does he stand on parental notice, medicaid funding, and late term abortions anyway?). A challenge to Savino because she chooses to support else someone in a primary is childish self indulgence worthy of the left's worst fantasies of hackish regulars.
And, I'm being charitable, as the post above makes no mention that the challenge will be in the primary. Given Harrison's prior history, who would put it past his supporters to back a Republican? Boulin's rants have made it seem he'd probably prefer Fossella's re-election to a Recchia victory; given his rationale, and his could it be that Harrison supporters also prefer a Republican to Savino.
I guess their motto is "fewer and better Democrats", although the better part seems subject to debate.
See ya in the movies
recchia/harrison
thank you gatemouth,
your assessment of this discussion is 100% on target. and sadly, it reinforces some of my concerns about the vitriol being leveled in these forums. let me be perfectly clear, steve harrison is a decent, hardworking democrat and so is domenic recchia. on any issue that matters to the people of this district they are far and away better than vito fossella. sadly, we are faced with a formidable task of
trying to convince staten islanders to vote for someone who doesn't live on the island. and rosalie, if you are reading this, do not kid yourself, the fact that steve lives inside the lines is not any more persuasive to staten islanders than the fact that domenic is italian.
the truth is that a challenge to fossella will take real money. and the only way to get real money is to do what i did, raise it, the hard way. that means every damn day, on the phone, call time, hitting up democratic donors, doing the hard ask. i have offered to help with fundraising, offered my donor's list,offered to do call time. and if you ask harrison he will tell you i have never tried to discourage him or anyone else. if steve is successful i will support him 100%. i am a democrat, period, i would never challenge another out of spite or stupidity. but i am a little tired of this circular firing squad,all it does is give aid to our enemies.
How Magnanamous!
On October 19, I said in reference to Senator Savino's endorsement of Noach Dear:
"I eagerly await the opportunity to take Ms. Savino over my knee and give her a good long slow potch in tuchis, giving her ample time between each blow to reflect upon her sins"
Talk about "Diane Savino in the flesh"!(Or, in my case, just fantasize about it).
This may be the first women who I've ever indicated a desire to spank, who's thanked me.
Actually, that's a blatant baldfaced lie.
Keep up the good work in Albany, and stay away from the Courts!
ok,gatemouth, now this
ok,gatemouth,
now this debate is getting interesting. just kidding, i must refrain from engaging, not very senatorial.
Your keyboard says "just kidding",....
...but your tone says you'll be there to accept your punishment because you know you've been a very BADD girl, and must now show appropriate contrition.
Email me at Gatemouthnyc@hotmail.com to arrange a time and place.
And wear one of those Catholic school girl uniforms.
Btw, Bouldin will be there, and he's bringing his fraternity paddle. I'll show mercy and and use my bare hand.
Harrison/Recchia
Thank you for your post. Very few politicans would take the time to do this, especially on a Weekend.
I don't believe that Recchia being Italian will help or hurt him but I definately do believe that his living outside of the district will hurt him, especially on the Island, and if not during the Primary then definately in the General Election. I know you and members of your staff read the SI Political Forum and comment on there. I've seen comments in the past (and I'm talking about when it was first rumored that Recchia wanted to run but expect it to continue) that no way would he stand any chance because he's not living within the district (and the tip of Gravesend which is the end of the district). Time will tell how this plays.
You are correct that it is sad that no SI Politican wants to run for this office but that's their choice.
You state that you've offered your doner list - was that this year or in 2006 and if this year did you offer it to both Steve and Recchia or just to one of them? If just to one of them, which one? Also, Fossella's money is way down and he's still in debt from 2006. This has to be a consideration too. Remember, Steve wasn't able to start fundraising until the Spring of 2006. In 6 months he raised $132,000. Also, if you look at dollar to dollar, both Harrison and Recchia have equal fundraising abilities. In the council Recchia only had to raise about $40-50 and the City gave him 4X that amount. So if he raised $17,000 on his own the City gave him $68,000 making his total raised to $85,000 for the Council race. Also, he ran unapposed the last time (2005). Therefore, what makes him better at fundraising than Harrison? Is he getting outside help that giveing him an advantage?
You are correct that elections take money, but that should not be the only reason why one candidate is better than another. There are many factors other than money that should also be considered. Positions on such things as Iraq, taxes, wire tapping, judgeships, transportation, economy, healthcare, immigration and so many more should be the reason why we choose a candidate. Another is what does the candidate know about the needs of the district?
Like you, I'm 100% Democrat but I'm getting tired of hearing that elected officials are supporting Recchia because he's better at fundraising than Harrison. We should not run any election based on this fact but should support a candidate that's in line with our views and understands our district needs. It's sad that there is a belief out there that money talks and that's the bottom line.
Again, thank you for taking the time to post, it's good to have our elected officials give us their views.
assistance is available to all takers
i offered to help steve several times, am still willing to do so. i would not ask a candidate to do anything i would not or have done. and while i do not dispute that money should be the deciding factor, it is a necessary evil in this race. you have all heard me say time and again, there is no magic to elections, they are all the same. you raise money and talk to voters. simple. you raise money so you can talk to voters. you could be the greatest on issues but if you can't deliver the message you may as well stay home. you can't rely on earned media or political clubs, you need to do mail and field operations and that takes real money. also, the best way to portray yourself as a serious candidate to serious donors is to do daily call time, they want to see your committment to the race. i remember when frank barbaro first got into the race against vito, i was his treasurer. the biggest fights we would have was over fundraising. he hated it, would resist it every day, said it was demeaning to beg for money. perhaps? i hate it, too, but it is game i am in.
None of her business
My title isn't completely true, but isn't Senator Savino supposed to be spending her time getting Democrats elected to the state Senate? Why, then, would she pay more than nominal attention to a congressional race?
There's more here than meets the eye. I look forward to seeing what happens when Recchia finally crawls out from under his rock.
Get real
If Harrison's the nominee you're going to tell Savino to offer nothing more than nominal help? Give me a break.
my backyard is my business
i live here, i care, i have worked on this since 2002. and yes, my primary responsibility is recruit for the DSCC.
and if you are interested, i will be happy to give you all an update of our prospects. i am quite capable of multi-tasking, so i can do the senate thing and give some effort to the congressional race.
Backsides and Backyards
Too much talk of backsides and backyards here, me thinks. But it is NYC, after all. Discussions with Diane Savino, talked with an up and coming City Council Candidate this morning (will have something to say about him soon), and just ran into Bill Deblasio on 7th Ave. Quite a political day!
I for one invite you to blog here about our prospects in the State Senate. I am sure all sides here would like to hear that.
After reading this article,
After reading this article, I have lost alot of respect for Ms. Savino. She's appears to be Recchia in a skirt.If she supports him she also supports overdevelopment which Mr. Recchia has done nothing about. Just look at his support of his personal friend Mr. Sitt of Thor Equities. When his district included Brighton Beach he did nothing. Yeah i know now it's Nelson's district and he's done nothing. Mr. Recchia is a back stabber & opportunist. He trashed his District Manager Chuck Reichenthal in a tirade at a recent CIDC meeting, that he & Carl Kruger manhandled.If this is Ms. Savino's candidate she can forget about my vote & others in the next election.
Debate is great- but let's keep it civil
You know what? After reading some of the posts on this thread I am amazed at how some of Harrison’s supporters are approaching this campaign. Granted, party primaries can get ugly, but why all the acrimony? Do you all believe that the only way to win the primary is to engage in ad hominem attacks? Recchia in a skirt? Are you guys kidding me?
From the beginning, posts about this campaign have completely failed to address Federal policy issues. Why not start raising these issues, so that voters can see where your candidate stands? God knows there are important policy issues that both Recchia and Harrison can debate about, whether on the troops in Iraq, or increased Federal funding for affordable housing. As we all know, there will be a day after the primaries, and other elections. In my opinion, all this bile and bomb throwing will just turn many Democratic voters away, and that’s the last thing we should all want.
correction
i meant to say should NOT be the deciding factor
Perhaps Ms. Savino thinks
Perhaps Ms. Savino thinks that Mr. Recchia should hire Jay Turoff as his Campaign Manager. Afterall Mr. Turoff was an adivisor to Mr. Recchia in his last two Council races. Anyone who dosen't know who Mr. Jay Turoff is.. just Google him. He is a convicted felon back in the Koch Administration with Parking Violation scam. This is his advisor & mentor ?
Fundraising
Fundraising is demeaning but a necessary evil. I also worked as a volunteer on Frank's campaign and one of the things I had to do was call people on the lower tier and ask for donations or to buy a ticket for a fundraiser. Not something that anyone (even a seasoned politician like Frank Barbaro) would enjoy doing on a daily basis.
You are correct that real money is needed for mailings and field operations but one of the biggest things that's needed is caring about serving your district and country, and making both better for the people. Funny, but with Recchia I (and many, many others) feel that he only cares about the fact that he's term limited and has no place to go after 2009. Therefore, not a serious candidate. Voters will see right through that and not 1,000 mailings or any ads will turn that around. I remember when you first ran, I believe you only ran one ad on TV whereby your opponent had several, and still he lost.
thank you Ms. Savino
for being responsive to the concerns of Democrats who care about the future of the party in our city. As one who favors Harrison, and has problems with the way the Brooklyn organization runs things, I may not agree with your assessment of the CD-13 race as outlined in this article, but I heartily condemn anonymous posters who think this forum is an appropriate place for rude, unsupported ad hominem attacks. Please continue posting here!
If this is Diane Savino posting here, I'm becoming a republican
http://www.silive.com/forums/politics/
I want you to go to the SI Advance forum and look at every posting/reply by a person named "Esther" and you will notice a very striking similarity in writing style to the "Diane Savino in the Flesh" who posted here.
These posting are by the same person. I hope this is not the real Diane Savino posting on this page.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: rest of comment deleted since it makes accusations with no further evidence. Part above left because the readers can make their own decisions based on the evidence presented...but the editors advise people to be wary of those who threaten to become Republicans (or Greens, I might add) so easily...]
blogs
dan, if you recall, i told you i am increasingly more concerned about the negative tones on these blogs. they really offer very little in the way of political discussion. they are sadly becoming a gossip column or bashing board. which would be ok if people did it honestly,not hiding behind anonymity. i love a good discussion, and sometimes a good fight, as much as anyone, however, i never hide who i am or what i think.
all that being said, the above post is a too idiotic for me to continue responding or blogging.
"selling out the democratic party", "attacking janelle"
give me a break. and to whoever you are, if you were so damn concerned about her you would know her name is Janele, she hates when you mispell it.
Yes and...with all due respect, no
I am no fan of some of the mud that gets flung around from both sides on the blogs. The very first time my writing got mentioned in other blogs I was crucified in very nasty terms. Daily Gotham has a reputation of being better than most, even though we do get some mud slinging as well.
But how is this different than normal politics? The dirt thrown by Marty Connor and Ken Diamondstone was no different. The dirt thrown by both the Diana Johnson and Shawdya Simpson camps was no different. And that was in official (as well as unofficial) campaign mailings, thought out and paid for with campaign money. And I know some who have been on the receiving end of dirty tricks by well known Brooklyn Democrats. I would argue that much of the give and take here has far more informational content than the more traditional mud slinging I have seen engaged in in Brooklyn Democratic politics.
As to anonymity, I have never liked people hiding behind no-name or a fake name when they get nasty. However, there are others who are well respected who feel they need to hide their identity, including some whose blogging you have herein praised. To prevent anonymous comments would throw out the good with the bad. DG prefers to allow such comments with the right to remove them or delete content that we find excessive. Of course that means those of us who are editors have to be watching for it and sometimes our attention gets distracted.
So, for what its worth, blogging has become a major part of politics these days. And it is an evolving technology. We've had to consult lawyers a few times when interesting situations have arisen behind the scenes because we don't yet know the best ways of handling the issues that come up. So we learn as we go along. In general we prefer allowing rather than blocking speech even when we disagree or don't like the style. But we try to weed out the worst...eventually. (The worst of the worst was the guy who suggested Elizabeth Edwards' cancer was god's way of telling us all to vote for Hillary Clinton...he was one of the few people banned outright).
Yes, Diane, the bile is disgusting, but
we need to have important discussions like this one about the future progressive politics in the 13th even if we collect some bizarrely hostile remarks along the way.
One reason I think it's important to continue public debate is that many activists can be mobilized through it. Another reason, of course, is to not leave the floor to abuse-hurlers.
By-the-way, I have, thanks to your efforts or the passage of time, heard back from Mr. Recchia. In addition, I've been given some election data on the 13th from a thoughtful election observer. As a result, I think I'll be able to write more about the race in the 13th, the views of Harrison and Recchia on the issues.
If we keep insisting on the merits I think we can help progressives focus.
It's all in the name
I don't know if someone said this already? But as Bill Clinton once said so eloquently "it's about the economy stupid", and so I say "it's about the name stupid". On both sides of th narrows the voting block is heavily Italian. And well, Dominic Recchia is a lot more Italian sounding than Steve Harrison.
I have met Recchia once, at my High School graduation, he was the keynote speaker. I came away with two things from that speech: the first is that Recchia is almost inaudible, and second he might be a functional illiterate. Which is pretty amazing, considering he has a law degree(but they just give those things away these days).
Still if I was a betting man, which I am, I would put my money on Dom. Cause lets face it in New York identity politics trumps everything.
Also the people over there may register as Democrats but they think of themselves as Republicans. I went to High School in Bay Ridge, and have some family there. It's a scary place and the rest of the district is 100 times worse.
Recchia is going to win easily.