Search
The Race To Replace Vito Fossella; Debate, Fundraising and Nadler
The race to replace Vito Fossella took clearer shape Wednesday with a debate between Steve Harrison and Domenic Recchia at the Staten Island Democratic Association.
Fundraising totals to date were announced for each: $110,000 for Harrison $220,000 for Recchia. While Recchia’s total is greater, both are clearly viable, in my opinion.
Further, reported here for the first time that I know about, Congress Member Jerrold Nadler publicly endorsed -- Council Member Recchia. I had called up to ask about Mr. Nadler’s position and this was the statement I was given. The approved statement, below, differs somewhat from the one I posted previously (which has been deleted).
Congressman Nadler on the race in the 13th Congressional
District .
"Robert Gottheim, a spokesman for Congressman Nadler stated that "the Congressman supports Dominic Recchia in his race to defeat Vito Fossella. Steve Harrison ran an admirable race in 2006, however; he believes that Councilman Recchia is the stronger and best candidate to defeat Vito Fossella this year. The Congressman has worked closely with Councilman Recchia for many years serving the community and he has found Domenic to be an independent voice and fighter for his constituents and he is confident that Domenic is the candidate that will have the resources to run a vigorous campaign and bring an independent voice to Washington and send Vito Fossella along with George W. Bush into retirement."
One important deletion from the original post from the statement above was an assertion that Mr. Nadler and Mr. Recchia agreed about the need to end the war in Iraq and for all US troops to come home. Do they agree or don't they? Only their spin doctors know for sure.
For myself, I have to say I was surprised by this statement. I had expected a more "process" oriented statement of the sort made by State Senator Diane Savino.
As a resident of Mr.
As a resident of Mr. Recchia's district , I must disagree with Mr.Gottheim's statement,as put forth by Congressman Nadler.Naturally Mr. Nadler has his own agenda. Mr. Recchia's record in the community is dismal , at best. He has failed on many issues including , stopping over development, in creating affordable housing(very lackluster attempts),keeping the Coney Island/ Brighton Beach clean, both the sand & the boardwalk, creating jobs for the community(Coney Island has one of the highest unemployment records in the city), getting the 2006 Knucklehead Award for the Daily News for giving himself a $ 12,500 raise., Spending tax payers money for Advertising (ranked #2 by Citzien Union.), Pushing Joe Sitt of Thor Equities ( his personal friend) agenda for the Development of Coney Island, when at first he praised the Mayor's Plan back in Nov. 2007. All these issues & more will come to the fore front when Mr. Recchia & his opponent for the Democratic nomination Mr. Harriosn debate in the next few months.Mr. Harriosn is by far the best candidate to take on Mr. Fossella in this race. He knows the issues that face this coountry& the policies that should be pushed foward. He also has the intelliegence to be a Congressman to represent the CD.
Thank you, dear Mr/Ms Reader, you've followed Mr. Recchia's
Council career more closely than I have. Thanks especially for the specificity of your critique. More facts and thoughts (pro or con) about Mr. Recchia and Mr. Harrison would be very welcome.
Who said it?
Perhaps our anonymous Recchia constituent would like to go on the record? There are some wonderful statements, but quoting an "anonymous source" has little validity in most circles. We're (mostly) Harrison supporters here; let's get to know one another.
Who am I ?
Dear Mr. Jacoby : I would love to reveal myself to the readership & you, however, being one of the members of CB 13, would jeopardize myself to the profuse retribution that Mr. Recchia would take on me and perhaps others. He likes using the CB as a rubber stamp for his positions and policies. Once you cross him, that's it.. your're gone. I guess that is his perogative, but it is not democratic or fair. In fact, this has taken place before, back in June 2006. Go back to past issues in the Bay News to find out the details. Perhaps we will meet at a Harrison Fundraiser in the future to discuss the issues of the day. Since your identity is already known, I'll seek you out.And you will know me by the reference I'll make "my Councilman spends his summers on Peconic Bay, in Southampton NY. and NOT in Coney Island." In the meantime let's work together to make sure Mr. Harrison , first wins the Primary, and then concentrate on him winning the Election on Nov.4th.
Anonymous...
I don't like anonymous comments...but we respect them here because there are lots of people whose jobs prevent them from being open about who they are. Either because of who they work for or the nature of the organization they work for, they would be compromised if their identity is revealed.
Those who use anonymity to be assholes aren't appreciated. But those who have reasonable comments are welcome without revealing themselves.
It seems like only yesterday...
...that the Harrison supporters on this blog were saying that Recchia's fundraising prowess on the Council would not translate to the race for Congress, and that Harrison had a head start on fundraising. Given Harrison's head start, it seems likely that this gap will widen exponentially.
Harrison's folks are always whining about how he got outspent last time by 13 to one, as if that refuted the concerns pragmatic Democrats have about Harrison, rather than illustrating them.
Can you get to that?
Ummmm...
Curious what you are talking about. When a candidate like Recchia, with solid developer and machine support, throws his hat in the ring, people expect him to raise money. What is not a given, since he has had almost no real contact with most of the community in the past, is whether this will translate to votes. I specifically compared him to David Yassky, hoping to overcome a small connection to the district with extra money. By contrast, Harrison has the long standing ties to the community and has built name recognition. So I suspect you either have not been reading this blog at all or whether you are merely being selective in your memory. I for one am not surprised at the fundraising numbers.
And once again, Harrison's past performance is very similar to that of people like Dave Loebsack of Iowa (now CONGRESSMAN Loebsack) and many other freshmen Congressional reps who after one or two near misses won unexpectedly in 2006. The pattern all over the nation suggests that a candidate like Harrison really IS the way to go rather than a newcomer to the district who is mostly supported by people outside the district. I look at what has worked for Democrats. If money were the only part of the equation, few Democrats would ever win given the traditional fundraising advantage of Republicans. No one disputes that money helps. But does it help the deficit of being weak on Iraq withdrawal and being a relative outsider? Recchia uses a Republican line regarding Iraq, wanting to wait for an unspecified time when the Iraqi army is up to speed...I should note that many of our Presidential candidates, like Harrison, prefer a quicker withdrawal with responsibility transferred to a regional force with more limited support from us. I think Recchia is a bit behind the times on Iraq and Iraq withdrawal is probably a primary issue for voters. They want a real alternative to endless war that Fossella and Bush support. Recchia has chosen to be wishy washy on that, it seems. That has rarely played well among voters no matter how much money raised.
So as to whining, please at least get your facts straight about what has been said here. Comparing Recchia's run to Yassky's in no way suggests low expectations regarding fundraising. What you might refer to is the large amoung Recchia wanted to transfer over which he couldn't and had to recollect. He made a mistake there and it was mentioned around here. But no one doubted that the local political machine would bring out the donors for him. Since he is the one who nominated Lopez for County Leader it is a given that the developers (and, oddly enough, chiropractors) that are such large supporters of Vito would be brought in for Recchia.
Whose facts are wrong?
Since Recchia has never been a District Leader, it would have been impossile for him to have nominated Lopez for County Leader.
And Mole, your argument with Recchia on the war is that he did not oppose it from the beginning. This puts him in the same company as John Edwards. As to Harrison, the only proof we have of his position at the time we entered the morass is his own word. At the time the war began, the only public comments he was making about national politics were his delcarations of support for warmonger Vito Fossella.
As to the rest of your assertions, they seems the product of wishful thinking. Harrison got beat badly in a landslide year when every other other Democrat, even those tarred with scandal, was carrying that district. He's all set to be outspent, this time may be by 12 to one in stead of 13.
Can you get to that?
Spin city!
First off, you are right. Rechia did not nominate...he was merely prominant in pushing Lopez for leader. I stand corrected in the detail, but not the substance, of what I said. I misrembered the level of Recchia's involvement in getting Lopez in charge.
As to the war in Iraq, you have just proven you don't pay attention to what is written around here. No...Rechia recently TOLD ONE OF OUR WRITERS that he supports continued American military presence in Iraq, a la Bush's most recent talking point. Here is the diary. The statements from the Harrison and Recchia campaigns are clearly different on this issue. You cannot deny that. The statements come straight from the campaigns/candidates. So you are dead wrong about what I base my arguement on. DEAD wrong. I base it on CURRENT statements from each campaign as reported by another writer on this blog. Did you not read this? Are you not up to date on where each campaign stands? Maybe you should read up before you comment because you have now twice completely misrepresented what has been said on this site. We work with facts. You seem to not be doing quite the same level of fact checking. I should note that the fact checking around here is a team effort with Dan Jacoby and Daniel Millstone playing a strong part in checking up on what is said by me and by the candidates. You, by comparison, have now twice said demonstrably untrue statements, including misrepresenting Recchia's CURRENT statements on Iraq.
Catch up, dude. Then come back. So far you are doing nothing but showing you are not good at keeping up with the discussion.
So OBAMA is a warmonger too?
I don't get where Recchia's position is substantially the same as Bush's. Could you explain how it differs from what Obama told Tim Russert in the debate the other day?
I'm not trying to be cute here, I really am serious. I know that there are those, like Harrison and Dennis Kucinich, whose position is total withdrawal today-no exceptions, no strings, no caveats, and I respect that people have a right to vote for a candidate holding that position. But it seems unfair to charecterize those who've taken positions like Obama,Clinton and Recchia with the same brush as Bush.
I myself would like to get out ASAP, but there are qualms about a Harrison/Kucinich sort of position (I think Edwards was weasly enough the other night on this point where I am not sure he can be credited for sharing their position-but you are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong).
My biggest qualm is not Al Queda, which is probably better fought in Afganistan (--btw, where do Steve and Dominic stand on that?), but the Kurds).
Not one American life has been lost to terrorist activity in the Kurdish zone. Unlike the rest of the country, they want us to stay. They have a democratic polity. While I never would have Chosen to be there, the situation there is now in place because of us. Dubya's dad, whatever his wisdom in choosing not to pursue overthrow of Sadam, enticed Kurdish help in his war, and then cavalierly fucked them to a war thee well, leaving them unprotected from a new round of Sadam's wrath which would not have occured but for Senior's enticement. We all know the Kurds are again a potential target for mass genocide should we leave them in similar circumstances.
Occassionally one even hears pols like Jerry Nadler acknowledge the probelm of the Kurds, and our possible humanitarian obligation to them. Frankly, I don't know where Recchia stands on this matter, but Harrison's position clearly offers the Kurds no consolation. I myself would withdraw everyting from everywhere but Kurdistan leaving a force sufficient to prevent it from becoming Bosnia. There is no presidentail candidate who opnely takes this position, but Clinton and Obama seem to leave open the possibility.
Do you really think such a position makes me into the equivalent of Dubya? Do you really think Obama, Clinton, Recchia and possibly Edwards are the same as Joe Lieberman?
As I said, I'm not being cute here. frankly I doubt many Amricans share my specific concern (but that simila apathy didn't stop us in Bosnia and Kosovo). However, I do think that the subtantial majority of Americans who oppose the war, myself included, do not share the Kucinich position so popular here, and are closer to what Obama, Clinton and Recchia have articulated. In moving the political porcess to a point where we can get out of Iraq, are you willing to forsake the support of such peopel on the grounds of impurity.
This is a far larger issue, and a far more important debate, than one race on Staten Island. But I do know one thing--we are all pposed to those like Bush, Giuliani, McCain, Lieberman and Fossella, who are willing to stay for 100 years.
Say it ain't so.
Fair Question
First, as to the Presidential candidates. Kucinich basically says get out ASAP without really addressing the fact that it takes time to transport our troops and there is nothing in place to take our place. I am sure if push came to shove he would do it responsibly if elected, but his emphasis has been on the ASAP part.
Richardson and Edwards have essentially the same plan with minor differences. Richardson says get out ASAP but includes the formation of a regional force from neighboring nations which we would help, but not with troops. Edwards wants essentially the same thing but includes a US strike force in the region (NOT in Iraq) to help if and when needed.
Obama and Hillary have, as far as I am aware, not really offered specifics on their plan. I don't think they are war mongers, but I fear they might tend to triangulate too much and may be more likely to remain in a quagmire not of their making.
None of them have really focused on the Kurds...the fate of the Kurds through much of history. Only their enemies tend to focus on them. All of the main Dem candidates support the war against al-Qaeda since that is a logical war that we once had full international support for.
Harrison supports, from what I have heard him say, pretty much takes the same approach as Richardson and Edwards...probably more like Richardson. It is also the approach taken by Nadler in his Iraq proposal which was excellent but sadly went nowhere.
Recchia wants to remain in Iraq until such a time when the Iraqis themselves (as opposed to a regional force) can take over, possibly with permanent US bases INSIDE Iraq. Both of these positions echo Bush's stated strategy (which is more reasonable than what he actually DOES).
So I would suggest that in a continuum you will find (ranked in order of support for war in Iraq):
Kucinich then Richardson=Harrison=Edwards then Hillary, Obama then Recchia then, much more war mongering, Bush
I base this on statements actually made by each candidate. I should note that Richardson and Edwards have each proposed an actual plan and I place Harrison with them not because I know he supports either plan per se, but what he says matches closest to the Richardson plan or maybe Edwards plan. I place Recchia closest to Bush because he uses actual talking points Bush uses, though probably with far more honesty when he does so. And he is the one who comes closest to supporting permanent bases within Iraq, depending on circumstances.
Statements from both Harrison and Recchia on the subject can be found here.
As to the Kurds, it is a scary situation and I am not sure what we can do being stuck between Iraq and Turkey with neither of them liking the Kurds...and with Iran taking an interest as well. Would a permanent base in Kurdistan make sense? It would draw insurgents to it from other parts of Iraq, I suspect, and then what happens if Turkey and the Kurds continue to fight it out? What would our troops do? Take a side? Sit on their hands and let it happen? I don't have answers. I was for our intervention in the Balkans under Clinton and it did quiet things down. But it was a NATO operation, not a solo US operation, and we are far more hated in the Middle East (sadly, even in Turkey now) than we were in Southern Europe during the Clinton years. So not sure how much credibility we'd have protecting the Kurds.
Harrison Campaign
PeeWee, where were all these people that have donated to Recchia in 2006 when Harrison was running? Why didn't Recchia do more than give a $250 donation to Harrison? He could of had his Sitt buddies and others donate to the Harrison. Then there's the rumor (I SAID RUMOR)that Recchia gave Fossella information on the Barbaro Campaign.
As for Nadler, he did donate $1,000 to Harrison in 2006 but didn't do much else, nor did other Democrats. It's been no real secret that he was support Recchia but he should have been at SIDA Tuesday night when both Harrison and Recchia spoke for their endorsement. From what I heard (and one email I got was from someone high up in DFNYC) Recchia was a real idiot. He couldn't speak, didn't know the facts and basically just made a fool of himself. He was questioned about his comments here regarding the war and his answer was just plain stupid.
If you think Recchia stands any chance of beating Fossella you've got your head in the sand. If and I do mean IF he should win the Primary against Harrison then Fossella would murder him in a debate. Remember, Fossella didn't want to have any debates with Harrison until we put his back to the wall and Fossella LOST every one of those debates. Recchia would be laughed out of any debate against Fossella and there goes taking the only Republican seat NYC sends to Congress.
Oh, by the way, the money Harrison's been getting is coming from the average person and NOT corporate and real estate owners that are looking for Recchia to give back to them for their support.
Mr. Recchia's speaking abilities
If anyone attended the Public hearing on Tuesday Jan. 15th, 2008 they would have seen Mr. Recchia in action. This public hearing was before a judge who will decide whether or not a permit will be issued to DSNY in reference to their plans to build a waste transfer station at the SW location in Brooklyn.(Mr. Recchia's district). His speaking abilities are dismal at best. With a crowd of over 450 people, he stuttered and could not put 2 sentences together that made sense. He even referred to "submarines" in Gravesend Bay which got big What? from the audience as well as some political leaders who were there.All of his comments will be part of the public record(there was a court reporter there) & will be published in a few weeks on the DEC website for all to refer to. It was almost as if he was functionally illiterate. To connect with the public you first have to have a command of the English language & put forth a logical seamless train of thought.Mr. Recchia seems, in my opinion to lack such details of the facts & figures, not only on the issues of the Marine Transfer Station but other matters as well. We already see from President Bush how your lack of speaking skills really is a detriment, not only to the person, but to the nation as a whole. You can't fudge this with speech writers etc.
A Rosalie by any other name would shill just as sweet
Rosalie: One who spreads rumours cannot play cute about the fact that they' re not doing so, any more than can someone who spreads a venerial disease. If you want to take the word of one of a Joe Bruno thug like Andy Lanza, go ahead. When Marty Golden commanded that Steve Harrison write checks to facists like Mike Long, Harrison's only response was to say "how high?", and to chant "Goldenfor Senate" like an Orwellian farm animal chanting "two legs better". The only surprise in your repetition of Lanza's filth is the name of the Republican reactionary Harrison's followers have chosen to parrot this year. Poor Marty Golden is going to get jealous that he's been spurned by his onetome beau.
Speaking of rumours, I heard one to the effect that Steve Harrison sold out his party in the misguided hope of getting Golden's support in a City Council race. The difference between my rumour and your is that mine is true. But at least it shows Harrison's integrity. Steve would never sell out his party in secret; he's proud to do it in public.
As to Dominick money, all I can say is that when Nancy Pelosi took back the House, she and Rahm Emmauel took whatever checks they could, subject only to the law and due discretion. If Harrison really takes only "pure" money, it proves only that he's shown higher standards in taking checks than in writing them.
And don't criticize Jerry Nadler for writing checks to a Democrat, and then not working particularly hard to elect him. It certainly beats Harrison's example of writing checks to a Republican and and working his ass off to elect him.
As to debating skills, they've seemed to have a limited impact on elections in Staten Island, so I'm not sure what the fuss is. Raising money has proven a far more accurate indicator of the potential for electoral success on the Rock. But, for the record, rumour has it that Recchia's pretty convincing when arguing before a jury.
Can you get to that?
Oh Gatemouth
I should have realized it was you. First, I stated that it was a RUMOR nor am I taking anyones word, let along Lanza's who's Fossella's waterboy besides being Bruno's head thug. Harrison explained why he supported Golden and I (along with others) accept his explanation. Many people have voted and donated to others not in their registered party and I have also.
When you're reading a script (and when you appear in court your arguments are scripted for the most part) you can be the greatest speaking in the world but when speaking off the cuff you get your facts straight and know what you're talking about. Recchia didn't.
As Mole states, raising money is not the prime indicator as to electability. Just look at Yassky and remember, Yassky moved into the neighborhood to run for Congress in the 11th, Recchia doesn't even live there. Did I mention that he can't even vote for himself?
Can you get that?
If the fundraising totals announced by the candidates
are borne out in the reports, both candidates will have enough money to vigorously contest the primary.
There are pluses and minuses to this.
The key minus, in my view, is that a big pile of cash will be spent early in 2008 by Mr. Harrison and Mr. Recchia. That money wont be around for post primary season when money may be scarce (sucked into the black hole of the presidential campaign).
The key plus would be if Mr. Recchia and Mr. Harrision (and their supporters) can use their debate and contest to contrast their views with those of Vito Fossella. Such a positive primary campaign would allow the winner to hit the ground running in September. Can 13th CD Democrats do it? Or will they need to act like crabs in a basket, pulling each other back in?
My 2006 view of the primary campaign in the 19th CD, from which John Hall emerged the winner, suggests that positive respectful campaigning is possible. Here?
Probably not...
This is, after all, Brooklyn