Ed Towns versus Kevin Powell: it’s time to choose up a side; left wing bloggers need to come clean or be strip-searched
For years, some Brooklyn loudmouths on the left of the political spectrum have been using Congressman Ed Towns as a whipping boy of sorts; despite the fact that Ed Towns voted against the Iraq invasion and all subsequent wasteful defense spending. He has also gotten a 100% voting scorecard from groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, so you would think that some lefties would be pleased at his recent ratings; but I guess not, since I don’t see those left-wing endorsements coming in for Towns.
We saw the lefties jump all over young ivy leaguer Barry Ford -when he twice challenged Towns a few years ago- embracing him like he was the prodigal son; and although in 2006 they were reluctant to support Charles Barron, “Chuckie B” still did surprisingly well in pockets of Brooklyn’s 10th congressional district where lefties reside (go look at the results). Now this year Kevin Powell shows up to challenge Towns, and lefties are surprisingly silent; I wonder why.
Former Black Panther H. Rap Brown once said that the worst place to find yourself is in the middle of a crossfire, because you will definitely be mowed down by both sides; he was absolutely correct. So now it is time for Brooklyn’s lefties to declare what side are they on in this Towns v. Powell race. You see their strange silence is leaving a lot of suspicion that they are supporting Powell in a clandestine way; and if they are then they need to come out and tell us all why they are doing that. Is there something that they are ashamed of? Is there something they are ashamed of exposing? They need to know that size doesn’t matter/lol.
In general, you always find vociferous left wingers up on the blogs dissecting near every congressional race in New York. They love to do that. The Daily Gotham is known for lively chatter about congressional races. Many times their conversations go all the country. It is usually very informative to come up on this website and follow said columns and threads. I may not comment a lot but I absorb.
A couple weeks ago -when I had my minimal dust up with Kevin Powell at Junior’s Restaurant in Brooklyn- Powell told me that his campaign had no one trolling the blogs on his behalf: it was a lie. He has a kid who (some tell me) only yesterday graduated from a ritzy high school in Beverley Hills, California (Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein), peregrinating the blogs for him, and taking pot shots at those who critique the Powell campaign. This upscale kid is now trying to engage veterans of Room Eight New York Politics like Gatemouth, in blog-debate. He doesn’t understand that he is way over his head. Powell needs to stop hiring rookies: you never send a kid to do a man’s job.
But what I am surprised about is the curt e-mail from my white Parisian cousin over at the Daily Gotham blog, admonishing me not to go “overboard” with my candidate (Ed Towns). Michael “Frenchie” Bouldin says that he hates to pick political fights on the blogs, and yet he throws these lil pit-a-pat punches when something is on his mind. So Michael: tell us how you really feel about this race in the 10th congressional. Why; the cat got your pen?
Look; Ed Towns also got 100% voting scorecard ratings from groups like these: The National Education Association, The Children Defense Fund Action Council, The Shriver Center on Poverty, The Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, The League of Conservation Voters, The American Association of University Women and The National Arts Summit. There are other organizations, but this isn’t a political propaganda piece: so I stop there (another column maybe/lol).
Last week former NYC mayor Ed Koch came out and endorsed Ed Towns. So too has some other prominent individual Jews, and also many Jewish organizations. Koch said that Towns was a gentleman, while implying that his opponent (Powell) wasn’t. Look; I won’t touch that with iodine gloves, but you readers can draw your own conclusions.
Today on the steps of Brooklyn’s Boro Hall, five elected officials -including my favorite senator Kevin Parker- will endorse Ed Towns at 2pm. The other four are: Senator Eric Adams, Senator John Sampson, Assembly member Hakeem Jeffries and Assembly member Camara. People are starting to take sides in this race, and it is time for left wing bloggers to strip from the head down: expose yourselves.
Stay tuned-in folks.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Ed Towns | Kevin Powell
Well now
Submitted by mole333 on 6 August 2008 - 12:17pm.
Can't speak for Michael, but for myself, sometimes there is no clear candidate in a race. Since I don't live in the 10th, I don't need to take a stand if I don't have a clear favorite. Though I have to say Ed "I Love Bush" Koch and John "Protect the Corrupt" Sampson are NOT recommendations in my book. If I was to compare Koch and Sampson for Towns with DFNYC and Gloria Steinem for Powell, Powell would win hands down. But much as I love discussing endorsements and such, I don't think that would be fair to Towns in this case even if you choose to highlight to of my least favorite local politicians.
Again let me emphasize, a.) I am constrained by my membership on the board of IND, who endorsed Towns pretty soundly; and b.) even if I wasn't so constrained I don't think I would take sides here. With candidates all over the country asking for my attention, neither Towns nor Powell strikes me as worth my time right about now.
Yes, a little overboard...
Submitted by nync on 6 August 2008 - 1:17pm.
You know what? Bouldin's right. You have gone a little overboard. My position on this race is I don't feel a lot of enthusiasm for Powell, but I'm definitely not a fan of Towns. Sure, Towns may support a lot of the things I support, and sure, a lot of good organizations have endorsed him (well, he IS the incumbent).
Towns was my Congressman until reapportionment moved the district lines during the last census. But he lost my support back in 1997 when he crossed over party lines and endorsed Rudy Giuliani for reelection. This was completely uncalled for, unconscionable, and despicable. To cross party lines and come out for such a scumbag as Giuliani was a deal-breaker for me. I realize that Ruth Messinger was not the best Democratic nominee and had no chance of winning, so if Towns had chosen to not campaign for her, fine by me. But to endorse Giuliani? NO. No good Democrat should have ever gone there.
Its a Secret
Submitted by lovinglife (not verified) on 7 August 2008 - 2:30pm.
Towns is getting money for his election fight from the republicans. pass it on :.0
Koch is a liability
Submitted by Solid Democrat (not verified) on 6 August 2008 - 7:45pm.
Rock, there may be good arguments for supporting Towns, but Koch's support is not one of them. I consider him to be a right-wing kook, kinda like Lieberman but with less brains and less charm.
If you want to paint Towns as someone who abandons his Democratic party, then you're doing a good job.
Again, you spend more time insulting people who don't agree with you than making any arguments in favor of your candidate.
And it's up to the Towns supporters to convince people to vote FOR him. I don't have to remind you that he got less than 50% in the last race- he can't take this race for granted.
Koch's support will only remind voters (if anyone notices) that Towns supported Clinton, an unpopular move in the district.
Sorry Rock, I never though I'd say this but...
Submitted by Gatemouth on 7 August 2008 - 7:44am.
...you should ease off on the lefites. If Ed Towns were being challenged by the local equivalent of a Donna Edwards, the local left would be swarming to help her, and I'd probably be rooting for her myself--of course, I'm not a poor person who benefits from one of the programs Towns funds, but I have just as much right as the poor do to support candidates who reflect my priorities.
Moreover, CAFTA accepted, I mostly agree with the reasons stated by Bouldin for objecting to Towns---bankrupcy, net neutraility, etc (I have trouble believing Towns actually opposed ENDA--as opposed to some amendment which I think even Barney Frank tried to stop--Towns is acutely sensitive about not alienating any organized consituency, and Gays qualify as such, plus they raise mucho dinfero, so if Towns did actually vote against it, he must have accidently pushed a wrong button--I think it's more likely that Bouldin's information was wrong).
On the other hand, I find that there are issue-based reasons to support Towns. Having searched Powell's websiite, I am pretty sure he will never under any circumstances, support the use of US forces anywhere in the world for any reason, even to stop genocide. By contrast, I know where Ed Towns stood on Afghanistan (as opposed to his weird position on genocide in the Balkans), because he voted to send troops there, which is also my position and Barack Obama's. But, it is not the position of much of the left.
For the left, the problem with opposing Towns is that his oppostion keeps coming from psychopaths--I find it important to oppose such folks, but if the left finds their priorities elsewhere, one can hardly blame them. For many of them, Powell's issue positions are a better match (hell, on domestic issues, they are a better match for me). Why should they go out of their way to support Towns, even if they cannot bring themselves to support Powell?
Stopping Kevin Powell from serving in Congress for 20 years (as opposed to the two or four years Towns has left in him), or running for higher office seems to me a worthy endeavor, but for folks like Mole and Bouldin, I think the most we have the right to expect is one line buried in a larger piece saying Towns is the lesser evil.
So, stop picking on Frenchie.
Heh.
Submitted by Bouldin on 7 August 2008 - 10:28am.
Okay, I pretty much and with some reservations agree with this. My basic take is that Kevin Powell is in many ways an impressive person, but that his history raises doubts as to whether or not he can represent this district. I'm in the fortunate position of not having to choose a side here, so I'd generally suggest that while I think there is a public role for Kenneth Powell in the present and future, Congress may not be the right place for him. He's smart and passionate, no question, but a lot of people have reservations due to his acknowledged history of violence, short and simple.
As to Towns, I had always assumed he'd retire at some point and hand the seat over to his son, of whom I think well. Towns senior has done a lot of things worthy of recognition, but but he has Beltwayitis, and one way or another, the district needs a change in leadership, and the younger Towns may just provide it.
Left on Afghanistan
Submitted by mole333 on 7 August 2008 - 11:49am.
The vast majority of lefties I personally know were in favor of the Afghan invasion as well as for further action (diplomatic and military) to actually take out al-Qaeda. The invasion of Iraq was where we began our opposition to the current administration's militarism, and for damned good reasons.
As to prior, most lefties I knew at the time supported intervention in the Balkans and the previous intervention in Somalia.
I started out opposed to the first Gulf War but came to believe it may have been neccessary. Don't know about my fellow lefties on that one.
So Gatey, I think you have a straw man you like to beat on, but it only applies to a small fraction of the left. Perhaps you deal with a sufficient number of Quakers that your view is skewed, but that is a religious belief of a certain group, not a political stand of a political group. Perhaps you mistake progressive Democrats for Greens? Your average progressive Democrat is not a pacifist, though some are.
Now, who's building the strawman?
Submitted by Gatemouth on 7 August 2008 - 8:34pm.
First of all I never said blind opposition to any use of American force, anywhere, for any reason was a position universally held on the left. I said it was the position “of much of the left”, (and btw, not everyone holding this position qualifies as a pacifist—some just think any use of US force is inherently evil). So it is you who are making the man of straw.
I know you disagree this is the case, but look at the evidence:
1) Move on opposed the war against AL Queda
2) Michael Moore opposed both the war against Al-Queda and the actions to stop genocide in the Balkans.
3) The recent open letter to Obama in the nation says “In other areas--such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty--your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the ‘friends on the left’ you addressed in recent remarks.”
4) See also http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/hayden3
5) Besides myself, I have yet to read one writer on TDG, other than you in this thread, post anything in agreement with Obama's position on the Afghan surge--and when I did recently, in a pro-Obama piece, Bouldin essentially called me a warmonger, with no one rising to my defense.
6) Most importantly, I was speaking of Powell, and after reading all his site has to say on foreign policy and defense, it would be difficult not to infer that this is his position, especially given his call to basically dismantle the Department of Defense and put all the money into either urban needs of homeland security--this also is not the Obama position.
Further, even many of those who do not hold this position will not hold such a position against a candidate for public office.
btw, I think your saying what you did about the first Afghan was very brave
Thanks, mole.
Submitted by sidnora on 8 August 2008 - 11:28am.
Not a pacifist here. In fact, I'd say that my position on armed conflict is almost identical to Obama's. I'm not against all wars, I'm against dumb wars. No sane person rejoices over the prospect of violence, but it is sometimes the only practical response.
I, too, was in favor of going into Afghanistan, as were most of the "lefties" in my circle of friends. What's more, I still believe that in the right hands and with the right motives, we could have done a world of good there.
It's easy to forget after the disasters of the last six years, but things were going quite well there, even with The Wrecking Crew in charge, until they dropped the ball (well, actually, they threw it away intentionally). So of course the Afghan people have taken their affairs in their own hands and pretty much gone back to what they were doing before we arrived, except that now they have even less reason to trust us than they did before. This is the opium-funded mess that Bush has bequeathed to the next administration.
The lesson to be drawn from the Bush foreign policy is that it's just as easy to make enemies of your potential allies through disinterest and neglect as it is through conquest and pillage.
Sorry Gatemouth.................
Submitted by ROCK (not verified) on 7 August 2008 - 9:54am.
First off: I can pick on the Frenchman anytime I want; last time I looked it was a free country. Secondly; I know he isn't french (I think he is of German extract) but his damn last name is french so he is stuck with the nickname/lol. Plus I hate the arrogance of the french accent. They mock my lil Caribbean-American (coconut/island) accent all the time/lol.
Also, I think that prior to my wake up call (last column), he and the Daily Gotham lefties were ignoring this race in the 10th congressional, just like they did 2 years ago when they fully concentrated on the eleventh district (Chris Owens?) and ignored the tenth. DG has to be consistent and cover them all; not just the selective ones that are prioritized by these Park Slop latte-drinking bougeouis left wing wannabees/LMAO.
Quoi?
Submitted by Bouldin on 7 August 2008 - 10:37am.
Non, mon ami, le nom "Bouldin" c'est Anglais, connexe à "Baldwin", comme l'ancien Premier Ministre du Royaume Unie. J'ai du famille en France et quelques gouttes du sang Francais, mais je ne suis pas Francais.
That said, I don't mind being "picked on", because I don't see it that way at all, and I can't recall ever having made fun of your accent. It's not like I sound like a valley girl myself.
But your central point, that sides must be chosen, is, I think, redundant. There are too many shades of gray here to do that, I think. Rather, again, the question is to those who have chosen sides to lay out their calculus for doing so.
beg to differ
Submitted by mole333 on 7 August 2008 - 11:57am.
I know I discussed Towns/Powell before (certainly in the context of the CBID and IND endorsements) and I know I went into some detail about Charles Barron almost getting IND's endorsement in 2006, including the somewhat sick glee I would have felt had he pulled it off.
I may not have taken sides either time, but I did write about it. I believe Liza also wrote a bit about Powell/Towns.
Unlike you I don't get paid for this, so I can't spend as much time seeking out races that aren't in my face. The ones in my face are the ones that either are in my neighborhood or the ones where the participants come to me seeking help. For the record, I have met Powell twice, while Towns has never bothered coming to any group or area I am active. Same goes with Barron. He came to us, Towns didn't. I have never met Towns. And yet despite the fact his opponents came to the lefties and Towns never has, I personally have not taken sides.
Premise of this diary false
Submitted by mole333 on 7 August 2008 - 1:57pm.
More I think about this, the more I think the premise of this diary is false. If Rock is criticizing Daily Gotham for not taking sides, all well and good. As far as I am aware, none of us here have taken sides even when organizations we are involved with have. We all seem to agree that neither candidate quite gets our support given the large number of better candidates we have to focus on.
However, Rock attacks, in Gatemouth fashion, an amorphous "left" for not taking sides. This premise is false. Depending on how you define left, several organizations have taken a stand that are arguably part of the left.
Independent Neighborhood Democrats, which did no endorsement in 2006, endorsed Towns.
Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats endorsed Powell.
Democracy for NYC endorsed Powell.
Stonewall Democrats endorsed Powell.
504 Democratic Club endorsed Powell.
I should note Lambda has joined with DG in not endorsing in this race. So I guess ROck is criticizing not the left, but DG and Lambda. But we hardly constitute the entirety of the "left."
Looking at individuals,
Gloria Steinem endorsed Powell.
Congressmen Jerrold Nadlere (sic...Towns' site really should spell his colleague's names right) endorsed Towns
Congressman Charles Rangel endorsed Towns
Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez endorsed Towns
Councilwoman Letitia James endorsed Towns
Just to name a handful.
Now I could beat Towns for his being endorsed by such grand assholes as Marty Markowitz (aka The Angry Clown) and Ed "I got Bush on my Mind" Koch and John "Get Norman Out of Jail Free Card" Sampson, but that isn't the point. The point is a substantial number of people and groups that are arguably on the left have endorsed Powell or Towns. So that kind of makes this diary kind of wrong, doesn't it?
MOLE.
Submitted by ROCK. (not verified) on 7 August 2008 - 3:39pm.
I guess I should confess that I was picking a fight with Bouldin and Daily Gotham regular contributors (and their readership), moreso than say the "real left wingers" (including clearly definable groups,etc.) around the city.
Aye........ cousins can pick fights sometimes/lol. Anyway the fact is I mess with the Frenchman a lot; it is only half-serious mostly. But I do see that you guys wearing the Daily Gotham tee-shirts sure circle the wagon quickly.
I will be back/lmao.
Heh
Submitted by mole333 on 7 August 2008 - 4:47pm.
I hope you'll come back!
We did circle the wagons somewhat...but I think that was mainly because you wrote your diary such that what else could we do?
But of course in the Connor/Squadron race we sure aren't united.
So what's up with the race where shit, literally, has been going down? You get me riled and don't give me a followup.
ENDA
Submitted by Gatemouth on 7 August 2008 - 7:28pm.
In defending Towns' from Bouldin's accusation elsewhere on TDG that Towns voted against ENDA, a bill banning employment dicrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I got the facts wrong, even though my essential point was correct, that Towns would never vote against what he perceived as being the position of the LGBT Community. Here's what Brooklyn Teacher said on Bouldin's thread:
"Ed Towns didnt vote against ENDA because he's anti-gay rights, he voted as a protest vote because that version of the law didn't include protections for transgendered people. It was in fact a MORE progressive vote, and this was recognized by Melissa Sklarz, a leader in the transgender rights movement active with the Stonewall Democrats who was disappointed in their decision to endorse Towns' opponent. DO YOUR RESEARCH!!"
I'd assumed Towns had followed Barney Frank's lead and voted for an ENDA not protecting the transgendered. Frank thought it was the only bill he could pass, and that passing such a bill was the path to further progress. But I was wrong. Towns was not going to let anyone get to his left on an issue involving an interest group, and therefore took the looney left position of making the good the enemy of the perfect. It was almost as if he was morphing into Kevin Powell.
As such, the heat Towns has taken for his ENDA vote is that rarity in politics--both an unfair slander and still well-deserved.
Money from Republicans
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 12 August 2008 - 6:56pm.
How is this a bad thing? Although I'm a dem I want someone who can work (get along) with Republicans enough to convince them to get something done. If they want to give their money to a democratic candidate its better than going to a republican.
Towns has a good balance and he deserves to be reelected for his consistency.
KP4C
It is time for people to choose sides,unless they end up in the crossfire.However it is important to choose the right side.And lefties who support Powell are choosing the side of change, the Powell side.As far as Ed Towns having a 100% Scorecard from organizations groups, thats commendable,but as far as his voting record according to govtrack.us his voting history "Edolphus Towns missed 954 of 9395 votes (10%) since Jan 5, 1993 (Very Poor relative to peers)".