The long saga of IND emulating the political machine they claim to oppose reached something of a conclusion last night.

The evening began with an excellent discussion of healthcare reform by Congressman Anthony Weiner. That part of the evening was fairly sparsely attended, but did involve some great discussion. Weiner, though I have disagreed with him at times in the past, is an amazing champion of healthcare reform and I wish we had Congress full of Anthony Weiners right about now because then we'd have real healthcare reform.

A few key points from Weiner's talk before I sink into the disgusting mire of IND internal politics. Weiner briefly emphasized a point I have made many times: that our current healthcare system is highly overpriced and yet delivers only mediocre care. I put it that we pay more than any other nation for our healthcare system and yet get a quality of care comparable to that of Albania, Slovenia, etc. Those "socialist" nations that the Republicans are scaring us with, namely Sweden, Finland, Israel, Britain and Canada, have cheaper and better healthcare systems.

Weiner emphasized another aspect of this problem. Our emergency rooms are overrun with uninsured patients who do not need emergency care but have no other access to healthcare. I can add to this that most hospitals lose money, and they lose money specifically because of their emergency room load. The emergency room, if you pardon the phrase, hemorrhages money while the rest of a hospital's operations do alright. So Weiner is right that the excessive load on our emergency rooms because of the uninsured is a major reason for the high cost of healthcare and the fact that many hospitals are going under. Above all else, healthcare reform must solve this waste of money that we force on our hospitals by having so many uninsured.

Anthony Weiner wanted a single payer system for our reform, which as I understand it is the best solution. But he said that the House Bill is a "pretty good" bill that will save taxpayers money and help solve the problems that America has because of so many uninsured. He said the Senate Bill is not worth supporting and would do little to solve our problems. What the Republicans advocate would be even worse, driving up insurance costs and reducing service.

Short of a single payer system, the Public Option is second best. Weiner believes its value is sometimes exaggerated, but he emphasized several times that the Public Option WILL save us money. Furthermore, it introduces more competition into an industry that has little competition. Isn't competition what our economic system is all about? It's called capitalism and somehow the Republicans oppose it.

And as to that Republican/Lieberman opposition? Well, Weiner DIDN'T exactly say "MAKE the fuckers filibuster." But he almost did. And I agree with him. MAKE THE FUCKERS FILIBUSTER!!! He believes anyone who filibusters healthcare reform will be hurt by it in the next election.

If the House Bill is more or less what we adopt, Weiner points out that for the vast majority of Americans things won't change much. People on Medicare or who have private insurance already will see only minor changes. Mainly, insurance companies will be slightly better regulated and so have to provide slightly better service. The people who will be most affected are the uninsured who now will have insurance and who will benefit from the competition that the Public Option will introduce into the system.

Now on to far less pleasant topics: the latest pile of donkey dung that the club IND has laid on the streets of Brooklyn.

After Weiner finished his excellent, but sparsely attended, talk, the club business of expelling all dissenters against the dominant faction's right to endorse losing candidates began. And it began with the entry of far more people who had listened to Weiner. A small number of the people entering for the club elections were supporters of the current president, Kenn Lowy. The vast majority were people packing the club on behalf of the Scotto faction that has been so clearly exerting its desire to squelch all dissent within the club.

The rundown of what has been going on is this:

In 2009 the dominant faction (the Scotto faction) in IND decided to betray the club's past president, Bob Zuckerman, and rather than endorse him for city council, packed the club in order to endorse John Heyer, a gentleman whose anti-choice and pro-tax money for private religious schools opinions are largely incompatible with the majority of the district. Heyer had little chance of winning, but the Scotto faction pulled out all stops, packed the club, and insultingly betrayed Bob Zuckerman.

In the process the Scottos and Assemblywoman Joan Millman opened up gaping wounds in the club. During the endorsement discussions in 2009, pro-choice women and gay men almost tearfully begged the Scotto faction not to force a Heyer endorsement. The Heyer endorsement and the manner in which it was carried out split the club, leaving Bob Zuckerman insulted and angry at the club he had led and those he had worked with before, and leaving the pro-choice and gay members of the club largely feeling alienated and betrayed.

Many of us on the board followed the lead of what the board did in past years of dissent. Just ask Tom Suozzi how much the IND endorsement did for him. The same Scotto faction (perversely allied with some anti-Atlantic Yards folks) forced the endorsement of Tom Suozzi on the club, leaving the board largely inactive because they didn't want to have to support Suozzi. This year many board members followed the same path that has been open in the past: taking a leave of absence from the club until the period of division passes.

And yet the club was left with larger wounds than I have seen in my involvement with the club. So what was the solution put forward by the Scotto faction? Well, to heal the wounds of betraying a past president and most pro-choice and gay members of the club, they decided to find a scapegoat and blame the whole farce, the divisions, the wounds on Kenn Lowy, the president of the club who advocated that the club either endorse Bob Zuckerman or make no endorsement in order to avoid the very divisions that the Scotto faction forced on the club.

So they blamed Kenn, betraying another president of IND in order, they claimed, to "heal the divisions" that their betrayal of another IND president had caused.

Sorry...but that is logic as twisted and BS as any Republican, Karl Rove-inspired "logic." Bullshit rhetoric aside, what happened was the Scotto faction used its club packing privileges to exert it's right to have a club "united" in endorsements of divisive and losing candidates like Tom Suozzi, David Yassky and John Heyer. That, plain and simple, is what happened last night.

And they succeeded. So now IND can "unite" itself behind the Tom Suozzis, David Yasskys and John Heyers of the world. Big deal. I am sure the Scottos are thrilled with their successful exertion of their rights to endorse inappropriate and losing candidates. Why I am not sure. Their candidate for president, Ira Cure, struck me as a non-entity. He is supposedly a very accomplished and intelligent man and probably will do just fine as the Scotto's figurehead to unite the club behind inappropriate and losing candidates. But one thing he showed no sign of is any real vision or clear ideas for the club. All he seemed to focus on was preventing divisions...which is a very, very odd thing to want in a political club where conflicts over who to endorse are a natural and healthy part of the democratic system. As far as I can tell, when the Scottos say they want to "heal divisions" all they are saying is they want to squelch dissension within the club.

Well why not. After all, why should we stand in their way of putting so much effort into losing candidates?

And let me be clear: several of our electeds supported or stood silent when the Scottos chose to divide the club, betray pro-choice women and gays, and betray past IND president Bob Zuckerman. And those same electeds either supported or stood silent while the Scottos blamed Kenn Lowy (who wanted the club to insult neither Heyer nor Zuckerman by opting for no endorsement). I say to these electeds, and you know who you are, that I find your lack of moral backbone disgusting. And I have generally supported you in the past. I now find it hard to defend you. In fact, not sure I have any reason to defend you.

And to those who have always told me IND was a machine club with no real reform in it: most of you are no better. Take the Working Families Party. They have been the most critical of IND, and yet their hypocrisy is just as disgusting as IND's plus they add a clear willingness to bend and/or break laws to the hypocrisy they share with IND. I am at least unaware of any illegalities in what IND does. So that probably makes IND at least slightly morally better than WFP. And to those consultants and clubs that have also been critical of IND: too often you endorse candidates that are just as likely to lose as IND does. Though perhaps you show more integrity, you have no more been part of the solution than IND. The reform movement is a joke, and that includes the old-time consultant who always somehow tries to blame that on me and CBID but refuses to actually work with anyone unless they blindly follow his chosen candidates.

And finally there is the Vito Lopez machine who benefits from all this more than anyone. Vito Lopez may share with WFP a clear disregard for the intent, and probably letter, of the law. But oddly I find him less hypocritical than IND. He doesn't try to hide behind a false facade of reform or integrity. He is who he is: the corrupt local party boss who will do what it takes to hold power. In this he is little different than the Scottos within their tiny pond of IND. But unlike IND, he doesn't bother claiming otherwise.