My wife predicted many months ago that the NY Times would endorse Yassky. But she was still pissed when it happened. So, she wrote the Times a lengthy letter. Since it didn't get published by the Times I will post it here. Mind you, my wife has had letters published in the Times at least six or seven times, more often than anyone else I personally know. Here's her response to the NY Times:
Although I fully expected it, I am disheartened to see that the Times has endorsed David Yassky's bid for Congress in the 11th District.
I live in Mr. Yassky's council district, and I disagree that his record in the Council has been as great as you say. "Job creation" and "affordable housing" are just buzzwords meaning "I support Atlantic Yards and take money from Ratner." Mr. Yassky has fallen flat on other issues that are important to the district, such as voting machine technology. Despite the fact that the question of which machines New York City will choose is directly before the Council, at a CD 11 candidate's form earlier this year, Mr. Yassky said "I don't care" when asked his position on the issue.
Moreover, Mr. Yassky is not free of the taint of the Brooklyn machine, as indicated by his endorsement of Sampson for Brooklyn DA last year. Sampson was the machine candidate running for the sole purpose of dropping Joe Hynes' case against former County Committee Chair Clarence Norman. I personally asked Mr. Yassky about this endorsement and he was unable to give a reason for it other than he didn't want to support Joe Hynes. If that was the case, and his endorsement was purely for protest reasons, why didn't he endorse Mark Peters? Perhaps he was trying to curry favor with the machine.
I also take issue with your statement that Chris Owens lacks passion and a political base. I am a member of the executive committe of Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, the club primarily representing the 44th and 57th Assembly Districts, as well as parts of neighboring districts. CBID endorsed Chris in the race for the 11th CD, which in my opinion, constitutes a political base. Moreover, Independent Neighborhood Democrats, in the heart of Yassky's district, endorsed him by such a narrow margin that it took three separate ballots for Mr. Yassky to receive a majority of the votes. Further, IND is so divided that a number of its board members have resigned for the duration of the campaign season so that they can campaign for Chris Owens. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr. Yassky!
As for passion, Chris Owens is the only candidate who really understands that Democrats need to change the relationship between citizenry and government - that government should serve the people, not the other way around. Mr. Yassky takes it as a given that special interests run government, and is unable to even perceive that this is not the way government should be run. I have spoken extensively with both candidates, and it is my opinion that Chris is the only one who has the vision and passion necessary to help put our country back on the path to becoming the America of our cherished ideals. Mr. Yassky has lost that vision, if he ever had it.
I will note that although it is true that some IND board members resigned to work for Chris (something that IND, unlike many clubs) allows its board members to do, this was ultimately made moot by the fact that many MORE board members had to resign to work for Spitzer. The endorsement of Yassky was more vocally divisive, but in the end the endorsement of Suozzi was tougher on the club's efforts.
[1] | 
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9]