Adam Sullivan, who was challenging Congressman Nadler in the Democratic primary Sept. 9th mainly over the issue of impeachment, has declared he is ending any active campaigning. From his website:
New York, NY Adam Sullivan announced today that he will no longer actively seek to unseat Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) in the September Democratic primary, but he will continue his fight to persuade Nadler and the Congress to initiate impeachment hearings against the Bush Administration.
In a press conference held outside the U.S. Post Office in Manhattan, Sullivan explained that he did not mention to his campaign staff that he had changed his enrollment from unaffiliated to Democrat at the start of the campaign, incorrectly assuming that his change of enrollment would be current at the time his petitions were filed. Members of his campaign assumed that he was a properly enrolled Democrat. According to New York state election law, Sullivan would have had to have changed his enrollment by October 12, 2007 to run in this year’s primary. “I regret if I have let down my supporters but given the rules I cannot in good faith continue this campaign through to the primary,” Sullivan said.
At the same time, Sullivan vowed to fight on over the issue that prompted him to run—impeachment. Of Nadler, he said, “His outright contempt for the process of impeachment makes him unfit to serve as Chairman of the [House Judiciary Committee] Subcommittee on the Constitution. His abandonment of the Constitution in its hour of greatest need—when he has sworn an Oath of Office eight times to protect and defend it, when he could use his Chairmanship to draw his district’s and perhaps the nation’s attention to impeachment proceedings . . . makes Representative Nadler complicit in our nation’s current suffering and the assaults on our freedoms.”
As for next steps, Sullivan stated “I will continue to seek other avenues, other ways to press my congressman on this issue. I will continue to support those in government who are truly progressive, who are committed to preserving the living Constitution, and who truly represent their constituents. With this in mind, I and others are making arrangements to travel to the nation’s capital on Friday, where we will assemble to show our support for Congressman Kucinich as he and others testify before the full House Judiciary Committee on the matter of the illegal war in Iraq and other related abuses of Executive Power.”
Oops. I want to say two things about this. First off, Sullivan and his supporters are right that Nadler has been an absolute eunuch when it comes to impeachment. I have heard his reasoning and I think he is dead wrong. His arguement lost most of its weight in 2006 when it was clear that opposition to Bush is the best route to electoral victory. And this failure on Nadler's part is even more stark when I learned that even some 9 Republicans supported a recent impeachment vote. What would it have taken for Nadler to have supported impeachment? Congress's inaction against Bush's abuses of power and Constitutional violations is a horrible precedent that will allow a much stronger executive branch than the Founding Fathers ever intended. Nadler's reasoning would have blocked impeachment hearings against Nixon as far as I can tell. If someone like Nadler doesn't stand up against Bush's abuses of power then it is hard to imagine who will. Quite a disappointment.
That said, I have found the impeachment movement's challenge of Nadler to be ill organized and ill fated from day one. They went through some three candidates before settling on Sullivan, each potential candidate made very basic mistakes (e.g. Sullivan's registration fiasco) that leave the whole movement looking like amateurs. Contrast that with the much more professional challenges being made against Shelly Silver by Paul Newell and Luke Henry. A longshot challenge against a long time incumbent doesn't have to look lame! I like Nadler, but I also felt the challenge by the impeachment movement was important. The electoral challenges by the anti-Ratner movement in Brooklyn have not generally been successful but yet have in many cases led to the seemingly more pro-Ratner candidate taking on a more balanced approach to Atlantic Yards Yassky and Jeffries, for example, took on tougher stands towards Ratner after they were challenged by the anti-Ratner movement. The impeachment movement could have had their desired effect, but only by being far more effective and organized than they actually were.
[1] | 
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9]