Big Apple Turnover

Turner Tops Weprin

Koch's Intervention,

Distaste for Obama

Reflected in Vote.

The election yesterday of Republican Robert Turner to Congress is significant for several reasons.

One is that the result will be widely perceived as a rebuke to President Obama and the Democratic Party, which it is. For some, the issue was jobs and the economy. For others, the administration's hostility to Israel is an important issue, which affected Catholic voters as well as Jews. The hostility of Muslim extremists extends to all other religions, and the Catholics were the original crusaders in the Middle Ages.

The Democrat, David Weprin, was clearly the machine candidate, chosen in part because he could be counted on not to squawk too loudly when his district was eliminated. Mr. Weprin, a retiring person and a hard worker, would not be in politics except that his father, the distinguished Saul Weprin, rose to be Speaker of the Assembly before he passed away in 1994, to be succeeded by Sheldon Silver. David's younger brother, Mark Weprin, was also a member of the Assembly before he was elected to the City Council in 2009. The Weprins are the last remaining political dynasty in the Queens delegation to Albany, the Hevesi clan having been reduced to son Andrew, an assemblyman since 2005.

There was no Democratic or Republican primary to select the candidate to fill the seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, whose troubles have been recounted at length and need no further exposition here. Normally party nominations are the result of primary elections, but in all five elections held yesterday, the departing officials left at a point on the calendar when a primary was not required, and the nominee could be selected by the county leader. Observers believe that Melinda Katz, the former Councilmember and Asssemblywoman, would have been a stronger candidate. She came in third while Weprin ran fourth in the 2009 contest for City Comptroller. But she would have been less likely to take a dive to suit the county leader.

In Queens, that is Congressman Joseph Crowley, in Kings it is Assemblyman Vito Lopez. For the Brooklyn-Queens congressional district, both leaders concurred in the choice of David Weprin; he would have been the only person in recent memory to have been a member of the City Council, the state legislature, and the U.S. Congress. That, however was not to be, although he could be consoled by the words of Meat Loaf, "Two out of three ain't bad" (Rule 20-T).

Many voters had negative views on the economy and the Obama administration, which were reflected in the vote. When seen together, Turner, at 70, was physically more imposing than Weprin, who is 55. Turner was a more folksy and less political figure, running at a time when politicians are not held in high regard for good and sufficient reasons.

The solidarity of Democrats, practically all the legislators lining up like sparrows on a wire to support colleague Weprin, left the field open for independent Mayor Koch and Assemblyman Dov Hikind, both of whom occasionally support Republicans. Both Liberal Party members and Conservative leader Michael Long supported Turner. The Liberals want Obama to win in 2012, and urgently wish him to change course before it is too late. The Conservatives simply oppose Obama, and are promoting the Turner victory as a national uprising.

Basically, this was an election between boss-picked candidates to fill a vacancy created when party leaders decided that a wayward Congressman guilty of infantile behavior was dispensable. The problem they must face is that the cure for Weiner's bizarre misconduct may be worse for the Democrats than the disease.

The wild card in the primary turned out to be Mayor Koch, a popular and credible octogenerian leader who seeks no public office, and is therefore more susceptible to the dictates of conscience. He has never been shy about expressing his opinions, and the fate of the Jewish people is an issue of great importance to him, although he is a secular Jew. His early intervention made the sleepy race competitive. The vigorous Turner campaign attracted both Russians and Orthodox Jews, neither of whom has particularly high regard for the other. Politically, the Russians are mostly conservative, having lived under an all-powerful state.

The Orthodox were upset that Weprin favored gay marriage, and said that his position was consistent with his Orthodoxy. His co-religionists disputed his claim. I support gay marriage, although I was late to the cause. Turner promised Koch not to exploit the issue, and he kept his word. The Orthodox, however, consider this an important matter, even though the State legislature had approved it and will not change its position, in part because of demographics and in part because of increasing public acceptance of same-sex marriage.

So it is that Mr. Turner will go to Washington, and the Ninth District, in its present gerrymandered dumb-bell configuration, with a narrow link between Brooklyn and Queens, will retire to well-deserved oblivion, having enjoying its moment in the spotlight. Unless there is another major hurricane or other disaster, the television towers will not return to Broad Channel and Howard Beach.

Let us hope that the President gains insight from the events in New York-9, as they call it, and returns to the foreign policy of American presidents starting with Harry Truman in 1948, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, who has established a Center in Georgia that requires continuous infusions of funds, provided by friends in the Middle East.

More will be written about New York-9. It may be remembered like one of those towns whose high point was a battle in the Civil War, and after which has slept quietly for a century. But, on September 13, 2011, ten years and two days after the fateful 9/11, the people of the district spoke. I believe they were influenced to some extent by the national tragedy whose anniversary they had so recently observed. In any event, an election is a great public event and an expression of the views of the community which people who believe in democracy are bound to respect.

September Surprise?

Turner-Weprin Contest

Seen as Vote on Obama

The possibility of an upset in the special election September 13 to fill Anthony Weiner's congressional seat should cause Democratic leaders some anxiety.

Although Assemblyman David Weprin, the Democratic candidate, must be considered the favorite in view of the heavy Democratic edge in registration, the Republican nominee, Bob Turner, is running hard. In 2010, Turner opposed incumbent Weiner last year and won 40% of the vote in what had been considered a deep blue district. When Weiner was forced to resign June 16 as a result of a sexting scandal, Governor Cuomo chose September 13, primary day, as the date for an election to fill the remainder of Weiner's term, which would have expired January 3, 2013.

Anthony Weiner, who had served eleven years in Congress before he was brought down by scandal, was not convicted or even indicted for any crime. He did not have sexual intercourse with any of his online acquaintances. He did not pay anyone for sex, nor did he threaten or abuse anyone to secure sexual favors.

Weiner did not cheat on his taxes or claim fictitious deductions. He did not assault anyone of either gender. He did not betray his office by seeking bribes for his vote. He did not kill, steal, or commit physical adultery. He did covet higher office, but that is no sin. Millions of men around the world have gone on the internet to find sexual excitation or release. Unless it involves minors, such behavior is not a crime.

What he did, in circulating nude pictures of himself and sending salacious messages to his pen pals, is ludicrous and pathetic. If a private citizen behaved that way, it would be the height of folly and a matter of serious concern to his family. For a public figure, an elected official, a candidate for mayor, to do such a thing and jeopardize one's career and one's marriage indicates a serious mental disorder, which certainly requires treatment. For a start, they should take away his computer and only allow it to be used under supervision.

However, foolishness and narcissism are not sufficient grounds for the removal of an elected official, particularly if his conduct did not violate the standards set by criminal law. Nor did his constituents demand his removal, according to public opinion polls at the time. They knew him, and wanted to reserve to themselves the right to pass judgment on his aberration. There was some sympathy for a nice boy gone astray. Nor did he want to resign; he desperately clung to his job, because that was the validation of his existence.

In the end, it was Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership that compelled him to go, because they felt his misconduct would injure the party in the November 2012 elections. It was a 'holier than thou' attitude which carried the day, as well as the mob mentality which often accompanies lynchings, physical or judicial. Weiner's abrasive personality, his arrogance and his self-promotion had won him no friends among his colleagues, and his office manners led to frequent turnover on his beleaguered staff. Weiner was not an appealing figure, and his public downfall created no mourning on Capitol Hill.

What is fascinating here is that Nancy Pelosi and company drove him out, not because they were necessarily horrified by his juvenile behavior, but because they thought it was to their political advantage to lance the boil, to cull the black sheep from the block, to fumigate and sanitize the party label. This was Pelosi's judgment even though Weiner had supported her for speaker in January 2007 over Steny Hoyer, a more moderate and less divisive Democrat. Perhaps she objected to the fact that he objectified women in his correspondence. Her attitude recalls Rule 32-Y: "Yes, but what have you done for me lately?"

HISTORICAL INTERLUDE -- HOW THE SEAT WAS WON AND HELD, 1923-2011

The Congressional seat itself has a noteworthy political history. Originally thought of as the Jewish seat in Brooklyn, it was occupied for fifty years (1923-72) by Emanuel Celler, who rose to become chair of the Judiciary Committee. He was the fourth-longest Representative in the history of the House. The record holder is John D. Dingell of Michigan, who assumed office on December 13, 1955, succeeding his father and namesake, who served a mere 22 years. The silver medalist is Jamie Whitten of Mississippi (1941-1995), who chaired the Appropriations Committee. Third was Carl Vinson of Georgia (1914-65), who chaired the Armed Services Commitee. A nuclear powered aircraft carrier was named in his honor in 1980 when he was 96 years old. He is a grand-uncle of former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga).

Three other men had longer tenure, aggregating the years in the House and in the Senate. They are Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia (1953-2010), Carl Hayden of Arizona (1912-69) and Daniel Inouye (1959 to the present). Hayden had been sheriff of Maricopa County and Inouye was a Territorial legislator before Arizona and Hawaii gained statehood.

Celler, a stalwart of the Brooklyn Democratic organization, was upset by 31-year-old Elizabeth Holtzman in the 1972 Democratic primary. She served eight years before running for the Senate in 1980. She won the Democratic primary over Bess Myerson, John V. Lindsay and John J. Santucci, the Queens DA, but she lost the general election to the town supervisor of Hempstead, Alfonse D'Amato, who had defeated incumbent Jacob K. Javits in the Republican primary. Javits stayed in the race, polling 664,544 votes on the Liberal line from New Yorkers who were not enchanted with either major party candidate.

The seat Ms. Holtzman vacated was taken by Charles E. Schumer, who had been an Assemblyman since 1974, the year he graduated from Harvard Law School. Schumer, who was 23 when he was first elected, had defeated an organization candidate to win the Assembly primary, which in that district was tantamount to election. Schumer held the House seat for 18 years, until he entered, and won, the Democratic Senate primary, handily defeating (with 51%) both Geraldine Ferraro (21%) and Mark Green (19%).

It was to fill Schumer's vacated seat that Anthony Weiner, then a City Councilmemember, was elected in 1998. Again, the real contest was the Democratic primary, where Weiner (28%) outpolled Melinda Katz (27%), Noach Dear (22%), and Daniel Feldman (22%). Weiner's margin over Ms. Katz was 285 votes. She was later elected to the City Council and chaired the Land Use Committee there. She came in third for City Comptroller in 2009, ahead of only David Weprin, who was fourth. Without making a judgment on the merits, it is clear that Katz and Weprin, both middle-class Jewish councilmembers from Queens and City Council committee chairs, appealed to precisely the same base.

Weiner was re-elected six times, and since Congressional terms end in even-numbered years, he had the odd-numbered years to pursue his quest for the mayoralty, which he did in 2005. After a surprisingly strong performance in the Democratic primary, Weiner could have made the runoff against Fernando Ferrer, the frontrunner, but he withdrew from the race rather than opposing the former Bronx Borough President in a bruising racially charged battle reminicent of the Ferrer-Green runoff in 2001. In any event, Weiner would most likely have lost to Bloomberg in the general election.

In 2009 Weiner planned to run but decided not to after Bloomberg's people said they would spend over $100 million on the campaign, twenty per cent of which was to be devoted to what is called "oppo research" on his rivals. We do not know what skeletons Weiner had in his closet at that time, which was two years ago, when Weiner was single. There is, however, a major rule, 16-J, "Nobody does it once." If you are curious, you can ask us who the J stands for.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

To return to 2011 and the current campaign, both sides have printed misleading offensive literature. Weprin says that Turner would abolish Social Security and Medicare, while Turner implies thats Weprin would support a mosque on every corner and uses 9/11 imagery to make his point, which is incredibly tacky. And the good stuff is usually saved for the last week. Money from outside the district is flooding it to support each of the candidates.

We do not know what will happen in the September 13 election. "As luck would have it" (Rule 17-A), this will be a closely watched contest, and the result may be taken as a measure of President Obama's popularity, which is not overwhelming at the moment. Adding the scalp of Qaddafi to that of Bin Laden would help the President, and no one can be certain of what will happen in the next three weeks. The political waters were roiled to an extent by Mayor Koch's vigorous endorsement of Turner, which Koch explained as an expression of displeasure at Obama's apparent lack of affection for Israel. Historically, many Jews are supportive of the authorities, who they believe will protect them from enemies. In the old country, they did not believe the Czar himself was anti-Semitic, it was just his ministers who gave him bad advice. Some older Jews still believe they are voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It is more likely that economic conditions will affect the outcome of the special election. This is a heavily Democratic area, part Brooklyn, part Queens. No matter who wins, the district is likely to be partitioned in the imminent decennial reapportionment, so the election must be viewed as a one-term proposition. Its principal effect will be the potential embarrassment that a Republican victory would bring. At this moment, that seems unlikely, but special elections are particularly hard to predict. The polls as yet unreleased will have influence on the outcome.

One observation we can make is that when the House Democrats tried to play it safe by throwing Weiner under the train in June, rather than leaving that task to his constituents, no one anticipated that, in September, the party would be struggling to avoid a greater shame: the defeat of a regular Democrat in a blue New York City district by a candidate running against President Obama. The 24-hour media cycle makes it possible today for elections to turn on a dime on the basis of new disclosures, whether they are true or false.

The latest Democratic defection may be Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who is quoted on p6 of today's Post, saying, "I will not support David Weprin." Hikind objects to Weprin citing his religiion in voting for the gay marriage law in June. "Weprin basically used his Jewish orthodoxy to say gay marriage is OK. He used his orthodoxy to say gay marriage is kosher. That crossed the line." Hikind has previously supported Republican candidates in races where gay marriage was not an issue. He said he would meet with Turner in the coming days.

In the secrecy of the ballot box, one can only imagine how former Congressman Weiner will cast his vote. I suspect he will vote for Weprin, so he can answer questions truthfully and avoid responsibility for what may happen. What he wishes for in his heart I cannot tell, but I know how I would feel under the circumstances.

StarQuest #775 8.23.2011 1875 words

Win Some, Lose Some

Cuomo Reaffirms Commitment

To Independent Redistricting,

But Promulgates Calendar

That Will Bar Primaries

Politics has its ups and downs, as this week's events show.

There was a bright spot. Governor Cuomo reaffirmed his decision, first announced in February, that he would veto any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature that did not provide for an independent districting commission to draw the boundaries of Congressional, state senate and assembly districts.

Under the Constitution of the United States, (Art. I, Sec. 2), a census is to be taken every ten years, and seats in the House of Representatives are to be allocated to the states in proportion to their population. Since 1790, the enumeration has been conducted in years ending in zero. It is called the decennial census.

Under the first census, the population of the United States was counted at 3,922,214, and New York State had 340,120 residents, which was 8.656 per cent of the U.S. total. The most recent census, taken in 2010 and reported in 2011, showed the population of the United States at 308,745,538, of whom 19,378,102 lived in New York State.

In the ten years since the previous census, New York State gained only 2.1 per cent in population while the nation's population rose 9.7 per cent. New York State's share of the nation's population is 6.276 per cent. Since there are now 50 states while in 1790 there were 13, New York has held up fairly well over the 220 years of counting heads. The last half-century, however, has not been kind to the Empire State, which peaked at 45 Congressional districts in 1930 and 1940, but has steadily declined in political strength since World War II.

New York's slow increase in the most recent decade, compared with the much faster gains of states in the South and Southwest, has resulted in the state's loss of two House seats, which in the 2012 election will bring our total number of districts down from 31 to 29. Texas gained the largest number of seats in the last decade, going from 32 to 36. Nevada had the highest percentage increase, 35.1 per cent. The Silver State still has fewer people than the norm for one district, now about 710,000. The red states generally outgrew the blue states in the early 21st century, and as the Constitution makes this a zero-sum game, the gains came at the expense of the blue states.

With the loss of two New York seats, the question arises: which two districts out of the 31 will be made to disappear by whichever legislative body, independent commission or Federal court ends up drawing the final lines? Normally when the flock is culled, the weaker sheep are slaughtered, but New York has a plethora of rookies, as a result of libidinous mishaps.

The last seventeen months have seen three sudden departures of New York State Congressmen, all based on a variety of sexual acts and images, although none involved actual intercourse. The first to go was Democrat Eric Massa, from the southern tier of upstate counties, who was credibly accused of groping his young male staffers and resigned in March 2010. Next was Chris Lee, a Republican whose district lies between the suburbs of Buffalo and Rochester, who resigned in February 9, 2011, the day a photograph of the shirtless legislator appeared on Craigslist. He was outed by Gawker, but exposure is almost inevitable when one trolls for companionship on the Internet.

The most important legislator to fall, also entangled by the Web, was Democrat Anthony Weiner, who accidentally posted a sexually suggestive photo of himself on Twitter on May 27. After a prolonged period of denial, followed by apology and refusal to resign, Weiner gave in on June 16 and left his Democratic seat in Brooklyn and Queens vacant. Queens Democratic leader Joseph Crowley selected Assemblyman David Weprin to run in a special election September 13 to fill the position through the end of next year, when it is likely to be abolished. If that does occur, David Weprin will be in the unique position of being a former member of the State Assembly, the City Council and the United States Congress, as well as being the son of the late Assembly Speaker, Saul Weprin, and the brother of City Councilman Mark Weprin, who is regarded as upwardly mobile.

The reform movement in New York State public affairs, which consists of traditional, well-regarded government organizations, joined by Mayor Ed Koch's New York Uprising, has made independent redistricting a priority for 2011. So far the legislature has ignored their wishes, instead convening its own instrument for redistricting, called LATFOR, an acronym for Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment. The Albany Times-Union, in a well-written account by Casey Seiler and Jimmy Vielkind, brings us up to date on the latest skirmish. The article is worth your attention.

LATFOR met Wednesday for the first time. Its co-chairs are Republican Senator Michael Nozzolio from Seneca Falls and Democratic Assemblyman Jack McEneny of Albany. The meeting was brief and uneventful, but after it ended Mr. McEneny called Governor Cuomo's potential rejection "a very petty approach" based on "a dumb reason". Those remarks were gratuitous and injudicious, even from the assemblyman's point of view. One does not attack a popular governor without some preparation, definition of the issue, and sophisticated choice of language.

Reformers had worried about Governor Cuomo's adherence to his pledge to veto lines not drawn by an independent commission, fearing that as the price for the enormously successful legislative session, he may have promised to let the legislative leaders have their way on redistricting, which is of the utmost concern to them because it may determine who controls the Senate next year. The Assembly is 2-1 Democratic so the Senate will be the battle ground. The last time the Democrats organized the Senate, 2009-10, was considered a disaster. Previously the Republicans had held power for 44 years, in good part due to gerrymandering under an unspoken understanding in which each party controlled one house. Divided government was helpful to whomever was governor. At the same time, it made it more difficult to fix responsibility for anything, and in the long term was not helpful to the State or its fisc.

The McEneny sally Wednesday and the press inquiry that followed it provided an opportunity for Cuomo to express his views. The governor said that his attitude "is crystal clear, has been for a long time: I understand the assemblyman's point of view, he wants to draw his own lines... I want to have lines drawn that represent the people of the state of New York, not a particular assemblyman."

In a move announced late last Friday (considered the optimal time to put out stories of divorces and other possibly ill-received news), Governor Cuomo did make a concession to the state's party bosses, in particular Democratic Leaders Joseph Crowley of Queens and Vito Lopez of Brooklyn. In a move slammed by the editorial pages of The Daily News and The Times, Cuomo set dates for special elections to fill six vacant Assembly seats and one Congressional seat (Anthony Weiner's). The election date is September 13, which coincides with Primary Day, if there are any primaries.

Cuomo was not mandated to call special elections, and could have let the voters in the affected districts select their own party nominees in a September primary leading to a November general election. Instead, the party leader in each county will choose their party's nominees for the vacant public offices. Since Democrats prevail in most districts, that means the Democratic county leaders will decide who the incoming elected officials will be. In the normal course of events, this would make the elected officials particularly responsive to the wishes and preferences of the county leaders who have selected them to hold office. The public is effectively removed from the selection process until two years have passed, during which the selected nominee will have all the privileges of incumbency.

On one hand, how much heavy lifting is it fair to ask Governor Cuomo to do? On the other, what kind of democracy allows one man to choose so many public officials without the consent of the governed?

P.S. It doesn't bother me much that the Queens leader, Joe Crowley, lives in Virginia with his wife and kids. Why pick on one elected official who really seems to want a relatively normal family life, which at a minimum requires the presence of one's family, particularly young children? I object to a few of Crowley's political decisions, but choosing to live with his wife and kids is not one of them. In fact, for a public official, it is wholesome.

Judgment Day

Legislature Brooded All Week,

But Has Yet to Lay Any Eggs;

Friday Eve, Low Expectations

We have been waiting all week for the Legislature to act on the major matters before it, which are supposed to be concluded by the end of this session.

It is late Friday afternoon and we believe that our writing week and your working week are likely to close before the unresolved, or secretly resolved but unpublished, issues are brought to a vote in Albany.

The New York State Legislature is not, however, the only deliberative body unable to reach prompt agreement on matters that await its consideration. For example, the United States Congress and the Obama administration are nowhere close to a method of dealing with the crisis when the national debt runs up against its statutory limit, now about 14 Trillion 294 Billion dollars. This is expected to occur on Tuesday, August 2.

Fortunately, the date can be manipulated slightly more than the date the next asteroid will strike Earth, with cataclysmic consequences. (BTW, and to his credit, it was former Congressman Anthony Weiner who did his best some years ago to get funds for asteroid research in the Federal budget, for which he was ridiculed at the time. Wait until the Last Days, when Congress will wish they had listened.)

At any rate, the date of the collision with the debt limit is now 39 days away, and the news stories are about people pulling out of negotiations, rather than joining in to solve the problem. One reason for this is that you get just as big a story by saying 'No' as saying 'Yes' to anything, and you're not responsible for a tax that doesn't happen. Another reason is that it is considered too early to appear weak - the rule of the playground.

Inability to agree does not stop at our nation's borders. The Iraqi democracy that we installed at great cost (Trillions of dollars and Thousands of American lives) has been paralyzed by internal rivalries, some over twelve hundred years old. The European Union is plagued by the inability or unwillingness of Greece and other countries to balance their budgets and reduce entitlements. The forces that drive people and nations apart are often based on greed or self-protection, which are two sides of the same coin. What is self-protection if I do it is greed if you do it.

The paralysis caused by inability to reach agreement is a world-wide problem. Democracy is not a cultural tradition in most of the planet we inhabit. We didn't have it ourselves before two centuries ago, and even then it was limited to white male property owners. Our sincere efforts to encourage and propagate democracy remind one to some extent of the labors of Christian missionaries who went to darkest Africa in the Nineteenth Century to spread the Word of the Lord by converting the natives to European religions. Those preachers of the Gospel had considerable influence in some countries, and probably did more good than harm, however they have endured in modern popular culture only in images of their being boiled in large pots before being devoured by the natives, and in the phrase 'the missionary position', now part of our language.

The more one leaves the prism of New York City and State and looks at the outside world, the easier it is to conclude that human behavior is to a greater extent based on primal instinct rather than European Enlightenment, a period which was unfortunately interrupted by World Wars I and II, where modern technology was put to use to kill people on a wider scale and more efficiently than in previous or future conflicts, say Rwanda, where people of the minority tribe (the Tutsis) had to be trapped in their huts which were set afire, or hacked to death one by one with machetes.

The conclusion one is tempted to reach after this extremely brief survey of human conflict in recent years, is that perhaps the Albany circus is not quite as bad as we think, compared with other methods of dispute resolution. Even though most of the players are narcissists and some are also thieves, the damage they can do to any of us common folk is limited by the state Constitution, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals.

There will always be squabbles over the allocation of government resources, and the role of the state in taking from one group (homeowners and other taxpayers, large and small) for the benefit of other specific groups (state employees, Medicaid recipients, prisoners and their guards). The political parties represent somewhat different slices of the economic spectrum, so some disagreement is inevitable and predictable. That's why we have elections.

Without giving any of these characters a pass on anything, and with some amazement that the human rights issue of gay marriage (whether one likes it or not), became a tail to economic disputes primarily involving state employees, we reserve judgment until the elected officials finish their deliberations. There will be plenty to write about then.

Philosophical Addendum

Since the preference of the Almighty has been raised so frequently in the gay marriage dispute, we venture to offer two thoughts on the subject by someone who has no unique knowledge of the issue.

If the Lord had meant for two people of the same gender to reproduce, s/he would have made that physically possible.

If the Lord had meant for two people of the same gender never to mate, s/he would have made that act physically impossible or at best extremely unpleasant for both partners.

These questions have been decided by Nature, and whether or not same-sex couples are allowed to marry will not affect Nature's Laws, which are frequently attributed to God since they were surely not made up by humans.

Calendar Issues

Weekend consideration of legislation may be affected by the fact that Speaker Sheldon Silver is a Sabbath observer, while sundry other legislators consider Sunday to be the Lord's Day, which may or may not be an appropriate time to make laws. Since the longest day of the year (the summer solstice) came just two days ago, the sun will set later this Friday than on any other Sabbath. The internet (timeanddate.com, successors to the almanacs) tells us that the sun will set this evening at 8:31 p.m. We do not know at this time what effect that fact will have on deliberations.

In negotiations where agreement is close but has not yet been reached, it has become customary to stop the clock, so as to postpone strike deadlines until remaining problems are resolved. But those are earthly clocks, and we do not know whether the Heavenly clock may be held in abeyance, even by the Most Dysfunctional Legislature in the United States.

However, the Sabbath rules have exemptions for works of necessity, or the saving of a life, so it is possible that the authorities would countenance the legislative session stretching into the prescribed Day of Rest. Although Speaker Silver deserves credit for helping Jonathan Lippman to become Chief Judge of the State of New York, and a wise judge he is turning out to be, we cannot reckon the Speaker's influence with the Heavenly Court which presumably decides matters of this magnitude.

Enjoy the weekend.





StarQuest #764 6.24.2011 1204 words

A Train Wreck Named Desire

Anthony Weiner Self-Destructs

After Twenty Years in Politics;

Turns Out We Didn't Know Ye

This afternoon we watched Congressman Anthony Weiner's four-minute swan song, in which he showed the skills he had honed over twenty years as a public official. The Council Center for Seniors in Sheepshead Bay was crowded with over a hundred reporters and 40 TV cameras, a larger media scrum than he had ever assembled while he was politically alive. It made more than one viewer wistful for what Weiner might have been able to do for New York if he had had his head screwed on right.

Unfortunately, beneath his "YAVIS" exterior (Young, Attractive, Verbal, Intelligent and Successful) there lay a nest of aggression and insecurity so deep that the Congressman propelled himself into a prolonged and repeated pattern of personal behavior which is completely inconsistent with acting as a tribune of the people in a democracy.

Who can say what any of us have in our minds? Mostly, we wisely keep our thoughts to ourselves, particularly if they are socially or politically unacceptable. For an elected official to engage in reckless conversations with numerous strangers, while identifying himself to them as a Member of Congress, a substantial part of his mind must have wanted to be discovered and for the charade to end. When last month he inadvertently pressed 'reply to all' and set off the firestorm which devoured his career, he was possibly, at one level or another, opting out of a lifestyle which, to say the least, papered over a conflicted brain.

Although he was no genius, Weiner was a smart, diligent and basically moderate politician. He had the potential to be the outer borough middle-class successor to the Manhattan aristoi. He had difficulties with his staff, but that is not unusual when intense, demanding and self-important public officials employ decent, honorable people at modest wages who are unprepared to calibrate their lives to their boss's ambitions. That is putting it in a kindly way, but today is not the day to jump on a man who has just departed a life that he may find more precious than his own.

Weiner first ran for Mayor in 2005, and adroitly dropped out, leaving the thankless task of taking on Mayor Bloomberg to Fernando Ferrer. He was considered a likely candidate in 2009, but deferred to Comptroller Bill Thompson after the Mayor and City Council extended term limits. One line I recall being bruited about in those days, less than three years ago, is that Mayor Bloomberg was reportedly willing to spend $100 milllion on his campaign, of which $20 million could be spent on "oppo research", digging up dirt on his rivals. That was far more than would have been needed to discover Congressman Weiner's indiscretions, so the rest of the $20 mil could have been spent on enough media to ensure that all New Yorkers could consider the fruits of the negative research.

Probably the Mayor didn't threaten to do that, just as Marie Antoinette never said: "Let them eat cake." But if enough people say you said it, or think you said it, or think it reflects your views, it can lead to a one-way ride on a tumbrel.

The teachable moment that emerges from this personal tragedy and public farce is that, with many people who we think of as leaders, emotion can overpower reason, and people can and do perform incredibly self-destructive acts. When one such person gains access to a weapon of mass destruction, our civilization will be at stake. We should do our best to minimize that possibility.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) said in 1962, "Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, man has never refrained from any folly of which he was capable." Lord Russell, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950 and was regarded as a brilliant philosopher and mathematician, was forbidden to teach at the City College of New York in 1940 by a lower court decision which objected to his views on sex outside of marriage. Mayor LaGuardia refused to appeal despite pleas from Albert Einstein and John Dewey, among other individuals considered wise. LaGuardia was running for a third term (which was then allowed by the City Charter) in 1941. Russell was an avowed atheist, which gave offense to many believers.

Anthony Weiner's self-destructive behavior was not a threat to world peace. It was a ticking time bomb, but he and those who love him, are the only victims. Nonetheless, it should be a wake-up call for those seeking an honest, rational, perceptive and moderate candidate to run for Mayor of the City of New York in 2013, which is not as far off as people may believe.

Those interested should be judged on their character and achievements, rather than their promises, intrigues, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The same principle that forbids discrimination on those bases should also forbid favoritism on the basis of what is called "identity politics". The amount of money that each man or woman has already collected from those who hope to benefit by their election should not overwhelm merit as the basis for choice between candidates.

He Had a Dream

Weiner, Spitzer, Strauss-Kahn:

How Could They Have Done It?

The next mayor of New York City stands in the shoes of the next president of France.

Both highly successful political careers have been derailed by the same nemesis: inappropriate behavior toward women because of the need for immediate gratification of the man's sexual desires.

Of course, what the self-destructive trio did, in different ways, was indicative of mental disorder. Other leaders of countries and cities have been mentally ill. They continue until their disorder becomes public, usually as a result of an act so at variance with conventional ethical standards that it would not be tolerated by the electorate.

What is it that makes people who have everything to lose - and nothing to gain but transitory relief - engage time and again in conduct which results in their losing everything? We don't know; we are not psychiatrists. But self-destructive behavior is not new. Its most direct example is suicide. People do that when the pain of living is worse for them than the fear of dying. Former Queens Borough President Donald Manes, facing imprisonment in 1986, chose that cowardly route.

In the cases of Governor Eliot Spitzer and Congressman Anthony Weiner, the suicide is professional. They remain alive, and are free to build new careers. They both, at this point, have loving wives. Neither man will reach the heights he could have attained, but they will not starve.

Why, oh why, do these gifted and talented people engage in such obviously ruinous behavior? How could the sitting governor believe that no one would recognize him on his repeated liaisons? How many people did the Congressman proposition on Twitter without realizing that any one of them could turn him in? It only takes a single complaint to topple the house of cards. Then others will rush in, confirming the sordid tale. Cf. Tiger Woods.

I have high regard for Anthony Weiner's better side, which I believe exists somewhere under all the lies, self-deception and cruelty to others. He has suffered from his family's instability, his brother's tragic death, his comic last name, and rejection by his peers before he became too important to ignore. The Sammy Glick comparison may be the most obvious literary reference, but I like to believe there was more to Anthony than that.

I hope he makes the best of his new life. There are four dangers lying ahead. First is censure or expulsion from the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. What better way for the hypocrites to demonstrate their purity than by removing the offender? The second is the Democratic primary in 2012, where he would undoubtedly be challenged. The third is the general election, in which, although it has not be noted, he received only 59 % of the vote in 2010 against a little-known Republican opponent. The fourth hurdle is redistricting. When the lines are drawn for 2012, his seat will be the first to be butchered.

His downfall is a personal tragedy. It is also a loss for the city and state. There are few enough smart politicians to let one go down without an expression of sympathy, and regret over what might have been if he were well.

There are government and private agencies created to help the physically challenged. It is unfortunate that, in the field of mental health, people are less forgiving and help is more difficult to secure, particularly when it involves disclosure of behavior which must be secret because of valid social norms.

The immortal words of Terry Malloy come to mind in another Schulberg reference: "I coulda been a contender."

Anthony Weiner was a contender, but he could have been a champion.

Brief Encounter

Charges Fly in Weiner Hacking Case,
Rightist Distributed His Photograph.
You Just Can't Leave Junk Pictures
If You Would Be Mayor of 8 Million,
Especially If You Would Scrap With Others

As you all presumably know, there has been enormous press coverage of a possible scandal based on Internet communications, allegedly from Congressman Anthony Weiner and addressed to a college student in Washington State. Both parties deny that they ever met, but that deepens the mystery of why a public official would send a bizarre photograph of his own amply filled underpants to a woman, an event which is considered unlikely to have occurred in the manner depicted.

Unlike most of the media, we will look at the issue without gratuitous puns or snide references. The subject is intrinsically interesting because it involves an important man (think Eliot Spitzer, former Congressman Chris Lee and Dominique Strauss-Kahn) involved with a woman not his wife in a manner considered inappropriate by most of the public. One wonders why those men were foolish enough to become involved in damaging situations, whether the momentary orgasmic release is worth the prolonged pain and embarrassment that is likely to ensue? In some cases, the immediate pleasure surmounts the risk, because men keep doing it, and some of them get caught.

In the Weiner case, it seems totally bizarre that a man who has devoted his life to personal ambition and public service should jeopardize all of that for the vicarious pleasure of sending unsuspecting, relative strangers a photograph, not even of his genitals, but of his stuffed drawers. This may be a fetish or a perversion whose name has not yet come to our attention, but in time it may be entered on the list of psychiatric disorders. It may, or may not, have happened.

Rule 34-S, obviously not original, is "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Substitute "press" for "sword" to get Rule 34-P. There is irony if this congressman's embarrassment, and possible ruination -- if such is to be the case -- comes at the hands of the same instrumentality he used so effectively in his rise. Whatever they may bleat, his rivals are not distressed at his misfortune. It assists them in pursuing their own ambitions, and it immobilizes a power-seeking force that could be used against them.

We waited until the end of the day to send out this relatively brief article, anticipating that new events or interpretations would transpire (become known) during the afternoon. We believe that by tomorrow morning, more facts will be revealed. Whatever may have happened is recorded on mechanical devices somewhere, and it is probably simply a matter of time before the truth is discovered.

The last item we received comes from one Benjy Sarlin, a writer for Talking Points Memo, a major, left-leaning online publication. Its headline: "Leaked Emails Show Tip to Breitbart About Weiner Tweet." Its lede: "The ongoing scandal surrounding a lewd tweet sent from Rep. Anthony Weiner's Twitter account took yet another turn for the weird Thursday as alleged e-mails between the person who first noticed the photo and conservative media guru Andrew Breitbart were leaked." For the rest of this tale, which has considerable bearing on the origin of the story and the motives of those who disseminated it, click here.

If the congressman distributed salacious photos to an audience, that is very bad because it would show a profound lack of judgment. If someone stole the undistributed photos from his computer and sent them out in an effort to embarrass the congressman, that is very bad, and should be criminal. There is the possibility that the congressman or his agent took the picture, and the photo was hacked (stolen, to seniors) and distributed by his political enemies, who are widely depicted as numerous and motivated, in part by the congressman's progressive ideology and in part by his aggressive personality, which probably has had a role in his political and social success over the years.

In our judgment, stealing and distributing an image is a worse sin than taking a foolish and embarrassing photograph of oneself. We are not learned in photography, but the picture looks like it was taken by the owner of the underwear.

Another story came out this afternoon on Salon.com: "Embarrassing Emails From Weiner Tweeter Leaked." It was written by Justin Elliott. It refers to intriguing an article "The Wolfe at Anthony Weiner's Front Door" just published by The Smoking Gun, which includes the revelation that Dan Wolfe, the conservative activist who is the apparent source of the leaked tweet, claimed on May 5th, three weeks before the current scandal, that "compromising photos of a 'big time' congressman were in the hands of a 'top 5 Right Wing blogger.' He tweeted, '@RepWeiner are you this Congressman?' He reprised this photo rumor in a May 11 tweet." The story began to go public on Friday, May 27. Was Wolfe prescient or was he guilty?

It is fascinating to observe how the Internet telescopes the news cycle, at least with regard to time. We will see what tomorrow brings in this case. The congressman may have acted foolishly, first in having the picture on his computer (if it were there) and, second, with his confused responses to media questioning in a series of press meetings which he called. But it is not likely that he was foolish enough to disseminate an embarrassing photograph of himself. If he did that, he needs psychiatric help. If he did not, we should see to it that his accuser is identified and punished. Fair is fair.

They're Off!

2013 Mayoral Sweepstakes:

Field of Five Is Hot to Trot

Politics is usually more about the next election than the last one. So it is not surprising that the Republican candidates for the presidency in 2012 are off and running. The candidates for the New York City mayoralty in 2013 are close behind.

Considering political campaigns as conducted on a four-year cycle, we are now in the second lap of the race to succeed Mayor Bloomberg. The winner will become our 109th mayor (the first, listed in the Green Book, was Thomas Willett, in 1665). To go to more recent history, Fiorello Henrico LaGuardia, regarded by some as the city's greatest mayor, was the 99th. The interjacent eight mayors, and the number of years they served, are O'Dwyer-5, Impellitteri-3, Wagner-12, Lindsay-8, Beame-4, Koch-12, Dinkins-4 and Giuliani-8.

The most notable aspect of this list is that, in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, where Democratic candidates for comptroller, public advocate, borough president (except Staten Island), and the great majority of state legislators and city councilmembers (currently 46 out of 51) are Democrats, it is the candidate running on the Republican Party line who has won the last FIVE mayoral elections. The five Democratic losers, in chronological order, were David Dinkins, Ruth Messinger, Mark Green, Fernando Ferrer and Bill Thompson. As you can see, they represented varied ethnicities and both genders.

The race will be determined either by the Democratic primary in September 2013 or in the election that follows in November. Fund raising is well under way, because in the absence of actual results, who is the front runner is determined by standing in the polls and the amount of money that has been raised. These are the intermediate statistics of political contests, and as reports of current preferences and achievements, their publication influences future events, like contributions and declarations of allegiance.

It is human nature to want to identify with future winners, both for financial advantage for individuals and their businesses, many of which involve decisions to be made by city officials (on the merits, of course), or for their personal satisfaction in identifying themselves with public officials and believing themselves to be instrumental in the success of those they have favored. Invitations to Gracie Mansion don't hurt, either.

DIGRESSION: The best known aphorism making this point was recalled by President John F. Kennedy on April 21, l96l, at a press conference just after the Bay of Pigs debacle, when he said: "There is an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan." Another JFK quote, on April 10, 1962, followed a US Steel decision to raise the price of steel by $6 a ton after Kennedy had pressured the United Steel Workers to accept modest increases in an effort to keep inflation down. Kennedy said: "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." In his book, "A Thousand Days" (1965), historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. says the remark was made privately, but soon reached the newspapers. People do talk. END

Back to the mayoral contest. To find prospective candidates, the logical place to begin is with other citywide elected officials and former officials. A brief rundown of the current field:

1. Comptroller John Liu holds the office most often used as a springboard for a mayoral race. Six out of the last seven comptrollers were defeated when they ran for mayor (Gerosa, Beame, Procaccino, Goldin, Hevesi and Thompson). Beame won on his second try, eight years later. Hevesi was subsequently elected State Comptroller, but was unable to complete his term because of legal issues.

2. Public Advocate (formerly City Council President, and before that President of the Board of Aldermen) Bill de Blasio will surely be a candidate. Five of his predecessors lost bids for the mayoralty: Newbold Morris, Paul Screvane, Paul O'Dwyer, Carol Bellamy and Andrew Stein (who ran for a year but withdrew before petitioning). One won, Vincent Impellitteri in 1950, who became Acting Mayor after William O'Dwyer's sudden departure for Mexico, a country beyond the reach of subpoenas, to which President Truman had suddenly appointed him as U.S. Ambassador. His younger brother, Paul O'Dwyer, was elected Council President eight years after he lost for mayor in 1965.

3. One Council President ran second to Nelson Rockefeller for governor, Frank O'Connor, who had been district attorney of Queens County. We recall Rule 26-S: "Second place is the first loser." But there is a bright spot - the man who was handily defeated by O'Connor in the 1965 Democratic primary ended up as a four-term United States Senator from New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

4. Borough Presidents: Two recent mayors have been Manhattan BPs : Wagner and Dinkins. Three MBPs have lost mayoral races: Stein, Ruth Messinger and Virginia Fields. Crossing the bridges, Bronx BPs Herman Badillo and Fernando Ferrer were both defeated in numerous races for mayor, but Seth Low, former mayor of Brooklyn and president of Columbia University, was elected mayor in 1901. He served one two-year term.

5. Council Speaker: 0 for 2 - Peter Vallone lost a mayoral challenge in 2001, and his successor as speaker, Gifford Miller, lost in 2005. Both were impelled to run by term limits, which prohibited their re-election. Vallone refused to over-ride term limits without a referendum. When the vote was taken in 1996, term limits were upheld.

6. Other elected mayoral springboards: William O'Dwyer was district attorney of Kings County when he was elected mayor in 1945. Ed Koch was a Congressman from Manhattan, and had previously been a City Council member, when he was elected mayor in 1977. John Lindsay was a Congressman from Manhattan, from the same district that Koch was later to represent, when he was elected mayor in 1965. Lindsay subsequently came in third (behind Liz Holtzman and Bess Myerson) in a Democratic primary for the United States Senate seat in 1980 that was won by Al D'Amato.

Five potential, probably presumptive, candidates who as of today have filed with the campaign finance board for the 2013 election cycle are Public Advocate Bill de Blasio ($346,541), NYC Comptroller John Liu ($513,471), Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer ($1,018,081), Council Speaker Christine Quinn ($3,134,698), and Congressman Anthony Weiner ($4,871,539).

This article deals with the fortunes and misfortunes of previous mayoral candidates, and provides a brief look at their current campaign treasuries. It does not discuss the merits of the candidates. The point we make is that, whether you know it or not, the race is well under way. And there are only two years and seven months before the primary.