I'd pay money just to listen to the man talk. No judgments from me!
(So . . . Schneiderman, right? Roger Sterling wants me to vote for Rice -- but "Nassau Co." and "prosecutor" are pretty much deal killers.)
Yes, Schneiderman, although that's shaped partially by management style rather than politics, which probably shouldn't motivate anyone to vote if they're not me. But I'm also not crazy about opportunistic party switchers, and that's Rice too.
I found the Nation endorsement pretty good.
Schneiderman's a party switcher? Or am I misreading?
You're not a chump, LB, you're a champ.
4: No, Rice is, which is an independent reason to vote against her.
6: I got confused by the "but" and the "too."
Maybe we can revisit our 2d v 3d wave fights, if I express dismay that Gloria Steinem endorsed Rice.
And it was reasonably confusing. What I mean was that I'm voting for Schneiderman largely for personal reasons that shouldn't influence other people's votes, but there are also good political reasons to vote for him.
it was reasonably confusing.
Nah. I am only halfway through my coffee.
... Now tell me I'm a chump.
I'll vote for mindless partisan. Particularly since you continue to reflexively defend corrupt Democrats who have become liabilities for the causes you support.
Shouldn't party switching be encouraged?
Back when I was in Rangel's district (early '70s), he was on the Democratic, Liberal and Republican (!!) lines. Only the Conservatives had a candidate against him. Is that still the case?
|| A friend is teaching a course on "leadership" and was asking for recommendations for young social activists to incorporate. Any recommendations? (Anyone from 18th century on.)|>
10: This is a primary, so mindless partisanship doesn't do much as a decision rule ("Dammit, they're all Democrats! How do I make a decision here?")
11: Party switching because you've decided that your old party no longer represents your political goals and the other is preferable should be encouraged. Party switching because you haven't got a shot of getting elected if you're a member of the party you'd naturally belong to based on your beliefs makes me think you're kind of worthless. I'll vote for someone in that category if they're my best option, but I don't think a lot of them.
12: I've run into Republicans running against Rangel in prior elections. I actually told one that I was voting for him once because I felt bad for him -- shaking hands all day with people who are laughing at you has got to suck. Didn't actually vote for him, of course.
I was walking down 3d Ave. and some earnest political kiddos with a table asked me if I was "registered somethingsomething in NY?" I said yes. Oh, they were so excited! Then the guy kind of gave me a once over: "You're really a Republican?!" Ooooh, am I a registered Republican in NY? "God no."
So the new voting machines suck, is my opinion. Granted nothing will approach the aesthetic appeal of the lever-pulling old machines, but scantron ballots with no receipt or at least confirmation screen showing how your ballot is read? Complete bullshit -- and I'm writing my letters now.
It's primary day already? I've been away longer than I thought.
As for voting for Rangel, "chump" seems a little harsh. Maybe just more sentimental than I am about a politician who has had his innings and more, courtesy of a safe seat.
has had his innings and more
But he's got institutional knowledge! Seniority (short of ill-health or senility) seems like a real reason to vote for someone if you approve of them for other reasons.
I'm a bit torn on Rangel, as I was on his predecessor Adam Clayton Powell. Powell was hugely influential and effective in his day, was demonized throughout by many (including many in his own party), but also seemed to have become genuinely corrupt by the end of his service and as such was a poster child for Nixonian "silent majority" politics.
Yeah, the accusations about Rangel don't seem to rise to the level of genuinely corrupt, to me. The tax issues are dishonest, but not in a way that puts him in anyone's pocket, and on a scale where I bet you could match them with an awful lot of other Congresspeople. ACP, on the other hand (I went to junior high with his grandson. Weird kid, but I ran into him again in college and he was much less weird), was corrupt in a different kind of way, IIRC. (Which I may not -- I'd have to do some reading to remember the specific issues.)
I agree that the majority of people with several streams of income probably are as guilty as him. But I still wouldn't vote for him (in the primary). It's not like marital fidelity: tax evasion really is a breach of the public trust, no matter how normal we might have let it become. Even if you're pessimistic about limiting it in the long run, there's still value in penalizing it in the voting booth when it becomes known. When finally shame about wrongdoing is allowed to disappear, things get markedly worse (see Burke, T.).
Also, in this age when officials try to keep everything oral and unrecorded, making corruption almost impossible to detect, why deliberately ignore one of the few warning signs that comes along?
That kind of argument is the sort of thing that makes me think maybe I am being a chump -- it's a real point.
Institutional knowledge and seniority are very much worth considering, but bringing them up raises questions about how the politician has turned them to his advantage in the past, in the service of his tax strategies, multiple residences, etc., so I wouldn't let them be dispositive.
(For the avoidance of doubt, institutional knowledge is not a sufficient argument for voting for retiring politicians' spouses, children, etc.)
raises questions about how the politician has turned them to his advantage in the past, in the service of his tax strategies, multiple residences,
In general, yes. Specifically with Rangel, I haven't heard much of that -- the tax evasion didn't seem to have anything to do with his Congressional service. The rent control issues are pretty picayune: while his landlord certainly seems to have been charging him under market rent, and that's probably because people do favors for powerful officials, I haven't seen anyone tie it to any particular action on Rangel's part.
Of course, now based on that I'm wondering why I would vote for him in the general. Probably with the same reasoning and ambivalence that I would have voted for Chirac over Le Pen with in 2002 if I were French.
What was the Louisiana bumpersticker in the David Duke election? I think the wording was "Vote for the Crook: It's Important."
Looks like. And "vote for the crook, not the fascist" in France.
20: As I recall the most serious of Powell's stuff was around misuse of public funds (like the budget of the Congressional committee he chaired). It was over the line, but when it was all going down (I was a teenager just coming in to any kind of political consciousness) the reason that ACP was one of the few congressmen from outside that state whose name was known in my small Ohio city had a lot more to do with his "otherness" than his actual corruption.
"The urgent consideration of the public safety may undoubtedly authorize the violation of every positive law. How far that, or any other, consideration may operate to dissolve the natural obligations of humanity and justice is a doctrine of which I still desire to remain ignorant."
"As long as it is within the law, it's not wrong; if the law is wrong, change the law."
If you're going to be a corrupt congressman, you might as well get crazy hair and go completely insane, like Jim Traficant.
In reality, I'm broadly speaking with LB on this issue. The main reason for voting against Rangel is that he's now much less likely to be effective, but he's still pretty damn effective, which is worth a lot.
I think low-level corruption is much overrated as a political vice, but I also am generally opposed to a lot of purported good government reform, including a lot of campaign finance, sunshine laws, etc., so I am an outlier on these topics.
Just ask yourself how you would feel about Rangel's minor transgressions if he were a Republican. The tar would be heating up and feathers would be plucked. Not exactly in the same league as the guy with the freezer full of cash, but still.
I voted for the other guy -- Adam Clayton Powell IV (!). I can forgive tax evasion and that sort of thing -- it's essentially expected of you if you're a politician -- but I don't see how any self-respecting New Yorker can vote for a man who misappropriated three rent-controlled apartments. That's like hoarding food during wartime, or water in the desert.
Oh, plus I'm still bitter about his introducing a bill to bring back the draft. I know that it never stood a chance of passing, and that it was intended as a kind of political rail shot against the Iraq War, but you can't just play games with my life like that and still expect my vote.
Anyway, even as political point scoring, it seems to have completely backfired. Remember back during the 2004 campaign when people (on the internets) were saying that Bush was going to restore the draft? Republicans had an ironclad counterargument that no, it was Democrats who had introduced a measure to bring it back. Good job Charlie.
I would have leaned against Rangel, but I'm not a huge ACPIV fan so who knows. In my district I've been voting for Ed Towns, an ineffective hack version of Rangel consistently because his opponents have sucked.
I might wind up being a PUMA in the MA race for state auditor.
I voted for Suzanne Bump in the primary, but if this guy wins, I'm going to have to vote for the Republican.
I do figure that if the *auditor* takes campaign bribes, then there is no possible way that he can do the job competently.
recommendations for young social activists to incorporate
I could probably come up with some, but I'm not sure I'm interpreting the request accurately. Is it for a list of names/bios of such figures? Writings on leadership by such figures? Writings by someone else that explain why they were leaders?
I'm in the midst of a year-long reevaluation of my stance on leadership,* so I'm modestly more interested in the topic.
*Roughly, my opinion since childhood has been: doesn't much matter; too many other factors outweigh. I'm now painfully coming to the conclusion that it's a deciding factor in more situations than I wanted to believe.
The main reason for voting against Rangel is that he's now much less likely to be effective, but he's still pretty damn effective, which is worth a lot.
He's a sharp and wily parliamentarian, but unfortunately he's going to be spending 105% of his time and energy on the Ethics Committee hearings, so I don't see him being much more than marginally effective. In addition to which, the impact of those hearings on November would be reduced if he weren't on the ballot. Unfortunately, there wasn't much in the way of credible alternatives.
Meanwhile, over on the GOP side, Paladino beat out Lazio in the gubernatorial primary.
Still waiting for NH results, but the TPer is ahead for now. I don't know enough about that race to know if that's a good thing.
Meanwhile, over on the GOP side, Paladino beat out Lazio in the gubernatorialrented mule primary.
I'm sad we didn't get a good Tea Party nutjob here to boost Perriello's bleak (but not hopeless!) prospects. Perriello's been a half-decent congressman and the first non-Republican rep I've had as a voting adult. Virgil Goode? Been there. Eric Cantor? Done that.
I suck at living places with good congresspeople.
43 - He's one of the three Dems I've given money to this year -- he seems like a good, honest, non-cowardly guy, so I assume he's doomed.
45: Thanks, even if he's doomed. The proliferation of these people's bumper stickers around town is disheartening.
The anti-sex Tea Partier won the GOP primary in Delaware! See her anti-masturbation TV ad (which appears to co-start Luke Wilson)!
According to the CW, this means the Dems hang onto Biden's Senate seat.
It was always a longshot, but I wanted Lynch's challenger Mac D'Alessandro to win.
13, 38: A friend is teaching a course on "leadership"
This is dreadfully neglected in contemporary political theory / philosophy, but Andy Sabl has a nice book, 'Ruling Passions,' on the subject. Overarching thesis: the general duties of democratic representation need to take rather different forms when in the role of radical activist vs elected politician vs organizer. Gigapedia has it here.
I suck at living places with good congresspeople.
You could come live down here. Except for one Congressional term in the wake of the '94 GOP landslide (and the lame duck session from November '86 to January '87) , I've been represented by either David Price or Mel Watt, two of the most liberal southern representatives currently in Congress, my entire adult life.
According to the CW, this means the Dems hang onto Biden's Senate seat.
They probably also pick up the House seat that Castle gave up to run for the Senate.
I'm not quite finding it in me to celebrate the triumph of the real crazies on the Republican side. In part, I'm not convinced they still won't win in the general. </humorless and grumpy>
Comfort yourself with the fact that the governing difference between a Tea Partier and a "mainstream" Republican will be minimal.
Yeah, for whatever reason 99.5% of Republicans do 99.5% of what Jim Inhofe wants anyway, within living memory.
If we could remember, we'd do what Jim Inhofe wants.
38: Witt, I'm not sure I understand the request much better, but I think any of the above would be welcomed. Names are what she was looking for, I think, but if you have specific literature addressing anyone you might name, she'd be ecstatic.
49: Thanks, x. trapnel!! I will pass that along. If it's not what she's looking for (though I believe it is), it looks like something I would really love to read.
I really hope the masturbation issue stays at the forefront of this campaign, mostly because I want as many opportunities as possible to use the Woody Allen line "At least its sex with somebody I love!"
In part, I'm not convinced they still won't win in the general.
Yep, and I don't trust the Dems not to fuck up the way they did in MA. But it's pretty nice to see the other party form a circular firing squad for a change; watching them turn on Karl Rove is pretty sweet.
52: I'm not quite finding it in me to celebrate the triumph of the real crazies on the Republican side. In part, I'm not convinced they still won't win in the general
To continue in the humorless and grumpy vein, I found myself having to convince a friend today that he really, really needs to vote this November. He'd declared that he was at this point tired of the whole thing, and thought he might not vote again (ever?), and my only response was turn all earnest and mention a potential shut-down of the government, a repeal of the health care reform act, and so on, and ask him whether he really wanted to let that happen.
The best chance to beat the crazies in the general is to generate Democratic turn-out, end of story. This is not a case of things being somehow out of our control.
The 15 Best Songs That Are Totally About Masturbation
For any bloggers needing something other than the Divynils or Cyndi Lauper.