The Daily Gotham

The race for the 25th State Senate district continues. Marty Connor's court challenge to Ken Diamondstone's candidacy has failed. Daimondstone's press release is at the bottom.

This race is an odd one. Marty Connor is a long time incumbent, yet his fundraising is abyssmal and he has misspent a large chunk of that money dubiously. Mostly they don't differ on the issues much, both being quite liberal. Diamondstone focuses more on Brooklyn, hence has taken a strong stand against the destruction of Brooklyn as a unique community by Ratner. Connor focuses more on Manhattan and has said he doesn't care about Ratner's plan. That seems to be their main issue difference. The other difference is style. Connor's style is often uninterested unless challenged, at which time he gets nasty. Diamondstone seems to perpetuatly tilt at windmills quite aggressively. Both can get nasty but Diamondstone is more articulate as to why he is angry while Connor exudes a sense of entitlement to his anger.

I have resisted taking a side here simply because my main impression is a dislike of Connor after his nastiness at IND meetings. My main impression has been of Diamondstone standing up to the machine at a County Committee meeting. This has left me favoring Diamondstone. But I also know Connor was instrumental in Margarita-Lopez's victory, so that is a point in his favor. Ultimately I do not know which is the better candidate, but I do know that Connor's style and lack of interest in defending our community against Ratner's corruption has left me unable to support him.

"Holy crap, have you seen this?" writes a friend and directs over to The Politicker and Mark Green's newest TV ad.

Now, I'm quite partial to Mark - here's his web site - not least because he is, for all his abrasiveness, a genuinely dedicated public servant. To put in perspective just how good Mark is, consider our experience, or lack thereof, over the last few years with his successor, worthless Betsy Billionaire.

What to make of this ad, though, I'm not quite so sure; what comes to mind is the California gubernatorial primary this year, after which the forces of darkness immediately began quoting the commercials of the guy who lost. Isn't there a way to run a primary campaign that doesn't rob your opponent of every shred of dignity? And do we really need to describe the tenures in offices of our Democratic opponents as a 'fiasco'?

He's not likely to win, but in this internet ad, Mr. Tasini certainly raises the issue of the war and its direct and collateral consequences: See the ad

The Lieberman saga just gets more tragic with each passing day, even hour. Today, the NYT's Empire Zone reports that the republican party - that would be Ann Coulter's, Dick Cheney's and Sean Hannity's republican party - is considering fielding a real candidate in Connecticut, as opposed to the sacrificial laughingstock currently on the ballot.

The Politicker says that Jack Orchulli, the Connecticut multimillionaire who ran and lost against Senator Chris Dodd in 2004, is pondering a jump into the general election this fall against Ned Lamont, the Democrat, and Joe Lieberman, the “independent Democrat.” He would apparently replace Alan Schlesinger, the Republican.

Memo to Joe: they like you because you are useful to them. You're less useful, however, than one of their own. So given a choice, what do you think they're going to do?

"Republican bi-partisanship" has always looked curiously like "Democratic surrender"; let's hope that Holy Joe isn't too far gone to see the writing on the wall. In BushWorld, the only yardstick is political utility. Joe Lieberman may find out that by that measure, he is found wanting, if the other choice is a real republican.

Welcome to Tort Victim Tragedies.

Each week (first edition, second edition) I will highlight the case of an injured person who was (or likely will be) denied full justice because of changes made to state law by the national anti-civil justice movement (aka the "tort reform" movement).

Unknown to most Americans, their right and their ability to access the courts are under assault from what is truly a mass movement by business interests to shield themselves from liability for their misconduct.

This "tort reform" movement frames its agenda as reasonable reform geared to protect corporations from what they describe as frivolous lawsuits which drive up the cost of business, and ostensibly hurt the state's economy.

In most of my posts, I will be addressing the fallacies of the anti-civil justice movement arguments. However, every Tuesday, I will do something unique and perhaps unprecedented.

So...I was just polled. It SEEMED like a Yassky push poll. I don't know that, but most questions were Yassky oriented and were testing out phrases and statements of Yassky's. So, it seemed to be a Yassky push poll.

Well, I found many things very interesting about it. First off, the pollster was the absolute most unprofessional pollster I have heard. He sounded uninterested (almost stoned?) and mispronounced words. If indeed this was a Yassky push poll, David is not getting his money's worth.

Next, the phrases and statements quoted by Yassky were not his best. They were confusing and muddled. I have heard Yassky several times. He usually comes off much better. The phrases and statements he is using are too convoluted and misleading. Firstly, he is clearly trying to paint himself as an outsider who is taking on Washington. Well, when you have the money raised that he has that is hard to believe. Plus, it is usually a Republican line to blame Washington for everything and claim to be an outsider...even when you are not. That statement rang false and lame, but may work for many voters. Then he had a statement that started with race, went to gun safety, and ended with (I think) an anti-Washington message. I THINK he was trying to say he is the man for all races. But it came off completely muddled and unfocused. Honestly, I think the campaign has been less focused and impressive since Rachel left. I don't remember such muddled statements from her days, though I do not know when it was uttered.

AFP via AmericaBlog: if you were wondering about the awfully good timing between the republican assault on us Defeat-ocrats and the UK terror plot, you were right: the White House has known about it since at least Friday, and planned Wednesday's attack on us well in advance.

US [...] George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections....

His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break....

Snip.

Joe Lieberman's hometown newspaper weighs in with a scathing editorial on his independent run (Registration required).

Joe Lieberman should accept the results of his party's primary. He lost.

He should reconsider his bid to run as an independent candidate and get out of the race.

For an 18-year-incumbent who was the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential candidate, his margin of defeat to Ned Lamont, a political unknown until a few months ago, was significant. Lamont even carried Lieberman's home town of New Haven.

Lieberman says he is still a Democrat, but his campaign will divide the party that rejected him.

Mind you, this is from a newspaper that endorsed him.

Considering all the frantic handwringing before the primary from Lieberman partisans worried about the distraction a contested general would cause, I can't hear a lot of voices now calling on Joe to get out of the race for the greater good.

Funny, that.

The republicans are such a fortunate bunch when it comes to their timing. Consider:

Those republicans sure are a lucky bunch, aren't they?

[Update]: Not to cast aspersions, but am I the only who remembers that Tom Ridge admitted in print that the 2004 terror alerts were based on flimsy evidence? It must be only a coincidence, fersure.

Republican Yonkers State Senator Nick Spano received two key labor union endorsements: SEIU 1199 and New York State United Teachers. Update: The 34,000 member New York State Nurses Association endorsed Sen. Spano Friday Morning. (None of the endorsements make clear if they are coming with help or just in name only)

It seems to me that the Working Families Party and the unions clustered around it have decided not to put any effort into capturing control of the New York State Senate from the Republicans. Those NYC Republicans who were loudly challenged by Mr. Bloomberg and Democrats seem to have been excused notwithstanding the state’s failure to equitably fund public schools. On Staten Island Democrats could pick up a seat where John Marchi is retiring. Yet no concerted campaigns seem to have emerged.

The most problematic district in the 35th where Yonkers Republican State Senator Nick Spano faces a re-run of the 2004 race against Westchester Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins. (Then, with 1800 votes from WFP line, Sen. Spano won by 18 votes).

Senator Spano’s record has not been appalling. He voted for and sponsored the Emergency Contraception bill (Pataki vetoed) and the Fair Share Bill to force large retailers to provide health insurance to their employees. (Pataki vetoed). He also voted for the bill which will allow in-home day-care workers to be regarded as state employees for collective bargaining purposes, thus adding perhaps 50,000 more members to teachers unions. Pataki’s veto of that bill was overridden by the Senate. As a result, the WFP has made no endorsement in the 35th Senatorial District.