With the assistance of the community action group Preserve Ramapo, Democratic Supervisor is facing a primary challenge on Sept 15, but not only on the Democratic line. He's also got opponents on the Republican and Independence lines.
While it's not uncommon for a candidate to run on more than one party line in New York (by virtue of Wilson Pakula), its rarely used by a sitting incumbent to stave off potentially tight primary battles. It appears that St. Lawrence's appearance on the Republican line, at least, is the Town Supervisor's hedge against losing the Democratic Primary to challenger Bruce Levine.
Earlier this summer, Rockland Republican Chair Vincent Reda pushed through a committee endorsement of St. Lawrence to the chagrin of many committee members and rank and file Republicans. In previous elections, the Republican committee has offered little support to their own candidates, basically insuring a victory for St. Lawrence's campaigns. It is widely believed that this was part of a power-sharing bargain between the Republicans and the Rockland County Democratic Committee leaders, although there is no evidence to support this assumption.
Some committee members unhappy with the County Chair's blessing of the Town Supervisor returned St. Lawrence petitions ripped or shredded in protest. Another group of Republicans circulated designating petitions for an alternative Republican slate headed by outspoken conservative Robert Romanowski.
St. Lawrence, as in the past, is also running on the Independence Party ticket. And those party members, not to be undone by the larger parties, have also brought a challenge against him. The party collected a sufficient number of petitions for Robert Lieberman to run against St. Lawrence.
The Levine challenge on the Democratic line is for real and St. Lawrence knows it. He wouldn't have come running to the Republican Party if he didn't feel threatened by this primary. There is a small chance that St. Lawrence may lose each of these primaries, but it is much more likely that he will lose the support of his own party. If that were to happen, would St. Lawrence continue to be a Wilson Pakula Republican, or would he join ranks with them?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Is Christopher St. Lawrence surrounded?
Friday, July 24, 2009
Kavesh collects 591 signatures, refuses WFP endorsement
Four candidates have qualified for Nyack’s September 15th Democratic primary by filing petitions with the Rockland County Board of Elections. Kavesh led all four mayoral candidates with 591 petition signatures. Local businesswoman Marianne Olive collected 245 signatures and Village Trustees Marie Lorenzini and Denise Hogan gathered 231 and 225 signatures respectively. Candidates were required to collect 119 signatures from Democrats living in the village and submit them to the Rockland County Board of Elections by July 16th.
The Nyack Republican Committee will have the chance to select its candidates for mayor and two village trustee seats at a caucus held later this summer. The party does not select village candidates through primaries.
Kavesh, who told LotH he "walked every street, road, avenue, place, and lane in Nyack," also said that he declined the endorsement of the Working Families Party because the party did not endorse Thom Kleiner for County Executive. The WFP has chosen Andrew L. Spence, a Suffern attorney, as its candidate.
"During past village elections I’ve proudly accepted the endorsement of the WFP," says Kavesh. "But I’m a lifelong and loyal Democrat and I strongly support Thom Kleiner for County Executive. I don’t want my name to be on a party's ballot line where Thom does not appear, which could possibly cost him votes."
Kavesh has also asked that his Democratic rivals and others running for village office join him in two pledges. He has pledged not to take campaign money from village employees, developers, and people with business before the village. He has also pledged to support whichever candidate wins the Democratic mayoral primary.
Two Democratic candidates – Doug Foster and Jennifer Laird White – are running as a ticket and submitted petitions to the Board of Elections for the two seats as Village Trustees that are also up for election this year.
Mika Brzezinski plays the race card and loses
However, I really watch the show to watch "Thoroughly Moderate Mika." Ms. Brzezinski is a very intelligent woman and very easy on the eyes. However, her opinions in regards to race in society are shockingly shallow.
It was quite evident that Mika was set on creating a new Reverend Wright scandal based on President Obama's opinion that the Cambridge, MA police "acted stupidly" in regards to the handling of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Mike had bought Sergeant James Crowley's story about what happened at Professor Gate's home and was equally not ready to believe Gate's account of what happened.
Mika, who is at the helm of Morning Joe as Joe Scarborough is away, kept hammering away at this story, trying to squeeze out a "gotcha" moment, proving some racial bias on President Obama's part. Mike Barnicle, who took over in the co-pilot's seat, seemed eager to help her along this path.
Well, their little plot backfired. Guests Eugene Robinson, Dylan Ratigan, Carlos Watson, and Harold Ford all took a more rational approach to the situation, saying that there were, in fact, legitimate questions concerning the behavior of Sergeant Crowley. Ratigan was able to destroy Mika's whole line of thought by giving statistics proving that racial profiling is still the norm in police work.
It is very obvious that Brzezinski has lead a very sheltered life, having grown up pampered and rich. Somehow, from this ivory tower she still fancies herself in, she doesn't believe that we all still have issues with race, whether we're a talk-show host, the President, a college professor, or a police officer. And, unfortunately, she thought she could make a comment by Obama that the police "acted stupidly" prove that he's something other than fair in regards to this matter.
I don't know if Mika understands what it is like to get pulled over for "driving while black," being followed by security in department stores, or being kicked out of a private pool club for no real apparent reason.
She also looks at racists as boogeymen that exist mostly in our fantasies. Well, yes there are some racist boogeymen, but many glaring examples of racism come from people who would never think of using the "n" word or would cross the street because they are afraid of passing by a black person.
Most racism is committed on a subconscious level by perfectly rational people who think they're doing the right thing. I'm sure this is the case with the Cambridge police officer.
No, I don't think the police are overt racists, but they did act stupidly and thoughtlessly. Rather than letting this issue divide us, we should learn from it and continue forward.
Shame on Mika for trying to create some sort of "smoking gun" moment against the President's judgment on this matter.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Political yo-yo
Isn't the point of having Ravitch as Lt. Governor moot now that the State Senate is once again under Democratic control?
In a 180-degree reversal of last night's press release salvo, tonight Gov. David Paterson gets the good news: The Appellate Division, Second Department, lifted last night's preliminary injunction preventing Richard Ravitch from taking on the duties of lieutenant governor.
And I fear that this case won't be resolved until Paterson is either out of office or is elected with a running mate.
Shared via AddThis
Sunday, July 5, 2009
State Senator Morahan comes out...against gay marriage
“I understand both sides,” he said. “I prefer civil union, as opposed to traditional marriage.”
Someone should explain to Sen. Morahan that "separate, but equal" is unconstitutional.
“Maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he said. “I know my community is divided. If you can accommodate both sides, why not do that?”
Nobody is being accommodated here. Are we to believe that gay couples will somehow feel empowered by Morahan's belief that what they have is not equal to what he has with his wife?
More from the Journal News:
He explained that he understands and empathizes with the arguments about “inheritance rights, spousal rights,” and believes that civil unions will accomplish those goals of equal rights for same-sex partners.
Morahan went on to tell the Journal News editorial board that his reasons for getting married were for love, not for spousal rights.
So, it’s obvious to me that Senator Morahan either doesn’t understand this whole movement for gay marriage is really about one thing: love. And his implication that the love that he shares with his wife is greater than the love that is shared by the lesbian couple in Nyack or the gay couple in Nanuet is mind boggling.
I don’t think Morahan’s gay constituents want him to embrace the bonds that they share, but I do think that they want him to acknowledge what they share is at least equal to what he has been privileged to have.
Politicians like Morahan have gone to events like Gay Pride Rockland to tell you they’re for gay rights. You’ll hear the Senator say that LGBTs should have the same access to housing, jobs, benefits like health care and insurance, and equal protection of the law, but then it stops at gay marriage. Why is that? Is it Morahan’s Catholic religion that keeps him from supporting gay marriage? Nobody is forcing the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages and I don’t think they'd excommunicate the Senator from the Church for voting in the side of love. No, I don’t think that’s the problem.
Is it that Morahan really believes the stereotype of gays being promiscuous and incapable of forming long-term relationships? Does he, like many of his Republican allies, believe that homosexuality is merely a perversion? No, I think that Morahan has seen enough from the gay pride events that he has attended to know that this isn’t the truth.
The fault, I believe lies in Morahan’s unwavering allegience to the Republican Party. Many people, especially some liberal friends of mine, like to believe that Morahan is a closet liberal. I’ve been told by some of the most progressive people I know in Rockland County that he is some throwback Rockefeller Republican who’s really on our side, fighting for our values. Democratic politicians in the county like Ilan Schoenberger, Alex Gromack, and Christopher St. Lawrence openly support Sen. Morahan and hardly anybody blinks. I admit, Morahan has been good with marketing and with that “member items” slush fund he uses to insure his incumbency.
Now the truth is out: Morahan was never has been the progressive or “moderate” that Rockland voters thought that he was. In fact, he has rarely stood up for anything that didn’t sound like apple pie Americana. He's got a great formula for getting elected: sponsor some no-brainer legislation about children in need and talk it up, keep your mouth shut about everything else, smile, and everyone will think you’re just like them. This worked for a long time, but now it’s over. The upcoming gay marriage vote will expose Morahan’s real values. And all these years of kissing babies and handing out obscene checks just before election time won't work anymore. We know what our State Senator is made of.
Thank you, Sen. Morahan for finally coming out. Now we can make more informed choices at the polls.
This blog is crossposted at the Rockland Progressive Dems web site.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Engel met with controversial Israeli politician
French presient Nicolas Sarkozy may be no fan of Israel’s controversial foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, but Rep. Eliot Engel (NY-17) has reportedly gone out of his way to meet with the controversial politician. Lieberman, who is no relation to US Senator Joseph Lieberman, has raised a lot of eyebrows (to say the least) during his political career and continues to do so, even heckling President Barack Obama over his careful approach to the tense situation in Iran.
Engel should be denouncing the rhetoric of Lieberman, instead he sought an audience with him. Why should we be so concerned that our Congressman is reaching out to Israel? Because Lieberman's vicious attacks makes him seem like a Dead Sea equivalent of David Duke.
Still, you may say, that indicates no endorsement by the Congressman. Engel is unabashedly pro-Israel and that's why many of his constituents like him. I too, appreciate the zeal with which Congressman Engel supports Israel, however I think the Congressman (along with two of my political heroes, Russ Feingold, Carl Levin) need to take a strong stand against Lieberman's hate speech and shun him when he visits this country.
If you're not familiar with Lieberman's rhetoric, it goes well beyond being pro-Israel, it crosses the line into being anti-Arabic and anti-Muslim. It's threatening and alarming.
Lieberman, who was convicted of assaulting and threatening a 12-year old boy in 2001 repeatedly acts in an aggressive manner when it comes to Israel's neighbors, friendly or not, and those that disagree with him.
In 1998, he single-handedly risked Israeli-Egyptian peace by declaring that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak can "go to hell." When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Shimon Peres tried to calm tensions by apologizing to the Egyptians, Lieberman accused the two Israeli leaders of acting like "a battered wife" and said the Egyptian media that covered this controversy was akin to Nazi propagandists.
In 2003, Lieberman lashed out at Ariel Sharon's agreement to give 350 Palestinian prisoners amnesty and espoused political genocide, stating that "it would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world." He then quipped that, as Minister of Transport, he could supply buses to take the prisoners there.
In 2006, Lieberman called for the execution of Arabic members of the Knesset that met with members of Hamas. Lieberman said:"World War II ended with the Nuremberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in the Knesset.
In response to Lieberman's statements, leaders of the Ta'al and Labor parties demanded that a criminal investigation be initiated for violating an Israeli law against incitement and racism. While Lieberman was cleared of racism charges, such rhetoric makes me wonder if deep inside, Lieberman is a racist at best and a fascist at worst. And I'm not alone, Labor minister Ophir Pines-Paz said that Lieberman was tainted "by racist declarations and declarations that harm the democratic character of Israel."
Lieberman later made remarks in the Knesset in March 2008, shortly after the an attack on a Jerusalem yeshiva. He said: "Yesterday's attack can not be disconnected from the Arab MKs incitement, which we hear daily in the Knesset." Then he directed his comments to the Arab Members of Knesset and threatened them with this statement: "A new administration will be established and then we will take care of you."
Lieberman has even raised the specter of a nuclear strike against Gaza. In January he made a veiled threat, saying Israel "must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary." To many in the Israeli media, this quote is a direct allusion to the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There are many more stories of corruption and belligerence, but I think the picture is well painted and is quite revealing and stark. Lieberman's statements and actions make me believe that US politicians should systematically shun the Israeli Foreign Minister, perhaps pressuring the government to seek a less hostile person for this position. A man with such power and with such ideas is a menacing individual and cannot be treated in the manner that other friendly foreign dignitaries would be.
I understand that Engel's purpose of meeting with Lieberman was to help Israel find some common ground with Palestine, and that's what he believes he took home from this meeting.
Last year at this time, I sat in a room with Congressman Engel and insisted that we should be very careful of the friends that we make. I was especially concerned about Engel's attendance at the Christians United for Israel Summit and his association with its leader, Pastor John Hagee, who has very strong anti-Catholic and even, some would say, anti-Semitic views.
Again, I applaud Congressman Engel for being a strong supporter of Israel, but I really think that the Congressman should be much more careful with picking his allies in this cause.
