NYC DEMS: Draft Rangel or face DISASTER.

[Smarmie Doofus]

st Sat Jun-04-05 01:47 PM
Original message
NYC DEMS: Draft Rangel or face disaster.



Or let's do something else, fast. Like import a prominent figure from parts as yet unknown.
The four announced candidates for the nomination are undistinguished and indistinguishable. Or they are distinguishable only in trivial ways: One's black; one's Hispanic, one's Jewish, one's a woman, etc and so forth. ZZZzzzzzzz.

The problem is that they don't seem to recognize that these distinctions ARE trivial. Yesterday's Times was full of Virgina Fields apologizing to Geraldine Ferraro because Field's campaign manager had dismissed Ferraro's endorsement of Fernando Ferrer (" I had to spend a few minutes remembering who she was.")This was followed by this gem from Field's campaign manager, a Mr. Mercurio:

"As a political consultant who worked on Ms Ferraro's successful first congressional race, and as an Italian American ( have we touched all demographic bases yet?) who was proud to see her as the first Italian American ( he's rounding third) on a national party's ticket, I was very disappointed to hear her endorse against a strong candidate who has a shot at becoming the first woman mayor ( home run!!!!) of New York City."

A "political consultant". That means he gets paid a lot of money to think like this. Alas, this mentality seems par for the course in NYC DEM politics. Might help 'splain, at least in part, why the party's lost the last three mayoral elections in a row ( this year will make four) despite having a *** 5 to 1 ****(!!!) registration advantage.

This is a blueprint for electoral disaster.

This morning the Times is full of yet another non-issue: Mayor Bloomberg's acceptance of a fringe political party ( the endorsement of which several of the DEM candidates have in the past sought and received)endorsement which has among it's leaders Lenora Fulani, a one-time leftist who has in the past made alleged anti-semitic statements related to Israel. The implication seems to be that Bloomberg is anti-semitic, anti Israel, soft on anti-semitism, or soft on anti-Israelism.

Folks , get a clue: Bloomberg is as Jewish as Levy's Rye bread and more pro-Israel than most of the Knesset. If there is serious political traction to be gained here, no reasonable person can see it.

Although maybe the paid consultants can.

Again, a recipe for electoral disaster. Bloomberg also happens to be a lousy mayor, who doesn't understand even simple things about the right to assemble and the right to petition the gov't ( his famous comment prior to the eve of the Iraq aggression: "The time for demonstrations has passed.")and is busily cooking the books to show non-existant educational progress.

All to rave reviews by the adoring republican tabloid media and the toothless electronic media that is just now reaping millions of $$$ from the Bloomberg campaign to show his moronic ( and persuasive) commercials while their news departments ignore the other campaigns.

Speaking of which, the DEM candidates will "debate" tomorrow morning at 6:30 am ( get to bed early; REAL early) on the NBC affiliate here. Part of the problem with the DEMS is the hostile media environment, no doubt. But I think it's time to:1 . get real and 2. think outside the box.

The announced candidates lack gravitas. They appear to lack anything important to say. Draft Rangel.

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. Rangel is a thorn...

in the party's side. This draft nonsense he's been pushing looks really bad on the party. He also makes himself way to visible. He gives the right wingers things to talk about all day.

Also - I moved out of Staten Island about 10 years ago, how the hell did Shrub win the island by 15%???

[tk2kewl]

2. Rangel's position on the draft is on target.

He is trying to bring attention to the fact that the so-called volunteer army is made up of mostly poor folks. It wont be until there is a draft that requires middle class white kids to skip college and serve in this war, until people start to give a shit that it was an illegal war to begin with.

And what the hell is wrong with making himself visible? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Welcome to DU BTW, and I'm surprised that you don't know why bush won SI if you lived there, but maybe your comments about Charlie being "too visible" give a hint.

[liberaliraqvet26]

3. I agree....

that his arguments for bringing back the draft are good. I served in the reserves as well as a year + in Iraq and saw exactly what he is saying, it is accurate and noble. Unfortunatly in the world of soundbites all the people catch is "NY Democrat bringing up unpassible bills to reinstate draft". What message is that going to send to mothers and college age kids? Most voters do not read between the lines. It gives extra ammo to the righties. The Staten Island I knew was not a right wing haven when I lived there, but then again I grew up the son of a union leader and was young. Damn, im not right all the time but you guys can really be harsh.

[tk2kewl]

4. i didn't mean to be hash

SI is pretty racist, and the repugs have cornered the market on racism; that plus the comment on Charlie being too visible sounded a bit suspect.


if i jumped to too many conclusions, my apologies.

i still think democrats should take thoughtful positions on the issues, and nor just worry solely about the "world of sound-bites"

[liberaliraqvet26]

5. There is a lot of hope...

North of the Staten Island Expressway, i grew up in Port Richmond, I think you are probably thinking of the south shore, which corners the market on racists. There are a lot more people on the North Shore though, but I suspect they have a low turnout rate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Point is: Rangel doesn't focus-group every single little thing...

he says. The DEM mayoral candidates are controlled by these moronic "professional" consultants who pretty much give the same advice: don't say anything, ANYTHING, that could * conceivably* be used by the other side ( i.e. DEM opponents). Consequently... none of them say ANYTHING of consequence... no pun intended.

Here's what they do: they take "positions"; carefully calibrated to offend ( and thereby "enlighten"!)*no one* while staking out ideological turf one millimeter to the left or right of the position(s) of the target opponent(s).

In the meantime they wait for one another to make a "mistake". An impromptu, politically incorrect gaffe that makes for a flurry of headlines and creates for the gaffer damage control issues, that can easily spin out of control. This happened to Ferrer earlier in the year and happened to Green last time out.

In the meantime, nothing important is discussed as their positions on issues are virtually indistinguishable and consciously designed to so appear!

So what are we supposed to base our vote on? Well, I guess the candidates identity as a member of an identifiable demographic group: Hispanic, AA, woman, Jewish, none of the above.

Put a bag over the heads of these folks, line them up and let them talk. I defy you to tell me which is which, who is whom.

Why Rangel? I can't picture Rangel sitting still for five minutes of this nonsense. He can run without risking his seat. He has a record of accomplishment and leadership, unlike the not-so-fab-four. He will speak plainly about real issues. He will make a competitive race with this fabulously wealthy and fabulously mediocre mayor.

And he might well win.