On Friday afternoon, I received a call from Matt, on behalf of himself and Oreo. They had known that my house was under construction, and that I'd be at the hospital this week with a family member, and hadn't been all that concerned when I was unable to post. But when Charlie was indicted on 13 charges, and I didn't have something up on the 7 charges missed, they feared the worst, and wanted to make sure I was still alive.
My only comment on the Rangel indictment is as a native New Yorker. I accept bribery, corruption, pay to play, unpaid taxes, and all the rest as part of the system: people do these things, these things are wrong, and there should be a price to pay, although there often isn't. So it goes. But Charlie has four, count them FOUR rent controlled apartments. For that, he should have to give up all four, be prevented from ever getting one again, and do serious jail time. Rent controlled apartments in Manhattan are really, REALLY tough to get, and he personally cheated 3 constituent families, and that, I cannot abide. If you have never lived in Manhattan, you can't really understand.
Nothing is stopping him. Charlie's birthday is in June, but the gala fete celebrating his 80th will be held on 11 August, with Aretha Franklin performing, and tickets running from $200 to $2500, proceeds to the Rangel "Victory Fund." He's polling at 39%, which would generally be considered endangered, but that's against 4 challengers, and it was the first poll out after the indictment. Most voters in his district have never voted for anyone but Charlie Rangel. Ever in their voting lives.
In all likelihood, he may be reprimanded, he may be censured, but it's likely he won't be ousted. And that he'll be re-elected. And so long as he gives up the four apartments, I don't care. In fact, if he raffled them off as a campaign stunt, that might be the thing that raises his poll numbers. He'll then resign in January, pick a successor, and things will return to normal. I feel that way about Maxine Waters, also. She's going to go to trial over financial improprieties: she's likely guilty, too.
But this is 2010, and the problem is less the people, and more the process and the system that makes these things so easy for elected officials. On the other hand, I'd like to see Ben Nelson ousted from the Senate for his voting record and his soon-to-be vote against Elena Kagan. This to me is the REAL crime. Charlie and Maxine and a bunch of other pols (including Blago, who will be sharing a cell with his predecessor if he doesn't jump bail and take off for a country with no extradition treaty) are guilty of pay to play. It goes on in many forms at all levels of government. Until the system is changed so that this cannot happen, people will do it. It hurts a few people, and benefits others. But someone like Ben Nelson, who can single-handedly ruin things like health care, climate change, unemployment and other safety net benefits, etc., is hurting millions of people, and really needs to be stopped.
Would I have said this in 2008? Nope. But the country has become so polarized that I'm willing to accept some corruption on both sides if we can hold a voting majority, as opposed to a numerical majority, and get important legislation passed without trouble. If we can get things on the right track, with people back to work, the economy humming, and Main Street trumping Wall Street, then will be the time to look at the system and fix it.
Charlie Rangel is going to trial in front of the House Ethics Committee. The public organizational meeting will be next week, when the full charges will be announced. Politico is reporting that this occurred because House Democrats, Republicans and Charlie himself, couldn't cut an acceptable deal. Who knows? Politico is a Republican site.
The snark part is that if I was going to compile the charges list, I don't know whether I'd start with the four rent-controlled apartments, the parking tickets, payments to his son for the non-website, the bribes, the virtual extortion normally called pay-to-play, or the unpaid Caribbean taxes because, as Charlie said "I can't read Spanish." If you are new to DCW, or haven't kept up, type "Rangel" into the "Tags" link, and you can read all 29 posts. By way of trivia - the last House member to be tried on ethics violations was Jim Traficant in 2002. He got out of jail a few months ago, and his petitions were denied last month, so he won't be on the November ballot as an Independent running for an Ohio seat.
The serious part: The MSM will all be talking about how this can cost Democrats the House. I disagree. I believe that a public trial of Charlie Rangel is important, and a positive step. There is no doubt that the Republicans are more guilty of more crimes than the Democrats. (If you don't know the list, you really haven't been paying attention.) There is a huge difference between ***A*** crook, and institutional crime. Look at William "Cash" Jefferson, currently serving 13 years. That didn't bring down the party: the guy was guilty, and the proof was the 90 grand in his freezer. Ousting individual crooks strengthens the honour of the party. Also, a fair and open trial of Charlie Rangel allows the House Ethics Committee and potentially (please, PLEASE) the Senate Ethics Committee to go after the whole lot of crooks: start with Ensign, run through the rest of the C Street boys, and work up to Shrub and the Prince of Darkness for treason and crimes against humanity.
And hey! wait! what if this was the beginning of the end of pay to play and the overreaching hammer of lobbyists. Sorry -- it's early, I'm tired -- but still, a girl can dream.
I'm glad Charlie is finally going on trial. But even if he is convicted, I wouldn't worry about him. First, he's 80 and he's got so many places to live that just picking an abode outside of DC will take some time. Then, he could vacation in the Caribbean since he finally paid the back taxes. Plus, he's welcome in Jamaica where he won the "Order of Jamaica" last year. Not to mention, he could be the Mayor Curley of our time, and get re-elected even from jail! (No, the House won't jail him, although they legally can.) And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if he were convicted by the House and then won this November over Powell IV. A lot of possibility of full circle things there....it would really be funny if he won but the House refused to seat him, and then he sued, and won another term while the court dithered....wait, that was Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Back in the '60's. You have to admit there is a "full circle"-ism to this whole thing!
Off to meet my electrician, as today is "electrical rough-in day". Have a great Friday.
Andrew Cuomo has announced for New York Governor. This was no surprise, and it will be nice to have a Cuomo back in the mansion. You can watch the announcement here. He proposes a number of interesting things, including that elected members of state government (which are supposedly part time positions) will need to disclose their other income sources. Expect blow back.
If you don't remember it, here's a clip from Mario Cuomo's 1984 Keynote address at the 1984 Democratic Convention. See if you see any parallels to anything else....like today's IIE, especially the C Street contingent. While other speeches (like Ted's "...and the dream will never die") are more liberal rhetoric, this is the ultimate speech against corporatism.
The second tidbit is that when Rand Paul canceled his Meet the Press visit, he was only the third person in history to do so. Use the comments if you know the other two. I'll let you know if you're right around noontime.
Finally, my Saturday began with the weekly jaunt to the dog park, where Olivia got out of the car, threw up, laid down, and could no longer walk. While it looked identical to me like her stroke 3 years ago, it turned out to be an inner ear infection. (Note to dog owners: if there is sudden onset, and the dog has nystagmus, which is the dog's eyes going side to side very quickly, that's 99.9% inner ear infection.) My vet was out of town, but came back to see her. We saw the vet at around 9:30 p.m. after a day you don't want to know about. After a full hour of evaluation, chiropractic adjustment, and the first homeopathic remedy, we carried her out to the car to rest so we could argue politics, while Olivia rested a little before the half hour drive home.
I'll spare you the details, but the next time someone says to you that the Arizona boycott is wrong because they are an Article 5 person, point out that California has AS MUCH RIGHT to boycott as Arizona does to enact legislation (which may or may not hold up in actual court.) Trust me, it moves the conversation along.
One type of renovation at Madison Square Garden will begin this summer when the Knicks try to sign players like LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh.
Another type, one that will modernize the 42-year-old arena, will move into high gear next year with the first of three summer shutdowns. Each year, construction will start with the end of the Knicks’ season, or the Rangers’, whichever comes later.
Turner Construction is renovating the arena and needs about 20 consecutive weeks from the end of play.
So the home of the 1976, 1980 and 1992 Democratic Conventions, and the 2004 Republican Convention, will look brand new by the time 2016 site selection is taking place four years from now. Just saying.
On Tuesday 14 September of this year, there will be a primary. On the ballot for the most densely populated of all US Congressional Districts will be two names: Charlie Rangel, and Adam Clayton Powell IV.
I bet you think I'm going to talk about how nice it is that someone is challenging Rangel because I've been so closely following his ethics issues. Well sure, that's amusing, but there more here. So much more. And kids, it's rich: like tapestry.
Let's talk Powells.
Start with Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. Born in 1865 to a white slave owner and his mother, a slave. Grew up to be a religious man.
Then, there is Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. A pastor like his dad, he was elected to the House in 1945. First black elected from New York. Ever. Second black from any Northern state post-reconstruction. He and William Johnson were the only blacks in the House (and none in the Senate) from 1945 through 1955. They were joined by one or two others, until black representation began to rise in the mid-to-late 1960's. Remember, the House and Senate dining rooms were segregated when Powell became a Congressman. Lynching for being black was legal. "N****r" was an acceptable term on the floor of the House.
Stand in awe for what these guys did, and hear the song "We Shall Overcome" in your head. Be impressed: it was certainly the marchers, those who died of bomb blasts and took the beatings....but it was also the quiet rebellion of men like Powell, a CONGRESSMAN working to change a segregated dining room at his workplace.
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr had a few, um, legal issues. It's a long story, but the Cliff Notes version is that the House refused to seat him. The kinds of "ethical" things he was charged with pale in comparison to the mastery of Charlie Rangel, and a bunch of younger pols. So, he sued. The Supremes eventually said the House had to seat him. Justice is slow, and in the interim he won ANOTHER election.
In the end, though, he lost a primary to Charlie Rangel in 1970, and gave up his seat for good in January of 1971. As you know, Charlie's been there ever since.
The district itself has been reapportioned a number of times, but only nudging north on the island of Manhattan. It started in Harlem, parts of which it still includes, but now also includes parts of Morningside Heights. Of note, this CD used to be predominantly black, and now is predominantly Hispanic.
Now, as for "Adam Clayton Powell IV" - there are two of them. You think I make this stuff up....Adam Clayton Powell Jr was married three times. With his second wife, he had a son Adam Clayton Powell III. He's not running for anything. Adam Clayton Powell III had a son named Adam Clayton IV. He's also not running for anything. Meanwhile, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr and his third wife Yvette Diago Powell, had a son Adam Clayton Powell Diago. There is a Hispanic naming tradition which I don't understand well enough to explain (although I'm sure if one of you does, it will be in the comments in a little bit). Adam Clayton Powell Diago (who is actually the uncle of the other Adam Clayton Powell IV) changed his name to Adam Clayton Powell, IV in 1980 and he IS the one running against Charlie Rangel.
The running Powell challenged Charlie in 1994 and lost by a landslide. In addition, he's been arrested for drunk driving, but got off when the jury settled on "driving while ability impaired" which in NY is a lot like a speeding ticket. Still - expect to see it again. Still, you're going to like ACP4, trust me. The Vieques arrest, the dedication to his district, the totality of him and richness of the family saga.
A race worth watching, and I know I'm sticking with it.
And oh, by the way - whichever one wins the primary wins the seat. If Rangel wins the primary, he may win the seat only to resign in January to be able to appoint his successor. The Powell-Rangel animose actually does go that deep.
New York's state attorney general is set to take on Gov. Paterson in the Democratic primary, a source close to Cuomo told the Daily News.
Cuomo spokesman Richard Bamberger declined comment, but a source close to Cuomo told The News, "He will make an announcement at the end of March. And what he will say is that he intends to run for governor. ... He thinks there are a lot of problems in the state and he thinks he can help solve them."
Carpetbagger Harold Ford is, as you know, probably running against Kirsten Gillibrand in the primary. We know he only registered to vote in NY last fall, so he really does count as a carpetbagger.
Think he's an okay choice? How wrong you are....
Adam over at Open Left has some choice words about Harold's recent interview where he talked about sports. Despite being a native New Yorker who should know which team is which, I don't. It's that sports knowledge gap thing -- but you should read this and you'll get it.
We haven't written anything about gay marriage since the Maine vote early last month. A lot has happened, so let's catch up.
First, there was a ruling in Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service. It was a narrow ruling, but basically upheld that gay public employees who were married in other states needed to be granted spousal benefits in New York State. It was narrow in that it did not cover full recognition of these marriages.
Next, the anti-DOMA lawsuit we've all be waiting for has finally be filed:
The lawsuit was brought by seven gay couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after it became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
In court documents filed Tuesday, the couples say the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because it denies them access to federal benefits given to other married couples, including pensions, health insurance and the ability to file joint tax returns. They argue that the law "eviscerates" the historic power of the states to establish criteria for marriage.
About time this was filed, and based on the 14th amendment, it has a good chance of winning. Section 1:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Then, we have Barbara Ann Radnofsky, candidate for Attorney General of Texas, and a lawyer. She contends that a clause in the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has some bad ramifications for married straight people. Subsection B reads:
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages. [...]
Radnofsky acknowledged that the clause is not likely to result in an overnight dismantling of marriages in Texas. But she said the wording opens the door to legal claims involving spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance and a host other marriage-related issues.
"This breeds unneeded arguments, lawsuits and expense which could have been avoided by good lawyering," Radnofsky said. "Yes, I believe the clear language of B bans all marriages, and this is indeed a huge mistake."
In October, Dallas District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the same-sex-marriage ban is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of gay divorce. Abbott is appealing the ruling, which came in a divorce petition involving two men who were married in Massachusetts in 2006.
And finally, from California, we have a petition drive to get a ballot initiative in front of the people which would ban divorce. This sign explains it all:
You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone
The idea, put forth by John Marcotte, is founded on the ideal that if marriage is so sacred, let's make sure it is SO sacred you can't get out of it. Or as he said:
Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.
I love this as a, um, shove to all those hypcrites who believe in legislating against others but live in the "do as I say, not as I do" world.
While Doug Hoffman is going off the deep end in NY-23, charging that ACORN stole the election for Democrat Bill Owens, (I mean this is so ludicrous - almost all the charges leveled against ACORN have been about voter-registration fraud, of which there have been a few minor cases, and the GOP has tried, unsuccessfully, to charge ACORN with actual vote fraud, but to charge ACORN with vote-counting fraud, in, of all places, rural upstate New York? Wingnuts continue to amaze me. But I digress) the reality-based community is watching the numbers in the absentee ballot counting, and, while Hoffman may have had a minuscule theoretical chance when we started, well, no more:
It's over. Rep. Bill Owens, D-Plattsburgh, leads by 3,105 votes with 3,072 absentee ballots left to be counted.
With 58.6 percent of all absentees counted, Mr. Hoffman has gained 71 votes on Mr. Owens so far.
Think back to the race last year: sitting Congressman Vito Fossella gets drunk in DC, crosses the bridge into Virginia, blows a red light, blows twice the legal limit on a breathalyzer, gets hauled to jail, calls not his wife, not his chief of staff who lives walking distance away, but his mistress, mother of his other child...there you are, you're laughing....H/T to Matt for sending over info on the GOP primary contenders. It hasn't undone my current sadness, but it certainly has brought back good memories.
Sometimes House races are interesting because of the issues, or because of historical import - and sometimes they're inspiring for their "train wreck" content. Such was the case last year watching Vito! self-destruct. I think my favourite part was the fact that his wife, instead of standing by him in the blue suit, pearls and stoic impression just told him to not come home.
The first two GOP candidates have announced for NY-13, 2010. First is Michael Grimm:
A Marine Gulf War vet and ex-undercover FBI agent who helped take down mobsters, crooked pols and Wall Street fraudsters is teeing up a GOP run at Democratic Rep. Michael McMahon next year.
He's not a pol. There's no info yet on his politics, but my gut guesses that he'll be moderate on social issues, conservative on economic issues, but will run as a law and order candidate.
One candidate is environmental lawyer and ex-legislative aide Michael Allegretti, 31, who has raised nearly $200,000 -- and is facing tough questions about a Gambino mob family capo who worked for his family's business for almost two decades.
I want to be clear: I prefer organized crime to disorganized crime. I have never thought that the "old" mob was worse than some "legal business" practices. I accept that crime is a part of society. I don't LIKE crime, but it will always exist, and the old mob had rules and ways of doing business. But a lot of politics is about appearances, and it doesn't work well to have any association with crime if you are running for office. OK, let's be honest, once you're in, it's different (Shout out to Ted Stevens, et al) but running with mob ties against a Law and Order guy... the potential is there.
The most fascinating thing is that if this is the field, the GOP won't be able to bring the evangelical aspect into the race. It becomes secondary. And Staten Island isn't upstate NY (aka "Canada" to those of us born in the City) - teabaggers won't play as well that far downstate.
Since both candidates and the sitting Congressman are all named "Michael", it's going to take some work to come up with nicknames.
It's going to be a fun race! Will keep you posted.
As threatened yesterday morning, I have read the USA Today again. Sadly, my coffeemaker is still non-functional. I have a coffee story, and I put it after the jump. And yes, it's true.
The gem I would have missed had I not bought the paper has to do with political downsizing.
We all know that people, many people, are disappointed in government. In Western New York, thanks in large part to a man named Kevin Gaughan, the reaction is to cut government by cutting elected officials. Not voting them out of office, but dispatching the offices themselves. Starting in Erie County, which has 25 towns, 16 villages and three cities. Most of these places have a full time supervisor and three to six part-time Council members. The part-timers make an average of $16,000 plus pensions and health insurance. He did the research, thanks to a cadre of college students, and concluded that if each town cut two Council members, there would be an annual savings of $4.5 million a year. Overall, the area has lost 56,000 jobs since 1990, and 300,000 residents since 1970.
After the studies concluded, he asked the municipalities to voluntarily reduce their size. Only one town agreed. After that, three towns held elections, and their councils were reduced. The petition drives and special elections continue.
Gaughan believes that the void will be filled with citizen-volunteers, and will lead to more participatory democracy. In addition, during a time of smaller budgets, this will serve to save municipal jobs like police positions. Further, he believes parts of government would become regionalized, so that there was an economy of scale. Note that some places already have county or region systems. Sometimes for some services (like a county library system) and in some places for everything.
For what it's worth, Grover Norquist is against the idea. What do you think?
Yesterday we polled on next Tuesday's elections, and the overwhelming majority of junkies (that would be 97.3 of us junkies) believe we'll pick up NY-23. We like that because we're Democrats, and haven't held the seat since it was redistricted in the early '90's.
But there is another story here, and it relates to the soul of the Republican Party as they find their footing. We've talked before about whether the possibility that the Perry-Hutchison gubernatorial primary will be a parable for the battle between the right and the far right, but this is certainly the opening act. MUCH more so than either New Jersey or Virginia.
John McHugh had held the seat since the redistricting in the early 2000's, and as the IIE goes, was a moderate Republican. The special election next week is to fill his seat, since he was appointed a few months ago to be Secretary of the Army.
There is a Republican candidate: Dierdre Scozzafava. She is not only the GOP candidate, but also the Working Families Party. (Remember, you can run on multiple lines in NY.) The REALLY interesting thing about Scozzafava is her list of endorsers:
Newt Gingrich
Peter King
NRA
Log Cabin Republicans
NY State United Teachers
Markos Moulitsas
Yup, your read that right. Kos of Daily Kos endorsed Scozzafava. His bottom line is his conviction that she is more liberal than Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. (She supports same-sex marriage, Owens does not. Both are pro-choice).
Meanwhile, there is Doug Hoffman. He's running on the Conservative Party line. His endorsers include:
Club for Growth (which threw $300,000 in his advertising pot)
Interesting, isn't it? Not the Basswood numbers, they're strictly the province of the people who already spent a quarter of a million on this election, but the next two polls.
There are still a lot of undecideds (even though they don't show in the Siena poll, they're there, since 29 + 33 + 23 still leaves 15). In addition, below the topline in the Sienna poll, Hoffman is leading the Independents.
Could Hoffman win? Statistically, but its unlikely. (Although Owens has started attacking Hoffman in ads). The really interesting thing will be the final numbers, hopefully broken out by party thanks to exit polling.
Party registration figures — always a lagging indicator — favor the GOP in the district, but the Republican advantage in the 23rd district is less than the GOP advantage in the 20th district, where Democrat Scott Murphy narrowly won a late-March special election.
According to the New York State Board of Elections, as of April 1, 43.1 percent of active voters were Republicans in the 23rd, while 31 percent were Democrats — a 12.1-point advantage for the GOP.
In contrast, in the 20th district, Republicans held a larger 14.7-point advantage, 41.5 percent to 26.8 percent.
In both districts, the GOP edge has been eroding. In the 23rd, the Republican registration advantage was 14.6 points in November 2006 and 16.2 points in November 2002. So, recent registration trends clearly favor Democrats.
President Barack Obama carried the district last year with 52 percent, compared to 47 percent for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Is there a hidden majority ready to come out in force for Jon Corzine? Maybe
The Club for Growth (H!!! Pat Toomey!!!) is supporting a third party candidate in the NY-23. This is the seat vacated when John McHugh was tapped to become Secretary of the Army. CFG is outspending both the Democrats and the Republicans. It should have been a good pick-up opportunity for the Democrats. The polls are showing the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, ahead of both the Democrat (Bill Owens) and CFG's choice of Doug Hoffman. But no one knows who Hoffman is, while both Scozzafava and Owens have already been on the TV. The money might make a lot of difference: it might shift support to Hoffman, or split the GOP vote and allow Owens to capture the seat.
My only comment on the Rangel indictment is as a native New Yorker. I accept bribery, corruption, pay to play, unpaid taxes, and all the rest as part of the system: people do these things, these things are wrong, and there should be a price to pay, although there often isn't. So it goes. But Charlie has four, count them FOUR rent controlled apartments. For that, he should have to give up all four, be prevented from ever getting one again, and do serious jail time. Rent controlled apartments in Manhattan are really, REALLY tough to get, and he personally cheated 3 constituent families, and that, I cannot abide. If you have never lived in Manhattan, you can't really understand. 
On Tuesday 14 September of this year, there will be a primary. On the ballot for the most densely populated of all US Congressional Districts will be two names: Charlie Rangel, and Adam Clayton Powell IV. 
