NY-21: Steck Responds; Announces Endorsement While Targeting Brooks, Tonko

For What It's Worth (2.00 / 2)

The Local Politics blog at timesunion.com breaks that no such political upheaval will occur in Rensselaer County tonight.

"We're not going to nominate for the endorsement," County Chairman Tom Wade said.
::
The committee meets at 6:30 p.m. at the American Legion Hall on Main Avenue in Wynantskill. At 7:30 p.m., the candidates in the 21st Congressional District will address the committee.

Or will there be?  Hopefully, things don't boil over.

Thanks for the numbers update; as a Steck for Congress supporter, I am excited that nearly 80% of Albany County's Committee backing.  That kind of support doesn't happen without support from the rank-and-file, and might just be signaling a changing of the guard that many in Albany County have been waiting for.  It's remiscent, but not quite like, last year's party split that resulted in the Co-Chairmanshipt of Commisso and Bosworth.  This time, the stakes are higher.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 13:09:47 PM CDT

80%? (4.00 / 2)

not exactly. Phil gets a win last night but the numbers are meaningless. Albany County is very divided and it is not healthy for the party.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 15:39:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary Numbers (4.00 / 1)

To say Phil Steck won 80% of the vote is the same as Hillary's argument to count the popular vote in Michigan.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, this is just wrong (0.00 / 0)

Hillary is trying to lower Obama's percentage of the vote by saying Michigan and Floriday should count.  You are trying to do the same thing for Steck by saying people who walked out and didn't vote should count.

So it's actually your argument that Phil Steck got only "half" the votes that makes use of Hillary's soundly disproven math.  He got 124 out of 163, which is damn close to 8 out of 10.  I'm not going to stick around for any "if they didn't walk out" arguments because they have as much weight and merit as Hillary's "if you count Michigan" argument, which is none, and I've been sick of that one for months.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hole in your argument (0.00 / 0)

Your logic is similar to Hillary's argument in Michigan.  She was the only candidate to have her name on the ballot and she is trying to county that in the popular vote.  Here, Steck was the only one to have his supporters present and is trying to claim that he got 80%.  Steck doesn't have the support of half the Albany County committee as clearly demonstrated.  You might not like that fact, but the math is clear.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 16:45:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not at all. (0.00 / 0)

The math is clear.  And if Tonko was able to get 27 votes and Brooks 12, that means that Steck was not the only with supporters present.

Steck got the vast majority of the votes cast by all those who were willing to stay and particpate in the democratic process, like Obama did by following the rules in Michigan.  Hillary is now engaging in acts of desperation, and that's what the walk out from the democratic process was.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:22:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Steck's Responses Get Stronger Still (0.00 / 0)

From a campaign e-mail today:

Last night, our campaign received the endorsement of the Albany County Democratic Committee in an overwhelming vote! We received support from the cities, hilltowns and suburbs and their vote for us is a major momentum builder for our campaign.

I have worked for the past 20 years to build the Democratic Party. Our historic win last year in the Town of Colonie, ending 100 years of Republican rule, is proof that a dedicated grassroots effort, with volunteers committed to the community, can beat back an entrenched machine and well known candidates.

In this race for Congress, the people of the Capital Region have a clear choice between candidates who are part of an establishment that lets lobbyists write our laws and stifle progress, or our campaign, which is about changing the direction of this country. I am not surrounded by an army of lobbyists, and our campaign is rooted in the community. Now, more than ever, we need these community-based values in Congress.

The people want change because whether it's Albany or Washington, the political system is broken. I agree! We deseve much better than the same old status quo. This country was misled into an unjust war, which we need to bring to an immediate end. We live in the richest country in the world, and health care should be a fundamental right. Working families are struggling to pay energy bills, and there is no plan to bring about real reform that would bring immediate relief, and provide a long term plan that would attract new business to create jobs.

Emphasis in original

It's' been quite a day in the 21st, and I'm growing curious- to see how the networks portray this tonight.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 13:43:15 PM CDT

The Problem with Steck (0.00 / 0)

Phil Steck dove into the mud.  First, he blames Paul Tonko for George Bush's energy crisis that has caused high rates.  Now Steck implies that his opponents would let lobbyists and energy companies write the laws.  This is Rove-type tactics at its worst.  We can only wait until Phil Steck, so desperate for everyone to not realize that he has been a party-powerbroker for years, claims his opponents all ordered the invasion into Iraq.

Steck is an entrenched party leader who has been a major backroom player in Albany County politics.  He is a sitting County Legislator.  He is a town chair who has played a key role in the post-machine wars in Albany County for 20 years.  Lets not be silly, he is not an outsider.  I don't have a problem with that.  In fact, he is running on his accomplishments as town chair, which is a good thing.  But don't try to turn around and tell us you are not part of the establishment.  Implying that we the voter are too stupid to know his record is insulting.

Attacking his opponents with empty and Republican-type misleading statements is wrong.  Accepting the endorsement of key backers of Right-wing Republicans who attack progressive Democrats is wrong.  

It is time for Steck to start telling us what he has done.  He needs to tell us his record and why he is qualified for this position.  To challenge other people's records is fine.  If he wants to tell us what vote Paul Tonko has made he disagrees with or tell us what campaign pledge Darius or Tracey Brooks has made he thinks is wrong, thats fine.  Thats political discussion.  Thats what the people deserve. But these empty sound bites are lowering the political discourse and are not what the public deserves.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 20:28:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me shed a little light on events here (4.00 / 2)

First, I am a town chair in Rensselaer County and will be at tonight's meeting. We will not be endorsing in the 21st but will be allowing all candidates to speak at the meeting. This is a wide open campaign and it should be a wide open process. Committee members will be free to carry petitions for whichever candidate or candidates they want. No shenanigans.

This is a rare opportunity for the people of this district to pick the best possible candidate to serve them in Congress for many years to come.

Party bosses and insiders should not be making that decision for the people. Those days are over.

As proved by last nights events in Albany County....

The Albany County Democratic Committee used to be a "machine" operation. It is no longer. Hasn't been for awhile but it is still in a transition period. In other words, things are a bit of a mess right now.

Last night's events have very little to do with the merits of the candidates and reflect little more then the division within the county party structure. This has been going on for years with a battle between "machine" and "reform" wings and then between "city" and "suburban."

It is quite a mess.

The shenanigans by the Jennings faction were counter-productive and unfortunately only serve to further divide the party.

Claims by the Steck faction that this gives him some overwhelming victory are just plain silly. It is no big deal to win a vote that only your supporters participate in.

The fact of the matter is that the vote only reflects the divisive nature of many of the insiders in Albany County politics. This has been going on for years. We saw it all play out all over again last night. It is time for it to end.

It is time for new leadership. Someone with youth and experience. Someone that has not been a party to the divisive and destructive battles that have been going on the last few years. Someone that is willing to work with everyone in the party for the betterment of the entire party.

It is time for healing not more in-fighting.

Darius Shahinfar and I are in complete agreement with the non-endorsement approach of the Rensselaer County Committee. We believe all county parties should handle this situation in a similar manner.

There are several good candidates. The district will be well represented by one of them for many years to come.

Let the games and power plays end. This election does not belong to party insiders.

Let the people decide.

It is their right.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 15:35:07 PM CDT

Endorsements don't seem like the enemy to me (0.00 / 0)

so long as they don't reflect a machine that will enforce them.  

I know Albany County is still sorting out, after decades under a machine, but I'm not sure that not endorsing is the best of all options for county committees either.

Endorsements are recommendations, not coronations - so long as enough of us in the party want to make sure it stays that way!

---

by: simonstl @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 16:42:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

But endorsements mean a lot. As Andrew alluded to, if a county committee endorses a candidate, that committee can do a lot. They can help pass petitions, those committee members can become volunteers, etc. They aren't coronations. I agree with that. But they are more than recommendations. A committee endorsing a candidate speaks volumes.

I'll use my district as an example. In NY-26, we have three distinct candidates. I can honestly say that. All three of them have differences. On the surface at least in NY-21, you have a few candidates with some similarities. That happens when you have eight candidates. I like a lot of what I hear about these candidates. I can't say that there's a "Jack Davis" in NY-21.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 17:53:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying endorsements are inherently wrong (4.00 / 2)

or a bad thing. Most of the time they are quite appropriate and occasionally quite necessary. I don't mean to be making a blanket statement here.

But there are times, and I believe this race is one of them, when there are several good candidates and the people will be well served by which ever one eventually wins.

For counties like Montgomery and Fulton that have been represented by Mr. Tonko for years now I would fully expect them to endorse him out of hand.

But in counties such as Albany and Rensselaer where there are established working relationships with several of the candidates and none of them can lay a stronger claim over the others and the county committees are clearly split between several candidates, it makes sense to leave the process wide open rather than have the divisive and potentialy very harmful battles such as was witnessed in Albany County last night. It only serves to deepen and widen the fissures in an already divided party.

In this particular case I believe it would have been the best option to leave it alone. There are a lot of good people in the Albany County party. We need to figure out ways to come together and work through and around differences in our common cause.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 22:47:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank You (0.00 / 0)

You stated very clearly exactly the problem with what Steck did last night.  He had less than half the votes, but knew he had just enough to further his aim even if it could divide the party organization further.  

I was most stunned by the way he insulted those that left.  To claim that Jack McNulty and over 100 committee people have a " very shallow committment to the democratic process" is horrible.  I guess most of his potiential Democratic collegue in Congress have a very shallow committment to the democratic procress too because they walked out in protest on several votes the Republicans pushed through before 2006.  Steck could have declared victory and walked away with the endorsement, even if tainted.  Instead, he took cheap shots at people with long histories of party and community service.  

I don't think endorsements will make candidates hate the committees or viceversa.  I think Steck's insulting of nearly half of the party's most faithful workers who would come out to such an event could leave long resentments.  Even those who stayed or were not present will not take kindly to someone who will so flippantly insult Jack McNulty even if they think his resolution was wrong or he has endorsed the wrong candidate.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:36:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Steck Took A Stand (0.00 / 0)

And he's spot on.

Walking out before a vote is indicitative of a shallow committment to the democratic process.  It's little more than a hissy fit and lot of us have been waiting for a young politician to stand up and call them out on it.  To me, and to a lot of people, Phil's actions were based on integrity.

In both Washington DC and Albany County, there is a history of facing the people's biggest problems and just walking out...

Phil will be a Congressman who does not play that game; he'll stand up and give an up or down vote as the rules allow, hanging in there for the tough ones, and never throwing some fit by walking out.  I didn't support the Democrats back in 2006; they should have sprouted a pair and put their names to a vote.  That's courage; that's leadership.

That's the way Phil Steck rolls, and it's a positive development in Albany County that's happened from it.  That's how I want my Congressman to roll...not to roll over.  And any resentments are not Phil's fault; that's a conscious personal choice made by someone who chooses resentment over reconciliation.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Alot to learn (0.00 / 0)

The importance of symbolism is why the Democrats walked out. Protest is an important part of the Democratic process, as important as voting.  If not, civil rights legislation would never have happened.  It wasn't the votes of congress that got it done as Barack Obama pointed out to Hillary, it was the leadership of Martin Luther King and other civil rights workers who marched and protested that changed society.  

You also seem to be overlooking the fact that Phil Steck insulted the committment to the democratic process of over a hundred loyal hardworking Democratic volunteers.  Maybe you don't understand what a Democratic committee person is.  They are mostly hardworking volunteers who get nothing out of it except knowing they are working for a cause.  If that isn't committment to the Democratic process, I don't know what is.  Lets also remember Jack McNulty has been working for the people of Green Island since before you were born.  I don't think any person should be questioning his committment to the democratic process.  Disagree with his position, disagree with his resolution and disagree with his endorsement if you wish, but to purposefully insult him should be below anyone considering running for congress.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 16:54:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, we all to, but... (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't put this "protest" on the same pedestal as Dr. King's.

I do know what a committee member is and what one does.  As Committee Member Dick Barret pointed out in the Times Union article today, the walk out was disgraceful.  And it should be pointed out that those committee members serve constituents to represent them at the meetings, including casting votes.  They voted on Mr. McNulty's motion not to endorse, and it failed.  So why didn't they stay for the up or down vote to endorse?  That's the only insult I see; Steck's comments reflect a condemnation of that kind of behavior and a commitment to the democratic process.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:38:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Insult (0.00 / 0)

Steck said that all those that left lacked a committment to the democratic process.  Thats an insult.  Walking out of a committee endorsement in protest is not lacking a committment to the democratic process, its a statement.  Members of Congress do it to make an important point.  I guess you think that all the Democrats in Texas that went to Oklahoma in a vain effort to stop Tom DeLay's horrible partisan redistricting plan lack committment to democracy.  Steck obviously thinks that half of the Albany County Democratic committeemembers lack committment to democracy.  Thats an insult to every single hardworking committee person in EVERY county by saying that all their hard work does not show their committment to democracy.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:45:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see things in very much the same light (0.00 / 0)

I agree with a lot of what you said.  There are hurldes that the Albany County Democratic Party is having trouble clearing.

But this endorsement was decided democratically as a result of a reflection of the will of the people.  A fair motion was made to make no endorsement, and it didn't pass. Tonko and Brooks supporters surely were the ones participating and voting for the mtion.  And  with 124 votes cast for Steck, 27 for Tonko, and 12 for Brooks, it's clear that Steck supporters did not participate in the process alone either.

The nature does reflect the divisive nature of the insiders who were in support of Brooks and Tonko, but not willing to particpate in the democratic process that revealed a larger base of popular support for Phil Steck.  That in and of itself is a big vitory in Albany County Democratic politics as well as for the Steck for Congress campaign.

When I say to myself that I want more and better Democrats in Congress, part of the better part means electing Democrats who are not afraid to go against the party establishment.  Phil Steck is just such a Democrat, who is young enough to have just enough experience and still begin a long, progressive career as our representative.

I hold the committee members, Tonko and Brooks supporters, who walked out accountable for the chaos, and Phil Steck showed himself to be above.  I also hold the same style of "leadership" responsible for what I see to be a less than fair shot being given to Darius Shahinfar, who is performing like a top tier candidate at events and in his communications, but is still being given little recognition from any official sectore.

And as a final note, I'm glad that tonight's meeting on your side of the river is going to remain neutral.  This keeps the area a key battleground and it could stand some attention from some of these strong candidates.  Endorsements do mean a lot, and many people help base their own decision on them, but leaving it open leaves a more open decision to be made, and will challenge these folks to get out there, and make their cases even stronger.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 19:33:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Vote (0.00 / 0)

124 Steck
27 Tonko
12 Brooks
100 Walkouts
263 - Minimum number of potiential voters originally there.

Steck got 47% of the vote at best.  Lets also remember, of the over 100 that walked out several of them must have had proxies from others (there is no way the entire city did not send a single proxie).  So Steck most likely would have come in first, but likely with around 40% of the vote.

Now Steck lost Montgomery County, his only support coming from a defeated former mayor who ran as a Conservative and a Democratic-Attacking, Rightwing Conservative Republican-endorsing bully.

Paul Tonko won the uniamous support of the committed Democrats in Montgomery County.

Paul Tonko will win Schenectady, Schoharie, Saratoga, and Fulton endorsements overwhelmingly and not need to force through divise divided votes.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 20:49:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's more like Hillary Math (0.00 / 0)

163 votes were cast.  And Steck got 124 of them.  That is an overwhelming majority.  It is 76% of the vote in reality.  And it is a huge victory.

100 people who walk out of the room to not vote are not to be counted.  This is exactly like Hillary saying that Michigan and Florida, who essentially "walked out of the room" should be counted for her argument.  So if you wouldn't hold Obama accountable for those two states' mix-ups, don't go holding Phil Steck accountable for the mudslinging brought about mainly by Brooks supporters.

Phil Steck fought fair and square for this victory, and he won it because his supporters believe in him and the democratic process.  And I don't see anything wrong with divisive votes...they are what signal that change is coming around.

Paul Tonko recieved the endorsement of the Schenectady committee well before he even announced in a show of just how established he is.  He didn't lift a finger to get that.  And that is just a strong a show of force in my book as building up enough popular support to win a County Party's endorsement against.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Michigan (0.00 / 0)

In Michigan and Florida alot of votes were cast.  Votes cast is not the only standard.  We all agree that the process wasn't fair since in Michigan, Barack wasn't even on the ballot.

Here, you are claiming that Phil Steck won with 80% when close to half of the voters were there, leaving in disgust at Steck choice.  Its no different than Hillary's math that she won Michigan with Obama getting 0% of the vote.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:01:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uncommitted (0.00 / 0)

Hillary only got 55% of the vote in Michigan; "Uncommitted" got about 45% of the vote.  Hillary did not remove her name from the ballot as Obama had to comply with the rules.

And the committee members can't have been there and leave in disgust at once just as no person can be two places at the same time.  They could have easily stayed for a vote; instead, they choose to disregard the process and walk out.

So if Michigan to be counted, Hillary should get only those votes cast and Obama counted for the "uncommitted" votes, if anything.  And votes that were not cast would not be counted.  I'm consistent with that logic with this race as well in supporting the fact that Phil Steck overwhelming won the endorsement of the Albany County Democratic Committee.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:30:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama didn't get a single vote (0.00 / 0)

Lets be realistic.  Obama didn't get a single vote in the Michigan primary.  His name wasn't on the ballot.  The election was a shame, just like the vote last night where basically only Steck supporters were still there.  To claim 80% is like Hillary's math that assumes that no one else would have voted in a fair election in Michigan and not a single person would have voted for Obama because her popular vote count includes none for Obama.  We all know that is just spinning.  Steck winning 80% is just spinning too.  Steck doesn't have 80% of the support of the Albany Democratic Committee, he has less than half.  Saying that Jack McNulty and half of the Albany Democratic committee lack a committment to democracy is wrong and insulting to every committed activist.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 17:49:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would think... (4.00 / 1)

That if someone beats seven other primary challengers, they are a very good candidate. You just don't beat seven people by accident. You have to have a strong campaign and a strong base to do that.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 23:59:31 PM CDT

Yes. (4.00 / 3)

Also, there is no rule that I am aware of (at least in our committee) that a committee endorsement precludes committee members carrying pettitions for opponents.  So, I am failing to understand what is accomplished by walking out.  If I were an Albany Co. committee member, I would think long and hard about the pros and cons of endorsement-- there are good arguments on both sides above.  But, until anybody can explain clearly to me the rationale of the walk-out, it just looks like bad behavior to me.

---

by: robinia @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:18:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed on petitions (0.00 / 0)

At least in Tompkins County, I've never heard of anything requiring committee members to carry petitions based on the endorsement.

I carried petitions for both Clinton and Tasini, for instance,  though I think the committee narrowly endorsed Clinton.  (Was that the vote where we all stood up and went to opposite sides of the room to count?)

As a town chair, I also don't push committee members to carry petitions for candidates they can't personally support.  It's remarkable how people's opinions vary, and I'm not sure it's really that good for a candidate to have committee members going door to door with petitions and saying "I really can't stand XYZ, but please sign the petition anyway."

In my first petition season (2004), I did once talk a committee member into carrying petitions, and he did, but I've regretted it ever since, given who the candidate was.

It's also been interesting to see people's responses when I show up at their doors. Some will sign any of these without looking at it, while others pick and choose.  The only one I can think of that no one's ever refused is the one to keep me on the committee, though I'm guessing that's just because they're too polite.

I have serious doubts about the whole petition process, but I'll write about those in a lot more depth sometime later.

(And for those wondering who I am and where I'm talking about, I'm the Chair of the Dryden Democratic Committee in Tompkins County, despite my best efforts to retire.)

---

by: simonstl @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:14:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe something was said... (4.00 / 1)

About the candidates supporting an endorsement, applying and interviewing for an endorsement and that if they didn't want an endorsement to be granted, they should not have submitted to the process.

However, it is not their responsibility to give such an endorsement. They can submit to the process, but whether one is given or not is up to the committee, not the candidate.

Also, I would think it depends on the committee and that committee's rules. I know of a few county committees where the endorsed candidates receive help with petitions, for example. But I can't say that applies to other committees.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]