About
The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

Getting Started at the Albany Project

New York Blogwire



This belongs to you. Take it back...

NY-21: Independent Media Confirms Steck's Strength

by: Soundpolitic

Thu May 29, 2008 at 23:33:29 PM EDT


The recent endorsement of Congressional candidate Phil Steck by the Albany County Democratic Committee has recieved much coverage in the local mainstream  press as a "controversy" for about a week now.  Here on the netroots, there was much debate about the impact of the county's endorsement; the county is home to 55% of the voters in Congressman McNulty's district, and the endorsement was made from amongst a field of eight Democrats seeking to replace him after his retirement.

After a week, Metroland, the district's independent newsaper finally hit the nail on the head and interviewed the endorsed candidate himself extensively:

The Powers That Were

Phil Steck thwarts old guard and secures the Albany County Democratic Committee endorsement for U.S. representative in the 21st District

All it took was a cue from Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings, said Albany County Legislator Phil Steck, and the room began to clear out-a remaining vestige of the power the mayor once exerted over the Albany County Democratic Committee. Except this time, the mayor's sway wouldn't prove strong enough.

Soundpolitic :: NY-21: Independent Media Confirms Steck's Strength
The Times Union even made reference to last week's committee meeting that endorsed Phil Steck in their retrospective on the late Mayor Erastus Corning 2nd this week, but did not mention Steck by name.  Neither did their piece about the retiring Representative's career.  But this week, the independent media gets it right, and gives us more information.

Because the link to the article will feature next week's news, the rest of the article in it's entirety is posted below.  It was written by Chet Hardin.  I have added my own emphasis on that which has been lacking in the mainstream and which I personally believe deserves to be emphasized.

The struggle for control in the county committee is a long history, said Steck. "By the time I became chairman of the Democrats in Colonie in 2002, we had simply written off the county committee as a source of support because we knew how it was." The committee was controlled largely by Jennings. "He was the de facto chairman. Everything that he said, went."

However, going into the latest Democratic committee meeting on May 21-after years of organizing, a historic win in Colonie, and months of campaigning-Steck was confident that he had the votes to secure the committee's endorsement for his bid to replace Mike McNulty in the 21st Congressional District, regardless of the mayor, who had thrown his support behind one of Steck's leading opponents, former Hillary Clinton staffer Tracey Brooks. The Steck campaign walked into the meeting knowing that they had secured 30,000 out of the 72,000 weighted votes.

"It was probably one of the largest ever coalitions ever," Steck said, or at least the largest in his memory.

With that support, the Steck camp was able to deflect an attempt by another Brooks supporter and father of the outgoing Congressman, Jack McNulty, to pass a motion stating that the committee should not endorse any of the candidates in the heated primary competition. It was a move that many had hoped the committee would have taken, McNulty reportedly argued, if for no other reason than to preserve "party unity."

Prior to the meeting, said Brooks spokesman Kyle Kotary, "We were contacted by the Albany County Democratic Committee co-chairs and called to a meeting with [former Assemblyman] Paul Tonko, Phil Steck, and members of their campaigns, asking the campaigns and the candidates to support the nonendorsement."

The Steck, Tonko and Brooks campaigns are considered the front-runners in the crowded field of the 21st, and were the only candidates to receive votes of support coming out of the committee's preliminary interview process. It was hoped that the party could avoid stoking the already divisive relationship between the suburban and urban Democrats if these three candidates would agree to not seek the committee's endorsement. Both Brooks and Tonko said yes. Steck said no.

The endorsement, Steck's critics said, was more important than party unity.

Which led to the volatile committee meeting. McNulty put forward his motion for nonendorsement, which led to a vote. According to a committeeman who was present that evening, and wished to go unnamed, all of the votes previous were done by standing voice. But the vote on the nonendorsement, at the urging of Steck's campaign, went instead to a roll call, a long and tedious process that can last for hours.

Many were frustrated by this move and began to walk out. The scene turned chaotic, the committeeman said. It appeared to Steck's critics that "the fix was in."

"Several members got up, voicing disgust, and left," he said.

There appeared to be no real reason for the roll-call vote, other than to disenfranchise committee members with the long, drawn-out process of recording the votes of all 503 members who were present at the beginning of the meeting. Further, the committeeman argued, had the motion for nonendorsement been put to a voice vote, it would have likely won out.

As it stands, the committee endorsed Steck by a vote of 124, with 27 votes going to Tonko and 12 to Brooks.

Steck rejected the notion that he won by any other means than legitimate process. To him, he said, this was simply a contest-a contest that he was better prepared for. And it proved, he said, what years of grassroots organizing can accomplish. Out of the 109 committee members from the town of Colonie, all but two-who abstained-voted for Steck.

"That's a very strong showing," said Steck. "It made me very warm-hearted. It showed me that people appreciated my hard work."

Of course, he said, you're going to have your base of support from wherever you have been most active, but pointed out that he also received support from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 9th wards of Albany, as well as votes from Watervliet and Cohoes.

Steck also said that Tonko's campaign had sent out letters previous to the meeting, seeking the Albany County Democrats' endorsement, and that Brooks used robocalls and reached out personally to members of the committee, seeking their support(although Kotary insisted that she sought support only for the motion of nonendorsement).

"They campaigned to win the vote," Steck said. "The problem was, they weren't winning. And then to come to a meeting and see that you don't have the votes, because the other guy has brought together a broader coalition than you could, and then to walk out, I don't think that's an impressive approach."

The eight Democrats running for Congress in NY-21 are: John Aretakis, Tracey Brooks, Criag Burridge, Lester Freeman, Darius Shahinfar, Phil Steck, Paul Tonko, and Arthur Welser.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tips & Housecleaning (4.00 / 1)
I am a Steck for Congress volunteer.

Cross-posted on DailyKos.

Coming Soon: Interview with Congressional candidate Craig Burridge, part one of a series of eight.


The rest of the story (0.00 / 0)
The Metroland failed to point out the endorsement was illegal because there was a lack of a quorum and repeated quorum calls were ignored.  A media blackout of the illegal actions of candidate.

Phil Steck does not have the legal endorsement of the committee and despite his claims of support still has not told us what he has already done in his long career in politics.  For nearly 20 years Steck has been in politics, where's the record?

Also, Steck has a short memory because it was an extremely similar coalition that led to the split in the Albany County committee only a few years ago, a split he played a major role in.


The Full Story, The Record, and the LAW: (4.00 / 1)
Phil Steck has an excellent memory and his 20 years in politics was spent as a member of the minority party in the strongest Republican stronghold in the district.  Just last year, he broke that stranglehold.  The Republican machine in Colonie squandered a $12M surplus, turning it into a $18M deficit.  Yet he organized at the grassroots level for nearly two decades to help get an all Democratic Town government elected last year.

The split on the Committee you refer to a few years ago resulted in a co-chairmanship in which both the city and suburban and rural towns gained representation.  Steck played a role in this by knocking on doors, organizing volunteers, and standing up to the party machine that existed.  The party machine that wouldn't help him turn an all Republican district into a all-Democratic government.

How's that for a record?  If you'd like me to elaborate on his career as a civil rights and labor attorney, stay tuned for the Soundpolitic interview.  I will most certainly relay the tough questions you are putting forth to him so you can get answers directly from the source.

Phil Steck can also remember times when the Committee would meet.  And the time it took.  Check out this article in the Times Union for a history lesson.  Meetings used to be held without any input; nobody dared to stand up to the machine until Phil Steck.  And I wouldn't call it "his" victory...it's a victory for the people who for years were given no voice.

Finally, and most seriously, your allegation that the vote was illegal is false.  In this community, we advocate for honesty.  That said: There was nothing illegal in the vote; according to New York State Law:

Members who remained after avowed candidate for county committee chairman and his supporters left constituted "quorum for transaction of business" as required by bylaws of the committee, whether remaining members numbered 30 or 100, and unanimous vote by remaining members, whether by voice vote or roll call, to re-elect former chairman constituted "weighted vote" within Section 12 of the former Election Law of 1949 requiring the power of each member of county committee to be in proportion to votes cast in his district for Governor.  McDonnough v. Purcell, 1964, 44 Misc.2d 23, 252 N.Y.S.2d 752

From McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, Book 17, Election Law, Note 8 (Quorum) on Section 2-104, page 32, 1998 edition.

I'm just a paralegal, and so am not licensed to render an opinion about this.  But if I was the paralegal working for the attorney sueing Phil Steck, I'd write him a memorandum of law telling him he has no case.

I will no longer tolerate any more comments insinuating that Phil Steck's endorsement is illegal, nor would I tolerate them had Brooks or Tonko won the endorsement in the same manner.  We are concerned with the truth here, and any future comments of yours making this unfounded allegation will be rated zero.

I want whoever wins this campaign to win based on the truth, please.


[ Parent ]
Can't see how (4.00 / 1)
this post would deserve a troll rating.  Please, Justastudent, don't troll rate people just because you strongly disagree with them.  That is reserved for people who use bad e-manners, which Soundpolitic does not do here.  Please consider removing the rating, and using argument to rebut, as you have below.

[ Parent ]
Thank you, robinia (4.00 / 1)
I appreciate your defense.  I'm very serious about reserving my troll ratings; on other blogs I always point out that I am tempted to use them before I actually do as well.

Here I warned JustAStudent that if he continued to purport a lie on my blogs, I'd troll rate him, and I cited the law to back up my argument.  Since posting this, several attorneys have confirmed to me personally the legality of the Steck endorsement.  That is all I argued.

But JustAStudent doesn't seem interested in debate anymore.  It's a shame.  I find it interesting that his posts are always reactive challenges to mine; we have yet to see a diary from JustAStudent, which is a shame because he makes strong arguments, is passionate about his candidate Paul Tonko, and knows the local politic and is good with words.

But I now question his judgment.  I did not deserve to be troll rated.


[ Parent ]
Rating (0.00 / 0)
I removed it.  I'm not sure what a "troll" rating means.  I left a 0 rating because I was being threatened with getting such a rating for disagreeing with Soundpolitic and I think thats wrong.

[ Parent ]
Another thing (0.00 / 0)
I apologize if the rating meant something more than that.  I merely meant to state distate for being threatened with a 0 rating for disagreeing with someone.  If it meant something more than what I intended I apologize and I have removed the rating because of the misunderstanding.

[ Parent ]
Troll Ratings (0.00 / 0)
We can either recommend that comments be read (4) or recommend that they be hidden from view (0).  So what you were doing was essentially taking steps to make sure nobody could see my side of the argument, only yours.

It's called a "troll" rating because it was developed to get rid of what we called "trolls", a nickname for commenters who would come onto progressive blogs as conservatives and just rant and rave and spread non-truths.  If a GOoPer came over here and said "Obama is a Muslim!" you'd troll rate him so visitors to the site wouldn't be bothered with such filth.  

The DailyKos FAQ has the best explanation on the use of troll ratings.  And I threatened you with one because I don't believe they are to be doled out lightly.  I don't mind disagreement on debatable issues; but I don't like lies.  And saying the Steck endorsement is illegal is lie.  So I wanted to give you fair warning not to spread this lie before actually giving you one.

The Steck endorsement stands and is not illegal.  If you say so on my blogs, the comment will get a zero because it's not true.  If a judgment is ever entered that names it illegal, I'll go back and remove the ratings I hope I don't have to give you.  I just wanted to give you the benefit of fair warning.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the explanation (4.00 / 1)
I'm new to this medium and didn't really understand the discussion regarding ratings and trolling on this post til now. Much appreciated.

It does seems, though, that there is a reasonable question regarding the validity of this endorsement, no?  And if that's the case, raising that issue probably shouldn't warrant a zero. Though I agree the word "illegal" seriously overstates the argument.

Can anyone tell me what the committee's rules state regarding a quorum? Generally, you need a quorum to do business and if a quorum no longer exists,the only proper motion is a quorum call or motion to adjourn.

Anyway, thanks for the education. I look forward to the interviews!  


[ Parent ]
Illegal (0.00 / 0)
I used the term illegal in the sense that it broke the rules the meeting was being governed by, not criminal or civil.

Thank you for also pointing out that there is a reasonable question regarding the validity of the endorsement.  


[ Parent ]
Wrong (0.00 / 0)
It absolutely is illegal in the sense that it was done in violation of the rules that govern the committee and I am entitled to that opinion.  See, you return to threatening to censure those that disagree with you and stomp out debate.  You have not proven that it was legal.  You have cited a 50 yearold case that you have not even read and given no context to nor described.  You certainly have not proven my claim is a lie.  I find it disgusting that you think that threatening to rate me something you think is so horrible is an admirable solution.  Clearly you are upset by the fact that the vote was in violation to Roberts Rules which are the adopted rules of the Albany County Democratic Committee.  You are trying to justify it with straws and threatening those who refuse to bow to the weak case.  This is wrong.

I think you need an education on Roberts Rules.  Most bodies have their own rules for governing themselves, but the rules are not comprehensive.  Generally the bodies adopt Roberts Rules to expand their own rules and are enforced in all cases unless their specific rules contridict Roberts Rules.  This is why Roberts Rules are so important.  They are the rules that dictate quorum at the meeting and the rules clearly state that once a quorum call is made the business can't continue if there is a lack of a quorum.  The meeting lacked a quorum after the walkout.  Blaming the Democratic committeemembers who walked out for the illegal vote is like blaming a robbery victim for not fighting back against an armed assailant.  The fact is that per Roberts Rules the vote was illegal.  You have yet to dispute that.


[ Parent ]
I don't have a horse in this race (4.00 / 2)
And I haven't followed what happened at this meeting closely at all, but I was curious about the case you cited, because I've never heard of a body that could act absent a quorum.

So I looked it up. What you left out was this:

"It is, therefore, the opinion of the court that the petitioner, having abandoned his demand for a roll-call vote on the proxy motion, and having decided not to further participate in the meeting while a quorum under the rules of the committee remained present, voluntarily waived any right which he had in the conduct of such meeting and abandoned his candidacy, and is therefore not a person aggrieved as defined in section 330 of the Election Law and has failed to establish that the election had been characterized by such fraud or irregularities as to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was nominated or elected at the meeting."

I don't know if there was a quorum present or not under the rules of the committee, but unless there was, this case isn't dispostive.


[ Parent ]
Hey there (0.00 / 0)
Good point.  I was getting ready for something like this in that I have not had time to read the case noted in the McKinney's above.  I just happen to have a random copy of the law, and very little time with my new job.  That's out there for all  :-)

If you haven't got a horse in the race, I'm preparing interviews with all the candidates starting soon.  Thanks for the analysis!


[ Parent ]
Opinion (0.00 / 0)
You gave an opinion on the legality of something based on a case you didn't even read?

[ Parent ]
Based On.... (0.00 / 0)
...the annotations to the statute.  Unfortunately with my new job, I didn't have time to look up the case that was cited.  The annotations summarize the case; I did not cite the case above, I cited the statute.  Which is why I gave props to justthinking for being able to augment my stuff.


[ Parent ]
Out of Context (0.00 / 0)
You need to read a little closer.

"Is it true that, once a quorum has been established, it continues to exist no matter how many members leave during the course of the meeting?

Answer:
No. Once a quorum at a meeting has been established, the continued presence of a quorum is presumed to exist only until the chair or any other member notices that a quorum is no longer present. If the chair notices the absence of a quorum, he or she should declare this fact, at least before taking any vote or stating the question on any new motion. Any member noticing the apparent absence of a quorum can and should make a Point of Order to that effect whenever another person is not speaking. It is dangerous to allow the transaction of substantive business to continue in the absence of a quorum. Although a Point of Order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action, if there is clear and convincing proof no quorum was present when business was transacted, the presiding officer can rule that business invalid (subject to appeal). [RONR (10th ed.), p. 337-38; see also p. 12-13 of RONR In Brief.]"

Roberts Rules are clear, business was conducted without a quorum and an appropriate call was made and ignored.  Steck's endorsement is illegal.  Citing a case from 50 years ago with no background or explanation of what the rules they were citing are does not change the fact that the Albany County Committee operates under Roberts Rules and Steck clearly ignored them.  You might not like that fact.  It might fly in the face of your every claim to his insurgency.  But it is a fact.

Lets also be clear, I have no problem with the fact that Steck has been involved for 20 years.  I think it is great.  I am just insulted when he thinks people don't realize he is an insider.  He is of course an insider and a powerbroker.  He is an elected politican.  He is part of the establishment.  

If Albany is so horrible and corrupt, why does he brag about the endorsements of his law partner a former State Senator and Bob Reilly, a current Assemblymember?  You can't have it both ways.

The idea that Phil Steck was the first to stand up to the machine shows you know absolutely no history of Albany.  The machine was dead by the time Phil Steck came to power.  I recommend you take some time at the library and do some liberal reading of local history.  Steck has been around for 20 years but he had nothing to do with the fall of the machine.  The truth is holding illegal meetings without quorum is more of a return to the old ways of Albany than a break from them.

Phil Steck is an elected politician.  Tell me his record if he has one.  I have yet to hear his accomplishments.  I have already pointed out how the Republicans lost the election in Colonie more than Phil Steck won it and the victory also came with conservative-to-moderate candidates including a former-Republican supervisor.  I have also pointed out that for several years that Colonie was a Republican stronghold it became such a stronghold because Phil Steck as party leader failed to recruit candidates to contest every election.  He did not win even a single board seat until this year as the Republicans ran the town into the ground.  Several times Republicans got reelected with NO opposition.  If we are to accept his victory this time as an accomplishment, then isn't his history of defeat or even failure to contest elections a statement of his failures?


Robert's Rules (0.00 / 0)
Robert's Rules Wikipedia enrty:

The book is designed for use in ordinary societies rather than legislative assemblies, and it is the most commonly adopted parliamentary authority among societies in the United States.[1] The book claims to be a "codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)."[2] This statement does not imply any approbation on the part of the courts, and the "general parliamentary law" is related neither to statutory legal requirements nor to common-law precedent derived from court judgments. Being widely accepted, and being based for the most part on long-standing traditions of parliamentary procedure, however, the current edition of the book is a reliable reference. Nevertheless, the provisions of any particular manual are not, as a general matter, legally binding upon an assembly that has not formally adopted it as its parliamentary authority; any such manual can at best be cited as "persuasive."

The authority you cite is secondary persuasive; a court may rely on these sources and are not bound by it.  The authority I cite is primary mandatory; it is case law that a court is bound to rule on.  Thus, the Steck endorsement is legal and legitimate.

Do you think I deserve a troll rating for debating this?


[ Parent ]
Go back (0.00 / 0)
Go back to my other posts on this.  I have been very clear.  I am not claiming it was illegal in a criminal or civil sense.  I am claiming it was illegal in the sense it was in violation of the rules that govern the body in which the endorsement took place.  Roberts Rules are the standing rules that govern the meetings of the Albany County Committee.  The endorsement took place in clear violation of those rules.  Several parliamentarians I have spoke to agree with me that the endorsement is therefore illegal in that sense because no business can legally take place after the quorum call was made.  I have cited the part of the rules that clearly state that the vote was illegal.  The case law you cited was 50 years old and lacked full context.  It is still my strong belief that the endorsement is illegal in the sense I have continually described it.  Show me where in the law or Roberts Rules a lack of a quorum is permitted for conducting business following a quorum call.  If a legislative body did this, I know that the actions would not be considered legal if a quorum call was ignored.

As for the rating, its been removed and I apologize if it meant something more than I meant it to.  I thought it meant my distaste for being threatened with a similar such rating for continuing to disagree with you.  Maybe I don't understand blog etiquette.  I also don't understand why it matters if I choose to add to your comments rather than write my own diaries.  Please explain to me what is wrong with this because I would be happy to learn, I am new to the blogosphere.


[ Parent ]
I went back (0.00 / 0)
You've got a lot of comments on my diaries.....

You are still claiming it is illegal in the sense that it doesn't count, which is untrue.

The annotations I cited provided the answer to your question.  The meeting began with quorum, but then people left, and quroum was still ready.  True it may not still be good law as I haven't Shepardized it, but it was good last I checked.

Here's something cool to learn: we have case law that is 200 years but still has full effect.

I also pointed out that the Robert's Rules do not have a force of law; they are not the law itself, just a summary.  Your legislative body argument doesn't hold much weight because each legislature should have it's own rules.

Through all this, please ask yourself this: whom do we have to blame for this problem in the first place?

If the Tonko and Brooks supporters had just stayed, nothing would have been questionable.  Steck had every right to oppose McNulty's motion, and the law I pointed out, which take precedence over Robert's Rules, says that the weighted vote that killed the motion was fair.  The law also says that quorum remains even after people walk out, and so legitimate business can be conducted.  If you really want to  get angry at someone, get angry at Jerry Jennings and the Brooks supporters who decided to get up and leave like the committee meeting was a bad movie.  Steck navigated the parliamentary procedures to get what he wants; that's another reason I think he'd make a good Congressman.  He'll use every tool necessary to fight for a progressive agenda and won't roll over like some of these other guys.

We all have much to learn.  You'd learn a lot if you did write your own diaries;  what I'm pointing out is that I have taken an active approach to this primary and you have taken a reactive one.  When you consider whom we support, it makes sense:  Steck took an active stance by announcing his candidacy in December 2007.  Tonko seems to have just reacted to all the press rumors he got in the first quarter and probably just figured he'd win easily as the last "big-name" still being talked about in the media.

I will say though that this string of more recent comments by you fared much better; manners and truth are important.  The problem is insinuating that the endorsement is illegal.  It's not, and attorneys have confirmed this.  I know you believe strongly in it, but it's just not true.  And we bloggers owe it to ourselves to hide that which is not true, so I'm inclined to troll rate any future assertation of your opinion that the endorsement is illegal.

Besides...we've written a fucking book on this thing :-)  Let's change the subject to Craig Burridge, shall we?


[ Parent ]
History (0.00 / 0)
The Town of Colonie had been Republican for 112 years until Phil Steck won his County Legislative seat.  To hold Phil Steck responsible for Republican control of the Town long before his birth is just intellectually dishonest.  

He won through grass roots organizing and campaigning of the same style he is now engaging in with energy, vitality, and a strong progressive message for change.  He won his election by engaging voters who could have easily said no; instead, he got them involved.  And he got more and more involved without any help from the Committee.  Remember: Phil Steck didn't just walk into politics.  People voted for him.

Of course this makes him part of a party establishment.  Because he established himself.  That took hard work.  And he did it to give power back to the people.  I know it's hard in these cynical times to recognize a politician whose intentions are good, but if we can witness the change that the Obama campaign is bringing nationwide, anyone who observes the boots on the ground in the Steck for Congress campaign will instantly come to the same conclusion.  The number of volunteers grows with each meeting, and the responses we get door-to-door get better and better every day.  Phil's campaign itself is historic to me.

The machine in Albany County went from Corning-O'Connell and a Jennings-Breslin-McNulty block emerged to re-build it.  Meetings in the past would last for ten minutes maximum as committee members came just for show, rubber stamped the predetermined decisions, and then left.  So when Phil Steck went into the meeting with the strongest coalition, one of three candidates actively seeking the endorsement, it was clear he would win would it go to a vote.  Brooks and Tonko moved from wanting the endorsement from not wanting to lose it, so they stopped fighting and backed a nonendorsement measure.  Phil wanted to keep fighting because as Congressman he will continue to keep fighting the tough fights.  And his coalition beat out McNulty's measure, and those connected to the current machine walked out.  A walk out that does not negate quorum based on New York State Law, and because of it this, Phil Steck won an overwhelming endorsement.

Answer me dis: why didn't Tonko and Brooks supporters just stay to make the case that Phil's support was actually as low as you try to point out?

Answer me dat: I've already said that I'll be interviewing ALL the candidates to get you the record.  And I provide links to all the candidates's websites who have them up so that you can easily check the record of ANY of them.  So why the hell should I detail to you 20 years of Phil's record????  It's out there if you care to look to inform yourself, which you've obviously done before because you're an expert on local politics.

This is obviously not on your to-do list.  You are a Tonko supporter who is going around troll rating people who disagree with you and attempt to make a reasoned argument to make a clear cut case for the truth.  You obviously have no interest in such debate; this is quite clear from you unethical doling out of troll ratings without warning.  Real classy...I think that is an appropriate reflection of the attitude of coronation that the Tonko campaign has been extolling ever since decided to run a month before an official announcement.

You don't give a damn about Phil's record.  You give a damn about being right.  And when you're not, you walk away leaving a troll rating, just like the Tonko and Brooks supporters who walked out when they didn't get their way.

And one more things: Where are your diaries reporting on the 21st if you know everything about the district???  Your handle insinuates that you are still learning as well, JustAStudent.  I'm over here trying to make history in my own way:  this is the first seriously contested primary in this district in a generation, and definitely the first to be covered by citizen journalists on the blogs.  Not to toot my own horn, but I think I'm doing pretty well, and you don't like that because I'm not for your guy.  That's juvenile, and I wish we could delegate that to the history books as well.

That ethical choice is up to you.


[ Parent ]
More (0.00 / 0)
"The Town of Colonie had been Republican for 112 years until Phil Steck won his County Legislative seat. To hold Phil Steck responsible for Republican control of the Town long before his birth is just intellectually dishonest. "

As for Steck, I don't blame him for Republican rule in Colonie before he was born.  I have asked the question that if we are expected to give him credit for the win, should we not hold him accountable for the many failures including not winning a single town board seat before this year and failing to contest every election while he was town chair.  He did not even provide an opposition to all the people a choice in some races.  Isn't that part of his record as well?

"He won through grass roots organizing and campaigning of the same style he is now engaging in with energy, vitality, and a strong progressive message for change. He won his election by engaging voters who could have easily said no; instead, he got them involved. And he got more and more involved without any help from the Committee. Remember: Phil Steck didn't just walk into politics. People voted for him.
Of course this makes him part of a party establishment. Because he established himself. That took hard work. And he did it to give power back to the people. I know it's hard in these cynical times to recognize a politician whose intentions are good, but if we can witness the change that the Obama campaign is bringing nationwide, anyone who observes the boots on the ground in the Steck for Congress campaign will instantly come to the same conclusion. The number of volunteers grows with each meeting, and the responses we get door-to-door get better and better every day. Phil's campaign itself is historic to me."

I congratulate him for his involvement.  I absolutely respect his involvement in politics for the last nearly 20 years.  Paul was elected by large majorities in a conservative district and had a very progressive record.  No one in local politics is better known for grassroots campaigning than Paul.  He is at every event.  He is famous for being everywhere talking to everyone.  I don't have a problem with someone being part of the establishment in general.  At the same time, my point is lets not try to portray Steck as an outsider.  He is not.  He is an important powerbroker in the Albany County committee and has been for year.  I respect his service, I dislike that people are trying to create the idea that he is somehow an insurgent candidate from outside the current power structure.  He is part of that power structure and has been for a long time.  I don't think that is inherently a bad thing.  I also hate this idea that everyone in Albany and Washington is somehow tainted.  Steck is willing to take the endorsements of a former State Senator and a current Assemblyman but then attacks Paul for having been in Albany.   That is hypocritical and wrong.  I am not cynical.  I have no doubt that Darius, Paul, and Phil all have good intentions in politics.  I just want an honest discussion of their records and their experience.

"The machine in Albany County went from Corning-O'Connell and a Jennings-Breslin-McNulty block emerged to re-build it. Meetings in the past would last for ten minutes maximum as committee members came just for show, rubber stamped the predetermined decisions, and then left. So when Phil Steck went into the meeting with the strongest coalition, one of three candidates actively seeking the endorsement, it was clear he would win would it go to a vote. Brooks and Tonko moved from wanting the endorsement from not wanting to lose it, so they stopped fighting and backed a nonendorsement measure.

This is what I am talking about when I say that you don't understand local politics.  Its laughable to claim there is "a Jennings-Breslin-Mculty" block.  Not a single person in Albany County politics would claim that is true.  Not one.  Jennings and the Breslins both have their own operations that don't get along with each other.  Neither is strong enough to be called a machine.  Jennings was elected as the outsider defeating the "machine" candidate.  McNulty doesn't have a district wide political organization and has acted as an elder statesman in the party who works with the different factions.  

Corning-O'Connell didn't tolerate factions.  They were a true machine.  What we have now is multiple factions and that is reflected in this campaign (ie the town v. city walkout).  The last real machine died years ago and that was proven with the election of Jennings in 1993 who has run his own faction but never been able to build his own machine.  I could spend hours going further into the history of this but there are better uses of both our times.

"Phil wanted to keep fighting because as Congressman he will continue to keep fighting the tough fights. "

Please don't fall into cliches.  Steck didn't keep fighting for the endorsement because he wanted it for the people, he did it because he thinks it will help him win.  The reason he wants to win I am sure is to help people, but there is a clear step in between and to claim he did this divisive action for all of our good is patronizing.  I hardly think you want the example of how Steck would conduct himself in Congress to be that he will fight for things that divide the Democratic party, will drive members into proclaiming they will vote Republican, and then will push through illegal votes.  In such example he would then top it all off by insulting all the hardworking Democrats he disagreed with claiming they have no respect for the democratic process despite the fact that he was willing to break the rules for his own gain.  That's not the example you want of how Steck would be in Congress.

"And his coalition beat out McNulty's measure, and those connected to the current machine walked out. A walk out that does not negate quorum based on New York State Law, and because of it this, Phil Steck won an overwhelming endorsement. "

The walkout did prevent a legal endorsement as I have pointed out.  The idea that "those connected to the current machine walked out" is foolish.  Members of the county committee from Berne walked out.  You think Jennings has a strong machine in Berne?  I think you know personally that's not true.  Lets also pause and consider what is the definition of a "machine."  Colonie has been a major player in the Town v. City fights and a key player in the Breslin organization.  They are connected to the "machine" if you want to claim the Breslins are a machine.  

"Answer me dis: why didn't Tonko and Brooks supporters just stay to make the case that Phil's support was actually as low as you try to point out?"

I don't know why the supporters didn't stay except that they wished to protest the divisive vote, deny a quorum and effectively obtained a nonendorsement because a legal endorsement can't be done without a quorum.  The 50 year old case you cited and admitted you failed to read did not override the clear operation of Roberts Rules which is the adopted rules of the Albany County Democratic Committee.

"So why the hell should I detail to you 20 years of Phil's record????"

I asked a question.  I asked what is Phil's record.  He is an elected official and yet all we have seen on here is what his press releases were instead of an explanation of what his record of accomplishment is.  You keep bringing up his experience as town chair but get upset that I point out his failures as town chair.  I am interested in knowing his record and I have not found on his website one piece of legislation he has passed that would be considered significant.  Maybe it is out there, but I don't see it.

"This is obviously not on your to-do list. You are a Tonko supporter who is going around troll rating people who disagree with you and attempt to make a reasoned argument to make a clear cut case for the truth. You obviously have no interest in such debate; this is quite clear from you unethical doling out of troll ratings without warning. Real classy...I think that is an appropriate reflection of the attitude of coronation that the Tonko campaign has been extolling ever since decided to run a month before an official announcement.
You don't give a damn about Phil's record. You give a damn about being right. And when you're not, you walk away leaving a troll rating, just like the Tonko and Brooks supporters who walked out when they didn't get their way.
And one more things: Where are your diaries reporting on the 21st if you know everything about the district??? Your handle insinuates that you are still learning as well, JustAStudent. I'm over here trying to make history in my own way: this is the first seriously contested primary in this district in a generation, and definitely the first to be covered by citizen journalists on the blogs. Not to toot my own horn, but I think I'm doing pretty well, and you don't like that because I'm not for your guy. That's juvenile, and I wish we could delegate that to the history books as well.
That ethical choice is up to you."

I absolutely care about Phil's record. I have a lot to learn and have never claimed to know everything about the district.  I do give a damn about being right and still believe I am.  You cited a 50 year-old, out of context case you didn't even read that did not deal with the point at hand nor the context of the current issue and have yet to contest the point from Roberts Rules, which are the adopted rules of the Albany County Democratic Committee.   So yes, I still believe I am right until shown otherwise.  I didn't rate you a 0 for that.  I rated you because of distaste for the idea that I was going to be rated with a 0 simply for disagreeing with you.

I don't know the blogosphere well and failed to understand what the significance of this rating was or that it would upset people so much.  I thought it was a reaction to a threat made against me to do the very same thing if I continued to disagree with you.  I thought I was merely stating my distaste for the threat.  I also don't understand the significance of me not writing diaries.  I find it interesting to comment on yours and have for a long time before it was even clear who would be in the race.  I took down the rating and apologize if it was not as I meant.  We continue to disagree, but I think we can maintain a certain level of respect without returning to threats.


[ Parent ]
The Albany Project

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


NY blogs

Politics

Adirondack Almanack
Buffalo Geek
Buffalo Pundit
Capitol Confidential
Daily Gotham
Daily Politics
DMI Blog
DragonFlyEye
Empire Page
Empire Zone
Gothamist
Gotham Gazette
Group News Blog
Jason Gooljar
Left of the Hudson
Living In Dryden
Lost In The Ozone
McHugh Watch
Nassau GOP Watch
Planet Albany
Politicker NY
Politics on the Hudson
Reform NY
Rochester Turning
Room 8
Simply Left Behind
Take19
The Community Alliance

Think Tanks

Brennan Center for Justice
Citizens Budget Commission
Citizens Union
Drum Major Institute
Fiscal Policy Institute
New Democracy Project
Progressive States

Organizations

Citizen Action
Citizens for Better Government in New York
Common Cause
New York Citizens for Clean Elections
Progressive States Network
>
National Blogs

Politics

AmericaBlog
Crooks and Liars
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
Firedoglake
MyDD
Political Cortex
Senate Guru
Skippy
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Right's Field

LBAN Network

Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Big Head DC
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
BRAD Blog
Brendan Calling
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Calitics
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Cliff Schecter
Comments from Left Field
Confined Space
Corrente
Cotton Mouth
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Gotham
Daily Kos
David Corn
Democrats.com
Dem Bloggers
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Greatscat!
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick!
KnoxViews
Las Vegas Gleaner
Latino Pundit
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Corpse
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rox Populi
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Turn Maine Blue
Uppity Wisconsin
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

blog radio

Get the albany project in your inbox! Just enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

____________________


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox