I was strongly responded to by several community members including Bouldin who I never before knew but have come to read on the Daily Gotham site. The concept of even questioning another candidate other than Jimmy seemed to them at that time as sacrosanct! I laugh now as I remember Jimmy himself coming on as LIGUY, a moniker he also used on the 631 LI Politics Message Board to challenge my take on the need to run a superior candidate. Bouldin even called me a schmuck at the very heat of the exchange between Jimmy LIGUY and myself. I even endured the insinuations that I made up the conversations altogether and that these DSCC folks were not looking for someone else! Over time as developments changed and my initial criticisms of Jimmy being a lazy campaigner poor fundraiser and overall lousy candidate people began seeing what I have long ago recognized, that we needed somebody other than Dahroug to win SD3! Now, none other than Michael Bouldin has come to this take:
As a campaign feebly whines [Updated]
view links
Let me preface this post with a brief announcement: I am a consultant to Red Horse Strategies, the firm advising the DSCC on its efforts to take back the State Senate. This consulting involves web strategy and branding. It does not involve stuff like, say, them sending me dirt and ordering me to post it. However, if you're thus inclined, you should treat anything I post on the State Senate as influenced by this association. I'm personally reasonably certain it won't be, which is why I'd also suggest you treat whatever I write on the subject as reflecting my own opinions, not those of either Red Horse or the DSCC. They are most certainly not consulted by me with regard to what I write. Our engagement represents probably the biggest investment in the netroots by a party committee ever. That's pretty awesome, when you think about it.
And with that out of the way - we're going to follow up at some point soon with more - let me comment on some astonishingly good theater emanating from a Senate campaign I happen to disfavor. If that campaign hadn't seemingly cut me off from its press release distribution list, I probably would have posted this earlier, because it's hilarious. From Newsday:
"Democratic State Senate Candidate Jimmy Dahroug responded to objections to his petitions [sic] by backers of Brian Foley (as reported in Newsday). "This is clearly an act of desperation by Foley's campaign. He failed to secure our party's nomination at the convention. Now Brian and his backers are nervous about facing me in a primary. So his backers are using underhanded and shady tactics to run away from a fair fight."
"Dahroug issued a direct challenge to Brian Foley: "I'm publicly calling on Brian Foley to stop the undemocratic and underhanded actions of his campaign backers. Brian called for a positive, high-minded race. If he truly is committed to the standard he set, he'll back up his words with action."
"Dahroug's campaign filed 1,408 signatures with the Suffolk County Board of Elections, a cushion of over 40% more than the required number. This is about the same number of signatures the Dahroug campaign filed for in its successful 2006 primary race. All signatures were gathered at the homes of registered Democrats by trained Democratic committee members and volunteers. Not a single signature gatherer was paid." [Emphasis added]
That's really rich on a number of levels. Just start with the fact that they misspelled "petitions" in a press release about "petitions".
And then, there's the bit about desperation. Now, this is not brain surgery, except to some people in the New York City grassroots: when you file a small amount of signatures to get on the ballot, your opponent files substantially more, and you're in court having enough signatures challenged to get knocked off the ballot, it's probably not your opponent who's desperate.
About the nervousness thing: that's really cute. It also speaks to a remarkable sense of self-possession, because there's not even a scintilla of evidence that said nervousness exists. Nor is there really any reason for it to exist in Foley's camp; he's not being challenged, nor did he manage to raise less than a hundred dollars a day in the aggregate since January. In short, that's pretty much vapid hyperbole.
As to the aggrieved whine about a positive, high-minded race, one might consider whether that particular message is one that is quite congruent with a press release that refers to "shady tactics", "desperation" and "undemocratic and underhanded actions". Just a thought: that doesn't work.
Over the months, I've become increasingly disenchanted with Jimmy Dahroug or, more precisely, his campaign. I'm aware that this sentiment isn't shared in parts of my circle of peers, though it's not uncommon among people who actually know what they're talking about. But the simple fact remains that, on every aspect of his campaign where metrics are possible, he's under performing, be it petition signatures, money raised, money raised in-district, whatever. Now, one can argue that performance pales in metaphysical importance next to the transcendent value of being right. I disagree with that assessment, as one might deduce from this post (and its many predecessors dedicated to failing Progressive campaigns).
What really gets me about this outcome is this: we need successful Progressive campaigns in this state, campaigns like Don Barber's, for example. What we don't need, as the Progressive community, is to throw resources at campaigns that don't do the required legwork. And, before I get more flame emails from various and sundry donors to and volunteers with this campaign, no, I'm not saying this because I have, as one interlocutor recently put it, a dishonest streak or am a flack for hire who sells out his ideals for cold cash.
No, Jimmy Dahroug is a nice guy and a good Progressive with a lot to give to his community. He's just not a very good candidate.
[Update]: Doug Forand emails:
I meant to mention this to you earlier - so you are aware, Jimmy had surrogates file objections to Foley's petitions. The way the challenge process works is that you file General Objections within three days of petitions being filed. Then within five days of the General Objections being filed, you file Specific Objections that go line by line through the petition to explain why each signature you challenge is invalid.
But it's not like they didn't start the underhanded and shady process of challenging petitions - they just couldn't win at it..
What? Un-small-D-democratic shady tactics at work? Quick, quick, send out a press release.
I couldn't agree more Michael. I feel like that Dad in the Mark Twain joke. The one where Twain tells that "when I was 18 I thought my father was the dumbest man I ever met, by the time I turned 21 I was amazed at how much he had learned in such a short number of years!"
