| First of all, how wonderful primaries are ALWAYS depends on how you feel about the incumbent.
In this instance, if you, as I do, believe Gillibrand is doing an excellent job as Senator and is an important and substantial upstate addition to an otherwise all NYC-and-suburbs statewide Democratic ticket, then you would prefer that she not have to spend millions on a September primary next year.
Maloney supporters call that natural political calculation undemocratic, yet they are not always consistent about that.
For example, longtime Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel criticized President Obama for "interfering" in next year's Senatorial primary, according to the New York Daily News:
I really cannot say anything negative about a senior member who wants to run and whose polls, at this point in time, appear to be in her favor.
I really don't understand why President Obama got involved in our primary. I don't want to use the word wrong, but it doesn't seem like the astute political thing to do.
Rangel is referring to the widely reported phone call from Obama to Rep. Steve Israel, asking him not to primary Gillibrand.
But for Rangel, as for all of us, whether a primary is a good thing or not is relative.
Here's what he had to say recently about a possible primary between his friend from Harlem Gov. Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, also from the Daily News:
There might be an inclination for racial polarization in a primary in the state of New York.
Since we have most African-Americans registered as Democrats, and since you would be making an appeal for Democrats, it would be devastating in my opinion.
The only reason a potential primary between Paterson and Cuomo has come up is that polls have shown Cuomo winning that primary by more than 2-1.
So, Rangel opposes a statewide primary against his unpopular friend, but supports one where another friend from Manhattan is challenging a more competent and popular incumbent than Paterson -- Kirsten Gillibrand.
That is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Friendship has also influenced coverage of the Gillibrand/Maloney primary in the many media platforms of Alan Chartock.
Chartock runs a multi-station public radio network in eastern and central New York, on which he relentlessly promotes his decades-long friend Maloney.
He also writes pro-Maloney op-eds for small newspapers in the Hudson Valley, like this one in the Kingston Daily Freeman that is absurd in many ways
In Massachusetts where I live (that's right, Chartock cannot vote in New York), we have the right to maintain independent status, but to vote in either primary. This type of "open" primary offers the voter maximum flexibility and explains why there are so many independent voters in Massachusetts. People want the right to move from party to party and to avoid the elite political corps in both parties.
Voters in New York, however, have to be a registered in either party in order to vote in a primary.
"There," thought the incumbent politicians. "That'll fix the troublemakers."
Chartock is writing about a NY primary for his friend, and proposing a "better" primary system that would not help his friend at all.
Then there's a weird bit where Chartock imagines Sen. Chuck Schumer talking shamefully to his mirror.
Go read the whole thing, to see how prejudicial Chartock's "analysis" is.
One bit of red meat for Manhattan liberals is Chartock's statement, probably stenoed from the Maloney campaign, that the "terrible" former U.S. Sen. Al D'Amato was Gillibrand's mentor.
Gillibrand had interned with D'Amato's Senate office when she was a teen-age college student.
Her real political mentors, in this century, were/are Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats and both very popular throughout the state.
As will be Gillibrand. |
