Arrogance - the current norm

It is quite a statement on machine politics (4.00 / 1)

I suppose what Mark Weprin really meant to say is "Jim has the right of first refusal for the backing of the party machine and the Queens Party support", but to a guy like him those things are one and the same with the public at large.  I think defeating this attitude is what Markos was referring to with the metaphor of crashing the gate.

---

by: BingChester @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 00:41:25 AM UTC

Very poorly stated. (4.00 / 2)

If he had said "If Jim Gennaro decides to run, I would support him, but if he doesn't, I'm running", we would have all been perfectly content.

You're quite right, this bizarre phrasing shows a bad attitude.

---

by: neroden @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 01:31:42 AM UTC

yes (4.00 / 1)

Isn't the bad attitude - arrogance.  It may be individual arrogance or group arrogance, it's still arrogance.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:33:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was perfectly stated (4.00 / 2)

it reflects how things are done. machine politics through and through. I approve of honesty and this was an honest statement.

I disapprove of machine politics.

Our next job, now that local elections are over, is to END politics as usual in New York.

That is change we can believe in and that starts with the State Senate.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 13:43:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gennaro nearly beat Padavan in 2008 (4.00 / 1)

He's saying that after Gennaro did the hard work of softening Padavan up in 2008, Weprin will give Gennaro the chance to run before he decides what he's going to do. It's hard to read arrogance into that.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 02:54:14 AM UTC

Machine politics through and through (0.00 / 0)

No one has the right of first refusal.

Except... the people themselves.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 13:45:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think... (4.00 / 1)

That was Weprin's point. I think if you had asked Weprin to elaborate, he would say that he wouldn't want to step on any toes and that he respects Gennaro. (Don't know if that's true, but it seems to be the case based on the context.)

The right of first refusal was probably a poor choice of words, but his point had nothing to do with machine politics or arrogance. His point was that Gennaro, the candidate in 2008, came close to winning. So if he is going to run again, they won't stand in his way. If he doesn't, however, he would like a shot at it.

It's only common sense. If Gennaro nearly won in 2008 without any sort of help from the party, then he is in a great position come 2010 especially with the party making it a priority to win SD-11. I'm assuming the party has, but who knows with the DSCC.

But it's also common sense that if Gennaro doesn't run, someone needs to run. And if that's not Gennaro, Weprin is willing to do so.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 14:47:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to point out (0.00 / 0)

None of this was said by David, but by his brother Mark.  I think that's what makes it sound even more insider-y and machine-like, the fact that his brother is saying some other guy gets the first right of refusal and then David should go from there.

---

by: BingChester @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 15:34:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's more insider-y... (4.00 / 1)

Because his brother said it? Perhaps his brother doesn't speak for him? Maybe David doesn't want it? After all, David would be the one with the name on the ballot, not Mark.

And in my experiences as the brother to six sisters, family always thinks highly of one another. So if Mark is pumping up his own brother, that should be taken at face value. It's a guy promoting his own brother. Of course that's going to happen.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:56:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's insider-y because it's insider-y (0.00 / 0)

his words were very well chosen. They said exactly what he intended to say. Honest and out in the open for all to see.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 14:05:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree... (4.00 / 1)

I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't think his words were very well chosen. What I think he intended to say was that it was Gennaro's if he wants it. I see nothing wrong with that being that it's more respect of Gennaro than anything. We all know that Gennaro, without any sort of help from the "machine" or party infrastructure, nearly beat Frank Padavan in 2008. I can remember writing about the race and some of the individuals here said that it was an uphill battle and a race we shouldn't bother with. The DSCC apparently felt the same way and ignored it, even though the race was clearly one we should have focused on.

What Weprin said, like it or not, was kudos to Gennaro. They acknowledge what he did in 2008 and believe he makes the best candidate for the job. But in the event he doesn't want it, they are interested in running. What's wrong with that? Don't want to have a bench for a seat in case the challenger doesn't want a rematch?

It would be no different than when Eric Massa or Dan Maffei got a second shot. If they perform well the first time, a second shot is theirs for the taking.

---

by: robert.harding @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 15:22:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Candidates have the right to decide (0.00 / 0)

whether or not they're going to run. Surely you would agree.

Some of that decision is based on desire, some on polling, some is money, some is who else is running. Machine politics effect that, but just because you're looking at who else is running before you decide what to do doesn't mean machine politics are making your decision.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 15:36:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see it... (4.00 / 2)

As "arrogance" or "machine politics." I see it as respecting Jim Gennaro, who ran sans arrogance or any help from the political machine and almost won (on his own) SD-11 against Frank Padavan. I don't know about any of you, but I think Gennaro deserves another shot, considering what he did without any help, and that was Weprin's point.

That said, I don't think calling it "the right of first refusal" is how you want to word it. But I do think Gennaro deserves a lot of respect for what he did in 2008 and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to him running a rematch against Padavan in 2010.

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 13:32:43 PM UTC

Interesting turn of phrase (0.00 / 0)

It seems to me that since Gennaro was the one who stepped up in 2008 and nearly won, he has earned the "right of first refusal" in that race for 2010.

There may be an element of machine politics in Weprin's statement, but I think that the machine has proven over and over that you need to have some sort of "machine" behind you in order to win elections.  The real question is, what kind of machine is backing you?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 13:39:21 PM UTC

Machine vs. Organization (4.00 / 1)

You need an Organization behind you in order to run a winning campaign.

A machine is something else altogether. Machines are why good candidates get squeezed out. Machines are why we end up with the Monserrate's of the world. Machines are why it is so difficult to get rid of these guys even after they've been exposed as sleezeballs or incompetents or in it just for themselves.

We do not need machines. We need organization.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 13:48:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That which we call a rose... (4.00 / 1)

Is a "machine" merely an "organization" that has been successful in getting people elected?

An "organization" will back its handpicked candidates, just like a "machine."
An "organization" will do fundraising, just like a "machine."
An "organization" will provide what resources it can to all its candidates, just like a "machine."
An "organization" will turn its back on a member who strays too far, just like a "machine."

In short, an "organization" will function the same way a "machine" functions.  So what, other than the tag you put on it, is the difference?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 15:56:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

anger at being challenged (4.00 / 1)

I'd say the big difference between a machine and an organization is that the machine presumes it's in charge and hates being told that the world might be otherwise.

I understand that there's a blurry boundary there, but there definitely is a difference.  I try very hard to ensure that the Dryden Democrats, for example, remain an organization and never become a machine.

---

by: simonstl @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 16:12:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

try this (4.00 / 1)

A machine arrogates its power from the official legal status it has as a major party as well as the archane ballot access laws and campaign finance laws which give the party organization a huge advantage over independent organizations.  

For one example: The party can pay for the petitioning process for the candidate, whereas an unaffiliated PAC cannot.  A candidate not supported by the party has to raise his/her own money for that effort.  The party will often say they don't get involved in races where there is a primary, but we know that is just not true.

Since the parties have extraordinary powers to organize and limit access to their resources, they may become a machine.  A candidate not supported by the party or the DACC or DSCC is put at a disadvantage from the start.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 16:41:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Control (0.00 / 0)

A machine does everything in its power to maintain total and complete control. It locks out people that don't play their according to their rules.

An organization may well do the same in which case it is has transformed itself into a machine... assuming of course that it has actually succeeded in gaining control of the electoral apparatus.

But one does not need a machine in order to run for office. One does need an organization. It takes a team effort under the best of circumstances. Under the worst of circumstances, where you are running against a machine, it takes a superior and motivated organization to overcome the bars to electoral opportunity that machines create.

The difference is power, control and openness.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 14:10:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]