Rockland GOP hiding its Tea Party candidates

by: cliffweathers

Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 14:04:19 PM EDT

In New City, GOP headquarters is notably devoid of signs for the winner of the Congressional primary in the 17th District, Anthony Mele. Instead, headquarters is still festooned with signs for York Kleinhandler, who won the booby prize as the Conservative Party candidate.

It has been widely reported that there is no love lost between Rockland County Republican Chair Vincent Reda and Mele. Bob Fois of NewsCopy.org, a Tea Party blog, reported that Reda once physically threatened him with "a Bronx beating" because of a disagreement involving Mele.

NY-17: To the chagrin of GOP bosses, Tea Partier likely pulls off primary upset

by: cliffweathers

Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:03:52 PM EDT

Along with parts of Rockland and the Bronx, the 17th District includes thin slivers of several towns and villages in Westchester, and all of Mount Vernon.

Melé and Kleinhandler are both vying to lose to longtime Democratic incumbent Eliot Engel in November.

Kleinhandler remains on the Convservative Party line and said he plans to continue his congressional run on that line in a message to supporters. However, Kleinhandler has not conceded the primary, which is probably the decent thing to do at this point.  Kleinhandler, not Melé, is currently listed as the GOP nominee on the State Party's "Republican Spotlights" page.

NY-17: Tony Mele's Math Problem (with hilarious UPDATE)

by: cliffweathers

Tue May 04, 2010 at 17:12:42 PM EDT

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practise to deceive.-Sir Walter Scott

On the biography page of Anthony Melé's campaign website, the Tea Party/Republican candidate for Congress claims:

Mr. Melé was a political candidate for Ramapo Town Supervisor in 2007, garnering 48% of the vote, winning 9 out of 12 town villages.

(Click here for a screen grab.)

But the official election results from 2007 tell an entirely different story.

New York Congressional Delegation Quarterly Filings

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 23:00:29 PM EDT

DISTRICT	INCUMBENT	CONTRIBUTIONS	EXPENDITURES	CASH ON HAND
NY-1	Tim Bishop	$263,189.53	$66,589.32	$710,928.46
NY-2	Steve Israel	$436,670.74	$173,169.91	$1,796,209.25
NY-3	Pete King	$89,287.00	$46,633.81	$1,341,242.55
NY-4	Carolyn McCarthy	$144,167.32	$87,679.05	$413,644.81
NY-5	Gary Ackerman	$42,178.00	$53,197.42	$1,241,122.25
NY-6	Gregory Meeks	$133,147.79	$85,059.25	$165,228.01
NY-7	Joseph Crowley	$65,998.28	$156,605.20	$1,116,438.99
NY-8	Jerrold Nadler	$111,469.86	$132,155.61	$1,071,938.73
NY-9	Anthony Weiner	$182,250.91	$69,776.52	$332,734.80
NY-10	Ed Towns	$252,311.01	$155,940.48	$187,729.28
NY-11	Yvette Clarke	$85,609.00	$97,684.01	$12,396.19
NY-12	Nydia Velazquez	$62,682.62	$29,832.88	$674,887.73
NY-13	Michael McMahon	$205,001.01	$82,926.39	$766,817.56
NY-14	Carolyn Maloney	$345,120.27	$259,630.25	$1,704,244.49
NY-15	Charles Rangel	$434,322.00	$454,669.23	$1,108,907.01
NY-16	Jose Serrano	$35,794.50	$9,328.75	$55,506.16
NY-17	Eliot Engel	$67,204.00	$49,086.25	$196,223.91
NY-18	Nita Lowey	$183,780.64	$93,564.01	$817,034.71
NY-19	John Hall	$132,363.44	$74,095.55	$350,710.38
NY-20	Scott Murphy	N/A	N/A	N/A (Not Yet Filed)
NY-21	Paul Tonko	$60,380.00	$41,823.89	$75,550.68
NY-22	Maurice Hinchey	$66,741.44	$34,272.05	$98,467.32
NY-23	VACANT	N/A	N/A	N/A
NY-24	Michael Arcuri	$136,249.10	$67,602.73	$385,080.72
NY-25	Dan Maffei	$326,254.50	$126,899.93	$784,210.52
NY-26	Chris Lee	$142,802.69	$95,665.00	$390,613.64
NY-27	Brian Higgins	$100,290.00	$96,556.25	$825,367.69
NY-28	Louise Slaughter	$139,424.00	$77,127.13	$306,497.62
NY-29	Eric Massa	$289,499.02	$122,273.64	$503,188.18

The 23rd wasn't include for obvious reasons. That race can serve as its own post, since three candidates are vying for it and there is no incumbent.

One of the things that stuck out to me was the great quarter Eric Massa had. His district - NY-29 - is a rural district that isn't really a wealthy district. So when he can bring in over $289,000 in a quarter where most upstate representatives only brought in half of that amount, it shows that he is a strong incumbent. The Republicans are gunning for him, but he's tough.

Dan Maffei had a very strong quarter - the best of any upstate representative and fourth-best of any member of Congress in the state.

If there is one thing you can say about Rangel, he is a great fundraiser. He was second to Steve Israel in this quarter, but not by much. His expenditures were high, but he still has a lot of money in the bank (not that he needs to worry about that).

For the most part, these are solid and typical numbers. As a resident of NY-26, it is interesting to see Lee's numbers. I wouldn't read too much into his mediocre quarter, but the list of donors who have contributed to his campaign makes for a "Best of Wall Street"-type list.  

Did telco money inspire Congressman Engel to spit on the Fourth Amendment?

by: cliffweathers

Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 22:06:41 PM EDT

The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other civil rights and privacy advocates are upset by the ramifications of such as measure, which was conjured up behind closed doors in negotiations among centrist Democrats, Republicans, the White House and telecommunications lobbyists.

And unfortunately for us, today's vote is the beginning of the end in the battle against the Bush's warrantless wiretapping program set in motion by the White House soon after 9/11. It also rips right into the Constitution, making a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, which protects United States citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.

But why did Engel vote the way he did? Was he motivated by lobbyist money? Is this quid pro quo? Let's check it out!

10 New York Dems Vote For Lawlessness, Monarchy

by: phillip anderson

Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 14:18:47 PM EDT

There's so much to despise in the bill these 10 NY Democrats voted on today, but Glenn Greenwald tries to pick the worst:

Perhaps the most repellent part of this bill (though that's obviously a close competition) is 802(c) of the telecom amnesty section. That says that the Attorney General can declare that the documents he submits to the court in order to get these lawsuits dismissed are secret, and once he declares that, then: (a) the plaintiffs and their lawyers won't ever see the documents and (b) the court is barred from referencing them in any way when it dismisses the lawsuit. All the court can do is issue an order saying that the lawsuits are dismissed, but it is barred from saying why they're being dismissed or what the basis is for the dismissal.

So basically, one day in the near future, we're all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we're never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits. Not only won't we, the public, know that, neither will the plaintiffs' lawyers. Nobody will know except the Judge and the Government because it will all be shrouded in compelled secrecy, and the Judge will be barred by this law from describing or even referencing the grounds for dismissal in any way. Freedom is on the march.

Is that what a democracy looks like? Are you telling me that we stood down a Soviet Union with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed directly at us but that some half literate cave dwellers have driven us to basically gut the Fourth Amendment and bless the ones wielding the knife? And don't even get me started on how this whole vote went down.

When Democrats took over the Congress, they issued a document vowing to "end the 'dead of night' special interest provisions that turn bills into special-interest giveaways" and proclaimed: "Lawmakers must have the opportunity to read every bill before they vote on it. It's common sense."

Today, the House leadership has set aside a grand total of one hour to debate the FISA/amnesty bill, and gave its members less than 24 hours from the time it was released yesterday until they have to vote on it today. That's the same bill which the NYT this morning calls "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years." They're going to enact massive changes to our spying laws without having the slightest idea what they're voting on. All they know is that the President demanded this, and that's enough, because -- as Kit Bond says -- "when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do." In this formulation, "the government" means "The President."

Disgraceful.

The following Democrats should remove me from their lists:

Ackerman (NY-5)
Arcuri (NY-24)
Bishop (NY-1)
Crowley (NY-7)
Engel (NY-17)
Gillibrand (NY-20)
Higgins (NY-27)
Lowey (NY-18)
McCarthy (NY-4)
Meeks (NY-6)