Jerry Nadler for Senate

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 17:12


I'm with Kos.  Nadler would be an excellent choice for Senator from New York City.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, I think all the candidates think they're the most qualified. I think my record in Congress is a very progressive and forward-looking record. I think I've shown very good judgment. I was one of the few downstate people who voted against the war, against the PATRIOT Act. I've taken a leadership role on civil liberties, on economic development. And I led the battle against the--I led the battle for eight years against the Bankruptcy, so-called, Reform Act of 2005, which we now recognize as probably responsible for maybe a third of the foreclosures that are going on in this country.

Nadler is a an aggressive and noisy progressive who nonetheless has good relations within the Democratic caucus, just the kind of guy who can represent a state like New York in the Senate.  

Matt Stoller :: Jerry Nadler for Senate

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Jerry Nadler for Senate | 43 comments
Dont know the guy. (0.00 / 0)
However I am all for Caroline right now, esp after reading her major policy positions and the recent tv interview NY1 and AP. Also Obama & Bloombarge are for her which are big pluses in my book.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Im for billionaires too (4.00 / 5)
Mike is the best because he ignores all the whining about how expensive the city is and instead focuses on channeling subsidies to giant investment banks and condo developers and more school aptitude tests and billion dollar sports clubs, all which ensures that I get to see my taxes are well spent on bonuses, evictions of lazy middle class workers, guaranteed higher grades for students (because the principles force the grades to be marked up - oh yes, that is the truth ruth I can tell you first hand) and all in all I can have a new job serving hotdogs to Caroline and her family sitting behind the first base dugout watching $22M a year players. I bet they toss me an extra nickle if I do a little seventh inning jig for them too! Bloomberg is a damn genius, and if Caroline represents more of him, then that's great for me. I can watch the senate on CSPAN from under the jets across the street from Laguardia - what a perfect place to build 'affordable housing' for the hotdog tossers. not to mention there is an atm on every corner - joy! just like being there.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
did i mention (4.00 / 2)
privatizing park land, cramming down on free speech, and gutting art funding? I'm probably just bitter.

~* the * Will * to go on *~
[ Parent ]
Too much sarcasm. (0.00 / 0)
And obama is not a billionaire (recent millionaire), neither is Caroline. Bloomberg is rich so what? NYC liberals seem content with electing him (and for a third time looks like it, even though he is independent and not a dem).
[ Parent ]
Bloomberg buys his elections (4.00 / 4)
Don't know how it will work this time around.  Between money spent on advertising and money his foundation spreads around, he gets re-elected.

He is a mayor for the rich.  He has done extensive harm to the NYC public schools (I'm a parent of a high schooler), he has flashed the bird to middle income tenants by stacking the rent guidelines board with pro-landlord members.

People not from new york should kindly stay out of this conversation.  

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

[ Parent ]
"nyc liberals"? (4.00 / 1)
who are you talking about?  most progressives i know in nyc vote on the wfp line, not for people like bloomberg who do things like not giving permits to anti-war demonstratsiona dn unleashing the Beast on people.  The only reason he looks remotely palatable is because he was preceded by Giuliani and because there was substantial reconfiguration of the New York City political economy so that there's a larger pro-rich base in the city now and he has an image as a reasonably good technocrat.

All that would make him an excellent republican at a national level, but not someone that progressives should be anywhere near.

[ Parent ]
also fyi (0.00 / 0)
you'll lose most  nyc progressives at "too much sarcasm" :)
[ Parent ]
Oh yes And Ted Kennedy is an asshole too. And Robert Kennedy was an asshole f$#@dwad. And John? complete fink. (0.00 / 0)
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

I am not opposed to Jerry being the Senator from NY. But I soo damn sick of the pretend leftists who think the reason people are bad is because they have money, or their grandparents did bad things. Capitalists aren't the problem, do you get that?

A system is a problem, we fix the problem by fixing the system. Same system with different people solves nothing. Replacing cash rich dipsticks with non-inherited wealth dipsticks --- does absolutely nothing. Nothing. At all. This is known as the Blagojevich Principle.

I am eager, not willing, desperate, waiting and listening to hear reasons why Nadler and [insert name] are better progressive candidates (which includes other things beyond being progressive) than Ms. Kennedy.

Please stop thinking that spitting on a wealthy person does anything to make progress. Attacking people who haver more money does not you a better progressive. Being a better progressive makes you a better progressive. It also increases your skills in debate, and improves your ability to think about things that matter.

We must all deal with our freudian problems, but we must stop thinking that acting out is progressive.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
can you just define progressive once (0.00 / 0)
i can't understand how you can be progressive without understanding that there's class conflict, which sometimes becomes angry-speak when people are frustrated, or why any of that is not okay.  you should also look at the history of south korean post war industrialization to see why attacking ceos or other people who manage money badly is part of good (capitalist) industrial policy, but that's neither here nor there - just interesting :)
[ Parent ]
Sure, I'll screw this up, but here's a try. I spoke badly if these are the responses. (0.00 / 0)
A progressive fights for the things we need, not the things I want.

See I screwed it up. Here are some other quotes I found:http://secure.ourfuture.org/whatisaprogressive/

CONTEST WINNER & FINALISTS

Carol S., Amherst, MA - (Our Winner):

A progressive is someone who understands that it is the people of our country who make it great, and unless we take care of the people first, we'll never be successful in maintaining our greatness. Taking care of the people means providing healthcare for everyone. It means keeping the environment clean, safe and preserved. It means great schools and great jobs. It means improving the lives of families, rather than lining the pockets of big business, or big politicians. It means taking care of each other here, and around the world. We're all in this together.

Louis L., Sunnyvale, CA - (Runner Up):

A Progressive believes that a better life is possible for everyone. They know that when we make room at the table for everyone, we are all enriched. Progressives actively pursue new, more effective solutions to the problems we face as a people. Status quo is not a given; it is a challenge to do better.

Julie P., Hastings, NY - (Runner Up):

A progressive is someone who believes in the common good-in a fair shake for every person-and is willing to fight for it.

Cassandra B., Garden City, MI:

A progressive is someone who, instead of reaching backward for a nonexistent, idyllic past, works tirelessly toward bettering the future. A progressive recognizes that we are a product of our historical moment and that in order to escape the fate of repeating the same mistakes of the past we must continually reach forward, expand our ideas and break down the barriers that keep us apart.

Lawrence F., San Francisco, CA:

A progressive is someone who cares about the other guy. It's as simple as that!!


Let me say, as I wrote badly, this is not about supporting Carolyn Kennedy over all challengers. What I know about Ms. Kennedy I learned watching television about her father, assassinated President John F. Kennedy, and what happened during the primary with Obama. Thats it.

I do not oppose Jerry Nadler, though I have read a little, which is what I wish for in discussion about this important topic, that Nadler may not be a vote getter of great megawattage, nor any other candidate. I would love to hear arguments about other candidates. A candidate should be a better democrat, should have the skills and talent and extras to not just be elected but also the ability to inspire, through elections, people to understand the power of their democracy.

What I don't want is stupid arguments. What I don't want is the spreading of patently false ideology in order achieve an end. For example it would not be progressive to elect a progressive using fear. Fear of immigrants for example. It would not be progressive to elect a better democrat with demagogic pandering.

You say, quite rightly

which sometimes becomes angry-speak when people are frustrated, or why any of that is not okay.
Its more than OK. But, making anger your argument isn't okay. We need to change the system, not the players. We aren't being drowned in oil pollution and cooked in atmosphere because bad people somehow rose to power at Exxon. We are threatened with raising sea levels, we are being distracted by global warming deniers, because there is a system that literally forces those things to happen. Making a Clinton a board member of WalMart doesn't change Walmart, if anything it might change Clinton. [I said might this not a slag.] rewriting the rules of business so that the board of a corporation must include 30% representation from workers in the company and 20% from the communities in which it operates would be a change and would change the way it operates. This is not a prescription, merely an example.

I do also understand that anger at excess, anger at the wasting of resources, anger at entitlement is real and just and to be expected. I just want better discussions about these issues, this kind of issue, about whether for example, the country would be in smart, progressive hands, the hands of people who understand these things. I don't like fake populist attacks that can used by anti-progressives just as easily. In fact that might be one of the ways to discern a bad attack, a useless argument: could Rush Limbaugh use it just as effectively?

Not on the other hand, but similarly: I am not very happy with Chris Bowers idea appointing a temporary Senator who will resign in months. Not happy with throwing away the power to appoint any powerhouse who will be able to drive forward a progressive message, inspire progressive action, instill commitment in activists or create new activists.

So I want the discussion here, where good discussions are important to the tasks before us, were good discussions are required because the topic is so important, to be of the highest quality.

Thanks dr anon for pointing out where I needed to improve my point and for reminding me not to rant.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
A place holder would have no power (4.00 / 1)
A place holder therefore could not fight for NY.  We need someone who can fight and succeed in helping NY.  David Paterson understands that.

It may satisfy some idea of political fairness in terms of process, , but it's ultimately not fair to the people of the state of NY, who need a Senator who can actually delivr for them.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
A box of your finest matches (0.00 / 0)
for my good friend the straw man! Burn baby burn!

And obviously a multi-term congressman from the ultra-conservative and god-fearing west side of Manhattan could not possibly have done anything even remotely as progressive in all his years in congress as endorse Obama for president and host charity balls for the Sutton Place set. It literally doesn't get any more progressive than that! (Ok, if you memorized the lines to Will.I.Am and Obama Girl's songs and changed your middle name to "Hope" then I guess that that might be a topper.)

And all of us absolutely DESPISE George Soros and Warren Buffett for being evil far-right billionizaires and supporting the Heritage Foundation and AEI from their earliest days. Down with Soros! Down with Buffett! Up with La Revolucion! To the barricades!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
OK so I wrote badly if this is your take on what I said. (4.00 / 1)
See above for my response to  dr anonymous for other clarification but, my point is not about all arguments against Ms. Kennedy, nor in support of her appointment. I am arguing against bad arguments.

Nor am I attempting to slag Mr. Nadler, I was quite impressed with his interview on Democracy Now for example. I have no idea who the best candidate is, I don't even have a clear idea who the Governor is considering. What I do know is that very bad arguments against Ms. Kennedy have been thrown forth.

Above I wrote this:

I just want better discussions about these issues, this kind of issue, about whether for example, the country would be in smart, progressive hands, the hands of people who understand these things. I don't like fake populist attacks that can used by anti-progressives just as easily. In fact that might be one of the ways to discern a bad attack, a useless argument: could Rush Limbaugh use it just as effectively?

And I couldn't say it better myself.

I want a better democrat, I want to use all legal moral and ethical powers at our disposal to achieve that. I want to hear why any candidate isn't a better democrat, why any action isnt legal etc etc. It would not have been immoral, is my point, to elect Bobby Kennedy President of the United States.

I dont under the points about Warren or Soros though.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Jerry Nadler is the very definiton of a better Democrat (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Redstate (4.00 / 1)
Is that way -------------->
This (4.00 / 1)
 was a Reply to tibore75.
[ Parent ]
Nadler is impressive. (4.00 / 2)
I met him at a Working Families Party endorsement meetings.  Yes, everyone showed up--even Charlie Rangel.  

He is an Israel first guy, despite his smarts.

He is not going to be appointed by the governor. As for Kennedy,  the Speaker of the Assembly has come up with a reason not to appoint her:  her loyalty to Bloomberg means that she will do the bidding of the City instead of the state.

Patterson complained about Kennedy's people making this seem a done deal, and, by doing so, tying hands.  The backlash is coming and I think it will be potent.

Carolyn Maloney (upper east side) has thrown her hat in the ring.  She is no shining light (although she is great on women's issues), but she knows how to win elections.  I'm afraid, in a head to head battle with Nadler, she would chew him up and spit him out.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

Kennedy looking for a way to save face (0.00 / 0)
Versailles is hyping an Ambassador appt for her, so it looks like she knows that she is out.
[ Parent ]
Old news (0.00 / 0)
Nope, talk of an appointment to UK or Holy See ambassadorship has gone back since she endorsed Barack. This has been outweighed by her interest in the Senate seat, which she'll still likely get.
[ Parent ]
Doesn't look good (4.00 / 2)
I met Nadler in person at a doctor's office in NYC.  He's a genuinely nice guy, not another of the celebrity creeps.  Unfortunately, he doesn't look good on TV or even in person and that probably dooms his chance for statewide office.

Quite a shame, really.

[ Parent ]
As Progressives, (4.00 / 2)
we should be focusing on Progressive for higher office and on increasing diversity.  Enough of the white boy networks. It's almost as bad as the family aristocracy stuff that's going down with our electoral system.

I'm a fan of Nydia Velázquez

I would normally agree with you... (4.00 / 2)
Only that Nydia has said no...

...so I can't agree with you...

[ Parent ]
Caroline's good enough for me :) (4.00 / 1)
Nydia has withdrawn her name from consideration, she doesn't want to be appointed. And Paterson's not going to appoint someone who openly said they don't want the job, therefore pissing off everyone else that was actively seeking it.

It'll wind up being Caroline. Her public campaign for it has basically boxed Paterson in. If he doesn't pick her and goes with Cuomo, it'll look bad (battle of the dynasties, plus the Cuomo-Kennedy divorce will just make things messy). To be honest, none of the other candidates have the broad appeal that's necessary. Plus Caroline seems pretty sufficient for the statewide profile. Larger states are underrepresented in the Senate, and the new senator will have zero seniority. By having someone with a huge name recognition like a Kennedy, New York can get more attention through the media and the Senate leadership for its issues. It worked for Hillary. And it seems in her interview today that Caroline's ready to do the Chuck Schumer and visit the sixty-something counties. And it seems she's decently liberal enough (she's pro-gay marriage, that's good enough for me).

And please, Matt. "Nadler would be an excellent choice for Senator from New York City." If you tell that to an upstater, they'd automatically vote for the other guy :P

yea great interview (0.00 / 0)
You can see the video of it here.

http://www.ny1.com/content/new...

[ Parent ]
btw Nadler is an ass (0.00 / 0)
He slimmed obama about wright few days before the election. why would Matt be for a gop talking point enabler? (I understand if he didn't know, since i didn't it know either till today)


have the political courage to make a statement and leave. So how could that lack of courage be a good thing and a requirement to be President a few days before the election.

http://hotair.com/archives/200...

Video (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Slip? (0.00 / 0)
Nadler would be an excellent choice for Senator from New York City

As Chris could no doubt tell you, there's more to NYS than NYC.

How about a Senate from Upstate? Sure, Chuck does an okay job keeping an eye on us, but we'd like someone that comes from the other half of the state.  

Not half the state. (0.00 / 0)
In this particular instance what counts isn't the population of NY state but the population of NY State Democrats.  Thus, while NY City is 42.5% of the statewide population, NYC is 53% of all registered Democrats in NY state and the near suburbs (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester) are 960,000 more.  Upstate, even including actual suburban counties like Rockland and Putnam is about 1/3 of total Democrats. (32% by a back of the envelope type calculation).

The more upstate claims it is different and slams NYC, the more it hurts its chances.  Let's face it, the Assembly Speaker is always from NYC even in those times when the next in succession and/or the most qualified is an upstater.  Is it fair? No. But it has been the way things work.

As a former Westchester resident, I think that the districts up the Hudson or Albany would play better downstate than Buffalo or Rochester and Rochester would play better than Buffalo.  Just my opinion.

Louise Slaughter is a national figure but she's not in this race.  Gillibrand was a big time law partner and just sounds a lot more plausible (even though I'm not crazy about her voting record).  She is probably the best upstate candidate.

[ Parent ]
What about John Hall(NY-19). (0.00 / 0)
He is a former member of the band Orleans. He represents Westchester -Putnam County.  
I must be the only one that doesn't think that Kennedy... (0.00 / 0)
...is a shoe-in... oh, the Intraders share my opinion, too... her stock has dropped mightily in the last week.

I honestly don't think it will be she... just a gut feeling, really... nothing hard to go by... I just think that at the end of the day, she won't make the cut...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Will someone from the Kennedy cheering section please tell me (4.00 / 2)
what, specifically, she brings to this seat that her competitors for it do not? Enough of this "she seems liberal enough" crap. Please give me something concrete, something that she's actually DONE, to indicate that she's not only liberal and progressive in her core beliefs, but has actually gone out and SUCCESSFULLY fought for them. And no, getting an old building saved from the wrecking ball or prettying up a small park--i.e. the sort of thing that society people are expected to do--isn't enough. Has she helped get important bills passed, rallied support for an important cause, taken on powerful interests in the name of something big? If not, then she's just another limousine liberal looking for an easy path to power.

Come on, even Hillary had to earn it the hard way.

And we realize that there's astroturfing going on.

Which if one engages in it absolutely disqualifies one from being considered a progressive. Lying is inherently anti-progressive. And astroturfing is LYING.

Substance and honesty. If you can't provide that, you don't belong here.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

thanks! (4.00 / 2)
this is by far the most courteous response i have ever received on the internets :)  so thank you, and happy holidays :)

i agree with what i think is your basic idea, that we shouldn't mix up people and the social hierachies and that we should be thoughtful and positive to the extent possible.  However, once we accept that, it should be evident that some people are promoting the system (whether racism or sexism or capitalism or other things) and other people are combating them and that whether they do so is informed by their social position.  This is why, I think, a lot of people who don't have the itme to write long sentences like me will use short hand and say they are "annoyed at rich people" :)  Because rich people are in fact at the top of a social totem pole - and then when the rich people in question use their position to futher bolster the strength of that totem pole - well, it pisses a lot of people off.  Denying that those power structures exist or that different people have different attitudes towards them is destructive, imo - we can't all get along unless we acknowledge differences, especially on class imo.

I think you should be careful with words like "capitalist" and "rich people" (not the same) and "left" and "progressive" and others.  These words have meanings, though different people use them differently.  I think how we understand them defines what our personal ideologies are and how we relate to each other - if we don't have disagreements in specific terms (while still treating each other with decency), we'll never get anywhere, imo.  For example, I think class politics is very very very very important - other people disagree with me and focus more on nationalism.  Some people are social democrats, others are social welfarists.  Some people believe strongly in liberal capitalism, other people believe in some alternative.  Etc.

I am crossing my fingers and hoping this was meant for me. (0.00 / 0)
In which case, you are more than welcome. If its not boy am I embarrassed.

The task before us is, and I m sorry to say this, probably too big. We are going to have be smarter, more dedicated, more effective more committed to democracy and inclusion and rights than ever before in history.

I had a professor once who started his first class with a film from some army training program, showing a rifle being disassembled and put back together while the person was blindfolded. It annoyed my until he said after the lights came back up, "You need to be able to make and remake arguments as easily and effectively as that, and its my job to help you learn how." I am not very happy that I failed above, but as it is my job, here I am again, urging others to follow that same dictate, even I didn't.

My point is not for or against any person, it is for good, no great, discussions. Discussions that Rush Limbaugh can't even follow let alone use himself. For example the phrase "limousine liberal" which you have never used, folds quite nicely into such arguments as "Hollywood celebrity leftists," is not a good argument, in fact it uselessly slags allies and is used easily by Limbaughists.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
What was your professor a professor of?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
yes it was meant for you :) (0.00 / 0)
For example the phrase "limousine liberal" which you have never used, folds quite nicely into such arguments as "Hollywood celebrity leftists," is not a good argument, in fact it uselessly slags allies and is used easily by Limbaughists.

This has a social context.  It points out that while social welfarists (i.e. many progressive democrats) may be arguing int he name of the poor and advocating policies that help the poor, they're not willing to give up power to the poor and the working classes.  This is a flaw and it is what opens up the space to rightwing demagogues liek LImbaugh or really the whole Republican party.  

When they were genuinely committed to actually attempting some redress for the poor, you could make the argument that it was unfair - but I see almost ZERO populism today from the Democratic Party - so if you don't want to see Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee winning a hell of a lot of seats, I suggest they pay attention to their own position or stop gritching about Nader or other "spoilers" who are giving voice to the radical, the disempowered, and the ordinary people when the Democratic Party does not.  fake populism only thrives in an environment where economic populism has been stifled, told that it's irrational, called racist, called xenophobic, or otherwise demonized - it's not that none of these charges are true - it's that they're not charitable or useful.  A working class person (whether white or Black, immigrant or not, male or female, etc.) from the rust belt isn't given once ounce of the freedom to express themselves that Trent Lott, who defended segregation as recently as a few years ago, is (retired on his own terms) - or Henry Kissinger, or Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama.  Instead, they're constantly told they're bad and its' their fault.

So in the list of categories of people towards whom overly broad generalizations are made or there is confusion between systemic hierarchies and the people themlseves, rich people rank fairly low on my totem pole of deserving excessive sympathy.  At minimum until they (we) start more forcefully rejecting policies that support our own class positions and ultimately that cede power to real and full democracy.

[ Parent ]
Jerry Nadler for Senate | 43 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox