This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Democratic Primary - Attorney General Race — Brooklynian

Democratic Primary - Attorney General Race

nyconnect
nyconnect
edited November -1 in Brooklyn Politics
This race for attorney general is really frustrating. The democrats are fractured and marginalizing each other with mudslinging and misleading advertising. This is not what the position for Attorney General is about. It is about keeping Albany honest and upholding New York laws.

I have been watching the frequent debates online and I just wanted to share that Eric Dinallo shines far above the other candidates as the Democrat with the vision and experience for the position. He is the only individual who has actually worked in the Attorney General's office. The vast majority of his career has been devoted to working for the government on behalf of the people. He has even brought his message to Park Slope, I was really impressed with his message and his campaign.

I was very excited to attend the debate sponsored by the New York Law Journal and the NYC Bar association, because I know that these organizations will hold the candidates feet to the fire and bring out the true issues facing the future NY Attorney General, but at the last minute both Kathleen Rice and Eric Schneiderman backed out and they had to cancel the debate. In my personal opinion this shows weakness and a disrespect for the legal profession and the community in general. The community wants the answers to the important questions so that we can make an informed decision about our representation!

Kathleen Rice is a dangerous candidate, she has no experience, she didn't start voting until she was 37, she lashes out at the other candidates and copies her platform from the webpages of the other candidates. Schneiderman is a private lawyer serving private interests and his only motivation appears to be the prospect of future money.

I hope you all check out Eric Dinallo, I think that he will be the candidate who can generate the support to beat the Republican party, and that is the point after all. The democrats need to join together behind a candidate who represents the people's values and beliefs and can focus on the important issues rather resort to petty bickering.

Eric Dinallo - my choice for the Democratic candidate for NYS Attorney General - look into it and I think he will be your choice too. Take care and Happy New Year!

Eric Dinallo's webpage - ericdinallo.com

NY Daily News endorses Eric Dinallo - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/22/2010-08-22_go_with_dinallo.html



MOD NOTE: I added an "Undecided" option to the poll.
-C

Comments

  • carnivore
    carnivore
    NY Times endorses Eric Schneiderman.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/opinion/21sat1.html?scp=1&sq=endorsement%20attorney%20general&st=cse
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Who does the Working Family party endorse?
  • oldsloper
    oldsloper
    Kathleen Rice has no experience? Doesn't Nassau County DA count?
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    And Schneiderman is just a private lawyer? He served in the State Senate for 12 YEARS!
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    she didn't start voting until she was 37
    this is so irrelevant I don't even know where to start
  • oldsloper
    oldsloper
    12 years in the state senate is enough of a reason Not to vote for
    Schneiderman!
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    Boygabriel wrote:
    she didn't start voting until she was 37
    this is so irrelevant I don't even know where to start
    why is that irrelevant? i think elected officials should be, i don't know, interested in democracy.
  • chuleta
    chuleta
    Eric Schneiderman works his ass off for the public. That's ridiculous to say he only cares about the private interest. He pushed a comprehensive ethics reform package through Albany, which is like a snowstorm in July.

    He reformed the Rockefeller Drug Laws. He got Ian's Law passed (standing up for patients against insurance companies). It's because of him that the New York Hate Crimes bill includes gay people. Because of him that jackass Hiram Monserrate was fired.

    And the crowdpleaser.... anyone who's sued the MTA more than once has my vote! Yes please. More of that. We like.

    http://www.ny1.com/?SecID=1000&ArID=50151
    http://www.straphangers.org/tolldecision/appellate_hearing.htm
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    sweet tea wrote: why is that irrelevant? i think elected officials should be, i don't know, interested in democracy.
    Sure, but I don't think it's a strong indicator of whether someone would be competent at the job, and that is usually one of my main concerns when voting for or against someone.
  • raulism
    raulism
    Sean Coffey came to my club, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats and gave a great presentation. The feeling was that electing an AG is like hiring a lawyer, and he's the one we would want on our side.

    That said, I have a ton of friends supporting Schneiderman, and so some people who know him better than I are working to get him elected. I would be happy with him as well.

    The person I really want stopped is Kathleen Rice. I took a video of the AG debate at Medgar Evers, and the part that disturbed me is that she created a program to stop cars of people driving in minority neighborhoods. She defended it by saying that some people from the neighborhood asked her to do it. For me, that begs the questions: If people from a certain neighborhood wanted you to use illegal racial profiling, would she do it?

    See
  • chuleta
    chuleta
    ^^ Agree with Raulism, Coffey is a totally decent guy who would do good things in office as AG. I just like and respect Schneiderman more. Schneiderman also belongs to a Buddhist sangha, which is a funny balance to his being a bit of a fighter on legislation and corruption.

    I wouldn't mind Brodsky either except for his stepping into the Cordoba Center controversy near Ground Zero. That left a bad taste in my mouth...

    I don't really trust Rice, though I don't doubt she'd toe party line for the most part. But I haven't found her to be as straightforward as the others about what she supports/doesn't support, like sentencing for non-violent drug offenders. Much better candidates out there.
  • raulism
    raulism
    chuleta wrote: ^^ Agree with Raulism, Coffey is a totally decent guy who would do good things in office as AG. I just like and respect Schneiderman more.
    Not that this is a great reason to vote for someone, but who has a better chance of winning the general election in November?
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Boygabriel wrote: [quote=sweet tea]why is that irrelevant? i think elected officials should be, i don't know, interested in democracy.
    Sure, but I don't think it's a strong indicator of whether someone would be competent at the job, and that is usually one of my main concerns when voting for or against someone.

    Since I was able to vote, I have only felt the urge to "to vote against". I have never felt the urge "to vote for".

    Can someone please tell me who is the most evil of the above? k thx
  • raulism
    raulism
    whynot_31 wrote: Can someone please tell me who is the most evil of the above? k thx
    Kathleen Rice stuck me as the most evil of the lot, but Brodsky is working hard to take that position with his faux-pious anti-Muslim demagoguery. Though if you don't like Wall Street lobbyists, you might not like Dinallo:

    http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/wall-st-said-to-finance-dinallo-for-attorney-general/
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    that was, count them, three (3) suggestions of who is evil.

    At least the two party system allows me to know who to vote against. What's with this infighting?

    Thinking is hard.

    .....I want to just have two choices, and then vote against the evil one.

    I can not cast a vote for everyone except Ms. Rice.

    While you are at it, can you get rid of the winner takes all system?
    k thx.
  • raulism
    raulism
    whynot_31 wrote: While you are at it, can you get rid of the winner takes all system?
    k thx.
    Done!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Just got back from voting for the incredible Schneiderman
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    raulism wrote: [quote=whynot_31] While you are at it, can you get rid of the winner takes all system?
    k thx.
    Done!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

    False.

    You have merely shown me how others have gotten rid of the winner take all system.

    .....Like George Bush claiming "Mission Accomplished" [edited 9/14/10 at 2:35 PM], you have overstated your accomplishments.

    When your work is completed, New York will appear on the wikipedia list you link
    Since 2002, IRV has been adopted in several cities in the United States. As of February 2010, 79 elections had been held in eight counties, cities or towns: San Francisco, California; Burlington, Vermont; Takoma Park, Maryland; Cary, North Carolina; Hendersonville, North Carolina; Aspen, Colorado; Minneapolis, Minnesota;[10] and Pierce County, Washington.[72]

    Several other cities have approved but have not yet implemented IRV. Among them are the California cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro, where IRV will be used in city elections for the first time in November 2010.[73] Saint Paul, Minnesota, and Memphis, Tennessee will use IRV in 2011 council elections.

    Not all jurisdictions have kept using IRV. Pierce County, Washington, repealed IRV by referendum in November 2009,[74] and Burlington, Vermont repealed IRV in March 2010.[75] The city council in Cary, North Carolina, voted to participate in an IRV pilot program in 2007, but did not do so in 2009.[76] In 2009, voters in Aspen, Colorado, narrowly rejected an advisory measure on whether to keep IRV.[77] In 1976 IRV was repealed after one election in Ann Arbor, Michigan.[78]
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    whynot_31 wrote: .....Like Al Gore claiming credit for inventing the internet, you have overstated your accomplishments.
    Off topic, but Gore never stated this.

    It's a lie that might one day die.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Boygabriel wrote: [quote=whynot_31].....Like Al Gore claiming credit for inventing the internet, you have overstated your accomplishments.
    Off topic, but Gore never stated this.

    It's a lie that might one day die.

    I'll take your word for it, and have edited.

    You will likely like my edit.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    you don't have to take my word for it.

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

    he said he spearheaded government funding which directly fostered research in the field, which is 100% true.
  • whynot_31
    whynot_31
    Boygabriel wrote: you don't have to take my word for it.

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

    he said he spearheaded government funding which directly fostered research in the field, which is 100% true.
    ok, I take their word for it.

    Do you like my edit?

    I make an effort to skewer proponents of each party equally, lest I be accused of bias.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    ha - I do
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories