thoughts on the Times' endorsements?

I feel really bad that I haven't had time to keep up with the electioneering. I think I might go show up at my polling place and pull some random levers.

For anyone interested in seeing the City put some brakes on the Ratnerville locomotive, Norm Siegel is a must-vote, as is Leticia James.

Did anyone else receive that handy-dandy voting guide that the city puts out?

I loved it in principle, but in practice found it hard not to be distracted by the fact that the candidates rather than answer 4 simple Qs seemed to have just copy-and-pasted vaguely relevant text off their websites. That bugged me. Alot.

I didn't get a voting guide, and I'm pissed (and GEST... just found my password).

The Internets tell me that John Sampson (District Attorney), Eric Blackwell (City Council, District 35), and Cynthia Boyce (Civil Court, District 6) are all backed by the Clarence Norman machine. Is that reason enough to vote against the whole slate?

I found an online copy of that Harper's article "Man vs. Machine Politics in Brooklyn" that accuses Joe Hynes of abusing his power as DA to disappear the opposition (prosecuting John O'Hara as a favor under election law that he himself was guilty of violating) and casts some doubt on the Times' dismissal of Sandra Roper as someone with a "checkered ethics record". Could Roper be a better County Civil Court candidate than Times pick Sylvia Ash?

qtrain:
i'm thinking Brooklyn machine politics is just a hair better than say, Vellela in the Bronx, or the whole Mead Esposito thing in QNS. The Clarence Norman thing really pisses me off. :evil:

Anyone that needs general info on all these mini races, http://www.gothamgazette.com

arielbl wrote: Did anyone else receive that handy-dandy voting guide that the city puts out?

Yes, and while I think the new design is cute in it's own way, the unweildly size of the thing made it damn near uselss.

The idea of voters guides is to keep it small and simple. In past years they were basically pocketsize. Whoever had the brilliant idea to make it bigger and more akin to a design magazine should be given some deisgn advice about keeping it simple.

PS: I did vote today and must say I was shocked at how light the turnout was. I really wonder if there will be a run-off at this rate. And while I understand the opposition to Betsy Gotbaum--she has issues--I'm not too sure Norman Siegel is that great an alternative. And Andrew Rasiej? When his whole campaign seems to be based on WiFi access in NYC? C'mon, get real. He's great at harnessing new media to campaign, but that's really it.

The Advocates's job is a bullshit job (with a budget, and next-in-line rights of course), and I have hopes for Norm Seigel to be able to make something of it as a bully pulpit. Ms. Gotbaum had her chance and failed.

Now where on earth does the phrase "bully pulpit" come from?

pitu wrote: Now where on earth does the phrase "bully pulpit" come from?

Thanks to C-SPAN:

This term stems from President Theodore Roosevelt's reference to the White House as a "bully pulpit," meaning a terrific platform from which to persuasively advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word "bully" as an adjective meaning superb/wonderful. Roosevelt also had political affiliation with the Progressive Party, nicknamed the "Bull Moose" party. It got the moniker when Roosevelt ran for President as its candidate in 1912, after declaring himself as "fit as a bull moose."