Packing IND

FYI! Greg Atkins former IND prez aka Markowitz's chief apologist for the Atlantic Yards project has been run out of Brownstone Brooklyn as is residing in Dyker Heights where his pro-development conservative ass will hopefully find a more welcome reception.

Independent Neighborhood Democrats? They may be from the 'hood, and they may be Democrats, but they hardly appear independent now, do they?

Atkins has also declared that IND should stop calling itself a reform club. But while Atkins clearly is honest enough to admit he's not a reformer (and his support for County's trojan horse in the guise of a white liberal, Mark Peters, proves it) IND's clearly proven that they are reformers. Only a bunch of reformers would run such a clown show. Regulars would need to play such games to wim a vote in their own club, if they even bothered to hold a vote at all.

Independent Neighborhood Democrats? They may be from the 'hood, and they may be Democrats, but they hardly appear independent now, do they?

2:18 - Atkins didn't get run out of the neighborhood, he and his wife wanted to buy a house, found a house they liked, and moved. In other words, they wanted to buy a house like normal, non-blogging people. Crazy!

The hapless Ken Diamondstone who's run for Congress, City Council and now State Senate couldn't get elected DOG CATCHER!

Connor has done good and evil but at least he's on the ball and knows his ass from his elbow. Without Marty's assistance Margarita Lopez Torres would not be Brooklyn's surrogate! I'm for Connor.

Uncle Jasper- Isn't Connor supposed to dedicate his time to being a State Senator, not a high priced election lawyer? He personally made thousands of dollars off of the Torres campaign.

I agree with Brooklyn Boy.

This is all a bit silly. Chris and Major and their taxpayer paid retainer, Marsha Borenstein, joined by Ken Diamondstone and the entire cast of the Off-Broadway musical "Develop Don't Destroy" pulled a fast one. They deserve credit for their panache, especially the element of surprise. This was a professionally executed coup attempt (kudos to Kas Stolzman). I mean, in his prior attempts at elected office, Ken Diamonstone couldn't organize his way out of a paper bag.

Brownstone electeds, including DeBlasio and Brennan, should take notice. Without the issue of Atlantic Yards, these folks would have had trouble mustering six extra votes to sign up (accordiing to Erik Engquist, it took Carl Andrews' help for Major to win IND last time). Even if the we concede, arguendo, that the Ratner opponents do not necessarily represent majority opinion in the area (and I think they might), they surely represent the majority of white folks who feel strongly enough about the issue to actually take some action. Even if Ratner was writing the checks, I doubt Bertha Lewis could muster this many folks to join IND without changing the complexion of the club in more ways than one.

Ironies abound. None of the folks targetted is much of a Ratner enthusiast (although they are clearly not strong opponents either), and Connor and Yassky would probably be more effective in efforts to downscale the project than Owens and Diamondstone.

More ironically, Chris Owens probably blew a pretty good shot at taking the club without packing it. Millman and Connor have never trusted Yassky and their support for him is pro forma at best (they wouldn't mind it if he blew his bankroll before term limits set in). Now they are surely down with the cause and will pull out all the stops for David.

And Diamondstone's campaign seems born of obsession rather than rationality. He's been talking about it for years. Last time out he discovered at the last minute that there was a residency requirement to run. This time, he's rented an apartment in the district, but sent out a Christmas card letting folks know that his old place was still his business address. Has he hired John O'Hara as his legal advisor?

Diamondstone portrays himself as the great reformer, and he's no doubt sincere, but he's obsessed by visions of his own sainthood (although he may be right). Moreover, as of late, Connor and he have been on the same side in nearly every battle. They both were key players in Margarita Lopez-Torres' successful campaign for Surrogate. And Diamondstone was apparently a guest at Connor's infamous anti-Clarence 2002 Counter Dinner held the same night as County's event at the Marriott. Since being dumped as Minority Leader, Connor has clearly been more of an insurgent than a reformer, sort of like the whorehouse piano player who left to join the Salvation Army Band; but in the last few years, he's been the brains behind any successful anti-organization efforts in Brooklyn. I myself have had mixed feelings about these efforts (Lopez-Torres is more overrated than Led Zeppelin or "The L Word"), but one must still wonder why Diamondstone is so obsessed.

The truth is this endorsement ain't worth that much. As a brand name, IND long ago lost most of its luster, and what little luster's left will be tarnished by this year's tainted process (and it won't be the first time that happened). That will actually be a moral vistory for Diamondstone and Owens. For Connor, losing would have been an embarrassment, but nearly two-thirds of the district's in Manhattan, where he's supported (and not just pro forma) by everyone from Shelley Silver to Rosie Lopez, I mean Mendez. Plus he's got the Williamsburg Hasidim in that Brooklyn third. Owens had more to gain from victory, as a defeat for Yassky on Yassky's home turf might have lead to a Yassky withdrawal, or seriously weakened him. But, as I've pointed out, Owens might have actually blown victory by this fast and loose tactic.

While IND's signatures are good one, and usually come large in an even year (when things Joan Millman cares about are at stake); this was not really the issue. Connor will come large on petitions just on his Manhattan clubs, and Yassky's never trusted IND's operation for ballot access (he's had to endure their lame odd-years efforts). Owens also has probably seen fit to make plans to qualify regardless.

If Diamondstone really thought he was going to get a petition windfall from an IND victory, he was truly dreaming. Past history indicates how Connor and Millman's allies, who are the majority of the clubs active petition gathering members (rather than people who just sent checks in) would respond. Joan Millamn and the District Leaders would refuse to run on the IND petitions (or at least those with Diamondstone). All the Millman loyalists would be called and told not to carry the Diamondstone petitions. There would be a separate petition operation for Connor-Millman outside of IND, made up of all of IND's old petition carriers, and the club, with its 90 new members and Ken Diamonstone, would likely be left to wither and die like WBID did in the 1980's (when the same thing occured). So, the only signatures Diamondstone would gain would be the ones he was already going to get anyway through his diehard supporters.

So now that that's clear, everyone can pull an Aiken, declare victory, and go home. The real battles will be settled by the voters, who couldn't care less about this inside baseball (more like spitball, actually).

Mamalink: To answer your question: yes; I said the truth. Also check my comments on the earlier post. Both sides look pretty scummy; both have a dubious but arguable moral case ("the rules are the rules and shouldn't change in the middle of a battle" versus "we're protecting the desires of the actual membership, who didn't join en masse the day before yesterday and will still be there the day after tomorrow"),if either side has the high ground, it's from the top of a dung heap, no one but the insiders care, and, in the end, it hardly matters. The fact that I don't particularly come down on either side doesn't mean I'm not saying anything.

I will say that bringing about change involves building a larger consensus, which involves acquiring allies. Connor is not a reformer, but he's been the best ally the Brooklyn reformers have. If they jump ship on him now, for good or bad reasons, other potential allies, even ones who dislike Connor, will see that there is no point in making common cause with folks who'll stab you in the back at the first opportunity. Vito Lopez will certainly laugh all night long (since Yassky's been a less steadfast ally of reform, I can't say the same caveat applies to him).

A morally ambiguous situtation deserves a morally ambiguous response.

Mamalink: To answer your question: yes; I said the truth. Also check my comments on the earlier post. Both sides look pretty scummy; both have a dubious but arguable moral case ("the rules are the rules and shouldn't change in the middle of a battle" versus "we're protecting the desires of the actual membership, who didn't join en masse the day before yesterday and will still be there the day after tomorrow"),if either side has the high ground, it's from the top of a dung heap, no one but the insiders care, and, in the end, it hardly matters. The fact that I don't particularly come down on either side doesn't mean I'm not saying anything.

I will say that bringing about change involves building a larger consensus, which involves acquiring allies. Connor is not a reformer, but he's been the best ally the Brooklyn reformers have. If they jump ship on him now, for good or bad reasons, other potential allies, even ones who dislike Connor, will see that there is no point in making common cause with folks who'll stab you in the back at the first opportunity. Vito Lopez will certainly laugh all night long (since Yassky's been a less steadfast ally of reform, I can't say the same caveat applies to him).

A morally ambiguous situtation deserves a morally ambiguous response.

Hey, Low Carb Guy. Don't you get it? They are the pure side, and therefore the same rules don't apply to them as they do to the corrupt people with a different position.

Actually, I suspect that their rules are the same as yours. Any weapon to hand. Let me ask you a question. Weren't you once in favor of club-packing?

Those who get off on calling IND corrupt regulars should know that back in the old days when it really was a reform club, the reformers used to prevent the regulars from raiding them by having a provision requiring that all applications for membership had to be approved by the executive committee. If they kept that provision, then this would never have happened.

Happy Passover, The Atkins Diet!

No, I don

Must admit that Raul is not part of someone's else's conspiracy. It's clear that, whatever his cause de jour, he's completely centered on himself and bragging about his own ciriculum vitae (sort of like a yuppie Rock Hackshaw).

Anyway, after further thought, I think Diamondstone and Owen's defenders get the worst of the argument.

Club packing is sleazy and unseemly. Yes, the rules permit club packing, so even if club-packing violates the spirit of the rules, Owens and Diamonstone were in technical compliance with their provisions.

Changing the rules in the middle of the game is also sleazy and unseemly. But, the rules permit changing the rules in the middle of the game, so even if changing the rules in the middle of the game violates the spirit of the rules,the Executive Committee was in technical complaince with their provisions.

In a court of equity, one who seeks an equitable remedy (rather than a legal one)must come to the court with clean hands. In this case, neither side qualifies.

I still you guys are sleeping on nick perry..