Good Riddance, Betsy Gotbaum!

Not that public statements mean anything any more (like Mayor Bloomberg calling the extension of term limits a "disgrace"), but if Betsy Gotbaum holds true to her word that she won't seek reelection as Public Advocate in 2009, it's good news for New Yorkers.

It means we might finally get a Public Advocate, who, well, advocates for the public. The Public Advocate position, created originally to give Mark Green something to do, theoretically is supposed to be a check to the Mayor's power. The Advocate is the City's watchdog, the person who makes a ruckus for the people when they are being railroaded by their elected officials.

Where was Betsy last week when our City's government was stolen away from the people? Sitting docilely in the presiding officer's chair of Council chambers, urging our Council Members to be polite as they subverted the system.

Of course, for anyone following Gotbaum's horrendous seven year tenure, this was no surprise. Our City's ferocious "watchdog" curled up on the Mayor's lap on day one of the Bloomberg Administration and hasn't moved since. Can anyone come up with a single instance where Gotbaum even so much as whimpered token opposition to the Mayor? Even her own website can't come up with anything to boast except vague platitudes.

We need a real Public Advocate now more than ever. As impotent as the position has been to date, one of the only chances our City has to protect itself from its incumbents at this point might be the Public Advocate.

Fortunately, we already seem to have two promising candidates, who would make something of the job if elected. The first is Norman Siegel, a lawyer who has made his career crusading of behalf of the downtrodden and disenfranchised.

The second is Queens Councilman Eric Gioia. Gioia is a young, fiercely ambitious politician, who understands how to command the media's attention. He was on the right side of the term limits battle and has generally shown himself to be a populist. He might not have the track record of taking on "The Man" that Siegel can rightfully claim, but I could see him zealously amassing political points while beating down injustice in the way Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo have wielded the State Attorney General job.

Whoever the people's ultimate choice may be, New York can't afford another Betsy Gotbaum. We need a fighter, not a lover.

Throw The Bums Out!

To say that I am appalled at yesterday's Council vote is to grossly understate my reaction. Last night, I was indignant. This morning, I woke up quivering with rage.

After sitting through the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee meeting last month, I felt certain that farce would be the most ridiculous political theater of the year. But, leave it to the New York City Council to come storming back a mere month later with a production so well-orchestrated and rehearsed that it deserved Broadway's most ostentatious marquee.

At least, the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee meeting had no pretension. All of our electeds, except Charles Barron, dutifully read through the script in a homogenous monotone that laid plain the emptiness of our faux democracy. To his credit, the evening's chair Marty Connor practically admitted that our attendance was all just for show.

Contrast Connor's candor with Betsy Gotbaum, our absentee Public Advocate (talk about a term that has become Orwellian!), who only shows up when it's time to the Mayor's bidding. Rather than raging on behalf of the people, as is her job, Gotbaum dutifully presided over yesterday's sham votes, piping up only to cut our Council Members' hollow rhetoric short with the gentle admonition: "Please, Council Member, everyone else has been so good at following the rules."

Gotbaum wasted her shallow breath in chastising her kin. Practically eveyone in the chamber was playing by the rules so obediently that they all deserved a gold star for good behavior. This was an event so thoroughly scripted that I read in the Queens Crap blog in advance of the vote precisely how Anthony Como and Jessica Lappin had horse-traded their "no" votes on the amendment calling for public referendum, so they could vote a safe "no" on extending term limits legislatively.

And with whom did they collude? David Yassky, Alan Gerson, and Gail Brewer, of course. In exchange for voting down Yassky's face-saving, bogus amendment, which allowed Yassky, Gerson, and Brewer to pretend they were populists, Como gets to boast about a "no" vote to his constituents when they go to the poll in two weeks, and Lappin got to feign reformer for Upper Eastsiders, while remaining safely in the Mayor's lap.

Don't believe me? Just rewind to yesterday's press conference before the vote and see Christine Quinn hardly suppressing her glee, announcing her certainty that the amendment would fail and the term limits extension would pass. How did she know? It was all a foregone conclusion. And not just in the past couple of days. I wrote on September 25th that City Hall insiders were already sure the term limits extension was a fait accompli.

Is this to what our government has been reduced? Silly shows for the media to deceive the public? And for what? So our incompetant elected officials can further infect our City with their incompetance?

Queens Councilman Tony Avella, who has impressively distinguished himself as one of the last true warriors for the public good in this City, precisely encapsulated yesterday's travesty in the remarks he gave explaining his "no" vote:

"The people of New York know the fix was in from the beginning and I apologize to my colleagues, but you should all be voted out of office for supporting this."

From Tony's lips to the voter's ears.

Council Speaker Quinn Picks Quiet Sunday to Sell Out Voters on Term Limits

Anyone paying attention knew how City Council Speaker Christine Quinn stood on the Mayor's scheme to extend term limits long before Bloomberg formally announced his intentions. Today, Quinn used the political cover of a slow Sunday news cycle to make public her embarrassing position.

Surprise, surprise. She's for staying Speaker another four years.

Once upon a time, Quinn would have said "no" to extending term limits. Almost three years ago, she roared into the second most powerful job in the City with all the promise that being both New York City's first female and first LGBT Council Speaker carried with it. She was a darling of the City's progressives - a dynamic figure that would set the City free of the pro-establishment tilt that had long characterized the Council. The day she got into office the buzz that she would be New York's next Mayor began.

Then reality reared its ugly head. Quinn quickly became everything her supporters abhorred. She turned her back on progressives, good government advocates and the LGBT community. Instead, she decided to replace Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum as the Mayor's most obedient ally. As the Times reports, "Jokes about Ms. Quinn being a deputy mayor in the Bloomberg administration abound in the Council."

But that was just the beginning of Quinn's fall from grace. Up until several months ago, Quinn still had illusions (or delusions) of becoming New York City's first female Mayor. Then came the slush fund scandal. Under Quinn's leadership, the Council expanded its longtime illegal practice of "squirreling away millions of dollars in the name of made-up organizations". If you don't understand why that's so bad, check out this article.

Quinn tried to blame the scandal on two of her aides, but no one except the most gullible of reporters was buying. The steady stream of big money contributions Quinn was getting in preparation for a Mayoral run quickly started to dry up. Two of Brooklyn Councilman Kendall Stewart's top aides got indicted for their role in the bogus bonanza. Quinn, herself, hired a criminal defense attorney, using City funds to do so.

In short, Quinn's dreams of Gracie Mansion fell apart. She could never run for Mayor now that a major investigation and the word "scandal" hung heavily over her head. The end of her Council term in 2009 was shaping up to be the end of her political career.

Enter Mayor Bloomberg. The Mayor's proposal to save his own job was a godsend for Quinn. Four more years would mean that Quinn could have a chance at redemption - a chance for people to forget. If she could escape the slush fund scandal unscathed (I wonder if Mayor Mike might help her here?), four years from now she might once again be a viable candidate for mayor. Gosh darn it to heck, it worked good enough for John McCain to win his party's nomination for President twenty years after the Keating Five scandal almost sunk him.

Four years from now expect to hear Mayoral candidate Quinn argue that all is forgotten. Whether it will be is up to government investigators and, of course, you to decide.

Public Advocate 2009: The Race Is On

Once upon a time it seemed ridiculous to discuss potential Presidential candidates years before the party primaries, but nowadays candidates are even launching into the City's local races two years in advance. The reason why so many candidates are announcing so early this time around is threefold:

1) They want more time to raise money,
2) There's a lot of term-limited elected officials worried they'll be out of work and a gang of new/oldcomers looking for jobs, and
3) They think that by jumping into the race early they'll stake a credible claim to the position.

The first two reasons make sense to The Optimist, but the third strikes me as faulty, since no one except for the most maniacal political junkies (like yours truly) pays any attention to who is running for local offices until a few weeks before the election - if ever.

But, hey, since everyone else is doing it, The Optimist thought he'd throw his two cents into the race. Feel free to ignore this post and check back with me in 18 months when you start to care.

The question on many people's minds last night at the Norman Siegel fundraiser was what made him think he could win the race for Public Advocate after already being defeated twice for the job - especially since the last time out against Betsy Gotbaum he fell 20,000 votes short. His answer was that he could build upon the coalition of voters he put together in the past and since he would likely be the only non-elected official seeking the office on the Democratic side (Guardian Angels' founder Curtis Sliwa has expressed interest in running as a Republican), the other candidates would split their constituencies, thus letting Siegel slip past them.

In addition, Siegel, who confesses to having been an unenthusiastic fundraiser in the past, is determined to bulk up his coffers this time. With the help of 6 to 1 matching funds, his goal is to bring in $2.5 million (the fundraising cap for Public Advocate is $3.85 million), primarily to spend on television and radio ads.

The Optimist thinks it likely that Siegel will reach his fundraising goal, but I am not as certain if he can hold onto the bulk of voters who supported him in the past. Since in the last election Siegel was Gotbaum's only credible opponent, it is unclear how many of the votes he received were pro-Norman or anti-Betsy. We shall see.

But Siegel has other obstacles too in the form of a host of better known - though not necessarily better qualified - prospective candidates for Public Advocate. Queens Councilman (and media darling) Eric Gioia is already off and running. According to a recent Observer article, Gioia had raised almost a million dollars as of July, thus positioning himself, for the time being, as a frontrunner for the job.

Among the other big(ish) names rumored to be in the hunt are Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Manhattan Councilman Robert Jackson, Queens Councilman John Liu, and State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, who perhaps has the most well-known name of all. Except for maybe Sliwa.

Expect some of these guys to drop out and others to take their place as the far-off primary inches closer. Any way you look at it, though, the field is bound to be full. Too many politicians will calculate the Public Advocate's job as a stepping stone to Mayor.

Norman Siegel Fundraiser Recap

Yesterday evening, The Optimist headed over to Marjorie Gersten's lovely Brooklyn Heights apartment for one of the first fundraisers of Norman Siegel's 2009 Public Advocate bid. For those of you who don't know, Siegel is the former executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union and now a lawyer in private practice specializing in representing community activist organizations. He ran unsuccessfully in both 2000 and 2004 for Pubic Advocate, both times losing to the current, term-limited officeholder Betsy Gotbaum.

Though The Optimist did make a donation to the campaign, my attendance at the event in no way indicates that Siegel necessarily will get either my vote (as he did in the last two elections) or my endorsement. I went to learn more about Siegel's platform and to see what kind of a crowd would rally to support his candidacy this time around.

As it happens, though the turnout for the event was strong, I ended up engaged in a rather lengthy tete-a-tete with the candidate himself before his somewhat lawyerly, long-winded speech began. Since the Public Advocate presides over the City Council, I asked Siegel to evaluate the current Council as a whole - even though 35 of the body's current 51 members would be out of office after the 2009 elections in which he is competing. The word Siegel used was "unimpressive", which I took to mean "ineffective".

Siegel added that he felt the Public Advocate's parliamentary role in the Council was unnecessary pomp and that the Advocate's time could be better spent fighting for the City, then sitting in a stiff chair in Council chambers (my words). Were he elected, Siegel pledged either to renounce the Public Advocate's role of ceremonially presiding over the Council or to send an emissary in his place to fill the role. After having seen how lost Gotbaum looked in Council chambers, I imagine pretty much anyone could fit the bill. Really, isn't this a job for the Council Speaker anyway?

Although Siegel raised a number of worthy campaign positions, like battling to ban the death penalty in New York State, what most inspired The Optimist was Siegel's plan to use the Public Advocate's position to teach, create, and coordinate grassroots activism in the City on a block-by-block level. The Optimist firmly supports this intention and made a point of saying so during the event's Q&A.

It has become clear to me that though it is unquestionable that the American people must put a Democrat in the White House, regime change is far from enough to reverse the repugnant, regressive agenda enacted by the current Administration. It will not be enough for us to elect a Democrat, pat ourselves on the back, and go back to sleep for another four years. Thanks to Bush, the problems our country must grapple with are so severe that merely reversing his policies is inadequate to regain our standing at home and abroad. Every American will have to take the responsibility upon his or her own shoulders to work with the new President to change our nation's direction from the bottom up. If we do not unite to become an informed, active, and politically-minded nation, we will fall.

And that's coming from an optimist.

There's no question in my mind that Norman Siegel is well capable of being an effective ombudsman for New York City. Moreover, the idea of electing a non-politician to the office seems a sensible one, since the Public Advocate's position was created to serve as a check to the one-note rule that elected officials fall into clinging to safeguard their jobs. But 2009 is still a long way off and The Optimist is open to evaluating all of the candidates for Public Advocate as they emerge and unveil their own plans to make our borough and our City a better place.