TWO LOCAL CONGRESSIONAL RACES GET NASTY, AND JACKIE MASON IS INVOLVED; VOTE TUESDAY!

voting

Because New York’s Board of Elections just loves to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on holding multiple primary elections, we have three separate primaries this year, which has the predictable effect of suppressing voter turnout and confusing everyone. This Tuesday’s Democratic primaries will help determine who represents the 10th and 13th congressional districts. (There are no local contested primaries for the Republican or Green parties on Tuesday.)

nadlerThe 10th district includes most of the Upper West Side except for a portion of Manhattan Valley (see map here). It’s been represented by Jerry Nadler (at right) for 24 years, but Nadler has drawn fire since his vote last year in favor of the Iran nuclear deal. He’s facing a challenge from Oliver Rosenberg, a 30-year-old tech entrepreneur and former banker who told the Wall Street Journal that he’s “a gay man and was a Democrat trapped in a Republican body.”

“In the past week, Mr. Nadler’s campaign distributed a flier to voters describing Mr. Rosenberg as “dishonest,” “dirty” and “deplorable.” The flier also alleges Mr. Rosenberg is a Democrat in name only, showing a screenshot of an email from Mr. Rosenberg as proof.

“As the district is 82% Democrat, the only chance of winning is as a Democrat,” Mr. Rosenberg wrote.

Oh, and now Jackie Mason is doing robocalls against Nadler.

“You know what happens to the Jews? The Jews are facing the Hydrogen bomb. No decent person would vote for Jerry Nadler,” Mr. Mason says in one of the calls. In another, he questions Mr. Nadler’s Jewish identity.

In the 13th district, the crowded race to replace Charles Rangel has devolved into name-calling, with a healthy dose of identity politics (the life-affirming assumption that black people should always vote for other black people, Dominicans should vote for Dominicans, etc. etc.). There have been allegations of anti-Semitism and voter suppression. Al Sharpton, of course, appealed for everyone to be calm and focus on the issues (kidding!).

Adriano Espaillat and Keith Wright have received several high-profile endorsements. The Times is endorsing Clyde Williams, who they say is “the candidate with the best chance of breaking tired habits and finding new ways to solve old problems.”

Find your polling place and sample ballots here, and then hope that the state gets its act together and fixes the elections board. They could save at least $50 million, and actually encourage voting, by holding one single primary election.

Photo by Keith Ivey.

NEWS | 42 comments | permalink
    1. James Byrne says:

      If Jackie Mason is opposed to Nadler…..I guess I am all for him.

      • Gretchen says:

        Jackie Mason? You mean that guy is still alive? Why doesn’t he just go gentle in that good borsht belt? Totally turning out for Nadler as are all my friends in the hood. Didn’t even know anyone else was running.

    2. IH says:

      I have voted for Jerry Nadler for NY State Assembly and then US Congress for as long as I have been voting. But, I am shocked and utterly turned-off by the dirty campaign he has decided to run. When I received that ad-hominem flier in the mail yesterday, my first reaction was WTF and my second is that Jerry is running scared. I’ll sit this primary out.

      • Paul on West 67th says:

        I have the flyer in my hand. What’s so ‘dirty’ about posting Rosenberg’s own quotes, and pointing out his ties to the Republican party?

        I’m gay but that doesn’t mean I’ll automatically vote for ‘the gay guy’. Nadler has always been there for us, I’m happy to give him my vote.

      • Bruce Bernstein says:

        I was glad that Nadler alerted me to what a phony-balony Rosenberg is. The mailing i received went a lot further than simply saying he was running as a Democrat as that was the path to victory.

        It had multiple items posted from Rosenberg’s facebook page. they appear to be legitimate and, as far as i know, no one has called their legitimacy into question. (If anyone has evidence that they are “ginned up”, please post in the comments.)

        the facebook postings are recent and very damaging. they slam Obama viciously, with right wing rhetoric. And he also strongly supported Romney in 2012.

        Rosenberg is running because he wants to get rid fo the Iran deal. but he can’t win on that issue, so his mailings don’t even mention it, and he is trying to pretend he is a progressive Democrat.

        All of Nadlers’ mailings, at least the ones i have received, were, for lack fo a better word, kosher.

        • Cato says:

          Well said, Bruce. My reaction entirely. In fact it was this assessment that motivated me to deal with the hassle of voting this morning in an otherwise-meaningless primary.

      • CB says:

        IH, none of us are used to Nadler having a well-funded primary opponent. Who is running on a single issue. Nadler HAS to respond! Of course one’s reaction to fliers is “WTF” but they went out for good reason.

        Take a listen online to the Brian Lehrer show from 6/27 and you’ll learn what a lightweight Rosenberg is.

        Also, Rosenberg has been endorsed by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Observer (owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law). That should tell you something about who is opposing Nadler.

        Please do vote!!

    3. Hadassah Tannor says:

      Jackie Mason should be careful with his foul mouth. Even the Israelis are softening toward the deal.

      • Asherah LeVant says:

        That’s such BS. The Israelis are DEFINITELY NOT softening towards this deal. What planet do you live on?

        • dannyboy says:

          Judging from the handles you two have chosen, I imagine this debate could go on for some time.

          Go ahead, prove me wrong.

    4. robert says:

      Its not the BOE’s The state legislature sets the dates. They actually would like to be all on one day, as it used to be.

      • Rodger Lodger says:

        You make a lot of sense. The Legislature, which would like all primaries to be held the same day, has set different days. Now I get it.

    5. Janet Wasserman says:

      Jackie Mason’s robocalls on behalf of Oliver Rosenberg are absurd, untrue, ridiculous, and a sad commentary on a comic who at 85 still needs to be onstage. Jackie, have a nosh and then take a nap. Nobody is going to bomb Israel with “Hydrogen bombs.”

      • Bruce Bernstein says:

        they are a sad commentary on the Rosenberg campaign, which is putting them out there.

    6. ST says:

      Nadler has done a lot for the district and I’ve always found his office to be extremely responsive. What does a thirty-year old know? Especially about Washington politics. It’s arrogant to run so soon after converting to be a democrat. Work for democratic causes for a while first and prove yourself. This challenger would be a disaster.

      Also the board of elections needs to get its act together. The way it has handled these primaries is anti-democratic.

      • anon says:

        wow. Ageist much? What does a 30 year old know? I’ll assume that’s a rhetorical question posed from someone who associates knowledge with simple longevity. My husband and I are under 40 and make it a point to not vote for anyone who has been in office more than 12-16 years…longer than that and they’re more corrupt than effective.

    7. Asherah LeVant says:

      Nadler is a party “yes-man” who doesn’t give a hoot about the constituents he is supposed to represent. Time for Nadler to go. Oliver Rosenberg is a breath of fresh air.

      • CB says:

        Oliver Rosenberg is without substance and without ideas. Jerry Nadler is one of the most senior members of the House Judiciary Committee. And you may not think he represents you well, but every time in the past two decades that I’ve reached out to his office, I’ve gotten a swift and helpful response. The 10th District would lost a great deal if we lose his presence in the House.

        VOTE NADLER.

    8. dannyboy says:

      No discussion of issues (other than identity politics and weapons of mass destruction)?

    9. Jiminy says:

      Please note that the mailing I received did not call Mr. Rosenberg those names. It read as follows: “‘Shameful, dishonest, dirty, deplorable.’ That’s what leading New York Democrats and LGBT advocates are calling Oliver Rosenbergs low-road negative attacks against our Congressman Jerry Nadler. But given Rosenberg’s Republican history and values, his smears and attacks are, sadly, not at all surprising.”

      So the words were directed at Rosenbergs campaign tactics, IE HIS ATTACKS ON NADLER, yet you malign Nadler’s campaign incorrectly stating that these words were directed at Rosenberg the man. What Gives??? Don’t you read what arrives in the mail? Just the headlines?

    10. JPK says:

      This primary race is about one thing. Nadler supported the Iran arms deal. He stood with our President.
      Jewish voters are unhappy with this and have fielded their own, conservative–and inexperienced candidate.
      Meanwhile, Nadler, who has done a lot for the district, has been maligned. My favorite thing that Nadler has done is that early on he fought the air tourism that has disrupted our neighborhoods and parks.

      • UWS-er says:

        Just to be clear, “Jewish voters” are not unhappy with the Iran deal. Some are unhappy, but many think it was the right thing to do.

      • Bruce Bernstein says:

        JPK said:

        “Jewish voters are unhappy with this and have fielded their own, conservative–and inexperienced candidate.”

        let’s be careful with language. It should say “some conservative Jewish voters”… Nadler will carry the majority of jewsih voters in the distict.

        and many, perhaps most, Jewish people support the Iran nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

        • dannyboy says:

          how’s about guns, Responders, mass transit, Choice, rights…? Only one issue?????????

          • dannyboy says:

            My Comment is in Reply to JPK. I still haven’t mastered the Comments conventions here.

    11. Wijmlet says:

      Pro Nadler

    12. Eddie says:

      Rosenberg seems to be a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) and a one issue candidate. Though there are a lot of Jews on the UWS and many of them might tend to agree with him on that one issue, I also think that many of them are smart enough to realize that no matter how important the issue is, you are not going to agree with any candidate on every issue so voting for someone solely on one issue doesn’t make a lot of sense. I am just hoping that enough people actually show up to vote – I voted this morning and it was a ghost town.

    13. Chopper War Zone says:

      I support Nadler because he took action on a federal level on the air tourism flights that have disrupted our neighborhoods and parks. He tried to get the FAA involved and also addressed Mayor DiBlasio on it. To me this shows dedication to our community.

    14. Cs says:

      Our extended, multi generation family completely supports Jerry Nadler
      🙂

    15. Elizabeth Kellner says:

      The NYC Board of Elections has nothing to do with the fact that we have three primaries. They would love to have to run fewer elections. The dates of the primaries are up to the State Legislature. Sarcasm only works if you have your facts straight. Setting the date of the Presidential primary is a strategic decision with national implications. The federal primary, today, is set by federal law — can’t be held much later than late June so that overseas military can receive their ballots, return them, the November ballots printed and sent out all in time for the November election. The only thing the Legislature controls is the state primary September) which they have refused to move to June to coincide with the federal primary. The NYC Board of Elections is not involved.

      • West Sider says:

        To whom are you responding? The article says very clearly that it’s up to the state.
        WSR

    16. Independent says:

      Non-Zionist Jew here. I’ve got 99 problems with Jerrold Nadler but Iran ain’t one of them. If anything, I find Nadler’s position on Iran more reasonable than the hysteria and bellicosity represented by his opponent, Oliver Rosenberg. I resent Zionists and warmongers who have the chutzpah to speak in the name of world Jewry.

      The characterization of Rosenberg as “conservative” is laughable. I find neither him nor any of the other candidates named to be much, if any, better than Nadler. Of course, the Upper West Side being a Democrat-controlled, bastion of Cultural Marxism and ethnomasochism, I am relegated to watching local races from the sidelines (if even that).

      On Rosenberg’s web site, he proclaims that he is, “Not beholden to any special groups.” This, right after declaring his commitment to at least one immensely powerful lobby that wields influence that is completely disproportionate to the small minority of the population that it actually represents (who, in a grotesque irony, are actually the greatest victims of said lobby’s pernicious agenda.) (Nadler is certainly no less beholden to this same lobby.)

      As for Sharpton, his rich history— one that includes incitement to murder, tortious libel and brazen tax evasion– speaks for itself. But, hey, at least he never received a standing ovation after speaking at a major political party’s convention, has never been welcomed with honor to both the White House as well as Gracie Mansion and was never given his own show on a major cable network.

      (And for those who recognized the pop-culture reference I paraphrased early in this post, at least we live in a country where degrading women, vilifying cops and expressing violent hatred of whites is never rewarded with fame and fortune…)

      • dannyboy says:

        You lost me at your repeated links to John Derbyshire.

        What is it that YOU think?

        • Independent says:

          In response to dannyboy:

          1.) Only one, out of the many links I included in my post, was to a piece by Derbyshire.

          2.) I absolutely did state my own thoughts and opinions (on yesterday’s primary race and related topics). I used links only to support, elucidate and elaborate/expand-upon my own statements.

          3.) My first link was to an Op-Ed by an Orthodox rabbi condemning the very type of attacks on supporters of the President’s Iran agreement such as the one against Nadler that this WSR story leads with. A little later, I included a link to a video in which the same rabbi argues that Netanyahu and other Zionist leaders who speak in the name of world Jewry have no right or legitimacy to do so. This is the first time that I recall posting links to content of this nature.

          4.) Since my post was admittedly on the longer side and covered a lot, I will summarize my view on yesterday’s primary race, etc.: (In addition to agreeing with the Op-Ed I cited above)

          Even if legally I could have voted yesterday (i.e., if I were registered as a Democrat), my differences with all of the candidates who were in the race are great enough that I probably could not, on grounds of principle and conscience, voted for any of them. Nonetheless, when it comes to the matter of Nadler’s support for the Iran deal, at least, I reject the attacks on him from Rosenberg and perhaps even find them offensive. In this specific area at least, Nadler’s position seems more reasonable to me than Rosenberg’s.
          ——————

          I would like to express my appreciation to WSR for approving this (my post of yesterday, above) and so many of my other posts that have expressed and linked-to views that many would clearly prefer to see denied the opportunity of expression. Whatever else I can say about WSR, I have to give them considerable credit for being far more tolerant of dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy of acceptable opinion and far more committed to the principle and spirit of free expression than many others.

          • dannyboy says:

            I wrote: “You lost me at your repeated links to John Derbyshire.”

            Independent replied: “1.) Only one, out of the many links I included in my post, was to a piece by Derbyshire.”

            But Independent, you lost me with your whole slew of links to John Derby: 15 links in the last year.

            And for your conclusion: “Even if legally I could have voted yesterday (i.e., if I were registered as a Democrat), my differences with all of the candidates who were in the race are great enough that I probably could not, on grounds of principle and conscience, voted for any of them.”

            So NOT VOTING is your grand idea?