|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Recent Blog Posts |
Brooklyn's Dilemmaby Azi Paybarah
Rangel: We hate to see, losing a member of the congressional black caucus but the strategy of developing who the candidate is going to be is something the people of Brooklyn resolve. It is very, very very, very important. The Voting Rights Act was enacted to make certain minority people have an opportunity to elect people from their community. Me: Is having more than one black candidate going to make it easier for David Yassky to win and is whittling down the choice of black candidates taking away the choice of black voters? Rangel: Hehe. You don't mean that. Of course the more black candidates you have the easier it is for a non-black candidate to win. And all this stuff about giving voters the most choice, that's ridiculous. We don't have that anywhere in a primary, where you want to bring in more black candidates into a primary for purposes of choice. You know it and I know it. You can throw in a Chinese candidate, a Viet Nam candidate, a Korean candidate. What are you talking about? More black candidates? So the question doesn't make any sense. The more black candidates you have, you split the black vote. Me: Interesting. Rangel: No it's not. It's factual. Me: I'm not arguing it's not factual, but what about the idea of having fewer black candidates. Doesn't it do a disservice to the electorate - Rangel: That's ridiculous. Jesus Christ. I've been doing a disservice for 36 God-damn years. I've been the only candidate. Me: But have you encouraged other black candidates not to run to avoid this kind of situation? Rangel: I damn sure haven't encouraged them to run against me so we would have more choice. Me: But yours isn't an open seat. Rangel: You're going half-cocked. Don't do that. You'll lose your Peabody,Pulitzer Prize trying to get some political thought trying to say the more candidates, the better the choice. That doesn't fly. The more candidates [in a race] shows the inability to reduce the number of candidates. That's all it is. You can't get candidates to drop out. Me: Interesting. Rangel: Factual.
|
Dog Days of Summer Paterson Widens Budget While Demanding Cuts All-Star Game Shaping Up As Baseball's Super Bowl Police Arrest Man After Early Morning Times Building Climb New Yorkers at High Risk of Hospital Infections Parks Dept. Scrambles To Rid Parks of Illegal Activities General Theological Seminary Issues a Plea for Help Obama: McCain 'Abandoned' Immigration Stance 'Paradise' Evacuated as Winds Aggravate Coast Fires Wiesel Testifies Against Man Accused of Hotel Battery Murphy Won't Join McCain Campaign Study: Congress Must Be Consulted on War Pelosi Wants Emergency U.S. Oil Reserve Tapped King of Infinite Space: Louis Begley's Kafka Book Dividing Lines: Bill Bishop's 'The Big Sort' A 'Giselle' With Speed and Style A Man for All Seasons: 'John Stuart Mill, Victorian Firebrand' |
Print
Send
RSS
Here's the dilemma bubbling now in the race for the 11th Congressional District, which has quickly become this site's new obsession.
To prevent blacks from losing the seat (and the power that comes with it), there is a need to force two of the three black candidates out of the race so they don't split the vote.
But is limiting the pool of black candidates, in its own way, a loss of power? Does it do a disservice to voters?
The dean of New York's delegation doesn't think so.
"That's ridiculous. Jesus Christ. I've been doing a disservice for 36 God-damn years" Rangel told 51st State.
"You're going half-cocked. Don't do that. You'll lose your Peabody, Pulitzer Prize trying to get some political thought trying to say the more candidates, the better the choice. That doesn't fly."
Wait a minute. Did Rangel just nominate 51st State for a Peabody and Pulitzer?
The interview is after the jump.
 |