Democracy In Albany

21st CD Wrap Up

By DIA, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:03:41 PM EST

A comprehensive overview of the last week or so of the race in the 21.

Update [2008-8-25 4:45:12 by DIA]: And a review of last night's debates by the "professionals" that does not even compare to the work of SoundPolitic and Albany Layman. I don't think there is any doubt that if you want to be an informed voter, traditional media isn't going to help you. Pretty much all they are good for is running your ads, which they will be happy to do.

< Convention Centers | Addressing the Vacant Building Issues >

Login

Make a new account

21st CD Wrap Up | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)

Absolutely Right, DIA (none / 0) (#1)
by Dan Van Riper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:51:19 AM EST

Once again, I am utterly appalled by the misinformation about this race perpetuated by the corporate media. For example, The Wife had a conversation with a college professor yesterday who said to her, "Now, Phil Steck is Jerry Jenning's candidate, right?"

Albany Layman is a fantastic reporter. I sure hope he never goes to work for the corporate media. I'd like to see him get paid for what he does, but I don't want to see him compromised. Where is this corrupt society can he take his talents?

I'm flattered (none / 0) (#2)
by albany layman on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:20:07 AM EST

but I don't consider the stuff I've done here at DIA to be reporting. All I have done is compile information that is on the internets. I think that's useful - otherwise I wouldn't do it - but I don't call that reporting.

But SoundPolitic definitely deserves kudos for his work. He has met with or spoken with the candidates, gone to numerous campaign events, and provides in depth, regular coverage over at TAP. His dedication and time and effort are commendable.

soundpolitic (none / 0) (#3)
by firefoxfan on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST

While he does do some good coverage-and I stress the word coverage-do not be fooled, for he provides little insight except for the fact that he is the equivalent of Steck's minister of internet/blog propaganda. How many times must we hear the talking point from Soundpolitic and the other Steck-hacks over at TAP about how Steck is the-if you can believe this-"progressive grassroots candidate?"
Honestly? He is a machine politician plain and simple and here is why: being progressive isn't just about what one's stands are on the issues, but its more about HOW one tries to achieve one's goals. Does one threaten or intimidate or does one foster bottom-up debate and deliberation? Vote for whoever you want, but don't be fooled by Steck, as he has his committee in Colonie terrified of him, and though he is soft-spoken, lispy perhaps, he is a wolf in sheep's skin, or in political speak, a tyrant.

[ Parent ]

What??!!! Steck? a tyrant? (none / 0) (#4)
by ProgressiveDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:14:41 PM EST

How on earth can a chairman of a committee with no patronage or power have people terrified of him? He has no ability to negatively affect any of their lives. Since he has spent his career protecting peoples' right to free speech, he wouldn't if he could.

Nobody who worked for Colonie before last year would be a Dem committee member and there are very few positions that changed over with the new administration. The only people who are terrified of Steck are Tonko and Brooks.

Go back to stealing signs. The Tonko polls must show his weakness or you wouldn't oversell yourself like this.

[ Parent ]

21st CD race (none / 0) (#5)
by HarryS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:51:07 AM EST

Progressives, grass roots, ladies in pearls, nice guys with different names, it's all academic. Once Paul Tonko entered the race the prize for the other candidates became second place. Paul has a long record on the issues that matter to Democratic voters, has great name recognition and tremendous people skills. He will get between 52-56% of the primary vote, on September 10 check back here and see how my numbers stacked up.

[ Parent ]

progressive dem (none / 0) (#7)
by firefoxfan on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST

You are one of those steck-hacks I was referring to. Your posts over at TAP are transparent as well. The only horse I have in this race is honesty, and to be honest, Steck isn't a progressive.
PS--This is how you know the outcome--Steck primarily has his signs on right of ways--at least in the Western part of the district and the city of Albany--whereas Brooks and Tonko have actual LAWN signs--Brooks in Albany, Tonko everywhere. Steck will remain in the backwater province of Colonie NY for at least another two years. No going to Rome for Speck.

[ Parent ]

You're simply a liar (none / 0) (#9)
by ProgressiveDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:35:16 AM EST

and you say your only horse is honesty. You claimed that Phil somehow has the Colonie committee terrified of him. That's easily and obviously disproven. You're completely discredited.

When you're disproven, you drop to calling me transparent. I hope I am. I support Steck and have never pretended to do otherwise. You're rants are identicle to the rants of the Tonkobots so spare us that you're only concern is honesty.

As for the lawn signs, you obviously haven't been on the roads. But then again, you're a liar, so you probably have. Brooks has maybe 1 privately placed sign for every 10 of Tonko and Steck. She has maybe 1 for every 20 of Tonko and Steck on public property.

[ Parent ]

: OK progressivedem (none / 0) (#12)
by firefoxfan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:19:51 AM EST

You haven't disproven anything I've said; you have only contested it. Your word against mine.
Maybe if you left Colonie (which Steck won't be doing), you would see that I am right about lawn signs. You can plaster right of ways all you want, but that doesn't translate into votes--signs on private property do. Brooks has them in Albany, and Tonko has them everywhere in the district. Its pretty obvious. I can't speak to Steck in Colonie (where he should do well) other than on the main arteries, and I don't see his signs on private property, but on the right of ways
Steck's Colonie vote will be cancelled out by Brooks' Albany vote, and Tonko will obliterate them in the Western part of the district and will do well enough in Colonie and Albany to cut into Steck/Brooks totals in those places. I know that people like you who live on the internet like to think that blogs are THE indicator of electoral performance, but you would be wrong about that in this race.
When you factor in that Shahinfar has positioned himself further to the left than Steck (faux progressive), it means that Shahinfar will be eating away at Steck's totals more so than Brooks' or Tonko's. Again I repeat, no going to Rome for Speck.
Over/Under on Steck: 16% of the primary vote.
Talk to me in three weeks.

[ Parent ]

You asked for it Mr. Fox.... (none / 0) (#11)
by Soundpolitic on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:12:57 AM EST

If you were truly a reader of my coverage, you might have decided against this comment. Because I'm not afriad to get back to people and defend my positions, with great succes I might add.

Your insinuation that I'm Steck's "minister of propoganda" almost made me fall off my seat. You're not the first person to claim that my passion for progressive politics and the blogosphere leads me to cover the race. Sure, I add in my support of my candidate, who certainly is progressive and grassroots. My interview with him will be up my the end of the week, but for a little preview: his campaign showed me the documentation that he has hit over 20,000 individuals at the door. Twenty-freaking-thousand. No matter who you support, reasonable people should be able to look at that and give credit where credit is due. And for the record, I asked him the same tough questions I asked of Tracey Brooks, Darius Shahinfar, and Paul Tonko.

Also, nobody, nobody tells me what to think or what to write. I told Phil to his face that is he fucks up, I'm voting for someone else, and nothing has ever been coordinated with any campaign as part of my blog. I need my eight hours of sleep a night, and I wouldn't be able to get it if I was that kind of person.

YOU, on the other hand, make the same charge that Tracey Brooks' communications director made to me. Verrrrrrrry interesting. Kyle Kotary tried to bully me after I published my blog about the sign stealing fiasco (which, by the way, both candidates and those of us who prefer to focus on the issue have put behind us). What did he tell me? That I lost all my credibility with the campaigns and that I will no longer recieve press releases to report on each week in full (how nice of a volunteer from another campaign to do that every week, btw).

Well guess what? At the last debate, I talked to Paul, I talked to Darius. I talked to their campaign staff. My credibility is in tact and they are glad that I am, and I quote, "performing a service" to the voters. And while I don't have video, I guarantee you that I made the candidate who I've gone door-to-door for and with squirm at my interview.

Take that, you combustible canine compadre!

[ Parent ]

: Soundpolitic (none / 0) (#13)
by firefoxfan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:33:50 AM EST

I've read your posts and although you cover things quite thoroughly, there is no doubt that you give Steck too much push. Just because you place the disclaimer (neatly tucked away at the end where it is less likely to be seen I might add) that you are a "Steck for Congress Volunteer," doesn't somehow make your salivating for Steck any less transparent.
To be fair, you did conduct fine interviews with the other candidates. No problems there. The problems arise when you add a bit too much zest to your presentation of information about Steck and his campaign. I could dig up some of it from TAP, but anyone who reads it knows what I am talking about. That is what I am critical of.
NOW, I find it interesting that Steck has begun to go negative in the last few weeks of the election. Did his advisers read Rove's playbook? No matter, as I told progressivedem, Steck won't be going anywhere, regardless of what the "netroots" say about it. He can enjoy his Loudonville home with his fellow local patricians, and give it a shot in 2010.
Over/Under on Steck's percentage of the primary vote: 16%.

[ Parent ]

Excuse Me, Folks (none / 0) (#6)
by Dan Van Riper on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:57:38 AM EST

I feel like an utter ditz. I actually meant Soundpolitic in my comment above, not Albany Layman. I must have had a serious brain fart yesterday morning.

Not that I don't enjoy reading you, Albany Layman. But like you said, you simply rearrange already available information, which is fine, but not extraordinary. Soundpolitic goes out and gathers info and makes some solid reporting. Great stuff.

My apologies.

Policy discussions (none / 0) (#8)
by albany layman on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST

are not that popular, apparently.

My preferred candidate rocks. Your preferred candidate sucks. Copy & paste as needed.

DIA & Layman (none / 0) (#10)
by Soundpolitic on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:58:09 AM EST

Many thanks for recognizing and linking to my coverage. Just knowing that voters are informed and the first truly open primary in the district in 50 years is being fully documented in the newest media is payment enough for me.

I'm currently at work on a full transcript of the Final Forum, and I'm actually torn inside right now because I could be doing what I enjoy even more: hitting the streets, knocking on doors, and talking to voters in active support of my candidates (Phil Steck for Congress and David Weiss for State Senate, by the way).

And I'm always flattered when I'm the topic of conversation - a weakness, perhaps, but like they say: negative press is good press :-)

Stay tuned...we have 13 days until history is made!

Response to comment #13 (none / 0) (#14)
by Soundpolitic on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:57:46 AM EST

Firefoxfan, you've got it all wrong.

You know who encouraged me to place a disclaimer in that exact spot? Mr. Andrew C. White, who discloses that he is Chair of the Committee to elect Darius Shahinfar. Geez, where the heck do you want it, at the end of every paragraph?

The reason it's there is for people to take it into account. That should negate the impact of any "zest" you complain of. You don't like it? YOU take the initiative and start covering the race instead of just trolling about trying to make a candidate look bad without every mentioning any specific policies. Nah, blame it on the blogger. Who are you taking a page from...Joe Sullivan?

Anybody in this district could have done what I do at any time. But I'm the one who took the initiative. I didn't do it to try and get anyone elected. I did it because I wanted a level playing field where all the facts are made plain. And I believe that Phil Steck can win in that environment; the environment provided his campaign by the mainstream media all but shut him out until recently. And I say so in my posts. What's the big deal? It's just one man's opinion.

And enough with the "Rove's playbok" silliness. Negative campaigning is in they eye of the beholder. Are you talking about the absolutely stupid thought that his campaign pushed the sign-stealing story? The media came to him with that one! And it's the only reason they showed up at his press conference on urban renewal last week. If it's the ad you're talking about, just get over it. You can sound all high and mighty about being above negative campaigning. The fact is, it works whether you're a Republican versus a Democrat in a general election or a Democrat versus other Democrats in a primary. It differentiates the candidates and it works. In something this contested, it was to be expected.

Salivating for Steck indeed. Y'know, firefox, you're pretty funny.

: soundpolitic (none / 0) (#15)
by firefoxfan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST

OK so now that you have acknowledged the negative campaigning, we can move past it.
The fact of the matter is that you are NOT reporting so much as writing EDITORIALS. Andrew White does so as well but from what I have seen, does not throw in negative jabs at the other candidates and writes in such a way as to make it obvious that he is pro-Shahinfar all the way.
You are a little more covert in that you throw in those negative nuggets about the other candidates, especially Brooks and Tonko.
You are virtual proof that with the advent of the internet and modern forms of mass communication, it has become more difficult to ensure fair journalism, or at least transparent journalism. What we have in the likes of you is a genuinely concerned citizen who decided that a particular candidate was the best person for the job, and took to supporting them wholeheartedly. So you pose as an honest-broker of information (despite the disclaimer), and subtly criticize everyone but Steck. Sounds like a Bush-supporter tactic, pure Rove. You are Steck's third party that attacks the others but acts like you are relatively unbiased and unnattached to your candidate. Again, pure Rove.
You see Soundpolitic, its not just about what you say but also about what you do not say. You haven't done much digging on your candidate, because if you had, then I would call you a fair reporter, and you probably wouldn't support Phil Steck.
The line on the over/under still stands at 16%.

[ Parent ]

here is the deal (none / 0) (#16)
by DIA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:54:25 AM EST

firefoxfan - when you start going to the debates and interviewing the candidates maybe we'll listen to you. Until then, you are making a fool of yourself with your current posts, IMHO.

Soundpolitic makes it clear he is a Steck supporter. As someone able to think for myself I can still learn a great deal from his reporting while keeping this in mind.

Full disclosure: I'm not voting for Tracy Brooks.

Calling bullshit (none / 0) (#17)
by firefoxfan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:27:05 AM EST

is not a foolish thing to do, nor does it make the person doing it a fool.
Other people at TAP have done the same thing to soundpolitic.

[ Parent ]

: well (none / 0) (#18)
by DIA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:17:15 PM EST

this is a foolish thing to say.
"with the advent of the internet and modern forms of mass communication, it has become more difficult to ensure fair journalism, or at least transparent journalism."
The internet has made it more diffcult to ensure fair journalism?

[ Parent ]

firefoxfan (none / 0) (#19)
by albany layman on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:19:02 PM EST

A couple of quick points.

Your description of Soundpolitic's posts is ridiculous. "Pure Rove"? That's a joke, right? "Pure Rove" is sleazily questioning someone's patriotism - has SP done that?

SP is very fair and very thorough. He might make editorial comments, but he does so in the context of providing as much information about ALL of the candidates and campaigns as possible.

You don't like his preferred candidate. Super. Bully for you. Don't go from that position and misrepresent the work he's done, just because you don't like his candidate.

Also - you are talking out of your ass when it comes to the candidate signs. When I drive around, I see each of the candidates' signs. (OK, not Sullivan's.) Hell, I saw one lawn with both a Tonko and a Steck sign on it. Couldn't tell you what the story with that is, but I can tell you that your description of the signs lining up with geographic areas is crap. And I think everyone else in the area would say the same thing.

: disagree completely with all of you (none / 0) (#20)
by firefoxfan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST

And to clarify the internet comment, it is a double-edged sword: Easier to get to the truth, easier to spread nonsense.
I still offer the over/under line at 16% of the primary vote for Steck.

[ Parent ]

21st CD Wrap Up | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)

create account | faq | search

21st CD Wrap Up

Menu

Login

Related Links