Author Archives: Colby Hamilton

Jerrold Nadler, co-creator of the Permanent Campaign?

Posted by Colby Hamilton

OK, so the short answer is, “no.” And the longer answer is, actually, a young Nadler found himself repulsed by the concept, but might have been present, as he tells it, at the first articulation of the idea during those early, vicious political days in high school government.

And the long answer goes like this:

The idea of the permanent campaign is attributed to Sidney Blumenthal, a journalist and, later, aide to President Clinton, who literally wrote the book on the subject. Or, depending on what you read, pollster phenom Patrick Caddell, who, writing to then-President Jimmy Carter, said “it is my thesis governing with public approval requires a continuing political campaign.”

Basically, the idea is that, in modern politics–especially at the presidential level, but increasingly more common down the political food chain–elected officials never stop campaigning. All governing decisions are seen through the lens of the next election cycle, calculated for maximum affect, regardless of whether the policy is ultimately good for the country (or district, county, township, local pet population, etc.)

In this way, an issue–say, health care reform–is worth pursuing if it will help the side supporting it get re-elected (potential contradiction intended). The same would go for the side opposing it (eh, not so much). What we have, say critics, is basically a whole little governing going on, and a whole lot of posturing and pandering to interests for the sake of future political victory. Both the Clinton and Bush White Houses have been criticized for having permanent campaign agendas, which led to bad policy and ineffective governing.

OK, back to Nadler. The congressman’s political career began in high school, as did the political consulting career of a fellow Stuyvesant High School student, Dick Morris. Morris would go on to become an aide to President Clinton, the architect of political triangulation and, eventually, a Fox News political consultant. But it all began at Stuy High in the mid-1960s, helping Nadler and fellow future politicians, including current New York State Assemblyman Dick Gottfried, create a teenage political machine.

Here I’ll let the congressman tell the story in his own words:

I had a tremendous fight with Morris. This was very telling. The school wide offices were elected in June and January for six-month terms. The class offices were elected in September for a year. The class officers, plus the school officers, were the executive council, which made the decisions and were the legislative body.

In June of my sophomore year, Simon Barsky was elected vice-president and I was elected secretary. Morris ran the campaign and we made certain promises, we were going to do various things. We came back to school in September and obviously we can’t do that [fulfill the campaign promises] until we make sure we have a majority in the executive council, you know, so we can carry our program through. We had to make sure the right people got elected to various class offices, which we did.

Now we have that arranged and it’s the middle of October, now we can get down to doing things. Morris comes up to me and says, “We have to start planning.”

I say, “Planning for what?”

He said, “For the next election. Simon will run for president, you’ll run for vice-president.”

I looked at him and I said, “Dick, we just finished with the election last week. Now we have to govern, now we have to do what we said we would do in January. We’ll worry about it in December for the January election. We’ll run on our record, what we’ve accomplished, etc.”

He looks at me and he says, “No, no, no. You don’t understand. Every decision you make now must be an eye towards the next election. You just can go and do…”

I was scandalized by that. I looked at him and said, “That’s terrible, that’s horrible, no, we have to do things on their merits.”

So there you have it: Dick Morris, as a senior in high school in the mid-1960s–beating Caddell by a decade–developed the idea of the permanent campaign in American politics. Nadler says the incident damaged their relationship, at least until the next election cycle. Obviously things didn’t turn out too bad for either man, though the consequences for the country might not be as positive.

Nadler described Morris as “brilliant — nuts, but brilliant.” It’s obvious we’ve been focusing on the wrong elections. The hot races in 2010 aren’t in congress; they’re in local high schools across America. Welcome to the brave new world of political journalism.

The (not so) many flavors of Terrorism

Posted by Colby Hamilton

After the failed car bombing in Time Square last weekend, Congressman Nadler went on the Fox business channel to discuss the incident. Time Square, as well as the World Trade Center site, fall within the congressman’s district.

While talking about the need for New York to receive more funding to combat terrorism, he was asked if he had heard who might have been behind the attempt. At that point, the connection between Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of the failed attack, and Pakistani militants had yet to be established.

“Whether the guy who did this–or the people who did this–where with some Islamic terrorist group, or they were some right-wing nut group, or whether they were by themselves, in one sense it doesn’t matter because they’re all dangerous,” Nadler responded.

Yes, it could have seemingly been any of the above. The debate over terrorism in American seems too often to begin and end with selective memory. While the attacks on the World Trade centers were done by people that today are Terrorists when we talk about Terrorism, the idea that a Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing, or a Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris Columbine-style plot–both of which are acts of terrorism–could be as likely as a Muslim committed to jihad doesn’t square with some people.

“As politicians like these fantasize about nonexistent Terrorist Tea Parties, the real thing slips through, blends in and plots mass murder,” wrote the Investor’s Business Daily editorial board, referring specifically to Nadler. While the threat of Islamic Terrorism is undoubtedly real–and no one, certainly not Nadler, is saying it isn’t–so, too, as the above examples directly show, is a form of domestic terrorism that appears to be conveniently forgotten.

Were it not the case, would former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, among others, be advocating stripping people of their rights and citizenship for being Terrorists?

“I would not have given him Miranda warnings after a couple of hours of questioning,” Giuliani told Jake Tapper on ABC’s “This Week” today, speaking about Shahzad. “I would have declared him an enemy combatant. I would have asked the president to declare him an enemy combatant.” This, it seems, is what you do to Terrorists At War With America. They are enemy combatants; they are certainly not to be treated as criminals.

Which is to say, they must be Islamic radicals bent on killing Americans. This is what Terrorism is. Imagine Giuliani’s suggestion applied to a McVeigh model: a United States military veteran, white, conservative, disaffected and dissatisfied with government and willing to do something about it. No Miranda rights for people like this? Declaring American citizens “enemy combatants”? Who among the Tea Party movement would Giuliani target first?

Maybe if, like Faisal Shahzad, you have the name and the face and the background to be a Terrorist. But if you’re a McVeigh or a disturbed adolescent like Klebold or Harris, the idea of extrajudicial imprisonment and the stripping of rights isn’t part of the conversation, even as we see a rise in right-wing militancy and Columbine-style plots are thwarted.

The idea that we should be putting strong security systems in place, treating terrorism as a crime, using the judicial and law enforcement systems to deal with these threats–all things Nadler has advocated for–should be a non-partisan issue. Yet this is what counts as substantive debate about how to protect Americans against terrorism. And Nadler gets called out of touch.

They came, they saw, they hearted: Nadler's other constituency

Posted by Colby Hamilton

Tourism is big in New York City. When it goes down, city officials and businesses notice with lament. When it goes up, workers in Time Square, likewise, notice with lament. Tourists bring their dollars (euros, yen, rupees) to our city. In return we provide them with the story, sights, sounds and smells of the greatest city in America.

If there were to be, say, a member of congress who was an unofficial representative for all those who come to enjoy the attractions and amusements, few could claim the title like Jerrold Nadler. His district is basically New York City’s version of Epcot Center.

The Natural History Museum!

The Empire State Building!

Lincoln Center!

The World Trade Center site!

The Brooklyn Bridge!

Coney Island!!!

It’s almost as if, in carving up the 8th congressional district, the single largest constituency of concern was the Tourists. The Tourists, as those of us living in New York know, are a sensitive, curious class of people. Clutching their folding maps and wearing  unironic “I Heart NY” shirts–their socks and shorts up a bit too high, their regional accents and skyline fixated glances a little too revealing–they are easy to spot. Were we natives to live up to the outside world’s narrative of us as wild beasts in a wild jungle, these Tourists would be easy prey.

Yet they come; they visit, they spend, they leave actually hearting New York. Part of this can be attributed to their patron saint of vacationing, a representative who works to keep the points of interest places worth coming to. Whether it’s helping the city fund and improve Coney Island, or working with other elected officials to bring a space shuttle to the Intrepid, Congressman Nadler takes care of his Tourist constituents.

But do the Tourists, upon returning home, remember?

If we look at what passes for political discourse around the country these days, the answer is a resounding, “Ya betcha heck no.”

Gay rights, ACORN, health care reform, socialism–whether directly or not, the issues of the day seem to put a glowing red dot on Nadler’s forehead where right-wing culture assassins take aim. Often (thought not always) the missives denouncing the issues Nadler supports or is associated with come from afar.

While they’re enjoying the view of western Manhattan from the Top of the Rock, the Tourists are really looking down on the front lines of the political and social culture war.

But that’s not what the Tourists see. They see the things that make New York City an amazing place to visit. They see the cultural capital of America. They see the history of success and failure, from Wall Street to the Lower East Side tenements, that have helped make this country the amazing place it is..

And its great that that’s what they see. But do they see that all that history, all that striving and pushing and pulling, has produced the Jerrold Nadler’s of the world? Perhaps woven into all that makes New York City such an amazing place to visit are the reasons Nadler takes the position he does on so many divisive issues. Perhaps a solemn visit to Ground Zero or a hot dog from Nathan’s on the boardwalk are just as valuable to America and her Tourists as securing equal marriage laws for gays and repealing the Patriot Act.

Seeing this and remembering it when they got home would show that the Tourists really do heart New York–and their unofficial congressman.

Here, there…anywhere?

Posted by Colby Hamilton

“By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure. Over the course of nearly seven years, there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist act at Guantanamo. There has been just one conviction for material support for terrorism. Meanwhile, this legal black hole has substantially set back America’s ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values.”

— Barack Obama on June 18, 2008

Oh to try or not to try.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of helping to plan the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, returned to the headlines this week. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that New York City was “not off the table” as a potential sight of the trial.

This is the latest round in a bare-knuckles political brawl. It’s put city and state lawmakers, the lower Manhattan community and political commentators opposed to civilian trials for terror suspects against the Obama administration–and, in particular, Holder’s justice department–and those who support civilian trials for those detained as part of the “war on terror.”

Congressman Nadler tries to straddle this line. Weeks ago he sent, along with local congresswoman Nydia Velázquez and a number of other local elected officials, sent a letter to Holder. In it the New York-area politicians stated their support for civilian trials but questioned the wisdom of holding the trials — given the public outcry — in lower Manhattan.

However, in this recent round, nary a word from Nadler. Not like New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer. The contrast is telling. Schumer has said he also supports civilian trials–a reversal of his position stated shortly after the terror attacks in 2001.

Yet Nadler’s silence recently is surprising. He’s been out front on issues the Obama administration has been loath to embrace, such as prosecuting Bush officials, the dismantling of the Patriot Act and even gay marriage. Yet this issue–one that straddles the former administrations more combustible policies in the war on terror and the current one’s attempt to forge some sort of new course–has Nadler only taking a stance when in the company of others.

Even someone as staunchly liberal as Nadler might have a hard time pushing against the mayor of New York, his own constituents downtown and his state’s senator even if he did believe the trials should be held here. But given his nature, it’s hard to believe he wouldn’t like to see KSM get his day in court in New York City.

Health care victory, health care defeat

Posted by Colby Hamilton

graf_map_REVAt 10am on Friday, April 9, the emergency room at St. Vincent’s Hospital stopped taking patients as the institution prepared to shut its doors and file bankruptcy. The battle to save St. Vincent’s has been one of the highest profile issues in Congressman Nadler’s district.

“After a tremendous effort by all stakeholders to save the hospital as an acute care facility, it has become clear that this option is not viable due to the economic realities facing the hospital,” Nadler said in a press release after hospital officials announced their decision.

St. Vincent’s closing leaves the west side of lower Manhattan empty of emergency room and inpatient care. The closest comparable care facility–Bellevue Hospital–is two miles away. Local activists, elected officials and the hospital itself have kept the financially troubled, privately-run hospital on life support for months, hoping to find a permanent solution to keep the 50,000-ER-patients-a-year facility from closing.

The blow to Nadler’s district–however anticipated–comes just weeks after the triumphant passage of health care reform in Washington. Nadler has been in-district defending the bill, according to the West Side Spirit. Unlike much of what cable news reports, Nadler’s constituents were putting the congressman on the defensive for not going far enough with the legislation.

Still, the fact now remains, despite the congressman’s support, his district is now down a major medical facility. He has promised to work to have an adequate medical facility in the West Village. St. Vincent’s is one of a number of hospitals in the city that have shut their doors over the past decade. Even if health care reform delivers for New Yorkers, residents of the West Side will now have a harder time finding it.

Nadler drives. He shoots. He scores!

Posted by Colby Hamilton

[Update below]

Congressional Democrats are riding the high-tide of legislative victory after passing health care reform this past week. For Congressman Nadler, it was a week of press releases and speeches from the floor of Congress.

There were two big Nadler moments around health care. The first, announced prior to the vote, was an announcement that the New York congressional delegation was able to provide the state $2.1 billion in Medicare savings. In the original Senate version of the bill, New York State would have been paying even more to cover the needy.

“Instead of costing New York State $779 million and punishing us for taking a more progressive stance in the Medicaid system, as was directed by the Senate-passed health insurance bill, the Delegation has successfully added provisions to instead save the State $1.3 billion in costs,” Nadler said in a press release. “Providing a net gain of $2.1 billion is a critical improvement to the legislation and will mean a great deal for balancing our State’s budget.”

The savings will be greatly appreciated as Albany legislators are trying to plug a nearly $10 billion budget hole.

Moment 2: as we’ve seen across the country, the rhetoric against the passage of health care reform has become toxic.

Case in point: Carl Paladino, an upstate Republican who will likely run for governor, compared health care reform to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “The day that that bill was passed will be remembered just as 9/11 was remembered in history,” he said.

Nadler, who represents lower Manhattan and did in 2001, didn’t take kindly to the statements.

“Every decent person should be disgusted by Carl Paladino’s comparison of the recently enacted health care reform bill with the attacks of 9/11,” Nadler said. “As the Member of Congress who represent the World Trade Center site and many of the people who were killed or permanently injured on that day, I believe that there is no place in public life for this kind of vile exploitation of their sacrifice.”

Take that, Paladino.

UPDATE: Apparently Paladino didn’t appreciate being admonished by Nadler reported New York magazine. “”I am not impressed that you kissed enough asses to chair a committee of politicians in the Congress,” Paladino told Nadler.

A Busy Week for a Congressional Progressive

Posted by Colby Hamilton
Nadler speaking at the Center for American Progress on March 10
Nadler speaking at the Center for American Progress on March 10

Congressman Nadler had a busy past week, packed full of victories and defeats for the progressive representative.

First, the victories. A U.S. District Court judge in New York this week filed a permanent injuction against legislation called the Defund ACORN Act, which passed both chambers in September of last year. At the time, Nadler and others criticized the bill, saying it violated the Constitution’s protection against “bills of attainder“.

Judge Nina Gershon of the Easter District of New York agreed. Conservative bloggers and commentators are crying foul, accusing Judge Gershon, a Clinton appointee, of (wait for it…) “judicial activism.”

Congessman Nadler, who chairs he House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, applauded the decision, saying in a press release released March 12:

As I said on the House floor in September, when the bill of attainder was introduced, Congress must not be in the business of punishing organizations or people without due process.  The Republican amendment was flatly unconstitutional, and we ignore the Constitution at our own peril.  Constitutional principles are there to protect all of our liberties and cannot be compromised – certainly not for political witch hunts.

As has been noted elsewhere, some saw the broad language used in the Defund ACORN Act as an attempt to get around being a bill of attainder, while inadvertently lumping in all groups or companies who have broken the law as being ineligible to do business with the U.S. government. Given the potential ramifications of this, it remains to be seen who will come to the act’s rescue.

Now for the defeats. A bill calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan was defeated in the House, 356-65. Nadler was at least in good company, as 75 percent of the New York City delegation voted in favor of withdrawal, with the notable exceptions of Congessmen Engel, Weiner, McMahon and Meeks, who all voted “no”.

And lastly Congressman Nadler continued his push for gay rights, this time in the area of housing discrimination. Nadler has been at the forefront of LGBT legislative issues. This week he and Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, who chairs the House Juiciary Committee Nadler sits on, introduced a bill that would amend the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to “prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity”, according to Nadler. He continued:

Outright discrimination, steering, a refusal to build accessible housing as required by law, and discriminatory lending practices continue to plague renters and prospective homeowners.  And, shamefully, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are perfectly legal in many areas, and people are regularly denied a place to live simply because of that status.

All in a week’s work for one of congress’s most progressive members.

Nadler Finds Funds For Fulton

Posted by Colby Hamilton

Congressman Nadler announced on March 5th that he has secured $156 million in stimulus funding to help complete the new Fulton Street Transit Center in Lower Manhattan. The new hub is located just blocks from the World Trade Center site but has faced a number of setbacks since its groundbreaking in 2004. From the press release:

“The Fulton Street Transit Center represents a significant new boost to New York City’s subway system, and an important economic development initiative for Lower Manhattan,” said Nadler.  “This major project will generate good construction and transit jobs, better connect Downtown’s subway grid, and provide much-need investment in a neighborhood that is still rebuilding since 9/11.”

The facilities are set to open in 2014. The MTA has already used millions of dollars in stimulus funding to help pay for the project.

While the additional $156 million will be welcomed by the state agency, the funding priorities in this situation raise a number of concerns.

The MTA is telling New Yorkers it faces a budget gap of nearly $800 million. To make up the difference, the agency is planning on cutting back service on subways and buses, completely eliminating some routes. New York City school children are also being told at this point that the MTA will stop subsidizing their daily commute.

A spokesperson with Nadler’s office did indicate the congressman was working with the MTA to see how the Federal government could help keep the service cuts from happening.  Still, for New Yorkers furious with the state agency over the proposed cuts, putting stimulus funds into a project already way over budget, while kids are being told they’ll have to pay to get to school, could be a situation Congressman Nadler and the MTA find hard to justify to the public.

Nadler Keeps Bush-Era Fights Alive

Posted by Colby Hamilton

Some in Washington might see the Bush years shrinking to a dot on the political horizon behind them. This week, however, Congressman Nadler helped magnify two specific issues that remain from that time period.

The first was the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. A particular bugbear for many liberals (and some libertarians), a number of provisions of the act were set to expire. The House and Senate approved, and President Obama signed into law, an extension. Nadler was one of 97 House members who voted against the renewal.

From his speech on the House floor during debate:

[W]e are punting to the next Congress, which for all practical purposes means that we are extending the PATRIOT Act unchanged for the indefinite future. I believe that our Nation and our liberties will suffer as a result of this.

The second issue involved two former Bush Administration lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee. Considered authors of memos authorizing torture methods such as water boarding, both were recently found to have engaged in professional misconduct, but the official report was overturned by top Department of Justice officials.

In a defiant move, Nadler has sent the details of the report to the state bar associations Yoo and Bybee are registered under. Last year, Nadler was part of a push to impeach Bybee, who is now a federal judge, over the memos. His hope, however unlikely, is that Yoo and Bybee will be disbarred.

While so much of the activity these days is focused on the big current issues such as health care or jobs, it’s interesting, if not surprising, to see Nadler continue to focus on correcting (or attacking, depending on your feelings) some of the more controversial practices from the Bush years. His position as chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provides him the perfect opportunity to focus on these issues.

His track record on other liberal and progressive agenda items, such as repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, indicates he has the political backing and security to pursue this agenda without electoral consequences, despite Congress’s trajectory. It’s jobs and health care now, even as Nadler fights like it’s 2005.

So Far, Nadler Stands Alone

Posted by Colby Hamilton

Republican’s across the country are hoping public frustration over Washington and displeasure with President Obama will result in major electoral gains in Congress. So far, in most of New York City (but not all) and specifically in the 8th Congressional District, the national backlash has yet to manifest itself in the form of a candidate to challenge long-time incumbent Jerry Nadler.

With one exception.

The Federal Elections Commission lists one Steven Ari-Z Leiner as Nadler’s sole competition. A quick search finds an article in the Jewish Press from late last year about the young Jewish man who has filed papers to run for congress.

Leiner is a nationally recognized highly successful life insurance businessman. He started while in college at Columbia University where he received a B.A. in political science – to pay for his tuition – and has continued ever since. His awards include admission to the Million Dollar Round Table and the President’s Cabinet.

The FEC lists Leiner as an independent candidate. From the article, written by a former “foreign-policy analyst for Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Committee,” it’s hard to tell where Leiner’s political affiliations are; he lists Mayor Bloomberg, Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman as role models.

While he says he’s interested in running, Leiner indicated in an email today that he would, in fact, not be looking to represent the 8th Congressional District. Instead, he said, he is “exploring several other possible Congressional districts to run in.”

So much for Nadler’s only challenger.

Republicans in Brooklyn, at least, have provided no indications that they’re planning on contesting in the 8th District. In an email last week, a local Brooklyn Republican leader indicated that there had been no discussions that he knew of regarding running against Nadler.

The nine-term congressman won his last election, in 2008, by an 80-20 ratio. While he remains popular with much of constituents, given the political turmoil in McMahon’s neighboring district and the long-time support of Republicans like New York State Senator Marty Golden, it could be politically beneficial to field a strong candidate.