Upper East Side Assembly Member Dan Quart announced his endorsement for Speaker Christine Quinn in the race for Mayor on Monday. 

“Speaker Quinn is uniquely qualified to be an effective Mayor,” said Quart. “[She] not only has a strong, forward-looking agenda for New York, but she has the record to back it up. As Speaker, Christine knows how to bring all sides together to make the tough choices necessary to move this city forward.”

“There is no greater advocate for his community than Dan Quart,” said Speaker Quinn. “[He] has been a strong partner advocating for better education opportunities for all New York City children and he, like me, is committed to enhancing New York’s citywide transportation infrastructure. I look forward to partnering with him to find innovative solutions to the issues facing the Upper East Side and in bringing good jobs, investments in education, transportation improvements across the neighborhood.”

Dan Quart represents New York’s 73rd Assembly District, which encompasses the Upper East Side, Midtown East, Turtle Bay and Sutton Place. Quart, a lifelong New Yorker, serves on the following committees: Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection, Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Committee on Housing, Committee on Insurance, Committee on Judiciary, Committee on Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports Development and the Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse.

By Alan S. Chartock

If there is a single thing we saw in this year’s election cycle, it is the futility of incredibly long campaigns that last, sometimes, for years. Some may argue the point, saying that you have to “stage” an election and that the millions of dollars and huge numbers of hours that are devoted to the campaigns pay dividends. To counter that idea, consider the possibility that voters are really not all that stupid and sometimes actually know what they want. In this case, they didn’t make up their minds until the very last week of the campaign. They are even able to decide which of the lesser of two evils they are willing to put up with. Andrew Cuomo was a central figure throughout the process. Carl Paladino self-destructed and lost his angry edge when he went too far. Still, despite his gaffes and considering all the tabloid attacks in the New York Post and the Daily News, he did extraordinarily well, proving that homophobia and racism still sell.

Cuomo must have had an awful lot of people thinking about him with reservations. I suspect that part of the reason why Republican Comptroller candidate Harry Wilson and Republican Attorney General hopeful Dan Donovan did so well, closing like crazy at the end of the election cycle, was that people wanted someone looking over Andrew’s shoulder. Nor was Cuomo particularly helpful to either Democratic Attorney General candidate Schneiderman or incumbent Democratic Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. At least one insider suggested to me that Andrew wants in with the millionaires club—Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg and Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman—in order to move on to the presidency.

The races for District Attorney and Comptroller told us a lot about voter attitudes. I sat on a panel of questioners for one of the debates between Dan Donovan, the Republican District Attorney from Staten Island, and Eric Schneiderman, the brilliant lawyer and State Senator. Schneiderman had an expansive view of the DA’s office; he would continue in the tradition of Andrew Cuomo, whom he called the “Sheriff of Wall Street” (that was actually Spitzer’s title). Schneiderman was endorsed by the New York Times, and Donovan by the New York Post. Harry Wilson, the Republican candidate for Comptroller, was endorsed by most of the major editorial boards. With all that going against him, it was extraordinary that Tom DiNapoli, a very nice man, did as well as he did. His opponents tried their best to tie him to the disgraced Alan Hevesi and to Speaker Sheldon Silver who appointed him to a thankless job in a time of lean when all pension funds took a major hit. The degree of momentum Wilson had going for him toward the end was fascinating because almost no one knew who he was.

One didn’t need a crystal ball to see what happened in the State Senate coming. The unhappy and frustrated voters of Long Island and Westchester threw out the Democrats in the last election cycle. The momentum continued in this election. There were enough marginal Senate Democrats to make a difference this contest. It didn’t help the Democrats that their performance has been terrible since they took control two years ago. It was as if they were taking instructions from “Loser Central.” The middle-class voters didn’t trust them and they only have themselves to blame for their problems.

As one friend put it, “They were like kids in a candy store, stealing everything that wasn’t nailed down.” I responded, “More like thugs in a candy store.”

The fact that State Inspector General Joe Fisch came out with a blockbuster report damning the way in which the big Aqueduct gambling contract was awarded didn’t help inspire any appreciation for them. Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos had to have been kneeling by his bed, praying, “Dear God, please let these people keep behaving as badly as they are.”

People took a long time to make up their minds, but in the end, they tried to balance their bets. Unfortunately, my bet is that nobody learns anything from what we’ve just seen.
_
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

The ads, which feature a serious young woman and direct viewers to a website (abortionchangesyou.com), are the work of Michaelene Fredenburg, a Wisconsin-born mother of two who now lives in San Diego. Fredenburg became immersed in the issue as a guest lecturer in college sexuality classes, where she’s spoken about getting an abortion at 18. She says her goal is to shift the discussion from “should you or shouldn’t you” to examining the range of emotions that follow an abortion. The website posts visitors’ thoughts on their own experiences with abortion, and offers local resources.

Michaelene Fredenburg, of the website AbortionChangeYou.com.

We spoke with Fredenburg over the phone to ask about reactions to her ads, and whether the campaign intends to dissuade women from considering abortion.

Q: Are you surprised at the response your ads have gotten?
A: It was unexpected. Because we’ve run ads before, in late 2008, on subways, and there certainly was an ample response, but it was primarily individuals who were visiting the website. But being surprised that people would misunderstand them? No I’m not surprised. Abortion is a very polarizing and politicized issue and for decades now, when we see the word “abortion” we immediately want to put a label on it. Like where are you coming from on this? Trying to communicate with those after abortion, that’s something really different and I think that people right now aren’t quite sure what to do with that.

Q: Why did you guys target New York City?
A: There are similar ads that are running in the Saint Louis area and then in the fall they’ll be running in San Diego. And in time we want to take the outreach into other areas across the United States. New York seemed like an ideal place to start because of the subway system. It’s a way that you can communicate with just about everybody. You have time when you are on the subway. Even when you are with a lot of people, it can sometimes be a little private in your interaction with something, and we thought that setting would be more of an invitation and that’s how we would really like the ads to be understood.

Q: The website purports to be neutral, but it has a lot of focus on the negative parts of abortion. How do you respond to that?
A: The website is open to everyone to come as they are, but it certainly is attracting individuals who are having difficulty with their abortion. And I think that’s understandable. If I’ve gone through a significant life experience but I feel healthy and whole about it, you continue to move on with your life. If I go through a significant life experience and I feel sad or confused or broken over it, I may be seeking support. We wanted to create a place that was safe and focused fully on after the decision. There isn’t anything on the website that talks about pregnancy or beforehand or any sort of political views.

Q: I think it would be fair to think that a person considering abortion would look at the website as well.
A: I acknowledge that possibility. Quite frankly, that’s not the target audience that we are trying to reach.

Q: The Times pointed out that resources slant toward religious organizations. For example, when I put in my zip code I noticed that Planned Parenthood didn’t come up. How were the resources on the website selected?
A: If you noticed when you went to the “Find Help” page, it does acknowledge that different resources work for different people, and we also have suggestions on there about seeking out a therapist or a bereavement support group in your area. And this is for someone who actually feels like they need additional help.

But your observation that there certainly [are] many more religious-oriented after-abortion services is reflective of, that there isn’t, in our opinion, enough of a variety of specific after-abortion services that are available. If someone actually has a service, meaning that there’s an actual program and not a referral service, where you can speak with someone, then they can apply to be listed on the website.

Q: You speak openly about your abortion. Is it a decision you regret?
A: I am public about my experience because I have found that it can be helpful for someone else to relate. But in saying that, I had a much more extreme reaction to my abortion than I typically run across. Sometimes I think when I see stories told, they tend to be one extreme or the other—meaning, “It was really great and empowering,” or in my instance, I fell apart—and I think there can be a danger in that because yes, people fall into both of those areas, but most people fall into some area in between that.

I probably, more than anything, wish that I had not gotten pregnant because I realize that if I had chosen to parent—and it certainly would have been single parenting, my partner was not someone, we were not going to get married—or if I had chosen to relinquish for adoption, those would have had their own difficulties and would have changed my life as well. So I don’t really reside in the “what ifs” anymore because there’s nothing that I can do about it.

Q: Is there anything you will do differently in future campaigns?
A: I would imagine that we will do some things differently, but we’re not sure what it will be yet. Once the ads go down, that volume of communication from New York will also start to dwindle, which will give us time to go back and look over everything and to consider really carefully the criticisms that were raised. Is there something that we can do preemptively to better define the outreach so that it’s not understood as an argumentative phrase, or trying to agendize or make someone feel bad? We’re not sure yet.

Transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

In fact, the Department of Sanitation makes phone calls and sends letters to every campaign office prior to active campaigning informing them that “postering” is illegal. So political candidates and their campaign managers and staff who claim they are not aware that “postering” is unlawful are at best disingenuous, and at worst blatantly dishonest.

Nor is this a case of First Amendment rights: “free speech” (or in this case advertising) does not trump sanitation. Political candidates have many avenues for campaigning and politicking. They can appear in person any place where constituents gather. Their staff can set up tables, distribute literature or sell buttons, or ask potential voters to sign petitions. Candidates can write positions papers and have them published in the press. They can buy ad space in newspapers, on radio and television, and appear on broadcast programs. They can (and do) inundate the public with direct mailings. And, of course, they can use the Internet with websites and email—probably the most cost effective and modern way to reach a wide audience.

Campaign posters tell a voter very little. They seem to be made for name recognition only, but very few people will actually make the decision to vote for someone based simply on seeing a poster. In fact, estimates show that campaign posters account for, at best, one or two percent of votes. Given how heavily some candidates poster, and the costs of printing, using posters does not show much financial savvy on the part of campaign managers. Nor do political candidates and their campaign managers apparently take into account how negatively the litter affects many voters—thus possibly costing these candidates more votes than the posters create.

The most ironic aspect of campaign postering is that most candidates run for public offices where making, modifying and/or enforcing laws is the primary function. Yet these same candidates knowingly and deliberately break the law in order to get elected!

So when you see someone removing a campaign poster—and anyone has the legal right to do so—don’t make the assumption that they work for another candidate. Rather, it’s more likely that one of your neighbors is trying to keep the neighborhood clean—and the candidates honest.

–
Sam Katz and Ian Alterman are the president and vice president, respectively, of the 20th Precinct Community Council.

Jeff Williams is a lawyer living on the West Side. He is vice-president of the Ansonia Independent Democrats.

RAISING MCCAIN IN THE CITY OF BROTHERLY LOVE
By Matthew Hindin
After weeks of campaigning for John McCain and Sarah Palin in Manhattan, a few weekends ago I headed to Philadelphia in a van with a dozen other McCain Manhattan volunteers. The polls and recent history suggested that while New York was Obama territory, Pennsylvania was a key swing state that could go either way and decide the election. We went to the northeast Philadelphia McCain campaign headquarters, and they gave us walkbooks containing maps of the houses we would visit and surveys for the people we would interview.

Matthew Hindin, left, discusses the campaign inside the Mayfair Diner with fellow McCain volunteers.

From the moment I set foot in northeast Philly, I could feel the palpable difference in the political climate. In Manhattan when I wear a McCain T-shirt, I get dirty looks, and when I march with other McCain supporters holding signs, we get boos, jeers, epithets, vitriol, “Obama” chants, middle fingers and worse. The general tone is “how dare you support a Republican in my liberal city.” But as I walked through northeast Philly, in Pennsylvania, a so-called battleground state, the environment was far more peaceful.
I walked around in a McCain/Palin shirt holding a clipboard, and when I crossed paths with a woman in an Obama shirt, also holding a clipboard, we smiled at each other, knowing that we were both foot soldiers on the same battlefield. And when I passed the “civilians,” mere residents of Philadelphia, I received no dirty looks. Later, after a day of knocking on doors and talking to people, I realized that these people, whether they supported McCain or Obama or were still undecided, all accepted the fact that their state was a swing state, and understood that both campaigns would be coming to their city to court their votes.
That Saturday, there were two other people in Philadelphia trying to court voters. At 10:45 a.m., I walked past the Mayfair Diner, and I saw people dismantling a stage. One of the workers was wearing a “Stagehands for Obama” T-shirt, and I wondered whether his boss let him wear that, or forced him to wear that. A few minutes later, I learned that I had just missed Barack Obama himself. He had just given a speech outside the diner, and talked to people inside, too. Later, one of the people I interviewed told me that the Mayfair Diner was a famous stop for politicians, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. Rather than being excited for Obama’s visit, she was concerned about the traffic. Later that night, across town, Sarah Palin dropped the puck at the home opener for the Philadelphia Flyers.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, like Ohio or Florida, was the place to be to influence the outcome of this most important presidential election. If my efforts made even one person more likely to vote for John McCain on Nov. 4, then I was successful. I loved talking to the blue-collar voters, and I loved campaigning for McCain in Philadelphia.

Matthew Hindin is a corporate attorney who lives and works in Midtown Manhattan. He is on the Campaign Committee of the New York Young Republican Club, and he is a captain for McCain Manhattan.