I have known Dr. Keith Leaphart for over two years now, and I am hopeful that his Exploratory Committee becomes a full fledged Congressional campaign. Full disclosure: I have no official role, but I have spoken with Dr. Leaphart about my professional interest in helping him with his Exploratory Committee. But regardless of whether I view him as a client, friend, community activist, doctor, or congressional candidate, my admiration for his leadership and commitment to his community remains the same. Dr. Leaphart is man who has proven his intellect and compassion through his education and career choices, and demonstrated a deep committment to his community through years of organizing and mentoring.
In today's Philadelphia Inquirer, there was a story about Dr. Leaphart's exploratory committee and two of his high profile financial supports, Gerry Lenfest and Peter Buttenweiser. To see the article, check out: www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20071123_Big_money_is_bac...
According to Lenfest, "Keith is a man of deep integrity and intelligence. He thinks he can represent his community in an honest, straightforward way, and do something more than is being done by the current congressman."
The articles says, "Both men described their support of Leaphart as being less about dissatisfaction with Brady than 'opening up opportunities for somewhat younger people,' as Buttenwieser put it."
Dr. Leaphart himself confirmed that he is more interested in helping the citizens than trashing the Congressman. "This is not an anti-Bob Brady thing," Leaphart said. "This is about whether we can change the conditions in the congressional district for the better."
In a classic line from an old fashioned political boss who's sense of entitlement invites criticism, Brady reminds voters, "Everybody in the world comes to me for everything you can imagine. The [House] speaker needed a favor or two already." Then, despite the fact that he wasn't asked, Brady granted permission to Dr. Leaphart: "Look, he's allowed to run. It's America."
Brady tough to beat
Beating Bob Brady will prove to be impossible if both Dr Keith and Vern Anastasio go for his seat in the next primary election. Truth be told even if its a one on one contest, Bob Brady is still nearly impossible to defeat. Lets face it, Brady is not the greatest speaker, He isn't the most educated guy out there, he has a poor legislative career...however, he is a man who responds to the needs of the community, is a great politician and overall alot of political folks owe him favors. I don't like the man, I wouldn't even for a second consider supporting him...but beating him....will just not happen.
competition and democracy
The mentality that an entrenched politician should keep his position simply because he is entrenched and "political folks owe him favors" creates the type of indifference and apathy that I think we should be trying hard to defeat.
Check out the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsement of "competition": www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/11782167.html
FYI
I bring this up only because Anthony Rod mentioned it....though I was asked to consider the possibility, I will not run in the Democratic primary for First Congressional District. Any serious challenege demands a million dollar investment. At this point, I simply cannot meet that challenge. Few challengers can.
Vern, who asked
Vern, who asked you?
---
Check out my website!
Leaphart could mount a serious challenge to Bob Brady
I think there are a lot of reasons why Leaphart could mount a serious challenge to Bob Brady. Brady was appointed through a special election and has never really faced a competitive challenger.
First, Leaphart will raise a ton of money. Peter Buttenweiser is a major Democratic fundraiser and his involvement at this early stage means that this will be a well-funded effort. Leaphart will raise a lot of money from outside of Philadelphia, which is why he is perfectly poised to go after Brady.
Second, Brady made some enemies during the mayoral election. Remember what Tom Knox said on election night:
Knox does not seem like a forgiving guy and I would not be surprised to see him and others take this opportunity to go after Brady.
Finally, Brady simply did not do well in his own district during the mayoral race. The party machinery, while extremely effective for down ballot races, could not compete in a high profile, expensive, media driven election. If it becomes a air war, Brady loses.
That said, Brady will be a formidable candidate in many ways. Leaphart will raise a lot of money from outside of Philadelphia, but Brady will raise a ton from within Philadelphia. Brady has a long list of political allies and every favor will be called in to preserve his seat. Leaphart is a first time candidate and Brady is a battle tested pro.
---
Check out my website!
Knox and Brady supposedly made up
but who really knows? I'd like to see Brady out of the philly political arena..period. His biggest strength is his politics, not his congressional ability, itellect, or ability to see the big picture. It will take a lot of $$ to post a serious strength to Congressman Brady. Maybe we should get someone to run with the same last name...make the congressman taste his own medicine!
Party Machinery
Its important to realize that Brady's down ballot pick in the 4th City Council District (Carol Campbell) was defeated by Curtis Jones, Jr. in the last primary. As seasoned as he is, and as well oiled as the Machine may be, the electorate in Philadelphia deserves credit for rewarding the a substantive mayoral candidate in Michael Nutter. It is reassuring to think that Philadelphia voters have demostrated their willingness to reward substance over patronage.
If Leaphart raises enough money to stay competitive and if he is able to turn the race into an issues-oriented campaign where policy positions matter, Brady can definitely be beaten.
Lenfest and Buttenweiser
It is funny how all the so-called "progressives" are lining up behind the big money donors instead of the candidate with the 100% AFL-CIO rating and an ADA rating that is always between 95 and 100%. He is the only dues paying Union member in Congress. It seems to me that once again the elitism and classicism of the so-called "progressive" movement rears its head again. The main reason many people on this site do not like Brady is because he did not go to college and instead became a carpenter..
Pfffft. Lou, besides the
Pfffft. Lou, besides the usual inaccuracies, don't you think your little slanders are a little tired?
First of all, I would venture that the large majority of people reading and writing on this site have no clue how they will vote in an election that far away, because they don't know anything about Leaphart.
Second, of the actual nine 'contributors' to this site, I know of at least five off of the top of my head who either have direct working experience with or for labor, or grew up in a labor home.
Third, you are too smart to honestly believe that the reason Brady is potentially not popular is because he didn't go to college, and everything to do with how the party that he (and you) runs acts.
(Now cue you talking about the 2004 election, and if Ohio only had the Philly Democratic party, etc. etc. etc.)
On Buttenweiser
Get real Lou. Peter Buttensweiser has raised more money than probably anyone else in this state for the Governor and for Bob Casey and for many other state committee endorsed candidates and national figures.
And as Dan points out, many of us do not know Leaphart at all.
So, like, what are you getting at?
And as I have said many times before, I like Bob Brady, and again as Dan says, he is a pretty good vote in Congress.
That's why the fact that some heavyweight funders--at least one of whom has been pretty loyal to the state party-- are teaming up against him is pretty interesting.
Leaving aside your misplaced anger at us, what do you think it is about?
You're trying to gentrify
You're trying to gentrify the discourse of the Democratic party, Ray. Don't you think you should personally take responsibility for and acknowledge your personal impact on other people, especially Lou?
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
Ray asked me to explain what
Ray asked me to explain what I meant above, and since the let-us-pass-over-this-in-silence-by-talking-about-it stuff about gentrification is going hot and heavy, it's worth taking a snarky joke and turning it into a better analogy.
The analogy is that the Philadelphia Democratic Party is a neighborhood in Philadelphia. And that the netroots progressives' entry into the party is a lot like the gentrification of that neighborhood.
About forty or so years ago, the neighborhood became integrated, which scared a lot of people into leaving. But a lot of people, brave and ordinary people, stayed and did their best to make it work. Times weren't very good for a while, and the racial politics were especially ugly. But then things started to look better; the kids grew up and instead of leaving, bought houses not far from their parents. There were still plenty of problems, and feuds, but everybody knew everybody, and the neighborhood stuck together.
Then a new group of people, younger, better-educated, mostly a bunch of white guys, starts showing up. At first, they're just happy to be there -- this part of the city is so great! Then they start looking around and wondering why things are the way they are. They don't understand why everybody double parks (ethics violations), or gets mad when you hook up your bike to the streetlight (your disabled neighbor Carol Campbell can't open her door) or why one neighbor keeps a Doberman chained up in his back yard (John Dougherty). Even the kids who grew up in the neighborhood don't dress or act like the other kids. They're so excited about what the neighborhood can be, and occasionally a little ignorant about its history, that they think of all sorts of new things the neighborhood needs, ways the neighborhood could be better, and even which neighbors live in "problem houses."
Meanwhile, the old neighbors, who fought the really bad guys, the drug dealers (crooked bosses) and the developers who wanted to plow through the neighborhood with an expressway and build condos (Republicans), can't understand why these kids are breaking their balls. Sooner or later, the street is going to get permit parking, there's an argument, and some angry words are exchanged. These college kids don't know their asses from a hole in the ground, and it's time somebody said it. Meanwhile, the new neighbors are frustrated, because they know that they can't just continue to do things the old way. They love this neighborhood. They don't want anybody to leave, they just want to change how things are done, make them better, make them more democratic and diverse... Their feelings get hurt, too.
In other words, this politics is just as personal. We shouldn't be surprised when people on either side take it personally.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
Ray was maybe the wrong
Ray was maybe the wrong entry point for that analogy, though.
I don't want to get tangled up in kinda messy conversation, but I don't want that to get lost.
unclear analogy; ward leaders can change special election pro
Maybe it's because I am a Philly native, but when it comes to politics and community involvement, I don't think of myself as a newcomer. I became a block captain when I was 14. I am 28 now. So the specific application of a gentrification anaol0ogy does not work very well. Maybe a generation gap?
As for the specific issues at hand here, your analogy makes a little bit more sense for one and not the other. If you are suggesting that Lou does not get why folks like me have such an issue with what I think is an unfair special election process when he thinks of himself as an upstanding, well-meaning community leader, you are probably right.
Lou, I apologize for creating any perception that you are not a stand up guy.
However, back to the specific issue, Lou is still wrong about special elections. It's not state law, but party rules that has the power to change what I, and others, think is an unfair process.
(I am still waiting to hear if Lou agrees and if as a ward leader he will make a pledge to try to change the rules from the inside.)
That was the analogy that makes sense. The other application of your analogy, to Lou saying "we" progressives all hate Brady, well that's just off.
The whole point of this post is that Peter Buttenweiser--a huge campaign donor to democratic causes for at least the past 20 years-- is calling himself a progressive and backing a Brady challenger. Lenfast a newer political donor, but a long time community leader with connections to the African American community, is also getting involved.
I am not sure how this fits into your gentrification theme at all.
on the other hand...
...whether Tim meant this or not, there is no need for an analogy to talk about politics and gentrification. Traditionally, local, retail politics were a neighborhood-based protection against bureaucracy that helped local folks get services and access to work.
One of the reasons there has been so much conflict in the Center City/River ward political districts is because older, white working class folks are leaving and being replaced by younger, middle income folks who don't need a political system to help them get jobs. I personally have been very uncomfortable watching and sometimes being a part of this shift. It's easier for me in that I don't live there.
Again though, that is not wholly what is in play with Buttenweiser/Lenfast supporting Leaphart. This seems to be me to be more about race. As a West Philadelphian, I guess I have known my whole life that in order to affect change, you need a base that is multi-racial.
This is actually the funniest thing about Lou's criticism as the "progressives" he is attacking are weakest when it comes to building diverse bases. And as Tim alludes to above, the party is not. The party has really done a very good job of sharing power amongst blacks and white. In general...the party is good that is.
The Congressional seat held by Brady is actaully a sort of Achilles heel when it comes to race in the party. Brady's district is I believe now inhabited by a majority of people of color. I think identify politics are motivating folks to think about supporting an African-American candidate against Brady for that reason.
It's going to be real interesting to see where this goes.
Lou and Ray
Ray, as I've pointed out, and you've acknowledged, special elections are governed by state law. If we want a primary to pick the Democratic candidate, we are going to have to change the law. To be fair to Lou, in your initial post, you seemed to deny that. And Lou pointed out, rightly, that you were wrong.
Lou, Ray has recently acknowledge that state law regulates special elections, but he has pointed out, as I have, that City Committee could change the way the party nominates candidates for special elections. Or it could not nominate a Democratic candidate and leave the primary open to independents. Or it could seek a change in the law.
So, my first suggestions, is that we all try to get along by recognizing that we have made some progress here in understanding how specials work?
And my second is that we address the question the more critical questions: Is it really is a good idea for ward leaders to pick Democratic candidates in special elections or wouldn't it be a good thing for City Committee to find a different way of picking Democratic candidates. (We might point out, that the last time City Committee picked the candidates, two of their three choices lost. And despite overwhelming support from ward leaders, Bill Greenlee ran well behind the other Democratic nominees in the last election.)
And the other issue here is even more central: how do we sustain a party that represents and gets out the vote of working class people while also moving forward a progressive political agenda that actually help those people. Lou Agre has consistently pointed out that the Democratic Party in this city has done a very good job of mobilizing white and black working class folks. Ray has acknowledge that as have I and others Yet our city government, as Ray and I and others often point out, is about twenty years behind other cities in finding innovative ways to help improve working class (and other) neighborhoods. Lou knows this, too.
And all of us are concerned about the city tilting too far towards supporting the interests of the business and development community. Ray, you might not know this, but Lou has done more than anyone I know to insure that all contractors in his ward are union and that development respects neighborhoods. Anyone who has been in the thick of neineighborhood disputes knows that this is not always an easy road to follow since the building trades want to get things built and neighborhoods often want to delay building until a better plan emerges.
(To give you one example from my own experience, I fought against the first three "final" plans of Acme to build a supermarket in Mt. Airy even though the new supermarket would bring union construction jobs but 100 UFCW jobs at the new store. I also worked hard to find a way for Acme to build their new store. And, while it took some time to overcome some initial tensions, UFCW 1776 did endorse me in my race for City Council.)
So why don't we start from the premise that in terms of what we want for the city, we are pretty much all on the same side and move on from there.
No, Marc--you are making it too complicated
Problem: Special Election process is unfair in Philadelphia. It allows a small group of Democrats (69) to pick a candidate to run against a Republican in a city that is majority Dem. (That means that no matter who the Dems pick, they will win.)
Solution: Change party rules governing selection of a candidate.
Changing state law is not really a good idea. The state law is fine. It says, if a vacancy should occur mid-term, it is up to the parties to find a candidate to run in a special election. The problem is not the state (for once). Codifying a process to allow members to select a special election candidate does not make sense in every race--especially in legislative situations where votes are tight, and the absence of a member might upset the balance. The problem, in the context of Philadelphia, is the party process for determining a candidate, not to mention the larger issue of transparency in our ward system which Dan has written about the best before.
The party could very well come up with a process that requires a vote of all party members to decide a special election nominee. Again, this does not require a change in special election law. The only hitch might be that the state will refuse to pay for such a vote. In that case, the party could go to the courts and see if they think that the state is required to pay for any internal party election, special or not. Or they could use a stop-gap, like you have suggested, a simple ballot box like CFP used.
Your argument is overly complicated. State Law also governs the rules for formation of a party, but when the Dems do something dumb, like say not opposing the war in Iraq, we do not file a suit in state court against the party claiming that its action is against the charter it submitted to the state. When the Democratic party does dumb things, we have to use internal channels to change them or else join another party.
When it was proposed to Lou, that he as a ward leader could change the rules, his response was that it was not his job, but the state's. This is the same line we got fed last year by all of the leaders and it was just plain wrong.
I will stop after this comment, cause I am just repeating myself. But Marc, as I already said to you, you and I are not leaders in the party. It's not really our job to figure out how to make this happen so much as get people to agree it should happen.
Neither Lou, nor any other ward leader to my knowledge has ever said that the special election process is unfair or that it needs to be changed. Getting them to admit that simple fact is the whole goal of this conversation.
This is our party's problem--Why should we let the city's ward leaders off the hook?
This sentence
This sentence
didn't come out right. I meant something more like, "even the kids who grew up in this neighborhood, they go to school, and now they talk and dress and act more like these damned new kids!" Which would apply to Ray, Dan, Gaetano, and co, to various degrees.
Anyways, the analogy is totally about perception, not necessarily reality, and Lou's reactions to attacks on Brady, and the reactions to those reactions, which remind me a whole lot of the chain of misunderstandings that make gentrification so problematic.
There's a great scene in Do the Right Thing where this white guy in a Celtics jersey accidentally runs his bike across a local b-boy's (Buggin' Out) shoes -- brand new Air Jordans -- and they argue for a while on the street. Finally Buggin' Out says, "Why don't you move back to Massachusetts?" and the other guy says, "I was BORN in Brooklyn!"
A lot of netroots progressives are from the Philly politics equivalent of Brooklyn, but as far as the party establishment's concerned, it's Bed-Stuy Do or Die.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
yea...
that scene in Do the Right Thing--that guy--he always reminds me of the kids who grow up in Cheltenham and move to Philly and say they from the city (sorry Jennifer).
Like I said, I do not identify as a member of the Philadelphia "netroots." I have been an active leader in my community since I was 14. I know a lot of the people you describe as some distinct group. I think you are drawing battle lines that do not really exist.
I won't speak for Dan or Gaetano, but I don't think you really understand me as well as you think you do or where I come from.
This is all beside the point again, as Lou's reaction to those damn "progressives" in the context of Buttenwesier and Lenfast does not make any sense. They have both been around the city for years, and Buttenwesier is pretty closely connected to a lot of insiders. I don't get how that inspires Lou to think that this is a plot by progressives.
Again, it's not about actual
Again, it's not about actual gentrification (although that often plays a part in it). Nor is it about you -- other than you were the nexus point for these two conversations, which both had to do with feeling insulted for being new or old.
The point is, it's about the collision of 1) a group of people who feel fairly settled and have traditions about the way things are done with 2) another group of people who come in, albeit with a lot of energy and resources, but who want to change a lot of that. All of the rhetoric about younger pols "not waiting their turn" plays into this as well.
You, and other native-born progressives with a political and family background in the city, are vocal in your criticisms of the party organization and several figures within it, and have ruffled more than a few feathers. Lou thought you called him a liar. This stuff -- and a lot of the progressive discourse, especially in the often roughshod talk of the web -- occasionally comes across to the Lou Agres and Mark Cohens of the world like a bike across their new sneaks. It doesn't matter that you (or Buttenweiser, or Lenfast) own the brownstone or grew up here. The point is that rightly or wrongly, they feel disrespected; which is why they react the way they do, including blaming progressives/gentrifiers for everything that's changed, when really the forces are much bigger, and the gentrification/progressive movement is a symptom of something else.
Bear in mind, I think that the ruffling of feathers is a good thing. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
Not to get too deep into
Not to get too deep into this, but, I think in trying to put a joke into a theory, your analogy is getting a little stretched. I mean, yes, group A is not happy about the activities of group b.
But, besides the power dynamic being completely different (OK, a lot of things being completely different), this is a really strange statement to me:
That would imply that all of the fears that people have about gentrification are wrong- because those moving in are just 'ruffling feathers,' which as you say, is a good thing.
I understand from other of your posts that is not really what you mean, but, I really think the analogy should be dropped. Feeling disrespected by 'the kids' or whatever, is a lot different than the complicated dynamics of race, the history of federal urban policy, and everything else that comes together within gentrification.
Of permit parking and curb cuts
Okay. First of all, I would never say that "all of the fears that people have about gentrification are wrong," or that it's wrong for people to feel uncomfortable when someone else comes along and tries to tell them how things should be done. I was surprised at how sympathetic I felt towards Lou and Mark and even people I find much more deeply problematic within the city's political establishment (in all of its various camps and subcamps) once I began thinking about their reactions to progressives being something like the reactions of older neighbors in a gentrifying neighborhood.
That feeling -- plus the feeling that the disagreements between younger progressives and what I'd guess I'd call party progressives fell under Ray's rubric of "when politics is personal," and that there was a disconnect between the rhetoric of moral complexity that was being advanced with respect to gentrification and the near-moral absolutes elsewhere. All of that was the impetus for the original post.
So -- not just to save my analogy but hopefully to make a salient point -- the "ruffling of feathers" thing. "Ruffling feathers" was my attempt not to be too polemical towards Ray and others; "pissing people off" might be a better way to put it. (I hope we all can grant that at one point or another, virtually of us has pissed off several people, on this blog and elsewhere.)
My belief is that what's good politically is not what results in the lowest amount of anxiety and the fewest hurt feelings. And that ultimately, it's better to engage with people we disagree with -- at least, short of the abortion-clinic, gay-bashing, or homicidal kinds of disagreements -- than to disengage. There are two different kinds of problems that I've seen arise in gentrifying neighborhoods. One is when the newer neighbors engage with their neighbors and in the institutions of the neighborhood, but there's some kind of misunderstanding or disagreement, which can progress pretty quickly to mutual dislike and resentment. This is the "permit parking" kind of disagreement. The other is when the newer neighbors completely disengage from the neighborhood. They buy their houses, hole up inside, call the cops whenever the kids outside play football in the street, and wait for the neighborhood to "change." Then one day, you find out that they've bought the lot next door at a tax sale, where the kids like to cut through to get to school, they're paving it over, putting up a fence and cutting the curb for a new driveway.
There's a huge well of progressive-minded people, natives and non-natives, who gave up on Philadelphia politics a long time ago. When things go wrong, they don't talk to their block captain, committeeperson or even their councilman. They call a lawyer. There's also a huge group of people who don't care anything about politics, but want to extract what they can from the city, including its political structure. Even some working-class people who've lived here forever are so fed up with the way the city's run, they'll gladly turn over control of the schools, the parking, the budget to the state just for the hope that something might change.
Our arguments over special elections for city council primary nominees are parking-permit arguments. What I worry about isn't that kind of political "gentrification," but the people who cut the curb.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
I understand- and sure,
I understand- and sure, politics is personal for everyone. I don't think anyone would dispute that the established machine has very personal feelings about the damn kids or progressives or whomever trying to get involved.
Where I think you go awry is that, again, there are a lot different power dynamics and histories and issues that, aside from the fact that people take this whole thing personally, make your analogy inappropriate to me.
I guess we can just agree to disagree.
I never said it was perfect
Analogies never are!
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
I'm with Dan
I will leave this one alone too.
I think your analogy exposes some interesting idea and themes. But it also relies on too many gross generalizations and just does not acknowledge the race/class, and most importantly, the power dynamics involved in a takeover/critique of a political party (which by its very nature is open to any member to control) vs. the gentrification of a neighborhood.
I'm happy to leave it there,
I'm happy to leave it there, especially since I agree with all of that (and with Dan above).
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
A historic moment
Wow! We agree. It kind of reminds me of this historic moment:
Or, even better, this one:
Man, we were so drunk that
Man, we were so drunk that afternoon we met at the cemetery. But not as drunk as Nutter and Street.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
I'm a UNITE-HERE Member
Lou,
I can't help but take this personally. I think my pro-Labor cred is pretty darn solid.
and, umm... heads up... Fattah didn't go to college either and Ray and I were all over him.
My favorite president remains Truman. Know what's significant about him?
anyway, I'm not saying I'm for or against Brady (he has a great name), but this tack sure as heck won't help your cause.
BR
---
The Russellian Incorporated Innovations Corporation
Lefty Homilies
Make the case Dan
Make a case that Brady should not be reelected. His voting record is exemplary and he chairs a powerful committee. There is no valid reason he should not be in Congress.
PS I did not want to say anything but you forced me--The turkey was dry
Why did he just vote to
Why did he just vote to immunize Wall Street from the Predatory Lending debacle? He voted against the stated position of every consumer group in the Country, along with those decided haters of the working poor, Community Legal Services, and their counterparts all over the US.
Anyway, he is my Congressman, so I will be thinking about it a lot over the next year.
Except for a couple bad environmental votes, and the predatory lending vote, he is a very reliable progressive vote. If he loses, and if I vote against him, it will not be because of Brady the Congressman, it will be because of Brady the party chair.
And, Lou, back to your previous post- amidst the turkey joke, I didn't hear an apology.