If one allegation, with shaky evidence, is enough to
short-circuit a political career, a new playbook is opened up, one
left-leaning Democrats must take into account when embarking on future
campaigns.... Ross Barkan
“I’m
very proud of that endorsement because of what Scott has done and what
he will do,” said Ms. Weingarten, the former president of the U.F.T. “I
think he’ll be a great mayor. Am I troubled by the allegations? Of course,” she said, adding, “I’m also a unionist who has dealt with false allegations.”... NY Times report , Eliza Shapiro
Most of Stringer’s Supporters Have Fled. Not the Teachers’ Union.
The United Federation of Teachers is boosting Mr. Stringer’s embattled campaign with an advertising blitz.
Also see
Rushing to Judgment on Scott Stringer: The Nation
I don’t know what happened. But here’s what I do know. We cannot flourish
as a society if a single accusation out of the blue upends an election
overnight and ruins a 30-year career in politics. More information may
clarify matters, but as of now, we don’t have it. Love him or hate
him—and I spoke to people who consider Stringer arrogant and bullying,
as well as others who think he’s “sweet,” “clumsy,” and “nebbishy”—he’s
entitled to a more measured assessment, as are the voters of New York
City. It is shocking that so many political figures would abandon him so
quickly. Why did they do that?
The Nation is left-progressive, as are The Intercept and Krystal Ball, and they all have raised questions, as has Ross Barkan, over the rush to judgement.
Also interesting takeaways from the NYT article of support for Stringer, who is unlikely to win, yet the AFT/UFT are not backing away. The fact that Randi seems to be leading this local battle from the national stage and not Mulgrew shows us she is still pulling the strings. He isn't even mentioned in the article.
Shapiro, not exactly teachers' favorite ed reporter made a fair point (finally):
Some parents and mayoral candidates
have accused the union of slowing the pace of school reopenings in New
York over the last year. But with the majority of families still
choosing to learn remotely, there is no evidence of a significant public
backlash against the union.
The fact is when you look at all the other candidates, the UFT doesn't really have an alternative path to Stringer, though Wiley is favored by some in the second tier leadership. Morales, favored by MORE Caucus, is too left for the union. Ironically, I recently heard a left wing NYC tennant organizer trashing her left creds because she spent a decade running an agency of a major landlord. I also often point out that Morales apparently worked in the Joel Klein anti-union administration.
Leading candidates Yang and Adams are now viewed by the UFT as existential threats. Yang is Bloomberg light as evidenced by Bradley Tusk's control of his campaign. And Adams is clearly a Charter industry clone, as evidenced by Jenny Sedlis, my old sparring partner from Success Academy, taking a leave of absense from running the ani-union Students First to form an Adams PAC.
I speculated in my report on The Intercept and Rising exposure of discrepancies in Stringer's accuser's story that Stringer, who ended Eva's political career, is a particular danger to Success and the charter industrial complex and the political hit on him serves them well -- I never put it beyond them in alliance with the Bloomberg crowd.
Mulgrew went off on Yang/Adams at last night's Ex bd as reported by Arthur:
Will be NYT story about how UFT and AFT have opened up support for
Stringer and others. Mayor's race will really get hot and heavy now.
Something we thought was happening seems to have come to fruition.
Agency run by Bradley Tusk, who campaigned against UFT running Yang
campaign, and Students First giving 6 million to Eric Adams. These
groups have worked to get city hall back. They are now major players
with two candidates. Will get ugly. All the colocation fights can be
tied to these agencies. Every time something bad happens, you'll see
them involved when it comes to us.
We know who these people are,
and we thought Adams would work with Students First. Thanks groups who
did vetting, dug into finances, and checked who they supported and
donated to. Will discuss in detail at Town Hall and DA.
Mayor's
race shaping into three person race. Stringer has allegations against
him, but most unions who've endorsed have stuck. Allegations are
allegations. Our group that first endorsed says we should continue.
Never
thought we'd go back to Bloomberg days. Yang isn't billionaire, but is
tied with this group. Adams is tied with Students First. We will get
word out.
This will be their selling point for Stringer, and you know it might energize some UFTers. I'm thinking about putting him first. I also view Garcia in a similar light given her support for the white upper west side parents who want schools open no matter what (she spoke at their rally in Harlem along with Yang - I was at the counter rally. -- Rally
in Harlem as Parents, Educators Stage Counter Rally to Mostly White
Parent Demands to Open Schools and disregard safety issues -)
Ross Barkan has a fascinating must read analysis of the mayoral race with a focus on Stringer:
Scott Stringer, #MeToo, and What's Next for the Left: A major scandal roils the mayoral race. Stringer, unlike Cuomo, had never developed any kind of reputation of
acting inappropriately toward women. There were no stories of boozy
holiday parties or anecdotes of hugs and kisses that lasted far too
long. Stringer was especially not flirtatious. Current and former aides,
many of them female, spoke highly of him. Stringer, at age 40 or
41, may have been a sexual predator. But he may not have been. The
incident with Kim took place 20 years ago. There are no witnesses, as of
now, that have come forward to recall that Kim related this allegation
to them in 2001 or shortly after.
Barkan also points to the dangers of the MeToo movement that leaps immediatley to cancel anyone charged before a vetting process takes place and how the movement can be weaponized to bring down any candidate, especially progressives. After giving details of The Intercept report, Barkan says:
None of this, on its own, proves Kim is lying. But it does raise an
uncomfortable question for the progressive Democrats most concerned
about holding men in politics accountable for their untoward behavior:
how much evidence is really required for an allegation? What allegations
should be strong enough to end a political career? The standard set
from the Stringer incident is that one allegation made by one person, no
matter the time elapsed or the amount of evidence presented, is
sufficient. And perhaps, they would argue, that is how politics should
be conducted from 2021 onwards. Women should be believed. Once they
speak out, that’s enough.
At least, with Cuomo, there are many allegations, and some of the calls for his resignation
have stemmed from a potential cover-up of nursing home deaths and a
scandalous pandemic response. Some of the women stepping forward against
Cuomo accuse him of harassing them as recently as last year. Kim’s
allegation, having taken place 20 years ago, cannot be substantiated in
such a way. It is notable, too, that many long-time Stringer allies were
willing to ditch his mayoral campaign entirely even though no man or
woman has come forward to tell the media that Kim related the incident
to them in 2001. For investigations into claims of harassment and
assault, this is the initial bar of evidence that usually needs to be
cleared.
If one allegation, with shaky evidence, is enough to
short-circuit a political career, a new playbook is opened up, one
left-leaning Democrats must take into account when embarking on future
campaigns. Last year, a popular 31-year-old progressive running for
Congress in Massachusetts, Alex Morse, was accused of engaging in improper sexual conduct
with younger men when he was a college instructor. Morse, who had been
mayor of the town of Holyoke at the time, insisted all relationships he
had were consensual. No one accused him of dating men younger than the
age of consent.
The allegations, the Intercept later reported,
were a farce. The College Democrats at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst had plotted in 2019 about ways to ensnare Morse, a young gay
man, in scandal. They were all supporters of Morse’s establishment
opponent, Richard Neal. The State Democratic Party of Massachusetts even coordinated
with the College Democrats on how these allegations could be planted in
the media. In the end, the scheme worked: Neal, the incumbent
congressman, won re-election comfortably.
What happened to Morse
could easily happen to other ascendant progressives in the future.
Conservative political operatives—or those aligned with the Democratic
establishment—can aim to coordinate or manufacture an allegation,
knowing that left institutions and politicians will rapidly withdraw
their support for the rising candidate. Morse quickly lost the
endorsement of the Sunrise Movement and other progressive organizations,
though the allegations immediately appeared dubious. If Democrats on
the left want to end any semblance of due process—if allegations, on
their own, are the equivalent of a conviction—than it is not hard to
imagine how this will be exploited by nefarious actors.
Stringer
is not Morse and there’s no evidence that other Democrats are
coordinating with Kim to damage Stringer’s campaign. Kim very well might
be telling the truth. The allegation lacks direct evidence, but
Stringer cannot disprove it, either. It will be up to voters,
ultimately, to judge Stringer, because he has rejected calls from his
rivals to drop out. With more than $7 million to spend, he is forging
onward, toward an uncertain finish on June 22nd.
What’s not yet
clear is how Stringer will be evaluated by the hundreds of thousands of
Democrats who will show up to vote. Polling in the next few weeks will
tell us. It’s very possible the allegation doesn’t hurt Stringer’s
position all that much. His supporters, many of whom have been voting
for him since the 1990s and 2000s, aren’t all defecting to front-runners
like Yang and Adams. Maya Wiley and Dianne Morales are hoping to hoover up
disaffected Stringer voters, though we don’t know yet how many of these
people they’ll be able to pull into their own camps. There is growing evidence
in polling data that older Democrats are not so easily moved by sexual
harassment and assault allegations. There’s a reason Cuomo has ignored
calls for his own resignation. Some Democrats, believing Al Franken was
unfairly driven from the Senate, are becoming less willing than
progressive organizations and politicians to throw their own overboard,
especially since Republicans almost never do.
That’s Stringer’s
political calculus. Assuming no new allegations, it may work in at least
maintaining a kind of stasis: a consistent third place in the polls,
with the hope of a last minute surge. Stringer’s most pivotal endorsers
haven’t defected yet. Congressman Jerry Nadler, the king of the Upper
West Side, is still with Stringer, as is the United Federation of Teachers.
Older voters of color are also not likely to judge Stringer especially
harshly, since it was Spitzer, the scandal-scarred former governor, who
dominated Black and Latino neighborhoods as he narrowly lost to Stringer
in that 2013 comptroller’s race. It’s no accident Stringer has been
hitting the church circuit every weekend.
If Stringer remains
viable and manages to come close to capturing the Democratic nomination,
it will be a further indictment of the nonprofit left organizations and
the elected officials aligned with them. For the last decade, these
organizations, like the Working Families Party, have boasted of their
power to move voters, to decide the direction of the left flank of the
Democratic Party. Most of the politicians who deserted Stringer are
closely allied with WFP and their member organizations, and seem to
believe, publicly at least, they are representative of the working class
voters of this city and can mobilize them at pivotal moments.
The NYT article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/nyregion/scott-stringer-teachers-union.html
