Your logic fails me, & the inconsistency of the article belies the endorsement.
If the qualities for election to & work in Congress include having name recognition, being progressive, being a "fighter," & not being the "status quo," the choice is clear: Rachel Barnhart.
1) You open by implying a "fighter" is needed to balance Trump/GOP.
Rachel Barnhart has two decades of publicly asking the tough questions & calling out lack of transparency/accountability in politics. She is the clear "fighter" of the four. Morelle only plays the game and doesn't challenge power, even when clearly the power is bad.
2) You pick & choose significance of legislative experience.
While a coalition builder for a number of years within the activist community, Wilt has just a little bit of time in elected office. You praise her time there but dismiss Adam McFadden by saying his many years on City Council don't compare to Morelle which means you have inconsistent yardsticks.
3) You claim all four are "progressives?"
While three are consistent in that regard, Morelle has a mixed history when not politically beneficial to him. He voted "no" on NY Health Plan vote, then claimed it was a poorly written bill when he should have helped shape it as the majority leader, all while he gets a ton of money from insurance companies. He offhandedly dismissed a woman's claim of sexual attack & never stepped back when it seemed she was likely right, until it recently was politically helpful to do so under public pressure.
4) Working in the current House is very different from all the candidates' current work with each facing little or no opposing party strength.
Morelle is majority leader in a Dem-controlled legislature, McFadden is in Dem-controlled city council, Wilt is in Dem-controlled town council, & don't have records of tough negotiations for bills. No benefit beyond Rachel Barnhart's history of studying, challenging, and reporting on both parties in many different settings.
5) The work in Congress often is in committees including asking probing questions with opposition party doing same.
Rachel Barnhart clearly has the smarts, skills, experience, and qualities to ask questions that are tough.
6) You don't consider who actually can represent the whole of NY-25.
Rachel Barnhart knows the whole district, both city & suburbs, as she's been to every corner of it for years, covering news, & studying both sides of politics & issues. The other three are in areas that are only slices of the larger district.
7) Morelle's fundraising skills is a major quality? Ugh!
If the seat is important for the Dems/progressives, whoever wins the primary will be able to secure funding from any of many sources, so one candidate's history of gathering lobbyist money won't be the deciding factor.
City Paper, you missed the opportunity to help the community see how Democrats can move forward. With smarts, love of Rochester, knowledge of the whole district, clear fighter qualities, and not being "status quo," the endorsement should have been Rachel Barnhart.
Re: “For Louise Slaughter's seat: Joe Morelle”
Your logic fails me, & the inconsistency of the article belies the endorsement.
If the qualities for election to & work in Congress include having name recognition, being progressive, being a "fighter," & not being the "status quo," the choice is clear: Rachel Barnhart.
1) You open by implying a "fighter" is needed to balance Trump/GOP.
Rachel Barnhart has two decades of publicly asking the tough questions & calling out lack of transparency/accountability in politics. She is the clear "fighter" of the four. Morelle only plays the game and doesn't challenge power, even when clearly the power is bad.
2) You pick & choose significance of legislative experience.
While a coalition builder for a number of years within the activist community, Wilt has just a little bit of time in elected office. You praise her time there but dismiss Adam McFadden by saying his many years on City Council don't compare to Morelle which means you have inconsistent yardsticks.
3) You claim all four are "progressives?"
While three are consistent in that regard, Morelle has a mixed history when not politically beneficial to him. He voted "no" on NY Health Plan vote, then claimed it was a poorly written bill when he should have helped shape it as the majority leader, all while he gets a ton of money from insurance companies. He offhandedly dismissed a woman's claim of sexual attack & never stepped back when it seemed she was likely right, until it recently was politically helpful to do so under public pressure.
4) Working in the current House is very different from all the candidates' current work with each facing little or no opposing party strength.
Morelle is majority leader in a Dem-controlled legislature, McFadden is in Dem-controlled city council, Wilt is in Dem-controlled town council, & don't have records of tough negotiations for bills. No benefit beyond Rachel Barnhart's history of studying, challenging, and reporting on both parties in many different settings.
5) The work in Congress often is in committees including asking probing questions with opposition party doing same.
Rachel Barnhart clearly has the smarts, skills, experience, and qualities to ask questions that are tough.
6) You don't consider who actually can represent the whole of NY-25.
Rachel Barnhart knows the whole district, both city & suburbs, as she's been to every corner of it for years, covering news, & studying both sides of politics & issues. The other three are in areas that are only slices of the larger district.
7) Morelle's fundraising skills is a major quality? Ugh!
If the seat is important for the Dems/progressives, whoever wins the primary will be able to secure funding from any of many sources, so one candidate's history of gathering lobbyist money won't be the deciding factor.
City Paper, you missed the opportunity to help the community see how Democrats can move forward. With smarts, love of Rochester, knowledge of the whole district, clear fighter qualities, and not being "status quo," the endorsement should have been Rachel Barnhart.