: 1156617019

In presidential politics, debates are held on expensive-looking stages, the world media surrounding the candidates with cameras and flashbulbs.

Local politics – though in many senses as important – are far less glamorous. Debates often resemble the one Tuesday night between Assembly candidates Morhsed Alam and Rory Lancman, held in the activities room of a local nursing home. If not for a few local reporters quickly scrawling lines in their notepads, the event would be lost on all but about 50 senior citizens, their canes and walkers scattered in the aisles.

The two candidates are competing for Brian McLaughlin’s 25th District Assembly seat, which he will not run for this fall. The quaintness of the surroundings did not diminish the seriousness of the candidates, who spoke knowledgably and at times passionately about many issues close to home: education, zoning, property rights and racism.

Overall, the candidates agreed on much, such as providing more funding for schools, more medical coverage for seniors and more respect for immigrants. Lancman often made a better case than Alam, however, and provided details for his plans instead of merely good intentions.

Lancman not only formed an intelligent response to every question, but in most cases, he touted his experience dealing with each issue in the community. His pitch to the voters – that his 20-year civic involvement qualified him to be an elected official – seemed validated by the wealth of information he put forward.

Alam appeared much less polished, especially compared to the articulate and almost wonky Lancman. His answers were almost always shorter than Lancman’s, and his English, while very good, sometimes did not seem extensive enough to convey the depth that certain questions required.

On several questions, Alam’s answers just missed the point. On others, he admitted he needed to research the topic further before he could form an opinion.

Lancman and his supporters seemed to take notice of their opponent’s weakness on policy. During a portion of the debate that allowed each candidate to ask a question of the other, Lancman presented Alam with an absurdly esoteric issue: “Do you support the change in the state fiscal year and giving revenue authority over to the state comptroller?” The question, not exactly burning on New Yorkers’ minds, clearly was meant to confuse and embarrass Alam (who mustered a vague response).

But, from many of his responses, it seemed that issues themselves are not at the heart of Alam’s campaign. Instead, he has adopted an anti-establishment agenda, arguing that Lancman embodies the corrupt machine politics that have hurt the democratic process. Voting for me, Alam says, will be a vote to open up the political process and return it to the people.

Under this logic, Alam argues that the litany of endorsements that Lancman has racked up – Spitzer, Koch, Queens Dems, etc. – are a strike against him, showing that he is indebted to the power-grubbing establishment.

While there’s little doubt that Albany and the election process could stand some reform, Lancman was convincing that his candidacy has more to do with public service than backroom deals. If we take him at his word, it would be folly to dismiss a seemingly more qualified and informed candidate because the flawed system happens to favor him.

Moreover, although Alam hopes his election could be unifying force in the community, some audience members perceived his message as divisive, pitting new minorities against longtime residents.

“It’s an emotional appeal that borders on reverse racism,” said Sey Swartz, a member of Community Board 8, on which Lancman serves. “I know he wants to speak for the unrepresented minorities, but his attitude represents many possible dangers.”

Those concerns have been borne out during the course of the race. Ethnic tensions stirred recently when Alam supporters, using campaign resources, held a rally calling Lancman a bigot. Several local newspapers, including the Tribune, criticized Alam for apparently condoning such allegations for political gain.

It seemed for a time that the debate would not touch on the controversial event, but eventually several audience-written questions prompted Lancman to criticize his opponent.

“This isn’t just an attack on me, but it demeans real questions about the issues,’ Lancman said. “Unfortunately, that individual [supposedly Alam] who didn’t see his election going their way had to resort to this type of accusation.”

Alam insisted he never advised anyone to make racist statements about Lancman. In a letter he handed to a reporter at the debate, he said his supporters’ zeal had allowed them to get carried away.

“As a member of this community, I was to follow the rules, and I will do so,” Alam said during the debate.

It may be too late for Alam to undo the several mistakes of his campaign, however. The debate certainly didn’t help, showing that while that he may be intelligent, his opponent holds a much better command of government policy.

In the end, Alam may be grateful the debate was held in such a small venue.