....November 5, 12:39 PM
 
 
 
Breaking A Story And Changing An Election

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Follow me on Twitter @QueensTribune

It’s that moment, the annual moment – or twice annual counting the Primary – that this political columnist who pens his column over the weekend — does so before the election is held but it is printed after the results are in.

All I can do to fill those black holes is share some observation, journalism and commentary which are of interest, the election results notwithstanding.

Three election items come to mind, all of which center on news stories about a candidate.

Reporter enterprise, solid research skills, good contacts, hard work and good luck can lead a reporter to break a story that can have serious impact on the outcome of an election.

One can rarely credit a single story or incident with changing the results of an election, but when a news story has such impact where one side is chasing its tail to defend and the other to disseminate, there is satisfaction had by the reporter or news staff which broke it.

Pagan Lord
For this election, the biggie will always be the disclosure by this paper that Republican candidate for City Council in the 19th District – northeast Queens – was a “Pagan Lord.” As absurd as it sounded, Dan Halloran, under the name of Dan O’Halloran, led a Pagan Theod in metro New York. His, the Theod’s and pagan websites were filled with his writings that, to say the least, might be found disturbing by many of the voters. Halloran took down one site, changed others and yelled religious freedom. The news stories and questions continued for the five-week period from when the Trib broke the story through to the election.

While one can never be sure of whether the story itself changed the election’s outcome, statistics and past results would have indicated a very close election. The use by Halloran of false claims that Kevin Kim, his Democratic opponent, was a developer’s attorney in a very anti-developer community and subtle racial overtones in his literature could have pushed the balance towards Halloran. Kim, who like Halloran, ran a hard, adequately-funded election, had the advantage of coming off a well-funded primary where he surprised better-known candidates and organized his base most effectively, thus giving him the initial name recognition lead.

It should have been a close election. Did Halloran’s racially-charged, false developer claims make more of a difference than the “Pagan Lord” story?
By the time you read this, you’ll know the results.

School Board Corruption
With one week remaining to the election, City Hall News dropped a bombshell in the 32nd District Council District of South Queens about Democratic candidate Frank Gulluscio. Its headline about its scandalous discovery 20 years earlier read: “Candidate’s Brief Tenure As School Board President Marred By Corruption” “Frank Gulluscio was dismissed with rest of local board after sweeping probe.”

The Manhattan-based City Hall reported:
“He has touted his credentials as a public school teacher, former Department of Education employee and district manager of a local community board, where he has worked on education issues.

“One job conspicuously off his resume: A brief stint as president of his local school board in 1989 which ended in his dismissal, along with the entire board, by the chancellor after an investigation revealed that Gulluscio had earned his appointment as president in exchange for votes on other matters, including the installation of his campaign manager as an elementary school principal.

“But interviews and a review of records suggest Gulluscio may have been far more involved than is apparent from the reports 20 years ago. Parents and other school board members blame him for failing to stop a culture that traded jobs and school budget dollars for votes.”

While the story broke late in the election game it certainly got some play and was circulated electronically by Republican Ulrich. We assume if budget permitted, he also mailed it.

In what was anticipated to be a very close election against seven-month incumbent Eric Ulrich, corruption as a public servant could likely have proven to be the knock-out punch.
The results are now in.

Failed To Vote
In what should not have been a close race, Democratic candidate Yen Chou, well-funded winner of a five-way Primary in downtown Flushing, was a big favorite in her race against popular businessman and previous candidate also well-funded, Peter Koo.

With a little less than two weeks remaining to the election, this paper broke the story that although registered to vote for at least a decade, Yen Chou had never voted in an election until she herself was a candidate in the recent Primary. Additionally, we reported that this professional educator who placed education as her No. 1 priority, failed to meet minimum attendance requirement to be a member of Community Education Council on which she served.

In and of itself, perhaps not a knock-out punch for the Dem in this overwhelming Dem District. But the Koo campaign skillfully disseminated the information. It would be a heavy lift for the GOP to win this one and perhaps the Asian culture may view non-participation in an election differently, but this is the stuff campaign consultants hope to find.

Memo to candidates, political consultants and eager reporters: work together, the outcome may benefit all.

MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.

 
 
Why The Lethargy In The Mayoral Race?

Henry Stern
By HENRY STERN

This was written as the mayoral race was fast approaching its finish line.

We have not seen a mayoral election which aroused so little excitement since Mayor Robert F. Wagner (Dem-Lib) won a second term in 1957 by defeating the Republican candidate, Robert K. Christenberry, who was postmaster of New York in the Eisenhower administration.

Mayor Wagner, the second mayor in the 20th century to be elected to three terms, (the first was LaGuardia and the third was Koch) was the son of New Deal Senator Robert F. Wagner, author of landmark legislation protecting labor’s right to organize and establishing Social Security.

We ask why there has been relatively little excitement about this election. An article on that subject appears in this week’s Village Voice, written by Tom Robbins. He criticizes his colleagues in the press as well as the mayor and notes it “is an odd blessing for a man who made his fortune as a media mogul.”

Another irony is that, critical as many people are about various things the mayor has said or done over the last eight years, and annoyed as they may be over the term limits extension, they are likely to vote for Bloomberg because this is a race between two men, not between the mayor and an abstract standard of virtue.

The argument that while many politicians are corrupt because they take money, Bloomberg is suspect because he gives money is hard for people to swallow.

Some people believe that it is unfair for one candidate to spend much more than the rivals. The most expensive campaign will founder if people do not believe the candidate’s message, no matter how often they see it on television. Political history abounds with stories of rich men who ran for office and lost. Ross Perot and Tom Golisano are two. For an earlier example, William Randolph Hearst ran for Mayor of the City of New York, in 1905 and 1909, and Governor in 1906. He had a printing press as well as a fat purse, but he did not win. In the classic film loosely based on his life, “Citizen Kane,” two stacks of newspapers have been prepared for distribution as soon as an election result is reached. One says “KANE ELECTED.” The other says “FRAUD AT POLLS!”

Wealth gives a candidate an edge, and allows him to bring his message to the voters, but unless the message resonates, and is supported by credible evidence or persuasive argument, it is unlikely to succeed. Between two candidates of similar reputation and level of recognition, money is an important factor.

Many voters will support or oppose candidates because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, physical attractiveness or sexual preference. Others are concerned with ability and ideology. Most make their choices for a combination of the categories listed above. That’s the way it is.

In most cases, when an incumbent is challenged, people will vote on the basis of whether they believe the incumbent has done a good job, and whether they think that the challenger can do better. When the race is for an open seat, advertising and campaigning is likely to have a greater impact.

One fact not mentioned so far this year is an old belief that African-American candidates do better at the polls than at the voting booths, because people don’t want to appear prejudiced, but have no problem expressing racial preferences in private.

Now that we have a black President, black Governor and a black candidate for Mayor, these matters are looked at differently than they were years ago.

But as some aspects of American life have changed for the better, others have changed for the worse. By measuring children born out of wedlock, prison population, drug addiction, unemployment and underemployment, education and language gaps, the loss of what are viewed as 19th century virtues, and lack of participation in public affairs, we know that social problems remain. We cannot help observing, however, how little elected officials have to do with many of these issues, and how in fact they try to avoid them rather than spending that elusive asset known as “political capital.”

The strength of a democracy is based in part on how much its citizens know.

StarQuest@NYCivic.com

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.