dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors

.

Papal people-mover a public advocate candidate

Badly behaving men aren’t the only candidates for office in New York City, where the position of public advocate is being contested by, among others, some accomplished women, including self-described “university professor, small business owner, and athlete” Cathy Guerriero. In recent days she’s been racking up endorsements (“dozens and dozens of faith-based leaders”) and raising her profile, as with her appearance on a local TV station Monday, where she cited her experience as director of strategic planning for the Archdiocese of New York and director of the 2008 papal visit—“It was my job to get hundreds of thousands of Catholics and a pope in and out of the city in three days”—as qualifications for the position.

You probably haven’t heard of Guerriero if you’re not in New York, and even if you are you might not have, and even if you are, you may not know what the public advocate does. The holder is sometimes dubbed “mayor in waiting” since the post is first in the line of succession, and indeed many compare it, though unfavorably, to the vice presidency. No public advocate has been elected mayor since the position was created in 1993, but the job is nonetheless seen as a stepping-stone. Not just by Guerriero (who in the latest polling is statistically tied for the lead), but by the half-dozen or so people who run for it every election year. Among those: Current public advocate and mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, who hopes to change history and whose chances may have improved with the implosion of a certain competitor’s candidacy and with today’s endorsement by financier and hedge-fund manager George Soros. 

Topics: 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

This image immediately came to mind ... unwarranted, of course:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx47qrH1GRs

The Public Advocate exists primarily because NYC had a radical change in government structure in the early 1990s.  NYC used to have a Board of Estimate which had tremendous power in terms of the NYS budget and issues like land use,  The Board was composed of five Borough Presidents, the Mayor, Comptroller and the President of the NYC Council.  The last three were all elected city-wide, directly by voters.  The Borough Presidents were elected by the respective residents of each of the five boroughs.  Each member had one vote on the Board. The Supreme Court declared the Board of Estimate unconstitutional -- mostly because it was unfair apportionment of voter power -- populous boroughs like Manhattan, had diluted representation in comparision to less populous Staten Island, for example.  The political class could not let go of these positions (fewer jobs for them!) so all the positions survive with new powers.  Borough Presidents still exist -- but have very little power other than a bully pulpit.  Obviously the Mayor exists, arguably with more power.  The Comptroller survives with significant power in investments and approving contracts, etc.  The Council President (not to be confused with Council Speaker, chosen by the elected Council members as the leader) survives with a name change -- Public Advocate -- and very little power, akin to a city-wide borough president.

Cathy Guerriero is certainly an interesting candidate who appears to have come out of nowhere in terms of traditional NYC political ascendancy.  She has never held political office -- but clearly has strong connections to some powerful unions.

By the way, Cathy Guerriero is not the only city-wide candidate with an interesting Catholic angle.

In the 1980s, current Public Advocate and mayoral candidate, Bill deBlasio actually worked for a Catholic-connected Central American solidarity group called Quest For Peace which is a project of the Quixote Center "a multi-issue, grassroots organization founded in the Catholic social justice tradition."

http://quixote.org/programs/quest-for-peace

See here a reference:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732487950457859818267503545...

and here:

http://articles.philly.com/1988-06-16/news/26266312_1_veterans-peace-con...

"Badly behaving men ..."

More precisely, badly behaving Democrats...

Who can doubt if they were all Republicans that observation would have been glossed over?

Mark:

What do you think would be the observation if they were all Republicans?

Helen--

The observation would without a doubt have been "Badly behaving Republicans" ...and it would have been in the headline...and there'd be at least a half a dozen threads rehashing it...and the heroine would most certainly NOT have been another Republican!

Mark:

What make you so sure? - just wondering.

The older I get, the less I am able to predict the behavior of others  and my own behavior, too).

I knew you would say that.

Ah and you're the clever one.

Mark Proska: Stop trolling.

Apologies Grant, it never occurred to me that exchange could be considered trolling.

From what I have observed on blogs, trollers habitualy want to shake people up and be provocative.

Mark, you are not like that at all.

 

Grant. with all due respect.

Thank you, Helen, you are very kind to say that and I feel likewise.

You could basically take this thread and turn it into a pamphlet for explaining how to perform basic, journeyman trolling--the kind of thing you'd have to master before becoming a Webelos in trolling scouts.

Step 1: Post something irrelevant to topic that is transparent in its effort to provoke censure.

Step 2: Wait to be censured.

Step 3: Be censured.

Step 4: "It never occured to me that exchange could be considered trolling!"

It's like when a peg finally slides into the proper slot in your äpplarö table: it was kinda inevitable that it would finally happen, but still very satisfying. If someone comes along and defends you--well, that's just lagniappe.

 

 

it never occurred to me that exchange could be considered trolling - See more at: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/papal-people-mover-public-advocat...

“Step 1: Post something irrelevant to topic that is transparent in its effort to provoke censure.”

 

In other words, most of the time you know it when you see it.
 

In my experience with “professional”  trollers: they just won’t let go of their comments and most of the time they make nasty, judgmental retorts.  Also they tend to repeat the same thoughts and arguments.

 

I tend to think that they are just laughing behind my back that I am so vulnerable to argue with them.

 

Step 1: Post something irrelevant to topic that is transparent in its effort to provoke censure. - See more at: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/papal-people-mover-public-advocat...

“Step 1: Post something irrelevant to topic that is transparent in its effort to provoke censure.”

In other words, most of the time you know it when you see it.

In my experience with “professional”  trollers: they just won’t let go of their comments and most of the time they make negative, judgmental retorts.  Also they tend to repeat the same thoughts and arguments no matter whst the topic.

I tend to think that they are either bursting with pride at their cleverness or just laughing behind my back that I am so vulnerable as to argue with them.

 

I have no idea why my comment was made two times.

So, we have a non-subscriber accusing someone who has been a premium subsriber for--how many years is it now, Grant?--of trolling.

Thanks for the chuckle, Abe.