HORT ATTACKS NADLER ON CHILD PORN The Republican running against Rep. Jerry Nadler would have us believe that the incumbent Democrat votes to protect child pornographers rather than children. Peter Hort, a Manhattanite (as is Nadler) in a 40-percent-Brooklyn district that includes Borough Park and Coney Island, likes to inform voters that Nadler voted against the PROTECT Act, which banned virtual child pornography. Virtual child pornography does not involve children. Instead, it uses computer simulations of children. "If there are no children involved, you're not exploiting any children," said Nadler. Thus, a previous law banning virtual child porn was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Nadler had voted against the earlier bill, despite the political implications. "The Supreme Court ultimately said I was right," Nadler said. "I take an oath to protect the Constitution. There may be someone who says 'Forget the oath, I'm not going to [cast] a vote that can be parodied in a 30-second ad.' …[But] I'm not going to vote for something that's unconstitutional, that's a violation of freedom of speech."

Congress nonetheless made minor changes to the bill and reintroduced it, calling it the PROTECT Act. Judging it to be as unconstitutional as its predecessor, Nadler voted against it. Predictably, he was slammed by the Hort campaign. "Congressman Nadler must realize that his defense of virtual child pornography helps to feed sick addictions, that even if the images have been doctored, the idea of child porn remains. The appearance in this case is as bad as the reality," e-mailed Hort spokesman Matthew Holt.

Nadler replied, "Whether you're feeding people's addictions or not, the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. A rule that's unconstitutional is illegal and therefore can't be enforced by the courts and therefore doesn't protect anybody from anything."

Hort's spokesman also wrote, "Virtual child porn is close enough to obscenity and illegality for the great majority of people and the near total majority of members of Congress, as we have seen in the votes. This shows once again Congressman Nadler is way outside the mainstream."

Responded Nadler, "He's essentially saying I should have violated my oath."

We asked Hort if he'd vote for a bill he thought was unconstitutional. "If it was a good bill," Hort said. Hort is critical of Nadler for a host of other votes as well:

On March 12, 2002, Nadler voted against HR-2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act, which passed the House 382-34.

On June 25, 2002, Nadler voted against HR-4623, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act, which passed 413-8, and against HR-4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, which passed 409-3.

And on June 26, 2002, Nadler voted against HR-4477, the Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act, which passed 418-8.

Nadler's problem, Hort said, is that he's too safe in his predominantly Democratic district and thus can vote as he wants, not necessarily how his constituents would vote. "Because of political gerrymandering, our leaders don't have to worry about our votes," Hort said. "When they stop worrying about our vote, they stop worrying about how their votes will affect us."

Of course, Nadler's votes had no effect on anything, not only because the bills were passed overwhelmingly but in some cases because they later died or were tossed out by the Supreme Court (which includes seven justices appointed by Republicans and only two by Democrats). Nadler notes that as the ranking Democrat on the Constitution Subcommittee, "I have to be more pure than others in defending the Constitution."

He defended each of his aforementioned votes, noting that the bills had major flaws and that their good provisions (like Amber alert, which helps recover abducted children) were in other bills that he voted for, including HR-5422. "The Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act was so poorly drafted [that it] subjected virtually all sex crimes to life sentences or lifetime supervision. If two teenagers were engaged in sexual touching as minors, 17 and 15 years old, they could be subject to lifetime supervision," Nadler said.

"For that matter, adults who committed consensual sexual crimes like sodomy" (before sodomy was legalized by the Supreme Court) would have been subject to lifetime supervision, he added.

Hort, said Nadler, "didn't bother reading the bill or didn't do his homework. You have to read the fine print." Looking at the fine print of HR-4477, on sex tourism, Nadler concluded that it would criminalize two teenagers from Washington, D.C. who drove to Virginia to kiss. Even if they just talked about going to Virginia to touch each other they would be breaking the law, Nadler said.

Said the Democrat, "These weren't drafted as serious laws. They were drafted for political purposes. That's why they were drafted so stupidly. 'C'mon darling, let's go to my apartment' shouldn't be criminalized. It's my job as congressman to look at the details and make intelligent decisions, and not vote based on the names of the bills."

BLEAK FUTURE FOR NEW YORK This is our last column before the election, which means we can't put off any longer reading through the file we've been compiling on Assembly candidate Larry Littlefield, which is now 39 single-spaced pages. Actually, it's not the length that's foreboding as much as the content-detailed analyses of the train wreck that is Albany. The whole thing (not including spreadsheets and data, which Littlefield e-mails on request) is at www.ipny.org/Littlefield, which has links to such essays as "Unforgivable Policies of the State of New York."

Here's an excerpt that exemplifies Littlefield's outlook: "The next few years will be dominated by a search for fiscal victims and scapegoats. Will the state use New York City's schoolchildren as a victim and the poor as a scapegoat as in the early to mid 1990s? Will the future be sacrificed even more? I hope not-I plan to be here, and I'd rather bite the bullet now than bite the dust later. But the operative political philosophy in Albany is not liberalism or conservatism, it is feudalism: those who have the deals get to keep them in bad times and get more in good times, regardless of the cost to others."

Finally, a disclaimer: Littlefield is running on the Independence Party line against Democrat Jim Brennan. Thus, Littlefield cannot win. We bring you coverage of his campaign strictly as a public service. And now, back to your regularly scheduled column.

THE MUTE CANDIDATE A common lament of Republican candidates in Brooklyn is the lack of media coverage of their campaigns. But you won't hear Republican Ricardo Ocasio complaining. When the Associated Press called about his run for Assembly against the recently convicted Roger Green, Ocasio declined to comment.

Don't believe it? Here's what the AP wrote: "Despite the scandal, Green faced no primary opponent last month in a district that's nearly 80 percent Democratic. There's little evidence of a campaign by his Republican opponent, Ricardo Ocasio. Ocasio declined to comment about his candidacy."

Declined to comment on his candidacy? We wondered how that conversation might have gone.

AP reporter: "Hi, is this Ricardo Ocasio?" Ocasio: "Yes."

AP reporter: "I'm writing a story for the Associated Press about your opponent in the Assembly race, Roger Green. Do you have a minute?" Ocasio: "No comment."

AP reporter: "You don't have anything to say about Roger Green?" Ocasio: "No comment."

AP reporter: "OK, let's back up. Tell me about your candidacy." Ocasio: "No comment." [Click.]

Well, it didn't really go like that. Actually, Ocasio kept saying he was in a noisy room and couldn't hear the reporter. Ocasio promised to call back but never did.

The AP was kind to write that "there's little evidence of a campaign" by Ocasio. In fact, there's no evidence of a campaign. It can't be pleasing to the Republican worker ants who bothered to collect signatures to put Ocasio on the ballot that when the media came knocking, Ocasio didn't answer.

The AP, incidentally, had more luck with Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne, who prosecuted Green. "If the voters of Brooklyn want Roger Green to represent them in the Assembly, then they can have him," Clyne told the news agency. "It's up to the voters to decide whether they want to be represented by a convicted thief." Green maintains that he made an innocent mistake in requesting and accepting reimbursement for travel expenses he didn't incur.

NICE TO BE GREEN Write-in candidate Susan Metz, who's running for Assembly against Roger Green, throws quarters around as if they were manhole covers, and now we know why: her campaign has raised just $2,450. And with a month left before the November 2 election, she hadn't spent one red cent of it. Her campaign office (in donated space) doesn't even have a phone line. Green's Republican opponent, Ric Ocasio, has done no fundraising at all, and apparently no campaigning either. Given the lack of serious opposition, Green has coasted. Since July he's received exactly one contribution and spent just $4,200, mostly to throw a block party and pay his cell phone bill.

NO CHOICE FOR COLTON OPPONENT Glenn Bell, a Republican attorney running against Assemblyman Bill Colton, e-mailed us that he didn't get the Republican ballot line this year "because the local 'Republican leaders,' Jessica (Greenwald) Sutliff and Jim Sutliff, did not assist my effort, and furthermore, were the challengers to my petitions. They decided that it was better to have no Republican candidate than to have one that supported Senator Marty Golden."

So Bell is only on the Conservative line, which for the most part seems a good match. The Gravesend resident's campaign literature contains all the usual conservative positions, such as support for "tougher criminal laws," "traditional family values," and "lower taxes." But conspicuous by its absence is any mention of abortion. Opposition to a woman's right to choose is a pillar of the Conservative Party platform, and Bell told us he is indeed "pro-life."

We could understand a candidate in a competitive race omitting the issue of choice if he opposes it, given that the majority of Americans would disagree with him. But a candidate in a hopeless race might as well run on principle rather than from it. Also, there was one pledge in Bell's lit that caught our attention: "He will work to raise the income limit for the alternative minimum tax."

The AMT threshold is set by the federal government. Bell is running for the New York State Assembly. Bell's pamphlet also says, "Glenn Bell believes in standing by the traditional values that make our country great…He will fight to keep the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman." But this is the definition of marriage in nearly every country. How exactly does "traditional marriage" make our country great any more than it makes North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Myanmar great?

TIDBITS State Senate candidate Diane Savino said she would not seek an endorsement from Cole Ettman, one of the candidates she defeated in the Democratic primary, because she considers him the most dishonest person she's ever met in politics. Savino blames Ettman for a bizarre stunt pulled on the day of the primary by Ettman's brother, who jumped in front of Savino's car to stop her from reaching her next campaign stop. Ettman's brother then lay down on the road in front of her car, daring her to run him over. Savino said she strongly considered doing so. She was joking. At least, we think so…

Insiders will be watching to see whether Roger Green cozies back up to Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver following the November 2 election. Silver forced Green to resign in June but helped his bid to return to office by not releasing the ethics report on Green's travel voucher scandal. "Roger began his career in 1980 championing reform," said Hakeem Jeffries, who lost elections to Green in 2000 and 2002. "Let's just hope he ends his career that way."

Rep. Vito Fossella and other Staten Island politicians continue to try to pull up the drawbridge, attempting to stop new residents from adding to the suburban sprawl that the old ones so enjoy. Their latest effort is to prevent some nuns from selling a Pleasant Plains tract to developers who would build 100 houses. Staten Islanders have figured out that sprawl only works on a limited scale, and if followed to its logical conclusion-"build-out"-it results in a traffic nightmare…

Past and future City Council candidate Sam Taitt invited Board of Elections commissioner Weyman Carey to be a guest on his cable television show in early September to discuss changes to voter registration cards. We e-mailed Taitt, "Carey's appearance on your show wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you're supporting his campaign for district leader, would it?" Taitt replied, "Are you of the view that discussion of the changes to the registration cards is not important?" Carey narrowly won…

When we last asked State Senator Carl Andrews if he'd relinquish his seat to run for the one being given up by Rep. Major Owens in 2006, he declined to speculate. "There's no vacancy yet," he said. But if Andrews did quit, who would be his choice replace him? "The seat of the 20th Senatorial District belongs to the people and the people should decide my successor," he said. He's sounding more like a candidate every day.

Contact Brooklyn Politics at (718) 399-3693.

Borough Politics Archive

2004
October 25 column.
October 18 column.
October 11 column.
October 4 column.
September 27 column.
September 20 column.
September 13 column.
September 6 column.
August 30 column.
August 23 column.
August 16 column.
August 9 column.
August 2 column.
July 26 column.
July 19 column.
July 12 column.
July 5 column.
June 28 column.
June 21 column.
June 14 column.
June 7 column.
May 31 column.
May 24 column.
May 17 column.
May 10 column.
May 3 column.
April 26 column.
April 19 column.
April 12 column.
April 5 column.
March 29 column.
March 22 column.
March 15 column.
March 8 column.
March 1 column.
February 23 column.
February 16 column.
February 9 column.
February 2 column.
January 26 column.
January 19 column.
January 12 column.
January 5 column.

2003
December 29 column.
December 22 column.
December 15 column.
December 8 column.
December 1 column.
November 24 column.
November 17 column.
November 10 column.
November 3 column.
October 27 column.
October 20 column.
October 13 column.
October 6 column.
September 29 column.
September 22 column.
September 15 column.
September 8 column.
September 1 column.
August 25 column.
August 18 column.
August 18 column.
August 11 column.
August 4 column.
July 21 column.
July 14 column.
July 7 column.
June 30 column.
June 23 column.
June 16 column.
June 9 column.
June 2 column.
May 26 column.
May 19 column.
May 12 column.
May 5 column.
April 28 column.
April 21 column.
April 14 column.
April 7 column.
March 31 column.
March 24 column.
March 10 column.
March 3 column.
February 24 column.
February 17 column.
February 10 column.
February 3 column.
January 27 column.
January 20 column.
January 13 column.
January 6 column.

2002
December 30 column.
December 23 column.
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
Novemer 25 column.
Novemer 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.
October 28 column.
October 21 column.
October 14 column.
October 7 column.
September 30 column.
September 23 column.
September 16 column.
September 9 column.
September 2 column.
August 26 column.
August 19 column.
August 12 column.
August 5 column.
July 29 column.
July 22 column.
July 8 column.
July 1 column.
June 17 column.
June 10 column.
June 3 column.
May 27 column.
May 20 column.
May 13 column.
May 6 column.
April 29 column.
April 22 column.
April 15 column.
April 8 column.
April 1 column.
March 25 column.
March 18 column.
March 11 column.
March 4 column.
February 25 column.
February 18 column.
February 11 column.
February 4 column.
January 28 column.
January 21 column.
January 7 column.

2001
December 10 column.
December 3 column.
November 19 column.
November 12 column.
November 5 column.
October 22 column.
October 1 column.
September 6 column.
September 4 column.
August 30 column.
July 23 column.
July 2 column.
June 25 column.
June 11 column.
May 28 column.
May 21 column.
May 14 column.
May 7 column.
April 30 column.
April 23 column.
April 9 column.
April 2 column.
March 26 column.
March 19 column.
March 12 column.
March 5 column.
February 26 column.
February 19 column.
February 12 column.
February 5 column.
January 29 column.
January 22 column.
January 15 column.
January 8 column.
January 1 column.

2000
December 25 column.
December 18 column.
December 11 column.
December 4 column.
November 27 column.
November 20 column.
November 13 column.
November 6 column.
October 30 column.
October 23 column.
October 16 column.
October 9 column.
October 2 column.
September 25 column.
September 18 column.
September 11 column.
September 4 column.
August 28 column.
August 21 column.
August 7 column.
July 31 column.
July 24 column.
July 17 column.
July 10 column.
June 26 column.
June 19 column.
June 12 column.
May 15 column.
May 8 column.
April 24 column.
April 10 column.
March 13 column.
March 7 column.
February 21 column.
February 14 column.
February 7 column.
January 31 column.
January 24 column.
January 17 column.

1999
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
November 25 column.
November 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.