From a pre-recorded phone message for New York State voters left by the mother of Saul Farber:
Hello. I know that you don’t know me, but I’m the mother of Saul Farber, the 24-year-old candidate for New York’s 26th state Senate district. You might not think of me as the most objective person in the world, but you have to believe me when I say that my son Saul is the only candidate who can truly take on the special interests in Albany and sweep aside the petty partisan politicking. I should know because I’ve raised him for 24 years and I am the only person with any real insight into what he can do for you in the State Senate.*
I can tell you from direct experience that Saul is tenacious. If that sounds like he was a difficult child, then fine, I do not mind if you make that inference. Saul is a person who will never, never let anything go. He will argue every point to the ground; even after you told him, Saul, this fight is over, he will still make sure that he has reframed the debate for you, made you want to smack yourself in the head and tear out your hair crying for it to be over. Like me, the State Senators on the other side of the aisle will surely be crying Uncle when my son gets hold of them with his contrary manner and petulant determination to have things his way at all times.
When he was four and I tried to feed Saul strained peas, he wouldn’t do it. When he was five, I told him we were going to the circus, and he said that if I didn’t take him to the aquarium instead, he would hold his breath until he died.
When he was eight, Saul wanted to see a Yankee game, the Statue of Liberty and Coney Island all in one day. When I tried to explain to him that these destinations were all too far apart to get to by train in one day, he insisted that I had enough money to pay for a taxi. When I said that it was far too much money, he called me cheap and jumped out of the subway.
New York, you must believe me that this is exactly the kind of relentless drive you can expect if you elect my son, Saul Farber, to the New York State Senate to represent its 26th District. I can assure you that Saul has not changed a bit from those days. Just like he did to the peas, Saul is going to throw out any special interest money, and will likely throw it all over the wall so that other people have to get down on their hands and knees to clean it up. Just as he held his breath, I’m sure he will filibuster and do whatever it takes to keep lobbyists from attaching new taxes to the state budget. Just as he called me cheap for not taking him to every last city borough to see every last tourist attraction, I know that now he will call his enemies in Albany cheap and guilt them into doing things they really just don’t have the energy or capacity to do on their own.
Saul can make things happen! Even if he has to drum the life out of every last bit of the body politic, he will do it.
That’s why I implore you to get my 24-year-old son out of my house and into the State house in Albany. You have to do it for the future of New York and for the future of one New York mom in particular who has gone gray raising this frustrating baby into a sapling junior lawmaker.
You must get him out of my house, New York. You must, you must, you must.
*An earlier version of this article in a couple of instances incorrectly mentioned Farber as a candidate for Assembly, though in all others, including the headline, listed him as a Senate candidate.
Beauty is Imperfection 
Thank you for the good laugh!
I received several reports of these robo calls from “mother” Farber.
I am the opponent of Mr. Farber, who proudly won this election (70%-30%), thanks to the support of voters in my district.
But, of course, that means I go back to Albany for another two years — where there is very little to laugh about.
Liz
Thank you so much for reading, Liz. I’ve been one of your constituents for several years, and glad I could give back to you somehow, even if it was just by being silly. Congratulations on your win!
I’m a constituent of Liz too, Eric, and its distressing that the you, who touts Krueger’s accomplishments, are incapable of recognizing which body of government she occupies (State Senate, not Assemblymen, as you falsely asserted that Mrs. Farber stated in her robo-call). Additionally, its upsetting that in a hostile political environment like the one we currently live in, you would attack a candidate’s mother, Eric.
Even worse, I am ashamed of you, Liz. I cannot fathom how an elected official would deem it acceptable to give an heir of legitimacy to this scurrilous blog posting, nor have the time to, given the current state of affairs in our district, city, and state.
Even though I am a stringent Democrat and have been for my entire adult life, I will not be voting for you if and when you run for re-election, Liz.
so why is it that you want to “give back” to Liz, Eric?
Is it the three years in a row of MTA rate hikes and service cuts, which earned her the nickname “weasel” from the NY Daily News?
Or the fact that the 2nd Avenue subway is destroying public property and closing down mom-and-pop stores on the East-Side?
Or her support for $1.4 billion in public education cuts that would have been enacted without the fact that the Feds bailed us out?
Or maybe it was the hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions she received from lobbyists and special interest groups to win re-election?
Or the fact that she contributed thousands of dollars to the campaign of the State Senator most responsible for killing the Gay Marriage bill?
Which one of those reasons is it that you wanted to “give back” to Ms. Krueger?
It may be cute to make fun of a mother who truly believes that her son the candidate would make a better representative than the present incumbent who has been a central part of the Circus in Albany today, but the fact that you lay praise on her makes me wonder if you’ve actually thought out your position well at all.
Please let us know which one of the reasons stated above brought you to support Ms. Krueger so strongly…
Thank you, Nancy and Jay, for your excellent points. I indeed incorrectly referred to the “Assembly” in one instance, though my correct references to the Senate elsewhere should indicate to you that it was more of a copy error than a desire to dissemble or mislead.
Jay, I have to give you a bit more credit for recognizing this as satire, though. The Robo calls from Saul’s mother that my wife and I got on the morning of the election were quite ripe for satire, and almost anybody with a funny bone would have seen that. You will also notice in my message to Liz that I congratulated her on her win and thanked her for giving back, because she has indeed been my representative. I didn’t say outright whether I voted for her or didn’t vote for her. I think there are good arguments to be made for voting for her–she is clearly a leader and holds a lot of my values, especially when it comes to women’s issues, and she is clearly for gay marriage. I thought of adding a note here before (guess I’ll add it now) that I completely admire Saul for running a campaign at his age. He’s obviously an idealist, and maybe some day I could vote for him if I thought he’d developed maturity of leadership skills, and of course if he made common sense statements about the economy.
I’d do more of a line by line breakdown of the other points, but since the gay marriage criticism was a disingenuous rhetorical point made to distract from Liz’s gay marriage support (a Fox News tactic), I’ll stop there.
I recognize it as satire, Eric. And honestly, a cute piece, which is why I chose to comment and read the rest of your site. As you can tell from my background, if you looked, I enjoy discussing politics – especially in a contrarian, libertarian based fashion.
I will say though to the last point about Gay Marriage shouldn’t be overlooked.
Liz’s support for Gay Marriage publicly should not absolve her from supporting those who were against it SOLELY because they were from the same political party as she is. Her blind partisan actions are exactly what is wrong with Albany.
And for those who support the right of gay New Yorkers to enter into full marriage rights (which, btw, Saul is just as firmly supportive of even-though many wrongly pre-judge his placement on the GOP line as meaning he is against that measure), they should be aware that Senator Joe Addabbo was a critical Democratic vote AGAINST Gay Marriage and Liz sent him thousands of dollars so he could get re-elected and make the same vote against Gay Marriage in the future.
Liz, apparently, decided to support him because he’s a Democrat – NOT because he agreed with her on this important issue to her constituents. That’s not a Fox News tactic, but a statement of fact.
Albany needs change, not just the same retreads doing the same partisan garbage year after year. And I mean that on BOTH sides of the aisle…
Jay, politics is a swamp, I agree. It chagrined me no end to have to vote for Republican Michael Bloomberg in 2005, even though I’m a registered Democrat. Why did I do this? He was the better candidate. I do not always agree with him in principle or on strategy. I don’t believe he has done enough to protect the middle class in this city, for instance, from market forces gone out of control–a city at the mercy of the financial services industry where there is no corporate governance. Because we winnow our choices down to two or three candidates, people must make alliances with people they don’t agree with for the best solution. It’s called coalition building, and it’s politics 101. It also means most candidates will let you down on the gay marriage issue (Bill Bradley, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama) because many Americans still aren’t ready for it. But that doesn’t mean you go voting for people you don’t agree with on anything. As much as I love to think that Saul would have gone in and voted his conscience every time in the New York State Senate (again, shame on me for accidentally writing “Assembly”) it’s not really credible to think he would have or could have gotten anything accomplished for his constituents if he had.
Libertarians make excellent critics, so I look forward to reading more from you. Unfortunately, they aren’t that good in the solutions department, so look forward to my mostly disagreeing with you.
I don’t particularly agree with your base set of assumptions there. You seem to be quite “anti-corporate,” yet if “coalition building is politics 101” and, therefore, unavoidable in “the swamp,” then it makes sense for the laws of NY City and State to reflect positively on the financial services industry. Remember, that industry is responsible for about 40% of our city’s and state’s tax revenues – tax dollars that pay for the critical social programs for our seniors, children and the needy receive. These social programs are why a majority of liberal East-Side New Yorkers vote Democrat down the line year in and year out.
If we reflexively attack the financial services industry because of a core dislike for “the rich,” as many in this city like to do, we risk hurting the needy of NYC.
Related to gay marriage, I’m SURE that the voters of the East-Side are “ready” for it and they are probably sure that their representatives in Albany are honestly fighting for it. The truth is that Liz is not putting her money where her mouth is and if supporters of Gay Marriage are willing to “compromise” to the point of accepting their Senator using her personal campaign funds to help the person largely responsible for the failure to pass Gay Marriage, then it makes the question of how “credible” it is that Saul could “accomplish” anything quite irrelevant.
In the end, we already know with Liz’ near decade-long record that the only thing she’s really “accomplished” is getting herself elected and re-elected.
Liz voted for $1.4 billion in cuts in education, she has allowed three consecutive rate increases and service reductions from the MTA, she has financially supported opponents of Gay Marriage, she has been a leader in the Senate while the unemployment rate has doubled for her district, she is a member of the body that had a coup, then dispensed with the coup and has been refered to as a circus by conservative and liberal alike and she has talked the talk about ethics reform, yet “the swamp” has gotten murkier and murkier over the last 8 years.
So why did you and so many on the Upper East-Side vote for her? Because she’s a Democrat and most people assume she’s fighting for what they believe in – even though her idea of fighting is little more than lip-service (which is why the Daily News called her a “weasel.” See http://www.shamelesspoliticians.com/2010/09/30/octobers-shameless-politician-liz-krueger/ to read further on why she was called that name)
Saul’s going to be around for a while. I hope you take the time from now until 2012 to release some of the cynicism that makes UES voters assume Republican candidates don’t represent their values. Saul is a strong supporter of the same social issues UES voters by-and-large believe in – the same issues that they blindly vote for Democrats over. He’s 100% pro-choice and 100% pro-Gay Marriage.
Sadly, now that it seems clear the GOP will control the State Senate, the UES would have benefited from having someone who supports their values in office in the majority party – and in the party that often is the obstacle to passing critical laws, like gay marriage rights. Instead, residents now have someone who will say one thing and do another in the minority party in Albany – unable to enact change even if she put the time and energy into passing important legislation.
Remember, Republican Sen Roy Goodman (a strong supporter of Saul’s candidacy) honorable represented those same values for three decades on the UES – and did so in the majority to the benefit of NYC.
In any event, please keep and open mind when it comes to who you vote for. Look deeply at people’s records in office before filling in a vote for them. Just voting for the Dem because they’re the Dem (as many in NY State do) is not the best way to use your suffrage rights.
Albany is a “swamp” and, although we may disagree on the degree of guilt, Liz Krueger has certainly contributed to it being that way…
Hi Jay,
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Again, since you’re a libertarian and a New York contrarian Republican, (which can be lonely work of a real thinker, sometimes, I concede) I should hold you to a higher standard, and you’re still using Fox News tactics. If I can’t criticize what New York is doing to its middle class without seeming anti-corporate, or anti-capitalism, then you’ve tarred me with the same brush you accuse me of tarring poor Saul with, and used deflecting tactics. It’s also unfair to call me anti-corporate if, like a lot of shareholders, I criticize corporations for locking in their bonuses after they’ve been saved from insolvency by a responsible bailout. Nor is it fair to call me anti-corporate when I criticize companies for not paying dividends, which is the fair way to reward shareholders. Nor can you call me anti-corporate if I criticize companies using stock options to siphon wealth off corporations after telling shareholders to trust them.
No, I’m pro-corporate, which means I believe in cleaning up the utterly dirty corporations in America, which you can only do with a strong government. Republicans are going to learn this the easy way or learn it the hard way. By blaming government for everything, they in effect remove a bulwark against exploitation. Why they would go anti-government now after seeing the worst excesses of deregulation makes me confused and cynical. Very short memories.
I figured that when I became a financial reporter, I’d become more Republican. Then I figured out that most Republicans don’t really understand money forces, and those that do lie.
The money forces are powerful and can be used for good, obviously, including a thoughtful deployment of capital by reasonable people that creates wealth where there was none before. But capital also likes cheap labor and stagnant wages and victimizing those without it, which is an ethical question libertarians can’t or won’t answer. You are literally out to lunch on most of the pressing issues, which is why a lot of us can agree with you in theory (yes we are a nation of laws, not of men) but not really get excited about you when we have to figure out what to do about, say, traffic congestion, late-term abortions or at what time we get to blow the shofar.
And you certainly won’t address economic problems realistically. There are very simple reasons wages have stagnated in America. It ain’t the Mexican fence jumpers. It’s weakened unions, globalization, and skyrocketing education costs (which are rising so much faster than inflation that you can’t even invest in stocks to keep up with them anymore). If you look at America before and after the New Deal, you see huge economic disparity between the top and bottom. This is for one reason and one reason only: it’s what the money wants. When I hear people in America yell that it’s because of taxes, it’s almost like hearing them blame Nessie or Sasquatch.
I think you libertarians make the mistake (and open yourself up for vehement criticism) when you think the Constitution, as beloved as it is, takes care of everything. The Constitution does not solve the abortion debate, the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, nor immigration, nor even whether to establish a navy (Mr. Jefferson created that to go fight African pirates, starting the foundations of our Empire.) Nor does it take care of our middle class. The latter is largely a creation of new opportunities created by government spending during and after World War II, widespread training, the GI bill, and strong curbs on the most exploitative corporate practices. Companies had strong incentives to give you a decent pension. And meanwhile, they weren’t hurting, but instead flourished in an age of innovation and enterprise. Seventy percent taxes on the wealthy didn’t stop it. It made it better for a lot of people. When you put all these things together, it’s not hard to see the middle class declining because the free markets have been left to their own devices and a toothless government fostered by lovable Dutch won’t take it’s former strong role.
Democrats and Republicans alike have to pretend all this is not true, but since you’re touting Saul, I have to assume that he also pretends it’s not true. I confess: I could be wrong. If Saul sends me a long letter explaining to me that he’s not only for gay marriage (like Liz) pro-choice (like Liz) and is in favor of strong, Clinton-era progressive tax rates to help preserve the middle class, then I’ll dump my Dems. I’ve done it before. I’m not married to Democrats at the local level, as I’ve said elsewhere.
I don’t have a core dislike for the rich. I have a core dislike for market fundamentalism. If you guys would still run candidates like Teddy Roosevelt– a real socialist–then you’ll have me back.
The good news is I think you and I agree on some core things, Jay. We both agree that the U.S. shouldn’t spend more than it takes in. But I can’t agree with you that out-of-control spending is more a problem than our total unwillingness to pay for it. Sixty-three percent of Americans wanted the war in Iraq. The stimulus is something that–believe me–American wanted. Life would have been unbearably awful without it. Americans have also consistently asked for universal health care (despite quibbling about specifics). If you want Americans to not pay for things, you have to first tell them not to ask for things. Good luck with that.
If I own a restaurant that fails, do I blame myself first for buying the expensive Ginzu knives, or do I blame myself that I never charged the customers in the first place.
As for now, I applaud Saul’s stand on gay marriage. It’s hard to be a Republican with that position, and it’s something I will remember as I watch his inevitable rise to greater things.