Our non-partisan Mayor
There is no question that Mayor Hameeduddin's star is rising. Local and national media have shined the spotlight on him and on Teaneck since his selection as mayor at the reorganization meeting in early July. It is, however, as yet unclear whether the Mayor's high profile will prove to be an asset for Teaneck or a harmful distraction.
Those who suspect the latter seem to have a bit more support for their conclusion after the bizarre scene that played out on PBS NewsHour with Gwen Ifill. What was intended to be a debate between New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio and Mayor Hameeduddin about President Obama's comments regarding the controversy surrounding the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan degenerated into a shouting match with Mayor Hameeduddin, who was introduced as a Democrat early in the segment, playing the role of Democratic attack dog and putting former Congressman Lazio on the defensive on a host of issues both related and unrelated to the topic at hand.
Ifill and her producers must have been surprised as most Teaneck residents will be at the nasty turn, as Mayor Hameeduddin has, quite rightfully, never played up his party affiliation and would seem to have no connection to an election campaign for statewide office in New York.
There are a number of possible reasons for why Hameeduddin behaved the way he did. The most likely explanation would be that he perceives that Lazio, who has been trailing in the polls, has exploited the Islamic center issue to boost his popular appeal at the expense of the region's Muslim community. While his indignation may be justified, Hameeduddin at the very least showed a lack of poise in lashing out at Lazio's past record on unrelated issues and perhaps even a lack of understanding of what he ought and ought not comment on when appearing on television as the Mayor of Teaneck.
Another possibility is that the Mayor's political ambitions have grown to keep up with his growing name-recognition. What better way to get noticed as a potential candidate for higher office than to demonstrate one's loyalty to the partisan cause on national television? This would be an unwelcome development. While Hameeduddin is entitled to his personal opinions and has every right to take advantage of his notoriety to realize his dreams, today's Teaneck requires strong, independent leadership with the willingness to tackle the very unglamorous problems that face the town. An individual whose focus is on burnishing his partisan credentials is less likely to fulfill those requirements.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 11:30 AM
9 Comments:
Considering that, to the extent we have two parties - Teaneck's two party system is right leaning Dems and left leaning Dems, I'm confused as to how being a dem "burnishing his partisan credentials" is going to affect his ability to govern in Teaneck.
Perhaps you are correct - I'm just not seeing it.
To the extent that "burnishing his partisan credentials" involves demonstrating his loyalty to the Democratic party by endorsing or launching attacks on candidates for office outside of Teaneck or generally involving himself in issues that divide public opinion but that don't pertain directly to Teaneck, I believe that Teaneck might lose out.
I just looked at this clip again. My initial reaction was colored by the mayor's opening statement that he preferred to use his opportunity to talk about the economy and jobs, and that struck me as being a pretty unsatisfactory defense of his fellow Muslims and of President Obama's statement. (It was, however, in line with the local Teaneck "brand" he's been cultivating as our town's budgetary watchdog and taxpayer champion.)
However, despite that weak start in which he seemingly glossed over the "settled" Constitutional issue on his way to bringing in the economy, I can't fault him too much for subsequently pointing out that Mr. Lazio (or Sleazio, as I have called him since his Senate run against Hillary Clinton) was using the issue as virtually all Republicans are -- as a partisan wedge issue in which to gain votes (and apparently in Lazio's case, raise campaign money). To me that's not a "perception," it's a clearly evident fact.
It is hard not to come over as partisan when debating an issue that's been driven entirely by partisan politics, and dishonest partisan politics at that. During this 3-way exchange Lazio conspicuously refused to answer whether he recognized the President's distinction between the right and the wisdom of this project and repeatedly ducked the question as to whether he agreed with Newt Gingrich's reprehensible appeal to fear and bigotry and his appalling equating of American Muslims to Nazis. The mayor had every right to call Lazio on his ulterior partisan motives.
Stylistically, he could have been better in places and ended up interrupting too much (though I'm sure we've all seen a lot worse in such TV debates). And, I'll also acknowledge he too ducked an uncomfortable question about Harry Reid's election-season cravenness. But overall, I think he looked better on second viewing that he did on the first. (Of course, most people will only see it once.)
One objection I had to something Ms. Ifill said: It was not the President's statement that sparked a national debate. That had already been raging for a couple weeks with all manner of non-New Yorkers getting into the act. And their statements were largely so outrageous and dangerous that the President, I think, was duty-bound to remind the country of our Constitutional rule of law and traditions of tolerance.
As far as I'm concerned, the crude and naked demagoguery coming out of the Republican Party has been unprecedented. They need to be called on it by everyone who is able. Including Mr. Hameeeduddin.
By the way, Teaneck Blog ... I'm glad to see you posting again but sorry I only found out about it within the last day or two.
One other response to your comment regarding the mayor "generally involving himself in issues that divide public opinion but don't pertain directly to Teaneck."
The Council's selection of Mr. Hammeeduddin as mayor thrust Teaneck into the national spotlight. It also resulted in one news piece that, notwithstanding the cynical bemusement of many Teaneck insiders, portrayed Teaneck in the best light it's been in for decades. Our mayor's status as one of the country's few Muslim mayors, and no doubt the only one from a town with a large Jewish population and a fairly modest Muslim population, makes him natural candidate to be interviewed for news pieces such as the one on PBS NewsHour. Maybe this issue doesn't pertain directly to Teaneck, but there is certainly a strong indirect pertinence. Teaneck stands in stark contrast to the Islamophobia currently being stoked around the country.
-- Jeff
I echo blog hosts concerns. Mr. H. seems to be enjoying his new found mayorship as an opportunity to debate and preen for cameras. I worry that he is going to use our burg as a springboard for his political ambitions. After he participated in and capitalized on stepping on and over the rightfull candidate for the job, perhaps it would be foolish to expect humility from this obvious opportunist.
Silas --
I assume the person you call "the rightful candidate for the job" of mayor is the one who came in first in last May's election.
I voted for her then, and I didn't vote for our current mayor when he ran in 2008. But the law and Teaneck's history over the last two decades make it highly debatable that she was automatically the "righful candidate" to receive a majority of the council's vote. Not to mention that she came in just 80 or so votes ahead of Elie Katz in an election in which Adam Gussen hyped her vote for his own tactical reasons.
(What is less debatable, I think, is that the post-election "campaign" to pressure the council on her behalf engaged in a lot of wrongful accusation and innuendo for which a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves.)
Putting all of that aside, however, you may well be off-base in your charge that Mr. H. "participated and capitalized on stepping on and over" the person you wanted to see as mayor.
A rumor I heard is that Mr. H. was ready to vote for Ms. P. but couldn't get his calls to another council member returned. According to this story, he wanted to make sure that this other council member would also vote for Ms. P. When he couldn't be sure his vote would not be for naught, he went along with those who had decided to make him mayor -- though according to this rumor, he didn't really want the job.
For what it's worth. I call it a rumor because I never tried verify it through a second credible source. But I do find it plausible.
Interesting postscript to this: Gwen Ifill herself was evidently dismayed by the segment and has apologized to viewers on her blog for it.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/20/nr.us.islamophobic.cnn?iref=allsearch
Check this out..
Interesting find and interesting that once again, Mayor Hameeduddin is identified on screen as a Democrat.
Overall, however, this was a much more composed and impressive performance, and one that was far more appropriate for the mayor of Teaneck who just happens to be a prominent Muslim-American.
Post a Comment
<< Home