Not Like Mike: Michael McMahon and Michael Grimm Campaign on Differences in Staten Island Congressional Race
Monday, October 18, 2010
McMahon is a freshman Democrat, but he projects the aura of an experienced politician. In New York's 13th Congressional district, which includes all of Staten Island and the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights and Gravesend, he's cast himself as a centrist. But conservative challenger Michael Grimm, a political newcomer, says McMahon's politics and Washington record don't fit with this historically conservative constituency.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Michael McMahon (D) vs. Michael Grimm (R)
The race to represent New York's 13th Congressional District in Staten Island is a contest between incumbent Democratic Representative Michael McMahon, the first Democrat elected to this swing district in 28 years, and Tea Party-backed Michael Grimm, a former undercover FBI agent.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Before his ethics probe heated up, Rep. Charlie Rangel was speaking out about how he would not vote to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unless it was to bring the troops home.
The vote took place earlier this week and the funding was approved.
Rangel, along with most of the Congress members from New York City, voted no. Mike McMahon, the Democrat representing the Republican-leaning 13th district in Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, was the only one from NYC to vote for the funding.
Here’s how the rest of the New York delegation voted on the bill (and thank goodness for the handy map from the Times):
NY-1: Democrat Tim Bishop-yes
NY-2: Democrat Steve Israel-yes
NY-3: Republican Peter King-yes
NY-4: Democrat Carolyn McCarthy-yes
NY-5: Democrat Gary Ackerman-yes
NY-6: Democrat Gregory Meeks-no
NY-7: Democrat Joe Crowley-no
NY-8: Democrat Jerry Nadler-no
NY-9: Democrat Anthony Weiner-no
NY-10: Democrat Ed Towns-no
NY-11: Democrat Yvette Clarke-no
NY-12: Democrat Nydia Velazquez-no
NY-13: Democrat Mike McMahon-yes
NY-14: Democrat Carolyn Maloney-no
NY-15: Democrat Charlie Rangel-no
NY-16: Democrat Jose Serrano-no
NY-17: Democrat Eliot Engel-yes
NY-18: Democrat Nita Lowey-yes
NY-19: Democrat John Hall-yes
NY-20: Democrat Scott Murphy-yes
NY-21: Democrat Paul Tonko-no
NY-22: Democrat Maurice Hinchey-no
NY-23: Democrat Bill Owens-yes
NY-24: Democrat Mike Arcuri-yes
Monday, July 26, 2010
Kicking a political opponent off the ballot is a common, if unseemly, thing for campaigns to be publicly involved in. To most voters and observers it connotes a sense that archaic election rules are limiting voters choices, rather than letting issues and ideas be the deciding factor.
But, all's fair in primaries and mid-term elections.
Today, Democratic Rep. Mike McMahon's campaign announced they're challenging the petitions of John Tabacco, an Independence Party member who is trying to run for congress on the IP line. That's a line McMahon desparately needs in the Republican-leaning district, especially since the Working Families Party line is being denied him because he voted against Obama's health care reform bill.
In McMahon's announcement, he said 402 out of 678 signatures collected by Tabacco were invalid.
To deal with the possible public-relations blowback, here's how McMahon explained the move:
“Out of respect for Mr. Tabacco’s efforts to run for this seat, I welcomed the opportunity to sit down with him to discuss any issues he had with me running on the Independence Party line. It was my goal to see if we could find some common ground in this race or in the future. However, I do believe that it is the obligation of every candidate for elective office to meet the minimum basic requirements established by law for campaign filings and I don’t feel they have been met in Mr. Tabacco’s case. I do, however, look forward to working with him on our issues of shared concern that affect the people of Staten Island and Brooklyn."
The McMahon campaign is prepared in coming days for their hearing with the Board of Elections in anticipation of Mr. Tabacco being removed from the Independence Party line before the case is scheduled to appear in Brooklyn Supreme Court.