The special election for Assembly is but a week away, and rather than focusing on the issues most pressing in our district, we get stuff like the below:
![]()
![]()
It's true that Geoffrey Davis has a bit of a troubled past, with an order of protection from some eight years ago against Renee Collymore, a former district leader who is now (coincidentally?) the treasurer of his opponent Shirley Patterson's campaign. Fair enough, that's all for anyone to see online, and might be enough to disqualify him for office in the view of many. But for the Independence Party to spend a bunch of dough to send this big creepy card is a bit over the top. Granted politics is rarely pretty. But then the flyer goes on to note that Geoffrey Davis has been accused again"less than two weeks ago" without any details. That's weird. Accused by whom? In a court of law? Is this information public? And who's the woman in the picture? It doesn't take an Alfred E. Newman to figure out that this is a way to siphon off votes from the Davis camp for Patterson, though I don't know why the I.P. would assume the votes wouldn't just as easily go to Richardson. The Independence Party, btw, is Patterson's party du jour, since the King County Democrats didn't fill the ticket on time, another outcome with a mysterious backstory.
And guess what? Guillermo Philpotts, who was shunned at the altar, is BACK, claiming he was hoodwinked out of his rightful spot atop the ticket. This report from NY1 basically says the Dems conspired to keep his name off the ballot, and that it wasn't a "mistake" at all that led to his missing a deadline. Why on earth Mr. Philpotts would wait til this late date to make mention of it is anyone's guess. Maybe Mrs. Philpotts knows, but I don't get it.
Listen, I've got nothing against Shirley Patterson. I hardly know anything about her. And she seemed thoughtful enough, though a little out of her comfort zone on Monday at the "forum" at Grace Church on Bedford. She could have used some pep, and didn't seem at all interested in responding with zeal to the accusations that she took "tainted" developer money that some say makes her biased in favor of those greedy high-riser types. But then I get the below flyer, also from her campaign, and I really have to say it's pretty pandery. Yes, we all believe that killing of unarmed black men is horrendous. But how is this Shirley Patterson's issue to resolve? I mean, Assembly members don't have any say over the NYPD, do they? It seems like this is a way to grab a few more votes from unsavvy voters. One could safely imagine that both Richardson and Davis would take a similarly dim view of profiling and the outsized use of force by cops. Shock tactics like these don't show good judgment, in my view. Then there's the quote from the awesome Shirley Chisholm - "you make progress by implementing ideas." Which begs the question: what are the ideas to be implemented by this campaign? Or any other campaign, for that matter.
![]()
![]()
And guess what? Guillermo Philpotts, who was shunned at the altar, is BACK, claiming he was hoodwinked out of his rightful spot atop the ticket. This report from NY1 basically says the Dems conspired to keep his name off the ballot, and that it wasn't a "mistake" at all that led to his missing a deadline. Why on earth Mr. Philpotts would wait til this late date to make mention of it is anyone's guess. Maybe Mrs. Philpotts knows, but I don't get it.
Listen, I've got nothing against Shirley Patterson. I hardly know anything about her. And she seemed thoughtful enough, though a little out of her comfort zone on Monday at the "forum" at Grace Church on Bedford. She could have used some pep, and didn't seem at all interested in responding with zeal to the accusations that she took "tainted" developer money that some say makes her biased in favor of those greedy high-riser types. But then I get the below flyer, also from her campaign, and I really have to say it's pretty pandery. Yes, we all believe that killing of unarmed black men is horrendous. But how is this Shirley Patterson's issue to resolve? I mean, Assembly members don't have any say over the NYPD, do they? It seems like this is a way to grab a few more votes from unsavvy voters. One could safely imagine that both Richardson and Davis would take a similarly dim view of profiling and the outsized use of force by cops. Shock tactics like these don't show good judgment, in my view. Then there's the quote from the awesome Shirley Chisholm - "you make progress by implementing ideas." Which begs the question: what are the ideas to be implemented by this campaign? Or any other campaign, for that matter.
