Guest blogger Mindy Rosier-Rayburn is a NYC teacher of special education who is a member of the UFT Executive Board and President at Chelsea Reform Democratic Club. This was originally posted on Facebook. She gave us permission to post here.
A friend of mine messaged me over the weekend, asking me if I believed the second allegation against Scott Stringer. I didn't respond that night, but did after some thought. Here was my response ...
Thinking more abstractly...because this is really bothering me….
In general, are we the same people we were 30 years ago? One would hope, as we age, we become wiser. We learn from our mistakes and try to live with less regrets. I am more impressed with how a person evolves than who they were long ago. Ten years ago, I wasn't political at all. I wasn't most of my life. I was in an abusive marriage and was so depressed. I was going through the motions and put all of my focus into teaching, my school, my students and my colleagues.
My school is co located with the FIRST Success Academy. I became political because of Eva Moskowitz, as she kept coming after the space in my special needs school. I was trying to save my public school in Harlem. At the time, I met with a few from AQE who gave me a crash course in organizing. They taught me to follow the money, how to organize, who to call, who to meet, etc...People behind Moskowitz $$$.. Dan Loeb. People behind Cuomo's reelection $$$...Dan Loeb. This started everything for me.
In '92 I graduated HS. Same age as her. At 18, I did no harm...but I'm sure I made plenty of mistakes...I know I have in choices of past partners. That unfortunately stems from my own history of sexual abuse. I'm diagnosed with PTSD. I don't take any accusation lightly. I am also an overthinker and I look at every angle.
How do we know she wasn't giving mixed signals to a much younger, less evolved Scott Stringer? I'm more impressed by how he's climbed his way through local politics, what he's done, what he's said he's going to do, etc… How has he been treating women in recent years... I remember a man who almost 6 years ago, pulled me to the side on Broadway, right after 'take-off' on our EdWalk to Albany, letting me know, that if we needed anything, to contact him. I remember a man who called me on the morning of my wedding to congratulate me. I also remember, the first time I met him, he informed me that he enjoyed my Success Academy tweets back during my school fight in the 2012/13 time span. He respected what I stood for, what I was fighting for. These have been some of my experiences.
It just upsets me, that women who may want attention in the current climate, will twist something from way in the past and try to tank a man's opportunity to become Mayor. As an actual survivor, it's insulting and it takes the legitimacy away from true survivors.
If he was still behaving like this...like the current allegations against Cuomo, ok, then there might be a story...
But again, this is from a long time ago. We have to put ourselves into the times of back then and into their minds. What was acceptable then, isn't now...but is that our fault back then? That's why you look at how one evolves.
Is everyone reading this the same exact person they were 30 years ago? 20 years ago? 10 years ago? One's evolution into who they are today should really matter.
My 2 cents...
*His response...
"The thing is this second woman is using the same lawyer as the first. This anti union lawyer Patricia Pastor who represents non union construction companies. It seems like she might have been trying to find any women who worked for Scott in the past, going back as far as women who waitressed in his bar thirty years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if she was contacting girls he dated in high school! I guess if you are a guy and you ever in the past, even when you were young, misread signals from a girl and made a pass at her, that you should forget a career in politics. It's sad."
This is my opinion. I am not here to argue with anyone and please don't argue with any commenters. Please don't rank Yang, Adams, nor Garcia. Thank you 👊🏽
15 comments:
Thank you for this common sense post. Hindsight is 2020.how many men were horndogs but matured and became faithful husbands.hopefully, many...who would want to be forever glued to their missteps of their past..we all have skeletons.
I still rank Stringer one. This was very helpful. Thanks Mindy.
And no 400 in a remote class Adams.
Another uft victory...Weems, a
@uft
chapter leader, said she’s tried for years to raise the alarm with the Department of Education and the UFT — to no avail.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/12/hot-seats-temperatures-reach-high-80s-in-bronx-public-school/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
It’s all about politics and not the truth. You will forgive or forget—and believe what you want about Stringer or Cuomo or Trump etc.-whether the allegations are from last month, last year or even from the last century. Do people grow and change for the better?Hopefully, that is true —except for Trump.
I just can’t help thinking that there are currently 2 serving Supreme Court Justices -Thomas and Kavanaugh who can decide on profound issues that shape our everyday lives —these two went before televised Congressional committees with accusers giving first hand testimony of sexual harassment and sexual assault. It was so sickening and so terribly partisan with Kavanaugh situation. Ironically, it was Senator Biden that really didn’t believe the 1991 testimony of Anita Hill -but apologized in 2020.—Nothing more than politics because they both got their appointments .
In the case of Stringer, it’s unlikely he will win—but he does have excellent qualifications and his ads portray him as a real NewYorker with nice kids. However, none of the local papers endorsed him — but he is endorsed by the UFT—as it won’t matter because that is almost like the 30 year kiss of death —as no one that the UFT has supported in the Democratic primary—has gone on to be mayor.
Imagine the allegations only came out just before the general election and your choice were between Stringer and Sliwa. No contest there for me. I'd stick with Stringer without hesitation. There's a less extreme situation here but ranked choice voting makes it somewhat similar, potentially. Wiley was always going to be my number 1 choice. The field of good candidates is slim and we have 5 options, so Stringer will still be my second. Even if the allegations are true, even (or especially) if they are politically motivated, Stringer is still a better choice than the terrible trio of Adams, Garcia, and Yang on policy and ability. I think all my other choices will be throwaways because anyone else I would settle for will most likely be eliminated early on. I think the last two standing will be Adams and Wiley. But if it's Adams and Stringer, then I will be at peace with putting Stringer in second and hopefully over the top.
This is what happens when the mainstream accepted the left’s absurd “believe all women” mantra. Now that it’s biting democrats it’s more like “only believe the women we tell you to believe.” I feel for all true victims but I’ve never been willing to sacrifice the presumption of innocence that all Americans deserve.
I've heard that you shouldn't rank candidates you don't want to see win just to fill up the 5 spots.
Don't put Yang, Adams or Garcia as any choice, 1-5. Don't put anyone on your list you would not want to see as mayor.
James - If you select pro-education candidates as 1-4 (and that's including Chang, who is pretty unknown and doesn't stand a chance), then your 5th choice will only matter if all the acceptable candidates are out. That means only unacceptable candidates will be left and you cannot hurt them by withholding a vote - one of them will win - so why not pick the least horrible of them?
Worst thing that can happen with regard to your vote is nothing (the least horrible could already be eliminated by the time it gets to your 5th choice). "Best" that can happen is you help the lesser of three evils.
Lets say there are three left at the final elimination and your preferred candidate is one of the three but lowest total, so eliminated. Let's say Adams and Garcia are the finalists. Your final choice then goes to either Adams or Garcia, or it goes in the waste bin. Adams or Garcia win anyway.
Other than a sense of satisfaction (I didn't vote for that horrible person) what's the practical upside to withholding the final choice?
In addition to Adams going on record for more charters—he has also has been Brooklyn Borough President for the last 7 years. Where has the so-called “law and order” candidate choice of the NY Post been with spikes in shootings, assaults etc.-been- in his home borough of Brooklyn? For that matter-which of the candidates could really turn the tide—with the making the entire city safer?
In terms of whose backing them, Adams, Garcia, and Yang seem like they are indistinguishable.
The accusations against Clarence Thomas were completely believable (I watched every hearing) whereas against Kavanaugh they were not. I’d have to say the same with Cuomo and Stringer, when you look at the accusers the circumstances and the actual allegations. Stringer should and hopefully will win.
@James 12:09. I ran The City matchmaker a couple of different ways (once with my preferred positions and once with positions I could live with) and in both cases Adams was a distant third to Yang and Garcia in that 3-way match up. So there may be no difference between them on education, but in other areas Adams stands out. If I can help defeat him when all acceptable candidates are gone - it's a long shot but worth a try - then I'll place Yang or Garcia as my 5th choice.
"women who may want attention in the current climate"
You should be embarrassed to re-post this, you hack.
Post a Comment