Why does ICE start with I?
I, they say, is for
Independent.
I means me. Stands for
Individual.
And is totally unsuitable to lead. Let’s look at the Mayoral elections.
I for
ICE.
I do what
I want. No endorsement.
Only New Action made an endorsement: Bill Thompson, last June. New Action moved the endorsement at the Delegate Assembly. And
ICE? No community, just lots of I’s. Some supported. Some opposed. Most sat on their hands.
Me? This blogger (New Action) rose to endorse Thompson.
ICE? One supporter repeatedly
Interrupted debate, to demand, among other things, alternating speakers. Then another speaker (Scott says he wasn’t an
I for
ICE supporter) took the floor on a pro-Thompson turn, and wasted the slot with a rambling diatribe about not voting.
I say what
I want because
I am
ICE. No leadership. All
Individualism and ego. (Mulgrew
Ignored the
ICE disruption and called on a genuinly
Independent delegate who supported Thompson)
—- —- —- —-
In all fairness, ICE finally took a position on the election. They wrote 8 days after the DA, less than two weeks before the election. You can read it: ice statement on nov 3 2009 vote for mayor (unless they delete the link).
Tell me, did they endorse the Green Party? I’m not sure. They certainly did not urge their supporters to support Thompson. “Throw your vote away!” Now that’s the sort of leadership we don’t need.
Individualistic.
Irresponsible.
—- —- —- —- —- —- —- —- —-
The ICE blog covered me moving the Thompson endorsement. (although Eterno’s original correctly identified me as New Action – which they quickly deleted). And many individual ICE members came to me over the next day, and weeks, and even months, thanking me for standing up on that one, when their own leaders remained silent.
JD2718 
Why are you slamming ICE instead of UNITY? Unity is the party in power. they are the ones who should have supported Thompson and didn’t. I think your anger and comments are misplaced.
Our campaign literature criticizes both.
But in the last few days ICE has attacked New Action as a “sham opposition.” Their latest leaflet paints us with every position that Unity has taken, even those we openly opposed.
And ICE is quite vulnerable for its hypocritical stance on the election.
We know Unity failed to endorse Thompson. All of us should know that ICE would have failed, too.
Further, our (New Action) approach with Unity has been to oppose them when they are wrong, support them when they are right, and attempt to improve what can be improved. This approach presupposes that there will be give and take, and disagreement, and discussion.
That sort of approach is quite difficult with ICE, mostly because ICE makes it so. There are ICE supporters who, privately, can have a real conversation, but publicly, as a caucus, they are confrontational, disruptive, shrill, and denunciatory.
Try discussing Thompson with ICE, see where it gets you. They’ll claim that they personally supported him, or claim he’s as bad as Bloomberg, or claim that New Action pushing the issue was meaningless.
You are far more likely to get a “we goofed” from a Unity supporter than from an ICE supporter. And that reflects the same public shrillness that makes them hard to engage.
Such poetry from a math teacher no less! Jon, as you know I loudly applauded New Action for endorsing Thompson. I so wish UNITY had followed in suit. Things might be very different in NYC right now. However, I believe that what NYC teaches really need to do is unify! (Sorry no pun intended). Along those lines I am glad that New Action and UNITY are working together. You don’t need to agree on every issue to foster effective solidarity! ICE needs to stop teacher bashing, enough already!
Peace Jack
ICE never teacher bashes. We need a change and New Action is in bed with UNITY.