MAMDANI'S FOOLISH CONGRESSIONAL ENDORSEMENT

DAN GOLDMAN IS A TOUGH INVESTIGATOR

Zohran Mamdani won’t take office as New York City’s next Mayor for two and half weeks and he’s already off on the wrong foot with Congress.

Embracing New York City comptroller Brad Lander’s challenge to incumbent Democratic congressman Dan Goldman is stupid on several counts.

First, running from the left, Lander’s dominant criticism is that the incumbent is a tool of Israel. Mamdani has a strong and consistent pro-Palestinian record. Most New Yorkers, including more than a few Jews, accept this. But, both at home and, as a national figure, he shouldn’t be known principally as the anti-Israel mayor.

Next, with Democrats facing an imperative to win control of the House next year and facing an existential threat from Trump, the sizeable amounts of money that will be spent on this primary could be put to more important matters like helping Democratic challengers to incumbent Republicans or countering Trump’s efforts to sabotage elections.

Finally, with a Democratic House and Trump in the White House, there will be few major legislative measures. Goldman and Lander would vote the same 95% of the time. What will matter will be serious investigations of rampant corruption in the Trump Administration. These investigations are painstakingly difficult and there are only a few members who excel. Goldman, as a former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and the House Democrats’ chief counsel during the first Trump impeachment, is one.

I am not anti-Mamdani, although some of his initiatives are naive or unrealistic. If I’d been a New Yorker, I still would have voted for him as a wisp of fresh air shaking up entrenched interests. With lots of challenges his focus should be on the city and Albany.

Anyone who meets the qualifications is fine to run for Congress. There are three good reasons to mount a primary: if the incumbent is too old, corrupt or ideologically out of touch with constituents. None apply to the 49 year old Goldman. Mamdani is paying off Lander who endorsed him after dropping out of the mayoral Democratic primary this year.

The district starts in lower Manhattan and stretches into Brooklyn is overwhelmingly Democratic and relatively affluent with a sizable block of progressives.

Landler is running as a left wing alternative. Yet Goldman has a liberal voting record even supporting quixotic left wing causes like Medicare for All. So other than cliches, the thrust of Lander’s criticism is he incumbents’ Goldman’s strong support for Israel. That is basically true though he has strongly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and expanded Jewish settlements, while favoring a two state solution.

He did cast an indefensible vote, one of the few House Democrats to censure Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib for her anti-Israel statements. Her rhetoric, whatever your position, is about free speech. Goldman should appreciate that, especially having clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Robert Sack, a leading scholar on the First Amendment.

But in the next Congress there won’t be any critical vote on Israel where Lander or Goldman would make a difference.

The challenger also attacks Goldman’s enormous wealth; he’s an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune and spent millions of his own money in his first congressional race. Goldman no doubt will tap into those riches while likely raising other funds too, and Lander will raise lots of money.

Those resources instead could go to competitive races, including a couple in New York.

With a House Democratic majority, the premium will be on investigations. Some colleagues complain that Goldman, with his elite background, is arrogant. Yet to reprise a line I first used more than a quarter century ago about similar charges against Richard Holbrooke, so what, it ain’t braggin if you can do it.

In his previous experiences and as a member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, Goldman has shown he can do it. One deeply knowledgeable observer of congressional inquests notes: “With Dan Goldman’s skills he would be one of the most effective members in the next Congress.”

Most members of Congress view investigative forums as an opportunity to get a 15 second sound bite on the evening newscasts, go semi-viral on social media and get invited on Fox News or MS NOW.

Scoring cheap points and partisan headlines have been a mainstay of House Republican chairs like Jim Jordan and James Comer with, predictably, few results.

The effective inquisitors -- Democrats Henry Waxman and John Dingell in times past -- have been exceptionally well prepared, asked sharp questions, with ready pursuit and had a superb staff. If Goldman wins and enlists an able staff, he will be central to potentially explosive and stunning investigations.

It would be beyond foolish for Democrats to give up that card.