Left: Paul Czajka Right: Gene Keeler Source: Candidate websites
Both the incumbent District Attorney Paul Czajka and his challenger, Gene Keeler, asked for my support in this Fall’s elections.
Having known both candidates for more years than I can count, this put me in kind of a sticky position.
But had I not known both as friends, this would not be a difficult choice. Before explaining that choice, and what occurred during my interviews with each, it’s worth saying a bit more about those relationships, and sketching a portrait of each of the men who would be D.A.
JUDGEMENT, BOOKS & COVERS
Until Melino’s pub in Hudson closed earlier this month, I could rely on running into Gene having a solitary beer just before kickoff of the 1 pm football games, looking for a political conversation. Gene would buy me a Budweiser draft, then bend my ear about his single topic of conversation—namely, his longstanding claims about corruption in Columbia County government. Having worked as an activist against the status quo for many years, I guess I made a likely audience.
Invariably, Gene would have his eyeglasses up on his forehead, secured behind his neck with a cord. When he stood up, one of the tails of his shirt might be untucked. At some point, he’d produce a pack of dogeared index cards from his breast pocket—held together with rubber bands, where he jots down reminders to himself.
Though Gene has recently bowed to the wishes of the Columbia County Democratic Committee, and courted endorsements from establishment figures, in conversation over the years he has often been a heated critic of the party’s lack of effectiveness. Indeed, Gene has run at times as a Republican, and once sought to take over the County Independence Party leadership. For this campaign, however, he seems keen to hew to the party line, at least as much as his galvanic nature will allow it.
Likewise, I often bump into Paul at the Bell’s Pond supermarket, or in Hudson restaurants, where he is often accompanied by a jovial band of staff members. No matter the venue, he looks as if he walked off the office set of Mad Men: neatly attired like an advertising executive in a gray or blue suit, starched shirt, classic tie and, in certain weather, an oldschool men’s hat. He always appears to have visited a barber within the past 10 days, as men used to do.
Paul has been unflaggingly polite, genial, and open to conversation with me—despite some pretty unforgivable behavior toward him on my part some 15 years ago. (More on that in Part II.) He has interests which range well beyond the law, for example once lending me a copy of Saul Bellow’s terrific novel Henderson the Rain King, written while he was teaching at Bard. He also has an affinity for local political history, for which he has a remarkable memory. As a moderate Republican, he likes to mention that his mother was a Democratic committeeman.
I have seen Paul stay cool, unflappable and smiling when taken to task by people who had few facts or context to back up their verbal assaults on him.
QUALITIES & QUALIFICATIONS
Appearances shouldn’t matter. I’d be more likely to vote in a primary for Bernie Sanders, with his unkempt hair and raspy Brooklyn accent, than the more conventionally “presentable” Joe Biden. I myself own only one comb, which I can’t find at the moment... Most of my cheap Wrangler pants have tears in them from working outdoors, or feature splotches of housepaint.
But I’m not aiming to be a District Attorney. And for the books of Keeler and Czajka, their demeanors and deportment do seem to mirror their personalities. Gene struggles to stay kempt, calm and collected. Meanwhile, Paul gives the impression that his neat, orderly and upbeat bearing does reflect his habits of mind. Mens sana in corpore sano, as the saying goes.
By his own admission, Gene has not practiced law in nearly 5 years. (His detractors claim he has not set foot in a courtroom in 10.) As seen in a recent Register-Star interview, and also my own conversations with him, straightforward journalistic questions which he does not want to hear cause him to get annoyed and rattled—far more easily than is wise for a potential prosecutor.
Gene’s “reform” proposals, no matter how well-intentioned, feel half-baked and even opportunistic. When pressed, he falls back on his background as a social worker. But issues of social and racial justice took a backseat in his previous campaigns against Paul and former D.A. Beth Cozzolino—both opponents coming in for thunderous abuse of their characters.
There is indeed a need for more compassionate law enforcement and justice all across our country. But achieving these goals may require a less tendentious messenger than the Democratic nominee for D.A.. The longer we talked, the more Gene’s inability to stick to a script, let alone basic principles, emerged. Having waged a disastrously negative campaign against Paul in 2011, he will insist he is staying positive this time… but will lay right back down in the gutter with negative attacks only minutes later.
Worse than that: Over the course of a month, I could not help but realize, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my friend Gene had lied to my face—more than once. In my own relationships, the one fatal quality a person can display is conscious dishonesty. Once someone lies to you, you can never trust them again, even if they apologize (which Gene hasn’t).
For those dispensing justice, lying should be even more unpardonable.
ENDORSEMENT: PAUL CZAJKA FOR D.A.
Now, I seldom vote for any Republican, unless the Democrat is unusually unfit for office. Even a moderate Republican can be objectionable, to the extent that they enable their lunatic, right-wing peers in the party. There are, however, exceptions.
For example, in 1999 I assisted the moderate Republican Kenny Cranna in his successful campaign for Hudson Mayor against Cappy Pierro, because the Hudson Dems had drifted to the right of Strom Thurmond. Cranna proved a big disappointment. But I don’t regret at all keeping the Pierro gang out of City Hall for a term. And some of Cranna’s running mates, such as since-deceased Treasurer Kevin Walsh, did some real good in cleaning up the City’s disastrously messy finances and giving Hudson a breather from the Scalera circus.
Moreover, this endorsement is not merely against Gene’s non-starter of a candidacy. It also recognizes that Paul is a sound, competent choice. As will be discussed in Part II, he has expressed regrets about the stern “law and order” approach of his early years as D.A. and as a judge. He seems to have moderated many of his positions and practices, except when it concerns the most vile crimes, such as child molestation. He takes a constructive and less punitive approach to pressing issues, such as the local opiod crisis. And he doesn’t fly off the handle when opponents like Keeler (or his surrogates) tar him with outlandish accusations.
Based on my interview, I have reason to believe that Paul is more than capable of staying independent from Republican orthodoxy and allegiances, and will side with the law over rank partisanship. Today, he seems the kind of person who would gladly and openly sit down with those who believe that the current ”system” is slanted against them, and actually take stock of their concerns.
Overall, Paul Czajka has the experience, skills and most of all the right temperament to do the job professionally. As such, having listened to and quizzed both candidates about their intentions, and thought long and hard about it, I’ll be voting for Paul in November.
PART II of this series will delve journalistically into the candidates, their positions, and their credibility, and will refer henceforth to both by their last names.
